Thread replies: 15
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3
File: MV5BMTUzNjQzNjYyMV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMTU5MDYyNQ@@._V1_UX214_CR0,0,214,317_AL_-1.jpg (15KB, 214x317px) Image search:
[Google]
15KB, 214x317px
Not one day goes by without me thinking of how much i hate Malick and his plebeian fans.
Shoot some trees, slap some narration over and have babbies first philosophy themes. Add some "muh nature" and you got a flick that these braindead total plebs will eat up. While accusing everyone else of not "getting it"
I get it. I hate them because i get it and know how simple and "false" his films really are. I hate you because you think you are patrician for watching this shit, while not watching real cinema
>>
>>78929904
same
>>
True but I liked Badlands and the movie in the farm tbqh. I hated Tree of life
>>
>>78929904
That's how I feel about people that like NGE
>>
>>78929989
I saw Badlands a month or so ago for the first time. I mean, it was alright and all, but I don't get the hype. Did it start a trend of some sort? Is that why's it's so acclaimed? Liked Bonnie and Clyde much better desu.
>>
>>78930233
Badlands has much more psychological depth and better photography, and I prefer the characters
that being said, Bonnie and Clyde is a more functional movie on a narrative level.
I'd say Badlands is better, but both are great.
Thin Red Line has some brilliant moments, but is bookended by the half-baked philosophy that OP mentions.
>>
>>78929904
Lol. You are stuck in the pseud mindset. Art is not about "getting it." Malick fans know this. They do not use those terms. It can be about feeling. I like Malick's films because they make me feel a certain way. I don't give a shit about "getting" it, you filthy fucking plebeian. You probably still think in terms like "deep" and try to "analyze" films. Good luck to you on proving to everyone on how consuming art makes you smart. Remember, dude: art is a test. Treat it like one. Definitely don't enjoy it for its own sake on its varied merits.
>>
>>78929904
I'd go as far as to say he creates dishonest films
>>
>>78929904
Thin red line and days of heaven was alright. Tree of life was quite bad.
>>
>>78930549
>You probably still think in terms like "deep" and try to "analyze" films. Good luck to you on proving to everyone on how consuming art makes you smart. Remember, dude: art is a test. Treat it like one. Definitely don't enjoy it for its own sake on its varied merits.
This.
>>
>>78930549
Correct.
All you other Reddit fag plebs go I'll yourself.
>>
That Tree of Life film was absolute fucking garbage and I'm still mad that I paid money to see it
>>
>>78929904
Why is this the only picture of him that anyone ever posts? Aren't there any better ones? He looks confused and alarmed
>>
File: malick-young-e1401664203676.jpg (33KB, 474x370px) Image search:
[Google]
33KB, 474x370px
>>78932103
>He looks confused and alarmed
Be nice, anon. That's his face you're talking about.
>>
File: based malick.jpg (92KB, 660x633px) Image search:
[Google]
92KB, 660x633px
>>78932103
>Aren't there any better ones?
Yes.
Thread posts: 15
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3