Saw pic related last night. I liked it, but it didn't resonate

I also enjoyed the way the film contrasted the different ways the characters deal with their emotions. Rooney has a lot of sex, and feels guilty about it. Fassbender has the sex and the guilt, but he doesn't really put it together. Instead it seems like Portman takes all the negative feelings that Fassbender can't show and takes them towhat she thinks should be the conclusion. Meanwhile Gosling seems to be trying to fall in love with every woman he knows, which is probably just as unhealthy as all of the sex everyone else is having.

I just remembered, this goddamn board only replied to capeshit and ass threads.

>>81149529
>>81149697

Sounds very intresting anon. I am waiting for it be released in UK.

How was the cinematography?

Who got most screentime?

Malick is a fucking hack. No wonder you pricks eat his shit up as if it was the peak of 2deep4u filmmaking. Eating up this emotionally vapid visual wankery with no sense of coherence.

File: IMG_0315.gif (494KB, 500x313px) Image search: [Google]

494KB, 500x313px

>>81149529
>>81149697
In my opinion, Malick is the very first of its kind, the directorial debut with such a command on a piece. It is very hybrid of what made him famous & traditional narrative. Most importantly, a film got made as very independently as we know "How" today. Many ppl think "Citizen Kane" is very first effort by Orson Wells, but a dude had a test run before THAT. Orson even had heavy experience in other area like the theater or the radio? Sooo you are saying this "Song To Song" comes close to "Badlands", anon? I appreciate you got a thread going, but can you get into more details ?......

>>81150189
Cinematography is great, classic Lubezki.
Rooney was pretty much the main character, followed by the guys, each of them has their own stories.

>>81150255
Its really tough for me to compare early Malick to Tree of Life-Song to Song. His editing and style, and the way he used his actors had changed so much over time.

>>81150189
>How was the cinematography?

cinematography != pretty pictures

>>81150871
Not every picture is pretty, some are unsettling at best. But the cinematography is fantastic because of how it meshes with the soundtrack to tell an emotional and engaging story.

I know I'm fishing out a lot of praise, but he could have cut a half hour out and probably made a more accessible movie and it might have had more emotional impact. There was a lot of repetition, similar to Knight of Cups, and at a certain point it lost some of its meaning