This was kino

DUDE

LIKE

INTERCONNECTIVITY

WOAH

That was a pretty sweet rifle.

Song at the end is pure kino

I disagree. It was the director's poor attempt to outperform Amores Perros, which had a similar style but didn'train as hard. Similar to Malick trying to followup Tree of Life with equally obtuse movies and failing to gain its splendor twice in a row.

Just my two pennies. I wanted to enjoy Babel but couldn't. It lacked humanity. Its characters were loosely and unconvincingly connected to satisfy its superficial world scope. The former movie's characters occupied a smaller space and achieved a greater understanding of human suffering and empathy.

James Joyce wrote that within the peculiar lies the universal. Artists tend to forget that when trying to outperform their selves. Bigger isn't always better.

>>83723530
>Similar to Malick trying to followup Tree of Life with equally obtuse movies and failing to gain its splendor twice in a row.

i was gonna agree with you but then you typed this bullshit

>>83723457
You are rite m8.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsKlf_x9zRE

>>83723681

To the Wonder and Knight of Cups both directly lift Tree of Life's filming style without justifying its use in the same way Tree's explorations of God, spirituality, and a searching for purpose did. The way the shots ebbed and flowed perfectly suited the ruminations of the characters and the fruitless journies their souls made while asking questions to a universe that never yielded an answer. I disliked Wonder and really enjoyed Knight of Cups, but I feel that what Malick attempted to achieve with them he had already accomplished to a greater degree in Tree of Life.

If you disagree, please share why. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm only sharing how I felt about the movies. What do you think of them?

Poor mans Cloud Atlas

File: 1496036023205.jpg (246KB, 904x904px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 904x904px

>>83724186

patrician tip: cloud atlas is a poor man's cloud atlas

>>83723778
when you say filming style, wha are you referring to? since there is a lot of elements to talk about within lubezki's and malick's composition, framing, mise en scene, nature/aereal shots depth and focus etc
i really like what you say about tree of life, and i agree, its a movie that i love, but i don't feel that TTW and KoC take away from it by using similar visual style, which in my opinion, fits malick's poetic narrations and editing

To the wonder is my favorite film, i think Malick was set out to focus less on character's journey's (even with the priest "subplot") and more on ideas about intangible concepts, taking from malick's own philosophy on life, mixed with opposing viewpoints to that philosophy

the visual style, which of course shares a cinematographer with the tree of life, fits the film perfectly in my opinion, the open spaces, muted dialogue, the variety of language (like a fellini film)
it all worked for me

i would like to know why you didn't like it, and also why do you think that Malick was trying to surpass or gain the splendor of the tree of life with TTW, iirc, both films are sorta autobiographical, so they are related in a lot of ways, but one doesn't take away from the other, just different stages of life itself and the problems that come with it

i'm glad you at least liked KOC, that and TTW are his most divisive films by far (well i've yet to see song to song), i don't think less of anyone for not liking them or even straight up hating them, but i would like to know why

Birdman it's Iñarritu best movie. Discuss.