Knight of Cups

File: TMr.jpg (244KB, 1521x437px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 1521x437px

>>85396826
top tier Terry, I only slightly prefer Wonder over it and that's mostly because of Olga being phenomenal.

>>85397172
>Days of Heaven that low
Fuck off buddy

>>85397172
>thin red line 2 stars
yeah nah

yes yes 10000x yes arguably the best movie of the decade, and the only competition in malick's other films.
>>85397172
>days of heaven and ttrl that low
"no"

File: 1 (12).jpg (760KB, 1920x808px) Image search: [Google]

760KB, 1920x808px

>>85397433
>>85397256
they are not low, well except for TNW, nu-malick is just too high

>>85397433
>the best movie of the decade
watch more films, mr reddit

>>85397616
There's like 1-2 competitors desu. so far.

How's Song to Song? Is it thematically Christian like his past few movies?

>>85397616
name some better films then

>>85397675
again, watch more films before saying stupid shit like that, reddit
>>85397825
nice samefagging

>>85397825

yeah im curious too

>>85397825
Yep. And autobiographical like TTOL, TTW and KOC.
>>85397894
Please name your contenders or stop shitposting.

knight of dubs

I moved to LA a few years ago and I'm a complete poorfag but I still found a lot to relate to philosophically in KoC. The Hollywood emptiness, schmoozing fake people etc was captured so well. Party sequence is absolute kino.

>>85398066
Malick has blessed this thread

>>85398066
woah....

>the shitposter is now dead silent when he has to actually give an opinion and list his favorite movies
really makes you think

>>85398066
Why does this still make me laugh after 10 fucking years on this website?

>>85398081
You moved to become an actor or what?

>>85396826
Malick proving that only religious art can be truly great. Art is just a cheap attempt to elicit religious transcendence

File: pr.png (764KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

764KB, 1280x720px

>>85398247
>shitposter
that'd be you, samefag

>>85398066

fucking hell

File: 1461275076182.jpg (86KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 500x500px

>Perhaps no film in the history of cinema follows the movement of memory as faithfully, as passionately, or as profoundly as Terrence Malick’s new film, “Knight of Cups.” It’s an instant classic in several genres—the confessional, the inside-Hollywood story, the Dantesque midlife-crisis drama, the religious quest, the romantic struggle, the sexual reverie, the family melodrama—because the protagonist’s life, like most people’s lives, involves intertwined strains of activity that don’t just overlap but are inseparable from each other. The movie runs less than two hours and its focus is intimate, but its span seems enormous—not least because Malick has made a character who’s something of an alter ego, and he endows that character with an artistic identity and imagination as vast and as vital as his own.

>As such, “Knight of Cups” is one of the great recent bursts of cinematic artistry, a carnival of images and sounds that have a sensual beauty, of light and movement, of gesture and inflection, rarely matched in any movie that isn’t Malick’s own. Here, he—and his cinematographer, Emmanuel Lubezki—surpass themselves. Where “The Tree of Life” is filled with memories, is even about memory, “Knight of Cups” is close to a first-person act of remembering, and the ecstatic power of its images and sounds is a virtual manifesto, and confession, of the cinematic mind at work. It’s a mighty act of self-portraiture in dramatic action and in directorial creation.

>>85396826
It's pure gold.

>>85397825
>>85397897
It's excellent. As good as the other recent films and very much in that mode. Also the most concrete narrative he's employed in a very long time. Simple story of a love triangle essentially, beautifully told. The religious aspect is faint but powerful, essentially, sex without love, pursuing one's wants with reckless abandon, leads to despair.

>>85400919
>tfw Fassbender thought he had redemption ahead but Portman commits suicide

>>85396826
Yes, my favorite Malick and one of my favorite movies

File: song-to-song-5.jpg (88KB, 684x1214px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 684x1214px

>>85401041
That was brutal in its way. He turned her out, poisoned her with sin.

I feel like I'm usually pretty good with slow character movies but man, this one did not work for me. Guess I'm a plebeian since everyone else seems to praise it but it felt like 2 hours of christian bale stumbling around and staring forlornly at things to me

Why is Terryboy obsessed with Natalie's feet?

File: 1486249267486.png (286KB, 515x763px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 515x763px

>>85401162
Come back to it when you're grown, when you've lived and lost, His work will be there still.

File: 1 (2).jpg (722KB, 1920x808px) Image search: [Google]

722KB, 1920x808px

>>85401162
It's not for everyone obviously, no need to feel pleb because you don't like it.

t. person that loves it

>>85401162
Malick's late style is very subjective, doesn't make you a plebeian, so long as you don't write it off as pretensions and recognize malick's merits and what he's doing for the medium

saw this film stoned and felt like being in someone elses head. then i watched it again sober and it did the same thing. i think i'm going to watch it again now

TTW>KOC>STS

>>85397616
>>85397894
in the name of all that is holy go fuck yourself

>>85397836
batman v superman you mouseshill cuck

*goes back to reading picture book of western art*

>>85397172
>thin red line
>days of heaven
>2 star
Neck yaself

>>85396826
How can Malick critique the emptiness of Hollywood culture by making it look so appealing with his filmmaking?

>>85398066
Malick

>>85405343
I assume you're talking about the cinematography
I also assume you're pretty shallow if you think the visual element can't encode a theme in direct opposition to what it presents itself as.

I personally don't like Terrence Malick because he is like that painter whose paintings are just random splashes of different colors and it apparently simbolizes the origins of life. I hate that level of pretentiousness.

>>85406276
just admit that you are not very intelligent. Nolan is probably the farthest you can go in terms of depth in movies.

>>85406276
You cant spell big words

I'm not saying anything about my intelligence, but I personally don't see depth in his movies. I see mere pretentiousness and don't like it.
If you see his movies and end up in shock, then you might have a variation of Dunning-Krueger.

>>85406276
brainlet

>>85406357
I feel genuinely sad for you if you think Malick's films are """intelligent""".

Maybe. But you aren't geniuses either because you saw a TM film and thought it explained all origins of life. Maybe you are the brainlets if you fall for that "depth".

>>85406571
the irony of this post .....

>>85397172
GO fuck yourself

>>85406684
do you not know how to quote posts, newfag?

>>85406670
Yep, mere pretentiousness at its best.
The Dunning-Krueger effect states that people with an average/average-low/low level of intelligence tend to find depth or profoundness on things that actually aren't, like most "Life quotes" on Facebook or Deepak Chopra's BS.

>>85406684
You need to head on back home to reddit

>>85406820
Nope, first time here.

>>85406937
I hate reddit. It's a hive mind full of idiots who think they're smart because a film/TV show literally spoon fed them into believing it.

>>85406890
what are your favorite movies?

>>85407154
Good question. However, I know exactly what's expecting me as soon as I post any movie, so I'd rather ask you the same question and keep the answer to myself.

>>85407154
The Fountain, Mr Nobody, Amelie

>>85407154
>>85407479
Actually, you know what, i'll just say them and then you can be as pretentious as you like ok?
Boondock Saints
American History X
Fight Club
The Dark Knight

And I didn't mean to offend anyone's tastes when I said I don't like TM's movies.
They're entertaining, I just don't think they're as deep as people make them seem.

>>85407602
>deep

No offense, but most fans don't actually think this. Not sure if you're assuming, or projecting, but they're very simple in scope, almost primally so. Grace, love, sin, beauty, etc, not all that deep.

>>85406276
>>85406670
>>85406890
Malick is a Rhodes Scholar, Harvard graduate, a philosophy professor, speaks multiple languages, and translated Heidegger into English (while working directly with the legendary philosopher). You can hate his movies as much as you want, but he's not a pretender. He's probably the only actual intellectual working in Hollywood.

>>85407596
All good names.

>>85407722
The second post wasn't mine.
I know, read his bio and found it quite impressive.
Maybe I'm just a shitposter contrarian with Dunning-Krueger, who knows.

>>85406276
Explain The Tree of Life. If your explanation doesn't include "the book of Job" or "St. Thomas Aquinas" then your brain is too small to understand Malick and you need to study more.

>>85407910
There's philosophical and theological depth in Malick's work, but most of his fans and detractors don't have the education to articulate it. If you don't know that The Tree of Life is Malick trying to portray God's answer to Job about the problem of death, then it'll just come across like random nonsense to you.

>>85407722
Don't forget he beats up his producers and rides monstrous tractors on set while directing Jewish girls to show their pretty feets

>>85408396
BASED MALICK

Is that exactly what came to your mind after the film? Did you come up with it all by yourself?
I can very gladly paint a pipe for you, write "This isn't a pipe" on top of it and tell you that it simbolizes the universe, from its origin to its end.
If both the explanation as well as the artwork come from the same person, it's a perfect, self-fulfilling prophecy.

>>85408396
source on beating up producers?

>>85408515
Your grasp of the English language simbolizes your retardation.

>>85408515
Given that the film literally begins with a quote from the book of Job, a preacher mentions Job in the film itself, and the story is about loss, i'd say it's fairly easy for anyone with any sort of Biblical education to draw the connection.

>>85408600
??
I mean, English is not my first (or second) language but I don't see where my mistake(s) is/are.

>>85408698
Your English is fine. Your syntax is a little awkward, but that's normal for non-native speakers.

File: 1451175954545.gif (2MB, 310x175px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 310x175px

>>85408515
You should stop.

>>85408745
Great to know, what exactly is awkward about it?

>>85408698
Not that anon but you're essentially saying:
>I didnt understand this film, so nobody did.

Ok /tv I have a confession to make.
I'm a contrarian shitposter who has never,ever watched a single Terrence Malick film.
He's actually worth watching isn't he?

>>85408782
>I can very gladly paint a pipe for you, write "This isn't a pipe" on top of it and tell you that it simbolizes the universe, from its origin to its end.
It works fine, but this sentence would read better to my native ears like:
>I can gladly paint a pipe for you, then write "This isn't a pipe" on top of it while telling you that it symbolizes the universe from its origin to its end.
Again, your English is fine. I wouldn't worry about it.

>>85408990
kys

>>85409012
Ok thanks buddy, sorry for the shitposting.
Danke/Gracias/Thanks/Obrigado/Grazie
(In that order)

File: 1350222092326.gif (923KB, 424x240px) Image search: [Google]

923KB, 424x240px

>>85396826
I tried watching this just a couple of days ago after hearing about it on here. I am REALLY not the kind of person to say this but I could just not get into it. I watched I estimate the first 30 mins or so and the slow, monotone voiceover on top of random scene jumps was just brutual. What am I missing? What's the big draw? Does it get a lot better/coherent?

This is real talk. I'm not trying to bait anyone. Sincere concerns that I'd like to hear responses for.

Good night /tv.
Wish y'all a good week.

>>85409250
You too senpai gn

File: 1451533889471.webm (1MB, 800x338px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 800x338px

>>85409250
Begin

Night night

>>85398066

M-malick?

>>85409242
see>>85400848

Brody writes beautifully on Malick, genuinely gets it
http://www.newyorker.com/culture/richard-brody/terrence-malicks-knight-of-cups-challenges-hollywood-to-do-better

>>85409295
Sleep tight bro.

>>85409198
fuck you, faggot
kill yourself on your way back to red.dit

>>85396826
Best cinematography imo

Great, strange film. Went into it with low expectations but was pleasantly surprised.

trailer for Radegund when?

>>85409840
is it coming out this year or 2018

>>85406276
He's the opposite of pretentious, in fact being one of the most sincere and honest directors currently working. There are no random "splashes" its all a developed style that evokes feelings of memory and the emotions (hurt, nostalgia, joy etc) that come with it. Now its totally possible and okay that his style does not evoke any of those feelings in you. But you have to be extremely closed-minded to not recognize what it's trying to do and instead write it off as pretentious.

What was Malick so busy with in the 20 years between Days of Heaven and The Thin Red Line?

>>85407602
Malick fan here, I don't think they're particularly deep either. His films aren't super complex or even always philosophically profound. Knight of Cups I found to be by far the deepest but for the most part they are straight forward, albeit quite unconventional, attempts at recreating raw emotions. Malick's films are far from empty pictures, but that doesn't mean they are super deep at all

>>85410178
worshiping the feet of jewish goddesses

>>85397172
>The New World last
>Song to Song not last

Are you actually retarded

>>85410178
Moved to Paris to teach and study philosophy

>>85409242
It does not get more coherent. The movie does not attempt to deliver a narrative to the viewer. Instead it paints a collage of moments and emotions meant to sweep you up with them and totally submerge you in the moment. For many this doesn't work and that's fine, but if you keep an open mind and are able to come around to it, it is effective in ways no other directors' films are

File: 1437296244446.jpg (62KB, 214x314px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 214x314px

>>85410178
>The thing that really, really bothers me about the perception of Terrence Malick is the idea that he made Days of Heaven and then sat with his thumb up his butt for twenty years. That’s not what happened; he never stopped working. Terrence Malick is not a recluse. A recluse is Howard Hughes holed up in a hotel pissing into a milk bottle. If you live in certain neighborhoods of Austin you’ll see Malick shambling about with his binoculars and bird-watching gear. And if you walk up to him and say, “I love your movies,” he’ll say, “Thank you so much, and isn’t it such a wonderful day?” He has his reasons, we don’t know what they are, and I like that. […]

>This is a guy who knows a hell of a lot about a hell of a lot of things: religion, astronomy, birds, philosophy. He doesn’t strike me as someone for whom the sun rises and sets on the next deal; maybe movie-making is not the be-all and end-all for him. It’s entirely possible that when he’s out bird-watching he gets so swept up in it that he doesn’t think about movies at all that day.

>>85410484
>you will never, ever bee this patrician

>>85410484
>ywn spend time relishing the beauty of the day with Terry, getting so wrapped up in nature that nothing else matters, and then going back to his house for a hearty dinner of chicken and fresh corn, bread and blackberry cobbler for dessert, laughing about current events and smiling because of the life we have
It hurts bros

>>85410391
It doesn't necessarily have to have a concrete narrative to be coherent. I just had no idea what was happening or what the point of the first 30 mins I watched was. I literally just could no grasp the purpose of what I was shown...which in hindsight was a pretty novel experience. I suppose I can give him credit for that.

Can you give an example of another film that does something similiar to his works? So that I have a frame of reference? Maybe that would help me grasp the meaning of it.

>>85411538
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGDu7YOlVuE

>>85397172
Tree of Life>Thin Red Line>The New World>Badlands>To The Wonder>Knights of Cups>Days of Heaven

Haven't seen Song to Song.

File: 1488733285246.png (327KB, 704x512px) Image search: [Google]

327KB, 704x512px

>>85406276
>simbolizes

I got bored t b h
I really like Terry but I got halfway, stopped and never bothered to finish. Even To The Wonder which isn't as good was easier to watch.
Poots a cute. A cute!

>>85408515
>he thinks a movie is a puzzle of symbolism that needs to be put together and completely understood inside and out
Stay pleb

Literally the only good part in this movie is seeing Natalie portmans feet.

>>85413103
i
think
youre
weak

>>85411538
Well the best example would be his other films lol. Maybe check out Piavoli, specifically Nostos: Il Riturno. It's even less narrative than anything Malick, but stylistically its almost the polar opposite, choosing to observe rather than take part in (from a sense of editing and camera movement) if that makes sense

File: Malick ITW OBS Badlands Fight.jpg (49KB, 895x590px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 895x590px

>>85408569

>>85407712
His movies are not deep at all, but they are complex, that's why many people don't get it.

File: gabriel desgraçadao.jpg (38KB, 403x365px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 403x365px

>>85409198
FÉ EM DEUS QUE ELE É JUSTO

>>85396826
yes

>>85410391
Post Tenebras Lux is another example of this type of movie.

>>85397555

what movie is this from?

>>85397172
You fucking quack, TTRL and TNW are 10/10s

>>85417153
Good rec
>>85417411
Song to song