>In the first press screening in LA, over 15 people walked

Plebs will be plebs.

i honestly cant imagine being such a pleb that a Malick movie would be that hard to watch

stuff like this really makes me feel like a weirdo
something i love and enjoy makes "normal" people react this way

>a woman not understanding art
what a surprise

>>85931207
it's hard to watch. doesnt make it a bad movie

I don't understand what people were expecting. If you've watched the last five Malick films, you've got a pretty good idea of what you're getting into. Yet this happens every time a new one comes out.

aren't these people literally paid to go and watch this? and they are still philistines. jesus fucking christ

Most people who show up to these have "heard of" Terrence Malick and wanna seem by showing up. Rarely are they true followers of their work. Their plebeian taste buds are unreceptive to the art, which is raw and unconventional but far more sincere than the commercialized crap they consume on a more regular basis. To compensate they try acquiring stimulation by attracting attention to themselves instead. They hope their reaction gets a reaction out of others because it is to their eyes more rewarding than attempting to make sense of the complexities.

Art cannot be great and popular. It can be good and popular, but the most sublime creations known to man can only be truly witnessed by great minds. Look at Rotten Tomatoes and despair.

>In a love story set against the Austin, Texas music scene, two entangled couples — struggling lyricists Faye (Mara) and BV (Gosling), and music mogul Cook (Fassbender) and the waitress whom he ensnares (Portman) — chase success through a rock ‘n’ roll landscape of seduction and betrayal.

Sounds like hot garbage.

>>85932778
any movie can sound like shit when you simplify the story to its bare bones

>>85932809

>story

That's where you're wrong kiddo

Malick thinks he's Wong Kar-wai and can improve his scenes and the movie can be "made" in the editing room. It's just empty people being empty. I'd rather watch 9 Songs again

>>85932563
kill yourself, malick is art? you don't know what art is, you don't know shit

>>85934547
:^)

>>85934701
literally cancer

>>85934735
what is art then? can you enlighten us?

>>85934762
na, you ain't worth it

>a movie centered around the music scene in Austin

so fucking lame. the austin music scene is full of fucking losers

>>85934791
exactly the type of response i expected
you can criticize other's taste but you're too much of a pussy to give yours
predictable

>>85934791
you have shit taste in movies. this an objective fact

>>85934841
keep sucking malick's dick and pretend is art

>>85934842
sure, because you know about what I like, what a turd you are

>>85934900
>sure, because you know about what I like, what a turd you are
im judging by your dislike of malick. if you don;t like late malick movies then you are a pleb. plain and simple. ofcourse you can prove me wrong by posting movies you like :^)

>>85934929
hahahahah what a retard hahahahahahahahah, just what I expected from a malickfag

you don't like this piece of shit so you are a pleb hahahaha keep dreaming faggot

>>85934973
>still hasn't named a single movie
we're waiting

>>85934973
t. pleb

>>85935024
t. p4k hipster nu-male

>>85933665
9 songs is a good movie tho

>>85935000
the act of killing, drive, whiplash, and birdman are my favorite movies of this decade. all actually good unlike malick trash

>>85935097
not me actually

File: 1413374_3_adc7_le-realisateur-americain-terrence-malick-sur_c8641abd5e9fe83c309985e3bc8ca248.jpg (80KB, 1700x348px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 1700x348px

>>85935097
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

>when the malickfag reply to himself

stop, it's embarrassing

>>85935097
Why are malickhaters so oblivious to how bad their taste is?

>>85935097
this gotta be bait:)

pickle rick is in the house tonight :)

>>85934791
Pffff anon....

>>85935097
The act of killing is actually better than any malick movie other than days of heaven but the rest of your post is clearly b8

>>85935377
days of heaven is not malicks best film. when you're older you'll come to his realization on your own

>>85935488
Dunno it's my personal favorite. I'd rank them like this:

1. Days of heaven
2. Tree of Life
3. Knight of cups
4. Voyage of time
5. The new world
6. To the wonder
7. Song to song
8. Thin red line
9. Badlands

I still think act of killing (and look of silence ) are better than pretty much all of those

>>85936055
1. koc
2. Tree of life
3. red line
4. new world
5. song 2 song
6. ttw
7. days
8. badlands
haven't seen voyage of time

>>85936055
why is TTRL so low?

>>85931271
Have you seen this one, though?

>>85932096
No, being entirely composed of underdirected impro shot with a fish-eye lensed jitterycam makes it a bad movie.

>>85931364
Stop being such a conformist, if you like it, don't worry that I or others think it's shit.

>>85936055
>>85936140
GREAT
1. Tree of Life
2. The Thin Red Line
3. Knight of Cups
4. Days of Heaven
OK
5. Badlands
BAD
6. To the Wonder
7. Song to Song

still need to check The New Word and Voyage of Time

>>85936140
We have like the exact opposite opinions on thin red line and days of heaven but other than that our tastes are pretty similar. I'd highly recommend you check out voyage of time but watch the shorter brad pitt version not the longer cate blanchett one
>>85936282
I think it's overly preachy and has a weak second half . Malick is at his best when he's more abstract. Still a great film tho

>>85936487
where can you even watch voyage of time? is there a torrent out yet?

>>85936537
I saw both versions at TIFF. I know the feature length version had a theatrical run for a couple of weeks back in like November. I'm not sure if it's available online

>>85931207
Of Terrence Malick's films I've only seen Badlands. I've seen clips of all his movies up until The New World, and thought "wow, gotta see that sometime". These were landscape films with classical camera distances and golden light. The Tree of Life didn't look quite the same, there seemed to be more close-ups, but I also filed it away mentally as something to see. Then I saw a small glimpse of To the Wonder and thought, this is just Murnau, but okay. Then... he's made two films that look like they're videos of actors improvising love-play. The shots are all massive wide-angle close-ups of actors not doing much, shot in what look like found locations, all with this pebble-gray light. These bear no resemblance to the aesthetic he'd built up over forty years - they look, just from glimpses, again, I could be wrong - but they look as though he wanted to put things out with "written and directed by Terrence Malick" on them without taking the time to make real Terrence Malick films.

This is the impression I have:
Badlands to The Tree of Life - recognisably one man's aesthetic.

To the Wonder - that aesthetic in decadence.

Knight of Cups/Song to Song - inexplicably bad-looking ass, unrecognisable as the same person's work.

I'm going to watch all these movies anyway, but just tell me, have I got this right, or have I seen the wrong clips?

>>85936055
>badlands last
It's his best, most honest, and truly American film. Please reevaluate.

>>85936608
>Knight of Cups/Song to Song - inexplicably bad-looking ass, unrecognisable as the same person's work.
this makes me really upset but you admit you haven't watched it so its ok

>>85936686
Well, are there any attractive moments in those movies? Have people been cherry-picking bad moments?

>>85936681
it's shit

>>85936752
its the same style just in cities instead of nature

>>85936814
Well, nature is a big part of his thing, and also, why are the close-ups so huge now? I mean, I don't remember them looking distorted in the clips I saw before.

>>85936681
>most honest, and truly American film
That's why it's his worst

>>85936866
the close ups i think are because of the cinimetographry guy (i forget his name, its like lebitz or some shit). he does that a lot. i dont know about distortion, do you mean the fisheye type of effect with the wide shots?

>>85936866
when you don't have a solid script just put some close-ups to fulfil

>>85937130
Yeah, that's the effect I mean, the fisheye lens.

I thought Malick chose his own set-ups.

>>85937218
>I thought Malick chose his own set-ups.
desu im not sure but i know malick likes to control EVERYthing so i would believe it
as for the effect, its used sometimes, i think it helps fit the whole theme of the movies, everything being dream like and feel like a memory but a lot of the people who dislike malick bring that up as a complaint so i guess its very subjective.

>>85937130
Chivo did new world and tree of life as well tho and none of the rest of his films look like nuMalick stuff. Pretty sure it's malicks own choice . I personally like it though, I think it's great that he's not just rehashing his old material