or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment and Culture › Terrence Malick's The Tree of Life
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Terrence Malick's The Tree of Life - Page 3

post #31 of 96
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by limping_decorum View Post
i think a couple hits of acid are called for.

Dude, it's not Laser Floyd.

lefty
post #32 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by lefty View Post
Dude, it's not Laser Floyd.

lefty
Way to ruin it for me Lefty.
post #33 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by robinsongreen68 View Post
the thin red line is fuckin' great. that scene where in the middle of the rising tension of the conflict, (marines pinned down on a hill, knowing it would be pretty much suicidal to attack the emplacement at the top, as their commander insists..)... and the camera focuses on the wind blowing through the long grass. unforgettable cinema.
days of heaven and badlands are also wonderful.

I think people are confused as to what makes a movie good, or even great.

Visually, "The Thin Red Line" is one of the greatest war movies ever made. Conceptually, it's quite a success as well. In terms of content and execution, however, it's a remarkably poor film. The narrative thrust is unclear, the plot is oftentimes confusing and it's a fairly empty exercise overall, despite all the brilliant moments.

"Days of Heaven" was a great film. Aesthetically it's without equal and my stock answer for the most beautiful film I've ever seen. Beyond that, it's a film that is incredibly layered from a narrative standpoint and succeeds on many levels, both as a study of character, place, and social upheaval.

A movie can be visually stunning without being a success but I rarely find that successful movies are visually uninteresting. As such, I have never found any of Malick's films to be unsuccessful overall but I certainly have enjoyed some more than others.
post #34 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord-Barrington View Post
I think people are confused as to what makes a movie good, or even great.

Visually, "The Thin Red Line" is one of the greatest war movies ever made. Conceptually, it's quite a success as well. In terms of content and execution, however, it's a remarkably poor film. The narrative thrust is unclear, the plot is oftentimes confusing and it's a fairly empty exercise overall, despite all the brilliant moments.

"Days of Heaven" was a great film. Aesthetically it's without equal and my stock answer for the most beautiful film I've ever seen. Beyond that, it's a film that is incredibly layered from a narrative standpoint and succeeds on many levels, both as a study of character, place, and social upheaval.

A movie can be visually stunning without being a success but I rarely find that successful movies are visually uninteresting. As such, I have never found any of Malick's films to be unsuccessful overall but I certainly have enjoyed some more than others.

I guess the lack in narrative structure of most Tarkovsky's films makes them poor films, then? I think there is more than a set of overarching criteria in judging what makes for great cinema.
post #35 of 96
^ yup, exactly, or say bunuel, david lynch, or any of countless others, who've done far more to develop cinema as a form than any number of well-plotted generic movies. with all respect i think its you who's stuck in an often boring, reactionary framework.
post #36 of 96
Well, I love both Lynch and Tarkovsky, but this was still the most pretentious crap I've ever watched...
post #37 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by robinsongreen68 View Post
^ yup, exactly, or say bunuel, david lynch, or any of countless others, who've done far more to develop cinema as a form than any number of well-plotted generic movies. with all respect i think its you who's stuck in an often boring, reactionary framework.

Plot and narrative are not one and the same. Bunuel's films often had little or no plot but were not necessarily experimental. The same goes for Lynch. Lynch is actually a good example of a director who rarely relies on a linear, well defined narrative structure but sometimes it works and sometimes it backfires.

The Thin Red Line was not a failure because it lacked a formal and recognizable structure. It was a failure because it was a jumble of ideas tossed together without being anchored by any strong narrative underpinning or focus.
post #38 of 96
As meaningless as it may or may not be, Tree of Life just won the Palm d'Or.
So there's that.
post #39 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim View Post
As meaningless as it may or may not be, Tree of Life just won the Palm d'Or.
So there's that.

I won one of those two. Was "Tree of Life" as much of a masterpiece as my magnum opus?

Signed,

Michael Moore
post #40 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord-Barrington View Post
I won one of those two. Was "Tree of Life" as much of a masterpiece as my magnum opus?

Signed,

Michael Moore

As I said, it may or may not be meaningless - but If I made a movie, I'd rather have it win one than not.
post #41 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim View Post
As I said, it may or may not be meaningless - but If I made a movie, I'd rather have it win one than not.

Of course. And with all due to respect to Cannes they've given awards to some terrific films over their long and storied history.

And from a marketing perspective, forget about it!
post #42 of 96
Eh, I dunno. Didn't do shit for The White Ribbon a few years ago. Played on double digit screens stateside. Wonderful film. Distros have to WANT to sell it, and winning at Cannes helps, but not that much... Of course, with names like Pitt and Penn attached - I think ToL won't have that problem. IMO, the more films above the lowest common denominator we have playing in theaters the better.
post #43 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim View Post
Eh, I dunno. Didn't do shit for The White Ribbon a few years ago. Played on double digit screens stateside. Wonderful film. Distros have to WANT to sell it, and winning at Cannes helps, but not that much... Of course, with names like Pitt and Penn attached - I think ToL won't have that problem. IMO, the more films above the lowest common denominator we have playing in theaters the better.
It'll probably still never make it to Winnipeg. If it does, it'll probably be during its second or third run and at this one theatre that I don't really like. Why must I cry? Back to the film: Malick's recent is really "dry" to me, but I'm still compelled to go see it, just in case he knocks one out of the park like he has in the past.
post #44 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by dwyhajlo View Post
It'll probably still never make it to Winnipeg.

If it does, it'll probably be during its second or third run and at this one theatre that I don't really like. Why must I cry?

Back to the film: Malick's recent is really "dry" to me, but I'm still compelled to go see it, just in case he knocks one out of the park like he has in the past.

Make no mistake, I'll see it as well just for the visuals. His films are always worth the price of admission based on visual achievement alone.
post #45 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim View Post
As meaningless as it may or may not be, Tree of Life just won the Palm d'Or.
So there's that.
Uncle Boonmee won the Palme d'Or this time last year and that film's an egg. It doesn't mean shit. Not to mention Bal (which plays at the film festival you're attending) won the Golden Bear. Thank god you don't have it on your agenda. Talk about trailers being better than the film. I made the mistake of seeing it.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Entertainment and Culture
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment and Culture › Terrence Malick's The Tree of Life