Well this was a 10/10
way more intellectually stimulating than star wars, anyway
its my favorite film right now
Is it a saddening movie?
Is it actually any good, or is /tv/ just memeing? I love Terry, but I'm taking this acclaim with a grain of salt. I'm still looking for a stream of it. I can't torrent.
>>64495550
You mean you went to Star Wars with a desire for "intellectually stimulating?" Lol
But I agree tho Knight of Cups was 10/10.
>>64495898
I don't think any post-hiatus Malick flick is "sad". Maybe depressing but they always end on an upbeat, optimistic note.
>>64495909
Did you like To the Wonder?
>>64495942
I don't like To The Wonder, but i loved Knight of Cups 10/10
ZzZzzz : the movie
I watched Tree of life and that was enough mindfuck for one year
I'll watch this in 2017
>>64496662
badpost
Just watched the trailer. Literally looks like mindless degeneracy, just like:
>A Memework Orange
>Memespotting
>Requiem for a Meme
And other films that glorify narcotic abuse. Absolutely disgusting
>>64495550
What was so intellectually stimulating about it?
>>64499120
pretty sure none of what you mentioned does that though
Absolutely brilliant. Modern sermon.
>>64500675
Considering he had to use TFA as a benchmark for intellectual stimulation, literally nothing.
>>64495550
Don't be pretentious. Star Wars was a fun flick. This is art. Congrats for appreciating it?
>>64500675
>he hasn't read Boehme to understand the satire in it
Get on the pilgrims pledge anon.
Fuck this Tree of Life bullshit. Worst dubs man movie ever.
Poot>Blanchett>them chinks>>>>>>>>hershlag
Patrick Bateman walks around california: the movie
>>64502881
this tbqhfam
The sheer weight of evocative, ethereal images is not matched by complexity, depth or character development.
Name one good meme from this movie! I hate this stupid hack, name one good meme from a movie of his NAME FUCKING ONE!
>>64503088
>Whats that dress made of?
>>64495550
>guy with a midlife crisis walks around places
>intellectually stimulating
This movie is satire right?
>>64503565
tbf he pulled off the silent smoldering look
>>64502971
>character development
Implying that matters at all. Yet his inner monologue and journey executed this, he just didn't break the fourth wall to wink at you anon, explaining "I get it now everyone! And to all a good night." FIN
shit movie, sorry
>>64495550
I have hated Malick's last few flicks, but for some reason I really liked this one.
>>64506569
I liked this film until I saw your post.
>>64495550
Is there a screener out or something?
>trying to b8 me into watching Malick film
Ahahahaha nice try
>>64506990
we all paid the money to watch it on itunes
>>64495550
Knight of Dubsis literally just a bunch of good looking shots put together without story
>>64507152
>without story
pleb
>>64507152
it is romance crap, just with slightly better photography
holywwod has no creativity and it shows with malick.
>>64495550
>>64495860
>>64495915
>>64496424
>>64507152
>>64507166
>>64507289
I'm just like Christian Bale in Knight of Cup. A modern life poet, a knight of melancholy. I remembered all of my past qt gf.
I like Badlands and Days of Heaven and TTOL, but hated To The Wonder and The New World. Should I give it a go?
>>64507791
No.
>>64507642
I too am intelligent, nihilistic and with a wicked sense of humor.
>>64507791
>hated
>The New World
Shit taste
>>64508278
my brother. i too, am, intelligent, nihilstic and with a wicked, sense, of humor.
Lubezki's hack cinematography is grating at this point, one trick pony and Malick can't even use it properly like Alfonso with Children of Men
>>64509279
>Lubezki's
It's Malick's though
>>64509447
it looks like Lubezki cinematography 100%.
>>64509465
You are illiterate if you think Lubezki created that style on his own. He and Malick have jointly developed what you call "Lubezki's cinematography" over the course of Malick's filmography from The New World to Knight of Cups. It's similar to but certainly not the same as Lubezki's other post-2005 non-Malick work like Birdman or The Revenant.
>He says his previous movies were dictated by rules such as using only one lens, or shooting the entire film at T2.8. Although there is no written version of the Malick-Lubezki dogma on Tree, interviews with the cinematographer and some key collaborators suggest some parameters:
> • Shoot in available natural light
> • Do not underexpose the negative Keep true blacks
> • Preserve the latitude in the image
> • Seek maximum resolution and fine grain
> • Seek depth with deep focus and stop: “Compose in depth”
> • Shoot in backlight for continuity and depth
> • Use negative fill to avoid “light sandwiches” (even sources on both sides)
> • Shoot in crosslight only after dawn or before dusk; never front light
> • Avoid lens flares
> • Avoid white and primary colors in frame
> • Shoot with short-focal-length, hard lenses
> • No filters except Polarizer
> • Shoot with steady handheld or Steadicam “in the eye of the hurricane”
> • Z-axis moves instead of pans or tilts
> • No zooming
> • Do some static tripod shots “in midst of our haste”
> • Accept the exception to the dogma (“Article E”)
>“Working with Terry has changed my life,” he admits. “I’m a different parent, I’m a different husband, and I’m a different friend. I see nature in a different way since I started working with Terry. I have much more respect for things that I wasn’t aware of as much. He is one of the most important teachers in my life. And I’m a much better cinematographer in helping directors in a much more comprehensive way.”
>>64509608
Doesn't refute my point at all about how Lubezki's cinematography is fucking grating at this point and this looks exactly like every work he has been part of.
Revenant was basically ruined because of this ADD photography mindset he has.
>>64509646
>and this looks exactly like every work he has been part of.
Did you not read what I wrote? You have to be blind to think The Revenant or Gravity looks exactly the same as Knight of Cups or To the Wonder.
>Revenant was basically ruined because of this ADD photography mindset he has.
What do you mean by ADD photography?
>>64509761
Have to have everything filled to the screen and can't hold a fucking shot if his life depends on it.
Revenant felt like small fucking bush because everything was clamped uip together in the ugly wide ass photography
![The.Revenant.2015.DVDScreener.x264-PtP.mkv_snapshot_01.55.37_[2016.01.05_10.18.30].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/T51L13q.jpg "The.Revenant.2015.DVDScreener.x264-PtP.mkv_snapshot_01.55.37_[2016.01.05_10.18.30].jpg")
>>64509794
>Revenant felt like small fucking bush because everything was clamped uip together in the ugly wide ass photography
Explain again because you're not making sense. How can something look "small" with "wide ass photography"?
>>64509880
Because it shows everything and makes everything look squeezed and small? That's it.
Say, David Lynch's shots of just a few trees of forest feels much "more", like I'm being swallowed by the fucking nature around me, he didn't squeeze the entire forest line in there but filmed just a part of it and it felt huge, massive and scary.
![The.Revenant.2015.DVDScreener.x264-PtP.mkv_snapshot_00.44.40_[2016.01.05_10.22.32].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/yWDQ0Jy.jpg "The.Revenant.2015.DVDScreener.x264-PtP.mkv_snapshot_00.44.40_[2016.01.05_10.22.32].jpg")
>>64509940
>Because it shows everything and makes everything look squeezed and small?
But that's the opposite of how most of the movie is shot and Lubezki's post-2005 style. It focuses more on the humans and the faces and the local area more than any wide shot of nature. These are the typical Malick influenced Lubezki shots of humans appearing larger than than their surroundings, which is enhanced by the wide angle lens and low shooting angle pointing upwards. You seem very confused and think that Lubezki is somehow influenced by the long shots of someone like John Ford.
