Just saw this. Never thought I'd see another kni film since Parajanov's Սայաթ-Նովա (1968) but here we are 48 years later with Malick's first masterpiece. This is proven by the fact that critics are not liking it. It will take another 30 years for their tastes to catch up to this photoplay. This is Lubezski's only real achievement.
Anyone have a webm of the scene where Natalie Portman sticks her bare foot in Bale's mouth?
>>67116731
>another kni film since
meant to say "another kino since"
>>67116731
wat
critics hate a lot of Malick's movies
The New World is Malick's best movie and it received far more negative reviews than Knight of Cups. To The Wonder also received more negative reviews than Cups. And guess what, both of those are better than Knight of Cups.
>>67116731
Absolute masterpiece. About to see it again.
>>67116769
>wat
not that anon but dude, critics are eviscerating this film, save for a few patricians
http://www.newyorker.com/culture/richard-brody/terrence-malicks-knight-of-cups-challenges-hollywood-to-do-better
>>67116769
knight of cups is more negatively reviewed than both to the wonder and the new world you fucking retarded dumb faggot
glad some /tv/bros are liking it though
his best work since tree of life 2bh
i'm also really happy voyage of time is actually coming out this year
>>67116883
and in 2 versions at that
>>67116815
are you using Rottentomatoes or something? please don't be that pleb.
http://criticsroundup.com/film/knight-of-cups/
a 72 is a positive score on this site
this site mostly polls critics who are actually quality, who you would probably call "patricians."
but why would you care about other critics? most critics that RT includes are basically just like the average person. they work for shitty third-rate publications that just expect a star rating and a recommendation to the movie that the average paper reader will like (ie The Avengers)
proper critics are for the most part giving the movie positive reviews.
which is beguiling to me because I thought it was Malick's weakest the first time I saw it. I'll check it out again but I only thought it was decent.
>>67116883
the guy that uses Rottentomatoes is deciding what's pleb and patrician around here
>>67116854
nevermind, even on Rottentomatoes it is reflected that Knight of Cups and To The Wonder have been received in almost the exact same way. Wonder had 4% more positive. Whoa!
It makes complete sense why it's being negatively reviewed though. It has many similarities to Tree of Life but the differences are significant enough to cause such a different reaction.
Tree of Life was essentially about life. A middle to lower class family is used as the backbone for this film. Right there you have something that is relatable to the majority of the people that see this movie. Knight of cups, on the other hand, is about the vapid and ultimately empty lifestyle that people like Christian Bale's character find themselves chasing after.
It doesn't surprise me that regular people (and regular people that are critics) don't like it "who cares about a rich white guys problem". And it doesnt surprise me that the more popular critics are denouncing this film as "repetitive, pretentious, meandering etc..." since most of these big name critics are rubbing shoulders with the exact same people satirized in the film (particularly the hollywood party that Antonio Banderas's character throws)
Took a lot of balls on Malick's part to be this honest about the industry
This doesn't belong here.
This is a beauty and genius free zone.
>>67117358
Classic andre
>>67116921
>a 72 is a positive score on this site
Well, The Witch is 84 on the same site. Cemetery of Splendor is 98.
>>67117426
>Cemetery of Splendor is 98
>tfw still not on public sites
>>67116740
>kino
So Malickfags are uneducated memers? Hardly surprising.
>>67117473
It is, but I'm not sure if there are subs.
>>67117426
both of those movies are better than Knight of Cups
regardless, you guys were suggesting the movie has been trashed by critics. that is quite obviously not the case. it hasn't been received as rapturously as those other two movies obviously but overall it has still been received positively and has garnered some raves.
>>67117485
I'm a malickfag and I haven't embraced Knight of Cups. This movie seems to mostly be getting raves from people who aren't in love with Malick. Brody for instance says it's Malick's best movie which is absolute horseshit.
>>67117629
How do you rank his movies? I'm going to see Knight Of Cups but I don't know what my expectations should be
>>67116883
mfw everybody get mad when theres is a mistake about spiderman but everybody is happy with a extremely wrong and made-for-the-trend use of Tarot
>>67117696
The New World > Thin Red Line > Tree of Life > Days of Heaven > Badlands > To The Wonder > Knight of Cups
I think the first 5 are masterpieces and some of my favourite movies. I like To the Wonder a lot, borderline love it. Knight of Cups I thought was just pretty solid. I need to see it again though, it's not something that can be absorbed in one viewing, at least not for me. It's his most fragmentary movie yet. My biggest issue with it was that it just felt like he was retreading what he's done in the last couple of movies and it didn't felt like an evolution in style in the same way that basically every other movie he's made does. It felt like he was pushing things more but not in a way that I found all that interesting. Again though, i'll need to see it again before I can properly assess it.
>>67117817
Good to know, our rankings are practically the same but I need to rewatch The New World, it's the only one I don't remember at all how I feel about it.
>>67117960
I think it's the one that grew on me most over time. It has the biggest impact on me out of all his movies. Anyway, hopefully you have a better reaction to Knight of Cups than I did on my first viewing. I think part of my reaction to it also has to do with Lubezki's style starting to grate on me. I love what he's done with a few movies but he doesn't seem to be bringing anything new to the table with the last few efforts. I mean The Revenant is a piece of shit but it still looks like a Lubezki movie because he doesn't seem to be willing to change things up a lot.
>>67118084
Alright, how does the editing compare? Are there lots of cuts like in Tree of Life? I know what you mean about the look of a Lubezki movie, but The Revenant is a ton of looong takes, whereas his work with Malick never is.
>>67118255
On my way out to work but yeah, the most takes I think I've seen in a Malick movie. The montage style that so many people hated in To The Wonder is pushed even further I'd say. That's true about The Revenant, I meant more the wide angle lens and that fucking fish eye lens. Anyway, I have to go to work so enjoy the movie when you see it.
contrarian: the thread
KoC is as deep as a perfume ad
>>67118486
I've seen you say this before, it's cute! When did babby get so sarcastic? ;)
>>67118500
>pretty people + voice-overs of entry-level christian existentialism + le meandering cameraman + chaotic montage
>"another epic win for terry! wew!"
>>67118665
>entry-level
Does your adorableness know no bounds?
>>67118665
>entry level Christian existentialism
Lol wrong
>>67118729
>>67118826
it is entry-level. you could find more insight in a ten page summary of Either/Or and Fear and Trembling
Too bad this one was like a 2 hour commercial advertising nothing.
>no real script
>no preparation for characters
>hurr just do whatever and we cut it together
>kino
>>67118665
>le meandering cameraman
lmao
>>67117758
I'm totally with you man. I'm looking at all of these like "I wonder if they actually apply the card's meaning at all or are just using the name?" And then the last one they say Freedom instead of The Fool? What's going on there?
