So what's the verdict?
I thought it was beautiful.
Felt like it was preaching against degeneracy, and kind of showing how money doesn't inherently ensure happiness...
Anyone else see this?
R.I.P /tv/
2007 - 2016
>>71165688
Men are still good.
There was a thread not so long ago discussing it.
>>71166529
>>71166561
Faith restored, ty.
>>71165143
If you haven't read it yet check this out https://letterboxd.com/knightofcup/film/knight-of-cups/
It's a compilation of analyses in a /tv/ thread. Personally, I need another watch to catch the more complex imagery, but I did love it the first time around, even if most of it went over my head. It's so gorgeous, visually and emotionally, and it's crazy how it's reminiscent of memory and dream.
>>71165143
No, it was a mess of a film and you could tell that Malick didn't know what to do with what he had. The editing is god awful, you can barely follow the story if there even is one, leaving it to interpretation is just a lazy excuse on his part. only good part is the foot scene. Pretentious is the best word for this film.
>>71167533
>>71165688
>>71165143
Retarded drama queen tourist faggot
>>71166529
Kek
Is half that list a joke?
>>71166561
I was the Badlands anon who thinks Malick's later movies aren't that great
I'm still right and all of you are still wrong
>>71167742
This tbqh
>>71167742
I disagree on all counts.
>Malick didn't know what to do with what he had
Malick knew exactly what he was doing. He's been building this style for a long time, and he finally fully submerged into it.
>The editing is god awful
It was perfect. It emulated the feeling of memory so wonderfully, I felt nostalgia for love I never had. It flows beautifully.
>Leaving to interpretation is lazy
But there's so clearly a story there. The only part left to the viewer would be to read up on philosophy and tarot cards, but even that's unnecessary when the movie is enjoyable on surface level.
>pretentious is the best word.
Malick is the opposite of pretentious. His films are insanely personal and wholely sincere. His imagery and complexity doesn't feign substance, it has substance.
>>71167946
I believe the guy who made it honestly felt those were all "kino", but ya, there are only a few that are truly great
>>71167946
No.
How new are you?
>>71167742
I grow weary of encountering so many ignorant "film enthusiasts" on this treached board.
>>71168291
>liking Noah
>liking Only God Forgives
>liking Sucker Punch
>liking Lost River
>Liking Enter the Void
>liking Knight of Cups:^)
>>71168401
>I grow weary of encountering so many ignorant "film enthusiasts" on this treached board.
>>71168092
I agree with this guy. The editing was dreamlike, and there was more depth than meets the eye.
Btw, who was responsible for Bale's brother's death?
>>71168014
They're very different movies.
>>71168775
That's fair
Badlands and Days of Heaven had more nuanced writing and far better characters though
>>71168815
In your opinion
>>71168740
I'm entirely unsure, but I want to say it was a suicide?
>>71168291
Since crafting a potently polarising masterpiece with 2011's The Tree Of Life, Malick has become a man on a mission. A mission to stuff a movie so full of coded self-indulgence it seems like a perverse joke that has misplaced its own punchline. The result is ludicrous self-parody - somewhere between a Calvin Klein aftershave advertisement and a coffee-table book about the modernist mansions of the rich and famous.
>>71168815
Well I believe Days of Heaven and Badlands follow a more conventional filming style, perhaps that's why the characters seem more fleshed out. His recent stuff feels more like an out of body experience.
>>71168951
Is this more copypasta? Should I just paste the 4/4 Roger Ebert review? Have an opinion.
>>71168951
Nice pasta. Seriously, how does someone feel this? Each film is an evolution in his style; I don't see it possible to mistake a still from one of his movies for another, each is distinct. Just because he's fully realizing his style doesn't make it self-parody
>>71168441
Literally all of those are good films.
>>71168908
Watching Badlands felt like stepping back in time. Sheen acted Kit so realistically (and the character was written so well) that when Charles Starkweather's girlfriend (one half of the original murdering couple that inspired Badlands) saw the movie she joked to Sheen that he was Charlie come back from the dead to haunt her. Malick has never had an ending as fitting for the characters as the Badlands ending in any of his later movies. I think he was a lot more interested in understanding the psychology of the killers, and he talked enough to Caril Ann Fugate to portray them as nuanced people with their own quirks and eerily believable personalities, and I don't think he cared as much about the psychology of his characters in later movies. He definitely put all his eggs in the visual feel of his movies, and I think it worked great in the New World extended version and Thin Red Line, I just thought the writing for his last 3 movies (maybe excluding Tree of Life) has just been okay, and too pretentious for me to invest anything in the story
>>71169127
>Should I just paste the 4/4 Roger Ebert review? Have an opinion.
Jesus fucking Christ
>>71169238
I could see someone defending Knight of Cups but the rest were garbage (except maybe Enter the Void, which was boring and way too long but visually pretty cool. And the opening was good)
>>71168441
Sucker Punch was a treatise on the objectification of women as seen through the eyes of various nerd subcultures. The prism by which the movie is shown self reflects to the viewer their own ugliness.
It's a hypnotizing take on psychological trauma. It cleverly turns it into an esoteric, theatrical, fantasy extravaganza. Its own nakedness makes people feel shameful and uncomfortable.
It's a movie that literally hates its own audience and spits on them.
>"“I wanted to rub the human race in its own vomit, and force it to look in the mirror.”" - J.G. Ballard
If that isn't true kino, I don't fucking know what is.
But knowing you don't take posts like this one on a Brendan taco forum seriously — and dismiss them as bait — here's another analysis from a third party:
http://vigilantcitizen.com/moviesandtv/sucker-punch-or-how-to-make-monarch-mind-control-sexy-7-2/
All of the films on the list can be successfully defended. Hell, one of the main reasons they're there is because of how often they're overlooked.
>>71169530
It was a paper-thin, one-note critique and a bad action movie. It treated trauma with the same depth as Leto's joker from his upcoming capeshit shitshow. The movie didn't make me uncomfortable, it just reminded me of 300 with the over-the-top cheesy visuals and shit writing.
Those movies weren't overlooked, you're just pretentious and over-analyze things without having any quality control
>>71169530
JAJAJAJA buen meme
>>71169530
Holy shit that article was terrible
>Illuminati one-eye symbolism
>refences to Illuminati mind-control system throughout
>poorly researched references to MK Ultra
>assuming that all abusers are morally-devoid sociopaths
>assuming that the exotic dancer bits aren't just part of the movie's half-assed attempt to be politically against the objectification of women so they can guiltlessly hypersexualize the female characters
>author making a reference to Disney using Illuminati mind control, because Vanessa Hudgens got a basic bitch tattoo
I stopped reading there
That article was a fucking wreck
