Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Trailer released for Malick's To The Wonder

Craig W. Bickerstaff said:
I hope I will be able to see this film in the theatres because I think Malick is a great shooter but after watching The Thin Red Line not too long ago on Blu-Ray I can't help but think maybe I don't really dig his style, it's too unfocussed and over reliant on narration.
In The New World for example I found myself after having seen it a few times watching though it thinking "He could cut all this narration and it would be a better movie" maybe I'm not in the best position to critique what with my some what pathetic filmography worth of V48hours short films but I've just found myself in a place where I'm not sure Malick is as great as people say he is.
Click to expand...

Everyone has their own individual preferences for style, whether visual, or narrative. I don't think there is an absolute right or wrong here. I personally love how reliant he is on narration, and indeed how long his films are. It makes such a refreshing alternative to the mainstream. I agree that for many other films it would not be appropriate to have such a high reliance on narration, but for his recent films, my personal opinion is that it is not only appropriate, but crucial to the films effect and message.
 
Lol at calling Aronofsky a hack. :closedeyes:
 
Malick's war film in the south pacific was a work of art [the thin red line, 1998]. tree of life not so much. I lost it with the apple screen saver shots, wtf.
I have great respect for his craft and experimentation but I also think it's cool to like him which makes it hard to be realistic about his films.
 
Matt W. said:
Most of Woody Allen's films lose money but he still works with the best actors and DPs and keeps getting his films made. If people were only looking for money they'd never invest in any films. With Directors like Malick and Woody Allen, you at least get prestige and festival trips for your dollar. Malick breaks even or better... and on top of that he consistently gets awards (or award consideration) at Cannes and academy award nominations. What producer doesn't want that?
Click to expand...

This is probably a bad example - Woody Allen's movies consistently make a profit. Just not in the USA, but overseas... which is where he gets all his funding nowadays anyway...
 
#1 - Any investor in a Malick film should know what he's in for.
#2 - It's not our concern anyway. Did you like the film or not? (If not, that's fine, but I'm of the philosophy that we should appreciate a film "as is" for the most part - not what it costs, "who" was in it, etc.)

"Thin Red Line" is my favorite Malick film. At first, not so much, though I "appreciated" it when it first came out. Over time it has become by favorite. And this, after "Badlands" was (and still is) a HUGE favorite. "Tree of Life" was quite not up there for me, but I was delighted to see him taking chances and pushing it. When you're a bit older, it can be a lot harder to take risks. Kudos (once again) to Mr. Malick.
 
Last edited:
It's natural to have our perceptions and philosophy change over our lifetime. At least we should hope to be different people as we grow. Otherwise you are not living. My tastes in films reflect this maturity. I have always enjoyed Malicks films and over the years I enjoy them for different reasons.
 
You are so right Bob. And that's why I feel secure in putting his work in the "art" category. (As well as the "successful films" category!)
 
just seeing this thread today...

although i would love to wax poetic about all things here, as i once did about tree of life ( and got in a bit of trouble for it), i am simply under NDA about all.

i will say that generally speaking terrence malick and emmanuel lubezki speak best with their films. it is the method by which they communicate best.

other than that i hope you all enjoy this film, it is very different than what you normally watch at a movie theatre and yet very much a malick film, if you believe you will know what i mean.

regarding the 5 in two years comment, technically we shot tree in 2008 and finished PP of PV in nov of 2012, so that is 4 1/2 years for 5 films for principal photography sake, but PV will not be out until 15 or 16 so that will actually be more like 5 in 8 years...i think the main reason that has happened is because of nick and sarah along with chivo, without those three people which are three remarkably talented, driven and unique qualified to shepherd terry's creativity, then this never would have happened.

finally regarding the investors...although i am not privy to any financial information about these films ( budget, revenue, profit), i do know that of the investors i have personally met, the old adage dont invest what you are not prepared to loose holds true here, i do not think if these movie went completely bust that any of the investors would change any part of their lifestyle. people that have 7 and 8 figures to invest in movies generally know what they are getting into before they start writing checks, so dont worry about them too much.

enjoy the movie and one quick tip if you are looking for red footage, i have never been to oklahoma in my life, but it certainly was nice to return to paris in the winter.

enjoy,

dino
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top