Visually beautiful, but an ultimately unsatisfying story.
Also beautiful music by Ennio Morricone.
6/10
"It's 80% script and 20% you get great actors. There's nothing else to it."
William Wyler
lose the one you love to somebody else and then watch this movie again
shareI felt other than the cinematography, this was a very empty story. You don't really care for anyone. Sort of the farmer, but his presence is cut short by the director, which is so unfortunate. Actually, conversations are cut mid sentence throughout the film without any type of real resolve or banter, so character development is null. And sorry to say, it's hard to buy that two men would be fighting over Abby- she is not very pretty nor charming or intelligent (as far as how she was portrayed in the movie- I am sure in real life she is a very charming, intelligent person).
Just overall a very odd movie that was done incorrectly. It's missing that link, that something that would have made it a classic. Too much focus on visual, short on story and character development.
Amanda
"She was drunk or he was crazy."
The character development is there in the pictures. And these people remain somewhat enigmantic and removed by design, of course; just like in Badlands, we`re seeing everything (as if) through the eyes of someone who doesn`t entirely understand the world, is mystified by it.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
The enigmatic characters are obviously done by design on purpose, but it suffers for it. The audience just isn't engaged.
Other than being viewable on Amazon Prime, I have never heard of this movie before- unusual for well-know actors Richard Gere and Sam Shepherd- because it simply it isn't memorable. It was unable to stand the test of time.
The director missed the mark on this. Some tweaking could have made it a classic. What a waste as it could've been...a contender.
Amanda
"She was drunk or he was crazy."
"The audience just isn`t engaged".
Maybe you should speak for yerself or something.
"It simply isn`t memorable".
See above.
"It was unable to stand the test of time".
And this conclusion is based on what? The universal critical acclaim? The rating of 7,9/10 it`s got on IMDb?
"The director missed the mark on this".
You don`t seem to understand what the "mark" here was, in the first place. Days Of Heaven, in its essence, is a (highly successful) exercise in purely visual storytelling, where everything of importance is communicated through images and soundscape; the only vital and relevant words are spoken by Linda Manz on the voiceover. It`s your job to adapt, not Malick`s to conform to the demands of cinema as filmed theater.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
Yeah hardly. It's not our job to conform or adapt to anything. While I disagree that it isn't memorable or unable to stand the test of time, Malick movies are practically empty compared to other director's works. Take films that are true fine example of mostly visual stories such as most movies made by Refn or kubrick among a bunch of other examples, there's arguably much more depth to the story and characters.
It's great that we are seeing it from a perspective of someone who's mystified, but fields of wheat and a dumb love triangle hold no interest for me. Some people are mystified by how they can kill and torture others in imaginative ways, or by the grace of a christian god who doesn't exist. doesn't mean I have to adapt to the lofty standards of Saw or Ben-Hur.
"It`s not our job to conform or adapt to anything".
True - actually, you don`t even have to watch any movies at all. However, if you`re intent on accusing the director of missing some kind of a "mark", you should first have an understanding of what that "mark" was.
"Malick movies are practically empty".
Empty of what?
"There`s arguably much more depth to the story and characters".
The story, essentially Biblical as it is, is quite epic, its scope pretty much matching Kubrick`s more ambitious work. And despite that enigmatic, distant quality that the characters have, the basics about their inner lives and concerns are effectively communicated by brief glimpses of them captured by the camera, or snippets of dialogue. Above all, it`s these "fields of wheat" that do the talking; it`s all in the imagery, sound and the surgically precise editing that are used to evoke emotional states.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
Whoa there, you cared for the farmer?!?!
He's nuts.
And sorry to say, it's hard to buy that two men would be fighting over Abby- she is not very prettyThat's very funny! Two virile young males in the Texas panhandle in 1916 with nothing but manual labor to do, and one available woman...yes, hard to buy there'd be any fighting over her! That's rich.
Just overall a very odd movie that was done incorrectly. It's missing that link, that something that would have made it a classic.Do tell! I for one am dying to hear all about your missing link expertise, and/or corrections you might apply, presuming your considerable directorial prowess. Such a way with words!
Beer--now there's a temporary solution ~ Homer Simpson share
It depends on what you think "the story" is. If by "the story" you mean the love triangle, then I agree it's underplayed. But to me that's not "the story".
"The story" is "the fall", the end of living in The Garden of Eden. Maybe Edenic life fell apart just because it was overrun by people with petty and conflicting desires. Or maybe it fell apart because of natural disasters (i.e. the plague of locusts). Or maybe it fell apart because "industrial civilization" displaced it (Bill seems to always be around machinery, we get more vistas inside the steel mill than we expect, note the hat hung on the antlers, the birds driven from their nests by the mower, wildlife we know ultimately won't transition to a farmed landscape, the tractors loom like monstrous beasts, etc.).
Or maybe it's as much about an individual growing past that awkward age as it is about the whole civilization. And that individual is Linda. All the events of the "love triangle" are seen through her eyes: often fragmented, irrational and unpredictable, not fully understood, and second hand.
….as if you were watching REAL LIFE and not a MOOOVIE
shareActually, conversations are cut mid sentence throughout the film without any type of real resolve or banter, so character development is null.
This was what particularly captivated and amazed me. Malik cuts the dialogue but the viewer understands whats going on in the story. I think it also in a strange way made me feel more for some characters, in particular the Sam Shapard character and what he might be going through. The scene when he watched them exchange something intimate from a distance was very powerful -- especially the shot right after that.
"Oh, Mama, can this really be the end, to be stuck inside of mobile
with the memphis blues again" share