I'm sorry but having sat through this I couldn't help thinking this was like watching two continous hours of those pretentious aftershave adverts that there use to be a few years ago. To say this was actually a movie is pushing it.
shareAfter checking Metacritic, Flikster, Rotten Tomatoes, IMDB, and reading multiple review from professional movie critics I'm inclined to think yes. It also has a message board apparently, and was even shown in Cinemas, was directed, and contained actors who were paid to be in it. Hope this clears up the confusion.
Not many people have basements in California.
Yes but have you seen it??
share@Simonrosenbaum,
It wasn't a film for you. There was a clear narrative that sought to convey an emotion and philosophy, so it is quite clear that it's beyond an aftershave commercial.
[deleted]
im pretty sure you find transformers equally deep...I'm pretty sure that comment was meant to be condescending, but what makes you think the OP is a fan of Transformers? And so what if he or she is? A truly intelligent person is capable of enjoying both mindless popcorn flicks and deeper, intellectual films. Sadly, To The Wonder was neither.
[deleted]
I watched it to the very end credits. I still give it one star. I'd give it less if I could.
share[deleted]
Good job being a d-bag snob. Movies are movies and people have different tastes.
shareAgree Simon - Malik is a poet (philosopher) first - his vision has many layers and if you don't know the language the viewer can flounder.
His natural 'beautiful landscapes are in direct contrast to the destruction of what we as humans do - clear the landscape and leave it 'poisoned'. OUR inner landscape is corrupted.
A metaphor for the times - a hark back to the older wisdom that was in film (not movies). He doesn't need to entertain but to shake you.
Today's society is being submitted to the preadolescent adventure, childish & inane humour, shock drama and violence. We remain
adolescent - struggling to find identity and meaning. In my opinion Malik is a master.
I agree. I didn't even think this film was that subtle... but by the droves of people who clearly didn't get it... I guess it was.
Beautiful film, deeply philosophical, saying MUCH, just not spoon-fed.
[deleted]
[deleted]
You are not very smart, are you? Obviously the OP was being sarcastic and did not like the movie. Maybe you should try read a book or going to school instead of playing video games. Make your parents proud and good luck to you...you will need it.
My feet smells like *beep* Its because I stepped on dog poop.
If the OP was being sarcastic, so was the person who replied with the straight comment. Sarcasm can work both ways. "Is this really a movie" isn't really criticism worth taking seriously.
Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.
[deleted]
It's different from most movies, but that doesn't disqualify it from being a movie. A better question would be is it a good movie. And the answer is hell no. A beautiful aesthetic element is great, but if you have horrid characters and a DOA story you're not going to have too impressive of a film.
shareI just finished watching it and was thinking the exact same thing, can we call this a movie? it was insufferable, and I liked the tree of life btw
shareJust because you liked Tree of Life doesn't mean you have to like To The Wonder, nor should you feel obligated to mention that to prevent being criticized for not liking this film.
I personally loved this film, and all of Malick's films, but I can understand why folks didn't like this. But I'm just curious why you found this insufferable and not Tree of Life or any of his films?
Many of his narrative and style are similar to all his previous work, except this one doesn't have the grand spectacles of war, dinosaurs, space, gun play, etc. It was a simple story with grand themes.
JAJAJAJAJAJA don't worry I wasn't obligated in anyway to mention it, but for someone who likes Malick's films i felt it was a good point to mention, and my point is valid as you yourself felt compelled to ask why, as both films share similarities in style and execution.
TOL involved me visually and sentimentally in the film, I particularly loved the creation of life bits in between the story, I thought it was brilliant.
THW captured me the first 10min, after that, gone... not even the visuals made me indure beautiful and talented Olga Kurylenko dancing around in supermarkets, Ben Affleck and Rachel McA, ewwwwww.... I was simply not involved in anyway with this film.
Cheers.
Yeah, I just wanted to mention that because I feel so many people get attacked as against Malick if they simply didn't like one or the other particular film. I think every film of his makes sense for Malick and his career trajectory. But we all have opinions, like I personally find Days of Heaven his weakest film. It's the one I re-watch the least.
Yes, I can understand why some may not be involved in this film. I personally loved most of it (there's a scene here and there I would have dropped, though). I enjoyed how it paralleled different forms of love. But I am also aware part of my appreciation of the film might be personal projections. I loved how cold and distant the film felt. No matter how well photographed, you're looking at a Sonic or Target and in such surroundings, you can almost see how soul-less our country can feel at times... at least until you see the wild buffalo and open land that seems far more inviting.
It was just too long for the story he was telling. Not many people want to feel disconnected for two hours. I love how he directed to the story. It works brilliantly. The wide-open spaces, the furniture-less homes, not getting close to any of the characters, it all works perfectly. It just doesn't constitute a two hour film. It is draining. I really wish he would have made a 60 minute film out of it. But unfortunately, unless it is a Pooh film, films of that length hardly ever see the light of day.
shareI could have done with 90-100 min. It was 10-20 minutes too long. But most films are. I definitely have a few scenes I would cut down a bit.
I wish I knew how to describe it, but there was one scene (or more of a transition) shortly after they arrive in Oklahoma that I still barely understand why its there. It goes from Olga in a field to her brushing her teeth. I love the hard cut from a shot of ecstasy to the mundane parts of domestic life... but it was at the end of a sequence very similar to it.
I don't know if you recall which I'm talking about, about 20 min in. It's the only scene that I feel frustrated with and it's only 30-45 secs long. Oh, that and the burning the food scene. I like the film's awareness of the unfair burdens of domestic roles on each gender... but "burning food" no...
But I can forgive much of it in exchange for the scene of Olga and Ben fighting as her daughter remains quiet in another room, or the Gorecki piece playing over Bardem's final prayers.
I can't recall. I only saw it once when it first came on VOD. But even his much longer films like TRL or TNW didn't feel as long as this movie. I think it stems from the general feeling the movie casts over the viewer, and that it is repetitive at times. But my opinion on the latter may change on a second viewing. But this isn't a film I am eager to soon view again. WHich might be a good thing as I do tend to overdo his other films.
shareI agree about the length of the film. The Tree of Life brought me into each character and there was enough narrative offered to help one connect with each one. I didn't mind it being lengthy. It had dream-like sequences in it, but they advanced the story line, which, when it comes down to it in my mind at least, revealed a more INTERESTING story than what this movie did.
This film made me feel like I was viewing these character's dreams only, and I kept thinking it was like listening to a friend describing THEIR dream, which can be interesting only up to a point.
I guess I couldn't allow myself to enter their dreams, possibly because their story seemed too familiar to be interesting to me. And some of the voice over narration in the beginning seemed contrived.
I did feel connected to the priest's storyline (dreaminess and all)however. I played some of his parts over a few times. Those lonely barren houses and porches, the remoteness of his spirit even at a joyous occasion like a wedding and that stained window sequence within the church were very powerful.
I see what you're saying about it being too familiar. But I liked that in the same way you'd read a poem about love or death and it puts into words or images what you felt. The film was really elevated for me by the priest's character, which many reviewers couldn't understand why he was there. It really put the squabbling relationship into perspective, the same way that the creation sequence in The Tree of Life put a single family into perspective.
You have a husband and wife who cannot seem to be happy together. Affleck takes her for granted and Kurylenko seems to rely too much on him for her own stability — but Bardem helps illuminate the difficulty to maintain faith in something intangible, which love seems to be in this film. But with all the suffering in the world, the least we can do is be kind to one another.
There are moments I think Malick could have simplified, maintained a single shot or not cut so much away. But it's his vision, and we'd all direct things differently if we were took as creative chances like he did - which is a good thing. I'll almost always take risky chances over conventional coverage and scenes any day.
I think for me the story has to sell itself whether by its content or by the way it is being conveyed movie-wise. Your sentence "You have a husband and wife who cannot seem to be happy together" hits right at my difficulty in understanding and/or enjoying this film. WHY did the husband lose interest in his wife? Couples get together and split all the time for various reasons, so why was I, as the viewer, to be drawn in enough be interested in THIS particular couple's loss?
Again for me, the story itself is first. How to get that story across is 2nd. I have loved all of the other Malick films. I didn't like this one.
Well, I don't think it's fair to say it IS draining. Perhaps *you* found it draining. I certainly did not. I could've watched it for longer. I thought it was beautiful, deep, and thick with story, meaning, and philosophy. I definitely think him tackling something as huge as he did in this movie constituted a *mere* 2 hours.
shareYou just mentioned something that I thought after I finished watching ( it really took dedication on my part ) and is how cold and depressing was all the Oklahoma part, that suburb area, streets and supermarkets... not even with Malick's amazing visuals, and the "love" story felt to drag and drag and drag and drag for too long on something that didn't require in my opinion a 2 hrs long styled advert. At the end I thought as the OP stated: "was this a movie?"
Cheers!
I won't disagree with your opinion of the film because that is a black hole of arguments.
BUT you bring up how cold and depressing the Oklahoma part was... and that's sort of what I loved about it. He didn't shoot the Oklahoma portions any differently than the French shores, or even the Tree of Life. They stuck to their dogma (see: American Cinematographer's The Tree of Life article).
And though it's Oklahoma, it looks like most places in the USA. Other than the open fields with the buffalo, how we have paved over, built up and corporatized America is rather depressing. There are beautiful portions of our country, but they're getting covered up. I recall someone on IMDb saying how much "product placement" was in this film... but was there? I walk down the street and can quickly lose count of the number of corporate logos. Whereas, in the villages of France, Germany and Russia I've been to - nothing. There's a beauty to them.
The complaint of product placement, to me, seems more a complaint about what we see daily. Why should a movie hide this? Likewise, why should it hide how cold and depressing the "suburb area, streets and supermarkets" are? (I'm not saying you're objecting to it, but it's just an interesting observation when we see a reflection of the country).
"He didn't shoot the Oklahoma portions any differently than the French shores, or even the Tree of Life."
I have to disagree with you here. I would delve into it more, but you the word "shot" in a very vague way. If you are talking just cinematography? Sure, if you mean their continual use of steadicam. But you seem to be talking about more — from directing to art direction.
How did I use shot in a vague way? The way something is shot is cinematographer. WHAT they are shooting is acting, art direction and whatever is in front of camera.
The only difference is the sequence with Rachel McAdams was shot in 65mm to, as Chivo said, capture the stability Affleck's character feels in the relationship. And I believe when Olga was alone in Paris was on the Red.
But generally, the dogma remained the same, but it was the "art direction" that changed if you will. They didn't put diffusion on the lens when in France to make it look romantic or anything.
This is Malick's team shooting dogma:
• 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”)
"How did I use shot in a vague way? "
Because you brought up how the look of Oklahoma was depressing. And like you mentioned, I think that comes from Jack Fisk as much as if not more so than the cinematography.
Still not vague. I think still think you're misunderstanding.
"I think that comes from Jack Fisk as much as if not more so than the cinematography."
I know! That's exactly what I'm saying. The cinematography didn't try to influence our view of it. They didn't desaturate the image or anything. The mise en scene did have some impact but it's not like Fisk built a Target or Sonic. They did choose the locations, but they aren't very atypical.
I actually enjoyed the film quite a bit. It really is a movie only Malick would make, so that should give you a decent barometer of whether you will like it.
http://kosmofilm.com/kosmo-film-blog/2013/6/11/to-the-wonder-2012
http://twitter.com/KosmoFilm
I just don't like the way the story is told, so that right there is a big problem. It just felt like the director was trying too hard to be different. And with the story being so depressing, it made this movie very hard to watch.
share"Director was trying too hard to be different" - how much do you know about Terrence Malick's filmography to even assert something as ridiculous as that?
Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.
I loved TOL, but To the Wonder is just boring. There's a narrative, that much is clear, but it's so lost in its slow pacing and almost zero dialogue.
share"almost zero dialogue"
I'm not sure why people always cite this as if that makes a film less good. If you understand the narrative, then what do you need the dialogue for? "If you don't have anything to say, don't say anything at all" type of attitude except if your characters don't have anything to add that you can't express visually, then don't reiterate it.
As for the pacing, I agree it could have used a bit of tightening up in a few spots. I think if it was too tightened up, it wouldn't have had the same impact. In certain scenes, the slowness gave me time to really embrace how dull their life was in Oklahoma, just stuck between trips to Sonic and grocery stores - the romantic love of France had faded as it does with most relationships as it transforms into another kind of love, but which did not happen with Neil and Marina.
But then in other scenes, it felt redundant. I can give examples, but it'd be hard to explain without showing. One such spot is between their arrival in the US and Marina brushing her teeth haha.*
* If that means anything to anyone, they might see how there was three shots that were not necessary and redundant. But then again, the transition between the two might not have worked... but I think the sequence could have been tightened and kept the same effect.
Your brief statements explain exactly how I felt. I could barely make it to the end. I love cinema, but this is not a good film. The subtitles were so light that at times it was difficult to read. I did like Tree of Life. This film? No.
shareThis reminds me of the French critics in the 1870s who called Impressionist's amateurs and not real painters because they offered nothing of substance. I relate Malick's work to that of painters, as opposed to photographers. Photographers capture what is in front of you. A painter captures the essence of what is in front of you.
http://most-underrated-movies.blogspot.com/
You'll either hate it, like it , or love it.Yeah, but wouldn't that be the case for just about any film?