MovieChat Forums > Knight of Cups (2016) Discussion > Pretentious garbage?

Pretentious garbage?

posted 9 years ago by HolyTrollingPontiff
25 replies | jump to latest

Is that what this is? Not asking fans of the film, but people who thought it was only ok. Fans of it will, of course, think I'm a troll. People who hate it will agree with me wholeheartedly. I am asking as a person who loved Badlands, Days of Heaven, The Thin Red Line, and The New World. I tolerated The Tree of Life, but it reeeeealllly felt self-indulgent and very, very, very arty. I skipped To The Wonder because OOF! that title tho! Gross! Also bc Ben Affleck. Then, I see the preview for Knight of Cups, and it looks like SELF-INDULGENT, pretentious, Hollywood barf, and, honestly, I loathe Hollywood douches who think their WHITE people problems are worth making films about.

So, whaddya think?

[–] Kevin_PSO 9 years ago

I wouldn't call it "white people problems", it's more rich people problems. Don't forget that there are white people living in trailer parks.

___
PSN ID: Kev_Cypunk

[–] dominican_papi_002 9 years ago

I am sick of that word pretentious. It's so overused with movies and it's silly. I think u have to give this movie more then one viewing to get a feel for it.

[–] lelippi78 9 years ago

People sometimes do overuse pretentious, but if ever a film defined it, it is this one. Ridiculously self-important and boring. The lead acts bored. The people around him are boring. The best part was just all the lovely nature shots. Basically the film could have been a 15 minute short and it would have worked much better.

[–] dlynch843 9 years ago

agree, 78--a short, non-linear movie, say 15-20 minutes can be an interesting take on life. but 2 hours of Christian Bale as a tortured screenwriter? blow me.

[–] kurtlodernot 9 years ago

Why the hell would I want to sit through this $hit ever again?! The first time I watched it is time I won't get back at the end of my life.

[–] chamohlamb 9 years ago

You shouldn't watch movies or read books or listen to music if you expect to be compensated for the time you wasted on crap.

[–] Lin301 9 years ago

I guess his work (and also the way he works which is very important and may make you understand his movies better, check out some Knight of Cups interviews if interested) is more comparable to poetry than a normal film (which is more comparable to a play). With poetry it is, in my opinion, always difficult to say whether it is profound or insightful or just pretentious dribble, I guess you just 'feel' it or you don't.

[–] mini-zappa 9 years ago

Boyhood is pretentious.
Nymphomaniac is pretentious.
Only God Forgives is pretentious.

Knight of Cups (or any other Malick film) is not.

[–] patrick_bateman_90029 9 years ago

I'm sorry but how in the hell is "Nymph()maniac" pretentious?

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mini-zappa 9 years ago

Adam from YMS explains it pretty good: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUo0uMxhTac

I am one gay black kid getting punched in the face away from a nervous breakdown.

[–] patrick_bateman_90029 9 years ago

His explanation for hating the movie is shallow and wasted on being snide just for hits from people who get off on hating von Trier because of his Cannes comments or his "misogynist" ideas or whatever. He spends just about the ENTIRE time mispronouncing von Trier's name and, instead of actually putting his brain to use about little things that make sense with thought, i.e the aspect ratio change in the "Mrs. H" chapter or the use of ideas from his previous movies, spends the whole time complaining instead of being creative. I find it fascinating that he's hot to trot for Jodorowsky when he's far more "abstract" than von Trier is. I also don't acknowledge the opinions of people who comment only on the 4 hour producer's edit. I sat in a movie theater until 3 in the morning watching the complete 5.5 hour version and disregard theirs because, in my book, they didn't watch the complete version. They watched the "Alan Ladd" cut. It may be callous, but still.

* the ONLY thing I agree with him on is that there didn't need to be a mid-credit scene showing scenes from the second half of the film, especially in the complete version and that "Antichrist" has one of the best openings ever filmed.

"[Redmayne] is so thirsty for awards and not in a fun way but in a sad, desperate way" - Twitter

[–] mini-zappa 9 years ago

His mispronunciation for Trier was intentional, Try-er.

I am one gay black kid getting punched in the face away from a nervous breakdown.

[–] patrick_bateman_90029 9 years ago

And it makes him sound like an idiot I wouldn't buy lemonade from in the summer, much less respect the review of.

"[Redmayne] is so thirsty for awards and not in a fun way but in a sad, desperate way" - Twitter

[–] mini-zappa 9 years ago

No, it's hilarious and his review is excellent. He made way more points than just the aspect ratio and the Antichrist thing. Plus the Antichrist scene was super annoying and offensive and it wasn't a minor thing.

I am one gay black kid getting punched in the face away from a nervous breakdown.

[–] patrick_bateman_90029 9 years ago

It's hilarious to you because you agree with every single point he made. I think it's a crock of s * * t from someone who doesn't use his brain to actually make a strong argument and opts to look at the whole movie on a surface level. I also only used those because those were the first things that came to mind because those were the things I remember him harping on the most. "Mrs. H" was in 1.85 aspect ratio because it brings home how claustrophobic and discomforting the entire ordeal with Mrs. H and her family is, even if Joe says they had no effect on her in the present, (just like how "Fish Tank" was presented in a 1.33:1 aspect ratio to reflect how trapped Mia feels in her home life) and, as I said on von Trier's page, the use of earlier plot points and shots from his earlier work is him critiquing himself through what many thought was going to be his final film after he said he went sober.

And the "Antichrist" reference was brutally hilarious because von Trier IS the kind of director who would manipulate his audience into thinking he'd go there again, except this time, he uses it as a way to further make us either despise or sympathize with Joe. When She let her child fall to his death in "Antichrist", we feel awful for her because we feel her pain until we realize She's been playing not only He but the audience as saps with her snake oil pitch and we realize the depths of her psychopathic beliefs attacking femininity and its traditional roles. With Joe, we realize she is addicted to her sexuality, but she still has a deep emotional attachment to Marcel and tries to be a support to him however she can and helps further gray our beliefs of whether she is a good person or a bad one.

"[Redmayne] is so thirsty for awards and not in a fun way but in a sad, desperate way" - Twitter

[–] mini-zappa 9 years ago

Did you really watch the whole video? It's 22 minutes long and he makes way more point than just the Antichrist and the aspect ratio thing.
The Antichrist scene is one of the worst and most douchy thing I've ever seen in a movie, it's a slap in the face to anyone who were s fan of Antichrist.

I am one gay black kid getting punched in the face away from a nervous breakdown.

[–] thomas998 9 years ago

Did you ever see the film Mr. Beans Holiday? This movie reminded me of the film Defoe was trying to make in the Mr. Bean movie only in this case Mr. Bean doesn't show up to turn the pretentious crap into something humorous or worth watching.

Call me crazy but throw beautiful images together and adding whispered narration that reminds me of a perfume commercial doesn't make art, it just makes me laugh and wonder what studio thought this thing had any hope of attracting an audience.

[–] joshbugg817 9 years ago

Just for the record it is Malick's style that has influenced the perfume commercials. And in regards to studio and audience thankfully there are a few people out there who believe in film as art and not film as commerce.

Xenophobia sucks!

[–] leo-hork-na 9 years ago

Just for the record it is Malick's style that has influenced the perfume commercials.

Source?

[–] Catrician 9 years ago

films cannot be pretentious. this is a logical fallacy.

have a nice day
Top 100: http://www.imdb.com/list/mduBIpnlpTA/

[–] atnahom 9 years ago

Sup catfish.

Movie is a masterpiece. Hope you like it.

"There is no God and we are his prophets."

[–] Haasdas 9 years ago

I advise anyone to watch the official trailer,
It's Better than the actual film.

If you've seen the trailer, you've seen the movie but with great editing and Natalie Portman slammed against the wall in a lust frenzy.

Watching Knight Of Cups The Movie Felt As If I Was On Valium .

Watch The Movie Version , Which Is The Trailer in a Lovely Succinct Montage. Which actually gives you the impression that His existence was pretty eventful.

I move faster in a K Mart queue compared to this movie.

WATCH THE TRAILER/

NOT THE MOVIE!

[–] bastille-852-731547 9 years ago

I love Malick in general, and while I thought this movie was beautifully filmed and engaging, it wasn't great. You never really felt anything for the main character and the plot got pretty hazy after the first act. It's a solid film and I would recommend it to anyone who is a big fan of Malick's films, but I'd be lying if I didn't say I was slightly disappointed.