pretentious? or just boring?
which is it?
shareWell, the trailer did nothing for me.😴
shareBoth. Another random plotless collection of images as shot by Terence Malick.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
Absolute snoozefest of a movie. Zero plot at all.
twitter @thestiffler
seemed pointless to me.
i came here to see what the film school rejects think the point is
Meh, found it pretty boring and pretentious. Depressed characters aimlessly walking through beautiful settings isn't my thing.
My latest short film:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8674fFiF8ps
What does "pretentious" mean to you? If it means that the film and Malick have pretenses (i.e. ambitions), then yes. For those who complain that it is "plotless", why is that bad? Why can't that be a refinement of his artistry, his craft, his focus? Why does it need a plot or a story?
shareTo me it means that a lot of weight is being put on things that aren't very important or totally lack meaning, and by using narration that doesn't really seem to be saying anything too terribly important over these images that seem to be displaying nothing but a man wrestling with who he is as a person in empty locations, Malick is adding weight to something that really shouldn't be so heavy.
I understand being a movie star and a person in general is difficult and we walk through life hearing voices from the past in our heads, but in this film it's done so tediously I can't really support it. So I understand what Malick is doing, I just don't find it that interesting, and the sense of spirituality drenching every scene makes me a little nauseous.
My latest short film:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8674fFiF8ps
Both. Definitely both.
shareYes, a bit of both sadly. A movie that says all and nothing at the same time...On this genre try watch the '71 Walkabout by Nicolas Roeg, similar style but god, that is a masterpiece. This is not. I liked a lot the music though.
shareJust watched walkabout! Thanks for washing the bad taste from my mouth after watching knight of cups!!!
share[deleted]