... pretentious hipsters who will like anything that's perceived to be "different" or "experimental" in order to make themselves sound "hipper than thou". These people will spend hours discussing films like this and "The Tree of Life" with fellow hipsters, looking for all kinds of meaning in these films, when in fact it's just a random collection of images because TM can no longer be bothered to write a proper screenplay. They are narrow-minded people who (along with TM) forget that film is foremost an entertainment medium.
Another person incorrectly using "pretentious" in a failed attempt at sounding relevant? Boring.
Let me guess, you also enjoy calling films you don't understand "artsy-fartsy" as well, since those phrases are practically mutually exclusive to knuckle-draggers everywhere.
As one who used the term artsy-fartsy in a separate post about this "important" film as I compared it to another box office (but critically acclaimed) dud, Birdman, I wanted to suggest to the hipsters that there are very literate, intellectually satisfying, yet quite entertaining films like those by Ingmar Bergman and even the early Zatoichi films, the latter an art form that depicted the subtleties of Japanese culture along with the swordplay. Those films, like Bergman's The Seventh Seal, entertained while being high art forms and, the number one requirement of a good film: telling a story.
No, there isn't a story. Malick doesn't even bother with scripts anymore. He just lets his actors ham it up in any way they desire. That's why they love working with him - he really appeals to the thespians' inner pretentiousness.