AVS Forum banner
1 - 20 of 107 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
635 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
According to Amazon , and
Corner (blog)[/URL] .


Controversial, opaque, ludicrous, hackneyed, visionary, evocative, ambitious, overwrought, tedious, inscrutable, transcendent...?


Now you can judge for yourself.


I personally think Tree of Life is Malick's direct reply to Kubrick's 2001.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,558 Posts
October is already a crowded Blu-ray month and this was a divisive film. I'm not sure about a $28 blind buy on this one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
635 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·

video[/URL] with Christopher Nolan and David Fincher praising Malick's work (featurette promoting Tree of Life.)


Malick has become the filmmaker's filmmaker, apparently.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,771 Posts
I don't get how people continue to invest in his films. They do not make money. TREE OF LIFE cost 32 million and made just under 40 million worldwide. The studio keeps about 60% of that. After DVD and TV it might break even or make a little bit of green.


THE NEW WORLD cost 30 mil and made 30 mil. Major ouch.


With TREE, had Malick not edited himself to the point of insanity, he could have made something special. The same goes for The Thin Red Line. I am one of the lucky ones who saw an early edit that was not filled with tons of fractured and meaningless narrative speechifying. The early cut I saw was one of the best war films ever made and so vastly superior to the theatrical cut that it is a crime against audiences Malick was allowed to ruin it.


Whatever. Rant over.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
906 Posts
Mileage varies: my Malick-fu is weak, but I adored The Thin Red Line when I saw it (and seeing that was what nudged me to go backwards and finally watch Badlands). I'll probably need to buy a lot of microwave popcorn for Tree, but it and The New World should make a lovely blind-buying double bill...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,981 Posts
I liked it. Slow. Obscure. Lotsa poetry.

Malick has become the filmmaker's filmmaker, apparently.


Always has been.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,794 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaded Dogfood /forum/post/20860112


I liked it. Slow. Obscure. Lotsa poetry.

Malick has become the filmmaker's filmmaker, apparently.


Always has been.

Haven't see it yet, but I am looking forward to it. I have seen all of Malick's other films (all 4 of them). They are poems, tone poems for the screen, full of philosophical musings. Some people like that kind of thing, and some don't. I do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
147 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Stevens /forum/post/20859248


I don't get how people continue to invest in his films. They do not make money. TREE OF LIFE cost 32 million and made just under 40 million worldwide. The studio keeps about 60% of that. After DVD and TV it might break even or make a little bit of green.


THE NEW WORLD cost 30 mil and made 30 mil. Major ouch.


With TREE, had Malick not edited himself to the point of insanity, he could have made something special. The same goes for The Thin Red Line. I am one of the lucky ones who saw an early edit that was not filled with tons of fractured and meaningless narrative speechifying. The early cut I saw was one of the best war films ever made and so vastly superior to the theatrical cut that it is a crime against audiences Malick was allowed to ruin it.


Whatever. Rant over.

Because they want him to do what he is BEST at. He is probably the best director through history and there's other people that agree with me. Some have money and invests in his movies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,981 Posts
He is probably the best director through history and there's other people that agree with me. Some have money and invests in his movies.


Agreed. I think some moneyed people in the industry- and maybe outside of it too- are willing to finance his films because of their faith in his art. Kubrick got this sort of treatment at Warners, maybe Eastwood as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
635 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by foughman /forum/post/20863403


Because they want him to do what he is BEST at. He is probably the best director through history and there's other people that agree with me. Some have money and invests in his movies.

(emphasis added)


Malick is one of a handful of commercially unspectacular filmmakers (Lynch, Davies, a few others) whose films I will pay premium dollar to see in first run and whose discs I'll buy at full price just to do my own very small part to subsidize their art in the hope that it will mean that they can make more of it. Your List May Vary, but I think the principle is sound.


Take a look at Orson Welles' career for a negative example, or even Olivier's (as a director). They simply couldn't get the money to do their art, and we are so much the poorer for it.


Malick is in his late 60's, and he seems ready now to make films at a rate to compensate for his 20-year drought between Days of Heaven and The Thin Red Line. I, for one, am happy to help him pump them out.
 
1 - 20 of 107 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top