RE: FIVE STARS MY ASS.....

Follow @empiremagazine

Forum Home

Register for Free!

Log In

Moderator Tickets

FAQ

Users Online

RE: FIVE STARS MY ASS.....

Logged in as: Guest

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: FIVE STARS MY ASS.....

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: FIVE STARS MY ASS..... - 14/7/2011 9:08:49 PM

Drone

Posts: 959
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pappstar

Much as I appreciate a good wordsmith, and the eloquence that was corner-stone to this review, to debase the essentility of a said review for Empire on a film by reflecting the unashamed pretention which the afformentioned director systematically exemplifies via his cinematic representations does only to belitte those who fail to find ability to qualify his self-indulgent, procrastinated musings and those who find little time to invest in them, let alone those who are intrigued.

So there�s a long sentence. And paragraph. Wow. Imagine that. Isn�t it amazing?!? People can do word and stuff.

So let's skip the hyper-bloated BS of writing a review for Malick that is 5*. Yes, people can scribble in such a way that will try to show words as pictures on that screen. That�s fair. Don�t forget us who have to read it. Bloated? Bugger that. I also have little doubt that this film could be a 5* film, but is it necessary to write such a review, with such ideas above station that it's just a lyrical blow-job of "Terry"?

Sure someone he knows may read this review. I'm sure he won't. Next time use the crayons to write one that is actually for the readers to read. Your use of the language must mean you�re able to realise they�re the ones who�ll read this. [nb: check dictionary instead of thesaurus]

I know it�s a Malick film but, next time (or for publication), just tone it down. This is so overtly OTT. Many other journalists wanna be creative writers too. This is not the outlet. Don�t forget your audience.

Pretentious (even if good) movie a pretentious review should not make.

Sometimes I disagree with a review for the mag. This has been the first poorly written (in a too-well written way) I�ve ever read. Shame.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

Pappstar's initial comment was pretentious.

quote:

ORIGINAL: UTB

Yes but what about the 3D??????

L-O-fucking-L. And I Never lol.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: ROTGUT

This "film" is pretentious, overlong, boring, dogmatic, self important twaddle - and a perfect example of what happens when an over rated director has too much time, too much money and too much control. It's the biggest piece of shit you'll see all year and I was plenty pissed off that I'd just wasted two hours of my life watching it. The Empire review is way off - the reviewer seems to have his nose so far up Malick's backside that he couldn't see the torrent of cinematic bilge which had just been dumped on him. I could film my toilet and call it "Art" - but no ones going to give me a hundred million dollars to do so. If there's any justice, this "film" should sink without a trace - it deserves to!!! Never mind one star..............ZERO STARS!!!

And your quote is a perfect example of the brutalised,drooling, moronic, literally scatalogical nonsense that Mallick-bashers traffic in and so is, by implication, a validation of both the original review's presuppositions and Malick's halcyon charms. CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!!!!

And your quote is a perfect example of the brutalised,drooling, moronic, literally scatalogical nonsense that Mallick-lovers traffic in and so is, by implication, a "validation" of both the original review's presuppositions and Malick's halcyon "charms."
"CONGRATULATIONS!!!" WINK WINK WINK

See what Idid there? Took the same bullshit you just spouted and applied it in reverse. It was easy because "you clearly don't get it" is the most pathetic and easily destroyed argument out there. Don't use it, there's a good chap; it's too simple to make it's author look a fool.

(in reply to cerebusboy)

Post #: 91

RE: FIVE STARS MY ASS..... - 14/7/2011 9:19:10 PM

cerebusboy

Posts: 1552
Joined: 1/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drone

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pappstar

Much as I appreciate a good wordsmith, and the eloquence that was corner-stone to this review, to debase the essentility of a said review for Empire on a film by reflecting the unashamed pretention which the afformentioned director systematically exemplifies via his cinematic representations does only to belitte those who fail to find ability to qualify his self-indulgent, procrastinated musings and those who find little time to invest in them, let alone those who are intrigued.

So there�s a long sentence. And paragraph. Wow. Imagine that. Isn�t it amazing?!? People can do word and stuff.

So let's skip the hyper-bloated BS of writing a review for Malick that is 5*. Yes, people can scribble in such a way that will try to show words as pictures on that screen. That�s fair. Don�t forget us who have to read it. Bloated? Bugger that. I also have little doubt that this film could be a 5* film, but is it necessary to write such a review, with such ideas above station that it's just a lyrical blow-job of "Terry"?

Sure someone he knows may read this review. I'm sure he won't. Next time use the crayons to write one that is actually for the readers to read. Your use of the language must mean you�re able to realise they�re the ones who�ll read this. [nb: check dictionary instead of thesaurus]

I know it�s a Malick film but, next time (or for publication), just tone it down. This is so overtly OTT. Many other journalists wanna be creative writers too. This is not the outlet. Don�t forget your audience.

Pretentious (even if good) movie a pretentious review should not make.

Sometimes I disagree with a review for the mag. This has been the first poorly written (in a too-well written way) I�ve ever read. Shame.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

Pappstar's initial comment was pretentious. �

quote:

ORIGINAL: UTB

Yes but what about the 3D??????

L-O-fucking-L.� And I Never lol.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: ROTGUT

This "film" is pretentious, overlong, boring, dogmatic, self important twaddle - and a perfect example of what happens when an over rated director has too much time, too much money and too much control. It's the biggest piece of shit you'll see all year and I was plenty pissed off that I'd just wasted two hours of my life watching it. The Empire review is way off - the reviewer seems to have his nose so far up Malick's backside that he couldn't see the torrent of cinematic bilge which had just been dumped on him. I could film my toilet and call it "Art" - but no ones going to give me a hundred million dollars to do so. If there's any justice, this "film" should sink without a trace - it deserves to!!! Never mind one star..............ZERO STARS!!!

And your quote is a perfect example of the brutalised,drooling, moronic, literally scatalogical nonsense that Mallick-bashers traffic in and so is, by implication, a validation of both the original review's presuppositions and Malick's halcyon charms. CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!!!!

And your quote is a perfect example of the brutalised,drooling, moronic, literally scatalogical nonsense that Mallick-lovers traffic in and so is, by implication, a "validation" of both the original review's presuppositions and Malick's halcyon "charms."
"CONGRATULATIONS!!!" WINK WINK WINK

See what Idid there?� Took the same bullshit you just spouted and applied it in reverse. It was easy because "you clearly don't get it" is the most pathetic and easily destroyed argument out� there. Don't use it, there's a good chap; it's too simple to make it's author look a fool.

Your formatting is all over the shop. Sort it out in case so I can't appreciate your o-so-clever conceit, please?

I didn't say "you clearly don't get it". I said 'literally scatalogical" for a reason.

I like Kubrick's films. I can of course respect and appreciate someone criticising his movies for being allegedly emotional cold in sensible language. Ebert is worth reading, even if his opinions often differ from mine. I like the Star Wars prequels which most decent critics do not - etc etc etc. In contrast,I'd maintain that the Malick criticism on this thread (toxic mixtures of the pseudo-profound - Malick is pretentious! - and utterly base - this film is shite! You have to be mad to like it!) deserve the responses I've offered. If you or anyone else cares to cobble together some serious points then I will, of course, respond in manner more obviously conducive to constructive debate.

Although if "it's too simple to make it's author look a fool." is supposed to be DELIBERATELY funny then : kudos!

(in reply to Drone)

Post #: 92

RE: FIVE STARS MY ASS..... - 14/7/2011 9:38:08 PM

Deviation

Posts: 26908
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ

Woooo Drone is here, now the bitching will lead to a high new level....

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to cerebusboy)

Post #: 93

RE: FIVE STARS MY ASS..... - 15/7/2011 1:54:36 PM

sowasred2012

Posts: 351
Joined: 29/6/2007

A: I had to look up the word "scatological" to find out what everyone was arguing about.

B: I'm not sure cerebusboy knows they're arguing with Drone as well as ROTGUT. Drone's formatting looks alright to me.

C: On a more serious note - I saw the film, and there were a couple of frustrating moments in there, like the creation of the universe, I felt like I was supposed to begging somebody to stop that music. Minor quibbles aside, the film affected me in ways I find hard to articulate - at various points I found myself becoming agitated, angry, calm and even blissful, sometimes without being able to understand why.

My recommendation since seeing the film has been that everybody should see it, but see it alone. The film is obviously polarising audiences, and I wouldn't want to have been sat there with someone who hated it for fear of their opinion on it somehow diluting the experience I was having whilst watching it. Conversely, if I'd hated it, I wouldn't want to have been sat there with someone who was riding a cinematic high. There's something intensely personal about it, and it should be experienced that way.

_____________________________

Poor people are crazy, Jack. I'm eccentric.

http://www.srmason.co.uk/blog/
http://www.twitter.com/sowasred2012

(in reply to Deviation)

Post #: 94

RE: FIVE STARS MY ASS..... - 15/7/2011 2:19:29 PM

Pigeon Army

Posts: 14611
Joined: 29/1/2006
From: Pixar HQ, George Lucas' Office.

I'm starting to get the feeling that any old review can get the flames of the self-righteous firing as long as said review gets anything other than three stars.

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rinc
She's supposed to be 13! I'd want her to be very attractive though

quote:

ORIGINAL: MonsterCat

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pigeon Army
Stop being mean to Deviation

No.

(in reply to sowasred2012)

Post #: 95

RE: FIVE STARS MY ASS..... - 15/7/2011 2:26:48 PM

Scruffybobby

Posts: 4025
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: My House

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pigeon Army

I'm starting to get the feeling that any old review can get the flames of the self-righteous firing as long as said review gets anything other than three stars.

But then you'd just get people banging on about sitting on the fence instead of giving an actual opinion and risking upsetting people.

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49 (via Gizoogle)

Gentleman, please - could our crazy-ass asses leave dis thread ta gangstas wantin ta say shit bout a funky-ass bad film?

(in reply to Pigeon Army)

Post #: 96

RE: FIVE STARS MY ASS..... - 15/7/2011 2:29:24 PM

Pigeon Army

Posts: 14611
Joined: 29/1/2006
From: Pixar HQ, George Lucas' Office.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Scruffybobby

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pigeon Army

I'm starting to get the feeling that any old review can get the flames of the self-righteous firing as long as said review gets anything other than three stars.

But then you'd just get people banging on about sitting on the fence instead of giving an actual opinion and risking upsetting people.

Fuck, you're right. Goddamn this ourosbouros of stupidity.

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rinc
She's supposed to be 13! I'd want her to be very attractive though

quote:

ORIGINAL: MonsterCat

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pigeon Army
Stop being mean to Deviation

No.

(in reply to Scruffybobby)

Post #: 97

RE: FIVE STARS MY ASS..... - 15/7/2011 4:35:57 PM

cerebusboy

Posts: 1552
Joined: 1/5/2006

quote:

Much as I appreciate a good wordsmith, and the eloquence that was corner-stone to this review, to debase the essentility of a said review for Empire on a film by reflecting the unashamed pretention which the afformentioned director systematically exemplifies via his cinematic representations does only to belitte those who fail to find ability to qualify his self-indulgent, procrastinated musings and those who find little time to invest in them, let alone those who are intrigued.

Here, to support my case, is an example of characteristic boilerplate Malick-bashing. It's a parody that doesn't even make logical sense, and an example of bad writing. Someone who really thinks its a fair summary of Ian Nathan's review deserves, at the very least, to be called out on their nonsense. In contrast, can ANY of the Malick-bashers find any sentences in Ian Nathan's review that are just Pseud's Corner meaningless purple? The answer is 'no'.Amusingly,the implicit idea that pretentious means whatever one wants it to mean is, in and of itself, pretentious. And I'm guessing that pointing out that many of the negative posts here would be good for a game of intellectual fallacy bingo would be considered pretentious too. Alternatively, if it's all just opinion, O Drone, then isn't using the grammar of 'arguments' actually a pretty good example of 'not getting it'?

And of course the posts I cited WERE 'literally scatalogical' whereas mine were, er, not. So Drone's inane conceit is, still, just an inane conceit.

(in reply to sowasred2012)

Post #: 98

RE: FIVE STARS MY ASS..... - 16/7/2011 12:57:20 AM

Coyleone

Posts: 482
Joined: 13/10/2008

quote:

ORIGINAL: sowasred2012

A: I had to look up the word "scatological" to find out what everyone was arguing about.

B: I'm not sure cerebusboy knows they're arguing with Drone as well as ROTGUT. Drone's formatting looks alright to me.

C: On a more serious note - I saw the film, and there were a couple of frustrating moments in there, like the creation of the universe, I felt like I was supposed to begging somebody to stop that music. Minor quibbles aside, the film affected me in ways I find hard to articulate - at various points I found myself becoming agitated, angry, calm and even blissful, sometimes without being able to understand why.

My recommendation since seeing the film has been that everybody should see it, but see it alone. The film is obviously polarising audiences, and I wouldn't want to have been sat there with someone who hated it for fear of their opinion on it somehow diluting the experience I was having whilst watching it. Conversely, if I'd hated it, I wouldn't want to have been sat there with someone who was riding a cinematic high. There's something intensely personal about it, and it should be experienced that way.

These points are completely true. The film has effected me in a way no other film has. This may sound ridiculous, but it has changed the way I view certain things in life, and I'm not just saying that to jump on The Malick train. This really is a special film to me. Like I said though, I can see why some may take a disliking to it, it's not for everyone and it definitely lets people take their own personal meanings from it.

(in reply to sowasred2012)

Post #: 99

RE: FIVE STARS MY ASS..... - 17/7/2011 1:49:47 AM

brucejackiejet

Posts: 45
Joined: 26/4/2011

Have to say this was the worst cinematic experience I've had to date - and I've seen The Happening!

I've got absolutely no problem with other people liking it (not sure why so many people on this thread seem to be bashing others for having a different opinion), but for me it just didn't work. Can't say I thought it was particularly well made as I think the shots were poorly framed, the music repetitive and the acting not great to be honest. I'm not blaming the actors for this as I'd be surprised if most of them had any clue what emotion they were even supposed to be portraying given the film's complex intentions.

As someone who has never walked out of a screening I came dangerously close with this film but stubbornness made me see it through to the end. It actually felt like it went on for about 3 years despite only being 2 hours. While it's very tempting to simply label it pretentious, I'm not sure if 'unfocused' or 'meandering' would be more appropriate. No doubt it worked for some people, in the same way modern art works for some people, but it really wasn't for me. And before some of the more passionate members of this thread start accusing me of being a Mallick-basher, not 'getting' it or just plain ignorant - I'm not a stupid individual and I certainly wasn't expecting a transformers-esque thrill ride - it just didn't float my boat as they say.

And on the subject of the review - while there's nothing wrong with writing intelligently, I do agree with some of the criticisms that the tone was just a little over the top. While I fully understood the review, I would suggest Mr Nathan reigns it in a little as at the end of it all, it didn't really tell me much about the film so much as the plethora of emotions which he experienced while watching it. I'm glad he's passionate about the movie but in my opinion he did get a little carried away and forgot the audience.

(in reply to Coyleone)

Post #: 100

RE: FIVE STARS MY ASS..... - 17/7/2011 7:46:16 AM

Pigeon Army

Posts: 14611
Joined: 29/1/2006
From: Pixar HQ, George Lucas' Office.

quote:

ORIGINAL: brucejackiejet

I've got absolutely no problem with other people liking it (not sure why so many people on this thread seem to be bashing others for having a different opinion)

Just when I thought darkness had taken over, you have come and shown me there is still light in this cruel world. Thank you, brucejackiejet. Though I would like to point out -

quote:

a transformers-esque thrill ride

Oxymoron.

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rinc
She's supposed to be 13! I'd want her to be very attractive though

quote:

ORIGINAL: MonsterCat

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pigeon Army
Stop being mean to Deviation

No.

(in reply to brucejackiejet)

Post #: 101

RE: FIVE STARS MY ASS..... - 17/7/2011 10:28:25 AM

brucejackiejet

Posts: 45
Joined: 26/4/2011

quote:

ORIGINAL

a transformers-esque thrill ride

Pigeon Army: Oxymoron.

Agreed, bad example - can I amend that to...mmmm Fast Five-esque thrill ride :-)

< Message edited by brucejackiejet -- 17/7/2011 10:32:01 AM >

(in reply to Pigeon Army)

Post #: 102

RE: FIVE STARS MY ASS..... - 17/7/2011 6:07:23 PM

Filmfan 2

Posts: 973
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: brucejackiejet
Can't say I thought it was particularly well made as I think the shots were poorly framed...

I'll post my own thoughts on the film at some other time, but I had to respond to the above.

Were you even watching what was on the screen? Of all of the criticism that I've read of the movie this has to be the most absurd. I make some of my money from photography, so I've a good appreciation for the photographic side of movies (not necessarily more so than any other cinema-goer, but an appreciation nonetheless), and The Tree of Life is one of the most spectacularly shot movies that has appeared in the cinema for many a year. Shot choice, in areas such as camera movement and composition, verged on the sublime for the greater proportion of the film.

_____________________________

I am not drinkin' any fuckin' Merlot!

"All I wanted me was a piece of cornbread, you motherfuckers!"

Defender of all things Batman Begins

(in reply to brucejackiejet)

Post #: 103

How on Earth did this get 5*? - 18/7/2011 4:56:18 AM

ChesterCopperpot

Posts: 48
Joined: 24/6/2008

Saw this on Saturday with my girlfriend and despite both of us wanting to walk out after about 45 minutes we decided to stick it out. How I regret that decision....This is one of the most dull, pretentious and meaningless films I have ever seen. The dinosaur section was just ludicrous in what it portrayed and looked more like a deleted scene from Walking With Dinosaurs.

I am quite frankly baffled as to how anyone can derive meaning from a nearly two and a half hour film that has no plot, so-so imagery, wooden acting (apart from the kid who plays the younger Sean Penn, he was phenomenal) and patronising self-help-style voiceovers throughout. I loved The Thin Red Line but this is just utter bilge. Transformers: DOTM wasn't quite as dull! The Tree Of Life is a film aimed at critics and not cinema-goers and lovers. In fact, the best way to sum this film up is as follows: "A 2001 wannabe - minus a story, and with none of the symbolism. Mindblowingly shit."

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 104

How on Earth did this get 5*? - 18/7/2011 4:57:25 AM

ChesterCopperpot

Posts: 48
Joined: 24/6/2008

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 105

RE: FIVE STARS MY ASS..... - 18/7/2011 9:11:27 AM

brucejackiejet

Posts: 45
Joined: 26/4/2011

quote:

ORIGINAL: Filmfan 2

quote:

ORIGINAL: brucejackiejet
Can't say I thought it was particularly well made as I think the shots were poorly framed...

I'll post my own thoughts on the film at some other time, but I had to respond to the above.

Were you even watching what was on the screen? Of all of the criticism that I've read of the movie this has to be the most absurd. I make some of my money from photography, so I've a good appreciation for the photographic side of movies (not necessarily more so than any other cinema-goer, but an appreciation nonetheless), and The Tree of Life is one of the most spectacularly shot movies that has appeared in the cinema for many a year. Shot choice, in areas such as camera movement and composition, verged on the sublime for the greater proportion of the film.

Fair enough, maybe from a photographer's perspective there was something to appreciate. But for me I thought the vast majority of shots were either placed too close to characters or too far away, wobbled in places where it should have been steady, overused the whole magic hour sunset lighting, and were so inconsistent as to stop me engaging with any of it. Plus, though not cinematography specifically, like the whole thing in general I felt it could have done with a much stronger hand from the editor. Still, as with pretty much everything else in films, I accept that whether you like the cinematography or not is going to be down to opinion. For me it was very amateur in places (though granted not everywhere).

< Message edited by brucejackiejet -- 18/7/2011 9:13:50 AM >

(in reply to Filmfan 2)

Post #: 106

RE: FIVE STARS MY ASS..... - 18/7/2011 9:23:12 AM

Gretzky

Posts: 307
Joined: 20/12/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: brucejackiejet

quote:

ORIGINAL: Filmfan 2

quote:

ORIGINAL: brucejackiejet
Can't say I thought it was particularly well made as I think the shots were poorly framed...

I'll post my own thoughts on the film at some other time, but I had to respond to the above.

Were you even watching what was on the screen? Of all of the criticism that I've read of the movie this has to be the most absurd. I make some of my money from photography, so I've a good appreciation for the photographic side of movies (not necessarily more so than any other cinema-goer, but an appreciation nonetheless), and The Tree of Life is one of the most spectacularly shot movies that has appeared in the cinema for many a year. Shot choice, in areas such as camera movement and composition, verged on the sublime for the greater proportion of the film.

overused the whole magic hour sunset lighting,

Don't watch Days of Heaven in that case...

How familiar are you with Malick's previous work? If he used Steadicam the entire time it would be pointless and miss what handheld shots provide to the story.

_____________________________

~ Formerly Ash_Boomstick
Female Film Fan

(in reply to brucejackiejet)

Post #: 107

RE: FIVE STARS MY ASS..... - 18/7/2011 9:55:54 AM

Wild about Wilder

Posts: 1486
Joined: 9/4/2010
From: Hertfordshire

5star review NO FUCKING WAY! don't know what u lot & T.Film have been smoking but this film I say film it looks like Mallick spends his vast time off between films watching British TV Planets, Life & Walking With Dinosours probably followed by Songs of Praise it was just mind-numbemly boring although will say the Cinematography was exellent, Penn was his usuall obnoxious self.
2stars both for the Cinematography.

(in reply to Gretzky)

Post #: 108

RE: FIVE STARS MY ASS..... - 18/7/2011 10:20:19 AM

Deviation

Posts: 26908
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wild about Wilder

5star review NO FUCKING WAY!

YEAH FUCK YOU EMPIRE AND YOUR OPINIONS

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to Wild about Wilder)

Post #: 109

RE: FIVE STARS MY ASS..... - 18/7/2011 11:24:31 AM

brucejackiejet

Posts: 45
Joined: 26/4/2011

quote:

GRETZKY

How familiar are you with Malick's previous work? If he used Steadicam the entire time it would be pointless and miss what handheld shots provide to the story.

I don't mind handheld where it's appropriate i.e. when Jason Bourne is pummeling an assasin I agree, a steadicam would be pretty dull. But when for instance it's a close up of a boy's face showing him going through a whole load of emotion, to have the frame keep wobbling as if the cameraman needed the toilet is just a little distracting.

(in reply to Gretzky)

Post #: 110

RE: FIVE STARS MY ASS..... - 18/7/2011 11:42:46 AM

cerebusboy

Posts: 1552
Joined: 1/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: brucejackiejet

quote:

GRETZKY

How familiar are you with Malick's previous work? If he used Steadicam the entire time it would be pointless and miss what handheld shots provide to the story.

I don't mind handheld where it's appropriate i.e. when Jason Bourne is pummeling an assasin I agree, a steadicam would be pretty dull. But when for instance it's a close up of a boy's face showing him going through a whole load of emotion, to have the frame keep wobbling as if the cameraman needed the toilet is just a little distracting.

'Appropriate' to what? Bourne's action scenes, in their way, are quite as 'stylised' as 80s action movie (if you've ever been involved in a real fight or even seen YouTube clips of the same you'll know that . A good analogy might be the difference between the Dnepropetrovsk maniac murders real-life footage and any pseudo-'realistic' horror film).

Malick's use of handheld is deliberate and a superb idea; it allows far greater intimacy (as others have said, the camera becomes like another character thereby bringing in the audience more) the fleeting and impressionistic effects of the hand-held are both aesthetically beautiful and a hell of a lot more emotionally 'realistic' than blocked in, wide angle, fixed images. Turbulent images are consistent with turbulent emotions; Malick captures the sensations of childhood brilliantly in this movie .And of course the hand-held is only one of his techniques - we also got a sense of the white-picket fence, Church, courtroom solidity and physicality of the small-town world.

Since The Tree of Life isn't (legally ;-)) on YouTube, here's a fine example of Malick's brilliant techniques (some of the most powerful 4 minutes ever)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhj4b5CzyhU&feature=related

(in reply to brucejackiejet)

Post #: 111

RE: FIVE STARS MY ASS..... - 18/7/2011 12:45:51 PM

Coyleone

Posts: 482
Joined: 13/10/2008

Like someone said earlier, I have no problem with people disliking this amazing film

, but some of the criticism's in here are ridiculous.

< Message edited by Coyleone -- 18/7/2011 12:47:14 PM >

(in reply to cerebusboy)

Post #: 112

RE: FIVE STARS MY ASS..... - 18/7/2011 1:05:11 PM

brucejackiejet

Posts: 45
Joined: 26/4/2011

quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: brucejackiejet

quote:

GRETZKY

How familiar are you with Malick's previous work? If he used Steadicam the entire time it would be pointless and miss what handheld shots provide to the story.

I don't mind handheld where it's appropriate i.e. when Jason Bourne is pummeling an assasin I agree, a steadicam would be pretty dull. But when for instance it's a close up of a boy's face showing him going through a whole load of emotion, to have the frame keep wobbling as if the cameraman needed the toilet is just a little distracting.

'Appropriate' to what? Bourne's action scenes, in their way, are quite as 'stylised' as 80s action movie (if you've ever been involved in a real fight or even seen YouTube clips of the same you'll know that . A good analogy might be the difference between the Dnepropetrovsk maniac murders real-life footage and any pseudo-'realistic' horror film).

Malick's use of handheld is deliberate and a superb idea; it allows far greater intimacy (as others have said, the camera becomes like another character thereby bringing in the audience more) the fleeting and impressionistic effects of the hand-held are both aesthetically beautiful and a hell of a lot more emotionally 'realistic' than blocked in, wide angle, fixed images.

Sorry I think my last comment might have been misunderstood. I meant 'appropriate' and not 'realistic'. I'm sure you're right and the Bourne scenes are nothing like a real fight (can't say I get in many myself :-), but that's another point entirely as I don't think a film's level of realism necessarily has anything to do with whether it's good or not.

I also agree the use of handheld was no doubt a deliberate ploy, however for me it jarred the flow of what could otherwise be powerful moments. I just found it distracting and it felt inappropriate for the scene. However this is clearly a subjective viewpoint and of course your view on what's appropriate is quite likely to be different from mine.

(in reply to cerebusboy)

Post #: 113

My faith in cinema is restored! - 18/7/2011 1:51:12 PM

Tamzin007

Posts: 3
Joined: 23/6/2009

Ok first off if I was ever in any doubt as to wether or not Terrence Malick was taking DMT with this DP's as part of his research for this movie, those suspicions were confirmed upon watching this movie hehe. I've seen it twice now, the first time I saw it was was incredibly amazing AND really quite boring at the same time. The second time I saw it I was high on weed and it wasn't boring at all lol. EVERY FRAME is an amazing photos, the cinematography alone is just spectacular and if this doesn't win the DoP an Oscar I'll go spaz. When you see this movie half the cinema walks out, it happened both times I saw this movie. There should be a firing squad outside shooting anyone who walks out early, we'd really clean up the gene pool then I can tell you! If you love art, photography, life, cinema, you basically have to see this movie, there's nothing like it in our generation, so nice to see this sort of thing being done now!

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 114

My faith in cinema is restored! - 18/7/2011 1:52:00 PM

Tamzin007

Posts: 3
Joined: 23/6/2009

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 115

RE: My faith in cinema is restored! - 18/7/2011 2:03:12 PM

great_badir

Posts: 4178
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: A breaking rope bridge in the middle of the jungle

I am a huge Malick fan and, whilst I've not yet seen it yet (doesn't open down here until the end of this week

), the chances are I will love it.

But, out of pretty much all of the comments in this thread, I have to say brucejackiejet's have hit the nail right on the head more than any other, even those which are pro Tree of Life/Malick - the comment that Malick is like modern art is, I think, bang on. In the same way that I think Mark Rothko is one of the most over-rated artists of all time and his paintings are, to me, nothing more than dull and incredibly lazy Dulux colour cards, one of my mates thinks Malick films are generally overblown, meandering, not particularly good to look at or listen to (the frequent voiceovers annoy the hell out of him) and generally meaningless. And this is not someone who only loves braindead action, he knows his stuff. bruce's comments clearly and succinctly show that Tree of Life and Malick himself are the very definition of subjective.

_____________________________

FAVE FILMS
BO BOMBS

(in reply to Tamzin007)

Post #: 116

RE: FIVE STARS MY ASS..... - 18/7/2011 2:12:19 PM

cerebusboy

Posts: 1552
Joined: 1/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: brucejackiejet

quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: brucejackiejet

quote:

GRETZKY

How familiar are you with Malick's previous work? If he used Steadicam the entire time it would be pointless and miss what handheld shots provide to the story.

I don't mind handheld where it's appropriate i.e. when Jason Bourne is pummeling an assasin I agree, a steadicam would be pretty dull. But when for instance it's a close up of a boy's face showing him going through a whole load of emotion, to have the frame keep wobbling as if the cameraman needed the toilet is just a little distracting.

'Appropriate' to what? Bourne's action scenes, in their way, are quite as 'stylised' as 80s action movie (if you've ever been involved in a real fight or even seen YouTube clips of the same you'll know that . A good analogy might be the difference between the Dnepropetrovsk maniac murders real-life footage and any pseudo-'realistic' horror film).

Malick's use of handheld is deliberate and a superb idea; it allows far greater intimacy (as others have said, the camera becomes like another character thereby bringing in the audience more) the fleeting and impressionistic effects of the hand-held are both aesthetically beautiful and a hell of a lot more emotionally 'realistic' than blocked in, wide angle, fixed images.

Sorry I think�my last comment�might have been misunderstood. I meant 'appropriate' and not 'realistic'. I'm sure you're right and the Bourne scenes�are nothing like a real fight (can't say I get in many myself :-), but that's another point entirely�as I don't think a film's level of realism necessarily�has anything to do with whether it's good or not.

I also agree the use of handheld was no doubt a deliberate ploy, however for me it�jarred the flow of what could otherwise be�powerful�moments. I just found it distracting�and it felt inappropriate for the scene. However this is clearly a subjective viewpoint and of course�your view on what's appropriate is quite likely to be different from mine. �

Fair dos :-). I'm from from Glasgow which, perhaps, gives one an advantage in terms of experience of real-life violence

(in reply to brucejackiejet)

Post #: 117

RE: FIVE STARS MY ASS..... - 18/7/2011 4:29:14 PM

Filmfan 2

Posts: 973
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: brucejackiejet

quote:

ORIGINAL: Filmfan 2

quote:

ORIGINAL: brucejackiejet
Can't say I thought it was particularly well made as I think the shots were poorly framed...

I'll post my own thoughts on the film at some other time, but I had to respond to the above.

Were you even watching what was on the screen? Of all of the criticism that I've read of the movie this has to be the most absurd. I make some of my money from photography, so I've a good appreciation for the photographic side of movies (not necessarily more so than any other cinema-goer, but an appreciation nonetheless), and The Tree of Life is one of the most spectacularly shot movies that has appeared in the cinema for many a year. Shot choice, in areas such as camera movement and composition, verged on the sublime for the greater proportion of the film.

Fair enough, maybe from a photographer's perspective there was something to appreciate. But for me I thought the vast majority of shots were either placed too close to characters or too far away, wobbled in places where it should have been steady, overused the whole magic hour sunset lighting, and were so inconsistent as to stop me engaging with any of it. Plus, though not cinematography specifically, like the whole thing in general I felt it could have done with a much stronger hand from the editor. Still, as with pretty much everything else in films, I accept that whether you like the cinematography or not is going to be down to opinion. For me it was very amateur in places (though granted not everywhere).

I appreciate that visual aesthetics are a subjective thing and what works for some will do nothing for others. That being said, I do very much disagree with your assessment of the films visual construction.

The 'amateur' look that you describe is merely a stylistic choice. I love steadycam shots and locked off tripods as much as the next person, but handheld shooting is a viable way of injecting energy and/or a sense of intimacy into a scene. I would very much refute your assertion of an overuse of golden hour lighting. Yes it was used, but nowhere near as much as in, say, a Michael Bay movie.

I appreciate, however, that you've provably countered any points that I make here in the posts above this (didn't read them until after posting this reply).

< Message edited by Filmfan 2 -- 18/7/2011 4:34:14 PM >

_____________________________

I am not drinkin' any fuckin' Merlot!

"All I wanted me was a piece of cornbread, you motherfuckers!"

Defender of all things Batman Begins

(in reply to brucejackiejet)

Post #: 118

RE: FIVE STARS MY ASS..... - 18/7/2011 5:13:07 PM

horribleives

Posts: 4183
Joined: 12/6/2009
From: The North

quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy
A good analogy might be the difference between the Dnepropetrovsk maniac murders real-life footage and any pseudo-'realistic' horror film).

Just had a read about this online (having never heard of the case) and really wish to god I hadn't. On the wiki page there's a link to an article by Caitlin Moran where she says she'll regret watching a minute and a half of the video for the rest of her life. I'm all shuddery now.

Anyway, back to the film. Having read this thread, several reviews, and heard mixed responses from friends I've come to the conclusion that when I see it later in the week I'm gonna hedge my bets by polishing off a moroccan woodbine beforehand. Well, it worked for Transformers 3.

_____________________________

www.hollywoodunbound.co.uk - some nonsense about alien film directors and musclebound man-children.

(in reply to cerebusboy)

Post #: 119

RE: FIVE STARS MY ASS..... - 18/7/2011 5:55:02 PM

Deviation

Posts: 26908
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy
A good analogy might be the difference between the Dnepropetrovsk maniac murders real-life footage and any pseudo-'realistic' horror film).

Just had a read about this online (having never heard of the case) and really wish to god I hadn't. On the wiki page there's a link to an article by Caitlin Moran where she says she'll regret watching a minute and a half of the video for the rest of her life. I'm all shuddery now.