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 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: FIVE STARS MY ASS..... - 18/7/2011 5:56:52 PM

horribleives

Posts: 4178
Joined: 12/6/2009
From: The North

No chance - I learnt my lesson with that Executions video in the '90s. And Transformers 3.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Deviation)

Post #: 121

RE: FIVE STARS MY ASS..... - 18/7/2011 6:08:46 PM

pedros

Posts: 1658
Joined: 20/10/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

No chance - I learnt my lesson with that Executions video in the '90s. And Transformers 3.

Ha! My mate got a copy of that Executions video when we were in school, so one Friday night we all piled round to his house with some booze and weed to watch it and have a laugh! After about 10 minutes of it we turned it off and all went home, every single one of us severely disturbed and very sober.

_____________________________

I'd rather see Dave Lee Travis play Macbeth.

Hey, wha' happened???

(in reply to horribleives)

Post #: 122

RE: FIVE STARS MY ASS..... - 18/7/2011 9:04:58 PM

cerebusboy

Posts: 1552
Joined: 1/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

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.

Whatever you do, don't watch it.

True dat. I know adolescents and hipsters make funny YouTube videos on their reaction to alleged shock clips like 2 Girls 1 Cup, GlassAss, Mr Hands or Meat Spin, but the DM film is, IMHO, beyond ironic responses. It's disturbing in a way not true of any fictional violence or horror I've ever seen

(in reply to Deviation)

Post #: 123

RE: FIVE STARS MY ASS..... - 18/7/2011 11:25:51 PM

Coyleone

Posts: 480
Joined: 13/10/2008

The comment about Malick's films being like modern art is really great. Being an artist myself, Malick's films are the only ones in recent times I truly consider to be pieces of artwork, Tree Of Life especially. That is why Malick is one of my favorite directors. He really is an amazing artist and craftsman.

(in reply to cerebusboy)

Post #: 124

RE: How on Earth did this get 5*? - 18/7/2011 11:55:16 PM

Qwerty Norris

Posts: 3143
Joined: 26/10/2005
From: Edinburgh

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChesterCopperpot

This is one of the most dull, pretentious and meaningless films I have ever seen.

From a subjective point of view you're entitled to find it dull and pretentious - but to say it's meaningless is beyond nonsensical.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChesterCopperpot
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."

Really? I have to say I never realised film critics don't love films. But then again I guess the majority of us hate what we do for a living anyway. I mean, all those years spent writing, critiquing and watching them must really have put them off for life - no wonder they thought Transformers was rubbish! Thank you for pointing this out to me, I will use this knowledge wisely the next time these swines try to recommend something to me.

_____________________________

Qwerty's Top 10 of 2013 (so far)

1. Zero Dark Thirty
2. No
3. In The Fog
4. Good Vibrations
5. McCullin
6. Beyond the Hills
7. The Place Beyond the Pines
8. Wreck-it Ralph
9. Shell
10. In The House

(in reply to ChesterCopperpot)

Post #: 125

RE: How on Earth did this get 5*? - 19/7/2011 12:43:43 AM

ishfishmial0

Posts: 4
Joined: 18/7/2011

Haven't seen any of Malicks other stuff except Badlands. After reading the review I think this is the first movie this year that I shell out money to see in the theatre this year. Everybody is saying Pitt gave a great performance. I guess this is a movie you either love or hate.

< Message edited by ishfishmial0 -- 19/7/2011 12:44:35 AM >

(in reply to Qwerty Norris)

Post #: 126

RE: How on Earth did this get 5*? - 19/7/2011 1:42:42 PM

Wild about Wilder

Posts: 1480
Joined: 9/4/2010
From: Hertfordshire

When I saw it was covering my mouth half the time to stop me laughing out loud I kept thinking of Adam out of Adam & Joe's saying It's nonsense, NONSENSE! NONSENSE! NONSENSE!

(in reply to ishfishmial0)

Post #: 127

RE: How on Earth did this get 5*? - 20/7/2011 11:45:56 AM

cerebusboy

Posts: 1552
Joined: 1/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wild about Wilder

When I saw it was covering my mouth half the time to stop me laughing out loud I kept thinking of Adam out of Adam & Joe's saying It's nonsense, NONSENSE! NONSENSE! NONSENSE!

Norman Mailer famously called pretension "ambition's ugly sister" and I think a lot of the negative comments here show a tragically limiting conflation of the two. And of course someone whose idea of an 'objectively' great film is The Matrix (or whatever) might well find 2001 laughable (it's just monkeys for ages! then classical music and fannying about!); the comparisons to Kubrick on this thread are bang-on.The Tree of Life is a great artistic achievement; Adam & Joe? not so much.

(in reply to Wild about Wilder)

Post #: 128

GARBAGE........ - 20/7/2011 6:29:04 PM

BRAINDRAIN

Posts: 9
Joined: 27/4/2011

God created the world in 7 days......but don't worry .....old Terrence has made a new film....and he can explain life, the universe and everything in 2 hours.....
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA........ A LUDICROUS PIECE OF WORK......

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 129

GARBAGE........ - 20/7/2011 6:29:06 PM

BRAINDRAIN

Posts: 9
Joined: 27/4/2011

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 130

RE: Warning Not A Popcorn Film. - 20/7/2011 9:09:21 PM

evil bill

Posts: 6557
Joined: 19/7/2006
From: mordor/ uk

First off a warning to some of the popcorn fodder cinema goers,this is a slow heavy going adult themed Arthouse movie,with quasi-biblical imagery.If you did not get 2001 or lately The Fountain,this is not the movie for you,watch Transformers or Harry Potter,they are great fun. But this is a very deep movie,that in truth needs to be watched more than once,as it's themes need time to sink in,which is why i mentioned 2001 and The Fountain.This has beautiful, hypnotic, and memorizing artistry in every frame,and one hell of a story,and is a film that demands an incredible lot from you, as viewer.But will reward those that want a film that has brains,and who believe that cinema is a great art form not just an form of entertainment.

Terrence Malick, the acclaimed director of such classic films as Badlands, Days of Heaven and The Thin Red Line,gives us his first true Masterpiece.A film that is more of an impression of a childhood,than a tale of childhood,maybe based on his own as his is both writer of the story and screenplay.Malick has achieved the height of his art form/imagery, we see how both cruel nature and spiritual grace shape not only our lives but that of our families and all around us.You see how against the odds we as a race have somehow survived,and through the poetry of life there just maybe some sort of spiritual force at work?? There is simply nothing like it out there at the moment,though many have tried,but none are as profound,or as idiosyncratic, complex, sincere.With some truly philosophically heavy imagery, and the visual effects are impressive,which is no surprise as Douglas Trumbull the effects genus behind 2001,Close Encounters,Etc was a special effects consultant.Also stunning was the editing,and the cinematography,this will be added to my Blu-Ray collection as soon as i can get my hands on it.

The cast are also excellent with Brad Pitt giving one of his greatest performances,i kid you not,he is heading for the top of his craft going by this movie.In this he plays Mr. O'Brien, the stern Irish-American,Catholic disciplinarian father and husband to Jessica Chastain's Mrs. O'Brien.She is a superb actress and in this role as the soft loving mother,bringing balance into the lives of her children,she excels,as do the three boys who are magical as the O'Brien son's,well chosen for there roles,and a real treat to watch.And yet with so little dialogue,it's all down to emoution displayed through movement and facial expression,this is true acting skill.And lets not forget Sean Penn who plays the oldest O'Brien son,who despite learning difficulty's as a child has become a very successful middle aged adult who still struggles with the death of his younger brother.

Overall this is a stunning visual journey through Life,Death,Love the Universe in fact everything,and full of all the ups and downs that life can throw at you,yet always contemplative without preaching.If you open your mind and soul this will move you,and you will want to watch it again and again,and i think will give you a different experience on each viewing,which is exactly what real Art is about.It might just be the film of the year,and maybe the decade,a mind bender at times but in the end it's about LIFE!!10/10

_____________________________

"You listen to me now,i will find you and i will kill you!"

(in reply to BRAINDRAIN)

Post #: 131

RE: GARBAGE........ - 20/7/2011 9:18:23 PM

cerebusboy

Posts: 1552
Joined: 1/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: BRAINDRAIN

God created the world in 7 days......but don't worry .....old Terrence has made a new film....and he can explain life, the universe and everything in 2 hours.....
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA........ A LUDICROUS PIECE OF WORK......

Explain? I thought this film blows 'coz it shuns narrative & advancing an argument in favour of impressionistic indulgence and pwetty pictures...............A LUDICROUS PIECE OF CRITICISM LOL!!!

(in reply to BRAINDRAIN)

Post #: 132

The king is in the altogether. - 20/7/2011 11:48:13 PM

Creamslice

Posts: 3
Joined: 20/7/2011

Confirmation that cinema can 'aspire' to art? Really?
Like that's never been achieved before? Have you been locked in a cupboard for the last 90 years?
I would argue that Badlands achieved the status cinematic art at the very dawn of Malick's career. It was beautiful, enigmatic and though reasonably leisurely, (particularly back then) it told a story. And told it very well.
The thin blue line was a little disjointed but it was worthy and again beautiful but it really was never as good as it's predecessor. New world? lovely to look at but dragged it's feet and sadly Colin Farrell was miscast in my opinion. But. Oh but. Tree of life? Art? Visually yes it was wonderful. As wondrous to behold as a Michelangelo masterpiece. But even that would be dull if you just sat back to watch it dry. This film contained a story: One child's adventures with his family during summer holiday. No beginning, no end, no point. I can forgive the dawn of time, primordial soup and birth of creation sequence, if nothing else it really was glorious use of a cinema screen. But ruined by the pretentious breathy voiceovers. As for Sean Penn's role... Why? It added nothing, offered nothing in the way of explanation or exposition. Was he dying? Seemingly one minute he's dead, the next alive and well but sour faced. One minute he's on a beach oops, should that read 'heavenly plain'? Then he's in a lift. Going down. Going up. Give me a break. I think I'll go watch Blue Planet.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 133

RE: Warning Not A Popcorn Film. - 21/7/2011 5:32:43 AM

UTB

Posts: 8968
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: evil bill

First off a warning to some of the popcorn fodder cinema goers,this is a slow heavy going adult themed Arthouse movie,with quasi-biblical imagery.If you did not get 2001 or lately The Fountain,this is not the movie for you,watch Transformers or Harry Potter,they are great fun.

I love you, Bill. I do. But fuck me this is condescending...

(in reply to evil bill)

Post #: 134

RE: The king is in the altogether. - 21/7/2011 11:04:07 AM

cerebusboy

Posts: 1552
Joined: 1/5/2006

quote:

Confirmation that cinema can 'aspire' to art? Really?
Like that's never been achieved before? Have you been locked in a cupboard for the last 90 years?

Do you even know what confirmation means? The reviewer quite pointedly did not say 'INVENTION of the idea that cinema can aspire to art' What was the last movie that, to you, confirmed cinema-as-art?

quote:

The thin blue line was a little disjointed but it was worthy and again beautiful but it really was never as good as it's predecessor. New world? lovely to look at but dragged it's feet and sadly Colin Farrell was miscast in my opinion. But. Oh but. Tree of life? Art? Visually yes it was wonderful. As wondrous to behold as a Michelangelo masterpiece. But even that would be dull if you just sat back to watch it dry. This film contained a story: One child's adventures with his family during summer holiday. No beginning, no end, no point. I can forgive the dawn of time, primordial soup and birth of creation sequence, if nothing else it really was glorious use of a cinema screen. But ruined by the pretentious breathy voiceovers. As for Sean Penn's role... Why? It added nothing, offered nothing in the way of explanation or exposition. Was he dying? Seemingly one minute he's dead, the next alive and well but sour faced. One minute he's on a beach oops, should that read 'heavenly plain'? Then he's in a lift. Going down. Going up. Give me a break. I think I'll go watch Blue Planet.

The thin blue line was a rubbish sitcom starring, if memory serves, Rowan Atkinson

Your Michelangelo analogy is moronic. How you could simultaneously regard watching a masterpiece dry as 'dull' whilst simultaneously regarding the painting as 'wondrous'. As for 'sat back' - why does the visual preclude the active reader/viewer?
Many have commented here on how Malick evokes memories of their own childhood - this is true of me, and I sure as hell didn't grow up in 50s America. Why is fixed narrative the only mechanism for 'meaning'?

Film is a visual meaning. Damning Malick for being overly visual is like damning writers for being overly 'wordy' (good analogy: Ulysses, the 20th century's greatest novel, very much does not not take for granted presuppositions on the necessity of a fixed traditional narrative). As for "No beginning, no end, no point." - quite like life, no? You have curious priorities, evidenced in the focus on
"explanation or exposition". Is that really how most people think and live? Funny how people call the voice overs 'pretentious' (define) while still lapping up dogma that suggest characters should ideally be devices for driving the 'narrative'. You might think that 'explanation or exposition' are pre-requisites for cinematic art (not a lot of 'explanation' in 2001, is there? ) but assuming it hardly makes it so. And if you really think that all cinema-as-art is all about the the 'exposition' and 'point'(s) instead of the instinctively visual then, no offence, but : have YOU been locked in a cupboard for 90 years?

(in reply to Creamslice)

Post #: 135

RE: The Tree Of Life - 21/7/2011 9:24:07 PM

demoncleaner

Posts: 2155
Joined: 3/10/2005
From: Belfast

I really liked Tree of Life. I think that on another day I may have found it obnoxious but I have my own theory on precisely what it achieves and why it is merited by the people who liked it. I basically think it's a film interested in formative memory.  It's an exercise every single person on the planet does at some point and that's to picture their earliest memories.  And maybe you realise that it's only the vivid ones you've kept. And so Malick's film is a series of these incredibyly vivid compositions, full of mood, with just traces and grabs of dialogue here and there, a wee bit floaty, a wee bit rose-tinted, full of both recognition and mystery, and I think if everyone ran their own home movie in their own head it would come out in close comparison to the method of this particular depiction. I think the images we'd compile from our own childhood's wouldn't make a whole heap of narrative sense but surely there would be something in the mood of each one that have made them...i don't know...memorable.   I think it doesn't matter if you were a kid growing up in 1950s Texas or in noughties Mumbai I think there are moments in this film for everyone to experience some twinge of innate, primal de ja vu. The question is, why is this goal of any interest to an audience? And to be perfectly honest it isn't and won't be of any bleedin' interest to loads, and loads and loads of people who see it. But I think it should be of interest to a (wanky term, I know) "filmic artist". Bottling and preserving the sweet ephemera of these moments is what you do. It's...your day job. It's meat and drink to you. It's why you get up in the morning. I think this must be the first film ever to pursue that goal of capturing formative memory. The fact that it hasn't got a more structured narrative keeps that aim pure and distinct from any other aim it might be supposed it's directed toward. It is quite simple. If it had a cohesive narrative it would be just another... fecking... memoir! What's wrong with a sensible memoir? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. There'll be one along any minute. And five fucking minutes after that.   My own happy suspicion is that this is something never even tried before, something you won't see everyday and quite possibly something that roundly excels in what it's trying to do.

You might well ask how my particular take on it legislates for the bloody great big existential leaning of it. It doesn't. I can't. And for that reason I do believe the New Age-y murmurings of it are actually quite pretentious. Inasmuch as there is a mahooosive fuck-off gap between the psyche home-movie backbone of the film and the creation/afterlife bookends... and into that gap must go all our goodwill. It's an enormous ask for the audience and humourless Malick doesn't ask this wryly (like a cheeky prankster Von Trier) and he doesn't demand it with contempt (like Godard), he makes a rather dignified and perhaps too earnest a petition for the viewer to join these halves.

But I ask myself if this is a problem that spoils the film for me. And the answer's a great big no. Largely due to the fact that it is precisely compartmentalised into big distinct chapters that don't really dovetail. It's for this reason that I can quietly take the neo-hippy epilogue and silently fucking bin it in my head and it doesn't detract from the brilliance of the rest of it. I can do my own director's cut there. At the other end of the film there is the Creation sequence which doesn't have a whole pile to do with Sean Penn or Sean Penn's dad but it's soooo effing beautiful, assuaging, and bloody terrifying that all I could do was sit and lurve it. Incredible, and the biggest proving instinct ever that Malick is not a navel-gazer. If that sequence had not been in the film, the domestic aspect would surely have put him in suspected navel-gazer territory. In all honesty... if I was ninety minutes into an espionage thriller and it stopped and a voice said "We interrupt this Jason Bourne high-speed car chase to bring you....THE BIRTH OF THE UNIVERSE!" and it looked this good, I'd be fucking happy. It would be schweeet.

So yeah, that's what I thought of it.  Pretty bloody special all in all.

EDIT:  In case you're wondering, you HAVE to swear when appreciating a film like this. It's actually humanising. Otherwise people think you're some sort of cinema vegan when you try and talk up sensitive stuff.

< Message edited by demoncleaner -- 21/7/2011 9:48:34 PM >

_____________________________

Just flirting to keep you cheerful.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 136

RE: The Tree Of Life - 22/7/2011 2:00:33 AM

Groovy Mule

Posts: 1089
Joined: 26/11/2005

I will admit that I have never got on with the films of Terence Malick in the past, indeed I have lost track of the number of times I have tried to get through The Thin Red Line without success. Sadly, this is the not a Malick film to convert me. It is, however, one I suspect fans of his particular filmmaking style will love.

This is a piece of mood filmmaking rather than one of narrative and the montage of images from the universe/nature which leads into the ill judged CGI dinosaur scene will test the patience of the more casual filmgoer who is not enraptured with the film or the filmmaker. I believe I counted at least 10 walkouts during or after that montage (more people than I saw walk out of Antichrist in the same screen of the same cinema) and I will admit that I almost joined them. As beautiful as those images were, they were simply a collection of images and I could have been watching a rather elaborate screensaver set to choral music. This film lost me at that point and I was never going to fully engage with it from then on. Compared to Lars Von Trier's Melancholia which uses similar (albeit less beautiful) images, I felt that these scenes weren't justified with regards the narrative.

As for the family life on which the majority of the film focuses, I found the lack of a clear narrative meant I struggled to care about the characters. Brad Pitt's Mr O'Brien is clearly an angry man, unhappy with his lot in life but we don't find out enough about him to make me want to know why or sympathise and I found Pitt and Jessica Chastain to be an unlikely couple with little chemistry. I did, however, think that the 3 boys (and indeed the other children) to be completely natural with a believable brotherly rapport which reminded me of how I would behave with my brother and cousins and had there been a stronger focus on them without the peripheral montages I'd have felt better. Indeed, my favourite scene in the whole film was the older boy watching his father fix the car and you watch him consider whether to drop the jack or not just by the way the camera pans across the scene. Despite my reservations about the film overall, this scene is a piece of genius filmmaking which makes me all the more disappointed that I didn't feel like that about the whole film.

The scenes with Sean Penn were, in my opinion, superfluous. Indeed, I struggled for some time to work out which of the three brothers he was supposed to be and the majority of his scenes are wordless and see Penn looking off into the middle distance looked tortured. I struggled to find any insight in these scenes and don't believe the audience benefit from his involvement.

I have no idea how to score this film so I'm leaving the star rating blank. Whilst I appreciate that some people will fall hard for this film, I found large parts of this film excruiating and unnecessarily navel-gazing in tone. The wider themes of man's relationship with God and the universe and our relative insignificance therein ultimately detract from what I found interesting in the film. My personal opinion is that some judicious editing and/or repositioning of scenes would benefit the film enormously. I would recommend Lars Von Trier's Melancholia as an alternative which also deals with our place in the universe and the fleeting nature of life but in a more satisfying structured way if one, like me, prefers a more narrative driven cinema experience.

< Message edited by Groovy Mule -- 22/7/2011 2:04:39 AM >

_____________________________

Check out my movie blog - Box Office Challenge and reviews

http://londonmovieguy.wordpress.com/

(in reply to demoncleaner)

Post #: 137

IT'S SHIT..... - 23/7/2011 5:08:30 PM

BRAINDRAIN

Posts: 9
Joined: 27/4/2011

WORST FILM OF THE YEAR - EVEN WORSE THAN GREEN LANTERN

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 138

RE: IT'S SHIT..... - 23/7/2011 6:36:53 PM

Tech_Noir

Posts: 20203
Joined: 12/10/2005

Soooo disappointed

The film had no effect on me whatsoever. I'm quite stunned since I'm a huge fan of Badlands, Days of Heaven, Thin Red Line and The New World.

< Message edited by Tech_Noir -- 23/7/2011 6:40:51 PM >

Post #: 139

RE: IT'S SHIT..... - 23/7/2011 6:54:52 PM

Deviation

Posts: 26906
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ

quote:

ORIGINAL: BRAINDRAIN

WORST FILM OF THE YEAR - EVEN WORSE THAN GREEN LANTERN

Really? Say what again?

quote:

Soooo disappointed

The film had no effect on me whatsoever. I'm quite stunned since I'm a huge fan of Badlands, Days of Heaven, Thin Red Line and The New World.

This actually worries me.

_____________________________

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

Post #: 140

RE: IT'S SHIT..... - 23/7/2011 7:07:52 PM

Tech_Noir

Posts: 20203
Joined: 12/10/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

quote:

ORIGINAL: BRAINDRAIN

WORST FILM OF THE YEAR - EVEN WORSE THAN GREEN LANTERN

Really? Say what again?

quote:

Soooo disappointed

The film had no effect on me whatsoever. I'm quite stunned since I'm a huge fan of Badlands, Days of Heaven, Thin Red Line and The New World.

This actually worries me.

Just being honest. I know Malick films are hard viewing but with every one of of other films I was satisfied, this was the first time I left with nothing.

(in reply to Deviation)

Post #: 141

RE: IT'S SHIT..... - 23/7/2011 7:09:34 PM

sanchia

Posts: 16697
Joined: 3/1/2006
From: Norwich

For some reason I think Braindrain may have been dissatisfied with his viewing experience.

_____________________________

Nothing to see here.

(in reply to Deviation)

Post #: 142

? - 23/7/2011 8:22:50 PM

Creamslice

Posts: 3
Joined: 20/7/2011

Emperors new clothes. It's very, very pretty. It's also very, very hollow, pretentious and ultimately meaningless. Death is a bit tough to deal with? The world is a beautiful place? Creation and evolution is amazing and beguiling? Yes. But David Attenborough taught me that decades ago. And he didn't bore me shitless whilst he did it

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 143

RE: The Tree Of Life - 23/7/2011 8:53:24 PM

Creamslice

Posts: 3
Joined: 20/7/2011

quote:

cerebusboy

Hahah Thin blue line. You got me there, what an arse.
I would use the excuse I was brain dead from watching this piece of crap or that I posted past my bedtime but I don't really care.
Anyway, thanks for misquoting me and attacking words and phrases I didn't even use in order to make your point. I have to say your defence of the film was way more entertaining than the film itself.
Your attempts to sound intellectual using phrases like "traditional narrative" and references to Ulysses and words like"dogma" whilst purporting to refer to points I hadn't even made was unconvincing to say the least (though I enjoyed them). I'll point out only one as I'm rapidly losing interest: I didn't damn all voiceovers as pretentious, just the breathless 'farty' ones in this particular piece of work. The pretentiousness is in the delivery and intent. This film evoked no memory of my childhood despite many similarities to my upbringing (far to many to expose publicly on here in fact) which is probably why I was so unimpressed. Well, that and the fact it was boring as hell.
Just to finish; a dictionary definition for you: Pretentious: Attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc, than is actually possessed.
As a reference; Dull, pointless, voiceovers delivered in whispery breathless tones to affect import when they were pure corn.
Thanks, & goodnight.
p.s. You were correct on some points, it was Rowen Atkinson, and it was rubbish.
p.p.s.
I've been an Empire subscriber for many years and have never bothered to post or even browse any of these forums before. It is quite unlikely I ever will again so feel free to reply but do so in the knowledge that it is most unlikely I will ever see it. (Although all your followers or buddies might so go for it)!

(in reply to demoncleaner)

Post #: 144

RE: IT'S SHIT..... - 23/7/2011 9:27:29 PM

Deviation

Posts: 26906
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ

quote:

Just being honest. I know Malick films are hard viewing but with every one of of other films I was satisfied, this was the first time I left with nothing.

I wasn't taking a go at you there. You're one of his biggest fans so this coming from you is actually a bit damning.

Also, can we ban the phrase "emperor's new clothes"?

quote:

Your attempts to sound intellectual using phrases like "traditional narrative"

I can't comment on the rest (I will on the 31st of August) but how on Earth is that phrase intellectual.

< Message edited by Deviation -- 23/7/2011 9:33:53 PM >

_____________________________

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 Tech_Noir)

Post #: 145

RE: The Tree Of Life - 24/7/2011 11:41:20 PM

cerebusboy

Posts: 1552
Joined: 1/5/2006

quote:

Hahah Thin blue line. You got me there, what an arse.
I would use the excuse I was brain dead from watching this piece of crap or that I posted past my bedtime but I don't really care.
Anyway, thanks for misquoting me and attacking words and phrases I didn't even use in order to make your point. I have to say your defence of the film was way more entertaining than the film itself.

Examples? And you need to have a brain before you can brain-dead, no? See, that's Ad hom. Generally frowned on. Worth bearing in mind; in the grown-up world so too is merely making shit up ( care to give ONE example of me misrepresenting your position?)

quote:

Your attempts to sound intellectual using phrases like "traditional narrative" and references to Ulysses and words like"dogma"

LOL! No offense, but if you think "traditional narrative" (!) is a bit overintellectual and hifalutin' then the problem is not mine. Goldilocks and the Three Bears is a traditional narrative FFS!

"Affect import"? Nice. You do see that posting a dictionary definition and then just FLAT OUT STATING AN OPINION in no way advances an argument that the film WARRANTS such a definition. Who, in your cherry-picked definition, is Malick endevouring to impress?

You can't argue fairly with someone who uses intellectual in the pejorative sense (!) because they can play the just-plain-folks that's-just-semantics card when people point out the flaws in their nonsense. Who hasn't heard of Ulysses FFS?

I have no followers or buddies here either. That was a bit of a left-field zinger. Your point about not replying is taken; above is because, personally, I prefer standing by one's opinions and engaging in dialogue to the ol' type-shit-and-run-away approach.

quote:

Your attempts to sound intellectual using phrases like "traditional narrative" and references to Ulysses and words like"dogma"

LOL! I wasn't trying to "sound intellectual". No offence, but "traditional narrative" and "dogma" ain't exactly a candidate for Pseud's Corner. Maybe that's harsh. You might have a point about "dogma". Indeed, I remember when I saw the Kevin Smith movie Dogma, the cinema was full of beard-stroking Sight and Sound fans and guys with doctorates in Film Studies, the movie's title being far too obscure and intellectual for the snootch-to-the-nootch masses.Man, what was Kevin Smith thinking giving a movie a title like that, that only pretentious wannabe-intellectuals could understand!? He might as well just made a 3 hour flick in black and white with esperanto subtitles

(in reply to Creamslice)

Post #: 146

MASTERPIECE - 26/7/2011 12:00:05 AM

bobbyperu

Posts: 497
Joined: 21/10/2007

Terrence Malick just gets better -

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 147

RE: MASTERPIECE - 29/7/2011 1:25:40 PM

great_badir

Posts: 4172
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: A breaking rope bridge in the middle of the jungle

FINALLY saw it last night (having whetted my appetite beforehand with the stunning Criterion Days of Heaven print) in a really hot (temperature wise) Watershed in Bristol on a roll-down projector screen on a tripod and in GLORIOUS MONAURUL SOUND!!!!!

Okay, I'm exaggerating that last bit, but it certainly wasn't the best size screen to see a Malick film (although I'm pretty certain they showed a full digital copy).

Screen was about three quarters full, mix of age ranges and cliques (a surprisingly high number of older teenage/young adult women - I can only assume they were media students or some such). No walk-outs, however one guy way over to the left of me was audibly annoyed at each of the endings, there were a few stifled chortles and it sounded like one woman shit herself at the bit with the air rifle and finger (which really isn't as much of a spoiler as it sounds, cos nothing happens folks).

Easily Malick's worst film, by a country mile. And then some. But it's still brilliant. I think it's one that will be well served by time and repeated viewings - a slow burner, if you will. Yes, you can argue most of the stuff with Sean Penn was superfluous to the meat (and bookends) of the thing, and the climax perhaps asks way too much of an audience, even die-hard Malick fans, who are used to a much more philosophical hand from Malick. It's slow - really slow - and belies its relatively brief two and a quarter hour running time. It frequently meanders and I have to agree with Groovy Mule that a Von Trier film is much more narratively structured. Which is going some.

I think far too much has been made in the press about the (very short) sequence with the dinosaurs and even the good Dr Kermode seems to have unnecessarily athropomorphised and aggrandised the scene far more than is the reality. The whole creation of the universe sequence is jaw-dropping (save for those CGI dinosaurs, which look like...well, which look like CGI dinosaurs) and would be quite the spectacle on a big multiplex screen.

It's not a date movie, it's not for a Malick first-timer, hell it's barely even for those who have seen Thin Red Line and/or The New World.

So see it.

_____________________________

FAVE FILMS
BO BOMBS

(in reply to bobbyperu)

Post #: 148

Why the Dog Made Me Give Up on Tree of Life - 29/7/2011 7:06:48 PM

MMoscow

Posts: 5
Joined: 29/7/2011

The film had already passed the two-hour mark. Not two hours of breath-taking excitment, not two hours of enthralling story-telling, it had been two hours of sporadically interesting but mainly deeply irritating cinema. Then came the scene with the dog and the puddle.

Others have complained about the extended creation scene, the dinosaurs and the absence of narrative - but for me the killer scene was the dog lapping water from a puddle. By then we were tired and bored. All we wanted to see at this point was the end credits, having long-since given up hope of the film ever amounting to anything worthwhile. Instead we got a dog lapping water from a puddle. The dog did not belong to the protaganist or any member of his family. It did not keel over or drown or water-ski (which might have justified the inclusion of this scene in the film).

Even this scene was not the end - on and on the film went. When the credits finally rolled I was so fed up I resolved never to watch another Cannes prize winner. Clearly the jury was spectacularly wide of the mark in evaluating this film.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 149

RE: Why the Dog Made Me Give Up on Tree of Life - 30/7/2011 3:47:34 AM

Deviation

Posts: 26906
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ

quote:

Even this scene was not the end - on and on the film went. When the credits finally rolled I was so fed up I resolved never to watch another Cannes prize winner. Clearly the jury was spectacularly wide of the mark in evaluating this film.

Whatever rocks your boats, no matter how silly it is.

_____________________________