Fuck you, I liked it

It is easily my favorite of Malick's filmography.

I thought it was Malick's best actually. His most mature and the imagery on par with the likes of Samsara

First you explain what you mean by your blanket statements and then I consider answering to a loaded question

post account

Watched this a month ago, dont remember kinnaman or offerman in it, when do they appear?

I think that's a fanmade poster

But i checked and they are really in this film

They got cut
Being cut from a Malick film is a greater honor than appearing in one

The film ceased to have narrative, characters, and hardly any themes or ideas.

The cinematic equivalent of stretching out a 5 minute short about a successful man not finding true happiness in luxury and searching for more and stretching it out to 2 hours.

It was pretty, but fuck, it was a mess.

is private, so not much use, personal logging for fun

>The film ceased to have narrative
wow WOW WHAT

every segment had a narrative of its own that complimented to bigger picture narrative of rick finding the push to go search something ***REAL*** for himself did we watch the same film?

Not a native speaker, what the fuck is knight of cups supossed to mean

It's extraordinary. Highly recommend Brody's review to fans.

>Perhaps no film in the history of cinema follows the movement of memory as faithfully, as passionately, or as profoundly as Terrence Malick’s new film, “Knight of Cups.” It’s an instant classic in several genres—the confessional, the inside-Hollywood story, the Dantesque midlife-crisis drama, the religious quest, the romantic struggle, the sexual reverie, the family melodrama—because the protagonist’s life, like most people’s lives, involves intertwined strains of activity that don’t just overlap but are inseparable from each other. The movie runs less than two hours and its focus is intimate, but its span seems enormous—not least because Malick has made a character who’s something of an alter ego, and he endows that character with an artistic identity and imagination as vast and as vital as his own.

>As such, “Knight of Cups” is one of the great recent bursts of cinematic artistry, a carnival of images and sounds that have a sensual beauty, of light and movement, of gesture and inflection, rarely matched in any movie that isn’t Malick’s own. Here, he—and his cinematographer, Emmanuel Lubezki—surpass themselves. Where “The Tree of Life” is filled with memories, is even about memory, “Knight of Cups” is close to a first-person act of remembering, and the ecstatic power of its images and sounds is a virtual manifesto, and confession, of the cinematic mind at work. It’s a mighty act of self-portraiture in dramatic action and in directorial creation.

newyorker.com/culture/richard-brody/terrence-malicks-knight-of-cups-challenges-hollywood-to-do-better

>Themes or ideas.
That are plenty as show in various visual motifs of suns, submerging, ascending and visual metaphors (ie. the dog trying to catch the ball)

doooooooon't think we watched the same film at all

i never finished the new world, lads. should i go back and watch it, or is it not at patrician as i'd want it to be?

the fact you are posting in Cred Forums asking about this already disqualifies you from being a patrician

It's a tarot card, which is a theme/motif of the film. The chapters are divided as such.

>If the card is upright, it represents change and new excitements, particularly of a romantic nature. It can mean invitations, opportunities, and offers. The Knight of Cups is a person who is a bringer of ideas, opportunities and offers. He is constantly bored, and in constant need of stimulation, but also artistic and refined. He represents a person who is amiable, intelligent, and full of high principles, but a dreamer who can be easily persuaded or discouraged.

>Reversed, the card represents unreliability and recklessness. It indicates fraud, false promises and trickery. It represents a person who has trouble discerning when and where the truth ends and lies begin.

We must have, I knew the extent of where the film was going to take me in the first 10 mins and the rest was a slog of nothing of interest happening for long periods of time, and when something relevant started to happen, the direction went out of its way to be as unengaging as possible.

Like, I hesistate to call this a film.

Only watch the director's cut.

>nothing happened.
but plenty happened though.

>unengaging.
I think there are maybe 2-3 films that have gotten me this engaged to a film and I'm not even rich person living in LA with a fancy job

and you were flatout wrong about lack of themes, ideas or narratives in KoC. Like it's just wrong read of the film.

>Like, I hesistate to call this a film.

No shit, there's a word for that: KINO.

It is.

My reply got swallowed so I hope this one goes through.

If you're looking for developed characters and strong narrative, sure. But as a strong, emotional experience that comes as close as a movie can get to life, it's amazing.

Maybe it's just me, but it strikes me as Malick trying more and more to put the experience of living into the screen - you remember talking to someone, you may remember you had an argument, but you only remember parts of it, and those moments were the ones that made an impression and stay stuck into your mind.

Myself, I've dated a couple girls I don't even remember their names but I remember something they said or a moment together, I'll remember being angry at a family member but not remember why, I'll remember seeing something on the street that stuck despite not having any meaning.

It felt moving and relatable

The New World DC > Days of Heaven > Badlands > TTRL >TTW > TOL > KOC

I think you kids get a bit lost in the hype or just haven't been exposed to much art cinema.

Fuck off to Cred Forums.
Word you are looking for is tone poem, which isn't a bad read since Malick's influenced by Murnau and his work is often referred to as tone poems.

>It was the most thematically thin, shallow, pretentious, cold and uninteresting film i've seen in quite a long time.

>Loving the worst film Malick has done.
Com the fuck on TNW was just ignorant, dumb and naive in so many fucking levels.

I hope you're not going to prattle on about the noble savage trope, because if you are, you didn't get the film.

Just wanted to post some images and hopefully people who are ok with more ethereal storytelling may get interested.

natalie has qt hands

>Fuck off to Cred Forums.

No, you. It's cinema as art, an incredible feat of visual storytelling.

Yes I'm going to prattle about it.

I didn't say nothing happened, I said nothing OF INTEREST happened.

I'm struggling to put it into words, it's almost anti-filmmaking.

Instead of attempting to grasp the audience into the film and making them forget they are watching a film, or creating "hyper reality" which is common for pulpy sorts of films (or the more experimental stuff, ie Daisies/Lynch's work) the film goes out of it's way to mask the characters, story and themes with this gimmick of near silence aside from disjointed, slow, pretentious poetry in voiceover, as the camera slowly lulls around.

It was style over substance, but the style was the equivelent of listening to one solid note for 2 hours. I can take weird, I can take experiemental, I can take floaty and slow (if done well like Days of Heaven or Picnic at Hanging Rock) but this just failed to captivate despite the obvious skill in the cinematography.

Perhaps I misspoke, there is a lot of symbology in the film, but when the main theme of the film is spoken to you in voiceover in the most direct way possible than the symbols cease to be AHA moments and just become an exercise in beating a dead horse.

I'm glad you found the enjoyment I sook. I just hope his next film doesn't follow this same path.

Like you, I fucked it.

Watch it again, the director's cut. That's not what it's about.

>Instead of attempting to grasp the audience into the film
Malick isn't there to pander, he is doing his thing.

>making them forget they are watching a film,
Are you trying to watch Malick for cheap escapism? Anyways, I were barely aware I was watching a film during it whatever.

> this gimmick of near silence aside from disjointed, slow, pretentious poetry in voiceover
Seems like you can't read visual language.

>Style over substance.
Style is very much the substance when it comes to auteur directors.

Learn some reading comprehension, I provided the two most common frameworks for a film, and you latched onto the nearly irrelevent one in an attempt to immediately discredit my opinion.

I can read visual language just fine, if there was a puzzle to solve than it would be great. HE SPELLS OUT ALL OF THE THEMES COVERED IN THE FILM IN THE FIRST 5 MINUTES.

>style is very much substance

It can be if you have substantive style, like I said, the direction was one note for the whole film.

jeez, you legitimately wanted a puzzle and obfuscation. thats pleb af

>to mask the characters, story and themes with this gimmick of near silence aside from disjointed, slow, pretentious poetry in voiceover, as the camera slowly lulls around.

You're missing the point and judging it as you judge any run-of-the-mill mainstream film.

Stop.

The reason dialogue comes and goes is because only the parts that left an impression on Rick/Malick are played aloud. The reason poetry is read over some scenes is because Rick/Malick is seeing the connection between his life and something he read. The reason seemingly disjointed moments are spliced together I because those moments were what, added together over his life, allowed him to get his life back on track, from being hurt and damaged by death and disappointment into a worthwhile person that learned to hope and move on

Shit taste.

>C__Data_Users_DefApps_AppData_INTERNETEXPLORER_Temp_Saved Images_knight-of-cups-1.png

I don't even know where to begin with that.

thats what autists and lesser viewers look for in movies

>HE SPELLS OUT ALL OF THE THEMES COVERED IN THE FILM IN THE FIRST 5 MINUTES.
You can say that about Tree of Life too when it opens with a quote from Job.

and theres.norhing wrong with this tfww ogone slpellccheck is SHIT

>imagery on par with the likes of Samsara
kill yourself

>visual metaphors (ie. the dog trying to catch the ball)
really makes you think

If your entire film was nothing but symbology, if you REALLY want to strip your film of narrative, character, tone or nearly everything you have in your arsenal in the medium, at LEAST have respect enough for the audience to develop the meaning over time through your visual poetry instead of bringing then to the thematic finish line at the beginning and beating them over the head with """""subtle""""" allusions to the themes you've already provided for them free of mental charge.

It would be like Da Vinci leaving a post-it-note on the Mona Lisa explaining exactly how you are supposed to take the work. It ruins the whole thing.

he isnt pretending to be subtle, he isnt even trying, wrong read again..

Then what, how are you entertained?

It would be like me writing "killing is bad" 4 million times in a row and telling you to read it, occasionally switching up the size of letters and the pen color.

What enjoyment is there left?

>instead of bringing then to the thematic finish line at the beginning
Are you referring to the Pilgrim's Progress narration at the beginning? There are many ideas developed through the film that aren't related to that quotation.

>the subtlety meme

autists fuck off

It's about the act of remembering and the way the story action intersects with bits of memories, audio. The brief scenes you remember throughout your life. As such it's in a class of its own. There is no film that does w/ this does, how it does it. It's art.

Go ahead, list a few.

because that's not at all the same as feeling the images he puts on screen and moving in time with them, feeling their cumulative effect.

>no one posted the feet

what happened to Cred Forums?

in his. visual language lies my enjoyment

so you're asking other people to do the critical thinking for you?

maybe you should just read the criticism that's already out there and stop being such a lazy cunt.

Nice, well put rebuttal.

Just because you are unique doesn't make you special, or useful.

I wouldn't argue it's not art, but man is it shit art.

It seems to be a common theme that people who like this film like it because it's similar to how memories work, is that it? Just the exercise in strange presentation?

I'm honestly trying to see the appeal.

Film is more than pretty imagery.

As expected, you have no facts to back up your arguments and use the "spoonfeeding" excuse to back out of responsibility to back up those arguments.

I really want to know what you mean by this.

Like in a oooooo shiny pretty lights kind of way? Just captivated by the spectacle?

The Tarot for starters
The very title and the chapters allude to how Rick is not really very much a devout pilgrim like Bunyan's Christian bounding towards "Life, life, eternal life!" but a constant wanderer and daydreamer who keeps shuttling back and forth between hedonism and the search for something greater
All the opening quote does is set up a kind of a quest wherein Rick tries to find something worth living beyond the material world that he's always suffocated by

Here

The one person in the thread that didn't understand the movie complaining that the movie's themes were too transparent and on-the-nose is pretty hilarious.

Very 15yo-in-creative-writing-class.

>you just don't get it maaaaan

Very middle school of you.

you don't seem to understand when people say this movie is 'kino' they are being ironic and memeing.

wasnt the worst thing i saw this year, bantz aside, while i wasnt stunned, i wasnt bored

What site is that

Mubi

>you have no facts to back up your arguments
Neither have you. Your argument is entirely based on conjecture. You say that the film does or does not do X and is therefore bad but you haven't actually tried to ground why the presence of absence of X is bad. I'm not saying that Cred Forums is the best place for in depth, symbolic logic heavy discussions but at least don't ask from others more than what you are willing to give yourself.

It seems like the impasse is you having a conception of what it means for a film to be good which differs from the people you are arguing with. Instead of discussing the elements of the film in a vacuum we need to consider what it is that Malick is trying to do and then to consider if this purpose itself is artistically good. Only then can we ask the questions of the suitability of means.

...

Lord knows how many times iv fapped to the foot scene on youtube, How is Hershlag such a fucking Sex Goddess?I get rock hard just remembering her feet and how she is slowly directing bale when to put her foot in his mouth. Pure Footkino

...