The Genius Of Terence Malick

Actually, you are wrong. His first post was both ignorant and incendiary:

Originally posted by Nevermind
Never heard of him or seen his films but from what you just gave me sounds like a bore. No offence intended. It just sounds soooo pseudo intellectual. If I ever see one of these films in the video store I'll give them a watch to actually see what they are like.

I replied in kind, and so it began...

Just because I've showed you up before, shouldn't compromise your ability to moderate without bias.

Originally posted by Nevermind
No offence intended.

^but what's this?

I believe Nevermind meant no harm, unlike yourself. Plus what he said was no where near as insulting as what you have been chanting for the past 3 pages.

My Moderation Choices are in no way influenced with Bias. Ask any other moderator, They will agree with what I said.

This is exactly the same idiocy which governed your responses in the King Kong thread. Quick re-cap: You said 'bad' language was not allowed, unless it was in the form of a quote. I showed you how this was hypocritical and you promptly altered your profile.

So, I guess I can now do this:

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
I see you didn't get my post, so you must be stupid. No offence intended.

If you know what the word 'incendiary' means, then should be able to see how Nevermind intended his post.

Again, you can ignore the validity of my posts for the sake of not losing 'respect', but you know I'm right.

Krunk'd, DW is right in the sense that your insults are not welcome and are breaking the rules, regaurdless of how valid or true you think they are. Flaming isn't allowed, as you know.

Now please, can we just get back to discussing this guys movies without flaming or put downs?

Anywho, The New World is getting pretty solid reviews at imdb.com - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0402399/

Agreed. That's what I've been trying to do since the start of this thread.

Actually, I did cease with the arguing as I replied to DW's post about 'Badlands':

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Badlands is a starkly beautiful film; dead animals are framed like paintings and psychopaths are set in sunsets. As with all of Malick's movies, it is amazing to look at, but this aesthetic beauty is juxtaposed with a study of the banality of evil. It's kind of like 'Bonnie And Clyde', but with more complex morals.

If anyone - anyone at all - needs help with the vocabulary I've used, you are welcome to use this website:

Oh, what a helpful link!

Welcome.

I read an interview with Sam Mendes recently. He said that while making 'Jarhead', he researched the affect 'anti-war' war movies have on people in the army. Apparently, all war-related material is deemed as porn, regardless of its content. I wonder if they would apply this to 'The Thin Red Line', too?

People's thoughts...

Porn? In what way?

In that the marines view the visual display of war as stimulating when they are prepared for - and awaiting - combat. According to Anthony Swofford, who wrote the autobiography that 'Jarhead' is based on, all war movies get the 'trigger-finger twitching and the dick hard'...

I was just wondering if this is also true of 'The Thin Red Line', as it is unlike any other war movie I've seen...

There's a few movies that successfully show combat/war in a very unexciting way. Paths of Glory and Platoon are the first that come to mind.

Jarhead.

I think the idea is that any depcition of combat is enough to get the marines excited.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
I think the idea is that any depcition of combat is enough to get the marines excited.

It all depends on what Message that the War Movie is trying to get across. I'm mainly speaking of the types of War Movies that Show terrible tragedy, cataclysm, and the after effects of war. Much like 'The Deer Hunter'. The Marines that can relate to those situations wouldn't get 'excited', so to speak.

Apparently, a real marine would disagree with you. Swofford said that all depictions of combat have an arousing affect on a Marine's lust for combat.

That's quite unsettling to think that they could be given such a lust for blood and death and any notion of combat, no matter how tragic, could be seen as exciting. Though, I doubt that fellow has seen all war movies ever made. There's also plenty of real marines who would disagree with Swofford. I'm sure not all of them become that way, seeing as so many of them are horrified by the honest portrayals of combat in films like Platoon.

Anywho, I just saw New World and was pretty disapointed. It was vusually rich and beautiful, but lacked narrative structure and character development almost entirely. It was, like you said, Krunk'd, like a moving painting, but really visual beauty isn't enough to hold a viewer for 2+ hours in a film, when we don't care about the events happening on screen. It seemed Malick was more focused on making the film visually stimulating and beautiful, rather then making the story coherent and exciting or interesting.

Many many beautiful landscape shots and other such things, though.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Movies are more than the sum of their parts.

True. However, sometimes to convince someone you may need to refer to their parts as solid evidence (e.g. acting) rather than the underlying or message the film you think is sending. If that person however again disagrees with you, well then it just comes under matter of opinion.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Aside from that, if you dislike being labelled 'an idiot', then I would recommend you stop acting like one.

Yawn.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
How are his movies like paintings? Perhaps remarking about 'the ethereal beauty of his cinema' is related...

Using adjectives to describe similes is pointless. It's all descriptive language relating to how good his work is.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
How is the infusion of "unrelenting critique of humanity's folly" shown? If you are interested, perhaps you should watch the movies...

Because of the fuss this guy's movies are bring I will watch them. However, if I wasn't already interested you should try to convince me otherwise.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Your behavior is exactly like an unimaginative student. Instead of experiencing the movies for yourself, you want to be told explicitly what is good about them.

I only like to be told what's good (or bad) about a film if I no nothing of the work from the director, writer, actor etc. If you were discussing a Scorsese film for instance I'd need little to no convincing to watch the picture. The reason why I ask is because I don't want to have to go out of my way to watch a movie that could be potentially bad.

Rented "Badlands" tonight. Just an FYI.

So, Cinemaddiction what was your opinion?

Nevermind, you're just repeating the same things you've done throughout this thread. They showed a great deal of ignorance the first time, and there's no change now. Nevermind, you're just repeating the same things you've done thoughout this thread. They showed a great deal of ignorance the first time, and there's no change now.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Nevermind, you're just repeating the same things you've done throughout this thread. They showed a great deal of ignorance the first time, and there's no change now. Nevermind, you're just repeating the same things you've done thoughout this thread. They showed a great deal of ignorance the first time, and there's no change now.

Hypocrite.