Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Tenence Malick has only ever made 4 commercial movies, but they are astonishing movies:

- Badlands
- Days Of Heaven
- The Thin Red Line
- The New World

It's no surprise that a man who was educated at Harvard and Oxford University, taught philosophy at MIT and attended the American Film Institute, has made movies deemed 'intelligent'. Some people find him pretentious, but the ethereal beauty of his cinema should dissolve any accusations of this kind. He makes movies like moving paintings, but he infuses them with unrelenting critique of humanity's folly.

Here are some beautiful stills - and covers/posters - from his movies:

Badlands:

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0790739240.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Days Of Heaven:

http://wcts.whitman.edu/CwTI/summerworkshop/images/magic.jpg

The Thin Red Line:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v158/alawrence101/top%20100/thin-red-line-8.jpg

The New World:

http://daily.greencine.com/archives/new-world-poster.jpg

So, anyone else a fan?

EDIT: Oh, man! I spelt his name incorrectly in the title! Can anyone amend that for me? Amen.

I haven't seen 'The New World' yet, so I shall reserve my vote until then...

I really liked 'The Thin Red Line'. It had an A-cast, and Nick Nolte really showed a good acting side. 'The Thin Red Line' was shot differently than any other Vietnam, or even war flick for that matter. It was with such beauty, It was really something I didn't expect from a war flick. But it came out for the better.

The New world Looks promising, But I Dislike Colin Farrel (sp). He hasn't had a good reputation in my book.

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.

Intelligent films aren't for everyone. Stupid people generally find them to be a little over their heads. Give his movies a try, then you can see which category you fall into...

Originally posted by DarkWizard
I really liked 'The Thin Red Line'. It had an A-cast, and Nick Nolte really showed a good acting side. 'The Thin Red Line' was shot differently than any other Vietnam, or even war flick for that matter. It was with such beauty, It was really something I didn't expect from a war flick. But it came out for the better.

The New world Looks promising, But I Dislike Colin Farrel (sp). He hasn't had a good reputation in my book.

It was the Pacific War.

It was a very solid movie.

I wonder why he doesnt do alot of movies?

Originally posted by Smasandian
It was the Pacific War.


(AKA WW2 for those not in the know..)

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Intelligent films aren't for everyone. Stupid people generally find them to be a little over their heads. Give his movies a try, then you can see which category you fall into...

Just because a person may not like an "intelligent" film doesn't mean they are any less intelligent than you. They may simply not like the story, acting or whatever. I hate it when people do the "If you didn't like it, you didn't get it thing" with movies.

I see you didn't get my post, so you must be stupid.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
I see you didn't get my post, so you must be stupid.

I understood your reply and I just was making a point. Your previous post suggestively stated that If people didn't get it they were stupid. I retorted by saying that wasn't the case. Because it already sounded like you were doing the "If you didn't like it, you didn't get it" thing.

Read my previous post again. My sentiments remain the same.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Read my previous post again. My sentiments remain the same.

Wow, you've just proven you can post without saying anything at all. Congrats.

Once, twice, three times a lady? It is to you that I doth my hat, ma'am.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Once, twice, three times a lady? It is to you that I doth my hat, ma'am.

Read my previous post again. My sentiments remain the same.

Yawn. I see that irony doesn't knock at your door, so I shall have to go remedial on your ass...

Your very first post is a perfect example of redundancy. First, you state that you have not seen any of Malick's movies. Then, you state that - in your infinite comprehension - you have garnered from two positive posts that the movies will most likely be 'pseudo-intellectual' and boring. You say this with no prior knowledge of either the director or the movies! Now, please explain to me again where the posts lacking in worthy content lie...

In response, I'm hoping that you quote my posts and wittily state 'here'.

My cousin actually worked on the editing in The New World, and he said the movie was surprisingly bad.

Really? It looks fantastic, but the presence of Colin does indeed bode ill.

Yeah, my cousin said he was surprised at how bad it was, since he knows some of the directors previous works. But, he's an editor so he has to watch movies like 100 times while putting them together, so maybe he just got really really really sick of it and it put a bad taste in his mouth.

I hope so. I haven't been disappointed in any of his other 3(!) movies.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Yawn. I see that irony doesn't knock at your door, so I shall have to go remedial on your ass...

Your very first post is a perfect example of redundancy. First, you state that you have not seen any of Malick's movies. Then, you state that - in your infinite comprehension - you have garnered from two positive posts that the movies will most likely be 'pseudo-intellectual' and boring. You say this with no prior knowledge of either the director or the movies! Now, please explain to me again where the posts lacking in worthy content lie...

In response, I'm hoping that you quote my posts and wittily state 'here'.

1. I was in the middle of writing my post before DW had posted. So I had only your post to go off from.
2. I gave an opinion of what I thought they might be like from your description. Not my fault you sold me a review that sounded utterly pretentious.
3. Yeah, I posted saying the movie most likely will be etc etc. It's called a first impression. People do it with reviews (like your own) or trailers. It's how people decide whether or not to see a movie.

I get it now. You're being ironic! Right? Right? Well, it's either that, or you fall into the 'intimidated by movies that make you think' category. Can you guess what my money is on? Oh...nevermind.

Haw, haw. Move on, my dear. Move on.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
I get it now. You're being ironic! Right? Right? Well, it's either that, or you fall into the 'intimidated by movies that make you think' category. Can you guess what my money is on? Oh...nevermind.

Haw, haw. Move on, my dear. Move on.

There's no intimidation here just totally boredom and mental masturbation coming form your corner. Instead of trying to convince me further with perhaps a more down-to-earth approach you fire back by calling me stupid whilst opening up opportunities to flex your vocab. If You're going to go on the defensive every time someone disagrees with you, it makes you seem like you're the one being intimidated. Oh the irony!

I voted Badlands, even though I need to see Days of Heaven and his latest film, which looks fantastic.

Badlands is a sublime 70s film, I recommend you see that film at least Nevermind, it's just fabulous. With an amazing music score, especially the music from Carl Orff. The music is used wonderfully in one scene involving a tree house and men with guns slowly walking up to the tree house to try and catch the couple . Fantastic.

Originally posted by MildPossession
I voted Badlands, even though I need to see Days of Heaven and his latest film, which looks fantastic.

Badlands is a sublime 70s film, I recommend you see that film at least Nevermind, it's just fabulous. With an amazing music score, especially the music from Carl Orff. The music is used wonderfully in one scene involving a tree house and men with guns slowly walking up to the tree house to try and catch the couple . Fantastic.

Oh I will give them a try like a said in my first post. Thank you for pointing out something good about his films. Same with you DW.

Originally posted by Nevermind
There's no intimidation here just totally boredom and mental masturbation coming form your corner. Instead of trying to convince me further with perhaps a more down-to-earth approach you fire back by calling me stupid whilst opening up opportunities to flex your vocab. If You're going to go on the defensive every time someone disagrees with you, it makes you seem like you're the one being intimidated. Oh the irony!

If you have a penis, you jerk-off once in a while. If you have a brain...

I have no interest in simplifying my vocabularly to appease someone who showed in his very first post to be totally ignorant. If you had actually seen any of his films, then I would have been happy to discuss them with you. As it is, you make presumptions that have no basis in experience, and clearly demonstrate a level of ignorance that would denote to most people that you are a gibbering amoeba.

You were right about one thing, though; I am totally bored with you. Please try and back-track some more, to keep the wonderful chicken dance you're doing going. I like it when you flap your wings.

Nothing to see here...

I've decided to honor you with one more remedial class.



+

Originally posted by MildPossession
Badlands is a sublime 70s film, I recommend you see that film at least Nevermind, it's just fabulous. With an amazing music score, especially the music from Carl Orff. The music is used wonderfully in one scene involving a tree house and men with guns slowly walking up to the tree house to try and catch the couple . Fantastic.

x

A Dictionary

=

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Some people find him pretentious, but the ethereal beauty of his cinema should dissolve any accusations of this kind. He makes movies like moving paintings, but he infuses them with unrelenting critique of humanity's folly.

I've simplified it even further for you...

Dark Wizard's + Mild Possession's x A Dictionary = Ya Krunk'd Floo's

I can go even more 'Nevermind' for you:

DW + MP x D = YKF

Now, please either watch the movies or cluck out of here.

Originally posted by Smasandian
It was the Pacific War.

I knew I said something wrong there. Yesterday I had Vietnam Jammed into my head after watching.....

Full Metal Jacket

Platoon

and The Deer Hunter

For some reason it seemed like a good idea at the time to watch as many 'nam movies as possible.




As for The Argument, Let's tone it down a bit eh?

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
If you have a penis, you jerk-off once in a while. If you have a brain...

I have no interest in simplifying my vocabularly to appease someone who showed in his very first post to be totally ignorant. If you had actually seen any of his films, then I would have been happy to discuss them with you. As it is, you make presumptions that have no basis in experience, and clearly demonstrate a level of ignorance that would denote to most people that you are a gibbering amoeba.

I never ask you to simplifying your vocab, and what I love about your's that you can create such an impressive opinion about the film without saying much at all. Bravo. As for the movie/s, I posted an assumption of what I thought they might (2nd time I've had to underline that for you) be like. I could be totally wrong they could very well be as grand as you make them out to be. Which is why I said I would watch them. My comments in my 1st post were more directed to you than the movies, since you represented them in your review.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
You were right about one thing, though; I am totally bored with you. Please try and back-track some more, to keep the wonderful chicken dance you're doing going. I like it when you flap your wings.

If I've been going in circles it's only because you've been bring up the same points over & over again.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
I've simplified it even further for you...

Dark Wizard's + Mild Possession's x A Dictionary = Ya Krunk'd Floo's


No see it doesn't. In your first post you cum all over the guy by talking about his background (fair enough, I won't prosecute you there). Then you just talk about how good the movie is. MP and DP said why his movies were good. You failed to mention any production value at all. DW mention the great casting and MP mention a great music score. How about next time you write about how good a film is you list reasons why they are.

A dictionary + You = a pointless rant.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Now, please either watch the movies or cluck out of here.

Who died and made you mod?

Wow. Your drivel never ceases to dribble dry, huh? That's impressive in itself, if we found ourselves in a thread named 'Nevermind and The Banality He Spews', however this happens to be a thread about the films of Terence Malick. Films that you have neither seen, nor - prior to this thread - even heard about! I congratulate you for being obstinate enough to continue posting, but you really are just making a fool out of yourself. Still, if your aim is to be a sad clown...ha. Ha. Clap. Clap.

You're clutching at straws with your 'failed to mention any production value at all' jibe. You managed to register that I stated the movies are good, but you seem to think that a comment like "Ooo, nice casting!" is more relevent than an observation of his films as a whole! You are a silly clown, aren't you?

If you were an intelligent person you would realise the error of your ways and quitely slip away. However, you being the antithesis of this type of character, I await your next slack-jawed slobber with a feeling of gentle ambivalence; I like showing you up, but I also find it rather boring. What's it to be, Coco?

Take it to PM.

It's cool. I'm done.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Wow. Your drivel never ceases to dribble dry, huh? That's impressive in itself, if we found ourselves in a thread named 'Nevermind and The Banality He Spews', however this happens to be a thread about the films of Terence Malick. Films that you have neither seen, nor - prior to this thread - even heard about! I congratulate you for being obstinate enough to continue posting, but you really are just making a fool out of yourself. Still, if your aim is to be a sad clown...ha. Ha. Clap. Clap.

You're clutching at straws with your 'failed to mention any production value at all' jibe. You managed to register that I stated the movies are good, but you seem to think that a comment like "Ooo, nice casting!" is more relevant than an observation of his films as a whole! You are a silly clown, aren't you?

If you were an intelligent person you would realise the error of your ways and quitely slip away. However, you being the antithesis of this type of character, I await your next slack-jawed slobber with a feeling of gentle ambivalence; I like showing you up, but I also find it rather boring. What's it to be, Coco?

Wow! More than half of that is insulting me than actually retorting to my post. True, I know nothing of the Terence Malick's work, which is why I come to a forum to learn more about film and discuss the one's I love. Silly me coming here to assuming I could learn something about this guy.

Dear God! You say I'm doing the chicken dance! I have responded to this a million times. I gave an assumption of what I thought they MIGHT be like. God gave me the freedom of speech and I am entitled to use it.

Yeah, I think a comment like "Nice casting" is more relevant than your view on movies as a whole. Because you fail to give any evidence on how the greater aspects of the film were done.

I thought I share this last comment with the public. Like DW said, if you want to continue with this little debate you hold so dear give me a PM.

First off, it's hardly a debate! I'm educating you, but you offer nothing in return!

Now to the only part of your post that respected DarkWizard's warning:

Originally posted by Nevermind
Yeah, I think a comment like "Nice casting" is more relevant than your view on movies as a whole. Because you fail to give any evidence on how the greater aspects of the film were done.

Are you ready for kindergarten class? OK, let's begin...

My view:



Evidence offered:



Conclusion:



My work with you is done. If you need any more lessons, seek a remedial class teacher. I find it rather boring to have to simplify my language for kids who cannot understand.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
He makes movies like moving paintings, but he infuses them with unrelenting critique of humanity's folly.


So much for being done. This is not evidence. This is saying how good they are. If his movies are like movies painting, how is this done? Camera work? Dialogue? Mention something. How is the infusion of "unrelenting Critique of humanity's folly" shown? Great casts? Wonderful scripts? Fantastic teaching there. Are you sure your not taking a seat in this remedial class of your's?

I haven't seen Badlands. Is it any good?

Originally posted by Nevermind
So much for being done. This is not evidence. This is saying how good they are. If his movies are like movies painting, how is this done? Camera work? Dialogue? Mention something. How is the infusion of "unrelenting Critique of humanity's folly" shown? Great casts? Wonderful scripts? Fantastic teaching there. Are you sure your not taking a seat in this remedial class of your's?

Movies are more than the sum of their parts.

Aside from that, if you dislike being labelled 'an idiot', then I would recommend you stop acting like one.

How are his movies like paintings? Perhaps remarking about 'the ethereal beauty of his cinema' is related...

How is the infusion of "unrelenting critique of humanity's folly" shown? If you are interested, perhaps you should watch the movies...

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.

If you are an adult, I fing it terribly sad to see such pathetic behavior. You have contributed nothing to this thread, apart from being a case-study of humiliation. Another aspect of an annoying child, is that they don't know when to stop when they are doing something wrong. I suggest you take my advice: Stop now.

Originally posted by DarkWizard
I haven't seen Badlands. Is it any good?

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.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
If you are an adult, I fing it terribly sad to see such pathetic behavior. You have contributed nothing to this thread, apart from being a case-study of humiliation. Another aspect of an annoying child, is that they don't know when to stop when they are doing something wrong. I suggest you take my advice: Stop now.


I think you should look over that message yourself. Calling comeone an 'Idiot', 'stupid' or a 'Clown' for that matter, isn't very High on the Maturity scale. Not only is it immature, but you started it. You really did. Just because someone has a different view of things does not give you the right to Throw words at random. If someone doesn't flow the same way as you do, they aren't inferrior to you. That's a problem you should work on.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
I see you didn't get my post, so you must be stupid.

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.