View Full Version : Terrence Malick to direct again!
JimDriver2
17-07-2003, 22:25
Empire are reporting he's working on a new film:
http://www.empireonline.co.uk/news/news.asp?story=4892
sounds pretty good and seeing as The Thin Red Line is one of the greatest films of all time and Badlands is fantastic as well (I haven't seen his other one) this is certainly something to look forward to!:clap: :clap: :clap:
hookbeak
17-07-2003, 22:48
Must be just me that thought the Thin Red Line was a witheringly dull, pretentious bunch of arse then :)
Idle Child
17-07-2003, 23:41
Originally posted by hookbeak
Must be just me that thought the Thin Red Line was a witheringly dull, pretentious bunch of arse then :)
No, it wasn't just you. I also thought the same.
[film ignorance] Admittedly, i'm not in a position to judge his work having only seen Thin Red Line, but by that film alone, i can't say i find the news of another Malik film a mouth watering prospect.[/film ignorance].
tj_director
18-07-2003, 00:06
i for one am looking forward to anything by him.. :)
Squirrel God
18-07-2003, 02:45
Originally posted by Idle Child
No, it wasn't just you. I also thought the same.
Add me to the "Thin Red Line is crap list" too please :gag:
jonathan.e
18-07-2003, 06:35
Another in the "TRL is a waste of celluloid" club here :wave:
Originally posted by jonathan.e
Another in the "TRL is a waste of celluloid" club here :wave:
And me :oh-hum:
Assilem23
18-07-2003, 08:35
Just to stand up for Malick and The Thin Red Line - it's a masterpiece of modern cinema. Badlands is another masterpiece and Days Of Heaven is pretty damn good too. Malick's films are poetry, they are about image and word fused to make a statement on the human condition. I would use words like "beautiful", "stunning", "elegaic" to describe his films - certainly not "a waste of celluloid" or "crap".
THIN RED LINE as it stands is a pretentious load of rambling crud with some admittedly lovely cinematography, but one of the worst voiceovers in cinema history (topped only by the one in A.I imho).
However, I would love to see the original edit before Adrien Brody's character (the lead in the book) was almost cut out of the film entirely .... hence the lack of notable plot structure in the current version.
jonathan.e
18-07-2003, 09:01
Originally posted by Assilem23
Just to stand up for Malick and The Thin Red Line - it's a masterpiece of modern cinema. Badlands is another masterpiece and Days Of Heaven is pretty damn good too. Malick's films are poetry, they are about image and word fused to make a statement on the human condition. I would use words like "beautiful", "stunning", "elegaic" to describe his films - certainly not "a waste of celluloid" or "crap".
No argument from me about Badlands or Days of Heaven but I stand by my comments about TRL which would have been disappointing enough from a first time director but from someone of Malick’s calibre it was unforgivable.
Add me to the "The Thin Red Line is a modern classic" brigade. I'd never seen a war film that I found more moving.
I thought Malick started out with a masterpiece with Badlands and then his next 2 films were progressively even better than the last one. He deserves as much acclaim as Kubrick did in his prime and personally I prefer Malicks work.
Can't wait to see what he will do next
Thank god, thought it was just me who thought TRL was overrated garbage!
Whatever the cinematography was like the seemingly endless barrage of pointless cameo's did it in for me (I know there wasn't thousands of them but it felt like it :)).
jonathan.e
18-07-2003, 09:22
Originally posted by Xtro
Whatever the cinematography was like the seemingly endless barrage of pointless cameo's did it in for me (I know there wasn't thousands of them but it felt like it :)).
With John (I’m not fat) Travolta’s being the worst offence.
JimDriver2
18-07-2003, 09:35
why on earth has this turned into a "I hate the thin red line" thread? Did any of you even bother reading the story? I was hoping for a discussion about his new film. Instead a bunch a people just pad their post count with pointless I don't like I don't like that posts. What really is the point? :brickwall
rant over. :D
jonathan.e
18-07-2003, 09:55
Originally posted by JimDriver2
why on earth has this turned into a "I hate the thin red line" thread?
If you’re going to make a frankly unsupportable and hyperbolic statement like:
Originally posted by JimDriver2
..seeing as The Thin Red Line is one of the greatest films of all time
then you should expect some brickbats with the bouquets.
Jon Cybernet
18-07-2003, 09:55
Badlands is probably my all time favourite film. As for the new one, Benicio is certainly interesting casting for Che. It took me a while to warm up to him as an actor, but now I suspect he *may* be a genius.
<I>The Thin Red Line</i> is soooooooooooo misunderstood. It's far superior to the other WWII movie that came out the same year. It's worth the price alone for Nick Nolte's performance.
JimDriver2
18-07-2003, 10:16
Originally posted by jonathan.e
If you’re going to make a frankly unsupportable and hyperbolic statement like:
then you should expect some brickbats with the bouquets.
Oh i'm sorry i didn't realise this wasn't a public forum where people are allowed to hold their own opinions. I do apologise for expressing a view that doesn't conform to the set standard.
In the future i'll make sure I never say anything is any good unless i'm sure everyone is of the same opinion. Whats that? There isn't one single film everyone round here argee's is good. I guess we all better be quiet then :p
jonathan.e
18-07-2003, 10:34
Originally posted by JimDriver2
Oh i'm sorry i didn't realise this wasn't a public forum where people are allowed to hold their own opinions. I do apologise for expressing a view that doesn't conform to the set standard.
In the future i'll make sure I never say anything is any good unless i'm sure everyone is of the same opinion. Whats that? There isn't one single film everyone round here argee's is good. I guess we all better be quiet then :p
Don’t be facile. You espouse the right to air your own views yet decry others for expressing theirs. Hypocritical much?
JimDriver2
18-07-2003, 10:48
Originally posted by jonathan.e
Don’t be facile. You espouse the right to air your own views yet decry others for expressing theirs. Hypocritical much?
Not in the least. I have no problem with people airing their views but my point was there was no need in this thread. It just turned into another one of these lets all moan about a film we don't like because someone has mentioned it. There is just far to much of it on these forums (Star Wars anyone?) and it just ruins what could be good discussions as intended by the original poster. There are pently of threads where people say certain films are great that I don't think are. However the only reason I can see for me to post 'no thats pants I don't like it' is to pad my post count.
You want a thread bemoaning how disappointing TRL was, start a new thread saying that. I've got no problem with that. Other people have the complete right to dislike the film as much as I like it. What I have a problem with this is the hijacking of positive based threads into endless 'nah its rubbish your stupid for liking it' debates. I'm not being hypocritical in the slightlest, what i'm asking people for is that they use their liberty of opinion in a way that is respectful and kind to others.
jonathan.e
18-07-2003, 11:08
If you don’t want people commenting on TRL then don’t mention it in your post. You opened the door with your own comments, after that it’s fair game for others to give their opinion on the entire content of your post not just the narrow parameters you‘re comfortable with.
I don’t see where people called you stupid for liking it, could you point that out for us? If you don’t want to defend what you say and write then don’t bring it up on a discussion board such as this. It’s a valid area of comment anyway as it goes to "why should we get excited about Malick’s new film when his last was so turgid and dull?" as evidenced by the many replies to this thread.
Since Mr Malick has only made three films to date then we are kind of limited in the variety of discussion topics available are we not ? ;)
JimDriver2
18-07-2003, 11:31
My point is that there is absolutely no need for people to fill a thread with endless 'so and so film is complete tosh' when thats not the point of the thread. The emphasis was clear that it regarded the potential film that is being made. I only mentioned TRL as evidence for why I looked forward to that film. If you want to respond to the emphasis and make reference to my statement thats fine, but that wasn't the case here. It was just lots of little posts that went along the lines of
'I think the TRL is pants'
and made no reference to the emphasis at all. The thread then becomes no longer a discussion about Malick and his planned work but a list of pads that ruins the discussion. It happens all the time round here. You just mention you like Star Wars and any such thread degrades into a 'stars wars is rubbish' thread. There is only one reason for that people give no consideration for the opinions of others. Someone disagrees with them and wants to discuss there likes but they end up being shouted down by unconsiderate people.
Just because you dislike a topic someone else is discussing doesn't mean you have the right to ruin their discussion. Just because something is being discussed doesn't mean you have to be involved. I could go round loads of threads where people make reference to films I don't like and just go on about how rubbish I think the film is. However I don't because I don't want to ruin other peoples discussion which is going on in a positive way.
Why should I have to 'defend' my viewpoint of my liking a film against people who don't. That wasn't what the thread was about it all. Your saying that on a trivial matter such as films I can't hold an opinion without being subject to attacks.
All I am calling for is people to behave in a kind and respectful way to other people who they disagree with, its not much to ask. Lastly I didn't say anyone called me stupid rather I pointed out that sometimes such debates just result in that. I'm no longer going to continue this as I've given my opinion and have better things to do.
Originally posted by Garry Cowell
<I>The Thin Red Line</i> is soooooooooooo misunderstood. It's far superior to the other WWII movie that came out the same year. It's worth the price alone for Nick Nolte's performance. :clap: Nolte is fantastic in it, a big ball of rage and spit! I love it when he's like that.
Michael Brooke
18-07-2003, 11:52
Originally posted by JimDriver2
Just because you dislike a topic someone else is discussing doesn't mean you have the right to ruin their discussion. Just because something is being discussed doesn't mean you have to be involved. I could go round loads of threads where people make reference to films I don't like and just go on about how rubbish I think the film is. However I don't because I don't want to ruin other peoples discussion which is going on in a positive way.
With respect, I think you're protesting a little too much. Like it or not, your original post was dominated by your OTT assertion about <I>The Thin Red Line</I> (my own take on which is that you'd have to be blind not to appreciate its visual virtues, but deaf not to recognise that much of the dialogue and all of the voiceover does it very few favours: it's often extraordinary, but demonstrably flawed), and you yourself said nothing about the new film - even though I would have thought there was a fair bit to discuss in terms of its subject matter alone.
Consider: if the film actually gets off the ground, it will be one of the only times Hollywood has tackled a Cuban revolutionary subject from what I assume will be a sympathetic-to-the-enemy standpoint, and the casting of Benicio del Toro looks mouthwatering - I haven't seen an actor and subject so perfectly matched since Arnie took up his broadsword in <I>Conan the Barbarian</I>!
tj_director
18-07-2003, 13:27
Jim you've got a very good point, a lot of these threads do end up being some kind of poll. (ok i can be part of the blame, my post wasn't exactly anything other than "i love/i hate")... and i just want to say i support your posts, so what if you didn't point out that you wanted a discussion and not a poll.. you shouldn't have to, this is meant to be a film discussion forum.. when someone posts "Is this film any good" or "should Mr.X direct again?" then poll type posts are pefectly fine... when i read a thread about a director or someone doing something, and if i don't like them, i simply don't post anything, why should i go out of my way to say how much i hate a film, when someone clearly loves it and is happy to see something else like it happening again. Had you simply posted TRL is the greatest film ever full stop, then i think yes you should have expected poll posts, but you didn't, and you're right to complain.. i just wished people didn't take your complaint too much to heart and start complaining about you complaining, like english teachers or something!! :)
Johnny Vodka
18-07-2003, 13:33
I like TRL, though have only seen it once. Intend digging it out again soon. :dork:
Michael Brooke
18-07-2003, 13:34
That's all very well, but what about <I>Che</I>? Or am I the only person with any kind of opinion on it (however uninformed)?
Originally posted by Michael Brooke
That's all very well, but what about <I>Che</I>? Or am I the only person with any kind of opinion on it (however uninformed)?
Irrespective of my views regarding THE THIN RED LINE I'm a nut for pretty much any kind of historical film so I'll certainly be interested in seeing this one :)
How's that MB ? :D
To get back on topic then for the sake of the thread's starter...
No, I couldn't give a EDIT about Mr Malick making a new film :p
(Part of the fun of forums is the twist and turns of threads IMHO, tis only a discussion forum, I don't get upset by it! :))
In my opinion Badlands, Days Of Heaven & The Thin Red Line are three of the most extraordinary and beautiful films ever made - I have seen them all countless of times and each time I appreciate, and find something new.
The sublime mix between nature and humanity is perfectly realised and combined with outstanding soundtracks they offer me the perfect celluloid combination.
In the absence of Malick, I have taken to the films of David Gordon Green (who is currently working with him on Undertow), and whose GEORGE WASHINGTON & ALL THE REAL GIRLS echo much of Malick's work.
I for one, cannot wait (& before anyone asks, no, I'm not him (!), just a massive fan who has dedicated his own cinema to his work.
Admittedly, I'm sceptical. Whilst 'Badlands' and 'Days of Heaven' still rank as two of the finest American films of the seventies, 'The Thin Red Line' was a definite drop in quality. Of course, this could have been due to the twenty year gap between 'Days...' and '...Line', so maybe the new pic will see a return to form.
The presence of Steven Soderbergh as producer is comforting - despite occasional lapses his name is always attached to an interesting movie.
As to the casting of Benicio Del Toro - this is likely to be the make-or-break element. He's an unpredictable talent, his performances easily swapping between the sublime ('The Usual Suspects') and the ridiculous ('The Pledge').
Still, anything would be an improvement over Richard Fleischer's version.
"Che" sounds very interesting although it can't possibly be as much daffy fun as the 1960s version with Jack Palance as Castro.
My view on Mr Malick is that "Badlands" is fantastic, nothing more to say. "Days of Heaven" is beautiful to look at but suffers from an anorexic narrative and "The Thin Red Line" has the same problem but more so.
I think Mike has it there. Badlands is my favourite film of all time. Days of Heaven is a gorgeous disaster. Witheringly beautiful but without the naturalistic performances needed in a Spacek or a Sheen to make the characters intriguing and double edged.
The Thin Red Line is a dense and extremely powerful novel, bravely transfered to screen in typical Malick style. It does not quite work but to dismiss it as a barrel load of filth is completely missing the point. It does touch brilliantly on the nature of warfare and the psychological battle that is simultaneously being played out between each combatant's ears. Visually stunning and with some fine cameos. Nolte, Chaplin and Koteas in particular, it requires dedication and not a little understanding of Malick's raison d'etre.
I fear Malick's visionary style will not suit a biopic so am not confident for Che and even that Malick will stay the course.
I would be interested in seeing the critical reaction to Che,
the attitude of the american right towards cuba is completely irrational and disproportionate to the 'threat' posed. Castro in particular is close to being the anti christ for a particular kind of right wing ideologue. Given the strangle hold of this particular type of thought on talk show radio, it's going to be very interesting to see the reaction to this. Could be a career maker, or breaker.
I've never seen TRL so can't comment, but Badlands is an extraordinarily good film, and I'll certainly be watching 'Che' At the earliest opportunity I have
Originally posted by Malick
In the absence of Malick, I have taken to the films of David Gordon Green (who is currently working with him on Undertow), and whose GEORGE WASHINGTON & ALL THE REAL GIRLS echo much of Malick's work.
David Gordon Green is to Terrence Malick what Brian De Palma (according to some) is to Hitchcock - a pale imitation.
George Washington is meandering and dull for the most part. David Gordon Green desperately tries to copy the whole "simple words, deep meaning" device, but his characters end up sounding vaguely idiotic. When 12-year-old girls say things within the opening five minutes like "They tried to find answers to all the mistakes that God had made", you know you're in for a rough time. It's the shameless pilfering of Malick's style with none of the impact that makes the film so irritating.
Although The Thin Red Line has some stunning cinematography, the actual film was very poor indeed. I didn't really get attached to the characters and plot.
Ol' Blue Eyes
18-07-2003, 18:28
Che looks like a very interesting film, fair play to Malick for tackling it. That and The Passion prove ambitious film-making isn't totally dead. How well it will work is anyone's guess. Even good biopics tend to be dramatically unwieldy and look like very condensed, Cliffe's Notes versions of biographies. You can't hope to fit a whole life, especially someone like Che Guevera's into even a very long film and do it justice.
I can't see it making that much money but nor are there likely to be riots. The idea that all Americans are flag-waving Bush supporters is pretty far off the mark. I'm fairly conservative and I have no objection to seeing a film about a communist revolutionary, I find the subject matter interesting and potentially very cinematic. People who are offended at the idea of such a film simply won't go and see it. It's not like JFK, which conservatives had to sit up and take notice of as it accused their own government of murder. If anyone is made to look bad in this, it'll be Castro.
BTW, Frida, which starred Salma Hayek as a bisexual, marxist, Mexican artist who had sex with Trotsky (!) made a fair $30 million in the States without being pilloried. Decent film too incidentally.
Originally posted by Narshty
George Washington is meandering and dull for the most part. David Gordon Green desperately tries to copy the whole "simple words, deep meaning" device, but his characters end up sounding vaguely idiotic. When 12-year-old girls say things within the opening five minutes like "They tried to find answers to all the mistakes that God had made", you know you're in for a rough time. It's the shameless pilfering of Malick's style with none of the impact that makes the film so irritating. [/B]
I thought you championed GEORGE WASHINGTON on it's original release? You certainly had alot of positives for the film.
In any case, I wouldn't call his style 'shameless' just because he borrows Malick's narrative structure. Many directors at work today are guilty of pilfering; De Palma, as you rightly say, has made a career out of it - but he's made one or two cracking films.
GEORGE WASHINGTON made many TOP 10 Critics lists in 2000, so there are one or two out there, who like me, think he's doing something right. He's no Malick, but he's young and these type of films should be applauded.
As for Terrence, himself, well he was one of the first to call David Gordon Green to congratulate him on a wonderful debut & as I said likes his work so much that he is now working with him.
I reckon I'm in love with them both. :luv:
Originally posted by Malick
I thought you championed GEORGE WASHINGTON on it's original release? You certainly had alot of positives for the film.
I thought it was interesting-ish, but two repeat viewings have removed practically all merit in my eyes. It's a vapid, pondering time-waster. Nice photography, mind.
In any case, I wouldn't call his style 'shameless' just because he borrows Malick's narrative structure.
It's not the structure he borrows, it's the style - the camera that views nature with a pornographer's eye adding a philosophical voiceover on top. Only Terrence Malick does it very well, and Green does not.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.