Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Boos for cult director Malick's 'To the Wonder' in Venice

[quote]In "To the Wonder" there is little acting in the traditional sense and many of the emotions are portrayed through facial expressions and gestures.

Good god.

[quote]While Kurylenko -- the Bond girl in "Quantum of Solace" -- and Bardem mostly manage to pull this difficult performance off, Affleck is unconvincing with his gormless expressions interspersed with occasional scowls and smiles. Malick "told us to throw away the words and to think them. He's able to give you the emotions through the bodies, the silence, the eyes," Kurylenko said.

Sounds worse than Tree of Life.

by Anonymousreply 4412/17/2014

Some of MST3K's best movies relied on narration. 'Monster A G0-G0' and 'Creeping Terror' for example.

by Anonymousreply 109/02/2012

The Guardian review concluded with: "At its best, Malick's cinematic rhapsody is glorious; during his uncertain moments, he appears to be repeating himself. But what delight there is in this film."

I want to see it! I rather see whatever he does than all of the boring junk that is out there.

by Anonymousreply 209/02/2012

Why is Malick casting these lightweight actors like Pitt and Affleck?

by Anonymousreply 309/02/2012

I have to admit I like Tree of Life. The film was by no means a masterpiece but it was worthwhile. Good or bad, I'll definitely have to view "To The Wonder". I wonder if this will be a silent film or just a movie with little or no dialogue. Sounds like the latter is the case.

by Anonymousreply 409/02/2012

I read that it's narrated.

by Anonymousreply 509/02/2012

I loved The Tree of Life. And there's nothing unusual about films that ask the actors to rely more on their bodies and their faces than on words.

by Anonymousreply 609/02/2012

Another vote for Tree of Life. It was very dreamy. I loved it.

by Anonymousreply 709/02/2012

"Why is Malick casting these lightweight actors like Pitt and Affleck?"

So he can get funding. I don't know how much longer that will work, considering the end products.

by Anonymousreply 809/03/2012

Booing is usually reserved for Cannes Film Festival. The film must really suck if it was booed in Venice.

by Anonymousreply 909/03/2012

Affleck is awful, even worse than Brad.

by Anonymousreply 1009/03/2012

I thought "The Tree of Life" was brilliant: The Universe and all of creation in it's eternal battle between light and darkness distilled into the story of one family, one man-and at the same time the story of all of us, all who ever were and all that's ever been. I'm tempted to say it is the best movie ever. It is certainly in my top five.

by Anonymousreply 1109/03/2012

Tree of Life was brilliant. While the shattered memories and impressions of that boy's childhood played across the screen so did my own memories and impressions of the world play out in my head - and when those two experiences coincided, which they often did, it felt like he was telling my story on screen. It was incredibly powerful.

by Anonymousreply 1209/03/2012

there is no their there.

by Anonymousreply 1309/03/2012

I liked 'Tree of Life' a lot and saw it twice. (For what it's worth, I noticed it appeared in a few of the 'best ever' lists in the recent 'Sight and Sound' poll.)

I'll see anything by Malick, whose 'failures' are ten times more interesting than the glib 'successes' of many other directors.

Malick is though testing me by casting Affleck. I winced when I read he was in the new one. Pitt is De Niro compared to Affleck. Still looking forward to seeing 'To the Wonder' though, doubtless in a largely empty cinema.

by Anonymousreply 1409/03/2012

I had the same experience R12. Incredibly emotional.

by Anonymousreply 1509/03/2012

"there is no their there."

Gertrude Stein is twirling! Twirling! Always twirling into the future.

by Anonymousreply 1609/03/2012

I imagine Tree of Life is something to be seen more than once to figure out. Unfortunately, I liked a lot of the film but not enough to have to sit through it again.

I think Malick thinks he's Kubrick.

by Anonymousreply 1709/03/2012

[quote]In "To the Wonder" there is little acting in the traditional sense and many of the emotions are portrayed through facial expressions and gestures.

That's my kind of movie!

by Anonymousreply 1809/03/2012

Malick is hardly a cult director at this point.

by Anonymousreply 1909/03/2012

As long as it's not "Melancholia", it should be alright. That movie is nowhere near as interesting or thoughtful as people claim it is - thanks to CGI, the only moving scene is the very last one, and the hour before that is just a paean to mopey teen-style solipsism.

by Anonymousreply 2009/03/2012

And yes, I know that Malick and Lars von Trier are different directors, but they are both part of that rarefied 'art film' clique.

by Anonymousreply 2109/03/2012

30 straight minutes of outer space pictures in "Tree of Life" was boring. Yeah, the dinosaur was cool, but he could have done it in half the time. The ending didn't make a lot of sense either.

by Anonymousreply 2209/03/2012

I'll watch anything by Malick, and make a particular point to do so.

Even if his most recent efforts in "Tree of Life" and "The New World" have been far his weakest, they were at their worst moments worth watching and at their best moments wonderful. Malick enjoys a lifetime of goodwill in my my books.

by Anonymousreply 2309/03/2012

"Malick enjoys a lifetime of goodwill in my my books"


by Anonymousreply 2409/03/2012

Is voice over narration a trademark with this director? So far, I've watched three of his films and each one has extensive narration through out.

by Anonymousreply 2509/30/2012

First the space stuff was maybe 10 minutes at the most. I find Malick's work haunting and brilliant. And homoerotic. The way the men in his movies are always touching each other, and the women are outsiders to this is interesting.

by Anonymousreply 2609/30/2012

Is this really as bad as it was reported in Cannes, or is it just Ben that sucks?

by Anonymousreply 2705/10/2013

I really enjoyed it (though it dragged a little toward the end). It's unlike anything I've ever seen. The look of the movie is mesmerizing. There is no dialogue, just voice over. I thought it was very effective, and Affleck is great.

by Anonymousreply 2805/10/2013

When did Wendy Malick become a director? Good for her!

by Anonymousreply 2905/11/2013

Where did you see it, R28?

by Anonymousreply 3005/11/2013

I liked it. Most of the voice over is in French. Affleck hardly has any dialogue; he just really isn't right for that kind of movie.

by Anonymousreply 3105/11/2013

I want to see it but I don't live in a place that is showing it! Wah!

by Anonymousreply 3205/11/2013

Saw it in London, in the expected largely empty cinema.

It's trademark beautiful, but the events are yet more oblique and abstracted than even 'Tree Of Life.' The boyhood scenes in that really drew me in, and made an anchor for the prehistoric and metaphysical.

The lead couple in 'To The Wonder' are as sketchy as they are pretty. And quite boring. We don't really care about them. Javier Bardem is a bit more sympathetic. At least Affleck's signature blankness didn't matter too much in his almost silent role.

I got the impression Malick was winging it more than in any of his other films. (Time's winged chariot?) The fact that he hired, filmed and then cut out Michael Sheen and Rachel Weisz seems to suggest this.

by Anonymousreply 3305/11/2013

I loved To the Wonder, and it looks like Malick is continuing with this style of filmmaking for his next film, Knight of Cups. The trailer is AMAZING. I must've watched it 20 times by now.

by Anonymousreply 3412/16/2014

Malick is a total sham and huckster. The emperor has no clothes. Anyone, ANYONE could make his films, and better. People who try to make an argument for him as a filmmaker are fools. His latest will be yet another in a long string of laughable, embarrassing flops.

by Anonymousreply 3512/16/2014

Still better than Black Annie.

by Anonymousreply 3612/17/2014

" the story of one family, one man-and at the same time the story of all of us, all who ever were and all that's ever been"

A question for those who've seen "Tree of Life": Do these characters truly represent "all of us"?

Because I'm sick to fucking death of white male artists who assume that the experiences and issues of white males are universal.

by Anonymousreply 3712/17/2014

I love his movies but wish he could afford to cast better actors instead of box office draws.

by Anonymousreply 3812/17/2014

[quote]Still better than Black Annie.

Except Black Annie never attempted to be philosophical or meaningful or pretentious. So I don't see the connection.

by Anonymousreply 3912/17/2014

Fuck off and die, R37.

by Anonymousreply 4012/17/2014

Did anyone see the Knight of Cups trailer?

by Anonymousreply 4112/17/2014

Yes I saw the trailer, and thought it the perfect advertisement for Terrence Malick.

Not that I needed it, because as soon as 'Knight of Cups' opens, I'll book a seat in an all-but empty cinema (as is traditional), and let TM's magic work on me. Can't wait.

by Anonymousreply 4212/17/2014

I saw Tree of Life and I thought somebody was making a joke. Malick is a hack. His only genius is that he fooled people for so long that he is actually a filmmaker.

by Anonymousreply 4312/17/2014

Tree of Life was hilarious. One of the worst movies of the past twenty years.

by Anonymousreply 4412/17/2014
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!