Or dive at the deep end and watch Knight of Cups or A Hidden Life. You will either like it or not, frankly I don't think it matters what you'll see first, I love all of his movies even though I didn't understand Thin Red Line when I was 20. But Knight of Cups hit me hard when I was 36.
If you haven't seen it, A Hidden Life has the most Tarkovsky feel to it for me. It felt very inspired by Mirror, specifically. I say that as a person who loves both films, too.
I can't believe the author of the article so blithely dismissed To The Wonder, Knight of Cups, and The New World. The New World is probably my favorite of all Malick's films so far.
Totally in agreement. The Thin Red Line is possibly my favorite film of all time, while I hated The Tree of Life; except for that awesome creation segment. And I also loved A Hidden Life.
I saw A Hidden Life within the last month and it is one of the best movies I have seen. I have also seen Stalker and after an interesting start it eventually bored me. I can see why you make the comparison, but I found them very different.
The Thin Red Line is one of my top films, and I walked out of The Tree of Life. Only afterwards did I realize they were directed by the same guy. And then this spring I saw A Hidden Life. I thought it was absolutely fantastic. I plan to rewatch The Tree of Life to see if I like it better than first time. Perhaps I was not in the mood for that type of movie that particular evening.
Malick isn't the best example here. Tree of Life was made for around $30 mil and his most recent, A Hidden Life was made for in the vicinity of $8 mil. In the context of our current blockbuster climate where the latest Bond movie costs upwards of $300 mil to make, I wouldn't call Malick's films "big expensive movies," and I certainly wouldn't compare it to Coppola's $120 mil+ price tag. Hollywood has shown that it will only give that kind of money to films that fit a strict, suffocatingly rigorous formula (i.e. existing IP, car chases, explosions, world-saving heroes, etc). It most certainly will not fund a project to the tune of seven figures based on an original idea that has been described as “a love story that is also a philosophical investigation of the nature of man.” If you don't have a remake or reboot of an existing IP, you're not getting funded, period.
Also Malick is a consistent awards contender in years where he releases a movie. Tree of Life is one of the most critically acclaimed films this century and studios like to invest in critical prestige when they can, given a reasonable budget. His movies also generally make their money back. This is also why networks will let TV shows like Crazy Ex Girlfriend and The Americans go on towards a natural conclusion, instead of canceling immediately, even if viewership is low. Coppola simply does not have that reputation anymore. In fact, I think he lost it all the way back in the early 80s. After Apocalypse Now, he failed to make a movie that captured unanimous critical favor like his string of hits in the 70s. Four of his last five movies have been largely panned. His 1996 flop, "Jack," is one of the worst movies I've ever seen and a lot of other critics agreed. A movie like that typically ends careers. He does not have the cachet to warrant an investment of $120 mill on an idea that appears at first glance to have dubious mainstream popular appeal. With that said, I would certainly see it.
I recently watched The Godfather 1 and 2 for the first time as an adult and was floored by the two movies (really a single movie, broken into two parts). A complete tragedy executed to perfection. The full arc of the tragic downfall of a man, like something out of the Greek tragedies or Shakespeare.
I then made the horrible mistake of watching Godfather 3, which basically seemed to have 90s romantic comedy vibe with Al Pacino not playing Michael Coreleone but simply playing Al Pacino. What then surprised me even more was that the film received pretty favorable reviews at the time. Wow how we can be blinded in the moment!
I would very much hope that Mr. Coppola achieves something grand, especially in the current era of horrible movies, but color me skeptical based upon his later work. I could understand if executives are wary as well.
On a side note, since you mentioned him, Mallick’s recent A Hidden Life is an absolute masterpiece. It may be my favorite movie (need time for it to sink in). But what a powerful depiction of conscience & struggle. One thing I often wonder about: who is the main character, the man or his wife? Whose Hidden Life is really the subject of the movie?
Terrence Malick's To the Wonder and A Hidden Life. To the Wonder is a more "typical" Malick film, but Javier Bardem's character is wonderful. A Hidden Life is a more more straightforward film (for Malick) which focuses on the life of a Catholic beatified for his resistance to the Nazi regime.
Hacker Cinema
8 comments on Hacker News
Or dive at the deep end and watch Knight of Cups or A Hidden Life. You will either like it or not, frankly I don't think it matters what you'll see first, I love all of his movies even though I didn't understand Thin Red Line when I was 20. But Knight of Cups hit me hard when I was 36.
If you haven't seen it, A Hidden Life has the most Tarkovsky feel to it for me. It felt very inspired by Mirror, specifically. I say that as a person who loves both films, too.
I can't believe the author of the article so blithely dismissed To The Wonder, Knight of Cups, and The New World. The New World is probably my favorite of all Malick's films so far.
Totally in agreement. The Thin Red Line is possibly my favorite film of all time, while I hated The Tree of Life; except for that awesome creation segment. And I also loved A Hidden Life.
I saw A Hidden Life within the last month and it is one of the best movies I have seen. I have also seen Stalker and after an interesting start it eventually bored me. I can see why you make the comparison, but I found them very different.
The Thin Red Line is one of my top films, and I walked out of The Tree of Life. Only afterwards did I realize they were directed by the same guy. And then this spring I saw A Hidden Life. I thought it was absolutely fantastic. I plan to rewatch The Tree of Life to see if I like it better than first time. Perhaps I was not in the mood for that type of movie that particular evening.
Malick isn't the best example here. Tree of Life was made for around $30 mil and his most recent, A Hidden Life was made for in the vicinity of $8 mil. In the context of our current blockbuster climate where the latest Bond movie costs upwards of $300 mil to make, I wouldn't call Malick's films "big expensive movies," and I certainly wouldn't compare it to Coppola's $120 mil+ price tag. Hollywood has shown that it will only give that kind of money to films that fit a strict, suffocatingly rigorous formula (i.e. existing IP, car chases, explosions, world-saving heroes, etc). It most certainly will not fund a project to the tune of seven figures based on an original idea that has been described as “a love story that is also a philosophical investigation of the nature of man.” If you don't have a remake or reboot of an existing IP, you're not getting funded, period.
Also Malick is a consistent awards contender in years where he releases a movie. Tree of Life is one of the most critically acclaimed films this century and studios like to invest in critical prestige when they can, given a reasonable budget. His movies also generally make their money back. This is also why networks will let TV shows like Crazy Ex Girlfriend and The Americans go on towards a natural conclusion, instead of canceling immediately, even if viewership is low. Coppola simply does not have that reputation anymore. In fact, I think he lost it all the way back in the early 80s. After Apocalypse Now, he failed to make a movie that captured unanimous critical favor like his string of hits in the 70s. Four of his last five movies have been largely panned. His 1996 flop, "Jack," is one of the worst movies I've ever seen and a lot of other critics agreed. A movie like that typically ends careers. He does not have the cachet to warrant an investment of $120 mill on an idea that appears at first glance to have dubious mainstream popular appeal. With that said, I would certainly see it.
I recently watched The Godfather 1 and 2 for the first time as an adult and was floored by the two movies (really a single movie, broken into two parts). A complete tragedy executed to perfection. The full arc of the tragic downfall of a man, like something out of the Greek tragedies or Shakespeare.
I then made the horrible mistake of watching Godfather 3, which basically seemed to have 90s romantic comedy vibe with Al Pacino not playing Michael Coreleone but simply playing Al Pacino. What then surprised me even more was that the film received pretty favorable reviews at the time. Wow how we can be blinded in the moment!
I would very much hope that Mr. Coppola achieves something grand, especially in the current era of horrible movies, but color me skeptical based upon his later work. I could understand if executives are wary as well.
On a side note, since you mentioned him, Mallick’s recent A Hidden Life is an absolute masterpiece. It may be my favorite movie (need time for it to sink in). But what a powerful depiction of conscience & struggle. One thing I often wonder about: who is the main character, the man or his wife? Whose Hidden Life is really the subject of the movie?
Terrence Malick's To the Wonder and A Hidden Life. To the Wonder is a more "typical" Malick film, but Javier Bardem's character is wonderful. A Hidden Life is a more more straightforward film (for Malick) which focuses on the life of a Catholic beatified for his resistance to the Nazi regime.