Hacker Cinema
Badlands
1973 · Film · 94 min
Directed by Terrence Malick
An impressionable teenage girl from a dead-end town and her older greaser boyfriend embark on a killing spree in the South Dakota badlands.
7 positive1 negative3 neutralfrom 11 commenters
Where to watch
No streaming data for this title.
13 comments on Hacker News
There's something similar in cinema. For example, I was watching Terrance Malick's Badlands for the first time a couple of years ago and I could swear it felt like a film from the 90s or maybe early 2000s. But it was from 1973.
His commentary is dead-on; Badlands is a movie for children. It has no characters and zero subtlety. The plot is utterly predictable. There's like...one non-CGI character in the whole movie which made it feel like a video game. It's bizarre to me that movies like this are critically acclaimed.
I'd suggest Badlands (1973) and The New World (2005 (172 minutes version)) as the other two.
Badlands is his first movie and is very approachable.
The New World is also very approachable but can be long for some people. Personally, it's one of my all time favorite movies.and worth every minute.
Badlands and Days of Heaven are definitely his most conventional films and thus good starting points. Badlands especially is a great film, Days of Heaven is a bit uneven in terms of plot and pacing, but the cinematography is beautiful.
Then you have The Thin Red Line and The New World, which to me feel like a transitional period between the more conventional films and The Tree of Life, which is the first film that is characterized through and through by Malick's extremely divisive style. I personally love The Thin Red Line, but I can see why it's not for everyone. (I would skip The New World.) All later films have a very recognizable style, for which I think The Tree of Life is the best starting point.
Long story short: I'd start with Badlands, then watch The Thin Red Line, then The Tree of Life. If you like the last one, watch any of his later films.
His movies may be "artsy" but he had a big influence on cinema. I watched Badlands for the first time a couple of years ago and I kept having to remind myself that it was made in 1973, not 1993 or 2003. It just seems like a film that's out of place in time, but that seems to be because it influenced later films.
I punched in 1972 and there were some fantastic movies that year (The Godfather, Deliverance, Cabaret, Solaris, Jeremiah Johnson, Aguirre - the Wrath of God, The Last House on the Left, Silent Running, The Heartbreak Kid, Fat City, etc.).
Also tried 1973 — same (The Day of the Jackal, Soylent Green, Westworld, The Wicker Man, Papillon, American Graffiti, The Sting, Serpico, Mean Streets, High Plains Drifter, Don't Look Now, Badlands, The Long Goodbye, Jesus Christ Superstar, The Three Musketeers, Fantastic Planet, etc.).
I think they simply made better movies decades ago.
For what it's worth, I think I did a reasonable job of this. I don't consume any web-based algorithmic feed content and participate in nothing interactive other than Hacker News and do not visit Hacker News every day, or even every other day most of the time. Almost never on weekends. It's really an "I'm bored at work" thing.
As others said, I had to replace these things with something else. I'm not meditative enough to just sit around with a perfectly still mind staring at the wall. For me, it was a few things. Books, first. Not hugely consistent with what they're about. First few years was mostly sci-fi and fantasy, then a year or so of non-fiction pop physics books. Right now, I'm mostly reading cooking books and learning to cook better. That's the second thing. I cook all of my own food, from scratch, and experiment a lot. That consumes quite a bit of time and it's active time. Third, music, but not algorithmic feed music. No YouTube music or Spotify recommendations. Nothing social. I'm listening to complete albums, curated either because I'm in my 40s and already know a lot of music I haven't listened to in a long time, or via human critics the same way I curated music in the 90s. Fourth, movies, but again, nothing algorithmically generated. Just like it's 1999 again. In fact, Alamo Drafthouse is doing a celebration of 1999 for its 25th anniversary. It happens to also be my and my wife's high school graduation year, so a lot of beloved movies to go see. At home, we're doing 70s. We've gotten through Easy Rider and Rosemary's Baby (yes, I know, they're 60s), Badlands, Days of Heaven, Dog Day Afternoon, and Harold and Maude. Quite a few more to go, queued up and ready, curated from prior knowledge. I've already seen most of these but my wife has not. Fourth, exercise. You can't just get off the couch and do it. I spent years building up the capacity after spending the latter half of my 30s mostly inactive due to degenerative spine problems. Started off with resistance bands and walking 6 years ago. Today, I lift for about an hour 6 days a week and then run, row, or both for cardio, anywhere from 60-90 minutes a day. Fifth, concerts. My wife and I saw Judas Priest and Dead Kennedys at the end of last year, Tool last week, and we've got Madonna, Social Distortion and Bad Religion, Ministry, Echo and the Bunnymen, and Slowdive scheduled over the next few months. We usually travel to a multi-day festival or two each year as well but haven't decided which yet for this year. This is also curated from prior knowledge. I guess I miss out on whatever is hot right now, but oh well, there was plenty of great music already out there in 1995 and plenty of these acts still tour.
All in all, this gives me goals, accomplishments, scheduled events, social interaction with a real, non-anonymous person I actually know who is physically present, had made me far healthier, more fit, and better looking, and the quality of my entertainment, though I suppose less "addicting," is much higher.
The downside is this is expensive, but it probably doesn't have to be if you actively bargain-hunt, stay local, work out at a gym instead of buying your own equipment, and eat worse than me. Probably many people on the Internet would say another downside is I'm not very tuned in. It's an election year and I have no clue what any candidates are doing, saying, winning races, and I probably won't vote. Oh well. I'm sure the world will do about the same as it would have done if I didn't exist, which is fine. I'm not that important and neither are you.
Edit: I guess it's worth adding none of this involved or required getting rid of my phone. The phone is, in fact, quite useful. I listen to my albums on it. I buy movie tickets and concert tickets through it and they're delivered to the phone. I buy airline tickets and keep them on the phone. I keep my recipes, log my food, log my workouts, and map my runs on the phone. The local train system sells and keeps passes on a mobile app. There is nothing wrong with phones per se. Just don't let these apps gamify shit for you. Don't opt into social features. Don't create an account if they don't force you to. Disable all notifications. Don't worry about what other people are reading, where they're running, what they're eating. Just worry about yourself. Don't have or use any pure social apps. No algorithmically-generated content feeds. Read full-length novels, watch full-length feature films, and listen to complete albums. Force yourself to exercise at least a medium-term attention span. You don't need a change of theme every 40 seconds.
It's even weirder than that — the movie that is mentioned, "Army Soldier II" is not coming up in my searches.
Still, to this point:
> Such bad lighting — and such large portions! We exit the movie theater to a bright realization: our films are exactly as overlit as our reality. As our environment has become blander, it has also become more legible — too legible. That’s a shame, because many products of the new ugliness could benefit from a little chiaroscuroed ambiguity
Cool that I learned a new word. Having just watched "Badlands" last night from 1973, I definitely agree modern cinema has become way too "graded".
Here are some of my favorite movies: The Graduate, Taxi Driver, The Fearless Vampire Killers, Badlands, Mars Attacks, The Grand Budapest Hotel.
Most of them don't really satisfy this formula, except for trivial points like the protagonists wants something and the protagonist has changed or if you're deliberately trying to fit them by being extremely vague.
The reason is that there are many different types of stories and these can have very different internal structure. For example, Space Opera in science fiction is often just a fight of good vs. evil set at many different interesting locations. Of course, some protagonist should develop, hence change, and it's good to have some kind of unexpected plot twist, but these are trivialities.
If anyone hasen't seen Badlands, you should.
I used to think it was the charisma of Martin Sheen that made the movie, but have changed my mind over the years.
It's beautifully filmed.
It's hard watching Kit do some of the bad things he did though.
Watching it I felt like I lived in that midwestern town. I could almost feel the heat, and such. I belive it was Texas?
Martin Sheen also did a movie with Linda Blair called "Sweet Hostage". It not the masterpiece of Badlands, but a good movie. I haven't seen on tv for years though. I thought it was good?
I feel like the odd man out, with everyone shitting on Netflix and it's original content. I love my Netflix subscription. There's tons for my (young) daughter to watch. There's tons for my wife and I to watch (Sabrina, Daybreak, Magicions, Badlands). There's tons for me to watch without my wife (mostly anime, etc). Sure, some of the shows are cheesy, but some aren't, and I like the mix.
They don't have every movie I want to see, but they're also not my only source for entertainment. As one source of multiple, I think they're great. I can't think of any service that would be good for a single source of entertainment.
I honestly just don't understand the hate.
Another example of the Zodiac Killer's writing:
Sirs -- I would like to expression my consternt consternation concerning your poor taste + lack of sympathy for the public, as evidenced by your running of the ads for the movie "Badlands," featuring the blurb: "In 1959 most people were killing time. Kit + Holly were killing people." In light of recent events, this kind of murder-glorification can only be deplorable at best (not that glorification of violence was ever justifiable) why don't you show some concern for public sensibilities + cut the ad?
Days of Heaven is my favorite film, I recommend it to anyone with an appreciation for visual storytelling. Those 95 or so minutes are the perfect balance between conventional storytelling a lá Badlands and the disjointed, introspective narrative of The Thin Red Line and onwards.