Malick or no-Malick?

Rating: 1/10 (22 January 2006)

Are you the type of person who would be interested in a Terrance Malick film? That is the foremost question you should ask yourself before going to the theater and spending box office prices. Do NOT think about the fact that Colin Farrell or Christian Bale are in this film before you spend your hard earned money. I would suggest you rent one of Malick's previous films. If you can sit through one of his movies, then you may have a taste for what he puts upon the screen. If you cannot sit through his films, then you have saved yourself a lot of money. Malick is for those who want to sit at a art exhibit and stare at a red dot like the dot was an original piece of art. Malick's work is for those who patrol art exhibitions by artists who make things out of garbage so they can "fit in" with high society. Malick is popular with the Hollywood liberals--that should explain enough right there. It is him personality that makes him popular over his talent. Malick is NOT a good film maker. His audiences are small because his talent is limited. Malick spends more time trying to convey messages with LONG shots of grass, trees, birds, bushes, etc because his dialog cannot bring out the essence of the film itself. Malick cannot bring the better performances out of his actors that would create the same atmosphere (but better) that he tries to create with his terrific direction. Malick is not in the same league with the great directors of our time: William Wyler, Steven Spielburg, Clint Eastwood, etc. Men who can focus on an actor's eyes for the perfect emotion, men who can tell a story without focusing on a blade of grass, and men who can make three hour movies and maintain a proper flow of visuals and dialog. Rent The Thin Red Line, Heaven's Gate, or Badlands (all in the worse 100 movies of all time) and if you can sit through any of them; you are ready for Malick.