My God I am all here for a great experimental, artistic movie, but this was just boring. Despite all the great cinematography, the message from this movie could be told in 30 minutes and was explored so much better in another 100 movies. The scene with Holly Hunter in the parking lot was the best one, but it only lasted a few seconds. Besides that, it was just an accumulation of beautiful faces flerting together (good acting nonetheless). And where was the music? The music could have saved the movie. Filming the film at a festival and putting on some old music legends doesn't do the job.
134 Reviews
confused disjointed beautiful
SnoopyStyle24 December 2017
BV (Ryan Gosling) and Faye (Rooney Mara) are musicians. Cook (Michael Fassbender) is a producer. Rhonda (Natalie Portman) is a waitress. BV has a fling with Amanda (Cate Blanchett) and Faye with Zoey. These relationships start, conflict, stop, and detour in the Austin music scene.
Terrence Malick continues to make these beautiful-looking dreamlike movies. It's beyond beauty but the story telling is muddled. His style of filmmaking is deliberately disjointed which makes all these complicated relationships hard to follow. It's also emotionally distant. Mara and Gosling have these droning voices which don't help in this case. It's a beautiful movie but the complicated relationship jumping loses me along the way. There is a bit guerrilla filmmaking as Malick steals scenes during real music festivals. This would work much better with fewer relationships.
Terrence Malick continues to make these beautiful-looking dreamlike movies. It's beyond beauty but the story telling is muddled. His style of filmmaking is deliberately disjointed which makes all these complicated relationships hard to follow. It's also emotionally distant. Mara and Gosling have these droning voices which don't help in this case. It's a beautiful movie but the complicated relationship jumping loses me along the way. There is a bit guerrilla filmmaking as Malick steals scenes during real music festivals. This would work much better with fewer relationships.
just trash
Dora_14 May 2020
I did not get what this movie is about. Boring. It is only showing people's life but doesn't seem to be a movie. I can't believe 4 main actors are very strong. And I am wondering what the heck Michael, Natalie, Rooney and Ryan were thinking about when they were reading the script... 5/10 if you just want to enjoy their look. Blonde Portman is 10/10.
When a brilliant auteur goes down
Benedict_Cumberbatch12 March 2017
First off, I must say I am not a Terrence Malick hater. On the contrary: I used to worship the man. I even took an entire course in film school dedicated to him, Orson Welles, and Stanley Kubrick. I think the 5 films Malick did in the first 38 years of his career ("Badlands," "Days of Heaven," "The Thin Red Line," "The New World," and "The Tree of Life") are all masterpieces. I even liked "To the Wonder," which was almost universally panned, even though it was clearly not in the same league as his previous films. After the acclaimed "The Tree of Life," Malick (now 73 years old) has been working on several projects in different stages of production. He filmed "Song to Song" immediately after "Knight of Cups" (released last year) back in 2012, and it's only being released now, as a 129-minute film, after almost five years of post-production and at least 8 editors to turn it into something remotely coherent (reportedly, the first cut was 8 hours long). Unfortunately, like "Knight of Cups," "Song to Song" feels like a parody of Malick's work: the extensive, mumbling voice-over narration by all the main characters (taken to the extreme), the stunning imagery of nature and high-end real estate, and gorgeous people literally walking in circles and acting cute (or mean) to one another. The very thin plot revolves, as you heard, around two intersecting love triangles set against the music scene in Austin, Texas. But music doesn't play a great part in this story, and it certainly could have elevated it.
As abstract as Malick's earlier films could be, they all had tangible, rich, philosophical and often universal themes. "Knight of Cups" and "Song to Song" are pure cinematic masturbation. Malick's trick is getting some of the biggest (and best-looking) film stars in the world, and his main actors (Rooney Mara, Ryan Gosling, Michael Fassbender, Natalie Portman) have faces that one can easily watch for hours. But not even these great stars can masquerade the emptiness of the film. Mara has the most screen time of them all, being the only true leading character here, while Cate Blanchett, Holly Hunter, Val Kilmer, and Berenice Marlohe are reduced to cameos. There's at least one painfully genuine moment, near the end, featuring Hunter's character, but it only lasts a few seconds; Malick's gaze isn't interested in her emotions. He'd rather show us, for the umpteenth time, Mara and Fassbender being flirty and sexy instead.
I am all about experimental cinema, but when you realize that this is the deepest sort of "experimental" project that Hollywood can put out (made by a revered auteur that movie stars almost pay to work with), you feel even more nostalgic for the daring collaborations between Tilda Swinton and the late Derek Jarman. I know people who deemed "Knight of Cups" a "masterpiece" and will probably say the same about "Song to Song." I try to be respectful of other people's opinions, but I really don't think we're seeing this film through the same lens. I still admire and respect Malick; I just liked his work more when he had something to say. Right now, I see him as someone who can afford to make gorgeous-looking home movies just for his pleasure, but he's a much more interesting artist when he expands his canvas into something we can truly care about.
As abstract as Malick's earlier films could be, they all had tangible, rich, philosophical and often universal themes. "Knight of Cups" and "Song to Song" are pure cinematic masturbation. Malick's trick is getting some of the biggest (and best-looking) film stars in the world, and his main actors (Rooney Mara, Ryan Gosling, Michael Fassbender, Natalie Portman) have faces that one can easily watch for hours. But not even these great stars can masquerade the emptiness of the film. Mara has the most screen time of them all, being the only true leading character here, while Cate Blanchett, Holly Hunter, Val Kilmer, and Berenice Marlohe are reduced to cameos. There's at least one painfully genuine moment, near the end, featuring Hunter's character, but it only lasts a few seconds; Malick's gaze isn't interested in her emotions. He'd rather show us, for the umpteenth time, Mara and Fassbender being flirty and sexy instead.
I am all about experimental cinema, but when you realize that this is the deepest sort of "experimental" project that Hollywood can put out (made by a revered auteur that movie stars almost pay to work with), you feel even more nostalgic for the daring collaborations between Tilda Swinton and the late Derek Jarman. I know people who deemed "Knight of Cups" a "masterpiece" and will probably say the same about "Song to Song." I try to be respectful of other people's opinions, but I really don't think we're seeing this film through the same lens. I still admire and respect Malick; I just liked his work more when he had something to say. Right now, I see him as someone who can afford to make gorgeous-looking home movies just for his pleasure, but he's a much more interesting artist when he expands his canvas into something we can truly care about.
Let go of the plot.
damondmoxlee2 June 2023
After many of my friends telling me that I needed a break from heavy-hitting movies and shows, they recommended me Song to Song. The first time I watched this I was tempted to write the worst review that I had written in years. However, when I rewatched it and really just let go of my expectations for the plot and other standard cinema directions, it was a fairly pleasant experience. You can really see that the actors (particularly Gosling) are having lots of fun while freestyling in this movie. Many state that this is one of Mallick's most disappointing and pretentious, slow films but I advise you: do not think of this movie as a juggernaut cast following a script and a plot.
Nice visuals but utterly self-indulgent
jefferino27 March 2017
I always go to a Terrence Malick movie hoping to find once again something akin to the transcendent vision firmly grounded in the real world that I encountered when I first saw "Days of Heaven" (1978), a movie that combined gorgeous cinematography with a compelling plot. My hopes were dashed yet again with "Song to Song." The visual beauty is here, but the movie feels bloated, self-indulgent, and disconnected. Malick's technique of splicing together seemingly random footage overlaid with barely audible interior monologue has by now become formulaic, and he seems incapable, unwilling, or afraid to deliver a sustained scene in which characters actually exchange meaningful dialogue. And speaking of characters, one after another is introduced for no apparent reason, as if quantity could make up for the fact that none of them are developed, and their utter shallowness foreshortens any depths the movie might be trying to plumb. Finally, the movie went on so long that I left feeling too exasperated and exhausted to hold on to the shreds of visual beauty that it offered.
An experience, not a movie.
alecanselmo17 July 2023
I saw someone say my headline, and it's true. Frankly, any rating 1 through 10 would be completely understandable to me. I give it a 6 because it's frankly too weird for me and too erotic. But it's also very unique and tells an extremely complex story down to the inexplicable emotions very well. And while it's too erotic for me, the way in which it shows those scenes isn't graphic- it shows it artistically. Which I can respect. More than anything, my favorite part about this movie is it shows you and doesn't tell you without leaving you in the dust. It's understandable yet still very artsy fartsy. Terrence Malick was clearly experiencing something in the making of this, something I never want to experience.
Emperor Malick is Wearing No Clothes. Or Plot. Or Characters.
baze24 March 2017
The first movie I have walked out of in as long as I can remember is still on the screen at Austin's Arbor Theater but I am sipping a beer and wondering if I will ever pay to see a Terence Malick film again. As utterly bored as I have been in a theater since Tree of Life (which SHONE in comparison), I gave up waiting for something to happen to wrap this turkey up or make me care. News Flash: it had not appeared on screen at 2 hours in.
I want those 2 hours back.
Malick's latest "Song To Song"? Beautifully-lensed images of characters I know little about and care even less about looking mostly beautiful and doing stuff I don't care about or understand. Any Calvin Klein "Obsession" advert from the 80s had more substance, a more compelling story line and infinitely more ability to hold my interest. This was like a cinematic Austin Architectural Digest showcase of homes, but less interesting. Oh. It was about "struggling musicians"? Malick's definition of "struggling" is as far from reality as Gigli is from good.
The Patti Smith cameo and song snippets in a soundtrack (seemingly created by 20 or 30 misguided people who did not know each other and apparently had not seen the film) were my sole high points. They were enough to make me go all the way to 2 stars, but minus one because I looked at my watch about 8 times waiting for it to end. It may STILL be running and I am halfway through a beer down the road.
Can we chip in to buy Malick a screenwriter, and an editor? Emperor Malick is buck naked folks. Maybe a Kickstarter campaign? SKIP IT.
I want those 2 hours back.
Malick's latest "Song To Song"? Beautifully-lensed images of characters I know little about and care even less about looking mostly beautiful and doing stuff I don't care about or understand. Any Calvin Klein "Obsession" advert from the 80s had more substance, a more compelling story line and infinitely more ability to hold my interest. This was like a cinematic Austin Architectural Digest showcase of homes, but less interesting. Oh. It was about "struggling musicians"? Malick's definition of "struggling" is as far from reality as Gigli is from good.
The Patti Smith cameo and song snippets in a soundtrack (seemingly created by 20 or 30 misguided people who did not know each other and apparently had not seen the film) were my sole high points. They were enough to make me go all the way to 2 stars, but minus one because I looked at my watch about 8 times waiting for it to end. It may STILL be running and I am halfway through a beer down the road.
Can we chip in to buy Malick a screenwriter, and an editor? Emperor Malick is buck naked folks. Maybe a Kickstarter campaign? SKIP IT.
It is a nostalgic and emotional experience
cvetkovski_ikee24 June 2017
It is so beautifully thought film, that it almost seems like an improvisation. Very deep, captivating and honest film leading me to the only question while i was watching it: How old is Malick? I mean, inside? He may be 70 years old, but his films speak about universal feelings. "Song to song" is not a conventional film with a conventional story. It's more of a sad and confessional experience, more of a feeling, an emotion long kept inside, finally made into a form of art.
It's a film about the characters and their constant battle with themselves. The things we don't see, the hell that goes through one's mind, when one is suffering. They are struggling to get better, but it's so sad because we know they won't. They can't get out. It's about the spiritual journey of the characters and not so much about the story. It only goes where the character goes emotionally. Malick doesn't care about the world around the characters or the society. The only worlds "well build" in the film are the character's worlds. That's why the V.O doesn't seem like a technical intervention. It is the core of this beautiful, nostalgic and emotional poem to the ones who are "destined" to suffer.
Maybe we don't see all of this, cause this is not a modern film and our society doesn't deal with emotions anymore. But i don't thing Malick cares for any of this. He literally makes a film for himself, to try to free himself from his feelings and put it into something useful and creative.
The point is, it's not a film to be liked or disliked, cause we, the people can't wait to judge something, and not to try to understand it first. You may just not connect to it. That's it. It's not a memorable film and it won't be, cause after people saw "The tree of life", now they get bored with his concept of filmmaking, seeing all of his films like a sequel to it. I found it as more of a pattern that he found to be able to express himself constantly, by really focusing on his emotions and very honestly and artistically opening his soul to the audience to see it. And why not and judge it. 9/10
It's a film about the characters and their constant battle with themselves. The things we don't see, the hell that goes through one's mind, when one is suffering. They are struggling to get better, but it's so sad because we know they won't. They can't get out. It's about the spiritual journey of the characters and not so much about the story. It only goes where the character goes emotionally. Malick doesn't care about the world around the characters or the society. The only worlds "well build" in the film are the character's worlds. That's why the V.O doesn't seem like a technical intervention. It is the core of this beautiful, nostalgic and emotional poem to the ones who are "destined" to suffer.
Maybe we don't see all of this, cause this is not a modern film and our society doesn't deal with emotions anymore. But i don't thing Malick cares for any of this. He literally makes a film for himself, to try to free himself from his feelings and put it into something useful and creative.
The point is, it's not a film to be liked or disliked, cause we, the people can't wait to judge something, and not to try to understand it first. You may just not connect to it. That's it. It's not a memorable film and it won't be, cause after people saw "The tree of life", now they get bored with his concept of filmmaking, seeing all of his films like a sequel to it. I found it as more of a pattern that he found to be able to express himself constantly, by really focusing on his emotions and very honestly and artistically opening his soul to the audience to see it. And why not and judge it. 9/10
Floating around with music
paulijcalderon12 July 2017
When I saw "Knight of Cups" last year I had no idea what to make of it. As time passed I couldn't really get the film out of my mind and it grew on me quite a lot. I find myself liking Terrence Malick's work more with each new film I see from him. I will admit that I underestimated him at first, but now I'm starting to really enjoy his dreamlike style. The camera floats around the characters and it's all so easy to watch as it flows by. It's about existentialism. Characters wandering through environments, talking to other people and re-living past memories. That's what makes these Malick films worthwhile. By just emptying your mind for a couple of hours and experiencing different emotions. At first I was bugged by the voice-overs. To me they felt unnecessarily cryptic and way too preachy. I liked it so much more when the people in the films had real conversations with each other. However, here in "Song to Song", the voice-over does elevate what's on screen. It made me understand what was going on in the minds of our characters. They talk to you like you are someone they trust. Besides, the dialogue felt natural and not overly poetic. The film is still poetic in its tone which works nicely.
It's pleasant to look at. I love the different places chosen for the film. Something about them make me feel calm. This is a movie that I would recommend to people who feel stressed because it will relax you and make you remember good emotions. It's not really for casual viewing or for those who wanna follow an engaging plot. Malick uses a nonlinear narrative that doesn't rely on making sense. So, it's not for everyone. I prefer "Knight of Cups" just a little bit more than this one, but it comes close to being as nice to watch.
It's pleasant to look at. I love the different places chosen for the film. Something about them make me feel calm. This is a movie that I would recommend to people who feel stressed because it will relax you and make you remember good emotions. It's not really for casual viewing or for those who wanna follow an engaging plot. Malick uses a nonlinear narrative that doesn't rely on making sense. So, it's not for everyone. I prefer "Knight of Cups" just a little bit more than this one, but it comes close to being as nice to watch.
Slow and rather boring
natashialw18 June 2019
The only reason I gave this such a high rating is because of the cast. The casting is great but Gosling said their was no script, this is just a drawn out boring film and it's hard to believe the original take of this was 8 hours. Nothing to spoil because it's just drawn out every day boring couple talking. If you are dedicated to see your fave celeb in every film they did then sit through that's about it.
Lightness and weight
diand_15 March 2017
In philosophy both Parmenides and Heraclitus saw lightness as the positive side of the lightness-weight dichotomy. Later, the writer Italo Calvino took the same position. But it was Milan Kundera who stated it as a dilemma framed in Nietzsche's concept of the eternal return: a heavy burden can crush us, but the heavier the burden, the more real and truthful our lives become. Malick clearly takes on the latter position in this movie, which was originally more aptly titled Weightless. This theme is also connected to Heidegger's Man being called back in self-awareness and fulfillment by answering introspective questions about his existence.
Song to song is an exploration of love and ambition set against the Austin music scene. Especially around the theme of love the movie makes interesting observations: That true love is only possible by isolating yourself from the fake world (of music and money here), that walls are built around you inhibiting you from finding real love. Another observation is that early in life you love everyone, but ultimately your awareness, society, and religion lets you end up with one true love, unable to love others any more.
The notion Malick makes about love is the romantic character of love itself, romantic not in the sense we nowadays attach to it, but the original meaning as an unattainable ideal, combined with adoration of nature and emphasis on the individual and its intense emotions, the latter creating beauty and experience. Romanticism was mainly a reaction to industrialization and urban sprawl: All Malick movies have shots of urban landscapes and nature scenes; they look for beauty in that nature and have a preference for searching for intuition instead of filming fixed storyboards.
The story however develops in a non-romantic direction: Where in the quintessential novel of the romantic (or more precisely Sturm und Drang) movement the main male character shoots himself after being rejected by the woman he loves (Goethe's Die Leiden des jungen Werthers), Malick replaces that hopelessness with a man who commits adultery, has regrets and is punished and tested by the woman he loves who commits far more and extremer adulterous acts.
Malick uses again a naturalistic style of filming, adding unscripted moments that occur during the movie shoot. Some footage is shot at the Austin City Limits festival and short interviews with John Lydon and Iggy Pop are included. The state of Texas features prominently: a key scene is before a Texaco gas station for example, but overall it is the unusual, non-clichéd beauty of both nature and the built-up Texan landscape that is well captured by Lubezki's camera, making effective use of wide camera angles. It also feels less slow and has more snappy cuts than Knight of Cups, which will be a relief for many I guess. The editing by a team of 8 (!) editors is however inconsistent and one of the weaknesses of the movie.
Two actresses in the movie have in my opinion the capability to give this an extra level, to give it real character depth acting on multiple levels in order to convey the emotions Malick's movies are oddly enough often lacking despite aiming for them: Portman and Blanchett. They are so underused and reduced to cardboard characters that it can almost be called a shame.
What struck me also about this movie is how conservative and deeply religious Malick's world view is: He clearly roots for Patti Smith's love story she tells in the movie for example, and sees the other musicians and portrays them as lost souls. In Song to song the woman repents, but the man only regrets. I see a parallel here with Tarkovsky's movies, which show the same religious, conservative world view. It brings up an odd observation: These two movie geniuses shatter the notion that true art can nowadays only be made by free souls, their art more in line with church-supported art like it used to be (Note: See The Tree of Life explanation by Bishop Barron).
Von Trier once remarked that he in effect makes the same movie over and over again, and Malick has come to that same point now. He has perfected his storytelling skills, hides the movie in the images and by editing, uses time and space shifting, sees salvation in nature (the element of water is effectively used here), adds autobiographical elements (music, adultery, suicide, father-son relation, ambition), so Radegund can hopefully be the creative destruction many now hope for.
Song to song is an exploration of love and ambition set against the Austin music scene. Especially around the theme of love the movie makes interesting observations: That true love is only possible by isolating yourself from the fake world (of music and money here), that walls are built around you inhibiting you from finding real love. Another observation is that early in life you love everyone, but ultimately your awareness, society, and religion lets you end up with one true love, unable to love others any more.
The notion Malick makes about love is the romantic character of love itself, romantic not in the sense we nowadays attach to it, but the original meaning as an unattainable ideal, combined with adoration of nature and emphasis on the individual and its intense emotions, the latter creating beauty and experience. Romanticism was mainly a reaction to industrialization and urban sprawl: All Malick movies have shots of urban landscapes and nature scenes; they look for beauty in that nature and have a preference for searching for intuition instead of filming fixed storyboards.
The story however develops in a non-romantic direction: Where in the quintessential novel of the romantic (or more precisely Sturm und Drang) movement the main male character shoots himself after being rejected by the woman he loves (Goethe's Die Leiden des jungen Werthers), Malick replaces that hopelessness with a man who commits adultery, has regrets and is punished and tested by the woman he loves who commits far more and extremer adulterous acts.
Malick uses again a naturalistic style of filming, adding unscripted moments that occur during the movie shoot. Some footage is shot at the Austin City Limits festival and short interviews with John Lydon and Iggy Pop are included. The state of Texas features prominently: a key scene is before a Texaco gas station for example, but overall it is the unusual, non-clichéd beauty of both nature and the built-up Texan landscape that is well captured by Lubezki's camera, making effective use of wide camera angles. It also feels less slow and has more snappy cuts than Knight of Cups, which will be a relief for many I guess. The editing by a team of 8 (!) editors is however inconsistent and one of the weaknesses of the movie.
Two actresses in the movie have in my opinion the capability to give this an extra level, to give it real character depth acting on multiple levels in order to convey the emotions Malick's movies are oddly enough often lacking despite aiming for them: Portman and Blanchett. They are so underused and reduced to cardboard characters that it can almost be called a shame.
What struck me also about this movie is how conservative and deeply religious Malick's world view is: He clearly roots for Patti Smith's love story she tells in the movie for example, and sees the other musicians and portrays them as lost souls. In Song to song the woman repents, but the man only regrets. I see a parallel here with Tarkovsky's movies, which show the same religious, conservative world view. It brings up an odd observation: These two movie geniuses shatter the notion that true art can nowadays only be made by free souls, their art more in line with church-supported art like it used to be (Note: See The Tree of Life explanation by Bishop Barron).
Von Trier once remarked that he in effect makes the same movie over and over again, and Malick has come to that same point now. He has perfected his storytelling skills, hides the movie in the images and by editing, uses time and space shifting, sees salvation in nature (the element of water is effectively used here), adds autobiographical elements (music, adultery, suicide, father-son relation, ambition), so Radegund can hopefully be the creative destruction many now hope for.
Unusually vapid work from the master filmmaker
JuguAbraham27 June 2017
I am an admirer of Terrence Malick to the extent that I consider him one of the finest filmmakers rubbing shoulders with Andrei Tarkovsky and Stanley Kubrick. He changed the way films were made by throwing the concept of a written script for actors to follow out of the window. He made mother nature a major actor. His earlier films dealt with philosophy, books, religion, science and even arcane pieces of music from faraway lands. 'Song to Song' is a surprising departure from all that. The subject is vapid. Sex and manipulation seem to be the only subjects of discussion, apart from absolutely gorgeous cinematography, which any film of Malick offers.
Malick used to pick up pieces of music with care and place it intelligently within a film. In "Song to song" he does pick up Kieslowski's famous composer Preisner's music but strangely plays bits of it again and again when the music does not add value to the visual, compared to Malick's very intelligent use of music in his past work. Are the editors to blame? Possibly.
Then there is a scene with a caterpillar which will remind cineastes of John Schlesinger's 1967 film "Far from the madding crowd." Malick had borrowed ideas from Tarkovsky in the past and now he seems to recall striking visuals of British cinema.
More amusing for me was that the main credits forgot to add Cate Blanchet's name while her name is indeed included in the longer list at the end.
For me, a Malick admirer, the film was without substance. And why is Malick not using blacks and hispanics in main roles but continually using them in roles that depict them in states of poverty and helplessness? Questions. Questions.
Malick used to pick up pieces of music with care and place it intelligently within a film. In "Song to song" he does pick up Kieslowski's famous composer Preisner's music but strangely plays bits of it again and again when the music does not add value to the visual, compared to Malick's very intelligent use of music in his past work. Are the editors to blame? Possibly.
Then there is a scene with a caterpillar which will remind cineastes of John Schlesinger's 1967 film "Far from the madding crowd." Malick had borrowed ideas from Tarkovsky in the past and now he seems to recall striking visuals of British cinema.
More amusing for me was that the main credits forgot to add Cate Blanchet's name while her name is indeed included in the longer list at the end.
For me, a Malick admirer, the film was without substance. And why is Malick not using blacks and hispanics in main roles but continually using them in roles that depict them in states of poverty and helplessness? Questions. Questions.
Nothing: The Movie
Unsanesarah17 August 2019
I would write more but this film didn't make the effort to create a story so I won't make the effort to write much more than this: Nothing happens. The cinematography is good. The cast is good. The story... all bun, no burger.
You gotta love the visuals. Malick is a painter with a story barely important.
JohnDeSando3 April 2017
"The world wants to be deceived." Cook (Michael Fassbender)
Terence Malick's current cast of romantics are lost in themselves, searching how they can find fulfillment, largely through troubled relationships that on the surface look ethereal. Of course, that heavenly view happens because Malick's point of view is through his lens, which, with the help of his usual cinematographer, Emmanuel Lubezki, is other-worldly gorgeous and impressionistic.
Although Malick has taken inspiration from trees and landscapes in many other films, here he takes pleasure in the angles of modern Austin architecture with its glass-dominated homes and their infinity pools. All the better for the heroes Faye (Rooney Mara) and BV (Ryan Gosling) to be constantly thinking of themselves as the center of the universe and those outside the glass a part of the menagerie to be neglected.
The fly in the ointment of love is producer Cook, who is after Faye and succeeding without BV knowing it. The eternal triangle seems to flourish for much of the film because Malick not only sees like a painter with just images to contend with, but he also concentrates more on the physical properties of his characters and their stories and less on the corrosive result of promiscuity.
The glue to the multiple images is the soundtrack, about as eclectic as you'll ever hear and changing with most sequences. The songs evoke mood and meaning as well as the remembered past, Reinforcing the dominance of music are cameos from the likes of Iggy Pop, Tegan and Sara, Anthony Kiedis, and Lykke.
Music and memory are the stuff of Song to Song. Along with Malick's incomparable images, you'll be fully immersed in the impressions of people caught in the act of using love to give meaning to life. Just don't expect a tour of the Austin music scene. It's all about impressions, Baby.
Terence Malick's current cast of romantics are lost in themselves, searching how they can find fulfillment, largely through troubled relationships that on the surface look ethereal. Of course, that heavenly view happens because Malick's point of view is through his lens, which, with the help of his usual cinematographer, Emmanuel Lubezki, is other-worldly gorgeous and impressionistic.
Although Malick has taken inspiration from trees and landscapes in many other films, here he takes pleasure in the angles of modern Austin architecture with its glass-dominated homes and their infinity pools. All the better for the heroes Faye (Rooney Mara) and BV (Ryan Gosling) to be constantly thinking of themselves as the center of the universe and those outside the glass a part of the menagerie to be neglected.
The fly in the ointment of love is producer Cook, who is after Faye and succeeding without BV knowing it. The eternal triangle seems to flourish for much of the film because Malick not only sees like a painter with just images to contend with, but he also concentrates more on the physical properties of his characters and their stories and less on the corrosive result of promiscuity.
The glue to the multiple images is the soundtrack, about as eclectic as you'll ever hear and changing with most sequences. The songs evoke mood and meaning as well as the remembered past, Reinforcing the dominance of music are cameos from the likes of Iggy Pop, Tegan and Sara, Anthony Kiedis, and Lykke.
Music and memory are the stuff of Song to Song. Along with Malick's incomparable images, you'll be fully immersed in the impressions of people caught in the act of using love to give meaning to life. Just don't expect a tour of the Austin music scene. It's all about impressions, Baby.
Malick, what can I say?
barbagvido15 September 2017
Song to Song is the latest release by the director Terrence Malick and that alone speaks for itself. I really don't know how to describe this. Just like every Malick movie, it's a unique experience. It's a snooze-fest, but there is something about it.
It barely feels like a movie, it's actually a bit of a dream-like experience. None of those scenes is actually complete. It's all kinda weirdly cut together and sometimes you have to think about what just happened. It has an ambiguity of a poem. The way it's edited, I'd describe it like this. Imagine if someone made a movie out of all the parts that were supposed to be unused. So, from longer scenes, which were supposed to have conversations, we have just these shots of faces with some random lines, but never the full conversation. I don't know how else can I put that. It's strange, it's kinda boring, but it's also kinda beautiful at the same time. You just need to let yourself get lost in Malick's beautiful shots and let your mind fly away.
Still, as beautiful as it is, I don't feel the purpose of this movie. The whole experience feels a bit pointless and unearned. The plot is almost non-existent, but the only way I can explain it is that it's some kind of a sub-conscious examination of relationships and love. Still, not everyone's cup of tea, that's for sure.
It barely feels like a movie, it's actually a bit of a dream-like experience. None of those scenes is actually complete. It's all kinda weirdly cut together and sometimes you have to think about what just happened. It has an ambiguity of a poem. The way it's edited, I'd describe it like this. Imagine if someone made a movie out of all the parts that were supposed to be unused. So, from longer scenes, which were supposed to have conversations, we have just these shots of faces with some random lines, but never the full conversation. I don't know how else can I put that. It's strange, it's kinda boring, but it's also kinda beautiful at the same time. You just need to let yourself get lost in Malick's beautiful shots and let your mind fly away.
Still, as beautiful as it is, I don't feel the purpose of this movie. The whole experience feels a bit pointless and unearned. The plot is almost non-existent, but the only way I can explain it is that it's some kind of a sub-conscious examination of relationships and love. Still, not everyone's cup of tea, that's for sure.
Pretentious crap seems mostly improvised
paul-allaer25 March 2017
"Song to Song" (2017 release; 129 min.) brings the story of Faye. As the movie opens, we hear Faye announce in voice over "I went through a period where sex had to be violent", and with that we are off. Fay seems to have a relationship with both BV (a budding musician) and Cook (a record executive). We see them at various Austin landmarks and outdoor shows (ACL Music Festival, I assume). At this point we are about 10-15 min. into the movie, you'll just have to see for yourself how it all plays out.
Couple of comments: this is the latest movie from writer-director Terrence Malick, Here he follows a path that s very similar of his previous film "Knight of Cups": essentially an abstract film about relationships, with not much dialogue but plenty of voice-over thoughts ("Any experience is better than no experience" and "I went along like someone in a dream", just to give you a glimpse). This movie was actually shot in 2011-12, and is only now seeing the light of day. Rumor has it that Malick had 8 hours of film which he had to cut down to this final version, just over 2 hrs., and when you are watching it, it does feel like we skip from scene to scene without any sense or purpose. As for the lead actors (Rooney Mara as Faye, Ryan Gosling as BV, Michael Fassbender as Cook; Natalie Portman appears about a half hour into the movie for some scenes; yet later Cate Blanchett, as a fling of BV, makes her entrance), it feels like most of what they are doing seems improvised. Not much of it makes sense or is coherent in any way, shape or form. Tons of cameos from the music world (RHCP, Iggy Pop, Patti Smith, Johnny Lydon, etc., mostly in a blink and you'll miss it moment). As a long-time fan and admirer of Terrence Malick, it pains me to tell you that, on the heels of the so-so Knight of Cups, this is even worse. Given the all-star ensemble cast, what a colossal waste of talent all around!
"Song to Song" opened this weekend at my local art-house theater here in Cincinnati, and given who all was involved in this production, I couldn't wait to see it. The Saturday matinée screening where I saw this at was attended okay but not great. "Song to Song" is not a movie that I can recommend to anyone, although there may be some curiosity about this film, given the all-star cast attached to it. Viewer beware! (*UPDATE* The movie sank like a stone at the box office, and disappeared after just one week from the theater here in Cincinnati.)
Couple of comments: this is the latest movie from writer-director Terrence Malick, Here he follows a path that s very similar of his previous film "Knight of Cups": essentially an abstract film about relationships, with not much dialogue but plenty of voice-over thoughts ("Any experience is better than no experience" and "I went along like someone in a dream", just to give you a glimpse). This movie was actually shot in 2011-12, and is only now seeing the light of day. Rumor has it that Malick had 8 hours of film which he had to cut down to this final version, just over 2 hrs., and when you are watching it, it does feel like we skip from scene to scene without any sense or purpose. As for the lead actors (Rooney Mara as Faye, Ryan Gosling as BV, Michael Fassbender as Cook; Natalie Portman appears about a half hour into the movie for some scenes; yet later Cate Blanchett, as a fling of BV, makes her entrance), it feels like most of what they are doing seems improvised. Not much of it makes sense or is coherent in any way, shape or form. Tons of cameos from the music world (RHCP, Iggy Pop, Patti Smith, Johnny Lydon, etc., mostly in a blink and you'll miss it moment). As a long-time fan and admirer of Terrence Malick, it pains me to tell you that, on the heels of the so-so Knight of Cups, this is even worse. Given the all-star ensemble cast, what a colossal waste of talent all around!
"Song to Song" opened this weekend at my local art-house theater here in Cincinnati, and given who all was involved in this production, I couldn't wait to see it. The Saturday matinée screening where I saw this at was attended okay but not great. "Song to Song" is not a movie that I can recommend to anyone, although there may be some curiosity about this film, given the all-star cast attached to it. Viewer beware! (*UPDATE* The movie sank like a stone at the box office, and disappeared after just one week from the theater here in Cincinnati.)
The story killed the visuals
alessacarri28 December 2017
Warning: Spoilers
This is my first time seeing a Malick film, and at first the thing that grabbed my attention where the places they recorded, they were different in a way, they showed you so many places like it was a documentary and not a movie, and that can work in a way but... in every film the thing that counts the most it's the story, the STORY is everything, but not just that, they way is TOLD.
Not just the story went slow and confusing but even the actors talked slowly like we had the time of the world, another thing it's the way they kept repiting the same type of scenes, we got an incredible amount of almost sex- very touchy-romantic scenes between the characters.
This is a truly shame because the cast had the talent to do way more, and the places they went where magical!
Two hours of nothing
mbhgkmsgg23 November 2020
I'll be the first to admit that clearly, I didn't get it. Although to be completely honest, I'm not sure that there was anything to get. Song to Song is an incredibly simple story wrapped into an incredibly complicated and meaningless shell.
This was my first time watching a Malick film, so maybe it is true that I just didn't get it. But the more I think about it, the more convinced I am that there is nothing to get. It's a film filled with shots of nothing. Shots that linger for far too long revealing nothing that wasn't already revealed. Shots that are supposedly filled with meaning but come off as nothing but pretentious. And it's these shots that make the movie so incredibly slow. So slow, in fact, that I ended up checking twice how much was still left.
But it's not just the lack of substance that I found troubling. It's also the fact that this is such a simple story that is being told in an unnecessarily complicated way. It's a story of lovers who get mixed up in various relationships only to realise with whom they really belong. It's a story that's been told endless times in endless ways. Somehow, though, Song to Song manages to take that story and turn it into what I can only describe as a bunch of nothing. I didn't care about the characters, I didn't care about the story, nor did I care about anything else. I didn't even care about Ryan Gosling, who I would consider to be my favourite actor.
In a way, I have to give credit to Malick for creating something as meaningless as this. To be able to make a two-hour movie filled with a whole bunch of nothing is remarkable in and of its self. But, as I said, maybe I just didn't get it. Maybe this really is the masterpiece that so many people consider it to be. But luckily we don't all have to like the same things, because I sincerely hope that I never have to watch Song to Song again.
This was my first time watching a Malick film, so maybe it is true that I just didn't get it. But the more I think about it, the more convinced I am that there is nothing to get. It's a film filled with shots of nothing. Shots that linger for far too long revealing nothing that wasn't already revealed. Shots that are supposedly filled with meaning but come off as nothing but pretentious. And it's these shots that make the movie so incredibly slow. So slow, in fact, that I ended up checking twice how much was still left.
But it's not just the lack of substance that I found troubling. It's also the fact that this is such a simple story that is being told in an unnecessarily complicated way. It's a story of lovers who get mixed up in various relationships only to realise with whom they really belong. It's a story that's been told endless times in endless ways. Somehow, though, Song to Song manages to take that story and turn it into what I can only describe as a bunch of nothing. I didn't care about the characters, I didn't care about the story, nor did I care about anything else. I didn't even care about Ryan Gosling, who I would consider to be my favourite actor.
In a way, I have to give credit to Malick for creating something as meaningless as this. To be able to make a two-hour movie filled with a whole bunch of nothing is remarkable in and of its self. But, as I said, maybe I just didn't get it. Maybe this really is the masterpiece that so many people consider it to be. But luckily we don't all have to like the same things, because I sincerely hope that I never have to watch Song to Song again.
Weightless
RicardoPimentel13-978-23881626 March 2017
I'm not gonna go into the actual plot of the film itself and its intricate nature; ill let you Experience the journey yourself, but I will say, if you're a Malick fan, you will appreciate it more. Unfolding in pure stream of consciousnesses form, I was left entranced by what I was seeing on screen. Jarring, hypnotic, sexy. These people are all but familiar, you feel with them throughout their human experience, love, greed, betrayal, self pity. and their search for "Meaning", and i put meaning in quotations for a reason. It pulsates with authenticity. As I walked out of the theater the film was washed over me, I became more in tune to the images and sounds of my reality. Reveling in the power of the now. Malicks unique film language and the way he crafts the interconnectedness of time is so refreshing and interesting. Thank you Terrence Malick.
a special movie from a special director
azertyu1735718 June 2017
i thing this move is just a Terrence Malick classic , i like the story and the way he Presented it where he Avoided the secondary events of the story which not embodied in words and actions , but with the image and cadres as a means to fill the film , but to me the character of Ryan gosling was a deception cause he was constant all along the movie there is nothing special in his role , this story is about love sex and mercy , where Rooney is love Michael is sex and Ryan is mercy . there is so much meanings in this movie that was inspiring to me
it was the best of Malick times... it was the WTF-worst of Malick times
Quinoa198429 March 2017
On the one hand, I liked that, for what seems like the first time since The New World Malick has actors as characters in scenes where they, you know, have dialog exchanges and we get to see how they interact and learn about each other. It's not a lot of the time, but it shows that when Malick sat down with the actors and, whether it was improvised or not, got them to figure out how these people would talk to one another, whatever shades (or not) of depth there would be - and this isn't just the main cast but, say, small scenes between Mara's Faye and Faye's father, or BV (Gosling) with his mother, or any of Patti Smith's scenes - it's a joy to see these actors work off one another. If Malick had actually been working from a script, as opposed to no script at all, he might have had one of his best films.
On the other hand, and I can't believe I'm saying this, I may be getting tired of "Chivo" Lubezki's cinematography, at least in this case after so many Malick films. It's a strange thing to say since when one sees The New World or especially The Tree of Life, they're nothing short of photographic tour-de-forces, things that we haven't seen in cinematic grammar before as far as how he uses the lenses and the natural light, at least in such a way as it is. But while he has the good instinct sometimes to push in or pull out on an actor when they're talking, and of course the light through (there are a lot of) windows, or outside, is beautiful (it can't help but be anything but and there's no synonyms left for it), I kind of wished there wasn't such a hodge-podge of technical approaches here.
And meanwhile on the one hand this is a film that has Iggy Pop, Flea and Patti Smith in cameos (and Smith even gets to have something like a character, probably more than Holly Hunter or Cate Blanchett probably), and it certainly captures the Austin music scene with vitality and energy and gets how it's intoxicating to see the audience and to be so close to the stage or backstage and, to another extent, hanging around Michael Fassbender (who, despite working without a script net, shows why he's so good as an actor first, movie star second, understanding how to just be in a room looking and listening can have weight). Also all of the main cast have insanely good chemistry together, both physically and mentally (mostly physically), and I think Gosling and Mara are a good fit for a Malick world.
On the other hand, this line: "I don't like to see the birds in the sky because I'll miss you" or this line "Mercy was a word. I never thought I needed it." Yeah.
And, on top of the narration which is, mostly here, the absolute worst that Malick's had in his films - some of it's laughable, other times it's horrible, and even in Knight of Cups I didn't feel this way, though to an extent I did with 'Wonder' - I felt bad for actors in the second half of the movie who seemed adrift, maybe with more character material on the cutting room floor (there's another *six hours* of this), like Blanchett or Berenice Marlohe. Both of these women play the love interests of the respective Gosling and Mara characters after they split up (why they do would both take too long and not be worth the effort for its simplicity), but even compared to everyone else I didn't get a sense of who they were as people.
I'm not talking about this as if it's a problem as far as something intentional that a filmmaker does where they leave some mystery with the people and we have to read into things (with Faye, I think Mara actually does a whole lot with a little, at least from what we can see, and her performance came the closest to making me care about a character on screen - I thought almost the same could've been for Portman's Rhonda, but she leaves the film for so long stretches I forgot that her conflict was so shallow, but I digress). What I mean is more that I had no idea why the two ex-lovebirds would go with these people, what they mean to them, what they do for them, and why Blanchett's character becomes so sad for not much reason (BV's mother warns him off of her at one point because... she's sad, that's it), and Marlohe gets even less.
So with Song to Song, I know it sounds like I'm coming down on it harshly, but it's because I expect a great deal from this director, and want him to do well. The problem though in general is that at 129 minutes it feels too long, which is a strange thing to note considering that there's, I must stress, SIX OTHER HOURS of footage, so I'm not sure if it could use being like 20 even 30 minutes shorter, or another hour longer or so. There's scenes that get surprisingly close to the emotional depths that Malick could get at back in his prime 70's days with his actors, and they're game for making a romance film full of highs and lows. But the more "Malick" touches with how memories and impressions and nature and the city of Austin and who knows what else blends in with the story is hit or miss at best and distractingly precious and bad at worst (I probably neglected to write down other glaringly dumb lines).
On the other hand, and I can't believe I'm saying this, I may be getting tired of "Chivo" Lubezki's cinematography, at least in this case after so many Malick films. It's a strange thing to say since when one sees The New World or especially The Tree of Life, they're nothing short of photographic tour-de-forces, things that we haven't seen in cinematic grammar before as far as how he uses the lenses and the natural light, at least in such a way as it is. But while he has the good instinct sometimes to push in or pull out on an actor when they're talking, and of course the light through (there are a lot of) windows, or outside, is beautiful (it can't help but be anything but and there's no synonyms left for it), I kind of wished there wasn't such a hodge-podge of technical approaches here.
And meanwhile on the one hand this is a film that has Iggy Pop, Flea and Patti Smith in cameos (and Smith even gets to have something like a character, probably more than Holly Hunter or Cate Blanchett probably), and it certainly captures the Austin music scene with vitality and energy and gets how it's intoxicating to see the audience and to be so close to the stage or backstage and, to another extent, hanging around Michael Fassbender (who, despite working without a script net, shows why he's so good as an actor first, movie star second, understanding how to just be in a room looking and listening can have weight). Also all of the main cast have insanely good chemistry together, both physically and mentally (mostly physically), and I think Gosling and Mara are a good fit for a Malick world.
On the other hand, this line: "I don't like to see the birds in the sky because I'll miss you" or this line "Mercy was a word. I never thought I needed it." Yeah.
And, on top of the narration which is, mostly here, the absolute worst that Malick's had in his films - some of it's laughable, other times it's horrible, and even in Knight of Cups I didn't feel this way, though to an extent I did with 'Wonder' - I felt bad for actors in the second half of the movie who seemed adrift, maybe with more character material on the cutting room floor (there's another *six hours* of this), like Blanchett or Berenice Marlohe. Both of these women play the love interests of the respective Gosling and Mara characters after they split up (why they do would both take too long and not be worth the effort for its simplicity), but even compared to everyone else I didn't get a sense of who they were as people.
I'm not talking about this as if it's a problem as far as something intentional that a filmmaker does where they leave some mystery with the people and we have to read into things (with Faye, I think Mara actually does a whole lot with a little, at least from what we can see, and her performance came the closest to making me care about a character on screen - I thought almost the same could've been for Portman's Rhonda, but she leaves the film for so long stretches I forgot that her conflict was so shallow, but I digress). What I mean is more that I had no idea why the two ex-lovebirds would go with these people, what they mean to them, what they do for them, and why Blanchett's character becomes so sad for not much reason (BV's mother warns him off of her at one point because... she's sad, that's it), and Marlohe gets even less.
So with Song to Song, I know it sounds like I'm coming down on it harshly, but it's because I expect a great deal from this director, and want him to do well. The problem though in general is that at 129 minutes it feels too long, which is a strange thing to note considering that there's, I must stress, SIX OTHER HOURS of footage, so I'm not sure if it could use being like 20 even 30 minutes shorter, or another hour longer or so. There's scenes that get surprisingly close to the emotional depths that Malick could get at back in his prime 70's days with his actors, and they're game for making a romance film full of highs and lows. But the more "Malick" touches with how memories and impressions and nature and the city of Austin and who knows what else blends in with the story is hit or miss at best and distractingly precious and bad at worst (I probably neglected to write down other glaringly dumb lines).
A haunting meditation on love & romance
nestor-trujillo2 April 2017
Am I the only one who absolutely this film? After watching it and reading through a few reviews I felt, as usual with Terrence Malick, unsurprised but wholly frustrated at the glut of criticism towards this film. As expected, they devolved into the typical comments regarding Malick's "pretentiousness" and how his style has diminished into overindulgent "self-parody." I understand the niche taste Malick has come to cater to (if he really is catering to anyone but himself). I can even understand complaints about his recent films' painfully long runtimes, his static pacing and tone, his tedious, sparse narratives, which are all reasonable and grounded opinions. What I cannot understand are these notions of self-parody because, to my knowledge, parody requires humor and there is nothing funny about the deeply personal stories and haunted characters Malick shows us. There is also nothing pretentious about Terrence Malick. The word "pretentious" denotes an attempt "to impress by affecting greater importance than is actually possessed" but who are we to claim what is important and what isn't? Even if his films seem affected and contrived to many, they are clearly also important and deeply personal works to him and, in my opinion, to an artist that should be all that matters.
With that said, Song To Song is perhaps one of Malick's best films yet. I disliked To the Wonder and although I absolutely loved Knight of Cups (my second favorite film from 2017), Song To Song proves to be a much more cohesive work while still managing to transcend time and space as past, present, and future all flow into each other, making the viewer question how the chronology of the narrative might have transpired. In this sense, Song To Song is a cerebral film that challenges the audience to piece together director's landscape of fractured memories and complex emotions. However, in this film it is achieved with much more comprehension, unlike Knight of Cups which utilized a similarly fragmented narrative but then threw us off (or at least me) by giving the false impression of being a linear episodic story.
It's also impossible to write a review for this film without discussing the music. The music! Malick's approach to the crazed, liberated, drug-fueled music scene in Austin, Texas really embraces the opportunity to introduce a quality rock soundtrack in contrast to his usual classical scores, which is still present but overwhelmingly outnumbered by tracks by Patti Smith (who appears in the film), the Black Lips and, oddly enough, Die Antwoord. The music aids the film's sense of progression and cohesion, as it quite fittingly moves from song to song in a manner that reminded me a lot of another musically-infused romantic film, 9 Songs (Winterbottom, 2004). Though at first this may sound like a gimmick it actually serves a satisfying symbolic function, which is revealed by an important line in the movie that I will not spoil (you'll know it when you hear it). At the very least, it's safe to say that the music helps liven the otherwise brooding tone of the movie while also providing a stark contrast to Emmanuel Lubezki's beautiful cinematography, which I need not even get into.
Overall, Terrence Malick's latest tone poem captures its subjects with candid grace, like a haunted lover reminiscing on splintered memories with regret and sorrow. As usual, he focuses not on the content of characters' relationships, nor their actions or words, but on the very feeling of being in love, of being torn in half, of being lost and confused. He welcomes you into his own haunted psyche, manufacturing a dreamscape that I trust myself to be immersed in because it is a deeply personal one. At one point, Ryan Gosling's character even speaks to his two brothers, harking back to his earlier film, The Tree of Life, and undoubtedly a parallel to Malick's own tortured past. There is no doubt that the characters in his films are all important parts of him, but they are also parts of ourselves; and the fact that he opens himself up to us which such sincerity in order to allow ourselves to explore our own pain and regrets, is truly a brave act. Ultimately, Song To Song is a phenomenal experience that, like most of Malick's work, is grounded in memory because he understands that it is never the exact details or conversations that we remember, but the pain, the joy, the sadness, and the fleeting moments that meant the most to us.
A Beautiful Ode to Amazing Austin & A Charming Experience to Watch
ASuiGeneris4 October 2017
This certainly is not for everyone. There is no linear plot really, and it can be best described as a mesh of images, feelings, emotions, montages, vignettes. I would I have been a Terrence Malick admirer for many years now. This might not be his best, but it also is not as bad as many critics are saying. It does borrow from his other films- themes, ideas, etcetera. Thirty seconds, anywhere during the film, is enough to know this is obviously the work of Malick. Interestingly, most of the things many critics are citing as problems are the precise reasons why I liked it. I do feel it was a little long and there is some validity to the problems mentioned (it could have done with a few less random characters), but overall this was a wonderful film to experience.
* Having little plot and creative camera angles, sudden cuts and minimal segues was all necessary to create a feeling. I do not pretend how to properly describe the technical terms here, but all I can say Malick & Lubezki know what they are doing. They had a vision and they carried it out. I, for one, appreciate the results. The New York Times: "The cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki creates plunging, whirling, beatifically graceful, seemingly borderless images that gather light lovingly and avidly—and catch the light with which each of the film's actors seems to glow." This is a feeling film. Watching it is an experience, comparable to visiting an art museum.
* The voiceovers actually added to the overall effect of the film, dreamlike and practically mesmerizing.
* So what is this about? It is about life. About love. About relationships, about people. About how we sometimes know what we want, but mostly do not. How we strive to be more, but often fail. How life can bring us down, how love can often disappoint; but, likewise, how life can amaze, surprise, and be maybe not everything we wanted but something we can learn to embrace with vivacity. About entanglements- between boyfriends and girlfriends; amongst mother and daughter, mother and son, father and daughter, father and son; within families; with friends; and- most importantly- with ourselves.
* This is a music film. Several celebrity musicians have cameos. The score is nice when it is subtle and at turns beautiful and magnificent when it is not.
* The cast is phenomenal. Ryan Gosling, Rooney Mara, Michael Fassbender, Natalie Portman, Cate Blanchett, Bérénice Marlohe. This last French actress is stunning and I am quickly becoming a big fan of hers. I look forward to seeing more from her. So far, my favorite from her is not the more popular Skyfall or Twin Peaks, but as the leading actress in 5 to 7.
* Filming locations I totally recognized and have been to, even frequent: Austin City Hall (the building that is shaped like an armadillo!), Enoteca Vespaio, Hotel San Jose, Hotel Cecelia, Cenote, The Mohawk, Hangar Lounge, Second Bar & Kitchen, Asti Trattoria, Caesar Chavez Street mural, Hula Hut, Ms. P's Electric Cock, Rainey Street, South Congress Street (Home Slice, Stag), Caffé Medici, Stubb's, Perla's, under the Brontosaurus Bridge, Pennypacker Bridge, Zilker Park, Hangar Lounge (The Rooftop especially), Rain (along with other gay clubs downtown), ElevenEleven, Mozart's, Lake Travis, Ann Richards Bridge, Mexican American Cultural Center, University of Texas Football Stadium, University of Texas Tower (where the infamous shooter was in 1966, resulting in the unfortunate 18 deaths), The Marchesa Hall & Theater (outside), Downtown Austin skyline (Especially at night, my favorite skyscraper, the Friday Bank Tower). This was obviously filmed during SXSW. Possibly also Fun Fun Fun Fest. An ode to the amazing city of Austin, which I visit at least twice a month (I am not far). So of course I was biased to love this.
* Having little plot and creative camera angles, sudden cuts and minimal segues was all necessary to create a feeling. I do not pretend how to properly describe the technical terms here, but all I can say Malick & Lubezki know what they are doing. They had a vision and they carried it out. I, for one, appreciate the results. The New York Times: "The cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki creates plunging, whirling, beatifically graceful, seemingly borderless images that gather light lovingly and avidly—and catch the light with which each of the film's actors seems to glow." This is a feeling film. Watching it is an experience, comparable to visiting an art museum.
* The voiceovers actually added to the overall effect of the film, dreamlike and practically mesmerizing.
* So what is this about? It is about life. About love. About relationships, about people. About how we sometimes know what we want, but mostly do not. How we strive to be more, but often fail. How life can bring us down, how love can often disappoint; but, likewise, how life can amaze, surprise, and be maybe not everything we wanted but something we can learn to embrace with vivacity. About entanglements- between boyfriends and girlfriends; amongst mother and daughter, mother and son, father and daughter, father and son; within families; with friends; and- most importantly- with ourselves.
* This is a music film. Several celebrity musicians have cameos. The score is nice when it is subtle and at turns beautiful and magnificent when it is not.
* The cast is phenomenal. Ryan Gosling, Rooney Mara, Michael Fassbender, Natalie Portman, Cate Blanchett, Bérénice Marlohe. This last French actress is stunning and I am quickly becoming a big fan of hers. I look forward to seeing more from her. So far, my favorite from her is not the more popular Skyfall or Twin Peaks, but as the leading actress in 5 to 7.
* Filming locations I totally recognized and have been to, even frequent: Austin City Hall (the building that is shaped like an armadillo!), Enoteca Vespaio, Hotel San Jose, Hotel Cecelia, Cenote, The Mohawk, Hangar Lounge, Second Bar & Kitchen, Asti Trattoria, Caesar Chavez Street mural, Hula Hut, Ms. P's Electric Cock, Rainey Street, South Congress Street (Home Slice, Stag), Caffé Medici, Stubb's, Perla's, under the Brontosaurus Bridge, Pennypacker Bridge, Zilker Park, Hangar Lounge (The Rooftop especially), Rain (along with other gay clubs downtown), ElevenEleven, Mozart's, Lake Travis, Ann Richards Bridge, Mexican American Cultural Center, University of Texas Football Stadium, University of Texas Tower (where the infamous shooter was in 1966, resulting in the unfortunate 18 deaths), The Marchesa Hall & Theater (outside), Downtown Austin skyline (Especially at night, my favorite skyscraper, the Friday Bank Tower). This was obviously filmed during SXSW. Possibly also Fun Fun Fun Fest. An ode to the amazing city of Austin, which I visit at least twice a month (I am not far). So of course I was biased to love this.
This movie is NOT a movie!
juicer-5967830 July 2018
Total garbage just like everyone of his movies since his 20 year hiatus! Should have stayed retire, every movie he's directed is worse than the previous. Putting together clips of nice scenery and having A list actors improvising don't make it a movie.
I only watch his garbage because I like the A list actors and actresses. I can't believe producers keep allowing this guy to direct and blow their money because I can assure you not any of his last five movies have made any money. I don't get his nostalgia and why the actors all want to appear in his trash.
I only watch his garbage because I like the A list actors and actresses. I can't believe producers keep allowing this guy to direct and blow their money because I can assure you not any of his last five movies have made any money. I don't get his nostalgia and why the actors all want to appear in his trash.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
