Is Terrence Malick an overrated filmaker?

Tools    





...Malick is completely spent as a filmmaker.
Or...maybe Malick has rid himself of the need to pander to the masses and focuses on creating films that speaks to his own soul...and by being true to his own vision, his films then resonate with some. That is what an artist is all about.



Or...maybe Malick has rid himself of the need to pander to the masses and focuses on creating films that speaks to his own soul...and by being true to his own vision, his films then resonate with some. That is what an artist is all about.
Yeah but they were all big flops both critical and the box office.

That’s why I have said that he’s burned out after TTOL



Why on earth are you measuring the quality of a film by box office success / failure?
Critical though, box office is also important to know if the audiences like em.

Malick had an incredibly track record of critically acclaimed films.

I checked the prestigious magazines or lists. And after TTOL his stuff is just... more criticized than praised

Also I am not trolling, y'know some filmmakers can be just done.

Carpenter was completely finished after Vampires.



box office is also important to know if the audiences like em.

.
No.

It's not. It means absolutely zero.

Kubrick's Barry Lyndon made 1.9% of it's cost WORLDWIDE. Not opening weekend. In it's entire run.

Does that reflect the all time audience opinion?

Nope. Because box office means absolutely zero.



No.

It's not. It means absolutely zero.

Kubrick's Barry Lyndon made 1.9% of it's cost WORLDWIDE. Not opening weekend. In it's entire run.

Does that reflect the all time audience opinion?

Nope. Because box office means absolutely zero.
I find that to be one of kubrick's weakest film.

It does reflect because it shows that you can be entertaining or touch a lot of people while being well done.

Jurassic park, terminator and the dark knight rises are examples of this,



I find that to be one of kubrick's weakest film.
Which means absolutely nothing, as it's widely regarded as one of the most beautiful films ever made. Either way my opinion and your opinion of individuals will differ. What is certain is that using box office metrics to gauge quality is absolutely nonsensical.

It does reflect because it shows that you can be entertaining or touch a lot of people while being well done.

Jurassic park, terminator and the dark knight rises are examples of this,
I don't know what any of that means sorry. You've just named 3 expensive hollywood films.



Sorry if I'm rude but I'm right
As someone who hasn't loved a single Malick movie and who thinks @Mr Minio trolls like 90% of the time, I find myself amazingly agreeing with him.
I'm not trolling. I'm just churning out low-effort replies. Once in a while, I try harder, and most of the time it turns out it wasn't even worth it. Further discussion with OP is pointless.
__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.



Which means absolutely nothing, as it's widely regarded as one of the most beautiful films ever made. Either way my opinion and your opinion of individuals will differ. What is certain is that using box office metrics to gauge quality is absolutely nonsensical.



I don't know what any of that means sorry. You've just named 3 expensive hollywood films.
1. It means nothing, to you but i personally didn't like it much.

2. It can regarded as much as you want, but if i don't like it much then it's not that good. All films are subjective as far i'm concerned.

3. Box office is not 100% to be taken at face value, but i was just saying that most of great, or original films who do well at box office, have strong legs because of their quality.

-

I was refering about three films being both quality, and also groundbreaking in their genres, that did both well at box office and so did with critics.



but if i don't like it much then it's not that good.


i was just saying that most of great, or original films who do well at box office, have strong legs because of their quality.
.
Not true. They just have money behind them. More people go to see them because they are marketed. Because they are expected to make more money.

This is basic economics come on.







Not true. They just have money behind them. More people go to see them because they are marketed. Because they are expected to make more money.

This is basic economics come on.
I'm gonna tell you a secret: those rankings and lists are not arbitrary. You just go for what you enjoy more and do you prefer, if not you would have to follow both directors and film film-by-film and ranking by ranking? Definitely not.

Barry Lyndon is quite overrated, Kubrick has done much better like eyes wide shut and shining

Legs..... and also innovation and quality dude.

If not they would be flop, BO is always a positive measurable for ANY film.



Sorry but not trolling anything, just saying that when someone thinks something has flaws, he's not downplaying. He's simply giving his opinion.

Were, ALL Malick films since TTOL, both critical and box office flops? Yes, it's 100% correct:

https://www.the-numbers.com/person/9...ck#tab=summary

Box office is positive because, it shows that someone has a large appeal.



There are no rules dude it’s all subjective for viewers
So deep, bruh.

Enjoy your narrative cinema and have a good one.



So deep, bruh.

Enjoy your narrative cinema and have a good one.
I like Cronenberg a lot, so i do like Mulholland Drive and other non-linear films.

"narrative cinema" seems like you're trying say that i don't understand Malick's films?

I understand them, and i don't like his ideas, since he has fallen off. It's fair to say he's completely spent as a director.



Further discussion with OP is pointless.
Thank you. The response against Barry Lyndon crunched it for me:

Entertainment = Good.
Artistry and/or Innovating = Bad.

You pretty much summed up the reason I rarely go on these, or any, boards anymore. I don't mind "sniping" a comment here and there, but I've found in my years I'm pretty set in my opinions and people are set in theirs. So these little "Prove me wrong" threads seem rather shallow to begin with and fruitless furthermore.
__________________
Imagine an eye unruled by man-made laws of perspective, an eye unprejudiced by compositional logic, an eye which does not respond to the name of everything but which must know each object encountered in life through an adventure of perception. How many colors are there in a field of grass to the crawling baby unaware of 'Green'?

-Stan Brakhage