Is Terrence Malick an overrated filmaker?

I think Lynch and Cronenberg, outside of making violent and weird films, are fairly far away from each other. Lynch attempts to tell fairly conventional narratives through the surrealist prism of emotions. Cronenberg, even at his most surreal with Naked Lunch and Videodrome, is usually operating on some literal level in examining the relationship between the physical and metaphysical.

I think your last point is accurate in that Malick (and Lynch) are not to YOUR liking. I think that's an important distinction to make rather than "they're overrated" or them being filmmakers that have a fundamental failing in their craft. I don't much care for Picasso's aesthetics but I'm not going to begin to insist that's his failing and that he just didn't know how to paint a woman the "right" way. It's just not to my taste.

Or maybe.. I think their movies have flaws and they can’t write characters

No matter what film Lynch does, he only uses 1-note fanatics and archetypes. And has a lot of directing flaws I guess.

Malick is a good filmmaker but I don’t think he is in the same league as Spielberg, Leone, Coen brothers etc. that’s why I find him overrated.

Mr. Cronenberg is far and away my favorite. Just a dark path but scary and enjoyable.

And we're back to square one with "flaws." It's not a matter of "can't" do something. It's a matter of "are not" doing something.

It's why all your comparisons fall flat. Maybe if you were arguing why Tarkovsky, Tarr or Antonioni are superior directors, there'd be a conversation worth having about Malick's supposed short comings.

When your points of comparison are Fincher and Spielberg, forget the ballpark, you're not playing the right sport (figured a Tarantino paraphrase was more your speed).

Based on what is exactly Malick better than Fincher or Spielberg?

Even, if he was more different to be compared to em. I can still believe his films are flawed.

Has anyone answered this yet? The answer is no. Thread closed. Yes or yes?

__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...

I think we're avoiding the real question, which is whether or not he's better than Christopher Nolan.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

What has Nolan to do here?

Yeah, Malick is "better" but i enjoy Nolan's and Fincher's film a lot more.

If we base it on archiviements, but if i base on my personal prefence...

it goes

PTA > Nolan > Fincher >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Malick.

I've only seen two Malick films, one I liked a lot and one I hated, but he's at least doing something interesting and that puts him above PTA, Fincher and Nolan. And I've liked every PTA film I've seen a good bit too.

__________________
Favourite films list: https://www.movieforums.com/lists/custom/200

What about Zodiac and Panic Room though

Fincher's the better director, but i tend to favor Nolan's due to The Dark Knight, Inception and Memento.

PTA is better than all of em, both in films and maturity/style. He's polished as no one at the moment, and has TWBB which is one of the best films of this decade.

It's a joke about how every other director-centric thread you start is an either/or thread where one of the options is invariably Nolan.

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. From what I can tell, Malick is one of the few mainstream(?) directors today who makes unique films and doesn't give a damn about general expectations. I'm not too fond of his vision but I do respect him for doing his thing, and doing it with great technical prowess.

__________________

Different =/= better

I don't think Malick could make Raiders of the Lost Ark anymore than I think Spielberg could make Tree of Life.

Sure, you can think he's flawed. Just as I can think every criticism you've launched against him is flimsy and predicated on categorical mistakes that demonstrate a misunderstanding of what he's doing.

May i ask why you're not a big fan of neither Nolan or Fincher?

These two are my favorites as you know (excluding Marty, Spielberg and Coppola).

What misunderstanding lol, his films don't resonate with me.

Spielberg completely wipes the floor with him, with Raiders, Jaws, Schindler's list etc.

He not only revolutioned the entire landscape of blockbuster and cinema in general, but he has quality films for decades. That are far more iconic, rewatchable and praised than Malick's pseudo-philosphical nonsense (Post TTOL) i'm speaking.

Your entire approach to understanding Malick (and what cinema IS) is the misunderstanding. Stop treating it like sports.

Spielberg and Allen could never do what Malick does. They don't stray from traditional narratives. Malick tries to push boundaries. Sometimes he fails. But he tries. Spielberg and Allen don't.

Totally. He does his own thing. He's an eccentric. Apparently, Adrien Brody attended the premiere of The Thin Red Line expecting to be the lead. He is only in about 10 minutes of the film and is very much a periphery character

Bill Pullman and Mickey Rourke acted in The Thin Red Line,, but were completely cut out of the final version.

Malick does things his way. Good on him.

Malick is not underrated and I can prove it...sort of. Ask any person on the street who Terrence Malick is and most won't know his name. So how could he be overrated when he's hardly known to the popcorn eating masses?

Let them eat slow molasses, the kind that takes ten minutes to drip from the jar into their upturned mouths.

You are right, they can do much better given the masterpieces they got.

All I care is watching a good film, and pushing the boundaries is just what he wants to do.

Yet it didn’t work after tree Of life for anything I have seen from him.

I understand perfectly about not having a narrative but still I can recognize flaws in these film and find him overrated

There are no rules dude it’s all subjective for viewers

Just because you consider something a good film (or a bad film), doesn't make it so. Especially considering you named the most accessible director of all time as a benchmark of quality.

What did you make of 'A Hidden Life' ?

And just because you like it, or some do. It doesn’t make it a good film.

Is subjective art right?

That explains why some films are more accessible like fight club but still enjoyed by both critics and audiences

I’ll throw a less accessible director: Cronenberg yet I enjoy his dark and scary path.

Hidden Life was boring, just another religious stuff and waaaaaay too much long

Malick is completely spent as a filmmaker.