|
|
Post by persistenceofvision on May 12, 2019 3:38:03 GMT
Watching this now, after being told for decades it was the most beautiful film ever made. Having to buy Richard Gere as a starving farmhand in 1916 is really bothering me. He and Sam Shephard both have perfect 1970s movie-star hair (although Shephard really does look starving).
|
|
|
|
Post by wmcclain on May 12, 2019 11:23:11 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by vegalyra on May 14, 2019 14:23:58 GMT
It's an okay film. Has wonderful cinematography that is for sure. Malick's masterpiece though is definitely The Thin Red Line.
|
|
|
|
Post by President Ackbar™ on May 14, 2019 15:49:43 GMT
It's an okay film. Has wonderful cinematography that is for sure. Malick's masterpiece though is definitely The Thin Red Line. The New World is my favorite.
|
|
|
|
Post by movielover on May 14, 2019 16:02:00 GMT
7/10 - Not a bad little movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by vegalyra on May 14, 2019 17:02:52 GMT
It's an okay film. Has wonderful cinematography that is for sure. Malick's masterpiece though is definitely The Thin Red Line. The New World is my favorite. That's my second favorite, although I wish Plummer had had more screen time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fox in the Snow on May 15, 2019 10:50:09 GMT
Only seen once, quite a while back, but I remember liking it a lot, especially the visuals it's famous for. Time for rewatch. Actually, might have to plan a complete Malick rewatch sometime in the not too distant future.  |
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on May 15, 2019 15:46:10 GMT
It's an okay film. Has wonderful cinematography that is for sure. Malick's masterpiece though is definitely The Thin Red Line. The New World is my favorite. Generally indifferent to most of his films but that was pretty good.
|
|
|
|
Post by persistenceofvision on May 15, 2019 19:45:09 GMT
Sam Shepard has brought a plague upon the land! Fear the wrath of Sam Shepard!
Yep, 7/10 like the man said.
|
|
|
|
Post by tommyrockarolla on May 16, 2019 21:07:34 GMT
I find it hard to believe that Wexler shot more than half of this film. His style was completely different from Almendros' and yet there's a remarkable consistency to every scene. My understanding was that Wexler filled in when Almendros had an illness, but Almendros is not here to tell us. Shooting at magic hour could compensate for Wexler's more realistic tendencies, however. I have some post-production connections to the film, but I can't with certainty remember the whole story. In any case, it's one of the most visually beautiful films ever made. And I appreciated your comments about Malick's investment in things of the natural world, in particular in a prairie landscape. He was raised in Oklahoma and Texas, and I am confident that the prairie landscape is his true muse. I really appreciate the lyrical beauty of Days of Heaven, but I believe his first film, Badlands (1973), is his best. After Heaven, I've grown more and more weary of his films, despite their visual beauty, because of his increasing abandonment of a strong narrative structure.
Well, I love broad cinematography, so needles to say? I like a lot of his films. While 'lack of narrative' is troubling? It sometimes really, really works. While "Tree Of Life" can be preachy and confusing? Whatever was 'between the lines' knocked me out of my seat at first viewing in the theater. Some of his others as well. I like the Sheen/Spacek film as well, I think "Days Of Heaven" is a great film, really a more accurate template to what Malick seeks to convey in his films.
|
|
|
|
Post by vegalyra on Jan 14, 2020 17:12:42 GMT
Has anyone seen Malick's latest film, A HIDDEN LIFE, the true story of Austrian Franz Jägerstätter, a conscientious objector, who refuses to fight for the Nazis in World War II? I've seen the trailer, and it looks like it's going to be very good, even though - in typical Malick fashion - it's almost three hours long. Then again, so is THE IRISHMAN, and I have no doubt that Malick's film will be a lot more appealing to the eye. I want to like it. It's been a long time since I've really liked one of his films, because of his meandering narratives. I have the same question. I've heard that the narrative is stronger in this film than most of his previous films from the past decade and a half or so.
|
|
|
|
Post by ZolotoyRetriever on Apr 2, 2022 20:39:31 GMT
Just finished watching it - all the way to the end this time. I looked at it once some years back, somehow couldn't get past the first 10-15 minutes. But this time I stuck it out. Glad I did, as I ended up really admiring it for its oft-praised cinematography. I understand it's been criticized for being weak on plot. As far as I'm concerned, since film is primarily a visual medium, I see no reason why we can't allow for a moving picture to focus greatly on imagery as its primary attraction, with plot being secondary. In a way, Days of Heaven is the opposite of those classic novels that were packed with well-crafted sentences, plot devices and character development, but also included a few key picture pages thrown in for added illumination. In any case, weak plot or not, I liked it and wish I could see it again on the big screen.
|
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on Apr 2, 2022 20:57:18 GMT
Beautiful film.
|
|
