A brilliant film that helped define a genre

It is interesting even when nothing much happens, which is for most of its 3-hour running time. Read full review

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

Some random thoughts while watching this pretentious stinker: Film students correctly screen and study the works of Fellini and Antonioni and so did Malick, but ripping them off is inadvisable.I saw "Badlands" at its NYFF world preem in 1973 and was a big fan of TM through his next one "Days of Heaven", but....he ended up a hack as witness here.Compare careers to Conrad Rooks -as fiercely independent minded if not more so with 2 interesting features to his credit "Chappaqua", plus Herman Hesse's "Siddhartha". No idiot Malick Kool Aid drinking producers to back further follies for him, however.Key ripoff: the great Scandi filmmaker Peter Watkins who invented the "You are There" first-person camera filmmaking technique for fictional, historical subject matter - wildly overdone by Malick with wide angle distortion added.Ultimate indie pioneer John Cassavetes used improvisation for rehearsals and prep to invent a unique filming style; Malick uses improvisation as a lazy self-indulgence.Film Festival-itis: making movies to be "consumed" on the antiquated, dating back to the '30s and '40s of Venice and Cannnes, international film festival as exhibition venue circuit, pandering to the gatekeepers of same: selection committees and junket-style critics, as witness the empty "eroticism" (not) thrown in as chief fetish of a "festival junkie".Brain-dead stars: many a big name attracted to this no-script, no- nothing project in order to boast "I worked with Terrence Malick" and then spout gibberish in the inevitable BTS bonus interviews on DVD.Film School Error 101: The Shot: when I first became a film buff over 5 decades ago I was fascinated with the "striking shot", a Bertolucci or for that matter Antonioni composition or moving camera that stuck out - the opposite of crafting a real, functioning feature film where both camera-work and editing (and SPFX especially) are ideally invisible once a filmmaker has matured. It's not the shot (battle) that counts, it's the film (war).Antonioni, not Clapton or Kilroy, is God syndrome: not just the ending but the endless expanses of emptiness, as mentioned by loyal production designer Jack Fisk, not symbolic but merely undigested Antonioni imitation, see: "La Notte".Elephantiasis: in the '60s I watched hundreds if not thousands of experimental film short subjects, screened at Midnight every Saturday and Sunday night at the local art theaters back in Cleveland, drawn from Ann Arbor and other regional festivals. Very educational and formative for a young film buff, with Stan Brakhage, George Kuchar and Ed Emshwiller raised to a pedestal for me. I'm sure Malick did too, but his big-budget feature-length imitations of same are embarrassing and a slap in the face of the many progenitors of the "underground movement" ranging from Maya Deren to even the '60s future pornographers -the Findlays. But he gets away with it, as current viewers and critics have no grounding in film history.The Fellini scenes: TM couldn't resist "throwing a party" just like Fellini, but the maestro's parties have life and invention, while here we see clichéd Hollywood types milling about, over-wrangled by some anonymous assistant director, completely artificial in their groupings and movements.Lastly, Bale as empty as the project. He gives new meaning to the derisive term "walk-through". And this is after, like the other hapless cast members, being given free rein by an absentee "director".

It's hard to make out a plot in this movie, nevertheless I enjoyed it. The camera work or photography is excellent.. I also appreciated the music, especially the Grieg, since I am a Classical Violinist !I do like the moods and feelings that come across, no doubt each person will interpret these a little differently. It's not an accessible movie to watch, and not a traditional film but still I like it, perhaps not as much as The Tree of Life... since that was slightly more traditional and slightly more defined... this is even more other-world like and one would do well to watch some of his other films first, in preparation.Enough ramble.. just count me in as a fan. For sure.

Rick (Christian Bale) begins this tale by relating a story his father (Brian Dennehy) told him long ago. A prince was sent to look for a pearl in Egypt, but when he got there, the royal son was given a drink which made him forget what his purpose was. Every so often, he is sent hidden reminders, which he may not see. Thus, the Prince's life was thrown off course and has little meaning but to seek pleasure. This is exactly what has happened to Rick. A successful Hollywood screenwriter (although you NEVER see him working on a film), his life is an endless search for meaning. This is especially true of his love life, as he has one night stands and, sometimes, a longer term relationship. Among his women are his ex- wife (Cate Blanchett), a married woman (Natalie Portman), a stunning model (Frieda Pinto), a stripper (Teresa Palmer), a zany Brit (Imogen Poot) and so on. Each serious romance gives promise of a fulfilling commitment but, alas, ends badly. Meanwhile, Rick's brother Barry (Wes Bentley) is a confused and sad gentlemen who lives on the poor side of town where Rick seeks him out, at times. Hanging over the both of them is the death of their brother and their own father's immense grief. Will Rick find happiness? This very unusual film has an approach that might baffle and bore some movie goers. Basically, Rick is ALWAYS on the move, virtually walking through the entire film. Yes, the scenes behind him change yet he continues his stroll. Then, too, there are many water motifs, perhaps connecting the search for the pearl; one notices waterfalls, ponds, fountains, and the Pacific ocean. The cast is quite grand and marvelous. Bale, especially, is an understated joy and because of his stellar good looks, one never tires of his walk through almost every frame. Costumes and sets are equally stunning, as is the unique camera angles and motion. As a fan of one of the top films of the ages, the director's Days of Heaven, this viewer does choose to seek out every movie Malick makes. Although this one again does not eclipse DOF, as that would be infinitely difficult, it is sure to please his fans and all those who wish for a one-of-a-kind film happening.

This is my first review here and I give it to Malick knight of cups(since I spend almost 30 minutes on it,then give up),not because of loving this movie ,I did not figure out what's this movie talking about before seeing lots of review here actually,but I just want to ask that if there is kind of bottom line for a movie ,to say it is good or badI'm asking this is just because I have been through lots of movie in my country,they have the similar surface with this one,(Tiny Times 1,2,3,for example), no obvious story line ,just intersection of images,I'm not meaning that those young rookie directors in my country can be compared with Malick.