MovieChat Forums > Voyage of Time: Life's Journey (2017) Discussion > Why does this man still gets to make mov...

Why does this man still gets to make movies?

posted 8 years ago by tranm98
20 replies | jump to latest

Just run through his filmography, and it hasn't been a lot of box office hits. Mostly flops and he still gets to make films?

[–] Projectedlight 8 years ago

He has a great deal of respect in the industry, so he gets funding without the expectation that there'll necessarily be a return on the investment. He's viewed as the last uncompromising artistic genius of 1970s Hollywood.

[–] tranm98 8 years ago

That's why he's hiding away from the spotlight. If he really hates what Hollywood stands for, why not leave Hollywod and make movies outside the US?

[–] Projectedlight 8 years ago

He's making a German film next.
But generally, he's an American artist who wants to make movies about America.

[–] zacham-68534 8 years ago

The US =/= Hollywood.

[–] realitycomments 8 years ago

Why do you insist on writing / keyboarding when you can't spell or use a spell checker?

[–] thomaskellar21 8 years ago

A lot of the best filmmakers today don't make box office hits. The Coen brothers, Paul Thomas Anderson, Alejandro González Iñárritu, Richard Linklater, Martin Scorsese, etc. etc. If you look through their filmographies you won't see very many that gross much more (or as much as) the budgets.

[–] Jonnythec 8 years ago

Please don't compare malick to marty or the coens. He sux and Marty and the coens have way more hits. Haven't seen a good malick film yet and I won't cause I can't stand how much of my life this guy wastes with his garbage films.

[–] robbystoner 8 years ago

Why does it all have to be able hits? Why does it all have to be about big box office. As the recent Suicide Squad shows, aiming for big box office and big hits does not equate good film making or an advancement of the film making art form.

Malick does not make hits, but he breaks ground in film making and story telling with every film he makes.

Can this really be the end..to be stuck inside of mobile
with the Memphis blues again.

[–] Jonnythec 8 years ago

It's not about hits, it's about being entertained and not put to sleep. If I was doctor and treating insomnia patients, I would show them his movies. They would out in 20 minutes.

[–] robbystoner 8 years ago

You obviously haven't see Eric Rohmer films.

I think the reason you feel like you are being put to sleep is that Malick makes films that are presented differently than what hollywood or indie films do these days. Badlands and Days of Heaven are probably his more accessible to what most people like to watch.

If you are referring to Tree of Like or To The Wonder films, they are films that contain a lot of philosophy and religion and spirituality. They are also stories that are presented in a very unconventional way. It basically requires one of watch and absorb the film and its subtext. Once you get your head around the fact that TOL is not about the story of the characters of Pitt and the wife and the kids. Its about the what is the meaning of life and death in the grand scheme of the earth.

Once you get your heard around that The New World isn't about the story of the Farrell character and the indians, its about the human feeling of the discovery of new lands and new people.

Can this really be the end..to be stuck inside of mobile
with the Memphis blues again.

[–] Jonnythec 8 years ago

I'll give that to you. To each there own, and because I love bob Dylan too..

The ghost of electricity howls In the bones of her face?

[–] nhoj441 8 years ago

Woyzeck. And I agree with the rest. 1John4:4

[–] Scarlett_Butler 8 years ago

If you are referring to Tree of Like or To The Wonder films, they are films that contain a lot of philosophy and religion and spirituality.

They really don't. They're movies designed for people to think they're smart and deep without saying much of anything of substance.

Its about the what is the meaning of life and death in the grand scheme of the earth.

Thanks for proving my point. These are vague banalities. Meaning of life and death...what does that even mean? Very little.

Malick's movies are empty but make some viewers feel smart. That's why people keep going to see them.

[–] Projectedlight 8 years ago

They really don't. They're movies designed for people to think they're smart and deep without saying much of anything of substance.

That would be The Revenant. Or Spotlight.

Malick's films are super niche and only well attended relative to other films of their difficulty level. He's an expert in philosophy and theology and he doesn't go out of his way to make his work accessible to a mainstream audience.

[–] Martin_Sloan 8 years ago

Do you think people spend two hours of their time to watch a film, and "pretend" to like it?

Martin Scorsese IS the best

[–] Finerfilms 8 years ago

Actually, YES, when the media storm tells them "this is art".

The Revenant, for example, is actually a very poorly constructed film in its writing, with all the same cinematography we have seen from Chivo the last four times he made a film. It was also obvious that the director was trying to be Malick in many parts, but failed in a very cringe-worthy fashion. Iñárritu is not at all a philosopher, but someone good at planning, and getting executives to listen to him.

I can't even read that title without picturing the embarrassing "bird from the chest" shot.

I made him feel shame... my shame. ToL
Indies to watch:
Blue Ridge
Once
Shotgun Stories
Old Joy
The Lobster

[–] ebright99 7 years ago

Revenant is not copying Malick at all. It's copying Tarkovsky. The bird from the chest thing, that's Tarkovsky. He did it in at least two films.

[–] Finerfilms 8 years ago

I actually feel sorry for this Scarlett person. You have a LOT of growing up to do. I bet you have never truly enjoyed or even experienced an eye-opening moment in your life.

I made him feel shame... my shame. ToL
Indies to watch:
Blue Ridge
Once
Shotgun Stories
Old Joy
The Lobster

[–] dylan-dionysos 8 years ago

I couldn't agree more to what robbystoner is saying here.

to what the OP is saying: I never got the point of how box office success is equal to a good movie or vice versa.

and as much as I want to be entertained by a movie (which isn't my personal priority), I want to be rather artistically entertained. I also want to see innovation in a movie, as hard as this is today, cause if I always see the same boring stuff (in all kind of genres), I get put to sleep by all this "yawning void".

but then again, it is of course all a matter of taste ...

EDIT: oh and I just realized I had to state that im obviously a huge Dylan fan. and now I have no time to think.

[–] realitycomments 8 years ago

So why would you look him or his films up on IMDb?