Song To Song

This is the first late Terrence Malick film I've seen. I didn't get anything out of "Badlands," didn't care much for "New World," couldn't get through "Thin Red Line." "Days of Heaven" I consider a masterpiece, though I don't want to watch it often. There is enough gorgeous cinematography and music to keep me engrossed for the running time of a little over 90 minutes. I don't want to watch it very often because the love triange plot is so thin."Song to Song" has many of the same elements, but amplified. Shot after shot is gorgeous, and the canvas is much bigger than "Heaven's" Alberta wheatfields. Malick luxuriates in opulent interiors, most of them spare and minimalist, but at least one is full-on Baroque, or a recreation of Baroque. Some of the interiors are modest but gorgeously lit. There are sunsets and birds and water, so many water shots it's either an obsession or some artistic statement I can't make out. Unlike "Heaven," "Song" luxuriates in long, slow foreplay by beautiful people. So much of it that it loses its romanticism or eroticism and seems to be Malick's obsession or some artistic statement about sex as performance or numbing or addiction. Unlike "Heaven's" single down-to-earth voiceover narrator, "Song's" principal narrator (Mara Rooney) makes a lot of maudlin comments about love and relationships. The other narrators, as I recall, mostly provide more of a straight commentary, but in dreamy voices like they are trying to be profound.The shots were too repetitive and the story too slow for me to handle for the two hours-plus running time. 90 minutes would be stretching it. At some point I just wanted it to end, and by then I was too worn out to appreciate the final plot twist.Rooney is a great choice for the lead actress. Her dreamy voice and face, and her vaunted ability to use silence fit the minimalist dialogue. The male leads, Gosling and Fassbender, seem to be caught in a movie they don't fit in, forcing themselves to follow Malick's direction. It's a relief when minor characters get some straightforward lines. The best is the sex worker who is struggling with the death of her fiance and describes her situation clearly and succinctly.I don't see why Natalie Portman and Cate Blanchett bothered to take fairly small roles. Blanchett especially doesn't have much to do, and Portman's role wasn't very interesting to me. Did they just want a Malick movie on their acting resumes? Is he such a joy to work with that they had to give it a try?Maybe there's a masterpiece here that I just need to figure out. Maybe there's 90 minutes of a masterpiece trying to get out. I could certainly do with a lot less screen time devoted to wrestling, dancing, caressing, and capering about. Maybe some day I'll have the energy to give it another chance. In the meantime, I rate it two stars. The only reason I give it two stars instead of one is because it's a visual feast -- to the point of gluttony.

I'm torn. There's a very clear message and in a way it is wonderfully done. Money and power and the empty, endless pursuit of happiness through those means leads to destruction. All that is good is corrupted. It's so apparent between Natalie Portman and Michael Fassbender, but also between him and Rooney Mara. He destroys all he touches, because he is so damaged by the wealthy, limitless life he has lost himself in. The power of love and endurance is seen in Ryan Gosling and Rooney Mara. But it's not clean-cut and pure, and the same power that destroys takes a heavy toll on them, as they try to figure out who they are, how to find purpose, and accept a world beyond the dazzling lights of success and fame. The actors are touching and each one is a unique presence, fulfilling their part in the story: corrupter, destroyed, lost, and the one who makes you whole. I enjoyed the voice-over, which is the entire movie, so don't expect conversation or long dialogues. The hard part is that it skips from character to character and their inner thoughts so quickly, that it is hard to keep track of what is happening. The timeline could flow chronologically or bounce back and forth. It's not made clear. It's not meant to, but to emphasize the emotion and growth or desolation of each person. I appreciate it, but it was also distracting. The best way to approach it is to focus on what they say. That's the real meat of this movie, and the cinematography - beautifully and disturbingly done at the same time - is just visual support for what they are experiencing. Honestly, you could "watch" it with your eyes closed and still feel it. On one side, I'd give it a four. On the other, a two. In the end, it did move me and, while most of the images and scenes will fade away, I'll always remember how it left me feeling broken and hopeful at the same time. So, I compromised and gave it a three, which is better than most.

bellas imágenes

This movie is absolutely brilliant. Sadly, even Rotten Tomato critics seemed to miss its shine. The cinematography is stunning. Mara and Gosling deliver solid performances as does a not seen often enough Blanchett. Portman channels her chops towards the darker side of being- where is where she too shines much like she did in Closer and Black Swan. Something was slightly amiss for me with Fassbender- perhaps because he has more voice overs than actual delivered lines...My only wish was that the writing itself was more sophisticated...at times the simplicity made me feel like I was reading a child's diary...had the wordsmithing been as outstanding as the cinematography, locations, and yep even the wardrobes, this film would have been a masterpiece.If you are used to normal movie narratives and dialogues, you might not like this movie- but if you appreciate the avant garde and can handle a film where the story isn't spoon fed to you line by line but rather revealed in snippets of scenes... you might actually find this work refreshing- or damned near enlightening.I would have loved more development with Portman's character and it would have made the film better all around- the shots of Mara's midriff got annoying and again (can't say this enough) I wish Blanchett's character would have been given more time. Still, I could have watched another hour or two of this movie because perhaps in editing much was both gained and lost- but I'm still giving it five stars because its a piece of art.

I bought this dvd solely because of the lead actors and because I was intrigued. It's fairly long and tedious. The actors are very watchable though. I will give it another view sometime in case I was missing something. Don't think I was though!

La rapidez con que llego

Comprato per essere regalato a un amico. Purtroppo non riesco a dare più di 3 stelle perché a me il film non è piaciuto per niente

Prodotto perfetto!!!

Ever wanted to watch a feature length fragrance commercial? Ever wanted to watch A-list Actors posing ,with no depth or character? Then, this is the movie for you! Whilst Terrence Malick has always had his own visual style, he used to be able to tell a good story. Days of Heaven, Badlands and the Thin Red Line were all really good (Days of Heaven was superb) were spread over 25 years, and people criticised his lack of output. But since then, his pace has increased to a more consistent output ,but without any quality, whatsoever. The New world was well done, and I enjoyed it. But it was clear to see that Terrence was clearly a one Trick pony. To the Wonder, Knight of Cups, Tree of Life, and this were all terrible. Pretentious drivel. Please retire Terrence.