Is Malick-esque Becoming an Affectation?

It's nice, with an approach that's immediately recognizable. The fast around-the-corner pans, wide angle closeups, extremely low shots. All very nice. Next, we'll get a poster that bloggers will rave about. Very nice. But, then comes the movie, which not many will see, not many (regular) people will talk about, and few will understand.

Atmospheric and contemplative is all good and well, but watching this trailer it almost seems as if someone is imitating Malick. It's (almost) as if a film student made this as a 'study', if you will, of this acclaimed director's style. But, it's not 'somebody', it's Malick and I can't help but wonder if the approach is a substitute for filmmaking that people want to see. Is this highly technical camera work self-serving? Is the plot twisted into ambiguous turns for their own sake? Has Malick's mission become simply to construct movies for audiences to watch and wonder about but not really get, enjoy, or be entertained by?

And, plot? Well, we get no clue here. The thing is, though, what exactly the movie is about might end up being argued endlessly even after it's released. We may have no clue even after we've seen the movie.

Does this flirt with being affectation? Would that be a bad thing?

Sorry, out on a limb as it may be to say, that's what I got. That's what I felt. This trailer is visually stunning, moody, compelling, beautiful in a strange way, and memorable, but it's also a tad, I hesitate here, ...derivative. Yes, that's it.

Okay. Next, let's see that great poster, then...




















.