Knight of Cups

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (13 votes, average: 3.69 out of 5)

Sein And DaseinPeter Greenaway recently confessed that he hardly ever saw a movie because there was no development in form, being a play staged, with ...


Sein And Dasein
Peter Greenaway recently confessed that he hardly ever saw a movie because there was no development in form, being a play staged, with actors making their lines on camera: just Painting by numbers. Malick is one of the few that does not match the description of the current state of the art, the others being directors like Tarkovsky, Kar-Wai and to a lesser extent Kubrick. Knight of Cups in all of Malick’s trademarks are present: fast intersection images, hiding history in imaging, perfection in publishing and the stream of consciousness technique where thoughts and feelings are woven in with the narrative voice. Knight of Cups has many autobiographical elements as The Tree of Life (loss of a brother) and Wonder (loss of relationships) had a son reflects on the essence of life, its ambiguous relationship problems with his father (recently deceased, a chapter in the movie is called Death) and his relationship with his brother philanthropic survivor (also deceased). Then there is the flow of women going through his life and feelings of disrespect. Strongly biblical in nature, questions of guilt and forgiveness go throughout, the film is therapeutic instrument Malick reflection on his own life. It invites the public to deconstruct images, working as a sort of inverted postmodernism. It blurs the line between reality and imagination, combined with the images he works almost hypnotic. There is a strong autobiographical comparison here to Zerkalo / Mirror Tarkovsky, where history itself was simple, but the container was rich and complex that only film can be. (There is the famous story of the maid (check here) who explained what Tarkovsky movie in one sentence all criticism always baffled by its meaning and trying to make sense of it all). There are so many great items to Knight of Cups only some may be stipulated here ?? Comparing deep personal problems for the largest possible context, eg shots of the atmosphere goes in shots of the convertible Rick. ?? Humanity to find his true salvation in nature, often a scene ends with a shot of rock formations (or famous mobile stones) in the desert, suggesting time, eternity and acceptance. ?? Christian Symbolism: A whole scene in Las Vegas ends with a statue of an angel. Image, it is his most accomplished movie: amazing shots of nature and culture intersect in a way that continues to haunt you; The Lubezki cinematography and production design Fisk here at the height of their abilities. An example: The attraction of female beauty is brought to the screen so beautiful and intelligent, the result the striking image after striking image: shoes, bodies, masks, announcements. It is very interesting to compare the vision of humanity Kubrick, Herzog, Mann and Malick have: Where was the Kubrick film Sartre being pessimistic about the existence of man; Herzog sees human nature and culture as strictly separate entities where humanity should not venture. In Mann’s world, humanity has lost his emotions, be caught in its own technological Foucault prisons. Malick however sees humanity in disarray with nature and part of salvation lies in the resolution of this misalliance. It can also be said that the work of Malick is the visual equivalent of the writings of Heidegger, Malick is the translator of The Essence of Grundes / The Essence of Reasons. In Knight of Cups we see a survey of Sein (Being) a person who is a matter Sein (Dasein). Experience can be described from the perspective of this Dasein. A voice without a voice, coming of consciousness, called the man back in self-awareness and fulfillment (back in Eigentlichkeit of Uneigentlichkeit) answer as to him about his own existence. It has gained nothing in Berlin with prices ranging from minor, uninteresting filmmakers. I think it would be as difficult for Aronofsky to admit its own cinema limits. Although it will probably receive some peer-to-peer or critical evaluation, it brings the art of film to a higher level, to earn a place in film history considerable time from now: a non -direction for many, life-changing for some.

Lost In Malibu

Life and the universe in general, love, life, birth and death and everything between. No doubt, Terrence Malick does not do so below this. When they work, their dissertation poems on the great existential questions are haunting, test the limits of what can make a movie, only words to convey a truth can never wear. When they do not, they become tedious, pretentious exercises by a filmmaker going through the motions. Unfortunately, his first film in competition at Berlin for The Thin Red Line won the Golden Bear in 1999, definitely belongs to the latter category. It might even be the first entry. “Where do I start,” the disembodied voice of Christian Bale asked repeatedly. Wherever it is, it never happens. The camera hovers as usual, mostly around Bale who, it seems, of after some tips we receive, is a writer not too successful, through various attempts at relationships, some remembered, some more thought, deals with family and luggage does not say much. What is clear is he has lost any real direction in his life. Malick further illustrates by his usual juxtaposition of the individual against a vast universe, beautiful and independent, in this case, most of the beaches and mountains around Los Angeles. Except when he speaks the comment will voice to voice, a character and speaks of the pilgrimage that is life, we try to put pieces together to get greater than ever picture emerges, speaks of a fear of live ?? all ingredients in household a kind of kitchen sink philosophy of life. The sound quickly move in and even faster on stage, the musical score dominated by Vaughan Williams, Debussy and Grieg is always present, several narrative levels co-exist in the same time. However, the overall picture never leaves. For a very simple reason: Its components mean nothing. Those who appreciate unique Malick film making are not used to disappointments. They had better brace this time.

The Tree Of Life Meets Sofia Coppola’s Somewhere

Terrence Malick is one of the few contemporary writers who could follow the current trends of cinematography integrate and create works of art. In the days when blockbusters opt for CGI to create scenes that defy gravity, anatomy and, in most cases, logic, Terrence Malick paints landscapes that make the sigh from the audience. He feeds the urge moviegoers to visual excitement sometimes, extraordinary and impossible views ,. To long story short, it uses the IMAX experience to its full potential. However, when we begin to analyze the history behind the visual experience, some issues emerge. I can only assume that The Tree of Life proved to be too tight for the public audience. Therefore, the producers asked the writer (Terrence Malick) to go for something more accessible. And since Somewhere by Sofia Coppola (2010) seems to be the current reference to “good” art-house film, he decided to build the story on a similar experience. Unlike the aforementioned movie by Ms. Coppola, Knight of Cups has a story, but vague, and explores some questions about the meaning of life. It seemed to me that the author could not decide if he wants to paint the blackness of the daily routine of rich people or tell a story of the battle of good an evil. This left us with a film that looks like a high-quality video to a random song from the party that claims to address some philosophical questions.

Everything Is Left For Interpretation…

Creation of films since the early 1970s, Terrance Malick has earnt his right as an author filmmaker. But it raises the question – his films are truly good, or did they simply washed away? Often they feel about forty-five minutes too, seem to have no understanding of what they are actually about, but still do very well. His latest film, Knight of Cups, seems to follow that trend. That said, Knight of Cups is not so much a classical type of film, but more of an experience. This particular experience follows the character of Christian Bale (Rick), through the wanderings of LA, as he tries to make sense of what is happening around him. It is philosophical, it is stunning and completely bizarre. Put in simple context, it is essentially Christian Bale to roam and celebrity-type things, just everything related with allegories, riddles and meaningful – yet forgetful quotes ,. Trying to make sense of what the audience is already complicated, let alone the Bale character trying to do it too. Filmed as a travel ad, Malick’s film making style remains good – although the substance .. Vistas, Slow, calming piano tracks and narration while sneaking into the mix as the non-linear narrative imposes its visually poetic words on the screen (or attempts) to. No shortage of stars, Knight of Cups seduced us with big names such as Bale, Cate Blanchett, Natalie Portman and Poots – plus another cameos tensions or-so inbetween – but otherwise, much of the film is random, a nonsense that misplaced main character tries just as hard to understand. At several points you get to a point that you think you understand it, but soon realize that you do not. Asked at the press conference for the film Berlinale – Bale asked what the movie was actually about, to which he replied; ‘The very beautiful and very interesting thing in Terence’s approach was that he did not tell us what it was about … We talked about a lot of different things, but really he just gave me a description of character and background that it was – then we torpedo in “… Certainly, it is very beautiful – even though at points it feels like a video Lady GaGa – again, that Malick is confidential with Knight of Cups is leave a lot open to interpretation and / or confusion.


1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (21 votes, average: 3.81 out of 5)

Formative Years
Once again, Paolo Sorrentino proves to be a master of cinema and does not disappoint. The story is set in a seemingly remote area: a luxury hotel in the Swiss mountains inhabited mainly by artists and people of show business (curious reference to Maradona thanked by Sorrentino in his speech of Oscar) acceptance. Youth is a tender film both characters and themes: growing old and the related fears are common to all men. Fred (Michael Caine) is an old man who still has many things in his life: he has to deal with friendship, love, family and career. The only thing that makes it different from youth around him is that he is aware of the memory. It is the memory that he lost and he tries to find his identity. Everyone in the film is in search of identity: the contrast between the way people see and what they want to be seen as. The scenario is complex and intense and therefore sometimes difficult to follow. I loved the irony Sorrentino always puts in his films: by surrealism, he is able to express humanity in a simple but beautiful way. The whole casting offers great performances and cinematography absorbs as always. Sorrentino is a director of seats: no matter if it is the eternal city of Rome or hotel immersed in nature – it is able to capture the beauty of it. What the film tells us, in the end, is that we are what we do – yes, I add, it is better if we do what we are – but we are nothing without love which is the driving force of humanity.

Adolescence – The Greatest Magnificence

The latest film by Paolo Sorrentino, the director’s return to Cannes after the success in the world has won the best foreign film Oscar (still Croisette has not particularly liked the film later won the Academy Award), could and should be enjoyed by the Neapolitan admirers of the director-writer for his usual subtle camera work and memorable and lines, as well as by his detractors, to the development of unexpectedly history solid and consistent, something that in the past director of beauty rarely achieved. And indeed, there is much more beauty in the young than in the old hit Sorrentino, precisely the mix of images and narration, for the excellent compactness of the language and the film script, missing Unfortunately, in the calligraphic series of beautiful images which represent the vast beauty. In an exclusive and secluded spa hotel in the Swiss Alps congregate, like elephants in a savanna waterhole at dusk, guests of all ages and origins, each search something different but all joined by Without this “something”. With calm and lightness of a glider, the film flies over Fred, a great musician and conductor retired to seek its human dimension, in addition to his musical one, and Mick, a famous director to seek a final film that could seal a career that surprisingly, however sparkling, began to show unmistakable signs of a slow decline. The film takes the viewer with cunning and touching empathy, the final results of this research, harmonic for Fred, dystonic for Mick. Captivating in title selection, identify young people in research and internal growth rather than biological age of the body, youth is structured in layers decrease, highly integrated and unified: a protagonist (a self-controlled, convince Michael Caine as Fred), a co -protagonist (reliable Hervey Keitel as Mick), two secondary characters (Rachel Wiesz an emotionally involved that the daughter of Fred and Paul Dano careful and endearing as the Californian star) surrounded by a characters choir painted with few blows yet defined, reminiscent of Commedia dell’Arte: football legend beyond Sunset Boulevard, the masseuse of few words, alpine guide, Miss Universe, the Queen’s representative, 100% made in Hollywood movie star (an ironic and charismatic yet ineffective Jane Fonda), the mixed group of your writers, silent torque ?? .. The risky strategy mix the fake reality (the Queen, the actual beginning of pop, the football star) to a true narrative proved to pay: most likely the youth should not collect prices and the success of the great but surely beauty is a clear leap forward towards full maturity Paolo Sorrentino as a director and a screenwriter.

Either You Find It Irresistible Otherwise You Get Nothing From It.

I’m not a professional movie reviews, for starters. I’m just a student of the University who got a huge passion for cinema. He was for years a film moved my soul deeply. I was amazed when I saw the film summarizes a score of 7.5 out of here Here. I thought about this fact for a few days and then I kind of my answer. “Youth” is the symbol of many struggles in film and in people’s minds. American movies and many Europeans and people are so easy to love, just because they are easy to follow. They show the facts, actions, somehow explained in words and ideas. Ideas are like the salt we put on our meals to make them tasty. Movies like “Youth” are the exact opposite: the words and ideas are the “meal”, and some actions are the “salt”. In fact, all actions are at the end of the film, they could be seen as a climax, but they are more like the conclusion of complex exchange of ideas throughout the film. I will not comment on the technical features, because I do not have the expertise to do it. I’m just saying that the soundtrack is somewhere near perfection, editing as well and there some beautifully shot scenes. As I said, my concern is not. “Youth” make the viewer think about life, old age, ethics, he accompanies us through some beautiful ideas, and this is where all the pros and cons are. This film does not look for easy ways to impress the viewer, to make him / her somehow strongly interested in what the display, it requires an open mind and what I call ironically ” the 51st shadow “a fetish to thoughts, not just material things. Some people do not like it because they Sorrentino him an “intellectual radical chic” feel. It is just a choice to be against “intellectualism” whatsoever, but it is as well just to be against ignorance.

The Actual Great Magnificence

When it comes to Paolo Sorrentino I do not know what to expect. On one hand I liked his first book in English “This Must Be The Place” with marvelous Sean Penn; then I’m not quite enjoy his Oscar-winning “The great beauty.” I was scared it was going to be another attempt to be Fellini. But Michael Caine, Harvey Keitel, Paul Dano and Rachel Weisz pushed watching it. I’m glad I did not wait, because it is greater beauty Sorrentino. Youth is a brilliant film, intense, philosophical, and moving on life and death, youth and old age, loneliness and friendship. As I watched the movie, I thought the title was disappointing. I thought he was just being old, and I could not find the true meaning of this. But as I write this, spent almost a week since I saw him, and I have enough time to think about it. Now I realize that it is about the importance of youth as it praises old age as this point in life when you think about your past. Masterfully written and directed by Paolo Sorrentino, the film is enhanced by a deep dialogue, witty and provocative, beautiful photography and breathtaking by Luca Bigazzi, spectacular scenery, and the sublime music. The acting is first class. Michael Caine shines in the title role, delivering an intense performance as Fred Ballinger. The support team did a wonderful job. Old, but the young inside Harvey Keitel, and young, but inside the old Paul Dano are perfect to depict the contrast between youth and old age. Rachel Weisz offers another great performance. Cameo Jane Fonda is too large. One that surprised me most is Luna Mijovic Zimic, who plays the masseuse. Read more on


Sorrentino monitoring the masterpiece that is “great beauty” proves that he is one of the most interesting voices, unique, energetic and visually stimulating in today’s cinema, even if n has not quite up to par, he began with his previous film. Now this is in no way a detraction to the film itself, but it certainly left a bit of a bitter taste in my mouth. I’m going off the road immediately what I found wrong with the film. First, it is simply not as fluid and organic as it should. Even photography is unequal to himself. Now I do not know if it was intentional or not, but the fact that I did not understand, he proves it. And I’m not talking surreal scenes I actually and visibly loved, I mean the general tone and narrative that shifts gears a little too often, especially in the third act. Up there, it bothers me a lot, but the third act has been written and it helped a closing credits sequence very odd, if you go see the movie, you know what I mean. In addition, the film is not as clear as it should be. I do not mean to be direct, I actually liked the fact that it is very open to interpretation in the parts and directs your performance in other, again there is too much of a switching other and he made some dark moments everywhere. It’s not like I want to be just words, it’s just that the film itself set up to be mentally stimulating and it was not as much as I wanted. In fact, the parties were he was direct was the best, the other did not give me enough space or a material to reflect on the most interpretable parts and it makes an impact and surprisingly slightly forgettable. Fortunately, there are many that can be enjoyed, which compensates the holes that were left there. First, nobody does it as good as surrealism Sorrentino. There were a couple of sequences were I was just in total ecstasy. Sorrentino knows how to fill the screen and use it to the best of its potential with images and he proves it again, it is able to offer absolutely absorbing and exhilarating experiences, the best part being the fact that they not something they have always shaped the narrative perfectly. He also knows very, very well how to use music to the best of its advantages. Cinematography is brilliant Luca Bigazzi. I know I said it was uneven before and this is true, but when you stop and look at each scene, you can not take it all. The cast is also wonderful. Keitel and Caine are just fantastic, Dano is exactly what he is given to do, but it is Weiz for me, stole the show and gave another great performance. There are very few actresses that fill the screen properly and as perfectly as it does. This film is also immensely quotable, I can not count the number of times in the theater, I would have liked a notepad to write a sentence using a character. Even better is the fact that they still felt authentic and not showy. This demonstrates what I said before: the film is miles better in what he says directly that it leaves open. Now this does not mean the stuff is bad indefinite or aimlessly. For this type of ** t pseudo-intellectualism Just watch “The Tale of Tales” this week too. This is the kind that is simply vain. In this film, it is just very cloudy, there are some parts that work others do not but you still feel that it really stands out. Overall, I really enjoyed myself and I can not define myself disappointed, I’m just a little disappointed, but then again I’m except too. I’m still torn on my bill and I use a visualization of future settlement. This film is worth your time, I do not know if it is an 8 or 7.5, just know that it is very good.

Excellent Observe-as Much As “La Grande Bellezza”

A lot should be expected from Paolo Sorrentino, after “the great beauty,” and there are many things here. In particular, I would first like to mention the scenery and cinematography, and music, which are sublime. Dialogue is provocative, full of memorable lines and strong emotions, so kudos to the authors. The object was heavy, but there are a fair share of lighter moments, and in particular irony. I do not think the action was all improvised, with the possible exception of some of the riffs “writers” working with Harvey Keitel’s character did. Yet good performance especially Keitel, Jane Fonda in a small role, the young actress who plays the masseuse and a worthy Michael Caine. Sorrentino continues to pay homage to Fellini, I love him, as his central characters (Caine in it, Toni Servillo in LGB) work through the kind of existential questions that addressed Fellini and Sorrentino, although he is not an old man, seems to be anticipating. Nostalgia, regret, sweetness and bitterness that comes from the awareness of the limits of our short lives. The only thing that struck me as unnecessary to the story – maybe I did not understand – was around the character of Paul Dano made for a couple of scenes … well, I should not spoil . He hit everyone behind the scenes as inappropriate, and I guess that was the point, but really, why? For me, taking it down to a score 9 – again, a superior effort.

A Dressing Up Drama About Outdated Age

“Youth” is a film about age: many words are spent to be old, and you may have to assume the title of the film is defined by exclusion. Most interactions are between couples (friend with a friend, father and daughter) that talks seem rarely as real interviews, and very often resemble monologues. Not strange at all, anyway, as a third important topic (aka the audience) is still present ?? if the conversation is basically for us. People who complain with Sorrentino for this stuff just does not understand what the man is trying to do: yeah, his characters seem to have written the words in front of them and are in turn to deliver their own, but, guess what, this is a perfect definition for the term “acting in a film.” Peace. Michael Caine shines in the lead role, in its way to the sweet voice and controlled usual. It is surrounded beautiful but two counterparts, the old (but the young inside) Harvey Keitel and the young (but old in) famous actor portrayed by Paul Dano. These characters allow us to see how, regardless of age, you are just as young as you want to be (the word “youth” may be used in this film as another definition of “Life”: you can be a young 10, aged 30 to 70 years, as long as you keep learn from your mistakes). Harvey Keitel gets a very rare chance to play in the role of an intellectual, a director who writes his “testament”. It has a real big-time cinema (women film of his life, together in a dreamy Swiss panorama, halfway between Fellini 8 1/2 and Nuovo Cinema Paradiso end mounting), and provides energy and credibility to a character that is not quite able to reconcile with his life (which is what Michael Caine finally accomplish) that life is what it is, of course, but life is everything there is – of course. I would have skipped the final sequence with the concert: you can not continue to speak of a great work of art for the whole movie, and then make the big mistake of trying to show, as these high expectations are easy to be failed. But somehow I liked the strange unreal feeling of this film, its particular layout and the choice of the characters, their individual reflections on life: it looks like a great movie, or a ghost story. I think it can be enjoyed by everyone, despite age, regardless of the stage of the “Youth” or feel you are currently in.