Magnolia Pictures has unveiled a new trailer for "To The Wonder," starring Ben Affleck, Olga Kurylenko, Rachel McAdams and Javier Bardem. Check it out below.
Plot: The story revolves around Marina (Kurylenko) and Neil (Affleck), who meet in France and move to Oklahoma to start a life together, where problems soon arise. While Marina makes the acquaintance of a priest and fellow exile (Bardem), who is struggling with his vocation, Neil renews a relationship with a childhood sweetheart, Jane (McAdams).
The new movie is directed by Terrence Malick (The Tree of Life, The Thin Red Line) and is set to hit theaters on April 12th, likely in limited release.
Make room for another snoozefest from Hwood's most boring director. God I hate TM movies with a passion. It's like he never evolved past his first sh*tty pretentious film school project. You know the typical Super 8 short where a guy walks aimlessly through the woods while Malick's voiceover spits grim, boring poetry. Someone needs to tell this guy that beautiful imagery and metaphor only go so far when your putting the audience to sleep with it.
"Ben Affleck's 'To the Wonder'?" Seriously? That's who you're going to assign ownership to with this headline? I know the audience over at ET doesn't demand that much respect of their film knowledge, but if you're going to post that here, please correctly refer to it as Terrence Malick's film especially since Ben Affleck probably speaks 5 times in the whole movie.
At the Venice Film Festival, as Javier Bardem's character (a priest), appeared, the audience started to laugh, although he was not a comical character. In the same way, the audience laughed at scenes featuring the Italian actress Romina Mondello (who spoke phrases like "I am my own experiment"). The film's Venice premiere was classified as a "little fiasco" by Toni Garcia and the film was met with both boos and cheers.
argo is cheesey boring porpaganda I dont know why people like it, fair enough everyone entitled to an opinon. I just find it devoid of any engagement with the viewer, having already read an article with the events of the story sometime before seeing the film normaly knowing the outcome I can still enjoy the film working its way there (pretty much every movie that comes out now thanks to the trailer showing start middle and end on a plate)but argo was so stale no suspense no character development. Affleck slept walked throught the film and I found the actors interactions unbeliable, you have a son and a wife now I can trust you.
anyways I know people love this film but Id rather watch a malick film any day of the week, even though tree of life was wanky and pretentious it had a grander scope and meaning demanding the viewer to find the senstiment of the scenes instead of being spoonfed. I didnt love it but as people call the cure for insomnia I found it alot more intersting than argo.
There is no such thing as a historically accurate film. Argo is more scrutinized because it received universal critical acclaim and sh*tloads of awards because it is s very entertaining and engaging and well directed and written and acted film. It's a movie's movie and that's why it's such a solid work.
Terrence Malick on the other hand is now ignoring a conventional 3 act structure for all his films and disregarding narrative exposition and character development for some abstract concept of what he thinks is a visual sort of poetry that is ultimately unachievable and Tree of Life proved this in spades.
To the Wonder looks like more of this and watching Malick's cathartic purging of his own issues in a nearly 3 hour film is just not interesting to sit through.
I'm all for unique movies that are unconventional. 2001 and Seven Samurai and There Will Be Blood are some of my favorites but they all tell an engaging story.
Terrence Malick stopped doing that a long time ago.
@Deaft- You're right. The Tree of Life isn't linear. It's almost a collage of clips that he's put together to create an experience rather than a linear traditional film. However, the experience that you get from watching a Malick film is far superior than a good majority of the directors working today.
I thoroughly enjoyed The Tree of Life, loved The Thin Red Line, and truth be told, I probably will be a fan of this one. Why? Because it's not the trashy crap that makes it's way onto the screens today. I mean seriously, how many films can we really hold up and admire today? Not only with with how they were shot, but also subject content? I look at the news feed to my left and I see SciFi, Superheroes, Remakes, and News about some bygone classics. And those are fun and all- which is why I'm still on this site. lol But very few are respectable endeavors to create a film that has a voice that is developed enough to bring a mature statement with it. Sure, we'll see two or three films a year that bring a strong whallop of a message, but so far in 2013, this is one of them. I'll take it.
Sure, there will be the people out there that say 'We don't want a message- I just want a freakin story!' Then by all means pass on Malick's films. Saturday morning cartoons will always be there for you and your kind. lol
I didn't care for Tree of Life, but outside of that we can't forget that Malick also made Badlands, Days of Heaven, and Thin Red Line. The New World has its fans I suppose. I do hope To The Wonder will be more Badlands/Days of Heaven and less Tree of Life however.
Every Malick film is told through that dream-like haze and doped-up narration. I'm sure this one will be no different.
And for the first time in my life, I actually agree with Sac. Very pretentious. Almost insubstantial drivel for the most part. It's like Malick thinks cinema isn't really about telling a story with motion; instead he thinks film is a constant cut of segueing, jarring, blurred disjointed shots strung together with some guy uttering a monologue while under the heavy influence of a morphine drip.
I mean, don't get me wrong, his films have a visual appeal, and there's some genuine emotional content, but after the second or third of his films, you start wondering just what the f*ck happened to this guy to get him stuck in Little Nemo's Slumberland.
Saying something as black and white and "If you don't like Malick, there's always saturday morning cartoons" Is an ill-informed and silly statement.
Tree of Life had some great cinematography and music and so on but it was mostly just meandering navel-gazing for the most part.
A much better edit would be if it was cut down to about 100 mins and it ENDED with the birth of the universe sequence. It would be a much more compelling film like that and also if it was edited in sequence.
Try watching TOL sped up about 1/4 so you can still hear the audio and you will notice how much if it us just silent filler of the camera panning and tracking around in a scene.
This sort of pointless sh*t is usually excised in the editing room but it's as if Terrence doesn't even have an editor because TOL is so self indulgent that it just gets irritating.
I actually did speed it up when all panning and tracking got so incessant and over done.
Badlands and Days of Heaven and The Thin Red Line are all genuinely great films and true classics and I have tge Criterion Blu-Rays of them because they are worth owning.
I have the theatrical DVD of The New World and it has some good moments and Q'Oriana Kilcher was great as Pocahontas but this was where Malick started to go off the rails cinematically and it was full-bore with Tree of Life.
Saturday morning cartoons you say? At least they never fail to tell a story.
TOL could have been seriously edited. There were several dull spots where I actually did fall asleep after multiple viewings. lol
But the filler did create a different animal of the film. It felt more like a novel with a larger breath and scope that I feel like most movies, even ones with long running times, lack.
I get tired of movies that have people raving that some films don't follow a traditional format. It's as though the medium has reached it's pinnacle of perfection and indie films or other attempts at conveying a different way of presenting stories is FUBARed and people fail to properly receive this new approach to movies because the film doesn't fit the traditional approach that our brain dead audiences won't recognize right off the bat.
It is all about money though and raking in the big bucks.
Screw me. That type of film making must be dead already.
KillerCOckwrites: on March 8th, 2013 at 10:57:50 PM
Malick is loosing it. Him casting Affleck as the star is proof of that.