Song to Song (2017) Reviews

• When a brilliant auteur goes down

  Benedict_Cumberbatch2017-03-12

  First off, I must say I am not a Terrence Malick hater. On the contrary: I used to worship the man. I even took an entire course in film school dedicated to him, Orson Welles, and Stanley Kubrick. I think the 5 films Malick did in the first 38 years of his career ("Badlands," "Days of Heaven," "The Thin Red Line," "The New World," and "The Tree of Life") are all masterpieces. I even liked "To the Wonder," which was almost universally panned, even though it was clearly not in the same league as his previous films. After the acclaimed "The Tree of Life," Malick (now 73 years old) has been working on several projects in different stages of production. He filmed "Song to Song" immediately after "Knight of Cups" (released last year) back in 2012, and it's only being released now, as a 129-minute film, after almost five years of post-production and at least 8 editors to turn it into something remotely coherent (reportedly, the first cut was 8 hours long). Unfortunately, like "Knight of Cups," "Song to Song" feels like a parody of Malick's work: the extensive, mumbling voice-over narration by all the main characters (taken to the extreme), the stunning imagery of nature and high-end real estate, and gorgeous people literally walking in circles and acting cute (or mean) to one another. The very thin plot revolves, as you heard, around two intersecting love triangles set against the music scene in Austin, Texas. But music doesn't play a great part in this story, and it certainly could have elevated it. As abstract as Malick's earlier films could be, they all had tangible, rich, philosophical and often universal themes. "Knight of Cups" and "Song to Song" are pure cinematic masturbation. Malick's trick is getting some of the biggest (and best-looking) film stars in the world, and his main actors (Rooney Mara, Ryan Gosling, Michael Fassbender, Natalie Portman) have faces that one can easily watch for hours. But not even these great stars can masquerade the emptiness of the film. Mara has the most screen time of them all, being the only true leading character here, while Cate Blanchett, Holly Hunter, Val Kilmer, and Berenice Marlohe are reduced to cameos. There's at least one painfully genuine moment, near the end, featuring Hunter's character, but it only lasts a few seconds; Malick's gaze isn't interested in her emotions. He'd rather show us, for the umpteenth time, Mara and Fassbender being flirty and sexy instead. I am all about experimental cinema, but when you realize that this is the deepest sort of "experimental" project that Hollywood can put out (made by a revered auteur that movie stars almost pay to work with), you feel even more nostalgic for the daring collaborations between Tilda Swinton and the late Derek Jarman. I know people who deemed "Knight of Cups" a "masterpiece" and will probably say the same about "Song to Song." I try to be respectful of other people's opinions, but I really don't think we're seeing this film through the same lens. I still admire and respect Malick; I just liked his work more when he had something to say. Right now, I see him as someone who can afford to make gorgeous-looking home movies just for his pleasure, but he's a much more interesting artist when he expands his canvas into something we can truly care about.

  More

• Nice visuals but utterly self-indulgent

  jefferino2017-03-27

  I always go to a Terrence Malick movie hoping to find once again something akin to the transcendent vision firmly grounded in the real world that I encountered when I first saw "Days of Heaven" (1978), a movie that combined gorgeous cinematography with a compelling plot. My hopes were dashed yet again with "Song to Song." The visual beauty is here, but the movie feels bloated, self-indulgent, and disconnected. Malick's technique of splicing together seemingly random footage overlaid with barely audible interior monologue has by now become formulaic, and he seems incapable, unwilling, or afraid to deliver a sustained scene in which characters actually exchange meaningful dialogue. And speaking of characters, one after another is introduced for no apparent reason, as if quantity could make up for the fact that none of them are developed, and their utter shallowness foreshortens any depths the movie might be trying to plumb. Finally, the movie went on so long that I left feeling too exasperated and exhausted to hold on to the shreds of visual beauty that it offered.

  More

• Way too many close-ups of Mara's face

  vaniamendes2017-05-17

  My God I am all here for a great experimental, artistic movie, but this was just boring. Despite all the great cinematography, the message from this movie could be told in 30 minutes and was explored so much better in another 100 movies. The scene with Holly Hunter in the parking lot was the best one, but it only lasted a few seconds. Besides that, it was just an accumulation of beautiful faces flerting together (good acting nonetheless). And where was the music? The music could have saved the movie. Filming the film at a festival and putting on some old music legends doesn't do the job.

  More

• Emperor Malick is Wearing No Clothes. Or Plot. Or Characters.

  baze2017-03-24

  The first movie I have walked out of in as long as I can remember is still on the screen at Austin's Arbor Theater but I am sipping a beer and wondering if I will ever pay to see a Terence Malick film again. As utterly bored as I have been in a theater since Tree of Life (which SHONE in comparison), I gave up waiting for something to happen to wrap this turkey up or make me care. News Flash: it had not appeared on screen at 2 hours in. I want those 2 hours back. Malick's latest "Song To Song"? Beautifully-lensed images of characters I know little about and care even less about looking mostly beautiful and doing stuff I don't care about or understand. Any Calvin Klein "Obsession" advert from the 80s had more substance, a more compelling story line and infinitely more ability to hold my interest. This was like a cinematic Austin Architectural Digest showcase of homes, but less interesting. Oh. It was about "struggling musicians"? Malick's definition of "struggling" is as far from reality as Gigli is from good. The Patti Smith cameo and song snippets in a soundtrack (seemingly created by 20 or 30 misguided people who did not know each other and apparently had not seen the film) were my sole high points. They were enough to make me go all the way to 2 stars, but minus one because I looked at my watch about 8 times waiting for it to end. It may STILL be running and I am halfway through a beer down the road. Can we chip in to buy Malick a screenwriter, and an editor? Emperor Malick is buck naked folks. Maybe a Kickstarter campaign? SKIP IT.

  More

• It is a nostalgic and emotional experience

  cvetkovski_ikee2017-06-24

  It is so beautifully thought film, that it almost seems like an improvisation. Very deep, captivating and honest film leading me to the only question while i was watching it: How old is Malick? I mean, inside? He may be 70 years old, but his films speak about universal feelings. "Song to song" is not a conventional film with a conventional story. It's more of a sad and confessional experience, more of a feeling, an emotion long kept inside, finally made into a form of art. It's a film about the characters and their constant battle with themselves. The things we don't see, the hell that goes through one's mind, when one is suffering. They are struggling to get better, but it's so sad because we know they won't. They can't get out. It's about the spiritual journey of the characters and not so much about the story. It only goes where the character goes emotionally. Malick doesn't care about the world around the characters or the society. The only worlds "well build" in the film are the character's worlds. That's why the V.O doesn't seem like a technical intervention. It is the core of this beautiful, nostalgic and emotional poem to the ones who are "destined" to suffer. Maybe we don't see all of this, cause this is not a modern film and our society doesn't deal with emotions anymore. But i don't thing Malick cares for any of this. He literally makes a film for himself, to try to free himself from his feelings and put it into something useful and creative. The point is, it's not a film to be liked or disliked, cause we, the people can't wait to judge something, and not to try to understand it first. You may just not connect to it. That's it. It's not a memorable film and it won't be, cause after people saw "The tree of life", now they get bored with his concept of filmmaking, seeing all of his films like a sequel to it. I found it as more of a pattern that he found to be able to express himself constantly, by really focusing on his emotions and very honestly and artistically opening his soul to the audience to see it. And why not and judge it. 9/10

  More