Remove ads

Information

Year
2017
Runtime
129 min.
Director
Terrence Malick
Genres
Drama, Romance, Music
Rating *
5.7
Votes *
12,573
Checks
1,015
Favs
54
Dislikes
44
Favs/checks
5.3% (1:19)
Favs/dislikes
1:1
* View IMDb information

Top comments

  1. epicureanlotus's avatar

    epicureanlotus

    Speckled with moments of beauty and truth, but, honestly, we've seen this all before. The cinematography is breathtaking, but few shots last long enough to be fully appreciated. The story certainly isn't as forgettable as Knight of Cups, but it also lacks the gravity and unity of Malick's earlier work. The fragmentation and pop cultural references keep the film consistently interesting, but its aimlessness feels less like a constructed vision of directionless lives than the byproduct of a directionless editor.

    And as for the characters? The men in particular are more like 2D cardboard cutouts of human beings, and are hard to relate to in the first place, so when they experience a scene of heightened emotion, it's difficult for the audience to empathise. Portman's character has depth but is underutilised, and Mara's character has a few poetic moments but otherwise likes to believe she's more complex than she really is. The various permuting interactions between the characters are at their most striking when we are privileged to spy on the playful romance between Gosling and Mara, but even this is just a pale echo of the "authentic romance" motif Malick has used in nearly all of his films from The New World onward. The worst part is that the characterisations are effected so superficially and conspicuously; none of the characters evince a hidden richness lurking just beneath the surface, drawn out by subtle gestures and unexpected reactions, like Olga Kurylenko's character in To the Wonder. "Weightless", indeed.

    All in all, I'm highly conflicted. Song to Song isn't a bad film by any means, but it's also probably Malick's least-focused, least-developed, and least-engaging film to date. (Perhaps it was just over-edited? It's possible that the full eight-hour cut would better frame the present content in a context of deeper resonance and meaning.) As it stands, however, the film leaves me concerned that Malick is having so much fun running around with Lubezki and a camera that he's lost his virtuosity at crafting the resulting fragments into an actual film.
    6 years 5 months ago
  2. otoemec's avatar

    otoemec

    glorious. 5 years 2 months ago
  3. fonz's avatar

    fonz

    Too much meandering for my taste but then again I'll need a re-watch before I can properly digest everything. 7 years ago
See all comments

Friends

Login to see which of your friends have seen this movie!

Activity

  1. kaestle checked this movie 5 days 22 hours ago
See more activity

In 0 official lists

View all lists this movie is in