M Art The rest really freak me out. I might be miscomparing this to The Conjuring. Both truly discomforts me for over a week. In The Conjuring there I see dead people. Here I see sick people, very sick.

xtian_durden Terrence Malick have made better versions of this film years earlier. After his 21st century peak in The Tree of Life everything that followed are just residues of that success. Here we've got another set of characters that are lost and longing, but they aren't as interesting as in his previous works - that's the law of diminishing returns. They're just beautiful people filmed in beautiful places murmuring words we've already heard before in a superior Malick film and it is too thematically identical to Knight of Cups.It stars Ryan Gosling who does Gosling things, Michael Fassbender playing like a lesser version of his character in Shame, and other big names like Natalie Portman, Rooney Mara and Cate Blanchett. It also featured Patti Smith playing herself and opening up about her real life, but she chose the wrong Malick film.This is a perfect example of self-parody. Malick is too old now to take another long break, and I just wish he still has one film left in him to catch us off guard.

Floated2 Song to Song appears to be another Terrence Malick film in which is described more as "art and an experience" rather than a typical film. Similar to Knight of Cups, containing the same type of elements in its filming, with much close ups of the actors faces, off screen dialogue in narration and scenes of the visuals of the outdoors, or clubs, artwork, Song to Song doesn't offer much of anything different. This film is longer though does offer more characters and doesn't seem as pretentious compared to Knight of Cups. Lead by Rooney Mara, Ryan Gosling and Michael Fassbender, they seem to do a decent job given the description. Though overall, this film becomes quickly boring as not much of anything plot wise occurs. It does feel more like one of those artists/musicians documentaries showcasing artists gatherings and such rather than a feature length film, and we can see as to why this film was panned and movie audiences didn't seem to enjoy it as such. As a film, this was disappointing and perhaps Malick needs a new direction.

bjarias ..this film is a prime example why you should never watch a movie any other way than streaming.. ..over your lifetime you'll save HUGE amounts of precious time.....at 129 minutes in length... if you jump every couple minutes or so... in 60 clicks you can pretty much view this entire thing.. ..and will not have missed very much in the process....loads of hi-end talent gone to waste in this muddled production.. with a script.. well there really isn't much of one... ...just loads of edited 'artistic' filming... can easily see why it took years to put together after shooting.... it will probably still make money.. as die-hard fans will be keen to roll the dice.. most will not be thrilled..