His movies may be "artsy" but he had a big influence on cinema. I watched Badlands for the first time a couple of years ago and I kept having to remind myself that it was made in 1973, not 1993 or 2003. It just seems like a film that's out of place in time, but that seems to be because it influenced later films.
> His movies may be "artsy" but he had a big influence on cinema
Of course, that's why all the movie directors and actors and people who are into film like him. But take a person off the street and put in front of a Malick movie and don't be surprised if they walk out. Someone in the sibling threads said that much.
But yeah, I watched The Thin Red Line in the cinema twice when it came out, but also acknowledge that I am probably in the minority.
The taste of the general public is not a good meter for the quality of literally anything. The ability of a artwork to grip a person is important, but what many people do not realize is that it can be at times nearly arbitrary who is impacted by a piece of art and who isn't.
Artsy films like that may not get the populus into the cinemas and entertain them in a bread and games way, but them not trying to do that is exactly the reason they have the ability to hit deeper (if you let them).
In his memoires the soviet director Andrey Tarkovsky describes and quotes from letters regular people wrote about his films, many of which have been deeply moved. Films that make Terrence Malick look like mainstream and can be a tough watch if you go into them with the wrong energy.
Yet I remember his film Stalker striking a chord within me I didn't even know existed and you can't say this of many films.
