As I walk through my local video rental franchise and see the overwhelming wave of "sanitized for your protection" junk that floods the market, I can be at ease knowing there's a special place in my heart for this diamond.
Malick's vision works like 'Catch-22' but with less irony. He accomplishes in one shot what Oliver Stone would do in twenty and, more importantly, he examines everything. The fact that what he examines is stunningly gorgeous is a wonderful bonus.
More important, though, than the photography is Weber's editing. As I said in my 'Beverly Hills' review, he's one of the top in the field. He's handled all three of Malick's films, what other qualification do you need? Granted there was the noisy Bruckheimer work, but every career has its sags. Fortunately, he knows he isn't the most important person here, so he eases back and allows us to absorb what we see.
Story? What use is that? You want story, watch Scorsese. As with his other work, Malick uses perspective, not planning on paper. I think Shepard caught on to that, making his role as Chuck Yeager even weightier.
Final Analysis = = Learn from this...
Malick's vision works like 'Catch-22' but with less irony. He accomplishes in one shot what Oliver Stone would do in twenty and, more importantly, he examines everything. The fact that what he examines is stunningly gorgeous is a wonderful bonus.
More important, though, than the photography is Weber's editing. As I said in my 'Beverly Hills' review, he's one of the top in the field. He's handled all three of Malick's films, what other qualification do you need? Granted there was the noisy Bruckheimer work, but every career has its sags. Fortunately, he knows he isn't the most important person here, so he eases back and allows us to absorb what we see.
Story? What use is that? You want story, watch Scorsese. As with his other work, Malick uses perspective, not planning on paper. I think Shepard caught on to that, making his role as Chuck Yeager even weightier.
Final Analysis = = Learn from this...