Badlands (1973)
It's true what everyone says—this is a kind of Bonnie and Clyde story. But don't get it wrong, this has none of the depth or fascination (or originality) of that famous 1967 movie. It's worth seeing because this is director Terrence Malick's first big film. For those who follow his movies (or avoid them—the negative reviews for his later work are astonishing), you'll see the first signs of characteristic moods and styles and themes.
This romanticized story set around 1960 is shamelessly nostalgic. It is filled with intentional references to earlier (and better) sources, including Bonnie and Clyde itself and, most outwardly, James Dean. The violence is weirdly casual and frankly cruel and unfelt, and I suppose that's part of the aesthetic distancing involved in what is really a college student's view of the world. Not that Malick was still in college (he got out of film school four years earlier) but his sensibilities came from studying film more than living it (in my limited view). What he does without fail is pull together a great crew and cast and make the mechanics of the film really really good.
So yes, this is a very well made movie, and it sweeps through upper middle of the country with a kind of schoolboy feel for the icons of the place and time. I wouldn't be so crude as to say it's like a giant (and long) Hallmark card on the surface, but there you have it.
Martin Sheen is really good in his role as a kind of wannabe James Dean, and Sissy Spacek plays the naive 15 year old a bit too naively, though she has a country-girl innocence that sets up the violence well. Eventually, without giving away much, the two are on the run. And there are a couple of minor turns of events, but really it's a routine tale told better before (see "They Live by Night" for a great one), and told with more honesty.
The end is important, and hard to talk about without giving anything away. But when you see it you'll see something that was talked about at the time—the glorification of an anti-her, the identification with a mindless and selfish killer. (Al Pacino makes this the whole point in Lumet's "Dog Day Afternoon" two years alter). And here Malick makes it almost laughable and cheesy. And utterly unbelievable, especially for 1960, especially after such a killing spree.
Yeah, a love hate movie. Looks and feels good, but it lack depth and logic and sincerity, despite it's sincere appearance. The worst mix of things possible.
It's true what everyone says—this is a kind of Bonnie and Clyde story. But don't get it wrong, this has none of the depth or fascination (or originality) of that famous 1967 movie. It's worth seeing because this is director Terrence Malick's first big film. For those who follow his movies (or avoid them—the negative reviews for his later work are astonishing), you'll see the first signs of characteristic moods and styles and themes.
This romanticized story set around 1960 is shamelessly nostalgic. It is filled with intentional references to earlier (and better) sources, including Bonnie and Clyde itself and, most outwardly, James Dean. The violence is weirdly casual and frankly cruel and unfelt, and I suppose that's part of the aesthetic distancing involved in what is really a college student's view of the world. Not that Malick was still in college (he got out of film school four years earlier) but his sensibilities came from studying film more than living it (in my limited view). What he does without fail is pull together a great crew and cast and make the mechanics of the film really really good.
So yes, this is a very well made movie, and it sweeps through upper middle of the country with a kind of schoolboy feel for the icons of the place and time. I wouldn't be so crude as to say it's like a giant (and long) Hallmark card on the surface, but there you have it.
Martin Sheen is really good in his role as a kind of wannabe James Dean, and Sissy Spacek plays the naive 15 year old a bit too naively, though she has a country-girl innocence that sets up the violence well. Eventually, without giving away much, the two are on the run. And there are a couple of minor turns of events, but really it's a routine tale told better before (see "They Live by Night" for a great one), and told with more honesty.
The end is important, and hard to talk about without giving anything away. But when you see it you'll see something that was talked about at the time—the glorification of an anti-her, the identification with a mindless and selfish killer. (Al Pacino makes this the whole point in Lumet's "Dog Day Afternoon" two years alter). And here Malick makes it almost laughable and cheesy. And utterly unbelievable, especially for 1960, especially after such a killing spree.
Yeah, a love hate movie. Looks and feels good, but it lack depth and logic and sincerity, despite it's sincere appearance. The worst mix of things possible.