>You done let me down. That entry was NOT for the people at all.

BWAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That shit had me dying!!!!!!!!!
Well done sir.

>Few responses:
>A) Many people would dispute that Badlands is Malick's best
>movie.
>B) Many people would give that honor to Days to Heaven.
>C) Many others would give it to Tree of Life.
>D) Some may even give it to The Thin Red Line.
>E) Believe it or not, there are even some staunch supporters
>of The New World. I'm one of them. (Though I don't think it's
>his best.)

I think he gets a lot more shine as a filmmaker because of Badlands. I think if he hadn't made Badlands, he'd get put in the same category as a Peter Weir (which is far from a bad thing, I mean, we should all be so lucky...). But when I hear filmmakers swoon over him, they're swooning because of Badlands. Thus, his "rating" is based on one film. That's someone being overrated.

>F) Many people would say To the Wonder is Malick's *only* true
>misfire.

They would say that because they are correct. But if you're gonna take out Malick's worst film, you gotta take out Tarantino's worst (an interesting question; Inglorious Basterds in my opinion - because I really love Death Proof) as well as Nolan's worst (last Batman or Interstellar - I really didn't like the last 2 hours). I mean, we're trying to evenly compare these 3 cats who poorly comparable.

>I don't want to get into the "most overrated" argument for any
>of these guys, since they all have merit in one way or
>another, but if forced, I'd probably argue that Malick is the
>most UNDERRATED on that list, since he's the only one that
>isn't even a household name. How can someone be overrated if
>90% of casual movie watchers don't even know who he is and
>therefore can't even rate him at all, let alone overrate him.

I wasn't basing the argument on "household name-ability." Because then yeah, Malick wins underrated by default.

>Granted, he doesn't make blockbusters, or even try to, but
>he's highly respected amongst his peers/critics and has
>between one and four masterpieces to his name, depending on
>who you ask. (Most people who don't generally like his stuff
>will still acknowledge he's got at least one.)

My vote for Malick being overrated is because of this almost overbearing praise he gets for ONE movie. He's not revered for Days Of Heaven, he's revered for Badlands. It's impressive that Days Of Heaven is as good as Badlands, but it wouldn't mean half as much without Badlands.
Also, when Malick did the disappear for however many decades, his status was further cemented by film cats because of Badlands/violence/'70s American New Wave, not because of Days Of Heaven/Eugene O'Neill lookalike.

>Hard to say he's overrated just among critics, too, because
>most critics savaged his last one a year or two ago. I think I
>was the only person in the whole fucking PTP who didn't
>actively hate it. He's usually too polarizing to get the kind
>of sweeping, across-the-board critical acclaim that he'd need
>to be classified as "overrated."

That's not entirely true. You remember how much press there was for Tree Of Life? A movie by a man who hadn't made a movie in what? A decade in a half or something? THAT'S proof he's overrated.

>(I also acknowledge that posts of exorbitant praise like this
>one are precisely the reason that Malick is even on this list,
>but fuck it. Don't care.)

hahahahaha. Grant me the space to say there is a world where Malick is the most overrated filmmaker of all time - and that world is far better than ours.
But between me and you...if I see another shot of a hand running over fields of grain with the camera turning down and counterclockwise...



"Your current frequencies of understanding outweigh that which has been given for you to understand." Saul Williams