User Reviews

First off, I must say I am not a Terrence Malick hater. On the contrary: I used to worship the man. I even took an entire course in film school dedicated to him, Orson Welles, and Stanley Kubrick. I think the 5 films Malick did in the first 38 years of his career ("Badlands," "Days of Heaven," "The Thin Red Line," "The New World," and "The Tree of Life") are all masterpieces. I even liked "To the Wonder," which was almost universally panned, even though it was clearly not in the same league as his previous films. After the acclaimed "The Tree of Life," Malick (now 73 years old) has been working on several projects in different stages of production. He filmed "Song to Song" immediately after "Knight of Cups" (released last year) back in 2012, and it's only being released now, as a 129-minute film, after almost five years of post-production and at least 8 editors to turn it into something remotely coherent (reportedly, the first cut was 8 hours long). Unfortunately, like "Knight of Cups," "Song to Song" feels like a parody of Malick's work: the extensive, mumbling voice-over narration by all the main characters (taken to the extreme), the stunning imagery of nature and high-end real estate, and gorgeous people literally walking in circles and acting cute (or mean) to one another. The very thin plot revolves, as you heard, around two intersecting love triangles set against the music scene in Austin, Texas. But music doesn't play a great part in this story, and it certainly could have elevated it.

As abstract as Malick's earlier films could be, they all had tangible, rich, philosophical and often universal themes. "Knight of Cups" and "Song to Song" are pure cinematic masturbation. Malick's trick is getting some of the biggest (and best-looking) film stars in the world, and his main actors (Rooney Mara, Ryan Gosling, Michael Fassbender, Natalie Portman) have faces that one can easily watch for hours. But not even these great stars can masquerade the emptiness of the film. Mara has the most screen time of them all, being the only true leading character here, while Cate Blanchett, Holly Hunter, Val Kilmer, and Berenice Marlohe are reduced to cameos. There's at least one painfully genuine moment, near the end, featuring Hunter's character, but it only lasts a few seconds; Malick's gaze isn't interested in her emotions. He'd rather show us, for the umpteenth time, Mara and Fassbender being flirty and sexy instead.

I am all about experimental cinema, but when you realize that this is the deepest sort of "experimental" project that Hollywood can put out (made by a revered auteur that movie stars almost pay to work with), you feel even more nostalgic for the daring collaborations between Tilda Swinton and the late Derek Jarman. I know people who deemed "Knight of Cups" a "masterpiece" and will probably say the same about "Song to Song." I try to be respectful of other people's opinions, but I really don't think we're seeing this film through the same lens. I still admire and respect Malick; I just liked his work more when he had something to say. Right now, I see him as someone who can afford to make gorgeous-looking home movies just for his pleasure, but he's a much more interesting artist when he expands his canvas into something we can truly care about.

"The world wants to be deceived." Cook (Michael Fassbender)

Terence Malick's current cast of romantics are lost in themselves, searching how they can find fulfillment, largely through troubled relationships that on the surface look ethereal. Of course, that heavenly view happens because Malick's point of view is through his lens, which, with the help of his usual cinematographer, Emmanuel Lubezki, is other-worldly gorgeous and impressionistic.

Although Malick has taken inspiration from trees and landscapes in many other films, here he takes pleasure in the angles of modern Austin architecture with its glass-dominated homes and their infinity pools. All the better for the heroes Faye (Rooney Mara) and BV (Ryan Gosling) to be constantly thinking of themselves as the center of the universe and those outside the glass a part of the menagerie to be neglected.

The fly in the ointment of love is producer Cook, who is after Faye and succeeding without BV knowing it. The eternal triangle seems to flourish for much of the film because Malick not only sees like a painter with just images to contend with, but he also concentrates more on the physical properties of his characters and their stories and less on the corrosive result of promiscuity.

The glue to the multiple images is the soundtrack, about as eclectic as you'll ever hear and changing with most sequences. The songs evoke mood and meaning as well as the remembered past, Reinforcing the dominance of music are cameos from the likes of Iggy Pop, Tegan and Sara, Anthony Kiedis, and Lykke.

Music and memory are the stuff of Song to Song. Along with Malick's incomparable images, you'll be fully immersed in the impressions of people caught in the act of using love to give meaning to life. Just don't expect a tour of the Austin music scene. It's all about impressions, Baby.

"Song to Song" (2017 release; 129 min.) brings the story of Faye. As the movie opens, we hear Faye announce in voice over "I went through a period where sex had to be violent", and with that we are off. Fay seems to have a relationship with both BV (a budding musician) and Cook (a record executive). We see them at various Austin landmarks and outdoor shows (ACL Music Festival, I assume). At this point we are about 10-15 min. into the movie, you'll just have to see for yourself how it all plays out.

Couple of comments: this is the latest movie from writer-director Terrence Malick, Here he follows a path that s very similar of his previous film "Knight of Cups": essentially an abstract film about relationships, with not much dialogue but plenty of voice-over thoughts ("Any experience is better than no experience" and "I went along like someone in a dream", just to give you a glimpse). This movie was actually shot in 2011-12, and is only now seeing the light of day. Rumor has it that Malick had 8 hours of film which he had to cut down to this final version, just over 2 hrs., and when you are watching it, it does feel like we skip from scene to scene without any sense or purpose. As for the lead actors (Rooney Mara as Faye, Ryan Gosling as BV, Michael Fassbender as Cook; Natalie Portman appears about a half hour into the movie for some scenes; yet later Cate Blanchett, as a fling of BV, makes her entrance), it feels like most of what they are doing seems improvised. Not much of it makes sense or is coherent in any way, shape or form. Tons of cameos from the music world (RHCP, Iggy Pop, Patti Smith, Johnny Lydon, etc., mostly in a blink and you'll miss it moment). As a long-time fan and admirer of Terrence Malick, it pains me to tell you that, on the heels of the so-so Knight of Cups, this is even worse. Given the all-star ensemble cast, what a colossal waste of talent all around!

"Song to Song" opened this weekend at my local art-house theater here in Cincinnati, and given who all was involved in this production, I couldn't wait to see it. The Saturday matinée screening where I saw this at was attended okay but not great. "Song to Song" is not a movie that I can recommend to anyone, although there may be some curiosity about this film, given the all-star cast attached to it. Viewer beware! (*UPDATE* The movie sank like a stone at the box office, and disappeared after just one week from the theater here in Cincinnati.)

On the one hand, I liked that, for what seems like the first time since The New World Malick has actors as characters in scenes where they, you know, have dialog exchanges and we get to see how they interact and learn about each other. It's not a lot of the time, but it shows that when Malick sat down with the actors and, whether it was improvised or not, got them to figure out how these people would talk to one another, whatever shades (or not) of depth there would be - and this isn't just the main cast but, say, small scenes between Mara's Faye and Faye's father, or BV (Gosling) with his mother, or any of Patti Smith's scenes - it's a joy to see these actors work off one another. If Malick had actually been working from a script, as opposed to no script at all, he might have had one of his best films.

On the other hand, and I can't believe I'm saying this, I may be getting tired of "Chivo" Lubezki's cinematography, at least in this case after so many Malick films. It's a strange thing to say since when one sees The New World or especially The Tree of Life, they're nothing short of photographic tour-de-forces, things that we haven't seen in cinematic grammar before as far as how he uses the lenses and the natural light, at least in such a way as it is. But while he has the good instinct sometimes to push in or pull out on an actor when they're talking, and of course the light through (there are a lot of) windows, or outside, is beautiful (it can't help but be anything but and there's no synonyms left for it), I kind of wished there wasn't such a hodge-podge of technical approaches here.

And meanwhile on the one hand this is a film that has Iggy Pop, Flea and Patti Smith in cameos (and Smith even gets to have something like a character, probably more than Holly Hunter or Cate Blanchett probably), and it certainly captures the Austin music scene with vitality and energy and gets how it's intoxicating to see the audience and to be so close to the stage or backstage and, to another extent, hanging around Michael Fassbender (who, despite working without a script net, shows why he's so good as an actor first, movie star second, understanding how to just be in a room looking and listening can have weight). Also all of the main cast have insanely good chemistry together, both physically and mentally (mostly physically), and I think Gosling and Mara are a good fit for a Malick world.

On the other hand, this line: "I don't like to see the birds in the sky because I'll miss you" or this line "Mercy was a word. I never thought I needed it." Yeah.

And, on top of the narration which is, mostly here, the absolute worst that Malick's had in his films - some of it's laughable, other times it's horrible, and even in Knight of Cups I didn't feel this way, though to an extent I did with 'Wonder' - I felt bad for actors in the second half of the movie who seemed adrift, maybe with more character material on the cutting room floor (there's another *six hours* of this), like Blanchett or Berenice Marlohe. Both of these women play the love interests of the respective Gosling and Mara characters after they split up (why they do would both take too long and not be worth the effort for its simplicity), but even compared to everyone else I didn't get a sense of who they were as people.

I'm not talking about this as if it's a problem as far as something intentional that a filmmaker does where they leave some mystery with the people and we have to read into things (with Faye, I think Mara actually does a whole lot with a little, at least from what we can see, and her performance came the closest to making me care about a character on screen - I thought almost the same could've been for Portman's Rhonda, but she leaves the film for so long stretches I forgot that her conflict was so shallow, but I digress). What I mean is more that I had no idea why the two ex-lovebirds would go with these people, what they mean to them, what they do for them, and why Blanchett's character becomes so sad for not much reason (BV's mother warns him off of her at one point because... she's sad, that's it), and Marlohe gets even less.

So with Song to Song, I know it sounds like I'm coming down on it harshly, but it's because I expect a great deal from this director, and want him to do well. The problem though in general is that at 129 minutes it feels too long, which is a strange thing to note considering that there's, I must stress, SIX OTHER HOURS of footage, so I'm not sure if it could use being like 20 even 30 minutes shorter, or another hour longer or so. There's scenes that get surprisingly close to the emotional depths that Malick could get at back in his prime 70's days with his actors, and they're game for making a romance film full of highs and lows. But the more "Malick" touches with how memories and impressions and nature and the city of Austin and who knows what else blends in with the story is hit or miss at best and distractingly precious and bad at worst (I probably neglected to write down other glaringly dumb lines).

The only reason I gave this such a high rating is because of the cast. The casting is great but Gosling said their was no script, this is just a drawn out boring film and it's hard to believe the original take of this was 8 hours. Nothing to spoil because it's just drawn out every day boring couple talking. If you are dedicated to see your fave celeb in every film they did then sit through that's about it.

I always go to a Terrence Malick movie hoping to find once again something akin to the transcendent vision firmly grounded in the real world that I encountered when I first saw "Days of Heaven" (1978), a movie that combined gorgeous cinematography with a compelling plot. My hopes were dashed yet again with "Song to Song." The visual beauty is here, but the movie feels bloated, self-indulgent, and disconnected. Malick's technique of splicing together seemingly random footage overlaid with barely audible interior monologue has by now become formulaic, and he seems incapable, unwilling, or afraid to deliver a sustained scene in which characters actually exchange meaningful dialogue. And speaking of characters, one after another is introduced for no apparent reason, as if quantity could make up for the fact that none of them are developed, and their utter shallowness foreshortens any depths the movie might be trying to plumb. Finally, the movie went on so long that I left feeling too exasperated and exhausted to hold on to the shreds of visual beauty that it offered.

The first movie I have walked out of in as long as I can remember is still on the screen at Austin's Arbor Theater but I am sipping a beer and wondering if I will ever pay to see a Terence Malick film again. As utterly bored as I have been in a theater since Tree of Life (which SHONE in comparison), I gave up waiting for something to happen to wrap this turkey up or make me care. News Flash: it had not appeared on screen at 2 hours in.

I want those 2 hours back.

Malick's latest "Song To Song"? Beautifully-lensed images of characters I know little about and care even less about looking mostly beautiful and doing stuff I don't care about or understand. Any Calvin Klein "Obsession" advert from the 80s had more substance, a more compelling story line and infinitely more ability to hold my interest. This was like a cinematic Austin Architectural Digest showcase of homes, but less interesting. Oh. It was about "struggling musicians"? Malick's definition of "struggling" is as far from reality as Gigli is from good.

The Patti Smith cameo and song snippets in a soundtrack (seemingly created by 20 or 30 misguided people who did not know each other and apparently had not seen the film) were my sole high points. They were enough to make me go all the way to 2 stars, but minus one because I looked at my watch about 8 times waiting for it to end. It may STILL be running and I am halfway through a beer down the road.

Can we chip in to buy Malick a screenwriter, and an editor? Emperor Malick is buck naked folks. Maybe a Kickstarter campaign? SKIP IT.

This review is not coming from a Terrence Malick detractor. In fact he is a director that falls for me in the "appreciate very highly" category.

His first five films were either very good ('The New World'), great('Badlands') and outstanding ('The Thin Red Line', 'Days of Heaven' and 'The Tree of Life'). Certainly don't anything at all against anybody who doesn't like those films or Malick in general, as Malick has a very unique, unconventional style that also isn't widely accessible, his films unlike many seen before or since, something that will entice a lot and perplex others. Was very much mixed on his next two films 'To the Wonder' and 'Knight of Cups', but they had good qualities.

'Song to Song', as of now from personal opinion, is Malick's worst. It is the film that connected with me the least, engaged me the least (never watch a film expecting entertainment from all of them, instead judging them in what they set out to do) and perplexed me the most. Do have to disagree respectfully that it is his most accessible film, 'Badlands' and 'Days of Heaven' are stronger contenders for that. If anything, as well as being his least ambitious ('The Tree of Life'), 'Song to Song' is the film that will alienate audiences the most.

It is not without good things. Again from personal opinion, none of Malick's films are 1/10 films and none of them are close to being among the worst films ever made let alone THE worst. As always with Malick, 'Song to Song' does look absolutely stunning, the cinematography (not surprising considering one of the best cinematographers around Emmanuel Lubezki was responsible) has a very dream-like quality to it, the colours positively leap out at you in an eye-popping way and the scenery has a sweeping beauty.

Every single one of Malick's films are among the most beautiful films visually I've seen, with every frame having a breathtakingly naturalistic quality without feeling too orchestrated. The music gives an audibly rich, overwhelmingly emotional and quite haunting quality, fitting perfectly with everything on screen.

When it comes to the acting, Ryan Gosling, Rooney Mara and Michael Fassbender do great jobs. Mara especially is wonderful, her face and eyes say so much and all when she is saying little. Malick's style is unmistakable and is all over the film, and it is clear that he has put a lot of thought into his directing.

As was said with 'To the Wonder' and 'Knight of Cups', he is not entirely successful sadly. His directing has a thoughtful and philosophical touch, but did get the sense that he was trying too hard and that he was focusing too much on some aspects and not enough on others. Not everybody comes off well in the acting, Iggy Pop was just bizarre and out of place and while Cate Blanchett does her best she has very little to do, a waste of a great actress.

Regarding the voice overs, they are easily the worst voice overs in any of Malick's films. Not in how the actors deliver them, it's the way they are written that's the problem. They strive to be poetic, instead they are self-indulgent ("pretentious" is one of my most hated words now so won't be using that) and preachy, some of them do not flow well at all. There is a succession dream-like moments, some are very dreamy and beautiful but most are fragmented and endless. Spontaneity actually feels like stilted improvisation, authenticity is little and shape is even less.

Didn't engage with the characters really (apart from Mara's, but that was more to do with Mara's acting), most of them seemed disconnected and in a few cases pointless. 'Song to Song' is Malick at his most disjointed and dullest (a more preferable adjective to replace another one of my most hated words "boring", like "pretentious" it's overused and abused here).

It was the story, or lack of, and the pace that most underwhelmed. Do not have a problem with slow pacing, Malick's films are deliberately meditative and some of my favourite films are the same. But when the story came across as emotionally empty and disjointed, very like 'To the Wonder' and 'Knight of Cups' except they didn't leave me as stone cold as here, and mostly indecipherable (anybody will be forgiven having a hard time describing the plot let alone figuring it out) as well as the again personal themes barely developed it was impossible to engage with it. Thus making it a chore to sit through, even with 'To the Wonder' and 'Knight of Cups' faults they didn't make me feel this way anywhere near as much.

Overall, very disappointing and just doesn't sing. 4/10 Bethany Cox

BV (Ryan Gosling) and Faye (Rooney Mara) are musicians. Cook (Michael Fassbender) is a producer. Rhonda (Natalie Portman) is a waitress. BV has a fling with Amanda (Cate Blanchett) and Faye with Zoey. These relationships start, conflict, stop, and detour in the Austin music scene.

Terrence Malick continues to make these beautiful-looking dreamlike movies. It's beyond beauty but the story telling is muddled. His style of filmmaking is deliberately disjointed which makes all these complicated relationships hard to follow. It's also emotionally distant. Mara and Gosling have these droning voices which don't help in this case. It's a beautiful movie but the complicated relationship jumping loses me along the way. There is a bit guerrilla filmmaking as Malick steals scenes during real music festivals. This would work much better with fewer relationships.

In philosophy both Parmenides and Heraclitus saw lightness as the positive side of the lightness-weight dichotomy. Later, the writer Italo Calvino took the same position. But it was Milan Kundera who stated it as a dilemma framed in Nietzsche's concept of the eternal return: a heavy burden can crush us, but the heavier the burden, the more real and truthful our lives become. Malick clearly takes on the latter position in this movie, which was originally more aptly titled Weightless. This theme is also connected to Heidegger's Man being called back in self-awareness and fulfillment by answering introspective questions about his existence.

Song to song is an exploration of love and ambition set against the Austin music scene. Especially around the theme of love the movie makes interesting observations: That true love is only possible by isolating yourself from the fake world (of music and money here), that walls are built around you inhibiting you from finding real love. Another observation is that early in life you love everyone, but ultimately your awareness, society, and religion lets you end up with one true love, unable to love others any more.

The notion Malick makes about love is the romantic character of love itself, romantic not in the sense we nowadays attach to it, but the original meaning as an unattainable ideal, combined with adoration of nature and emphasis on the individual and its intense emotions, the latter creating beauty and experience. Romanticism was mainly a reaction to industrialization and urban sprawl: All Malick movies have shots of urban landscapes and nature scenes; they look for beauty in that nature and have a preference for searching for intuition instead of filming fixed storyboards.

The story however develops in a non-romantic direction: Where in the quintessential novel of the romantic (or more precisely Sturm und Drang) movement the main male character shoots himself after being rejected by the woman he loves (Goethe's Die Leiden des jungen Werthers), Malick replaces that hopelessness with a man who commits adultery, has regrets and is punished and tested by the woman he loves who commits far more and extremer adulterous acts.

Malick uses again a naturalistic style of filming, adding unscripted moments that occur during the movie shoot. Some footage is shot at the Austin City Limits festival and short interviews with John Lydon and Iggy Pop are included. The state of Texas features prominently: a key scene is before a Texaco gas station for example, but overall it is the unusual, non-clichéd beauty of both nature and the built-up Texan landscape that is well captured by Lubezki's camera, making effective use of wide camera angles. It also feels less slow and has more snappy cuts than Knight of Cups, which will be a relief for many I guess. The editing by a team of 8 (!) editors is however inconsistent and one of the weaknesses of the movie.

Two actresses in the movie have in my opinion the capability to give this an extra level, to give it real character depth acting on multiple levels in order to convey the emotions Malick's movies are oddly enough often lacking despite aiming for them: Portman and Blanchett. They are so underused and reduced to cardboard characters that it can almost be called a shame.

What struck me also about this movie is how conservative and deeply religious Malick's world view is: He clearly roots for Patti Smith's love story she tells in the movie for example, and sees the other musicians and portrays them as lost souls. In Song to song the woman repents, but the man only regrets. I see a parallel here with Tarkovsky's movies, which show the same religious, conservative world view. It brings up an odd observation: These two movie geniuses shatter the notion that true art can nowadays only be made by free souls, their art more in line with church-supported art like it used to be (Note: See The Tree of Life explanation by Bishop Barron).

Von Trier once remarked that he in effect makes the same movie over and over again, and Malick has come to that same point now. He has perfected his storytelling skills, hides the movie in the images and by editing, uses time and space shifting, sees salvation in nature (the element of water is effectively used here), adds autobiographical elements (music, adultery, suicide, father-son relation, ambition), so Radegund can hopefully be the creative destruction many now hope for.

It is so beautifully thought film, that it almost seems like an improvisation. Very deep, captivating and honest film leading me to the only question while i was watching it: How old is Malick? I mean, inside? He may be 70 years old, but his films speak about universal feelings. "Song to song" is not a conventional film with a conventional story. It's more of a sad and confessional experience, more of a feeling, an emotion long kept inside, finally made into a form of art.

It's a film about the characters and their constant battle with themselves. The things we don't see, the hell that goes through one's mind, when one is suffering. They are struggling to get better, but it's so sad because we know they won't. They can't get out. It's about the spiritual journey of the characters and not so much about the story. It only goes where the character goes emotionally. Malick doesn't care about the world around the characters or the society. The only worlds "well build" in the film are the character's worlds. That's why the V.O doesn't seem like a technical intervention. It is the core of this beautiful, nostalgic and emotional poem to the ones who are "destined" to suffer.

Maybe we don't see all of this, cause this is not a modern film and our society doesn't deal with emotions anymore. But i don't thing Malick cares for any of this. He literally makes a film for himself, to try to free himself from his feelings and put it into something useful and creative.

The point is, it's not a film to be liked or disliked, cause we, the people can't wait to judge something, and not to try to understand it first. You may just not connect to it. That's it. It's not a memorable film and it won't be, cause after people saw "The tree of life", now they get bored with his concept of filmmaking, seeing all of his films like a sequel to it. I found it as more of a pattern that he found to be able to express himself constantly, by really focusing on his emotions and very honestly and artistically opening his soul to the audience to see it. And why not and judge it. 9/10

I'll be the first to admit that clearly, I didn't get it. Although to be completely honest, I'm not sure that there was anything to get. Song to Song is an incredibly simple story wrapped into an incredibly complicated and meaningless shell.

This was my first time watching a Malick film, so maybe it is true that I just didn't get it. But the more I think about it, the more convinced I am that there is nothing to get. It's a film filled with shots of nothing. Shots that linger for far too long revealing nothing that wasn't already revealed. Shots that are supposedly filled with meaning but come off as nothing but pretentious. And it's these shots that make the movie so incredibly slow. So slow, in fact, that I ended up checking twice how much was still left.

But it's not just the lack of substance that I found troubling. It's also the fact that this is such a simple story that is being told in an unnecessarily complicated way. It's a story of lovers who get mixed up in various relationships only to realise with whom they really belong. It's a story that's been told endless times in endless ways. Somehow, though, Song to Song manages to take that story and turn it into what I can only describe as a bunch of nothing. I didn't care about the characters, I didn't care about the story, nor did I care about anything else. I didn't even care about Ryan Gosling, who I would consider to be my favourite actor.

In a way, I have to give credit to Malick for creating something as meaningless as this. To be able to make a two-hour movie filled with a whole bunch of nothing is remarkable in and of its self. But, as I said, maybe I just didn't get it. Maybe this really is the masterpiece that so many people consider it to be. But luckily we don't all have to like the same things, because I sincerely hope that I never have to watch Song to Song again.

My God I am all here for a great experimental, artistic movie, but this was just boring. Despite all the great cinematography, the message from this movie could be told in 30 minutes and was explored so much better in another 100 movies. The scene with Holly Hunter in the parking lot was the best one, but it only lasted a few seconds. Besides that, it was just an accumulation of beautiful faces flerting together (good acting nonetheless). And where was the music? The music could have saved the movie. Filming the film at a festival and putting on some old music legends doesn't do the job.

Observing, feeling, thinking, day dreaming, or simply throwing up your hands in exasperation. You may be engaged in all or none of the above when watching Terence Malick's ("Knight of Cups") Song to Song, a dreamlike exploration of love and betrayal. Whatever does come up for you, however, and whether or not you have any idea where the film is going, the ride is never less than fascinating. Malick's films will never be to everyone's liking, yet like other directors whose work shattered boundaries and were not fully appreciated until after their death, the totality of his work may take time to fully assess.

Similar to Malick's recent films "To the Wonder" and "Knight of Cups," Song to Song is a film of mood, memories, and impressions that examines our disconnection from the sacred in our quest for sex, power, and money. Set in Malick's old stomping grounds of Austin, Texas, the film opens as budding musicians, singer Faye (Rooney Mara, "Lion") and songwriter BV (Ryan Gosling, "La La Land") meet at a party thrown by high-living record producer Cook (Michael Fassbender, "The Light Between Oceans"), a man of considerable power in the industry who they look to for a foothold.

Faye and BV begin a relationship that is playfully erotic, and, in typical Malickian fashion, replete with voice-overs, whispering, introspection, and philosophizing. "I was desperate to feel something real. I wanted to be free the way he was," Faye says and "Any experience was better than no experience," a dubious proposition at best. BV teases her with such pronouncements as "Just tell me a complete lie. You can say anything you want to me. That's the fun about me." Seeking something "real," she shows houses for a living - suburban homes and high rise apartments in Austin that become the background set for her romantic trysts.

Since Faye admits that she feels nothing and is open to various kinds of pleasures, she becomes involved with both BV and Cook, (a reality that takes BV a long time to discover) as well as taking part, albeit halfheartedly, in a Lesbian affair with French artist Zoey (Bérénice Marlohe, "Skyfall"). When he learns about Faye's "betrayal", he fends off his ex-wife Lykke's (Lykke Li) overtures and hooks up with the older Amanda (Cate Blanchett), who may remind him of his overbearing mother Judy (Linda Emond, "Indignation").

Cook meets and eventually marries Rhonda (Natalie Portman, "Jackie") a waitress in a local coffee shop, but it doesn't turn out well as Cook turns to prostitutes to maintain his freedom from the captivity of marriage. The film meanders from theme to theme and song to song in which Malick embraces the music scene in Austin in an eclectic soundtrack. Featured are the music of Patti Smith, Iggy Pop, Bob Dylan and Bob Marley as well as classical composers Maurice Ravel, Gustav Mahler, and Arvo Part. While the characters realize that their lives have been inauthentic, there is still little joy.

Malick depicts relationships in terms of fleeting moments that constantly move in and out of our consciousness, never quite tangible enough to grasp or provide satisfaction. Continually seeking their heart's desire, the characters only slowly realize the emptiness of the promise. Underneath their search for connection, there is a spiritual longing that can be sensed but not understood. One character says that something is out there that is trying to find us, but the "something" remains obscure. While passion does exist in Malick's visions of nature captured by cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki ("Birdman"), and the film exudes grace in the Leonardo drawing of the Virgin Mary and the painting of the Madonna on a building wall, Song to Song brings us close to the edges of spirituality without fully trusting us to come to grips with something larger than ourselves.

This is not a movie. It's another Knight of Cups, which was total crap as well. It's a narrated story of nothing. Nothing happens in this movie, there's no story arc, no plot, no character development. You will not experience any emotions during this film. You will not have any thoughts about this thing either, besides, "Why did I watch this movie about nothing" Lots of pretty girls in it, so if that means anything to you just trying to be seen....

I've made a point of always watching a film until the end, no matter how unbearably boring it is. This one was a challenge. This film redefines "boring" to a higher level, bringing that concept to a dimension unknown so far. I wish I had spent two hours watching the paint on the wall get dry instead.

I'm not someone who thought there was nothing of worth in To The Wonder or Knight of Cups. However, they did seem to be treading a lot of unoriginal waters. Considering the reviews for Song to Song I also expected it to be around the same quality, but to my surprise I've finally seen Malick's true talent blossom again. I think this film is unique in his filmography up until this point. It tells a coherent story of intersecting characters' lives in its usual Malick way. I definitely think this is underrated and I hope people start to be more favorable towards it.

I would write more but this film didn't make the effort to create a story so I won't make the effort to write much more than this: Nothing happens. The cinematography is good. The cast is good. The story... all bun, no burger.

I was able to watch this on DVD from my public library. Mainly because it has some of my favorite male and female actors in it.

I admire Terrence Malick for the same reason I admire Woody Allen, even though they are quite different filmmakers. Each seems intent on making something they want to make without much regard to whether others will consider their movies "good." They also tend to make movies about things and places they enjoy.

Malick has spent time in Austin, Texas, and one of the focuses here is the Austin music scene. The movie is also shot in a number of Texas locations not so much for story purposes but because they look very good on film. Like the top of Enchanted Rock north of Fredericksburg (yes I have climbed it) or the scenic Austin 360 bridge over the Colorado River.

My best interpretation of this movie is we see and hear what could be going on inside the head of the writer/director. It is 2 hours of this and for those who enjoy that then it is a really enjoyable film. Otherwise it is not worthwhile for those who enjoy conventional narratives.

What a cinematic experience. If you know me well, you know I love Terrence Malick's work. It wasn't always that way, I had to revisit some of his work to really appreciate what he brings to cinema. Song to Song may have been the film I was most hyped for in 2017, seeing as my favorite actor and actress (Ryan Gosling and Rooney Mara) were finally working together and teaming up with a visionary like Malick. I know this film will divide and polarize viewers but I think if you love cinema and Malick's style (especially his last few films) you will enjoy this work.

The film is mostly about a couple of musicians who fall for each other and their captivating connection. Betrayal, infidelity, and other humanly circumstances get in the way of their relationship but then they eventually drift apart and find their way to each other. First off, this film has an excellent cast. The four of the top billed cast are immensely talented and this film has a number of satisfying musical cameos. Just like with Tree of Life and Knight of Cups the film uses camera-work that is shifty, montage-like, personal, and with quick cuts. There is use of fish-eye lens, first person, behind the head shots, you name it. The cinematography at times is absolutely gorgeous; the film is as close to visual art as you can get. And this is no surprise because its quintessential Malick.

Narrative structure of the film is coherent despite the cutting and style of storytelling. Its not at ll hard to follow and I was engaged from the get go, it comes down to personal taste. I can imagine a casual moviegoer to get frustrated with the structure and lack of straightforward progression. I found the intricacies of the interactions between the characters so fascinating and thought there was real compatibility between the cast members. I love Rooney Mara so much and her beauty was so crisp in every scene she was in. The characters in this film experience a range of human emotions throughout and its a wonder to behold.

Many may find the film to be pretentious in its attempt to be profound. I was perfectly fine with the inner monologues of the characters, much like with Malick's recent films. I still think Tree of Life is his best masterpiece but this film is probably the next of his filmography that I feel a strong connection with. I am glad I experienced this film as soon as possible and wish it would get the Criterion treatment much like some of Malick's other work.

9/10

You know that a Terrence Malick film about the music industry won't be like any other film about the music industry but then a Terrence Malick film won't be like anything other than the Terrence Malick film that preceded it and the one before that and quite possibly the one before that. You could say that Terrence Malick's films are unique..except they aren't; nowadays they all look and sound the same which is why so many people have written him off. I think I may be one of the very few people who not only liked "Knight of Cups" but actually chose it as my best film of the year.

That was about the movie industry, or at least about an actor in Hollywood, and "Song to Song" is about the music industry or at least about a handful of people involved with the music industry and like the last couple of Malick pictures it basically dispenses with dialogue and 'conversations' in favour of a stream of consciousness narration, or several narrations, as various characters take up 'the story'.

What story, you may ask? Perhaps unusually for Malick there are more characters than usual on display with at least three stories running through the picture. The central characters are Faye, (Rooney Mara), a would-be performer, Cook, (Michael Fassbender), the Svengali-like producer Faye is sleeping with in the hope that it will advance her career and BV, (Ryan Gosling), another musician with whom she embarks on an affair. Then there's Rhonda, (Natalie Portman), the waitress that Cook marries and Amanda, (Cate Blanchett), the older woman BV falls for, not to mention an extraordinarily good Patti Smith playing herself. Each of these characters has 'a story' to tell and all are beautifully played. In many respects this is Malick's most accessible film since "The Tree of Life".

Of course, how you respond to it will depend on how you respond to Malick in general. Personally I think this is a vast improvement on "To the Wonder" and it's certainly the equal of the vastly underrated "Knight of Cups". This is an intelligent and surprisingly engaging film and once again the dazzlingly brilliant cinematography is courtesy of Emmanuel Lubezki. It really shouldn't be missed.

Total garbage just like everyone of his movies since his 20 year hiatus! Should have stayed retire, every movie he's directed is worse than the previous. Putting together clips of nice scenery and having A list actors improvising don't make it a movie.

I only watch his garbage because I like the A list actors and actresses. I can't believe producers keep allowing this guy to direct and blow their money because I can assure you not any of his last five movies have made any money. I don't get his nostalgia and why the actors all want to appear in his trash.

Hire a bunch of grade A actors, film a bunch of 10 second clips of them ad-libbing, throw it all together disjointed, and wah lah, you got a terrible flick. This is what happens when you don't have a script and just tell the actors to do/say whatever comes to mind. Guess they used the money they normally would have for a good script and paid all the actors with it. I like all the actors in the movie but like none of them in THIS movie. They all came out looking like elite idiots. When I think of all the times Hollywood is completely out of touch, nothing is a better example of it than Hollywood making this movie. The only thing I got out of this, was being disgusted.

Most directors turn out some great movies (Bananas, Schindler's List, Dr. Strangelove, One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest) and some terrible ones (Everyone Says I Love You, The Lost World, Eyes Wide Shut, Man on the Moon). Some (i.e., John Sayles) consistently turn out good movies, while others (i.e., Paul W.S. Anderson) appear to be on a mission to destroy cinema. But Terrence Malick is one of a kind: he has gotten progressively worse as a director. His debut "Badlands" was a masterpiece. His follow-up "Days of Heaven" was OK, not great. "The Thin Red Line" was well-intentioned but had a too narrow focus. "The New World" was too long and too slow. Malick continues this downward spiral with the forgettable "Song to Song". There's no plot here, just two hours of people thinking things that they want to say to each other. I don't know what possessed Ryan Gosling, Natalie Portman, Michael Fassbender and Rooney Mara to waste their time on something so bland and empty.

Basically, it's the sort of pointless movie that you'll need to wash out of your memory with another movie (in my case, I watched "An American Werewolf in London"). Terrence Malick is nothing but a hack. I don't know why anyone finances his pseudo-intellectual Oscar bait wannabe.