Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

ChikPapa Very disappointed :(

Maidexpl Entertaining from beginning to end, it maintains the spirit of the franchise while establishing it's own seal with a fun cast

Kamila Bell This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

bogdan-purcareata I was happy to see this sort of a cast to be part of this sort of a movie. I was impressed.It's a contemplative movie, such as La Grande Bellezza and the like. It doesn't have much of a plot, but the feelings expressed, the shots, the gentle suggestions make for an everlasting trip. I was calming to see how easy this movie made me at peace with myself, presenting a scenery of fear and anguish in a most profound way.It's true, it's either hate it or love it, it was certainly worth it for me. The actors' performances were brilliant, albeit minimal. I don't believe the protagonist utters more than 20 or 30 lines. But it's an atmosphere of endless flow and deep introspection. A great choice for personal reflection and meditative retreat.

Reno Rangan As for me, this director is done. His last best film was 'The New World'. I don't know why someone keeps financing him. It is neither an art and message film, nor has any entertainment value. In one word, total-crap. All the above, these actors agreeing to do the roles. Definitely this director's films have received more boos at Cannes than any others. Not fit for film festivals, as well as theatrical releases. The surprise part was, I saw it. Even after I felt a similar way for his previous film.There's no story. Just a random acts. Even documentary films have a better narrative. Remember a film was being made by Willem Dafoe in the film 'Mr. Bean's Holiday', this is exactly the same film. Except there's no Mr. Bean/Atkinson here to make it a cheerful additional editing. It was like the director woke up in the morning and decided to do what he felt to shoot without a script.I dislike whispering background narration. It is like a lullaby, one might fall into sleep. Not just asleep, but a deep sleep. Direct dialogues between the characters are like an oasis in this film. If you have nothing to do and ready for a slow film, you should not consider it then too, because it is not a film, but a two hour long torture. Easily skippable film.1.5/10

lor_ Some random thoughts while watching this pretentious stinker: Film students correctly screen and study the works of Fellini and Antonioni and so did Malick, but ripping them off is inadvisable.I saw "Badlands" at its NYFF world preem in 1973 and was a big fan of TM through his next one "Days of Heaven", but....he ended up a hack as witness here.Compare careers to Conrad Rooks -as fiercely independent minded if not more so with 2 interesting features to his credit "Chappaqua", plus Herman Hesse's "Siddhartha". No idiot Malick Kool Aid drinking producers to back further follies for him, however.Key ripoff: the great Scandi filmmaker Peter Watkins who invented the "You are There" first-person camera filmmaking technique for fictional, historical subject matter - wildly overdone by Malick with wide angle distortion added.Ultimate indie pioneer John Cassavetes used improvisation for rehearsals and prep to invent a unique filming style; Malick uses improvisation as a lazy self-indulgence.Film Festival-itis: making movies to be "consumed" on the antiquated, dating back to the '30s and '40s of Venice and Cannnes, international film festival as exhibition venue circuit, pandering to the gatekeepers of same: selection committees and junket-style critics, as witness the empty "eroticism" (not) thrown in as chief fetish of a "festival junkie".Brain-dead stars: many a big name attracted to this no-script, no- nothing project in order to boast "I worked with Terrence Malick" and then spout gibberish in the inevitable BTS bonus interviews on DVD.Film School Error 101: The Shot: when I first became a film buff over 5 decades ago I was fascinated with the "striking shot", a Bertolucci or for that matter Antonioni composition or moving camera that stuck out - the opposite of crafting a real, functioning feature film where both camera-work and editing (and SPFX especially) are ideally invisible once a filmmaker has matured. It's not the shot (battle) that counts, it's the film (war).Antonioni, not Clapton or Kilroy, is God syndrome: not just the ending but the endless expanses of emptiness, as mentioned by loyal production designer Jack Fisk, not symbolic but merely undigested Antonioni imitation, see: "La Notte".Elephantiasis: in the '60s I watched hundreds if not thousands of experimental film short subjects, screened at Midnight every Saturday and Sunday night at the local art theaters back in Cleveland, drawn from Ann Arbor and other regional festivals. Very educational and formative for a young film buff, with Stan Brakhage, George Kuchar and Ed Emshwiller raised to a pedestal for me. I'm sure Malick did too, but his big-budget feature-length imitations of same are embarrassing and a slap in the face of the many progenitors of the "underground movement" ranging from Maya Deren to even the '60s future pornographers -the Findlays. But he gets away with it, as current viewers and critics have no grounding in film history.The Fellini scenes: TM couldn't resist "throwing a party" just like Fellini, but the maestro's parties have life and invention, while here we see clichéd Hollywood types milling about, over-wrangled by some anonymous assistant director, completely artificial in their groupings and movements.Lastly, Bale as empty as the project. He gives new meaning to the derisive term "walk-through". And this is after, like the other hapless cast members, being given free rein by an absentee "director".

gregoreo-80710 This film attempts to get at the higher calling of a man's soul. Along the way the only thing this man seems to be deterred by is his own objectification of women. As if women are the absolute obstacle on his journey to God. The man in this film seems to be bent on using women. It's a very, very bad movie for this reason, because it never arrives at it's initial premise. I was hopeful at the beginning, but it only shows perhaps the writer/director's own proclivities for women as the ultimate obstacle to God. What a massive miss on Terrence Malick's part, to get it so, so wrong. In fact this is a great sin, that men overlook and debase women the way the main character in this film does. How can you reach God therefor if you debase women this way, as so many men do around the world in all cultures. You are indeed blind Terrance, as your film implies. As a woman I am very tired of women being cast this way in film. It's destructive to human relationships and to our relationship with God. If you read Genesis, God created man and woman in His image, not just man. Women are objectified in this film, so perhaps it's more a film about blindness, than finding God.