Cannes Film Festival 2013

Review: Terrence Malick's 'To The Wonder' looks great but says little

The director's second film in two years is starting to look pretty familiar

  • Critic's Rating C+
  • Readers' Rating B+
<p>Trust me... within 30 seconds of this moment in 'To The Wonder,' I guarantee Rachel McAdams is spinning and walking through a field. </p>

Trust me... within 30 seconds of this moment in 'To The Wonder,' I guarantee Rachel McAdams is spinning and walking through a field.

Credit: FilmNation

Are you a fan of Motion Captured?

Sign up to get the latest updates instantly.

One thing is increasingly clear:  Terrence Malick is a man on a very specific aesthetic mission.

When I was at Cannes in the summer of 2011, there was no film that was more heavily discussed or anticipated before it screened than "The Tree Of Life."  I felt like I was lucky to be there for the film, and there was a sense that everyone had made it their top priority for the festival.  The discussions afterwards were intense and ongoing all week, and I dare say no other film was covered quite as extensively during that fest.

Here in Toronto this week, though, I've gotten none of that surrounding the debut of "To The Wonder," Malick's new movie, and in the few conversations I've had with other people, it seems like the notion that he's got two more films coming in the next year or so and another major ongoing one in development has made him "just another filmmaker" as opposed to the figurative Sasquatch of Cinema that he was for so long.  I'm thrilled he's suddenly found this new productivity and that he's got a producing team in place who are able to help him realize all of this newfound creative energy, but it does mean that it's less of an event now.  There's a reason the world rarely freaks out at the news that there's a Woody Allen film coming out.  Something that happens every eleven months or so is not particularly noteworthy, no matter what the final film turns out to be.

"To The Wonder" is far more linear as a piece of storytelling than "The Tree of Life" was, but like that film, it leans heavily on a familiar bag of stylistic tics, and there can be no mistaking this for the work of anyone but Terrence Malick.  While there is very little in the way of conventional dialogue in the film, there is almost always someone speaking in voice-over.  The film begins with Marina (Olga Kurylenko) and Neil (Ben Affleck) traveling together in Europe.  They are in the early days of a love affair, and there is a constant tactile connection between the two of them.  Marina is the one who narrates most of the film, and she is obviously ready to start a life with Neil.  She has a pre-teen daughter named Tatiana (Tatiana Chiline) from a first marriage, though, and Neil doesn't seem ready to commit to something permanent.  He asks her to try coming to the US with him for a while, so she packs up her daughter and joins him in Oklahoma, where he works collecting soil and water samples to test for chemical impurities.

For a big stretch of the film, we just watch Marina and Neil and Tatiana try to settle into something like a normal life, and there are moments where it seems to be working.  Tatiana, like most girls her age, runs hot and cold at a moment's notice, sometimes thrilled to be in the US and smitten with Neil, sometimes sullen and angry and adamant that he is not her father.  Neil lives his whole life with a sense of emotional reserve, and it makes Mariana crazy.  At least, that's how I read what I was watching.  Because we hear so little of what transpires between them, you're left with suggestions, the ghosts of performances.  Affleck comes across largely as a blank here, but I have a hard time blaming him because I have no idea how he was in any of the actual dialogue scenes with Kurylenko.  There's also a priest in their community who is suffering from a feeling of disconnection from God, played by Javier Bardem, and every so often, Malick just cuts to ten minutes or so of Father Quintana questioning his faith while dealing with what appear to be real people struggling with poverty and other issues.  Eventually, it's too much for Mariana, and she leaves the US with her daughter, which is when Neil runs into Jane (Rachel McAdams) a girl he used to know who has grown into a woman who seems to be far more grounded and centered than Mariana.

Want More...

Toronto Film Festival?
  • Toronto_at_night_article_story_main_thumbnail
    Check out everything there is including photos, reviews, videos.
When I say that Malick is pursuing a very particular aesthetic at this point, it almost feels like self-parody.  I felt that way during parts of "The Tree Of Life," but it's much more pronounced now.  Kurylenko is forced to whisper truly ridiculous voice-over dialogue that pretty much all boils down to "What is this love beyond love?  Is it love? Do we love that we can love, or do we love so we know love?  Love is love.  Have I mentioned love?"  There's a good hour of that, most of it accompanied by gorgeously photographed images of Kurylenko walking through wheat fields or tall grass, spinning in circles and dancing.  In fact, that's pretty much all she does.  She's either crawling seductively towards Affleck, spinning, or dancing.  Or fighting, but that comes later.  When McAdams enters the film, she seems like she's being established as an opposite to Marina… until she also starts to wander through wheat fields and tall grass while spinning.  Maybe I've been hanging out with the wrong women my whole life, but I don't know anyone who spins this much.  Instructors in spin classes don't spin this much.  If you put the opening of "Sound Of Music" on a loop for two hours, Julie Andrews wouldn't spin this much.  It makes the women seem like advertisements for what Malick thinks women should be like, not like actual characters or people, and it gets truly annoying at a certain point.

While the Affleck/McAdams/Kurylenko storyline does resolve itself in something like a conventional manner, sort of, I remain puzzled by Bardem's place in the film completely.  He's in a different movie, and I'd honestly like to see what that movie is.  His discussions with God about faith, his struggles to reconcile the suffering he sees with the beliefs that guide him… there's potent material in there.  But at best, we get a cursory nod to those ideas, and then it's back into the story of the stone-faced guy who sort of loves two women who spin a lot.  Lots of pensive standing around, both people staring into the distance in different directions.  Lots of gorgeous landscapes.  There are a few scenes late in the film where drama starts to rear its ugly head, but Malick quickly chokes the pulse back out of the film until he finally is able to resolve it with a shot that not only literalizes the film's title, but also makes the startlingly unsubtle point that we are always chasing the passion that comes at the start of relationships.  If that's the big idea that this entire film was built to support, it seems like a long way to go for very little payoff.

As usual, it is a spectacularly beautiful film, and Emmanuel Lubezki seems to have perfected the particular shooting style that Malick is chasing, a sort of dreamy free-roaming omniscient eye that will often wander away from whoever's thoughts we're hearing in search of a detail like a bug on a blade of grass or the light coming through a window.  It is visually ravishing, and there is a hypnotic quality to the cutting style, the overall rhythm of the movie.  In addition, I think Kurylenko seems to be doing interesting work, even though much of it was cut out, and she's luminous here, gorgeous and interesting, and McAdams is the same way.  But I'd be lying if I said I felt like there was enough here.  I think Malick's first two films remain his best work because they married his aesthetic concerns with real character work and genuine drama and a sense that they had something to say.  Even knowing how much he changed "The Thin Red Line" between shooting and release, I still feel like that works as a movie, and that the flourishes that distinguish the film as Malick's are what elevate it instead of being the entire point of the thing.  I found "To The Wonder" to be, ultimately, somewhat tedious, and I hate feeling that way about a new film from Malick.  But I'm not going to just pretend that there's more going on here because of his reputation, nor do I think hiring a great D.P. means nothing else about your film is important.  If this is all Malick does for the rest of his career, and we'll see with these next two films if he's still got other tricks in his bag, then I might not be able to actively call myself a Malick fan.  That is perhaps the single most depressing movie-related thought I've had all year.

"To The Wonder" is currently seeking US distribution.  Good luck with that.

Drew-mcweeny-sm
Drew McWeeny
Film Editor
A respected critic and commentator for fifteen years, Drew McWeeny helped create the online film community as "Moriarty" at Ain't It Cool News, and now proudly leads two budding Film Nerds in their ongoing movie education.
Trending Now on HitFix Boards
Topic Started By Latest Post Replies
sandylewis90
15 days ago
2
sandylewis90
about 1 month ago
1
Discuss In Theaters and Coming Soon on HitFix Message Boards »

Comments

  • Option 1

    Comment instantly as a guest Guest
  • Option 2

    Connect
  • Option 3

    Login or create a HitFix account Login Signup
  • Default-avatar

    Feydaway

    I don't think I've ever laughed alongside one of your reviews. Mission accomplished. Friggin' hilarious.

    September 12, 2012 at 11:55PM EST Reply to Comment
  • A_monty_talkback_profile

    Monty Jack

    Malick's "style" has become every bit as much of a self-parody as Tim Burton's has over the last decade. What I wouldn't give to see Malick wed his ravishing visual style to a movie with a goddamn PLOT.

    September 12, 2012 at 11:55PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      alynch The thing though is that all his previous films did have plots. His style made for some lengthy digressions but there was always a main plot that he'd eventually return to. When he had that primary story (i.e. lovers on the run, WWII troop, founding of America, dysfunctional family) that he was compelled to fall back on, I found his style would both complement and elevate the material in spectacular ways. I consider all five of his prior films to be masterpieces for that reason.

      Yet, despite how much I've loved all his previous films for what his unique aesthetic brings to it, I am also certain that his style would be unbearable if presented on its own, which is what this film is by all accounts. Despite how much I've loved his previous work, I think there's a good chance that I won't be seeing this movie. The way the film has been described, even by those who've loved it, is completely beyond anything that I'd ever be interested in watching. It's reminiscent to how I felt once the first reviews came out for Inland Empire, which I still haven't seen and possibly never will.

      I read some critic defending the film by saying (paraphrase), "Malick is not interested in telling a story." That's what someone who liked the movie is saying. Storytelling is what I look for in movies. It's what I'm interested in, and I always thought that's what Malick was interested in as well. I'd hate for him to disappear up his own asshole like David Lynch did.

      September 13, 2012 at 1:27AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    V.N.

    Now part of me wants to see Terrence Malicks' 'match.com' profile...

    "I'm into girls who spin around and think (but never speak) about love..."

    I like Malick in theory, but it strikes me as borderline irresponsible as a filmmaker to make movies the way he does...

    September 13, 2012 at 12:24AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    CinemaPsycho

    The emperor has no clothes. I've been saying it for years. Even art films, no matter how pretentious, have a responsibility to the audience to keep them awake and engaged in what's happening on screen. Malick seems to have lost interest in serving or giving anything to the audience in any way, including the people who loved his previous work. He's disappeared up his own ass, and I'll take a decent Woody Allen film over one of his so-called "masterpieces" any day. Badlands is still my favorite Malick film, and it's looking like it always will be. I will eventually see To the Wonder, but I will no doubt use it as an excuse for a good nap.

    September 13, 2012 at 1:43AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Shaggy_werewolf_talkback_profile

      That Werewolf Guy That's pretty much my opinion about Lars von Trier's movies.

      September 13, 2012 at 4:52AM EST
  • Annie8bit_talkback_profile

    Stormshadow4life

    Reading this review...this is EXACTLY how I felt while watching Tree of Life. Malick just isn't for me.

    September 14, 2012 at 11:04AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    The color of the wheat

    I am sorry, but Malick says as much in this film than in each of his previous works. If you look for what connects all things in the movie, what connects Quintana's story to the rest of the film (that seems the thing that you miss during your viewing), maybe you will find what the message of the film is, something that is as powerful as we could hope from Malick.
    And with this in mind, the second viewing (because this film needs repeated viewings like all Malick's films) appears like a stream, like a river, like an uninterrupted poesy, an ode to the very reason we are here.

    September 15, 2012 at 4:50PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    the flower tao

    Sorry to hear you were once more frustrated by a new Malick film, Drew. I totally get what you're saying and this could very well have been a review of TREE OF LIFE with all it's whispering voice overs, tuned down dialogue and aestheticism. I have to say though that Malick's style works perfectly well for me. We got so so many conventional narratives every year. It's always a moment of awe for me to discover a movie so silent, meditative, fragile and yet overwhelming. I love TREE OF LIFE as much as I love transcendental (or transformational) pieces like many Herzog documentaries, 2001, STALKER, THE FOUNTAIN or BARAKA. I feel your review of TO THE WONDER, yet I'm looking forward to it with great anticipation.

    September 17, 2012 at 9:28AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Yancy

    Well, you were and are dead wrong about Tree of Life, so I'm not too worried. But it sounds like you're addicted to Save The Cat, which is the worst thing that has ever hit Hollywood.

    April 11, 2013 at 6:54PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Yancy

    And incidentally, the reason all the fanboys and nerds like Badlands the best is (wait for it) because it has guns in it. Yes, these schumcks are that easy.

    April 11, 2013 at 6:56PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Yancy

    If I hear one more unenlightened rube from my generation harp on "story, story, story" I'm gonna kill myself. There is more to life than A-B-C, you numbskulls.

    April 11, 2013 at 6:57PM EST Reply to Comment

Get Instant Alerts on Motion/Captured

Latest Posts
More Posts
Recent Activity on Facebook
Most Popular on Facebook
Top Stories From Around the Web