Malick’s case is incredibly strong for a relatively modern auteur. He is certainly having a puzzling decade by first giving us perhaps his best career work- and then falling on his face with a weaker trilogy (though I must admit I’m very excited to revisit). When I did my top 500 I had Days of Heaven at #47 and The Thing Red Line at #43. They aren’t going anywhere. I like to have a 10 year moratorium on new films before I canonize them and add them to my top 500– but in this case with The Tree off Life– I can’t deny that after two viewings I think it’s his best film. This gives me 3 Malick films in the top 50. Like Lynch, he creates a world of his own and if you put a gun to my head and asked me which director in film history made the most beautiful (I grant the word itself leaves this up to many interpretations) films “Malick” might be the first name to emanate from my lips. I’m open for debating his case against others. Malick is still only ranked 48th on the TSPDT director top 250 but that’s silliness. If you break it down to see where his films rank vs. other films in their respective years- his films on TSPDT, rank as 1st (The Tree of Life, The Thin Red Line, Days of Heaven), 2nd (The New World) and, 5th (Badlands) best films. Amazing.
Best film: The Tree of Life. So, by transitive property (using my The Thin Red Line top 500 ranking) I actually have The Tree of Life ahead of anything by the Coen brothers, Spielberg, David Lynch, PT Anderson and all but 3 films from the 1990’s (Breaking the waves, Goodfellas, Pulp Fiction). Wow.
total archiveable films: 7
top 100 films: 2 (The Thin Red Line, Days of Heaven)
top 500 films: 4 (The Thin Red Line, Days of Heaven, The New World, Badlands)
top 100 films of the decade: 5 (Badlands, Days of Heaven, The Thin Red Line, The New World, The Tree of Life)
most overrated: Badlands. It is #132 of all-time on TSPDT and Malick’s #1 film. I’m below these two grades a little. It’s his easiest film – and a brilliant one- but clearly not his best. This will remedy itself on TSPDT over time.
most underrated: The New World is all the way down at #807 on TSPDT (I have it at #193) but because it’s more recent it’s not as bad as it looks. It’s actually the #5 film on TSPDT and I have it as #2 so we’re fairly close there actually.
gem I want to spotlight: The Thin Red Line has taken 20 years to be fully appreciated but it’s there now. The #1 film from 1998 on TSPDT. The photography is sublime but how about Hans Zimmer’s scales in the score?
stylistic innovations/traits: There’s really a lot Malick is known for now: voice-over narration, magic hour, stunning photograph usually involving nature. If the director is easily parodied then he/she’s probably an auteur (QT, Wes, Hitchcock, Bergman, Leone). He’s also known as a meticulous editor who takes forever to makes movies (or at least did) as he took a 20 year break between Days of Heaven and The Thin Red Line (and then another 7 year break and then another 6 year break). Though he didn’t start out this way with his relatively straightforward narrative style in Badlands– I think he has to be known now as an editor/montagists and a manipulator of the standard narrative. His most recent trio of films (To the Wonder, Knight of Cups, Song to Song) have not been as good—plain and simple. I’m eager to revisit but the knock on them that they are more like perfume advertisements is apt (though they are beautiful). He’s also a Christian and his works have to be studied and viewed as such for their spirituality and Christ allegories (Thin Red Line especially).
top 10
- The Tree of Life
- The Thin Red Line
- Days of Heaven
- The New World
- Badlands
- To the Wonder
- Knight of Cups
By year and grades
| 1973- Badlands | MP |
| 1978- Days of Heaven | MP |
| 1998- Thin Red Line | MP |
| 2005- The New World | MP |
| 2011- The Tree of Life | MP |
| 2012- To the Wonder | R |
| 2015- Knight of Cups | R |
*MP is Masterpiece- top 1-3 quality of the year film
MS is Must-see- top 5-6 quality of the year film
HR is Highly Recommend- top 10 quality of the year film
R is Recommend- outside the top 10 of the year quality film but still in the archives
Where should I start with Terrence Malick?
@Randy… I’d start with Badlands. It’s his first film, one of cinema’s greatest debut films of all-time, and it is his most straight-forward narrative as well.
I can’t think of any reason not to just go chronologically through his work… at least up to Tree of Life. He develops his own filmmaking language through them and you can see him building and expanding upon the visual grammar and syntax from film to film.
Malick is the only director similar to Tarkovsky. If you could make a top 10 of both of their movies combined, what would it be?
For example my top 3 is
1)mirror
2)tree of life
Andrei Rublev
What would your top 10 be?
@Azman— certainly some similarities with Tarkovsky (beautiful films, high ambition, long time between films– except for Malick lately). Certainly Malick has turned into a full-blown montagist like Eisenstein or Oliver Stone in recent years where Tarkovsky had a really high average shot length– i always think of Bela Tarr as a Tarkovsky acolyte.
As for the combined top 10. I think it is:
1. Stalker
2. Nostalgia
3. The Tree of Life
4. The Thin Red Line
5. Days of Heaven
6. Andrei Rublev
7. The Sacrifice
8. The New World
9. Solaris
10. The Mirror
11. Badlands
@ Drake. Badlands is most certainly a MP. You think all Tarkovsky films are MP???
@AP — So no, I mean I have Ivan’s Childhood from Tarkovsky behind Badlands and that would be next on this list. I graded Badlands out as a MP as you can see above- but I’m grading 500+ movies a year and I try to do it the next day after watching it so I don’t fall behind. Sometimes a Must-See will stick with me and I should go back and upgrade it or vice-versa. It’s really close (Tarkovsky and Malick are two of the all-time greatest)– especially with Solaris, The Mirror and Badlands– but yeah I would take these 6 Tarkovsky films about Badlands— and did so here in my top 500 of all-time when I updated my list last April
http://thecinemaarchives.com/2019/04/10/the-best-500-films-of-all-time/
@ Drake. Thanks for the reply. Fair enough. I was fixated on the Tarkovsky page. Also, the stunning realization that everything he created was a MP or near about.
Seems like The New World has fallen behind Badlands. Still have it as a MP or below?
@AP– sorry- good catch on The New World. It hasn’t fallen- I just did this on very little sleep this morning using my top 500 of all-time page and missed it. I corrected it above now. Thanks for the help. Unreal that Badlands isn’t in the combined top 10.
But yes- Tarkovsky is a lot of people’s legitimate choice for the greatest director of all-time and he has a pretty strong case. What a body of work.
i can’t decide if his non badlands (one of my favorite films and simply one of the greatest works of art of the past 100 years) are great films are pretentious garbage. how do you think pretentiousness or self importance should factor into reviews of films. i am not saying he is a bad filmaker, badlands alone makes him great, and he certainly has an eye for visuals, but im not a fan of some of his motifs (hushed voiceover, too much magic hour, cutting out actors, frankly not enough shots to get to see characters truly).
for me id much rather watch fun films like the avengers or inglorious besterds than tree of life any day, even if they aren’t as ‘deep’ or visual.
anyways when i think of malick i think of a wide shot of the sun gleaming down on a famous actor staring at his girlfriend saying, “how did the universe lead me to you?”
also this is my opinion so i dont want to offend anyone who had an emotional experience watching his films. song to song was emotional for me to watch but i don’t know if it is a particularly great movie or not.
@m – It sounds like you’re more a fan of traditional narrative film-making– and not so much of a bolder expression of artistic film style– at least with Malick. Badlands is brilliant– but it is his least “Malick-y” (you name a few of the stylistic traits here talking about his motifs— your complaint about “too much magic hour” makes me scratch my head confused) if that makes sense. Your preference for The Avengers over Tree of Life would back that up.
I hardly ever talk about pretentiousness of self-importance. An auteur or film either works or it doesn’t (and sometimes in-between) but what you would call pretentiousness and self-importance I’d call artistic ambition. I want my directors to have ambition.
One of us is reading ‘ the tree of life’ wrong. For me it is a top 10 of all -time movie. Why do you find it pretentious? Why is the movie not ‘fun’ for you? Surely it is better than the Avengers. There really is no comparison.
For me it is the best movie of its decade beating out fury road, which is an incredible film. Since you disliked tree of life, what would be your top 3 of the 2010s be? Would it include the avengers?
It sounds to me like you’re misusing the word “pretentious”… like a great many people do. Something isn’t pretentious if it is actually too deep or high-minded for your personal taste. Pretension means playing at depth or significance when you really aren’t offering much of either. Malick could potentially be accused of being too esoteric or high-minded or philosophically obsessed, but I don’t think charges of pretentiousness can be credibly laid at his doorstep.
azman
my top 5 of 2010s
1) Inside Llewyn Davis
2)Hateful Eight
3) The Master
4)Mad Max
5)Joker
6)Cloud Atlas
7)Meyerowitz Stories
8) Zootopia
9) Steve Jobs
10)12 years a slave
11)x men days of the future past
12)Ad Astra
13) Roma
14) Hobbit battle of five armies
15)toy story 3
also i wasn’t saying avengers is the best film, just that it is fun, and i enjoy the film. i think it is great, and especially scarlett jo is great in it. and i love superhero films (comic books were my first love before cinema).
sorry i wrote top 5 but got a little carried away those are my 15 favorite. haha
The images you provided here are brilliant. Malick is the man. I agree with your ranking almost entirely, I would only switch Badlands and The New World and probably put A Hidden Life between them. It’s also little surprising that you don’t rate To the Wonder, Knight of Cups (and probably Song to Song) given the criteria you established here. They are very strong visually. I watched all three films multiple times, tried to really focus and at this point I’m ready to call them pretentious. Or I’m simply not capable of recognizing whatever Malick had in mind.
@Chief Keef. I really want you to answer me, or one of the readers of the blog, what is a pretentious movie?
Malick is definitely not pretentious
@ Aldo If the attempt is ambitious (always a plus in my eyes) but falls short in execution. If it works, director is a genius, if it doesn’t he is pretentious. He can’t reach the heights he intended so he pretends in a way. The Tree of Life vs any of the three mentioned films is a good example. Except if you saw something in these films that I didn’t.
@Chief Keef, I agree with you here. In the Tree of Life Malick has one goal in my mind, to tell a story of loss and nature vs grace. He also intertwines the story of creation and a man and his relationship with God to an astonishing effect. All his later work pales in comparison to the Tree of Life(then again, most movies pale in comparison to the Tree of Life).
I don’t know if Malick can really be considered pretentious though. He doesn’t really care how people feel about his films and they don’t come off as someone trying to show people how deep he is. His films are just too genuine I think. He earnestly believes the ideas and emotions that are present in his films.
Do you call for ambition? pretentious?
@Aldo I dont think Malick was pretentious. I’m assuming your comment was addressed to me since it was a reply to mine. Anyways, here is what I think.
Malick’s films are highly ambitious. Attempting to tell the entire universe’s story intertwined with the entire story of a boys life is extremely ambitious. The only other movie with this level of ambition is 2001 a space odyssey but it lacks the intense human feeling that The Tree of Life provides. (Not a critique or praise. They are different movies. The cold style works or 2001 and the ’emotional’ style works for Tree). The Tree of Life is telling the story of creation but it also adds the story of a child, how he deals with the loss of his brother, how he questions God and how he comes to peace with everything. On top of that, it has some brilliant photography and highly ambitious CGI. You go from space, to the dinosaurs, to God and then back to a family in 1950s Texas.all within 2 hours and a quarter-wow…
Pretentious is when a director tries something extremely ambitious but fails because he isn’t talented enough or because of some other reason.
It’s simple really, if you liked the Tree of Life, its a ambitious masterpiece, if not you may think it is pretentious. I certainly do not think so. I believe it’s a highly ambitious masterpiece.
I would disagree on The New World. My personal favorite movie of all time (though we should understand that favorite and best are 2 different things, although I also think TNW is among the best as well).
[…] 24. Terrence Malick […]
Didn’t you make any posts about Carlos Reygadas? You do not like him? I thought you liked him, since they compare Reygadas to Malick and it seems that you are a big fan of Malick.
@Drake- Are you going to do pages for The Tree of Life and Days of Heaven?
@Finn- for sure. I need to schedule a Malick study soon.
Do you rank directors based off how they use the camera and not how entertaining their movies are? I don’t see how someone like malick can be listed as one of the greatest just because he has good photography. His movies are boring as fuck. Just watched the thin red line and it is boring. Tree of life was boring when I watched it as well. Badlands and Days of Heaven were much, much more entertaining than the thin red line and the tree of life. Do you take screenplays into account at all for your best director list? If so, that is laughable having Malick above guys like Tarantino and Fincher who make infinitely better movies.
Your first mistake was assuming Malick’s only good trait was his skill with the camera.
His movies are extremely boring and this is not an unpopular opinion. No idea how you can sit there with a straight face and say his movies are ANYWHERE near as entertaining as scorsese, fincher, kubrick, nolan, mann, tarantino, pta and so on. Days of Heaven was the best movie out of the 4 I’ve seen by him and it just doesn’t come close to the real top tier directors
Your second mistake was assuming that entertainment is the only metric by which a film should be measured. In that case, The Room would be one of the greatest films of all time because it is an incredibly entertaining watch, but no argument needs to be made to prove that is not the case. Thus, your argument falls completely flat.
The Room isn’t entertaining in the slightest, seen it once and it was awful. Disaster Artist is 100x better, and that isn’t anything too special either.
@Dylan
Interesting that you list both Nolan and Fincher in your group of filmmakers who are “real top tier directors” in contrast to the “boring as fuck” Terrence Malick. They both feature heavily in the making of documentary on Tree of Life and wax rhapsodic about his work. They seem to view his films with a sort of awe. Maybe there’s something you’re missing.
I think you need to distinguish between entertainment and engagement. If a film aims to be meditative or contemplative but you’re looking for entertainment, you’re applying the wrong metric. But even then, evaluating a film based only on how entertained or engaged you are is wrong. Malick has much more than nice cinematography going for him – there is excellent editing, symbolism, form, and as simple as his screenplays might be, they are often rich texts with plenty to dissect and, yes, be engaged by.
Well thats my question if he ranks movies based on “art” and not entertainment. Looking at grass and jellyfish and leaves is not entertaining in the slightest. If his rankings is based on art, then so be it, but people watch movies for an engaging story and to be entertained, not look at jellyfish.
That’s because entertainment is not the metric by which a film should be measured, not at all. Engagement, visuals, writing, acting, philosophical depth, style, etc. are all infinitely more important than whether a film is “entertaining”. Take Apocalypse Now, for example. Is it an entertaining film? No, you’re watching the wrong movie if you’re looking for entertainment. But it’s an engaging film. You want to know what’s going to happen next. It’s depiction of Vietnam haunts you psychologically, but you’re completely locked in and cannot leave, and you stay until the conclusion for all 3 hours, knowing you have just seen an absolute towering masterpiece of a film. It shakes you with its brilliance. On the other side, in an “entertaining” film, let’s look at Catch Me if You Can. This is an enjoyable watch, it is indeed engaging for a number of reasons (Christopher Walken above all), but then the film ends and you’re completely empty inside. You feel absolutely nothing after watching a surface-level-of-depth film. And you have no desire ever to watch it again since there’s no artistic value that causes you to feel anything at all, like in Apocalypse Now or any of Malick’s masterpieces you seem so much to hate. You are right that people watch films to be engaged, perhaps the masses with their love of every MCU film that comes out, but film buffs like us come for the art: the character study (for example The Assassination of Jesse James, Taxi Driver, or Fight Club) the incredible cinematography (any of Malick’s films, Jesse James, Children of Men, etc), the winding narrative (Vertigo, Chinatown, Heat, Blue Velvet), the fantastic acting (Raging Bull, There Will Be Blood, The Godfather), and many more artistic reasons that keep people engaged and locked into the film. And all of those films fit into more than one of these categories as well. You can keep your “entertainment” but don’t you ever even try to call auteur cinema trash because it didn’t do that for you. As Tarkovsky said, he only cares about the opinion of Bergman and Bresson, and when I read or hear drivel like this this quote always comes back to mind.
Apocalypse Now is VERY entertaining what are you talking about lol? I’ll disagree on catch me if you can – spielberg movies are pretty damn boring, but it is one of his best, which isn’t saying much. I’d probably take Minority Report over it instead. Also, I’ll disagree that MCU movies are “entertainment”, they’re not, they’re just as bad as Malick films, althought Days of Heaven is better than any MCU movie. You listed a ton of great movies: taxi driver, fight club, TWBB, children of men, blue velvet, Heat; all which are leagues above any Malick movie. Those movies actually have a good engaging story and aren’t pretentious like Malick movies showing you jellyfish and other boring nonsense.
@Dylan- yes- I’d say art over entertainment for sure.
My god, is your comment serious or are you trolling?
If it’s serious, this comment makes me furious.
Fortunately you are wrong, Days of Heaven # 1 1978, TTRL # 1 1998, Tree of life # 1 2011 and the tree of life is considered the best movie of 2010s and one of the 5 best of the century and this is not only us, also the critics.
The tree of life might be the best movie ever.
What you consider entertaining is debatable, a good edition is not, the same with days of heaven is one of the best photographed films in history
How am I wrong lol? Just because he lists those films as #1 of the year that makes that a fact? The Tree of Life has an audience score of 60% on RT and 6.8/10 IMDB. I find the audience more accurate in most cases (of course not on all cases). Which critic sources are you using? RT has Spy Kids as 93% for critics, and 46% audience. Metacritic has Predator at 45/100, The Thing is 57/100. Masterpieces like Inglourious Basterds, Seven, Fight Club have low Metacritic scores. I could go on and on, so which “critics” are you going by? The majority of people who watch the tree of life hate it – that isn’t something I’d call “the best movie ever”. Universally loved movies like Pulp Fiction or Goodfellas or Fight Club or Apocalypse Now you could say “might be the best movie ever”. I would love to know which critics you’re going by, because Metacritic and RT critics are wrong in many, many cases.
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/spy_kids
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/ghostbusters_2016
@Dylan– I know you’re responding to Aldo but I personally don’t put too much stock in the audience scores– maybe you’ve found their opinions line up with yours but these people are most often totally uninitiated in regards to cinema— the consensus has weighed in Tree of Life and it is solidly in the canon. it is the #1 film of the 2010’s on the TSPDT consensus list (full top 25 here http://www.theyshootpictures.com/gf1000_h-l.htm)- but I’m of the belief that the evidence is pretty easy to find on the screen and it is brilliant whether you or I say it is or not.
I personally find the website “flickchart” to be the most accurate about film rankings in most cases, have you heard of it? Definitely not RT or metacrtic critics. So many bad films critics have super high scores compared to audience – those 2 I linked are just 2 of 1000 examples (spy kids/ghostbusters). I’ve heard of TSPDT but never really seen any of their lists – but would definitely trust them over RT/metacritic. I’m not sure if he is meaning TSPDT or RT/metacritic when he refers to “critics”. Of course I could give examples too of audience being wrong, and the critics right, like Face/Off for example, but in general I find the audience to be more accurate than RT/metacritic critics.
@Dylan- it could be you’re just looking for the same thing most general audience members are. I’d guess most critics on metacritic or TSPDT aren’t concerned primarily with how entertaining a film
@Dylan. Sorry i thought we all know TSPDT and you won’t find movies like Spy Kids, you can filter by year or by director or duration etc.
Here are the 1000 best.
http://www.theyshootpictures.com/gf1000_all1000films_table.php
Here are the top 1000 21st century
http://www.theyshootpictures.com/21stcentury_allfilms_table.php
Where the tree of life is ranked # 5
Flickchart is pretty mediocre like imdb, it’s just people voting, Star wars is supposed to be the best movie ever, better than 2001 and Tokyo Story
It seems that you suffer from the problem of being too used to Hollywood movies, this explains why you find it boring.
Fully agreed about the star wars comment. Thats what i hate most about the site is movies like Star Wars being considered the best movie ever made lol. I have never seen Tokyo Story but really hated 2001, it was super boring, but I do love Kubrick movies, Eyes Wide Shut/The Shining/Clockwork are my top 3 by him. I wanted to like FMJ but the second half kills it for me, and I didn’t like Barry Lyndon on my 2 viewings of it. I have never seen paths of glory or spartacus though.
@Dylan- well I love Tarantino and Fincher and I think I understand your point of view. “Entertaining” is a tough one- it certainly isn’t the only criteria (not to mention how subjective “entertaining” can be)- without spending a half hour going into it — the main criteria is awe. You weren’t awed by Tree of life?
I didn’t get through tree of life when I last tried to watch it, too boring for me. I would rather watch the other 2011 Pitt film Moneyball (even though I don’t care much for it anymore, it is a decent movie) any day of the week over tree of life. I think Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is the obvious choice for best Pitt film of the 2010’s. I watched the thin red line today and hated it. I think Days of Heaven is his best by far, and Badlands is second. Have not seen any of his other stuff
@Dylan- gotcha- maybe just put Tree of Life and Thin Red Line on the shelves for awhile and come back to them down the road. Perhaps you will change your mind on them. Tree of Life is brilliant- but I wouldn’t recommend it to everyone– I talk about “accessibility” often and it certainly isn’t accessible for everyone. My father, my brother- they would hate Tree of Life.
@Dylan Applying your same metric to different art its the same way some may call in music rap/reggaeton beter than jazz (in a popular opinion) because it is more “entretaining”. I have disaggre tons of times with Drake have debated many times masterpiceces but you dont have a strong case calling a movie like the Tree of Life “super boring” i would highly recommend to dive into cinema more before and revisit after year since s there are cleary some art not intended for the masses
The best-photographed films of all time:
1. Days of Heaven
2. Blade Runner
3. Persona
4. 2001: A Space Odyssey
5. Blade Runner 2049
6. Barry Lyndon
7. Lawrence of Arabia
8. Schindler’s List
9. Citizen Kane
10. Apocalypse Now
11. The Conformist
12. The Tree of Life
13. The Revenant
14. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
15. Nostalghia
16. Raging Bull
17. In the Mood for Love
18. Manhattan
19. Gravity
20. Se7en
21. Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans
@Graham- amazing list of films- thanks for sharing. You think Gravity is better photographed than Roma? Or Seven over say Fight Club, Zodiac? Just asking
Thank you. So, yes, the answer to both of those questions is that I do. I am absolutely amazed by Roma as a film; it may be one of the two best this decade (I may receive a slight frown from Matt but my favorite is The Grand Budapest Hotel). It certainly stands as the best instance of a director choosing to become the cinematographer for their own film. If Lubezki’s three dueling best-shot works (ToL, Revenant, Gravity) are together on the same “level,” Roma is there too. I think Gravity has the very, very slight edge in consistency of superb photography throughout the film, but Roma may have the better standout shots. I would put Se7en over Fight Club or Zodiac without too much hesitation, as I believe it is Fincher’s most beautiful with lighting and color scheme (and his most ugly at the same time haha), and I think Darius Khondji is slightly more talented than Jeff Cronenweth. Those two other films, especially Fight Club, are superior to Se7en because of other reasons.
Some movies that didn’t quite make the original list (chronological order): Battleship Potemkin, M, Gone With the Wind, The Grapes of Wrath, Out of the Past, The Third Man, Rashomon, Ikiru, Tokyo Story, Seven Samurai, The Night of the Hunter, The Searchers, The Seventh Seal, Paths of Glory, Vertigo, Psycho, La Dolce Vita, L’Avventura, The Apartment, The Trial, 8 1/2, Red Desert, Andrei Rublev, Cool Hand Luke, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, A Clockwork Orange, The Godfather, Badlands, The Godfather Part II, Stalker, The Empire Strikes Back, Rumble Fish, Ran, The Cook the Thief his Wife and Her Lover, Three Colors: Blue, The Shawshank Redemption, Heat, The Thin Red Line, Saving Private Ryan, Fight Club, Punch-Drunk Love, Lost in Translation, Children of Men, There Will Be Blood, No Country for Old Men, WALL-E (does it count?), The Dark Knight, Inception, The Master, Lincoln, Inside Llewyn Davis, The Grand Budapest Hotel, Birdman, Mad Max: Fury Road, La La Land, Dunkirk – oof that was a lot
@Graham- fair enough- thanks for sharing. I think the actual camera movement from Gravity is astounding– but as far as the beauty of the photography I thought Roma was superior
Thanks. Roma would probably be the very next movie in the list anyway or close (I accidentally did not put that into the “didn’t quite make it” because I talked about it about). Both have absolutely astounding camera movement without debate.
@drake
Spielberg said in an interview that “No one could shoot a movie better than Stanley Kubrick in history” in 1999 after Kubrick’s death. What do you think of that?
Stanley certainly has Barry Lyndon, 2001 and maybe Shining . On the other end but i feel Terrence Malick has a stronger filmography in terms of “shooting” in Days of Heaven,Tree of Life, Badlands and Thin Red Line. I completely agree that their cinematic language are completely different.
Ps: The interview was in 1999 when tree of life(2011) wasn’t released so consider that as well . Also others(along with drake) can jump in the discussion
@Tanishk Shingala— I’ve never heard/seen that quote from Spielberg before. Thanks for sharing. I know Scorsese says something similar– about each Kubrick movie being worth 5-10 films
Lynch being left out by the mainstream filmmakers unsurprisingly of course. Don’t think he’s as strong visually as the two dragons Malick and Kubrick of course but still. I would say Ridley Scott but he only has one truly strong entry, Blade Runner, as strong an entry as it is. Cuaron is worth a mention but his big body of work in the 21st century obviously comes after Spielberg’s quote. Greenaway is similar to Scott; The Cook, the Thief is his big entry. John Ford also deserves a mention; I watched The Searchers recently (only of Ford’s I’ve seen) and thought the cinematography was incredible.
Overall, I think Malick and Kubrick are the two reigning kings. There just isn’t anything that I believe can truly compare to their works visually.