I don’t have anything interesting to say, but it’s my favorite film!

Great movie. Great, great movie.

Was that interesting enough?

ebert

Not bad. I felt the same way about the movie confounding explanation by failing to offer symbols, meanings, etc. I think he gets a couple of details wrong though (e.g. It’s Kit’s idea to bring the school books along).

But I thought maybe the blankness of the whole thing was part of the point, to whatever extent there was one—that human behavior itself can confound the neat explanations we try to give it.

Her narration is the glue.

One of my favorites. I absolutley love the soundtrack (which I recently realized much was used for True Romance, not one of my favorites.)

is it related at all to the pc game from the 80’s

The gun as crucifix as used in “Giant”? I liked that part.

I have to watch it again. it has been years.

I wasn’t sure if he was supposed to be Jesus or a scarecrow in that scene.

which I recently realized much was used for True Romance

Badlands is a great movie that seems to have influenced a lot of shitty movies.

there are no badlands in it

mundane narration of extraordinary events from a naive pov.

(great great movie)

DONT BE SAYING SHIT ABT TRUE ROMANCE

if there were no badlands then I call bait and switch

badlands doesn’t have patricia arquette in those outfits. true romance is a better film

Jesus as scarecrow.

the blankness is what makes the film — like there’s an entire layer of meaning and knowledge that you can sense and the film can kind of gesture toward in those huge vistas, but that is ultimately as inscrutable as the sky. i love the movie, but my problem with it is that the strained poetry of malick’s subsequent films make me wonder whether badlands really has anything to say — if it’s a form of faux-naive vapidity posing as insight. but sissy and martin are great, my favorite performance by each of them.