Many stars and promising movie..But did not meet the predictions.

This storyline could have been SO sexy and SO interesting but they cut everything short and glaze over everything. The trailer implies it will be sexy, but then all the sex scenes cut from a soft touch to putting clothes back on. Half the movie seems like montages and voice overs. All the cheating and lying but there’s no drama???? Why spend so much air time on the least interesting part of the story and cut forward on every dramatic scene or sexy scene????

Well compared to Knight of Cups it's ten times better but that isn't saying much. There actually is something here that resembles a story. It's basically a Robert Altman style character study involving multiple characters interacting and the romance/drama of being in a rock star producer behind the scenes with no real centralcharacter amongst 5-6 people. That much I get and credos for actually having a foundation here that is interpretable without needing to look up a wikipedia article or have a professor interpret it for you. And the acting is actually alright with some chemistry here and there. But there is a lot of unnatural acting in this with people staring at times like they are in a Calvin Klien commerical that feels unneeded. Everything else isn't that good here. This jumps around terribly and it's not very obvious what is going on or why a character is acting a certain way. You really have to think for a bit but you can usually piece together the why evenutally. It does feel like at times it is very close to coming off the rails and going full arthouse abstract mode but it does come back eventually. This also drags quite a bit. There are scenes that are so slow or go on forever or are very repetitive. This is beautiful to look at at times but i can be very inconsistent. Sometimes it feels like Malicks best work and other times it feels like I'm watching a documentary or a Marriott commerical. And other times Malick's arthouse tendencies come up as well in a bad way. It is calming and visually stimulating while watching while also having a story and understandable characters. But it isn't really anything I can recommend to anyone. The meaning gets lost in the arthouse tendencies, very slow pacing, jumpy editng, and inconsistent style and unnatural character behaviors. Skip This.

It's like a two-hour perfume commercial with beautiful people and a great soundtrack

In Austin, Texas, Faye (Rooney Mara) is a guitarist looking for success as a musician. She starts an affair with record producer Cook (Michael Fassbender), hoping that he will help her. Then she begins a relationship with BV (Ryan Gosling), who has had slightly more success than she and is also working with Cook. Cook and Faye keep their affair a secret from BV and the three take a trip together to Mexico. Rhonda (Natalie Portman) is a former kindergarten teacher working as a waitress at a diner, where she is courted by Cook. The two eventually marry and he buys her mother a house. Business gets rough between Cook and BV and their professional relationship and friendship end. Faye feels increasingly guilty about her affair with Cook, and finally tells BV, who breaks up with her. Faye then has a relationship with Zoey, a French woman living in the US. Rhonda begins to feel uncomfortable with Cook's wild lifestyle, which includes sex with other women and drugs. BV dates New Yorker Amanda (Cate Blanchett) for some time, but eventually they break up too... Rotten Tomatoes critical consensus reads, "As visually sumptuous as it is narratively spartan, Terrence Malick's Song to Song echoes elements of the writer-director's recent work—for better and for worse." In a five-star review for The Independent, Christopher Hooton claimed that it has become fashionable among critics to ridicule Malick's recent films, but that given a chance the film is a "masterpiece" and even "life-changing". In Entertainment Weekly, Joe McGovern derided it as "incoherent, disconnected, self-interrupting, obsessed with pointless minutiae and crammed full of odd, limp stabs at profundity [...] you’ll find yourself searching in the margins of each shot for something or someone tangible to grasp onto." Film critic Matt Zoller Seitz of RogerEbert.com gave the film two and a half out of four stars. Although he had always praised Malick's work and style in the past ("I don't believe that the Austin-based director has ever made a bad movie"), he wrote that Song to Song "is the first Malick film I’ve watched where the dots never came together to form a legible image", emphasizing the film's need for more "rhetorical connective tissue" that would further connect to the film's themes as well as better characterizations, because of the film's highly chaotic nature. Seitz concluded that the film is "a brainy concept album made up of B-sides and filler. The musicianship is superb but the songs needed work." (Via Wikipedia) Terrence Malick has always gone his own way in his filmmaking and mostly he has succeeded, but lately he has become stuck in creating incoherent, chaotic, more or less non narrative, voice over, disconnected films in which he has an obsession of putting the viewer into his dreamlike chopped up world through the camera lens. I would think the script to "Song to Song" was half an A4 long and then he has shot scene after scene making them up along the way. Like an open stage in which the actors just had "do something" in the scene. As a viewer you feel left out and you never get engaged in the film despite a great ensemble cast and cameos. I didn't even register that Natalie Portman's character took her own life when seeing the film. I red that on Wikipedia. That says a lot. "Song to Song" is simply not working in any way. The film is a scattered mess and not enjoyable in any way. Trivia: After a lengthy post-production period of over three years, the film had its world premiere at South by Southwest on March 10, 2017, and was released in the United States on March 17, 2017, by Broad Green Pictures. Critical reception for the film was mixed. The film's first cut was eight-hour long. (Via Wikipedia)

"Song to Song" was a chaotic film starring Ryan Gosling and a few other celebrities, but it's hard to determine who the real star is with the messy storyline. Despite the A-list cast, the poorly written script suggests they may not have been as famous back then. It's the kind of film they probably want to forget being a part of. The plot is not just bad, but confusing and hard to follow, whether it's about sex, drugs, or something else entirely. Watching it feels like trying to piece together a jumbled puzzle with no clear picture in sight.

A very much "Malickesque" film, with the same kind of narrative, cinematography, shots, editing, etc... But this one with a star-studded cast. I would've liked to see more of Cate Blanchett

I think I kind of felt something by the end but it's just so tedious and structureless that I can't really resonate with much right now. Pretty unique but a shorter runtime would have probably made It a more enjoyable "vibes" type of movie.

"Cook" Michael Fassbender leads us through the squealing Austin, TX music scene with "Faye" Rooney Mara, the beautiful, chameleon transplant, and "B.V" the guitar toting golden mane. Director Terrence Malick's brilliance is on full display, via the unmistakable strides of this All Star Cast.

It's a polarizing romantic drama type of character study with an interesting fly-on-the-wall visual style but even viewers who say the film is often too slow or alienating can't deny Terrence Malick's magnetism.

This stretch of Terrence Malick films is the first time I've set aside viewings specifically to catch up on a single director, and the first time that I've had a chance to see how a director changes from film to film. For most of his films since 2000, Malick has been employing a very similar style, essentially a montage of starkly edited clips that focus on the moments between the crescendos, stepping away from traditional Hollywood practices. He has always excelled at shot design, lighting, anf framing, and his idiosyncratic story design of recent years has been paired often quite effectively with the cinematography of Emmanuel Lubezki; the fluidity and natural light employed typically blend very well with the stream-of-consciousness approach to storytelling. For some subject material, this approach seems to be appropriate (for instance, in the soul-searching of John Smith and Pocahontas as they are forced to explore clashing ways of life in The New World, or the mental and emotional wanderings of a lone, disaffected individual in the glitz of Hollywood in Knight of Cups). In Song to Song, it all doesn't seem to come together nearly as well. Thematically it's a slight variation on territory that he's covered before, and the vehicle actually seems to be far less impactful; it often seems more akin to a soap opera than a serious drama, something like an artistic rendition of a long Dallas episode. The acting quality is decent, but won't blow you away. If you like the formula (and it does seem like a formula by this point), you likely already have a much-preferred version of it in Malick's filmography. (2.5/5)

The worst mess of Malick's career. Tedious and chaotic. Completely disjointed and devoid of that visceral intimacy achieved with "The Tree of Life", last effectively well-made work. The author has definitively standardized his style by depriving it of any depths, leaving only a vague and superficial impression.

This was the last feature film from Malick I had yet to see and while it doesn't vault to the top of his filmography for me, it certainly won't be relegated to the basement either. The visuals, with Chivo as the cinematographer, were beautiful and thankfully pretty engrossing as the narrative, and lack of a traditionally cohesive one, would have been harder to get into otherwise. I felt like Malick kept getting close, flirting with the type of transformative narration or dialogue that, when paired with his emotionally stimulating touch, can create masterpieces, and among some of my very favorite films. Close but no cigar, is probably a fitting label in this case, and it is easy to understand why there is such a varied reaction to this film, but Malick getting close is still better than many at their best.

There's no Malich's magic or Lubezki's magic or any magic in this incoherent film.

Let me summarize this hacked up excuse of a film in one sentence - ' nihilistic girl with no personality stares off into the distance pensively'. I understand the whole transitioning scenes every 10 seconds, the shaky camera work and all of that, they're trying to create movement and capture raw emotion, the problem is that there is nothing to capture. Almost every line in this movie is embarrassingly cliche to the point that i feel sorry for all the people who had to take part in it. The underlying narrative is about as deep as a bowl of soup, i have honestly seen ads for insurance companies that are more emotionally salient than this dull and lifeless garbage.

I refrained of seeing Song to song several years, given the bad reviews... And what a mistake. Malick works have been quite unique in the last decade... This movie is in the same vein than the trilogy, meaning beautiful cinematography supported by a stream of thoughts and with an even more minimal storyline. His formula is working for me, really resonating: i watch his movies like i would go for an hypnosis session, thinking about nothing, 100% focused, with no clear expectations. I'll never get tired of these experiences.

Terrence Malick non si scosta dalla sua visione di cinema, ma apparentemente a corto di idee si rifugia in una passerella di star e di potenza visiva oltre ogni limite, grazie ad un budget che gli permette praticamente di fare quel che vuole. Come si fa a non apprezzare la recitazione di 5 mostri come Fassbender, Gosling, Mara, Portman e Blanchett. Come si fa a non apprezzare la meraviglia delle inquadrature e delle immagini in giro per il mondo. Come si fa a non vedere la povertà di una trama che sotto all'estetica porta davvero poco, anzi, pochissimo. E soprattutto, la poca credibilità in questa sfarzosa ricchezza a fronte di 0 lavoro per tutti i personaggi.

Unbelievable talent for an pretentious and overly long mess.

There's a theory of creativity, preached by the likes of Brian Wilson and David Lynch, and which I think undergirds Malick's method here, that figures the artist as for a time plugging into an ambient stream of inspiration in the ether, dropping a line into a running stream of imagination and merely trying to catch hold of what passes by—of course, when the extra-subjective source is as unfocused and underwhelming as the ATX music scene, naturally the resulting movie amplifies those qualities, too.

the movie has a very interesting set of scenes