Good: The script has that typical Malick weirdness, with gobs of pensive narration. It's not that the tale is all that strange; Malick is well-known for utilizing very little dialogue, staring contests, and opaque poetry spoken against a backdrop of sunsets and fields. However, it is more accessible here than in Malick's The Tree of Life (2011), owing perhaps to the more restrained thematic elements. For example, Martin Sheen and Sissy Spacek's shabby Bonnie & Clyde duo don't ever wax poetic on how predatory dinosaurs connect to baby feet in the grand scheme of life.
Sheen and Spacek are already revealing their talent at this budding stage of their respective careers. However, Malick's character sketches are what count here. Where he may reveal very little in the way of background or *personality*, his elusive directing style and choice of precociously talented actors fill in the blanks just enough to bring the audience along. As a result, it is a faithful (if ambivalent) representation of the senselessness, impulsivity, and blissful ignorance of teenage criminal enterprise. In a convincing turn as a psychopathic James Dean, Sheen captures the lack of empathy and understanding of (or care for) his actions. He's as trigger happy as any action movie villain without any of the campy, evil laughter. Like a kid who inherited his pappy's rifle. Reminiscent of a Manson acolyte, Spacek portrays the rapid yet subtle transformation from shyly smitten teen to dutiful accomplice to murder.
Terence Malick is really a landscape photographer who writes poems. This may explain why a chunk of his catalogue seems to be lost on viewers and critics alike. Sometimes it really is just two actors staring at each other on a windswept plain. However, on many occasions his sublime photography beautifully dovetails into his narrative. In fact, he may have written Tree of Life just to make sense of the some of the stunning natural phenomena he just happened to be filming. Perhaps the less experienced Malick did not take so many liberties, which is why Badlands keeps its feet on the ground and its eyes on the story.
The landscapes are complemented by gorgeous interiors of Victorian mansions. While you're trying to figure out what the actors are saying with their eyes, your eyes can indulge in the scenery! I haven't seen many period pieces which depict middle-of-nowhere 1950s America in such a transporting and intriguing way. I chose not to say 'authentic' because this was many decades ago. What I will say is that it seems authentic. I can say that, right? Right down to Martin Sheen's elaborate costume of a white T-shirt and denim jeans.
They execute a pretty gnarly ‘50s Cadillac chase in the desert in this movie; the clearest example of how Badlands echoes Bonnie & Clyde (1967). This time, it's in the desert, three decades later, and markedly more serious.
Bad: The primarily xylophone soundtrack neither fits the mood nor time period of the film. Plus, the film drags at the end and stumbles through the climax. However, it does seem to imitate how a murderous punk would meet his fate back then. After all, aren't we more awkward, shy, and clumsy with our words than in the movies?
The film ends on a shot of clouds. In this instance, I don't care enough to ask, "What does he mean by this?"
Overall: I liked this movie. It certainly ages well, even when compared to its contemporaries of the New Hollywood era. I'm not quite sure what Terence Malick is saying with this movie, though. Again, there is an overriding ambivalence. While I appreciate an unbiased, forensic approach to retelling tales of brutal crime sprees, I'm not sure what it all amounts to. Wayward outcasts are dangerous? Love conquers all? Anyway, extra points for Sissy Spacek. I’d give it a 7.8/10.
