Quite a lovely film, a great American life film. But it's hard to really fall in love with it.

Days Of HeavenThe cinematography as always is stunning in a metaphorical tone that communicates to audience about the fueled intense exoticism that is explored in here. Terrence Malick's; the writer-director, keeps it simple on paper but takes out his big guns while executing (it surpasses the script) which is mesmerizing and thought provoking at the same time. On performance level, Richard Gere has done some decent work but other than that it seems like it wasn't Brooke Adams and Sam Shepard's forte. Days Of Heaven is weak on offering fresh or concrete material and performance, but still works like a charm due to the deep ideology and anatomy of human nature in all aspects of its time with different perspective.

Terrence Malick burst onto the movie scene with 1973's "Badlands", about a teenage couple on a crime spree. A well-directed, well-shot movie, it suggested that Malick would be one of the new upstanding directors emerging at the time (Spielberg, DePalma, Coppola, etc).His next effort, 1978's "Days of Heaven", was a worthy effort but no masterpiece. The first few minutes of the movie are the best part. Had the movie kept its focus there, it probably would have been as much of a masterpiece as "Badlands" was. Instead, it's a so-so look at the tensions arising from a love triangle. I will say that the locust scene is pretty impressive, though.Malick took a twenty-year break from directing after this, returning with "The Thin Red Line". It was also a worthy effort but had too narrow of a focus to amount to something that was worth watching. His next effort was "The New World", which was too long and too slow (seriously, had they trimmed half an hour it might have managed to be mediocre). I didn't see "The Tree of Life" but my parents told me that it sucked. Basically, Malick gets progressively worse as a director.The visuals in "Days of Heaven" get a lot of praise. I'm sorry, but visuals without a solid plot serve no purpose (contrast that with Todd Haynes's movies, wherein the visuals emphasize the lie that the women are living). In short, I'll call this movie Malick's last movie that's really worth seeing. After this, his work turned into pseudo-intellectual, Oscar bait wannabe.

It's 1916. Bill (Richard Gere) is a hothead. He accidentally kills his supervisor in a Chicago steel mill. He runs away with his girlfriend Abby (Brooke Adams) and her sister Linda who narrates the movie. They find work harvesting a vast land for a farmer (Sam Shepard). Bill and Abby pretends to be siblings to avoid scrutiny. The farmer falls for Abby. Bill convinces Abby to marry the terminally ill farmer for his money. However, his death doesn't come and Bill becomes concern.Terrence Malick knows how to make a beautiful looking film. His collaboration with cinematographer Nestor Almendros is absolutely brilliant. The scored by Ennio Morricone invokes an ethereal quality. It's a movie that should be shown in museums. I'm not as taken with a young Richard Gere in the role. He's way too pretty. His wavy hair is too lovely. He has that playboy swagger. He doesn't fit the steel mill worker and farm worker character. He looks more like a hustler. I do love Brooke Adams in the role. The little girl Linda is another matter. She is stiff and I hate the narration. It keeps the movie devoid of emotions. If Malick insists on making Linda the protagonist, he could at least make her interesting.