This film concerns the horrific story of a real-life killer who terrorized the Great Plains states during a nine-day murder spree in 1958.

Before I get into the review of Badlands, did you ever hear the joke about the celebrity who was famous for being famous? I think it was about one of the regular guests on Hollywood Squares … anyway, that is pretty much where I see Director Terrence Malick falling on my list of famous film directors. Malick is famous because he is a film director. Why is he a film director? Because he's famous… If the truth is known, Malick is probably most famous for being the "Greta Garbo" of filmmakers ("I vant to be ALONE").

Over the last thirty years, director Malick has directed exactly three feature films and I've seen 2/3 of his oeuvre: The Thin Red Line and Badlands. Based on his track record so far I don't think I'm going to see Days of Heaven (the third) any time soon.

Malick directed Badlands in 1973 and Days of Heaven in 1978 then dropped out of sight for TWENTY years to resurface with Thin Red Line in 1998. That's where I caught up with him. I found the Thin Red Line to be well photographed but pretentious, self-congratulatory, and boring in its treatment of soldiers at war on Guadalcanal. It certainly lost my interest after the seemingly endless Animal Channel type footage of insects, leaves, and other flora and fauna with very little story told in the overlong over hyped production.

Having seen and been less than overwhelmed by Thin Red Line I saw Badlands only because a reviewer whose opinion I trust recommended the film as one of the all-time greats. Don't get me wrong, you can find plenty of critics around the 'net who have given it 5 big stars and I respect all of their views but this is going to be MY take.

Like many professions, if critiquing can be dignified by such a word, there seems to be a good deal of groupthink among film critics. You will read gushing reviews discussing "lyrical camerawork," liberally peppered with adjectives such as "subtle," "meaningful" and "real." All these are code words in moviespeak for "dull." What my between-the-lines read of many of these statements says is, "Gee! I really don't see anything in this but everybody else says this is great so I better not rock the boat."

Well, my foremost criterion for judging a film is its entertainment value. Was I entertained? I understand the Ars gratia artis stuff, but I leave the heavy breathing and film interpretation to the Cannes set.

Kit (Martin Sheen) is a discard on the waste heap of society. Malick establishes that in the first frames by showing the high-school dropout working as a garbage man. Kit is none too smart as he walks off the job in the middle of the day to aimlessly wander through sleepy town South Dakota. We are not surprised when he is fired the next time he shows up at work. Failing at garbage collecting. It can only go up from here, right? Wrong. Kit meets fifteen year-old Holly (Sissy Spacek) another misfit who feels alienated from her father (Warren Oates), who is raising her as a single parent. Holly spends most of her time fantasizing, which we share as she provides a voiceover full of banal teen fan magazine fueled observations she (and director Malick) probably feels are very profound. Kit's strongest suit is a resemblance to screen idol James Dean, which some character or other manages to remind us about every five minutes or so. Kit even drives a '49 Merc, just like the Deanster.

When Holly's dad objects to Kit's attentions to his daughter, Kit kills him in cold blood right in front of Holly. Kit is an interesting mix of contradictions. He wants to cover up the crime so he burns the house down and fakes suicide but he wants to get recognition so he leaves a recording of his voice for the police to find. Holly is such a wallflower she takes off with Kit rather than to lose the attentions of this loser. The rest of the film concerns the nine-day sojourn of the two fugitives on the road before they are caught.

Let me get back to the story, what there is of it. Malick, who wrote it, is very subtle in painting these two as psychotic losers who muddle their way through their uninteresting lives and lash out at or passively accept whatever crosses their path. The problem is, it's just TOO subtle and most people are going to tune it out after only a few minutes of non-action punctuated by banal dialog. Whereas the real story of the killer duo (Starkweather-Fugate) could be told in any number of ways, Malick has chosen to tell his tale at a glacial pace, in other words the action is almost non-existent.

In defense of the acting, I would submit that Sheen and Spacek probably did exactly what Malick expected of them. They are just insipidly boring characters except when Sheen is self-consciously putting on the charm like his look alike James Dean. Spacek had this consistent flat affect that one would associate with a withdrawn person. Good acting? You tell me.

Malick's direction lacks movement however he does have a good eye for framing his shots. The big negative for me was that Malick never took a stand. He recorded the footage more like a documentary without point of view. This ambiguity may be what appeals to the film critics but I think it's a copout.

The Warner Bros. DVD is well presented in 1.85: 1 widescreen format and contains no extras other than English and French subtitles and your choice of either language for the audio.

I'm sure Badlands in 1973 set some tongues to wagging but it sure hasn't aged well. Miss this turkey!

Recommended:
No

Viewing Format: DVD
Video Occasion: None of the Above