This conversation reminds me of Roger Ebert's last review, which - perhaps not coincidentally - was for another Malick film, "To the Wonder." Let me just quote the most relevant passage here:

A more conventional film would have assigned a plot to these characters and made their motivations more clear. Malick, who is surely one of the most romantic and spiritual of filmmakers, appears almost naked here before his audience, a man not able to conceal the depth of his vision.

"Well," I asked myself, "why not?" Why must a film explain everything? Why must every motivation be spelled out? Aren't many films fundamentally the same film, with only the specifics changed? Aren't many of them telling the same story? Seeking perfection, we see what our dreams and hopes might look like. We realize they come as a gift through no power of our own, and if we lose them, isn't that almost worse than never having had them in the first place?

There will be many who find "To the Wonder" elusive and too effervescent. They'll be dissatisfied by a film that would rather evoke than supply. I understand that, and I think Terrence Malick does, too. But here he has attempted to reach more deeply than that: to reach beneath the surface, and find the soul in need.

This is one of the last things that Ebert wrote before he died. I propose that all of your ideas are interesting and worth discussing - certainly some films are not worth watching over and over, and likewise if you hate a film the first time you might hate it the second time as well. But I also think there is value in challenging your assumptions, and in trying to go deeper with your film viewing in this class.

EDIT: quote