danroy70

(2012-02-21 21:16:00)

Let me save you time.

I believe this movie has actually made it to my top 10 list of worstmovies that my sorrowing eyes have ever beheld in their existence.Truly words can not begin to describe the agony I felt during thismovie it was that boring, and I only wish I were lying. I to givespoilers for how could someone do that? How can I let me think...?OK, so a lady is thinking and mumbling a few words about some randomevents for what felt like 25 minutes. Some other stuff happens but bythat time I was almost asleep. The next thing I remember was an operawas playing or something, then there was some chapel like hymns beingsung.The next time I was looking at the screen it was like the discoverychannel. There were single celled creatures developing rapidly intosome weird creatures. Then there were strange large creatures humpingthe ground or something. Let it be known that at this part there was nomusic at all it was just science channel sh*t with no narration oranything. Just pure boring as fu*ki#g he=l science channel sh*t. Thereis a little random whispering here and there but mainly just completebull sh*t boring retarded crap!To make a long wasteful story fast read the following:Essentially, if I were to pull down my pants after holding the contentsof my colon for 2 months in a row, and then took a very large sh*t infront of the camera it would be 999 x 10^999999999999 times moreentertaining then this movie.

Mark_Esposito

(2012-02-21 17:27:31)

The most pretentious film ever made?

This may not be the most pretentious film ever made but it certainlycomes close. I have read some of the reviews. "Haunting", "The bestfilm ever..." It is amazing what people write when they respect thereputation of the director so much that it blinds them to the obvious,that this is a singular artistic vision that is completelyincomprehensible to most of the viewing audience.*** Spoilers, maybe **** I say spoilers, maybe, because I am not surethat what I interpret as the plot IS the plot.The film starts with a series of sketches in which a mother receives aletter that indicates that one of her sons has died. This is followedby a long, extended scene a glorified lava lamp look with somevolcanoes and shots of nature thrown in, then a scene with somedinosaurs. It is at this moment that you may want to walk out. I know Idid because none of this makes any sense and, guess what, it NEVERdoes. There is not some remarkable, gotcha denouement at the end of thefilm that makes you think back to this earlier section. It is becauseit is.Then the plot, or what there is of it, takes over. It is apparently thestory of a family of five, a religious and strict father, a lovingmother, and three sons (I could swear that it was two boys and a girlin the opening sketchy section. That is how muddled this plot is). Theboys are never given any names and only one (the oldest? the Malickstand-in?) is given any kind of depth. I think this is the one whogrows into Sean Penn, but I am not sure. I think it is the secondbrother who dies in the first scenes, off camera. There is a scene at apool where a boy drowns. I thought it was one of the sons, but thereare later scenes in which all three boys appear.I have no idea what Sean Penn is doing in the film. He talks to hisfather once on the phone. He works in a skyscraper. And he lights acandle in a blue votive holder. He has less than five minutes of screentime and, if they had cut out those minutes, it would have had noeffect whatsoever on the film.Then, it (finally) ends, but not before a scene on a beach in which alot of people are wading, including the father, mother, and all threesons. However four of the members of the family look like they did inthe fifties, the period depicted in the longest section of the film.Only Sean Penn, as (I think) the oldest son, has aged.Some reviewers say that this scene is the end of the world. Really? Ihave analyzed enough films to state unequivocally that this final scenemakes absolutely no sense.Which is, essentially, what you can say of the entire film. Yes, thephotography is stunning, the performances, what there is of them,adequate, but the whole is definitely less than the sum of its parts.This film exists for the amusement of its maker, Terence Malick, and noone else. Except for a few rabid fans who think that Malick, a directorof talent who really has never made a fully integrated great film (hemakes films "of promise") can do no wrong. That explains theridiculously high rating that may draw some people into actually seeingthe film. Believe me, this is not a film for everybody. In fact is afilm for the very few. I know I won't sit through it again.A note to the fans. Sometimes people you love make bad films. StanleyKubrick, a man I worshiped, made masterpiece after masterpiece andnever made a bad film, until his last, Eyes Wide Shut, a shockinglylaughable movie about sex that is nonetheless far more comprehensiblethan The Tree of Life. Sometimes a film is just bad. The Tree of Lifeis just bad, an artistic indulgence that is such an incomprehensiblemess that it may actually be judged as great by the uninformed. Thefact that this may happen is irrelevant. The Emperor has no clothes.This is obvious.

stensson

(2012-02-20 21:16:51)

Struggle of powers

American suburban life in the 50s is since long mythologized. It'sobviously a very good drama background.Here we meet another dysfunctional family where the father teaches thesons the rules of nature. "Good people are always used". The motherstands for grace; the grace that always forgives and remains grace evenas a not-loved solitaire in a world of...nature.The wrestling still goes on in the oldest son as a grown-up. It couldhave stayed that way, but an almost 30 minutes long sequence ofexploding sun, fish in the sea and small dinosaurs reduces the drama.Philosophy and sociology surrender to symbolism

jumpandflip

(2012-02-20 04:12:06)

Yes to the impressive cinematography, no to a poor story and characterisation

Despite the ambition and scale of this movie it was completelydisappointing. Because there simply is no story to hang it off andwoefully poor characterisation. It's laboured pace didn't help. Andwhat's more the mother in this movie is an insipid 'non' characterconstructed to portray 'grace' above the darker forces of nature. BradPitt as the headstrong dad does add a little life to the movie butotherwise the family it follows is interminably dull from start tofinish. Sean Penn wanders around 'inbetween' worlds as the oldercentral character as an adult in a black city suit, like a confusedextra who has wandered in from an aftershave ad. And there is notenough dialogue or fire in the belly of this movie (no matter how manyvolcanoes it depicts erupting in slow-mo) to keep the viewer empatheticto its protagonists. Some may say I just didn't get it, but in fact I'ma big fan of avant garde movies, and this Hollywood effort just left mecold.

ElyssaWinn

(2012-02-20 01:41:11)

Oh dear...

This film was awful. Terrible. A waste of time. I find it ridiculous that there are so many posts defending this film.It seems there are so many people out there who are fully ready to takein pointless stories and label them "deep" (by which they mean "made nosense whatsoever, which must mean its beyond our grasp") I can forgive some films that choose form over content but not this.Where it isn't ripping off shots from documentaries like "Home"(I/2009) and "Planet Earth" and concepts from classics such as "2001",it is trying desperately to convey some sort of painful story withminimal basic dialogue and endless monologues of pointless drivel. Yes,parts of the cinematography were beautiful, the acting (especially fromsuch young boys) was impressive, yet there was not one SINGLE originalidea when it came to the script. There was absolutely no motivation forthe viewer to stay glued to the screen. It was more a case of:, "Ooh,this woman is grieving for her dead son, but it doesn't really matterin the big scheme of things cos' there were also once dinosaurs roamingthe Earth and there are big explosions and...here's a shot of orangesmoke...you figure all this out since I couldn't be bothered." Reallydeep stuff... I actually paid money to see this. Argh. And also - 8.0 out of 10? That's weird, that's seriously weird.

DookieX

(2012-02-19 13:43:13)

A Kaleidoscope of Images and Ideas

The Tree of Life is such a rare film to experience that it truly feelslike an instant classic. Up there in ranks to those great films whichat the time ushered in a new generation of film making (such as theChaplin's first films to usher in true narratives in cinema, Star Warsand The Godfather, 2001: Space Odyssey, etc.). However, even though itappears that way, I do not believe that a new direction or new age incinema is upon us yet. Why? Because the breakthrough that the Tree ofLife makes is truly next to impossible to replicate. The breakthroughhere is Terrence Malick's ability to give voice to what goes on in onesmind through a significant part of ones life. Our thoughts, ouremotions, as a child growing up to the point in our lives where itfeels like we're coming to an end. Its these thoughts and theseemotions which are so clearly defined and far reaching that are sobeautifully and honestly put down on film that makes this one of thegreatest pieces of cinema to ever be conceived and produced. The Treeof Life is a film so perfectly executed that it will no doubt withstandthe test of time. It also presents the same ideas that so many books,poems, songs, and films have striven for but never achieves. Malick canbe seen and felt here as being able to truly give voice to the streamof consciousness and cache and flow of memories that we ALL have. Thinkabout that for a moment, think about how each and every person has adifferent interpretation of the world we live in with staggeringamounts of similar interpretations in bits and pieces. Now think abouthow it's almost impossible for people to conceptualize other people'sinterpretations of the world simply because none of us are able totruly live the lives of others. The fact that Malick is able to findthe common threads in all of our lives and brilliantly put it into anarrative that we can all truly relate to on one level or another, itis something that is truly not replicable and a wholly uniqueexperience.One might now be wondering "how about the other group of viewers, thosewho do not see the point in this self indulgent and overly pretentiousfilm." Well, for those that do feel that way, nobody can say that theyare in the wrong. They are a product of their environment and are soconditioned by modern cinematic and narrative trends that anythingwhich asks the audience to put their systematic way of thinking,interpreting, and living aside for a moment and tap into that childhoodframe of mind where the world was a large field of curiosities, is nextto impossible. It is understandable that not everyone has held ontotheir childhood views of the world where absolutely anything couldhappen thus the only way to live is to explore, ponder, and experiment.It's extremely challenging when one watches a film like The Tree ofLife that is wholly executed with the level of curiosity andimagination that is usually only in the minds of a child or teengrowing up. One can also argue that the messages in The Tree of Lifecould have been presented just as easily using standard three partnarrative structures which would be true IF the film was to have justone large overarching message. The Tree of Life however is dealing withMULTIPLE messages simultaneously. It's dealing with the meaning of lifein relations to the scale of the world and the universe. It's alsodealing with life growing up and how a child comes to understandingswith the world and the people around them. Another narrative the filmworks on is how our memories are interpreted and what that means in ourlives. All three of these distinct narratives (and probably more, butthese are the main three which the film can be seen as from start tofinish, in other words, one can watch the film at least three times,each time focusing on one narrative while ignoring the others) are madein such a way that it's ambiguous enough so that one can put ones selfin place of the characters we see on screen. In a way, what some seesas self indulgent, pretentious, or overly art house abstractions areactually quite necessary because without the ambiguity and without theabstract imagery and flow, there would be no way that practicallyanybody can feel like they are watching their own lives playing out onthe screen. Without the ambiguous and the abstract, The Tree of Lifewould simply be us watching another slice of life, coming of age storyabout someone else. It wouldn't feel as personal as the film felt.The Tree of Life is a masterfully done once in a lifetime experiencethat feels like a lifetime in the making for not just Terrence Malickbut for the history of cinema. Regardless if one leaves the theatrethoroughly awestruck or hugely disappointed, it will make you think andit will strike up many conversations. Even if you do end up dislikingThe Tree of Life, the conversations and thoughts that it will provokeafterward will be priceless and worth the time spent with the film.

CountZero313

(2012-02-18 23:11:22)

life goes on

A middle-aged man, Jack, has fragmentary recall of a childhood summer,or summers, growing up in middle America circa 1950s with his twobrothers. His disciplinarian father exudes ambition and frustration.His mother bears all the family's faults. There is a coming-of-age ofsorts for Jack, though nothing is so clearly defined in this episodic,imagistic outing. What is a life? Jack asks himself, framed in thecontext of the loss at 19 of his younger brother, possibly in theVietnam war, given that the news arrives in an official brown envelope.I saw this in Glasgow Film Theatre at a screening introduced by anacademic. "It is a film that demands to be admired," he said, "but canbe difficult to embrace." I shared that sentiment, admiring thevisuals, though finding myself wondering if some of the frames were tooself-indulgent at times. The performances are sublime, the childrenincredibly realistic, brash and vulnerable. Pitt, once again, excels.But I couldn't help feeling the technical prowess was leaving mefeeling distanced from it all - until a climatic scene on a beach,people wandering and mingling in some kind of sunset-drenched purgatory- or maybe not: it is difficult to say anything with confidence aboutwhat exactly is going on at any one moment. It may have been the end oftime. Nothing is said, but the glanced touches, embraces, and looksmet, proved charged and incredibly cathartic. It is a challenging film,but in the end, a deeply rewarding one.Malick sets out to hit the audience with shock and awe, and does sosuperbly.

Ralf Southard

(2012-02-18 05:30:23)

Closed Mind? Easily Bored or Distracted? Don't see this film.

If you want to see a film with a distinct beginning, middle and end,this one is not for you.If you want to enjoy lots of action or adolescent humor or gratuitoussex or endless waves of zombies chasing people down the street, thisone is not for you.If you want to sit through a movie that makes you jump in your seat,this one is not for you.However, if your looking for an experience of visual and mentalstimulation... go for it.Let's just award it "Best American-made Foreign Film."I don't recommend this film after a long, hard day at work or even whenyou're remotely fatigued. It is long and slowly moving. I wouldprobably shorten the film, which is why I gave this a 9 instead of a10, but in all, I have no complaints except for the people who callthis utter rubbish or a complete bore. If you feel you've wastedtwo-and-a-half hours of your life on this film, then don't even attemptto fool us by shaving that patch of hair between your eyebrows.I love all kinds a movies. My pallet of favorites (and there arehundreds) include, in no particular order, American Pie, Cars, BlueVelvet, The Help, Titanic and Citizen Kane. I can enjoy a ridiculousmovie as much as an action-packed chaser or an intelligently writtenstory.Life is love and love is life. Without love you walk this earth prettymuch as an empty shell. I know my place in life, and it was merelyreinforced through viewing this movie. This film is not linear and itdoes not have to be. If you have feelings, have experienced love, loss,tranquility or pain, you'll get this movie, and it will get to you.I don't have to mention anything specific from this film. I don't haveto share any spoilers. I don't have to quote any philosophers,reference any other historical films or filmmakers to make my point.Plenty of people have already done so, and most of them are on point.My take on this film is really quite simple.This film has a very easy to understand story. Most listings for thisfilm completely sum up the plot, as does the menu on your cable box andeven the description on IMDb (link:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0478304/). You can read any one of thoseand know what the film is about. IF that's all you want to know, selectyour next film. Otherwise, jump in, open your eyes and your mind andyour soul and feel what's really coming at you.I fell asleep during Cars and Captain America, both movies I enjoyedafter playing them again. The Tree of Life had me completely glued tothe screen. although it is not my wife's kind a movie, she enjoyed itas well, following it with a quick critique of "weird" and "strange."She also said "It definitely makes people talk about it." EXACTLY!Hey, if you hated it, sorry for your loss. You can recoup your lifetime lost during the interview at your final gate when they ask whatyou learned in life. When they send you back to learn your lesson asecond time, maybe you'll experience life a little fuller.

ronlinder

(2012-02-17 18:57:40)

All over the place boring and pointless

This movie is so badly made that I can't even explain how someone evenput it together. The unexplained jumping of scenes, the weird thingsshown that had no meaning, the unplanned sequence of things shown, thismovie is a mess.I have no clue who gave it a high rating but I can assure you they werehigh on some kind of substance. This movie deserve one of the lowestrating possible, in fact it should be in a category of its own called"junk". If you want to lose some IQ, if you want to lose some time, if you wantto say "wtf was this uselessness on the screen", then you shoulddefinitely see this flick which I cant even call a "movie".

Manuj Sharma

(2012-02-17 11:03:19)

What a profound experience of love, acceptance, truth and simplicity !

The holistic perspective of "The tree of life" simplifies complexity oflife to its very natural & simple being. It made me clearly witness andexperience that I am a part of an essential universal process which hasa beginning, a life span and a definite end. I just figured that withacceptance and love for self and all, life can be simple, joyful andpurposeful. It does with much clarity and in just two hours, what mostacademic or spiritual books are unable to do.Terrence Malick's truthful, simple and beautiful approach to the filmmade it an experience which might have a everlasting impact on my life.Kudos to Malick and the entire cast and crew of the film.

thershey

(2012-02-16 20:40:28)

Choose another movie

If you're standing at the Redbox, and remember this title from thepreviews on another disc you rented, you might think - "huh. I remembersome nice photography, and Brad Pitt was in it, wasn't he?" STOP RIGHT THERE.Don't waste your $1.20. YES, I am educated. YES, I watch 'arty' films.NO, I'm not an Adam Sandler or Harold & Kumar fan. What I am, is honkedoff.There should be a gigantic and obvious warning on this movie: 1. Thefilm you are about to mistakenly rent is a Terence Malick film and 2.There is no plot whatsoever, random Nature interludes, and ZEROresolution at the endSure, the little boys were great, and the fictional depiction (nomatter that there was no explanation for what was going on or why wewere with them) of life 'back then' conjured up remembrances ofchildhood. Other than that, pure dreckitude. I have no idea what Sean Penn was even doing in this movie, and becausehe looks to be about 50 in his scenes, it's hard to tell if he wasmeant to represent one of the boys, all grown up. If so - where are theother brothers? There's a telegram notifying us all (MILD spoiler; sodon't bitch about it, it's in the opening 10 mins.) that someone hasdied, but we never find out who. If it was one of the brothers, we'restill missing one in the present tense. Note to the writer/director: If the title of your film is The Tree ofLife, and you have some characters (supposedly and symbolically) PLANTA DAMN TREE in their front yard - have the courtesy to reference itagain just even ONCE later in the film.

Don Muvo

(2012-02-16 15:36:48)

One person's view of life

This is a pretentious attempt to portray human childhood, seen in thecontext of cosmological history, as a metaphor for life. The hope isthat the audience will take the humanity of the subject as the theme of'grace', while seeing that grace of humanity inside the larger contextof an uncaring, yet miraculous and marvelous, 'nature'. The initial biblical quotation from Job is meant as a statement thatGod should not care very much for the bad attitudes so often seen amonghumans, since he already has done his part in providing an ampleenvironment. Another interesting philosophical point is that there aretwo kinds of humans, those that are natural and those that aregraceful, and that these two kinds represent the yin and yang that makeup human families and society. I say this is pretentious because while parts of it at least make up agood trip to the planetarium, other parts are just a mixture of goodand bad acting, during which you have to ask yourself over and over ifit really was worth watching the whole thing.

rohit1987

(2012-02-15 16:05:21)

Absolute nonsense, a complete waste of time and energy

This movie was an absolute waste of time, energy and money. Itsinexcusable that someone would dare to make a pointless film such asthis and except anything but pure contempt from the viewer. I can'tbelieve Brad Pitt agreed to do this film. Surely he can't be happy withthe final outcome. And this movie supposedly also stars Sean Penn. Fromthe looks of the poster you'd think Penn had a major role in the film.He appears in the film for a maximum of 10 minutes, and he literallydoes not make any sound whatsoever in those 10 mins. He doesn't haveany dialogues, I still don't know who he was supposed to be and what hewas trying to convey.The whole film is a mish mash of wayward scenes which had absolutelynothing to do with the previous or next scene whatsoever. Its gotrandom shots of the solar system, cellular multiplication, dinosaurs(!!!!!), and random people milling around on a beach in the end for noapparent reason at all.I literally have no idea what the movie was about. I have never left acinema hall in the middle of a movie but I could barely contain myselftoday. I wanted to leave after the first 15 minutes (and 4 people didleave), but thought I'd give the movie a chance. I thought maybe itdoes have a point and maybe I was just not *getting* it, and maybe thepoint was saved for later in the film. The point never came! The logicnever came! Why someone would choose to make this film is beyond me. And it is such a farce reading the top reviews for this film calling ita "masterpiece" or a "life altering experience". This movie is garbage,and the I don't want to judge anyone but in my honest opinion thepeople giving it high marks are either big time wannabes just wantingto appreciate 'arty' pointless cinema (just like a modern art loverlooks at gibberish paint strokes and derives 'meaning' out of it), orthey saw a completely different film.I trusted IMDb's 7.8 rating for this movie but boy I have never beenthis mislead in my whole life.Please avoid this film if you can. You will not have missed anything atall. Or go and watch it if you're still curious about how bad it couldbe. If nothing else, you'll at least experience garbage cinema at itsbest. And this is an experience which will set a new benchmark for theworst film that you will ever have seen.....

bikeeandy

(2012-02-15 08:20:10)

Tedious

Well, there's 2 1/2 hours of my life I'll never get back! But, itseemed a lot longer. I would gladly have left after 10 minutes, but mywife likes Brad Pitt and wanted to give it a chance. If they cut anhour, it might have been watchable - save all that self-indulgentnonsense for the blu- ray 'special' edition. Fortunately, I had my ipodwith me, so was able to listen to a few podcasts. Although, theexcessively loud music at times made it difficult to hear that. I go tothe cinema most weeks and will see anything, but I consider this to bethe worst film I've ever had the misfortune to sit through. Some niceimagery every now and then, but pointless.

cultfilmfan

(2012-02-15 01:23:26)

The Tree of Life

As any fan of writer/director Terrence Malick can tell you, some of ushave been waiting for The Tree of Life for quite some time. I think itwas announced that he was making this film shortly after his 2005feature The New World. Different websites would report on any news theyhad on the film, but for the most part everything was in secrecy andwhat they did report just added more to the mystery. The release datefor the film kept getting changed around as well until finally thisyear it was released into theatres after a successful premiere at TheCannes Film Festival this year. Just to sum it up briefly, The Tree ofLife is a very spiritual, religious and poetic film that shows usbreathtaking images of one's idea of what the beginning and creating ofthe world looks like as well as some of this earth's earliest creaturesand some beautiful natural occurrences and the beauty of nature that isall around us. The film then focuses on a family growing up in the1950's in Texas. The film shows us how devoutly religious the family isand that through their years together as a family they experience muchjoy as well as heartache and sorrow. All of this is seen through theone son, Jack. He looks at his mother almost as a saint as she is verysoft spoken, kind and playful. His dad on the other hand has cause himgreat grief and trouble over the years even into his much later stagesin life. It is not that his father did not love him, but rather had adifferent way of showing it. His father was very strict and demandedrecognition and respect. Everything to him was very matter of fact androutine and there are some scenes we see him with his young childrenthat actually caused me some discomfort and anxiety. Not because theyare violent, but because of the emotional intensity of the scenes andhow real and believable it is. We get to see the young boys growing upwith each other and their friends and going about day to day life suchas school, chores and family life. Often at times there was a verypeaceful feeling I got while watching them and then in times of troubleyou could also really feel for this family and the young kids and itwould almost disturb you. The sequences showing the creating of theworld and this earth were very beautiful and done to some very poeticvoice overs and music and by the end of this film I felt quiteemotional. I felt that way because in this movie we see so much beautyand also the hardships and difficulties of life and because it feels soreal and personal I can not imagine it hitting home to most viewers whowatch it. The film is done in such a way that many will lose patiencewith it and not care for it whatsoever. This is more a film for thebraver filmgoers who like a challenge and liked to be challenged bytheir films and think about what they just saw. This film will leaveyou questions and perhaps in it's own way give you answers to your ownlife, existence and past memories you have had on your path down thislife whether they have been good, bad, or like most of us a little ofboth. The Tree of Life is a haunting and beautiful film that reached myinner emotions and left me quite quiet after I saw the film, but gaveme a lot of food for thought and it was definitely a very worthwhileand meaningful movie experience that I am glad I had. One of the bestfilms of the year.

erichalgren

(2012-02-14 08:00:58)

Self Indulgent

My tastes in movies run to the unusual, so I gave this one a chance.Even convinced my family to come along on the strength of theover-the-top reviews and overall high IMDb score. Big Mistake. Thebeginning was boring and pretentious- a few snippets of dramatic scenesfollowed by an endless ripoff from 2001, a space odyssey. I stuckthrough to the end because I was hoping it would get better, and hereand there were brief engaging scenes, but only long enough to tease,never long enough to tell a story. The cinematography is gorgeous, andthe classical music well-chosen. But the movie did not get better, itjust got worse. The ending is a rehash of the most trite andnonsensical 'ideas' of those who turn off their brains when they turnon their religion. In fact, this was probably the only real laugh inthe movie, although it was not intentional.

herbie-wall

(2012-02-13 18:42:11)

Long on imagery, short on story

This movie was heavy on imagery and short on story. The music waswonderful, but when we looked for the music credits at the end (andthey were at the VERY end!)they were difficult to read and rolled tooquickly. If a movie has won awards we tell ourselves that we'resupposed to like it, but I had trouble with that. In fact, I almostwalked out in the first half hour---and I haven't walked out of a moviesince one of the goofy "Airplane" movies. Okay, I'll admit we like to have stories wrapped up, but we could havebeen told what happened to the younger brothers. Did the boy die inViet Nam? The timing was right. and IF that were the case, how did theeldest not go there? Also, it was Sean Penn's memory as an adult, buteven people in movies have more cohesive memories! I saw this film at an "art house" theater where people usually watchthe credits. In this case, they were out of their seats and headed forthe door. If I were a film critic, I'd have difficulty going against aPalme d'Or winner, but I'd have to be honest and say that the film isso-so.A recent movie called (I think) "Evening Sun." was far superior to thisfilm.

tiger jack

(2012-02-13 10:06:10)

Not worth it unless you're an evolutionist

I don't want to sound harsh, but this film was draining, andunfortunately like other films I have watched (one I'm thinking of isThere Will Be Blood), The Tree of Life is not an emotionally drainingmasterpiece. It is simply draining. Full stop.I will start with why I entered into this film. Why? First, the averageon IMDb is very high (8.0 before I entered the cinema). Second, thereviews sound fantastic...I didn't read deeply into the movies becausesometimes going too deep into the movie summary ruins the plot for me,but at a glance I read some comments about: "movie of the decade","art", "poetry", "haunting masterpiece" and the like.I was impressed...I read the short synopsis about a child losing hisinnocence. It grabbed my attention! I entered the movie and was veryhappy with the first few scenes and the dialogue. Then all of a suddena very long scene showing the evolution of life comes up. It may havetaken up 1/3 of the film. Yeh OK good. But seriously, it serves nopurpose in cinema. I would prefer to watch the documentary channel. Ididn't walk into a film about a child losing his innocence to discoverhow the earth came about to creation (from the perspective of thedirector), I didn't walk in to watch dinosaurs and ripple effects onthe Earth and the worlds after that exist.The movie is poetry? You got to be kidding me! The script for actualdialogue would have been 10 pages. Nothing is said in this film.Occasionally someone decides to do a voice over, a very short one andthen back to evolution.Some of the scenes with the children growing up are good, but itdragged out too much and plus the evolution aspect completelydistracted me from the child losing his "innocence." This movie doesn'tshow how a child loses his innocence, it shows how the world began andhow it will end for all of us.I would have preferred a focus on Sean Penn and the actual consequencesand affects his childhood had on him, not some last ditch effort whereeveryone is in heaven, happy, showing love.The concept of the movie from the beginning was good, but it was poorlyexecuted. We all wonder the purpose of life, we all wonder why we'rehere, what's going to happen to us when we die, etc...but the sad factI have to tell this director is that life goes on regardless ofevolution, regardless of what or who we are and where we end up. Westill have credit card debts, we still have children to look after, westill face moral choices everyday...our troubles don't disappear justbecause we're loving and because we (think) we've discovered where wecame from and where we will end up. You still have to live your lifedon't you? Seriously not recommended unless you like watching thediscovery channel and are an evolutionist.Another complaint I have, which I would not even have if I was happywith the movie is that Sean Penn and Brad Pitt (the "stars"), donothing. Zilch. Especially Sean Penn. His "older" character should havebeen studied more instead of showing me how the universe evolved andsome nice happy pictures of heaven and what not. The science (or lackof) behind the universe is something which cannot be proved ordisproved. Arguments from all over the place are thrown around. Well,the director thinks he has it all figured out. He has nicely laid outthe beginning, the middle and the end for us in the tree of life. Whatfor? Live your life, pondering about these concepts is not going tohelp you live your life. It may even be argued that by my very rationale I am contradictingmyself, but all I'm trying to do is a) give non viewers an insight intowhat the film is and who it is really for and b)show other viewers whodisliked this film that people in agreement exist. The director seriously has issues with his life. He has no idea why heis living, where he came from and where he will end, ultimately leadinghim to a desperate effort to make a film and give himself some falsecomfort.By the way, I believe in God, I believe in fat, heaven and hell, and Ibelieve in morals, love and being "good". But the concept in this movieis simply draining!I must also declare, this is on the rare occasion I have disliked anIMDb movie with a score of over 7.5 Usually over 7.5 and I'm reallyhappy with the movie and I thought I started a trend. Unfortunately I'mbrutally honest in this review, I did not like this film!

MoviePopcornCostsTooMuch

(2012-02-13 00:43:49)

Meandering Malick would be better if he was reigned in...

More of an experience than a movie.Okay, there is not a very distinguishable narrative. But is there anyother Director out there who would weave a thread from a present dayman struggling with the loss of his brother to all the way back whengases first came together to form the earth billions of years ago? Orhow about from a carnivorous dinosaur about to feed on a woundeddinosaur felled in a riverbed that changes its mind and allows it tolive? In most films, when a character is grieving - the Directordoesn't go underwater and film a jelly fish for ten minutes, but Malickdoes and succeeds.Malick is the only Director out there who is just out there, neck deepin all of it; everything – and trying to wrestle it all into a filmthat tells us something about who we are and where we came from. If youwant a clear narrative that removes any need to think, I'm sure you'llenjoy Ryan Reynolds in the 'Change Up' or Justin Timberlake in 'FriendsWith Benefits'. If you want to embark on a journey that ponders all ofhuman existence through a poetic visual imagination, perhaps you'llenjoy this. Brad Pitt is excellent as the very strict father trying toraise three boys in 1950s middle America. The casting of the childrenis incredible – no surprise in a Malick film.I wouldn't recommend this to someone expecting to see and enjoy a moviewith someone. Go by yourself. Go for the ride. Lean back and soak itup. The only observation I have is that for a Director known for theethereal, this one is uber-ethereal. In Thin Red Line there was a clearnarrative: take the hill. In The New World there was less of a 'story'and more meandering. I would hope that Tree Of Life marks the end ofMalick's creative journey that is taking him further and further downthe path of willowy meanderings and muses. Malick is in the winter ofhis career and I'd like to see him draw back to the force and presenceof the story and the characters in Thin Red Line. I know he already hasanother film completely shot with Ben Affleck, and I'm looking forwardto see what he has up his sleeve. I would hazard a guess that thisscript contains at most ten pages of dialogue - and that's a liberalestimate. Sean Penn had a great gig on this one - had to be maximumthree shoot days for him and I wouldn't be surprised if it was two.Malick doesn't do interviews and won't entertain any story or filmediting. He's totally in control and that's fine. But even geniusescould use an editor sometimes. Obviously, this isn't a film for themasses, but if he could make a film with a clear story and apply hisgenius to it, then far more people could enjoy his work. What good isit if nobody sees it? Maybe he should Direct a screenplay that wasn'twritten by him, maybe he should co-write something with a brilliantscreenwriter – something, because genius made for the few is at the endof the day somewhat of a waste.Brian Depalma is another stubborn genius who wants to do it all his wayall the time with no editor's input. Depalma should stick to characterstories: Scarface, Carlito's Way, Phantom of the Paradise - but hewon't, instead we get Bonfire of the Vanities and Black Dahlia. There'sno easy recommendation for Malick though, all I can say is that with atighter narrative and more narrative tension he would draw the audiencecloser to the characters and make the viewer feel and think more -which is what I believe Malick wants.Here's a suggestion – there's talk of Cormac McCarthy's 'BloodMeridian' getting made – now there's an incredible combination oftalent – just wishing.

binaryg

(2012-02-12 18:20:04)

Malick's Job

The poet, painter, engraver, visionary, William Blake spent over 40 ofhis 70 years illustrating the Book of Job and his final set of 21engravings brought him his greatest recognition as an engraver andvisual artist, but not until after his death. He worked in almost totalanonymity in his lifetime and was misunderstood and unappreciated. Theengravings are remarkable for the subtle complexity of the symbols. Thestory of Job was obviously an important one to Blake.The story of Job is important to Terrence Malick too. The words whichopen the film from Chapter 38 when God answering Job's complaints aboutwhy he and his family are being unjustly punished God speaks fromwithin a whirlwind, "Where were you when I laid the foundations of theearth? When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of Godshouted for joy?" Basically God answers the question of the existenceof evil in the world by showing that unless you understand the whole ofexistence you cannot understand the parts.Malick sets about showing the viewer both the good and evil that existsin the world and he names them "the way of Grace and the way ofNature". The loss of a dearly beloved son and brother much before histime is the dramatic vehicle to attempt to "justify the ways of God toman" and why he allows the existence of good and evil in creation. Ifthe question of good and evil is "prattle" or "pretentious" then whatquestions are worthy of pondering? On the visual level the film isstunning and the cinematography and camera work incredible. The "childeye" angles, the swooping, swerving, circling, movement capture mymemory of growing up. The story is driven by the images and not throughdialogue which I see makes some uncomfortable. The acting is alsomarvelous given the same "limitations" of plot development andnarrative.I grew up in the 50's and for me the film does a masterful job ofrecreating the flow and rhythm of those times and the frustrations ofgrowing up in America then. It is not an easy task Malick attemptingand for me he succeeds completely.I knew before the film was released that this film would be greeted byderision by those viewers who need to be told directly what a film isabout and that people who appreciate subtlety in art would appreciateanother Malick masterpiece. He has been working 40 years towards thisachievement. I remember the reception "2001 A Space Odyssey" receivedin 1968 and how it is looked on now. In '68 a majority of professionalfilm critics got "2001" wrong. I think the positive critical responseto "The Tree of Life" in 2011 came in part because of the genius ofStanley Kubrick leading the way making films which challenge theaudience. Thank you to Stanley and Terrence.