The Tree of Life is one of the films that will be debated over for generations to come and many will get it and many won't. I totally get it, on a visual, narrative, philosophical and artistic level, it's one of the greatest films I will ever see
It’s 2022 and literally nobody is talking about Tree of Life. Boring overrated film by a very overrated filmmaker (although I do LOVE his first film Badlands easily one of the greatest films ever made).
@@offspringfan1288 In hindsight, yes Malick's later work has been lacklustre but I stand by what I said for the most part, it's an experience that I've rarely had watching any other film
people criticizing the tree of life; I look at them and I feel bad. because, I can say with conviction that this film is the 2001: a space Odyssey of our times, a movie with such scope and ambition that it cannot be deconstructed by lesser mortals (including me). with time, I think this movie will be hailed as the best in cinema history. and then, a lot of these detractors are gonna look like Pauline Kael, with damning critique of 2001.
This is a stellar film. It's something that you either "get/feel/experience" or you don't. In Jimi's immortal words: "Are you experienced?" If you are, you'll dig it and get it--if you're not, well, you're not.
The fat guy on the left obviusly didn't pay attention to the movie if he didn't even know which kid is the one that died. Yes dude, it did go over your head. This movie is a masterpiece.
After having watched this film, I seriously think it was practical joke by the director, to see how far movie critics would go to interpret meaning into something that was merely beautifully shot, but had no intended meaning. Critics talk about how this is about God, and there is a quote in the beginning of the film from Job. I think the director tried to play it off as if it is this grand meditation on the problem of evil, but honestly it is just pretentious in its lack of a focused narrative.
The point of putting the creation and universe sequences was to give perspective of how tinny our problems are in the grand scheme of things. Yes, just how tinny and insignificant are these reviews of Mr. Atchity and Mr. Duralde compared to a masterpiece like The Tree Of Life.
oh youre so fucking stupid i hate this argument and it comes every time i say something against a movie loved by critics of course you can dislike the special terrence mallick style without only watching transformers, adam sandler movies, etc
The more you understand that Malick's goal is to create incredible images in order to force you to connect with his work on a personal level, the less his movies start to suck
@near10 It wasn't his mom's clothes, it was a neighbour's. He sees them leaving the house and breaks in and goes through their things. It was showing his rebellious nature, and the fact that he was toeing the line to breaking laws that were set around him. He hid the clothes because he got scared of what he had done.
They totally missed the boat on the dinosaur part. The message wasn't muddled. It shows that within all the destruction of nature, morality developed. A larger and stronger dinosaur felt sympathy for a smaller and weaker dinosaur, when it could have killed it. Gotta give it up for Christy though. She always has an open mind to people's opinions and has a really sharp eye for movies. Great critic. Can't say the same for Matt and Alonso...
I think the lady in the middle gets what Malick is trying to do. I made a video essay on this very thing, Malick is posing questions not answers. It's like poetry. He is saying that life is unexplainable and like his movie life defies any message or convention or theme. The unknowability of life is why its such an interesting, profound, and frustrating experience being human.
The trailer to "The Tree of Life" has to be one of the vaguest trailers I have seen in recent memory. I couldn’t tell, from the trailer, what the hell the film is about. If film producers want us to go see a film, the trailer to that film should be enticing and EASY to understand. We should not have to parse through esoteric symbolism, requiring a PhD in film, in order to get what is going on.
Unfortunately people forget movies are subjective. Even Roger Ebert insists there are some movies that couldn't possibly be good, which is a really dumb statement to make, because someone, somewhere genuinely likes Battlefield Earth.
Christy is absolutely right. This film wasn't made to provide answers. You find the answers in yourself. Everything is subjective. That's what I loved about this film. I got and identified with a lot of things in it and walked away thinking it was one of the best films I've ever seen.
If anybody is uncertain about seeing this film, watch the trailer. If it seems interesting watch this film in the theaters. It is one of those experiences that will not be forgotten and if you are both patient and want ot see a refreshingly original film, you will find great joy and wonder in the Tree of Life. I sincerely believe though that the people that walked out of this film had little patience and just love the usual crap from Hollywood. A.K.A Transformers.
To me this was like finding someones old photo album in a Goodwill and thumbing through it. I see a lot of stuff in it -- snapshots - and memories of someone else..... then I throw it back on the pile of cheap and used stuff. I decide not to buy it. I dont spend four hours with it. This movie, is kind of like that. Only, when you experience it as a movie, you have to sit through it. There wasnt enough connections in here to hold it together for me.
@jordyvanbuel "If Malick had just focused on the story of the family and the inner struggle between the father and the oldest son, it would have been a far better movie." That would have been a different movie altogether, which Malick was clearly not interested in making. The film is not about a "father son story". The people in the film are merely representations of other ideas meant to fit in with the bigger theme of the film about nature, nurture and people fit in to that.
I think, Matt, that what was inhibiting your perspective or understanding of the movie was that you had an expectation that you thought the film should follow...(I'm not saying that your opinion against it is not valid, but rather that upon second viewing perhaps seeing it with less of the constraints built from previous films would increase your viewing experience to, if not an enjoyable one, then a more connected one.)
I think the dinosaur didn't kill the dinosaur because he could only sense movement and the second one wasn't moving; at least, that's what I recall from reading Jurassic Park
Once I let myself sink into the movie it was not boring at all. The boys felt authenitc and there was just something about this film I enjoyed and I usually do not like pretentious films.
I think a measure of a critic's worth is his ability to pan a Malick film without using the words PRETENTIOUS, PLOTLESS or INCOHERENT. People often use the word "pretentious" as a substitute for I DIDN'T GET IT AT ONCE SO I'M NOT GONNA TRY TO AND JUST DISMISS IT BY CALLING IT PRETENTIOUS. Malick films often need a few days to digest before one makes a proper judgement call on it. To dismiss it outright reeks of ignorance and stupidity.
my sweet angel faces, this is what we call a "high culture" film. it's like gourmet cheese; everyone knows that it's excellent, but sometimes the acquired taste turns people off. it is above popular culture and not everyone can be expected to "get it"
My dad grew up in the 50s and his dad never hit him. My dad did something bad (when he was a young) once and he was sitting in the car with my grandpa and he was scared he was going to hit him, my grandpa said "Have I ever hit you?". My grandpa was in no way a perfect man (he cheated on my grandpa who's the most wonderful woman in the world) but he was never even slightly abusive of my dad or any of his siblings. I'm not sure if my great grandpa was abusive though.
Totally agree with you Matt that this movie asks too much of itself. If Malick had just focused on the story of the family and the inner struggle between the father and the oldest son, it would have been a far better movie. I honoustly wished Jack would kill his dad when he was lying under the car so that the movie could end. Instead, it went on and on to end with a lame heaven scene which nobody in the theater I went to seemed to care about.
@ArabMobster88 "The regular hollywood film mold would not have faciliated the idea that malick wanted to get across" and that idea was...? Because I found this film to be uneven and all over the place... then again, I fucking hated 2001... art for the sake of art is not cool in my book, it needs a CLEAR purpose. I really hate when people call something "art" just because is confusing and/or pretty to look at, to me, that's not enough.
need advice, this is of course one of malicks films, so its bound to be confusing and deep. Should i watch this before i go see it just to get an overall feel? and sense of whats going on?
Also, I don't think you can do a review of this movie justice without at least mentioning that is was booed by the audience at Cannes, which usually has very receptive & forgiving audiences.
At least there is a lot to talk about with this movie. It is flawed and slow at times but it is beautifully shot and has many memorable scenes. Acting is terrific as well. This is not for impatient viewers, but is worth sticking with. I still don't know what it all means but I think that's good.
People who watch this movie should read up on the book of Job...I'm sure there's a reason why he would include one its most famous line. I think if this movie was made back in the day when biblical references were obvious to people, it would have been better understood. It's like listening to Mumford and Sons with their use of theological references in their lyrics...you need to know a little JOB to unlock what the director is saying, maybe.
Great to see some of the commenters are willing to actively discuss the qualities and flaws of the movie, without directly panning or adoring it. This was my number one movie from 2011, and I think it is a masterpiece. One of the most ambitious, mysterious, and artsy, but also one of the best movies, that I have ever seen. What’s really great about it, is that there are endless possibilities to “explain” it. It can’t be directly “explained”, but talked about in mature ways.
The big bang was meant to juxtapose the trivial, beautiful things from Jack's childhood. I think the message of the movie is that life is worth living because seemingly trivial things in our lives that are beautiful.
lol matt in the beginning when sean penn "thinks" something like "my brother was true... bla bla" they show first the main kid, and then on "brother" they show the blonde brad pitt look alike. i thought it was really clear who was who. the thing about the movie that i liked was that the kid who chose grace, the brother, died and the one who chose nature, the aggressive one, lived to become sean penn.
Forget Ebert it could be any reviewer. The point was that ultimately, film is totally subjective. Battlefield Earth, Plan 9 from Outer Space, Troll 2 - somebody is going to like those films, so there'sno way to 'prove' they are bad.
A film that is deeply philosophical (a tad pretentious), but has actual ideas that are worth considering is hard to understand for a basic minded artist like the fat grey haired guy to the right, and the fat brown haired guy to the left.
I'm still not totally clear on what this movie is about. If I knew I might check it out but I'm not going to take two and a half hours out of my life without knowing what the basic premise is. I've seen a number of movies that people told me were great and I wasn't impressed with in the slightest and I don't want to waist my time again.
This is actually a valid discussion. With the intro, I was like, "oh no, these assholes r just going to call the film pretentious and what not", but it was very interesting. I think the one who understood the film the most was Christy. But all of their points of view are valid. I personally loved the film and completely agree with Christy's comment about not enforcing a message. The film is more about questioning the unknowability of the universe, and appreciating the beauty of it.
Just because something's artsy doesn't mean it's pretentious. Actually the actual definition of the word pretentious could apply to transformers (trying to covey more skill and talent than is actually there.) People need to stop jumping all over people for different opinions on films.
Also, I honestly don't blame the guy on the left for being confused. It was sloppy and confusing. It was a 2 hour movie told through mostly silence flashbacks. Not that it's a bad thing, it's just not clear story telling.
@aquapendulum I've seen Southland Tales, even read up on the graphic novel before seeing it in the cinema. I'm a big apologist of Richard Kelly, I knew it wouldn't live up to Donnie Darko. I liked certain ideas in it, but the hammy acting, inconsistent pacing, and confusing plot really let it down. And the "shot eye" of Sean William Scott at the end as a nod to Donnie Darko felt cheap. I haven't seen it since, though. The Box was much better, in comparison.
I didn't love this movie but it kept my interest. The kid was very good (unlike the kid in Extremely Loud....). There were certain parts that made me feel uncomfortable but I think it was because it was done so well.
I really liked how the beginning and end of the world showed that even though all this big stuff happens in the history of the universe, the most important thing are relationships.
@MobiusCoin Yeah, but there's a difference between trying something new and trying something that you as a director only seem to love/care about/understand. I respect Malick's choices, but he could have made this movie so much better if he had graded down the philosophical part of this movie. Furthermore, he should have ended the movie with an answer, now I left the theater without caring about the ending.
WTF reviews are sometimes hit or miss. Some of their comments can be so unintelligible which makes me wonder whether they are knowledgeable about cinema. Christy is clearly the better film critic. Matt is narrow-minded. The movie is well influenced / based on the Book of Job. If you read it, a lot of the themes, characters and scenes will come to light. Look up on UA-cam the video "Fr. Barron comments on Terrence Malick's 'Tree of Life'". It shows a theologist who cleverly decoded the movie.
@lifehigh655 I am sure it wasn't clear even though some of the whispering sounded like a suicide. I personally think how the kid died is not important at all.
Having not seen it, my immediate impression is of Ang Lee's Hulk movie, with his incredibly slow lichen on rocks montages. Or the even more pretentious The Fountain by Darren Aronofsky.
Great point made by the woman, how many films really have an effect on you? I can think of only a handful across my life, most of them among my favourite films. The fact that it makes people *think* and generates a lot of discussion is by itself a good thing.
I never heard of Christine or Malick (I had seen Thin Red line in theaters and Badlands on TV I think, but never knew who directed it) before seeing a review of Tree of life on TV with the new Ebert show. The review intrigued me, I thought she was cute and I enjoyed the movie. It was different. I've since watched all of Malick's movies and loved them all, except for To the Wonder, which was frustrating and felt rushed and thrown together quickly. I liked her after that, but this group of critics are very inconsistent. Giving this a 3? Really with all the crap formulamatic movies out there. This movie was ambitious and beautifully shot and well acted....even if you don't like it, give it a 6 for its merits. His movies are more like visual poems. Being a critic, you ought to know that. I could relate different parts of this to my own life. I saw a few fools walk out after 10-20 minutes. This is far better than some crap you guys give 8-10s to.
Just because we don't like this particular movie doesn't mean we can't recognise beauty or be moved. I've seen plenty of movies that will stick with me until the day I die and this movie isn't one of them. It's just a string of pretty images that go with any kind of pseudo-philosophical explanation the audience wishes to provide. Its a one size fits all work of "art" and I do not feel the need to partake. You can enjoy it however much you like, but don't humble brag about "being able to get it".
"It insist upon itself" -Peter Griffin (family guy) side note: I just watched Black Swan: was she crazy, or was it the performance that made her crazy? Who cares, watching Natalie Portman having as O was worth it :o)
I'm a Malick fan, but I didn't like this movie. Sure, it's beautiful to watch, but ultimately hollow. It only superficially explores its subject matter. There is no special insight offered here. It didn't get me to think or pose any interesting questions.
It seems hollow if you focus on searching for meaning. There's no "deep meaning" in this movie, no philosophical questions that it seeks to answer or even pose. It's a masterpiece because of the nostalgic feeling and visceral experience that the visuals and sounds provide. The Blu-ray begins by telling you to turn the volume up LOUD. The audience is supposed to let down their defenses and become absorbed in the experience of the film, and that is really the only way that you could enjoy it. If one were to analyze the visuals rather than the plot, the themes and feelings that the film wanted to evoke in the viewer become clear: the nostalgia and wonderment of childhood, the awe of creation, the tragedy of loss, and the fulfillment that comes with inner peace (in reference to the "afterlife" sequence). The film is unabashedly transcendentalist in its themes, which means it isn't condoning religion as much as it is spirituality (through nature and human relationship specifically). I didn't get any of this on my first viewing, which is why my first viewing left me confused and unsure what to think about the movie. When I watched it again, I wasn't worried about analyzing every single detail, I just sat back and let it all absorb. And it was then that the film became one of the most spiritually potent experiences that I've ever had. In my opinion, those that hate the film don't necessarily "not get it", like many people like to claim, they are just approaching it incorrectly. You need to watch the film as if you were watching a series of memories, as if it was your life flashing before your eyes.
+drw5500 Thank you! This is exactly what I got from this after thinking back to what I had just watched on my first viewing of the movie. While I was watching it, I had given up on trying to find a solid "plot", and decided to simply take in what was being resented and accept it. There's nothing confusing about this movie if people simply stop thinking about what makes a movie a movie, and just watch what is being presented as is. The themes (to me) were clear as day, and the basic concept were all there once I realized the movie's point is to not have a plot, but actually capture the essence of life, creation, faith, religion, family, relationships, regret, childhood, and everything in between. Even though I didn't necessarily love the film, I appreciated its concepts, the impeccable visuals, and the poetic sheerness of it all. At least I left the experience knowing I watched something special, but it just didn't wow me to the level Cloud Atlas did (I actually cried lmao). Thinking back on this movie, I can consider it a masterpiece wholeheartedly now. I'm still kind of upset that Heath Ledger didn't get to play the role he was meant to play though (Brad Pitt's role).
@ohwowwahwaow That was quite possibly the worst response to my question. But whatever, it's a youtube comment board. I don't know why I was expecting something with at least some thought behind it. But are you saying that the definition for pretentious is something that's artsy as fuck?
For me this movie falls in the same category of films as The Fountain, Southland Tales, and the Fall. All seem like thinking movies, but fall short one way or another. In fact the ideas in these movies are kind of naive and simple. Although visually they're all great to look at. And I'm saying this as a Terrence Malick fan.
I think the part that Sean Penn' character is on the desert means the director's vision of afterlife. Maybe in Terrence Malick's point of view when we die we see ourselves when young and our best memories as well.
The film is not about 'characters', it's not even about the family. It's flawed reasoning to look at the film and look for a story about the kids or the family. The characters are representations of ideas Malick was exploring.
@unome40 Yeah, I know... that was the joke. The sarcasm was SO obvious that pointing it out was redundant... but I did it AND asked if you got it. And even though you started lecturing me on sarcasm you then went on to address the sarcastic points... Silly boy!
Wow, I expected this film to be controversial but I feel the amount of negative reactions is a bit undeserved. I think most stem from an inability to make sense of something without a conventional plot-structure, or an inability to stomach the religious themes. I say this as an atheist, but if the point was to detail an existential crises from the point of view of a Christian family living in Texas in the 1950's, how exactly would one strip away the theism and still express something convincing?
@MobiusCoin Yeah yeah yeah, only you know, I'm a roman catholic and believe in religious art. This wasn't it. This was just "GOD WHY ARE WE HERE?" and then two and half hour laters of texan brad pit and the powerpoint slide show from the planetarium my aunt ligia sends me to my e-mail every two weeks, concludes with something about a venezian mask in the ocean and "GOD I DON'T CARE WHY WE'RE HERE ANY MORE EVEN THOUGH NOTHING HAPPENED. WE'RE HERE BECAUSE WE'RE HERE. FAITH ORGASM GET!"
@neshannockfez That's exactly the issue. A planetarium is about the science and the learning not about the experience and natural majesty of the universe. Also... no, they don't. There's two OMNIMAX theatres in Toronto, which are like IMAX on steroids, and no, their footage does not compare.
@moeezS Oh and if you have the chance to check out Angel's Egg, I'm all ears to hear a verdict. It's about as surreal and abstract as movies can possibly get.
@neshannockfez Then the Crucifxion of St. Peter is just "OLD DUDE BEING HANGED OUTSIDE DOWN". And as for the visuals, THERE is a big difference between a single still that a NASA has spent a month compositing and seeing the universe in motion. Not a big stargazer I guess. But this is truly unique, all other visualizations of space are shitty practical renders that doesn't come close toe capturing what the eye would actually see. Either that or they are simply stills, motion is key here.
everyone has there own opinion dont think like that if they hate it, they hate it... even if you hate it or not you cant deny the staggering visuals and ambition which is absouletly dizzing.. (literally i am dizzy from watching it)
The Tree of Life is one of the films that will be debated over for generations to come and many will get it and many won't. I totally get it, on a visual, narrative, philosophical and artistic level, it's one of the greatest films I will ever see
It’s 2022 and literally nobody is talking about Tree of Life. Boring overrated film by a very overrated filmmaker (although I do LOVE his first film Badlands easily one of the greatest films ever made).
@@offspringfan1288 In hindsight, yes Malick's later work has been lacklustre but I stand by what I said for the most part, it's an experience that I've rarely had watching any other film
I get it but still hate it, in one word - pretentious
When the dinosaur lets the other dinosaur live it represents the moment compassion came into the universe.
people criticizing the tree of life; I look at them and I feel bad. because, I can say with conviction that this film is the 2001: a space Odyssey of our times, a movie with such scope and ambition that it cannot be deconstructed by lesser mortals (including me). with time, I think this movie will be hailed as the best in cinema history. and then, a lot of these detractors are gonna look like Pauline Kael, with damning critique of 2001.
Lauren DeStefano no. people are too proud of being dumb to acknowledge when they don't know too much of anything about anything of importance
NIKHIL LETHA-SOMAN its good not that good you need to sit down and have a snickers
This is a stellar film. It's something that you either "get/feel/experience" or you don't. In Jimi's immortal words: "Are you experienced?" If you are, you'll dig it and get it--if you're not, well, you're not.
it was the worst movie i've ever watched. had no idea what was going on.
a common complaint I keep hearing about this movie, is that it didn't tell me what to think.
that's sad
The fat guy on the left obviusly didn't pay attention to the movie if he didn't even know which kid is the one that died. Yes dude, it did go over your head. This movie is a masterpiece.
dont see it for the story this is a visual masterpiece the cinematography left me breathless
Christy Lemire is freakin B-E-A-utiful!
After having watched this film, I seriously think it was practical joke by the director, to see how far movie critics would go to interpret meaning into something that was merely beautifully shot, but had no intended meaning. Critics talk about how this is about God, and there is a quote in the beginning of the film from Job. I think the director tried to play it off as if it is this grand meditation on the problem of evil, but honestly it is just pretentious in its lack of a focused narrative.
The point of putting the creation and universe sequences was to give perspective of how tinny our problems are in the grand scheme of things. Yes, just how tinny and insignificant are these reviews of Mr. Atchity and Mr. Duralde compared to a masterpiece like The Tree Of Life.
get back to your transformers/adam sandler movies people.
oh youre so fucking stupid
i hate this argument and it comes every time i say something against a movie loved by critics
of course you can dislike the special terrence mallick style without only watching transformers, adam sandler movies, etc
Markuss Söden this isn't about the style, this is about SO many people being completely clueless about things blatantly presented to them
The more you understand that Malick's goal is to create incredible images in order to force you to connect with his work on a personal level, the less his movies start to suck
@near10 It wasn't his mom's clothes, it was a neighbour's. He sees them leaving the house and breaks in and goes through their things. It was showing his rebellious nature, and the fact that he was toeing the line to breaking laws that were set around him. He hid the clothes because he got scared of what he had done.
They totally missed the boat on the dinosaur part. The message wasn't muddled. It shows that within all the destruction of nature, morality developed. A larger and stronger dinosaur felt sympathy for a smaller and weaker dinosaur, when it could have killed it. Gotta give it up for Christy though. She always has an open mind to people's opinions and has a really sharp eye for movies. Great critic. Can't say the same for Matt and Alonso...
I thought it was very clear Sean Penn was the oldest brother lol
I think the lady in the middle gets what Malick is trying to do. I made a video essay on this very thing, Malick is posing questions not answers. It's like poetry. He is saying that life is unexplainable and like his movie life defies any message or convention or theme. The unknowability of life is why its such an interesting, profound, and frustrating experience being human.
The whole purpose of this film is our importance in the grand scheme of life. Matt is an example of the linear movie plot line guys that walked out.
The trailer to "The Tree of Life" has to be one of the vaguest trailers I have seen in recent memory. I couldn’t tell, from the trailer, what the hell the film is about. If film producers want us to go see a film, the trailer to that film should be enticing and EASY to understand. We should not have to parse through esoteric symbolism, requiring a PhD in film, in order to get what is going on.
i just didnt get the movie.....
Unfortunately people forget movies are subjective. Even Roger Ebert insists there are some movies that couldn't possibly be good, which is a really dumb statement to make, because someone, somewhere genuinely likes Battlefield Earth.
15 minutes of creation symbolizes the time, it took until we came into existence....
Christy is absolutely right. This film wasn't made to provide answers. You find the answers in yourself. Everything is subjective. That's what I loved about this film. I got and identified with a lot of things in it and walked away thinking it was one of the best films I've ever seen.
If anybody is uncertain about seeing this film, watch the trailer. If it seems interesting watch this film in the theaters. It is one of those experiences that will not be forgotten and if you are both patient and want ot see a refreshingly original film, you will find great joy and wonder in the Tree of Life. I sincerely believe though that the people that walked out of this film had little patience and just love the usual crap from Hollywood. A.K.A Transformers.
To me this was like finding someones old photo album in a Goodwill and thumbing through it. I see a lot of stuff in it -- snapshots - and memories of someone else..... then I throw it back on the pile of cheap and used stuff. I decide not to buy it. I dont spend four hours with it. This movie, is kind of like that. Only, when you experience it as a movie, you have to sit through it. There wasnt enough connections in here to hold it together for me.
@jordyvanbuel "If Malick had just focused on the story of the family and the inner struggle between the father and the oldest son, it would have been a far better movie."
That would have been a different movie altogether, which Malick was clearly not interested in making. The film is not about a "father son story". The people in the film are merely representations of other ideas meant to fit in with the bigger theme of the film about nature, nurture and people fit in to that.
I thought Jessica Chastain stole this movie, her performance was just flawless.
I think, Matt, that what was inhibiting your perspective or understanding of the movie was that you had an expectation that you thought the film should follow...(I'm not saying that your opinion against it is not valid, but rather that upon second viewing perhaps seeing it with less of the constraints built from previous films would increase your viewing experience to, if not an enjoyable one, then a more connected one.)
I think the dinosaur didn't kill the dinosaur because he could only sense movement and the second one wasn't moving; at least, that's what I recall from reading Jurassic Park
Once I let myself sink into the movie it was not boring at all. The boys felt authenitc and there was just something about this film I enjoyed and I usually do not like pretentious films.
The girl expresses how I feel
anyone wanna try to explain the part that the kid stole her mom's clothes and threw it in the river or the part that the mother was flying around???
I think a measure of a critic's worth is his ability to pan a Malick film without using the words PRETENTIOUS, PLOTLESS or INCOHERENT. People often use the word "pretentious" as a substitute for I DIDN'T GET IT AT ONCE SO I'M NOT GONNA TRY TO AND JUST DISMISS IT BY CALLING IT PRETENTIOUS. Malick films often need a few days to digest before one makes a proper judgement call on it. To dismiss it outright reeks of ignorance and stupidity.
I'm with Christy Lemire all the way. This is a very spiritual movie that you will either get and love or not.
I think this is one of those arty love-or-hate movies like 2001, The Fountain, or Synecdoche New York.
Which means, I'll probably love it.
Tree of Life was the last great American film.
my sweet angel faces, this is what we call a "high culture" film. it's like gourmet cheese; everyone knows that it's excellent, but sometimes the acquired taste turns people off. it is above popular culture and not everyone can be expected to "get it"
My dad grew up in the 50s and his dad never hit him. My dad did something bad (when he was a young) once and he was sitting in the car with my grandpa and he was scared he was going to hit him, my grandpa said "Have I ever hit you?". My grandpa was in no way a perfect man (he cheated on my grandpa who's the most wonderful woman in the world) but he was never even slightly abusive of my dad or any of his siblings. I'm not sure if my great grandpa was abusive though.
Totally agree with you Matt that this movie asks too much of itself. If Malick had just focused on the story of the family and the inner struggle between the father and the oldest son, it would have been a far better movie. I honoustly wished Jack would kill his dad when he was lying under the car so that the movie could end. Instead, it went on and on to end with a lame heaven scene which nobody in the theater I went to seemed to care about.
@ArabMobster88 "The regular hollywood film mold would not have faciliated the idea that malick wanted to get across" and that idea was...? Because I found this film to be uneven and all over the place... then again, I fucking hated 2001... art for the sake of art is not cool in my book, it needs a CLEAR purpose. I really hate when people call something "art" just because is confusing and/or pretty to look at, to me, that's not enough.
@Zone2WaR I can't respect an opinion that contains the words "only a movie."
Unless, of course, we're talking about the Exorcist.
need advice, this is of course one of malicks films, so its bound to be confusing and deep. Should i watch this before i go see it just to get an overall feel? and sense of whats going on?
Also, I don't think you can do a review of this movie justice without at least mentioning that is was booed by the audience at Cannes, which usually has very receptive & forgiving audiences.
At least there is a lot to talk about with this movie. It is flawed and slow at times but it is beautifully shot and has many memorable scenes. Acting is terrific as well. This is not for impatient viewers, but is worth sticking with. I still don't know what it all means but I think that's good.
People who watch this movie should read up on the book of Job...I'm sure there's a reason why he would include one its most famous line. I think if this movie was made back in the day when biblical references were obvious to people, it would have been better understood. It's like listening to Mumford and Sons with their use of theological references in their lyrics...you need to know a little JOB to unlock what the director is saying, maybe.
Regardless of how good or bad the movie is, you have to give them credit for using the beautiful "Moldau" by Smetana.
I regard ToL as a masterpiece.
Great to see some of the commenters are willing to actively discuss the qualities and flaws of the movie, without directly panning or adoring it. This was my number one movie from 2011, and I think it is a masterpiece. One of the most ambitious, mysterious, and artsy, but also one of the best movies, that I have ever seen.
What’s really great about it, is that there are endless possibilities to “explain” it. It can’t be directly “explained”, but talked about in mature ways.
The big bang was meant to juxtapose the trivial, beautiful things from Jack's childhood. I think the message of the movie is that life is worth living because seemingly trivial things in our lives that are beautiful.
lol matt in the beginning when sean penn "thinks" something like "my brother was true... bla bla" they show first the main kid, and then on "brother" they show the blonde brad pitt look alike. i thought it was really clear who was who. the thing about the movie that i liked was that the kid who chose grace, the brother, died and the one who chose nature, the aggressive one, lived to become sean penn.
Forget Ebert it could be any reviewer. The point was that ultimately, film is totally subjective. Battlefield Earth, Plan 9 from Outer Space, Troll 2 - somebody is going to like those films, so there'sno way to 'prove' they are bad.
Movies are now made to impress us with how smart the director is, not to entertain us. Hated it.
A film that is deeply philosophical (a tad pretentious), but has actual ideas that are worth considering is hard to understand for a basic minded artist like the fat grey haired guy to the right, and the fat brown haired guy to the left.
Best review: "Its beautyfull, but who fucking care?!"
Beautiful*
Bruce Rose sorry. not my first language
it's all good, just being a typical American and giving you a hard time.
I'm still not totally clear on what this movie is about. If I knew I might check it out but I'm not going to take two and a half hours out of my life without knowing what the basic premise is. I've seen a number of movies that people told me were great and I wasn't impressed with in the slightest and I don't want to waist my time again.
Hey, everyone has opinions. I loved most of it, but i understand how some hate it.
This is actually a valid discussion. With the intro, I was like, "oh no, these assholes r just going to call the film pretentious and what not", but it was very interesting. I think the one who understood the film the most was Christy. But all of their points of view are valid.
I personally loved the film and completely agree with Christy's comment about not enforcing a message. The film is more about questioning the unknowability of the universe, and appreciating the beauty of it.
I think the message was meant to end as a question, nature vs nurture?
Can't really respect the guys opinion if he coudlnt even figure out which kid was Sean Penn.
Just because something's artsy doesn't mean it's pretentious. Actually the actual definition of the word pretentious could apply to transformers (trying to covey more skill and talent than is actually there.) People need to stop jumping all over people for different opinions on films.
Also, I honestly don't blame the guy on the left for being confused. It was sloppy and confusing. It was a 2 hour movie told through mostly silence flashbacks. Not that it's a bad thing, it's just not clear story telling.
@aquapendulum I've seen Southland Tales, even read up on the graphic novel before seeing it in the cinema. I'm a big apologist of Richard Kelly, I knew it wouldn't live up to Donnie Darko. I liked certain ideas in it, but the hammy acting, inconsistent pacing, and confusing plot really let it down. And the "shot eye" of Sean William Scott at the end as a nod to Donnie Darko felt cheap. I haven't seen it since, though.
The Box was much better, in comparison.
I didn't love this movie but it kept my interest. The kid was very good (unlike the kid in Extremely Loud....). There were certain parts that made me feel uncomfortable but I think it was because it was done so well.
I really liked how the beginning and end of the world showed that even though all this big stuff happens in the history of the universe, the most important thing are relationships.
@MobiusCoin Yeah, but there's a difference between trying something new and trying something that you as a director only seem to love/care about/understand. I respect Malick's choices, but he could have made this movie so much better if he had graded down the philosophical part of this movie. Furthermore, he should have ended the movie with an answer, now I left the theater without caring about the ending.
WTF reviews are sometimes hit or miss. Some of their comments can be so unintelligible which makes me wonder whether they are knowledgeable about cinema. Christy is clearly the better film critic. Matt is narrow-minded. The movie is well influenced / based on the Book of Job. If you read it, a lot of the themes, characters and scenes will come to light. Look up on UA-cam the video "Fr. Barron comments on Terrence Malick's 'Tree of Life'". It shows a theologist who cleverly decoded the movie.
@klausweasley No one. I'm not saying it's good or bad, I'm just pointing out the obvious. Personally, I prefer narrative.
@lifehigh655 I am sure it wasn't clear even though some of the whispering sounded like a suicide. I personally think how the kid died is not important at all.
Having not seen it, my immediate impression is of Ang Lee's Hulk movie, with his incredibly slow lichen on rocks montages. Or the even more pretentious The Fountain by Darren Aronofsky.
Great point made by the woman, how many films really have an effect on you? I can think of only a handful across my life, most of them among my favourite films. The fact that it makes people *think* and generates a lot of discussion is by itself a good thing.
I never heard of Christine or Malick (I had seen Thin Red line in theaters and Badlands on TV I think, but never knew who directed it) before seeing a review of Tree of life on TV with the new Ebert show. The review intrigued me, I thought she was cute and I enjoyed the movie. It was different. I've since watched all of Malick's movies and loved them all, except for To the Wonder, which was frustrating and felt rushed and thrown together quickly. I liked her after that, but this group of critics are very inconsistent. Giving this a 3? Really with all the crap formulamatic movies out there. This movie was ambitious and beautifully shot and well acted....even if you don't like it, give it a 6 for its merits. His movies are more like visual poems. Being a critic, you ought to know that. I could relate different parts of this to my own life. I saw a few fools walk out after 10-20 minutes.
This is far better than some crap you guys give 8-10s to.
Matt is the best critic on what the flick
mother father always you wrestle inside of me...Now where the hell is Benvereen!?!?!
Just because we don't like this particular movie doesn't mean we can't recognise beauty or be moved. I've seen plenty of movies that will stick with me until the day I die and this movie isn't one of them. It's just a string of pretty images that go with any kind of pseudo-philosophical explanation the audience wishes to provide. Its a one size fits all work of "art" and I do not feel the need to partake. You can enjoy it however much you like, but don't humble brag about "being able to get it".
"It insist upon itself"
-Peter Griffin (family guy)
side note: I just watched Black Swan: was she crazy, or was it the performance that made her crazy? Who cares, watching Natalie Portman having as O was worth it :o)
People that say a movie is pretentious are the kind that shouldn't stray from Michael Bay movies.
I'm a Malick fan, but I didn't like this movie. Sure, it's beautiful to watch, but ultimately hollow. It only superficially explores its subject matter. There is no special insight offered here. It didn't get me to think or pose any interesting questions.
It seems hollow if you focus on searching for meaning. There's no "deep meaning" in this movie, no philosophical questions that it seeks to answer or even pose. It's a masterpiece because of the nostalgic feeling and visceral experience that the visuals and sounds provide. The Blu-ray begins by telling you to turn the volume up LOUD. The audience is supposed to let down their defenses and become absorbed in the experience of the film, and that is really the only way that you could enjoy it. If one were to analyze the visuals rather than the plot, the themes and feelings that the film wanted to evoke in the viewer become clear: the nostalgia and wonderment of childhood, the awe of creation, the tragedy of loss, and the fulfillment that comes with inner peace (in reference to the "afterlife" sequence). The film is unabashedly transcendentalist in its themes, which means it isn't condoning religion as much as it is spirituality (through nature and human relationship specifically). I didn't get any of this on my first viewing, which is why my first viewing left me confused and unsure what to think about the movie. When I watched it again, I wasn't worried about analyzing every single detail, I just sat back and let it all absorb. And it was then that the film became one of the most spiritually potent experiences that I've ever had.
In my opinion, those that hate the film don't necessarily "not get it", like many people like to claim, they are just approaching it incorrectly. You need to watch the film as if you were watching a series of memories, as if it was your life flashing before your eyes.
+drw5500 Thank you! This is exactly what I got from this after thinking back to what I had just watched on my first viewing of the movie. While I was watching it, I had given up on trying to find a solid "plot", and decided to simply take in what was being resented and accept it. There's nothing confusing about this movie if people simply stop thinking about what makes a movie a movie, and just watch what is being presented as is. The themes (to me) were clear as day, and the basic concept were all there once I realized the movie's point is to not have a plot, but actually capture the essence of life, creation, faith, religion, family, relationships, regret, childhood, and everything in between. Even though I didn't necessarily love the film, I appreciated its concepts, the impeccable visuals, and the poetic sheerness of it all. At least I left the experience knowing I watched something special, but it just didn't wow me to the level Cloud Atlas did (I actually cried lmao). Thinking back on this movie, I can consider it a masterpiece wholeheartedly now. I'm still kind of upset that Heath Ledger didn't get to play the role he was meant to play though (Brad Pitt's role).
If you take out everything except the dinosaur scene, this would be a great movie.
@SinisterSkyline I couldn't agree with you more mate! Especially the part: "don't listen to these pricks", that was well put!
@ohwowwahwaow That was quite possibly the worst response to my question. But whatever, it's a youtube comment board. I don't know why I was expecting something with at least some thought behind it. But are you saying that the definition for pretentious is something that's artsy as fuck?
Saw it today. Wasn't all that impressed really. Wait for the DVD if you really can be bothered.
For me this movie falls in the same category of films as The Fountain, Southland Tales, and the Fall. All seem like thinking movies, but fall short one way or another. In fact the ideas in these movies are kind of naive and simple. Although visually they're all great to look at. And I'm saying this as a Terrence Malick fan.
I gotta respect Terrence Malick for being so... mysterious...
I think the part that Sean Penn' character is on the desert means the director's vision of afterlife. Maybe in Terrence Malick's point of view when we die we see ourselves when young and our best memories as well.
@Scardy Who says film has to have a narrative?
The film is not about 'characters', it's not even about the family. It's flawed reasoning to look at the film and look for a story about the kids or the family. The characters are representations of ideas Malick was exploring.
@unome40 Yeah, I know... that was the joke. The sarcasm was SO obvious that pointing it out was redundant... but I did it AND asked if you got it.
And even though you started lecturing me on sarcasm you then went on to address the sarcastic points... Silly boy!
@near10 it wasn't his mom's, he steped into another house.
Sounds like one of those movies that they make weird just for the sake of being weird.
@EvilFingers maybe because you're not shaun penn?
Wow, I expected this film to be controversial but I feel the amount of negative reactions is a bit undeserved. I think most stem from an inability to make sense of something without a conventional plot-structure, or an inability to stomach the religious themes. I say this as an atheist, but if the point was to detail an existential crises from the point of view of a Christian family living in Texas in the 1950's, how exactly would one strip away the theism and still express something convincing?
I love Matt's honesty! I bet a lot of critics felt the same way, but are too afraid to admit it.
@MobiusCoin Yeah yeah yeah, only you know, I'm a roman catholic and believe in religious art. This wasn't it. This was just "GOD WHY ARE WE HERE?" and then two and half hour laters of texan brad pit and the powerpoint slide show from the planetarium my aunt ligia sends me to my e-mail every two weeks, concludes with something about a venezian mask in the ocean and "GOD I DON'T CARE WHY WE'RE HERE ANY MORE EVEN THOUGH NOTHING HAPPENED. WE'RE HERE BECAUSE WE'RE HERE. FAITH ORGASM GET!"
they didnt understand the film..... I didnt undertsand it, but at least I got more than them
@neshannockfez That's exactly the issue. A planetarium is about the science and the learning not about the experience and natural majesty of the universe. Also... no, they don't. There's two OMNIMAX theatres in Toronto, which are like IMAX on steroids, and no, their footage does not compare.
I'm with Christy... 9/10 for me
@moeezS Oh and if you have the chance to check out Angel's Egg, I'm all ears to hear a verdict. It's about as surreal and abstract as movies can possibly get.
Was it the best film too since it was the only movie you watched in 2011.
@neshannockfez Then the Crucifxion of St. Peter is just "OLD DUDE BEING HANGED OUTSIDE DOWN". And as for the visuals, THERE is a big difference between a single still that a NASA has spent a month compositing and seeing the universe in motion. Not a big stargazer I guess. But this is truly unique, all other visualizations of space are shitty practical renders that doesn't come close toe capturing what the eye would actually see. Either that or they are simply stills, motion is key here.
everyone has there own opinion dont think like that if they hate it, they hate it... even if you hate it or not you cant deny the staggering visuals and ambition which is absouletly dizzing.. (literally i am dizzy from watching it)
To say this movie was reprehensibly atrocious and astoundingly laughable is probably the understatememnt of the decade.