Genres

Visitors Review

khan2705 2012-02-21 23:03:44

a masterpiece.

From Terrence Malick, the acclaimed director of such classic films asBadlands, Days of Heaven and The Thin Red Line, The Tree of Life is theimpressionistic story of a Midwestern family in the 1950's. The filmfollows the life journey of the eldest son, Jack, through the innocenceof childhood to his disillusioned adult years as he tries to reconcilea complicated relationship with his father (Brad Pitt). Jack (played asan adult by Sean Penn) finds himself a lost soul in the modern world,seeking answers to the origins and meaning of life while questioningthe existence of faith. Through Malick's signature imagery, we see howboth brute nature and spiritual grace shape not only our lives asindividuals and families, but all life.Starring, Brad Pitt, Sean Penn, Jessica Chastain, Hunter McCracken,Fiona Shaw , Jessica Fuselier , Nicolas Gonda , William A. Wallace ,Kelly Koonce.Directed by the wonderful and enigmatic director Terrence Malick. whodirected The Thin Red Line, Days of Heaven and Badlands.Winner of this year's Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival.well here it is, another drama with surrealism and very experimentalelements used in it. this officially was my most awaited movie of theentire year after i saw the trailer, it really touched me and remindedme of 2001: A Space odyssey which right now is my most favorite movieof all time. The Tree Of Life surpassed my expectations from it,literally this movie was such an outstanding work. it stands alongsideHP7 2 and Midnight in Paris to be my most favorite movies of the year.and the most favorite to be exact.the film revolves around the meaning and origin of life by perceptionof a middle aged man, Penn's childhood memories in Texas 1950's,finding his place in this universe shown with the graphical imagery oforigins of the universe and the inception of life on Earth. this moviedefinitely received great reactions from Critics for the artistic andtechnical merits but many people didn't liked it for something i love,non- linear and fragmented narration. there were polarizing reactionswhen it was shown with Cannes with boos and claps.the style of Malick my be, or actually it is a hurdle between viewersbut i think those who actually like these kind of movies or arty indieflicks, those who are patient will love it and it will provide aemotional and visual treat for them. this movie has an extreme boldnessof vision just like 2001 but this one has more human feelings and moreconcerned with humans than that was. this is such a magnificent movie,epic and spectacular, it showed a childhood in a way i never seenbefore and also what goes on in a mind of a growing child seeing likethis was really overwhelming.Direction of this movie is pitch perfect, though if he handled thenarrative style a bit better in the quarter of 2nd half, the moviewould have been an actual flawless movie. it looses a lot of momentumand loses that whole track there and feels a bit flat. that is the onlyflaw i saw. great direction. screenplay was good, very good. plot wasreally heavy and confusing for many viewers, for me too. i still havethose imagery and scenes in my mind even though i didn't understoodsome of them. spectacular cinematography and art direction. with lovelycostumes and sound. greatly done editing and really good visualeffects. dinosaurs and earth's imagery is lovely with universe too.Brad Pitt gave a brilliant performance, almost in a sort of wayreminded me of The Curious Case O Benjamin Button. really goodperformance by him. also Jessica Chastain outshined in this movie, sheis an angel, a beautiful lovely and very delicate fairy. loved her. sheas their mother was just perfect. among the children, Hunter McCrackensurprisingly gave a marvelous performance. Sen Penn is not much in itbut still he leaves a bit of a mark. overall brilliant performances,one of the best things about this movie.about Oscars, it deserves recognition in Best Picture, Director, forBest Actor Brad Pitt (maybe) not sure though but Jessica Chastain is alock, she deserves it truly. also for Cinematography, visual effects,art direction, editing and Screenplay.it begins with the life and finishes with the death. the movie has avery sad tone. the way the life on earth, the formation of universe andthen a simple family growing is shown is just spectacular. brilliantcamera work with those imagery of flora and fauna alongwith everythingelse. this movie feels like an encyclopedia on Origins Of Life. i lovedand you will too.an utter masterpiece of the first rate. two thumbs up.

Scotty 2012-02-21 00:15:47

Artistic, ambitious, wandering

While visually I enjoyed the movie, I found myself, and my wife wastoo, asking more questions at the end of it than it answered. Perhapsthat was the author's intent, and we should be satisfied with that.It's definitely not in the realm of the modern comic book stuff thatHollywood is turning out lately.I can't score it higher than 8/10 however, because of the wanderingnature of the film and the fantastic idealized way in which it portraysthe life of a deeply troubled man. Although he seems to have made peacewith both himself, his dead brother, and his father by the end of thefilm, it's difficult to understand how or why he had to come to thatplace to begin with when he seems to have made peace with his fatherabout 3/4 of the way through the film - while yet a child? Artistically, I think the film rates an A, possibly an A+. It'sapparent from any angle the clash of ideas that fill this man's head,his thinking is fuddled and he cannot make sense of his own world,since he cannot come to grips with his beginnings.From a story-teller's standpoint, however, since I failed to discernthe point (the "main" point as you would call it) of the story, I haveto give the film a B, and thus the 8/10 rating. I can't say I really"enjoyed" it either, since it left me with so much confusion. Goodmovies do not necessarily have to be enjoyable, but they should alwaysmake you think, thinking in some particular philosophical directionwould have been a good goal for this movie, rather I was simplyquestioning what it was I just saw, instead of the ideas themselves.A- for effort too though.

stbloo 2012-02-20 23:00:11

Why dinosaur? Peace of mind in the Forest in your Mind

I watched twice. My first time writing and glad to see all thosedivergent views which give me even deeper reflection of the film. Isn'ta good treat to see how different people are making sense out of life,searching for its meaning, just as the actors and Director? Be it areligious, scientific or artistic approach or just an Empty Mind. Yes,there is seemingly no major plot and may appear to be fragmentedmemories, but, isn't life just the same? Isn't it a good chance toreflect on one's coping style in face of the ambiguity of life? Howmany times you may have encountered something that happened on you/yoursurrounding which are out of your prediction/plan? Many neededventilation, but for big man like Jack, they often prefer not to talkbut to reorganize themselves in their own way, here, Jack returned tothe forest in his mind where he found peace of mind, where he needednot explain anything, as the wise trees knew everything! A process ofself-awareness and rebirth once he re-touched the grass with a smile atthe end. Watching the film is like going through time tunnel, how you grow up,struggle, quest and redefine life at different stages of life. I was sodelighted with the little stars. The differential way of parental loveis enlightening for all parents. Their acting talent are wonderful inevery sight. As audience, we are often tempted to await for an answer or a newperspective, but isn't the answer lies within ourselves, through theinner dialogue and opening up of sense? What's important is usuallyunspoken other than direct conversation (whisper, images, touch, etc)as in real life. Isn't all beautiful visual images and sound goodexercise to our artistic brain? In this speedy world, are we too focuson our logical brain? Is life often the same where thing moves onwhether you understand/accept/aware or not? Are we focused too much onseemingly big things but neglect those subtle (not trivial) orseemingly ordinary aspect? Let's your mind travel.In one's life, how far we can go is limited, but it's great that themind can travel across time and space, only if we allow a chance. Thebeauty of life exists everywhere, as grand as the universe or as smallas a butterfly dance. I was amazed with the dinosaur too, but I wassurprised to recall that it did come to my mind before and warned me ofthe danger when I once questioned about over modernization! Some talkedabout Discovery Channel, views over its length and repetition varied (Idid exclaim and try to figure out the meaning). However, isn't ourmodern societies evolve into a state where extreme specialization setup bar for full integration of mind, body, soul with interaction to theuniverse? Is it even more fragmented then? Isn't life just the samewith those repetition or circular thinking at times? Two hours mean differently for all, maybe, one is rushing for life,maybe one happens not at the stage of question, maybe one happens tohave already gone through it or maybe, you just use to sit back,think...for me, it inspires me to write a song when I develop theillusion that the pillars of the city turned into trees on the wayhome, starting with, 'The Tree of Life carries more than itself,passing through time and space, lines of sky-pointing trees, greatpillars, in the stream of life...the love from the Mother Nature shineson your toes...(more to develop)' Maybe, one's view over those twohours is already a reflection of how one perceives life at thatparticular state of mind and maybe, some time later, one will viewthose tow hours differently, who knows?Last, 'tell me more before we can remember'. When we grow older, wewill say, 'tell me more before we forget.' Then, when we grow oldenough, we may say, 'it doesn't mater, remember or forget...' What's more, the film draws me back to my song, 'Forest in your Mind',the sharing is just a simple wish to recall the connection with naturelike Jack, and hopefully, our next generation will benefit from it.Wonder for a big tree? Wander on your mind... They are there waitingfor you, they are there where soul be healed. Going back, back, back tothe forest in your mind, lying down, down, down to the soil for yourtired soul. A little bit dark, dark, under the old big tree, fear not,they are there, they know you. A few more swinging air roots, fear not,they are there, they hug you. Lean on the familiar trunk, with itsworldly old story. Yes, there are holes on the trunk, by its history,yet, they are there with the holes. Yes, there are broken branches, bythe weather, yet, they are there with the breakage. You are the onlyperson here, they are there, they hold you. It's alright to sit still,it's alright to shout, it's alright to think still, it's alright tohit... They are there looking after you, they are there, calmly andpatiently. Good child, peace be with you, good child, peace be withyou. Let you and let me be in peace, going deep to the forest in yourmind. Waving sounds of moving leaves far above, waving air rootshugging the needy child... Waving your hands, leaving on your wish,waving your hands, coming back on your wish... Go, take your child to aforest when they are young. When they grow up, they may be backwhenever they want. A Forest in Your Mind will never be gone by time. AForest in Your Mind will never be gone by place. A Forest in Your Mindwill never let you down...A Forest in Your Mind will never let youdown...

deadbunny28 2012-02-20 01:50:49

Love it or Hate it, You Should See it...

Reflecting on Tree of Life somewhat reminded me of something I readabout how Ingmar Bergman's wife at the time had stated that his filmWinter Light, which Bergman considered to be some of his best work, wasa masterpiece, but a dreary masterpiece. However I find "drearymasterpieces," of course only when in the hands of such masterfuldirectors as Terrence Malick, to be amazing, although usually not theirmagnum opus. For example, while Winter Light was amazing I still didnot like it as much as Wild Strawberries or Cries and Whispers, or evenThrough a Glass Darkly. The Tree of Life is "almost perfect." Thismovie offers some of the most visually stimulating and technicallysound work that cinema has to offer. It takes on the task of tacklingsome eternal questions such as the power of nature versus grace.Terrence Malick brings out great ability from all of his actors,impressively even the young up and comers. He demonstrates extremecompetence to evoke human emotion while also forcing the audience totake in this grandiose movie from an absolute subjective perception.So while The Tree of Life may come off as dreary for some, it is a goodkind of dreary; one not of boredom or dullness, but of epicness. Andyes, this movie may not be for everyone, but I still would recommend itto everyone. It is an opportunity to see a masterful director at thetop of his craft and also a chance to feel an "experience." This isjust that…A grand experience that you owe to yourself a chance toexperience, whether you walk away scratching your head hating themovie, or go and reflect loving it until the day you inevitablyre-watch it. 9.3/10

soler-88-69121 2012-02-19 13:21:30

The most annoying film I ever sat through - boring and incredibly self-indulgent

The Tree of Life is the most boring film I have sat through in the lastten years. No, make that fifteen. Why didn't I walk out? Somehow, Ididn't feel like pushing my way past the nice people sitting next tome. Also, I had no idea it was this loooonnnnnngggggggggggggg. I put myhead down and took off my glasses for the last 50 minutes. The film isturgid, pretentious, slow, obscure, preachy, self-indulgent andmaddeningly boring.The only kind things I can say about it are that the soundtrackfeatures classical music and that there are some fine shots of lavaflows and hammerhead sharks. What these have to do with the rest of thefilm, I have no idea. I liked the dinosaur sequence too, though it wasnot immediately clear how this related to the banal suburban familystory of this film. However, it has won the Palme d'Or at Cannes and85% of critics praise it. So maybe there is something wrong with me. Ifyou are insatiably curious to see how boys played in 1950s US then thismay be the film for you.

surge3 2012-02-19 09:06:20

Nonsensical Blather

This isn't really a movie -- it's more like you're walking through anexhibit in an art gallery or a museum...you get flashes of pictureswith music playing in the background that are all very random andnon-cohesive with very little dialog, and it's up to you to make senseof it all...when in fact there is no sense to be made.There is no cohesion between the scenes -- it's quite ridiculous. Amovie is supposed to be greater than the sum of it's parts, but thoseparts are supposed to mesh together somehow and make sense -- thismovie, does not. Actually, I think calling this a "movie" is prettygenerous.I knew right from the start that when there were basically no dialogscenes in the first 30 minutes, the rest of it was going to be prettymuch the same thing over and over again...my only mistake was nottrusting my instinct to turn it off right then and there.If you're into this kind of thing -- that's cool; but your time wouldbe more well spent if you actually went to an art gallery or a museum-- not watching "the tree of life" - at least people who, generally,have their work displayed in an art gallery or a museum have actualtalent, and their works are worth looking at and discussing; and moreimportantly -- have cohesion, and meaning. This movie has none of thosequalities.

elkster888 2012-02-19 02:23:14

CAUTION: read before seeing this movie!

In case you are just skimming reviews: DO NOT SEE THIS MOVIE if you area normal person with any normal interests or thoughts!I am a huge movie buff and my favorite movies include the moremainstream films such as Forrest Gump, Shawshank Redemption, LittleMiss Sunshine, and Crash. So maybe I'm biased toward extreme weirdness.I don't know. However, I do know that The Tree of Life is a literallyplot less film that quite frankly made me want to rip my own eyeballsout and throw them at the big screen. I have never, ever, ranked amovie with 1 star and I have also never walked out of a film. That allchanged tonight. After a full hour and a half (yes, i was thatcommitted), I gave up all hope and stomped right out of the theater. Itherefore feel obligated as a citizen of the united states and acompassionate movie lover to warn everyone out there TO SPEND YOURMONEY ELSEWHERE!!If you loved this film (and understood it).... well then you eitherwant people to think you are smart or you should win Nobel prize forintelligence.

rhodrispearing 2012-02-18 16:23:09

A fantastic portrayal of childhood spoilt by corny, slightly pretentious voice overs and shots

For me the Tree of Life works could potentially be a fantastic film,but was spoiled by a serious overuse of very impressive andattractive...but really quite pretentious, 'arty', experimentalcinematography. The main bulk of the film follows the story of asuburban American family from the perspective of their oldest child,portrayed as the memories of his adult self in the present (played bySean Penn). For me this was the really great element of the film. Thecinematography of the family scenes was stunning and it truly convincesus that we are reliving memories... rather than a more traditionalstyle of narrative. The role of the strict and often violent father wasplayed to perfection by Brad Pitt, and the acting was convincing allround.Unfortunately the film falls apart through the overuse of its artisticcinematography and voice-overs. While the occasional shots of naturewere often quite powerful and beautifully shot and edited...they becomeincredibly lengthy, and in the end, tiresome. In fact the beginning ofthe family story is oddly and a little frustratingly interrupted by ahuge string of quite random shots...including (believe it or not!) aCGI dinosaur... Part of this portrays the rather 'lost' and reflectinggrown up child, (Sean Penn) and works to an extent (some of the finalscenes at the end are quite powerful)...but I couldn't help cringing alittle at his pretentious 'wonderings' through the desert with his wife(while still wearing his suit). The worst part for me, however wasvoice-overs...which contains lots of corny, 'philosophical lines'. Thisre-occurs several times throughout the film and it just made me cringereally. The occasional bits of voice over, such as for example thethoughts of the child as he grows up had a valid purpose and workedwell. But like the cinematography it was grossly overused. For me thefamily scenes were more than powerful enough, and simply didn't needany of this additional footage. Apart from everything else it actuallymakes the film too long to be appropriate for this genre. (about 2h15)All in all I would highly recommend giving this film a shot purely toexperience the impressive and powerful childhood portrayal. You mayalso disagree with much of what I have said about the other elements ofthe film as well. But prepare for a some pretentiousness (if that's aword!) and the occasional glance at your watch!

orditom 2012-02-17 12:57:49

The best part of this movie is when it ends. It's relatively uneventful and painfully long!

Other than the stunning shots which made this movie popular, this filmis as bad as it gets! It is almost as if this entire movie is composed of B-roll. Most of themovie looks gorgeous but as a hole it felt like it was one biguneventful film with a massive amount of incoherent footage. Not tomention the fact that the story line of is unoriginal. Although thestory is put together in a relatively innovative way, using flashbacks, flash forwards and strange irrelevant scenes such as dinosaurs,well let's just say it only makes the movie worst. This film is justnot well put together.Anyhow, I highly recommend watching anything other than this movie. Itwill most likely prove to be one big waste of your time!

Thomas Heymann 2012-02-17 03:11:44

Gospel on top of cheesy wide angle shots that are pregnant with meaning

I usually don't think there are movies bad enough to deserve a ratingof 1 but this one does alone for its pretentiousness. People here seemto praise its photography and impressionistic nature being a piece ofart - Well if travel catalogues and colourised postcards are your kindof thing then yes, absolutely. I was already tired of the symbolism, epic scale and grand grandness ofeverything after 5 minutes in and the movie went on like that for over2 hours - If anything at all is clear after watching this movie thenthat the director certainly doesn't believe in subtleties. Sometimes less is more Mr Malick.

richard-steurer 2012-02-17 00:27:14

very American indeed

sorry guys, but reading what kind of enthusiasm this movie provokes, Iam afraid many people will not like what I'm going to say. I think thisfilm is hardly appreciable for non-Americans. American films areobsessed by father-son problems, I have not yet found out why thatcould be, but it is a fact that difficult relationships between fatherand son are much more often in the center or at least a part ofus-American films than in those of other cultures. Malick treats thistheme certainly with honesty and (like the whole film) with technicalperfection, but without any new or astonishing insights. frankly, I amafraid it is just the same old soup of stereotypes about the severefather who cannot show his love, asks too much from his son for whom hejust wants the best, wanting to make him achieve where he himselffailed etc. the second big, very American concern is religion.honestly, if you are not a believer, what could you possibly care aboutbelievers problems with god!? a young man dies (you can suppose that itis in Vietnam, but that of cause is no issue of the movie), but howcould HE have let it happen?! OK, in movies you got often problems thatdo not concern you personally, but the problem is, that the movie isruminating this question and others of that kind without realdevelopment: you got a quotation of Job right at the beginning and allthe movie is an exposition of this quotation. the mother, I shouldwrite MOTHER, cause she is the stereotype of the good mother as thefather in the film is THE FATHER, exposes by her thoughts the Christianposition of LOVE and grace, whereas the father represents the way ofthe WORLD. only at the end the father converts himself more tofamily-love instead of being the feared father who obliges his sons tocall him "sir". these two conceptions are confronted to the problem ofthe death of a son, and in the end miraculously the mother can acceptthis loss and "give her son" to god. of cause the movie is set in the50s, because you hardly find any father like that nowadays,fortunately. malick seems not to have confidence to a contemporarysetting. the present (skycrapers of glass) is only a simplecounter-position to the fifties (grass and nature). all I said wouldnot really be a major point against the movie, if Malick would havetrusted his own story (well filmed, very well cut). but he haspretensions to make us feel sublime by showing us endlessly scenes ofwaves, volcano eruptions, planets and stars etc. these pictures arenice to see, but they are pathetic and sentimental. they are calculatedto make us feel small and big at the same time (the sublime) and inrelation to the absolute. they are metaphysical kitsch. the moviefailes completely at the end by showing us a kind of paradise where youmeet again all your loved ones ... theologically it's on the level ofthe belief children have. I was touched by "The New World", in "TheTree of Life" Malick tries to violate us with his pathos and deepfeelings and thoughts. it's a pity.

yasshir 2012-02-16 14:04:02

Dinosaurs

This movie was simply the worst movie I have ever seen in my life. Iwasted 2.5h and $20 on a Friday night. I came out of the movie theaterfeeling car sick.It's not clear to me why this movie is rated so highly. The moviecontains an hour of national geographics and an hour of nonsense andfive minutes of dinosaurs (which was probably the best part about themovie). There were a few groups who just left the theater 10 minutesinto the movie. They would have had to stay for another 20 minutes tofigure out what they were watching was about the creation of earth(which was apparently essential to the understanding of the movie). Inthe end, I didn't even understand which kid in the family died, if hedid.All in all, unless you're the type to enjoy watching computerscreensavers and dysfunctional families, just skip this movie.

paul_mcdonald_100 2012-02-15 19:19:43

Awful

Awful, awful, awful, awful, awful and awful. The only way anydiscriminating critic could describe this film. There are those whowill be lured into believing this is a work of art but ......... theyare wrong! Don't be conned by the pretty photos, the religiousrumblings of the narration, and the spiritual music. Exercise some realcritical judgment instead and actually consider what is going on onscreen. Is there really two paths through life - the path of nature andthe path of grace? Come on, this is just a lot of incoherent,mystificatory, religious nonsense. 'Badlands' and 'Days of Heaven' weregreat but it was clear by 'The Thin Red Line' that Malick had lost it.Watch this film at your peril!

drewswt9 2012-02-15 14:11:03

Breathtaking.

Where to start. Well to explain this very complex film, I'll just startby explaining the story. The story is about a man (Sean Penn) who isunsure of himself, his faith, his existence in this world. This set-upis so easily done that right away, just by the way Penn moves andlooks, you already know the central plot. But this wonder of hischaracter brings up two major stories of the film. In the beginning,you hear voices such as "why are we here" (that's not exactly what issaid, but something very similar explaining why...) So around 30-45minutes is really images, with voice overs that make you think. Somecritics and people complain that this part of the film, which includesevolution and dinosaurs, and nature's beginning is not needed in thefilm, and doesn't connect with Jack's childhood (the other part of thefilm). I strongly disagree. I think ultimately, Jack is trying towonder "why" about everything. And the beginning of time sums this upin more of a big- picture way. But nevertheless, this part of the filmis amazing. The visuals are stunning, and because of this, I recommendseeing the movie IN theaters.So the next half of the film is about Jack's childhood from the 50's.This is where the performances of Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain shine.This part of the film explores the O'Brien family. It shows the threeboys (Sean Penn's character as a child is the oldest of the bunch)adventuring around in Texas. And it shows the parenting of Mr. and Mrs.O'Brien, which also explains why Jack wonders "why" about everything.Brad Pitt plays the strict and stern father. Very old-fashioned. Butthis character is not a monster at all. He's a loving father, but triesto show his boys right from wrong, but doesn't quite know how toexpress it without being aggressive. Brad Pitt gives a fantasticperformance, and probably his best in his career. Jessica Chastainplays the graceful, protective mother. She's equally as loving as thefather. But here she is much more passive. Not a bad parent at all, butalways remains calm. There's a scene in which Jack throws a rock into agarage of someone's garage, then when Mrs. O'Brien finds out, she tellshim not to ever do it again, while if it was Mr. O'Brien who found out,he may just lash out on Jack. Then even Jack asks if she will tell hisfather what happened. But Jessica Chastain really does a terrific jobhere. She doesn't have too many lines at all. And this is a film notrelied on screenplay that much, so really no one has a ton of lines, sothat shows how little she speaks. But that shows the difference betweenher and her Brad Pitt, who is always first to parent and teach thechildren. But Jessica is mostly heard in soft-spoken voices. But itsher body language that speaks in volumes. In a memorable scene, Mr.O'Brien just got done punishing one of the children after they askedhim to be quiet while the family was having dinner. In that scene, youimmediately see her grab one of the children to protect him. But after,when her and him are in the kitchen, you can just tell she's mad athim. Then she turns around and shoves her face into his face and triesto show him what he's doing to their children. She really doesn't sayany words here, but just the way she moves is so graceful, andeffortless.Well either way, this a really a thought-provoking film. After seeingit, you will be a little confused on how to feel. But for days to come,you'll constantly be thinking about every moment, and what everythingmeans. This is a film that is certainly not for everyone though. Itsnot totally for the casual independent film junkie. Its for people thatwant to think. Who will enjoy the film's artsy visual flare, and alsowant to be challenged with deep-thought while watching this film. Evenif you're not sure about seeing it, I think you should just try it. Itsvery beneficial to watch. And this is a beautiful film anyway. Bottomline: this is a film that will be discussed for years to come, andshould be appreciated in the history of American cinema.

Mario Beguiristain 2012-02-14 22:16:43

Malicks' Fractals--What, no TV?

The Tree of LifeMalick's fractal film. Why I found it delightfully enjoyable andimportant:1. New way to handle narrative. Traditional dramatic structure andscene structure is abolished 2. Emotional Memory rules 3. Fragments arenever resolved yet they become whole through their own 4. Dialoguebecomes impressionistic and unimportant—again, fragmented 5. Thetactile sensations are the key to the film and are conveyed with aheretofore unachieved power 6. Touch/Feel/Texture/Wet/Dry/Soft and soon… That what it's about: the memory of touch 7. The steady cam cameracreates a hallucinogenic "pull of the tides" that takes you into thefilm and bathes you 8. No electronic media is present other than the LPrecord player 9. NO TELEVISION or RADIO—amazing! To ignore the arrivalof these media is a significant choice—particularly in a world as seenthrough the eyes of a 7-10 year old. Where was Howdy Doody andHoppalong Cassidy? Are they not universal? How come nobody hasmentioned this? 10. That Jack kid was truly screwed up—a resentfullittle twisted sprig doomed to grow up into Sean Penn—and thank God,not a serial killer 11. Why did the middle kid have at times his headpartly shaved in the back? 12. I could have done without the galaxies,the nebulae and the dinosaurs… but I'm glad Douglas Turnbull got a gig13. I could have done without Sean Penn, futuristic Huston, glasscurtains… 14. I could have done without the Fellini 8 ½ cum Dolce Vitaending 15. I could have done without the "Persona" faces in the ending16. It would be a masterpiece if it had been just the family 17. Itshould be called "Fractals" 18. A fractal is a pattern that repeats atdifferent scales, and examples are all around us. 19.http://fractalfoundation.org/OFC/OFC-1-1.html

Greg W. Locke 2012-02-14 06:22:48

Best Film I've Seen In Years

Rather than offer a standard form review of auteur/poet/man-of-mysteryTerrence Malick's fifth feature film, the Palme d'Or-winning The Treeof Life, I figured I'd offer some stray thoughts on the movie. Thisbecause Malick's film pays no mind to any definable variation ofstandard form in the realm of filmmaking or storytelling as a whole.The film is big and wide open, poking the brain to think and remember,question and ponder in ways it often skirts around - the hard memoriesof youth. That, and the meaning of the universe and our existence.Thoughts No. 1: I can't imagine how a theater full of females ornon-Americans - or even African Americans - will respond to Tree; but,for me (a young white male raised by a protective mother and a no ****hard-as-nails father, circumstances similar to what we see on thescreen), the movie was as poignant as any I've seen - ever. Malicksomehow remembers the most profound seconds of his youth - a collectionof single moments that made him the man he is today. He uses his memoryof those moments to create a story about a Waco, Texas family goingthrough some serious growing pains. Dad is nature and mom is nurture,or, in Malick's case, Mom is grace. The family's three young boys (ledby the eldest, Jack), struggle to find the balance between the twooften opposing lessons their parents teach them. My words on your paperor computer screen can't begin to express the poignancy Malick putsinto his poetic movie - into this family. Many moments in the filmprompted me to remember childhood moments that I hadn't thought aboutsince they happened 20 or more years ago. Those moments of discovery -and the painful process of trying to figure out day- to-day life as amember of an intellectual society - deepen Malick's movie, which isbasically an open-ended questioning of our existence. Poignancydefined. Thought No. 2: Supposedly there are people walking our Earthwho booed The Tree of Life when it premiered at Cannes a few weeks ago.To those people, I say this: Iron Man 3 will probably be out before youknow it; for now, you have Thor, The Green Lantern, Wal-Mart and"American Idol." Thought No. 3: I believe this film will go down as adeserved all-time classic, as well as one of the more cerebral andvisually poetic movies ever made. I can't think of a better movie aboutyouth and the adult act of pondering it all as we look back and figureout how we came to be the people we are. Malick brilliantly juxtaposeswide-eyed children discovering the small things in life against aperplexed adult looking back on simpler and better days - even if those"better days" were as complex as any he's seen as an adult. It's amoving and profound device that any movie-goer living a consciousexistence should feel deeply, even if they came up under differentcircumstances than Malick's O'Brien family. Great movies leave youtalking and thinking - usually about one big thing that happened, onetopic. Something having to do with the human experience. This movieleft me thinking about so many different things, and deeply. I could goon and on about the many details, visuals and style points that I justcan't shake. But, chances are, you've not yet seen it. The movie is aan existential puzzle piece of a movie that frames up the broad topicsof creation, existence and self-worth (and about 20 other things) in achallenging and abstract manner that will be interpreted differently byanyone lucky enough to feast their eyes. It's a not just a new classic,but the very rare piece of art that will be obsessed over and pickedapart by thinkers for generations to come. If the intellectual depthsof Terrence Malick's imagination were ever in question, Tree assuresthat they will never be again. The best movie I've seen at the theaterin years. A new all-time masterpiece. Check out more of my music- andfilm-related writing at ZeCatalist.com.

Gavin 2012-02-14 08:57:52

A new form of waterboarding..............

I saw a clip of this movie and thought wow this looks like it'll beinteresting...........Oh boy was I so, so wrong.It is only the second movie I have not managed to watch to the end, thefirst being 'The Postman' (still sends shivers down my spine).I was determined to battle through to the end of this movie as I wassure some great revelation or point was going to be reached. Nope wrongagain.For me there was way to much religion and very long painful classicalscores.If you don't like somebody recommend this film......I'd say get stoned before you watch this movie as it may help but I didand it didn't Peace

odevoted 2012-02-13 20:39:57

The Essence of life

First of all, for those who have not yet read reviews, let me start bysaying that this is not your "Brad Pitt/Sean Penn" labeled blockbuster.Also, I would like to add that, if you really want to take in as muchas possible (trust me there is a lot to take in), then you should gosee this movie, relaxed, not tired, and in a receiving state ofconsciousness (I watched it last night at 2200hrs, after a very verylong difficult day) and I am seriously considering re-watching it on aSaturday night...It is practically impossible to summarize this film, in a few words,but what this film does to you, mostly I think, is take you back toyour childhood days, and bring back, re-ignite all these long lostfirst moments/feelings/discoveries/guilts. Do you remember the firsttime you had a fight with your parents? What crossed your mind? whatdid you feel?.....apply this to all the first times and you might getsomething that feels like this film.This film blends all the above with imaginary scenes from the creationof the cosmos, how all is connected, how did we get here? why? what didGod really have to do with this? or is God in other words Love?You have to see for yourself, and I believe each and every one of uswill have his own different experience which is exactly what real Artis.Bravo, to the Director, Producers and Cast.

Michael Douse 2012-02-12 23:02:01

A lecture from a tired and troubled old thinker.

Terrence Malick has something to say about the nature of humanity inrelation to the universe, and you're quite mistaken if you think you'llget to have your say. Rather than raising new questions, Malick's intention seems to be toanswer questions and quarrels regarding the human condition. Thisquasai-anthropological venture into nature of our species (and I doargue that this is indeed what it was) left me feeling as though I hadendured a Q and A with my grandfather. It is difficult in every sense to accurately rate or explain this film,since I am not entirely sure if it either completely lacks depth, orMalick simply failed to speak coherently. With long montages of cosmicscreen-savers, and idyllic and stylised poetry written, I suppose, torelate to our core, idiosyncratic emotions, one might almost beconvinced to consider The Tree of Life a work of modern contemporary'art' - but is it really? There will be a very many people (indeed I have seen them myself) who,with every critique of the film, will claim that their peers simply"misunderstood" the message. You didn't understand it as I did. As wedid. But if there is no interpretation, other than that of those whounderstood, and those who misunderstood, then by what criteria do youconsider this art? Herein lies the problem with The Tree of Life. It relays information.It doesn't connote particularly complex messages within it's lavishlystylised imagery. In a similar vein, it makes no attempt at connotingat all. There is, quite contrary to art, nothing to denote. Thesymbolism is tantamount to labelled with post-it-notes, and the use ofmusic runs through the film like a laughter track in a sit-com. "Thisis when you're supposed to laugh - this is where you're supposed to go:oh my, this is beautiful."Perhaps I'm being a little harsh - after-all, it asks a lot of you, soit must have some depth. Well, there are those who rate a novel 5 starssimply because they made it through to the end. I fear this film willsuffer the same disingenuous fate. "I survived this - I'm cultured." An embittered and particularly snobby view, you might say - but withouta direct digression into the reception of the film, it is vital inunderstanding the problems.Indeed, as with often the best art, the work is a catalyst fordiscussion - discussion with a view to interpret. Herein is my pointabout reception. Forum discussions and controversy about a filmsvalidity, are not the criteria by which a film -being- a discussionabout it's subject, are considered true. In reality, A Tree of Life is drole pseudo-introspection through someidyllic and very familiar poetry; the vehicle by which to take usthrough the life of some 1950's family that in no way seemed to relateto myself, or any emotions (including the severity of the emotions)that I faced, or have ever faced. It paints the world as volatile - certainly, but it does this is such atame, almost religiously idyllic way as to promote Malick humanism,rather than an actual depiction of the human condition.There is one stage of the film that I do hold in high regard. That isthe seemingly inconsequential portrayal of pre-historic life. There wastrue beauty in the dinosaur shots. Malick, quite wonderfully, portrayedthem as alienating, subsequently terrifying in their alienation. However, if you see humanity as some super-sensitive, text-booksymbolic Madonna-mother, angry-son country-folk at odds with their ownearthly transgressions, then maybe you'll think very highly of thefilm. I for one prefer my philosophy from a philosopher, and my science froma scientist. The Tree of Life didn't touch upon anything that many, if not most,films already had - the most considerable difference, noted by SeanPenn: Malick offered no narrative. Whether that is a good or bad thing, I suppose, is up to you - but makeno mistake, there's no room for your opinion, or your thoughts, in thisfilm. You either relate, or you don't. To put it more simply, and perhaps even allegorically: Malick ispreaching to you - you either agree, or you don't. His eloquence is unmatched by his intelligence.

george-rolph 2012-02-12 13:49:55

A father bashing fest

Just another Hollywood father bashing movie. It seems they lack to theguts to do the same to mothers.It's well acted. The dialogue (or rather, lack of it) is awful attimes. It is well shot. It bored the crap out of me. Seen it allbefore. Would not want to see it again. Am sick of the Hollywood malebashing going on and the stupid male actors who take on the scriptsthat do it. I am getting equally sick of the public that pay for thiscrap and so encourage it. I did not pay, someone else did, so I satthrough it out of politeness. Give up the father hating Hollywood. Itis getting old real fast!