The Tree of Life

Saw it a few days ago.

The cinematography is amazing. This is a seriously good looking film but I found it excruciating to watch.

When I was a kid I used to have a recurring dream that a point of light was moving painfully slow against a black background. So slowly that it was excruciating to watch. This film was very much like that. I've never been so happy to see the end credits.

Having said that it is also a film that has lodged itself in my mind and the intense feelings it evokes combined with the extraordinary visual feast makes it a film not easily forgotten.
 
this is exactly how i felt about this film and his past two films.

"[Malick is] a meticulous visionary who knows where to place a camera, but he hasn't a clue about how to tell a story with simplicity and coherence."

i normally dont give two shits about what a critic says but this one reflected my opinion perfectly.
 
Ponty301 said:
"[Malick is] a meticulous visionary who knows where to place a camera, but he hasn't a clue about how to tell a story with simplicity and coherence."
Click to expand...
I thank God for that.

Not all films need to be told with simplicity and coherence - I am so glad
a few have the courage to be complex and the audacity to risk incoherence.
 
directorik said:
I thank God for that.

Not all films need to be told with simplicity and coherence - I am so glad
a few have the courage to be complex and the audacity to risk incoherence.
Click to expand...

+1 I get so sick and tired of the 1+2+3= 6 routine. I get my fill of that from Columbo and Murder She Wrote
 
And as you know I am not only not sick and tired of
the formula I am a great believer in the formula and
actively push for its use.
 
I haven't been that challenged at the movies since Eyes Wide Shut.

A devastating masterpiece. I can't wait to see it again. I'm glad I ventured to the big screen to see it...I'm not sure I'd have been able to hear the subtle sound design on my TV at home.

John Lennon said that 2001 should be played in a temple 24 hours a day. If such a temple is ever constructed, Tree of Life would make it a great eternal double feature.

When I first heard the comparisons out of Cannes to 2001 I held my hands over my ears like a child! "Hear no evil! It can't be true." But it would be hard not be reminded of 2001 while watching Tree of Life, but by no means is the film derivative. I simply mean they are two films which fundamentally alter the way in which stories can be told onscreen.

I avoided all press (including this thread) because I wanted the full experience unhindered by others' experiences. But given that, I still knew there was some sort of creation sequence, and that people were getting refunds if they walked out in 20 minutes. So I knew to expect incongruous storytelling and tried to just let it work.

And work it did...my mind never stopped considered, analyzing, putting fragments and pieces together. I never stopped considering my own childhood and relationship with my father, mother and brothers.

I can't remember the last time I went to the movies and was mentally engaged in what was happening onscreen for the entire length of the film. It was exhilarating.
 
Uranium City said:
I haven't been that challenged at the movies since Eyes Wide Shut.

A devastating masterpiece. I can't wait to see it again. I'm glad I ventured to the big screen to see it...I'm not sure I'd have been able to hear the subtle sound design on my TV at home.

John Lennon said that 2001 should be played in a temple 24 hours a day. If such a temple is ever constructed, Tree of Life would make it a great eternal double feature.

When I first heard the comparisons out of Cannes to 2001 I held my hands over my ears like a child! "Hear no evil! It can't be true." But it would be hard not be reminded of 2001 while watching Tree of Life, but by no means is the film derivative. I simply mean they are two films which fundamentally alter the way in which stories can be told onscreen.

I avoided all press (including this thread) because I wanted the full experience unhindered by others' experiences. But given that, I still knew there was some sort of creation sequence, and that people were getting refunds if they walked out in 20 minutes. So I knew to expect incongruous storytelling and tried to just let it work.

And work it did...my mind never stopped considered, analyzing, putting fragments and pieces together. I never stopped considering my own childhood and relationship with my father, mother and brothers.

I can't remember the last time I went to the movies and was mentally engaged in what was happening onscreen for the entire length of the film. It was exhilarating.
Click to expand...

:)

I'm genuinely very pleased that there have been people finding it a fulfilling experience because I love Malick's work and love the way the movie is crafted.

I know that it didn't 100% work for me and that it probably wouldn't work at all for the majority of people but it's satisfying from a filmmaker's point of view to hear that there are people to found a resonance and emotional clarity in the midst of what is an unconventional narrative.
 
I saw this at the 2nd run theater on a 35mm film print for all of $1. I can't tell if I loved it or hated it. At least it made me think for days on end. I felt there was a narrative somewhere in the middle of the film, but
the sudden breaks into the creation of the universe seemed more than a little out of place and not really related in any way to the narrative. Worst of all, the modern day material with Sean Penn was equally meaningless.
 
I was divided. I loved it, but hated it at the same time. Cinematography was astounding, every scene was beautiful. I think Brad Pitt's acting was really good in it as well.

Even though its narrative was all over the place, I kinda liked that in a way, but didn't. The setup of each scene, and the amount of effort put in with the character development could have been better if a narrative existed. At the same time, I liked that it didn't have a narrative because it's different. So... yeah, mixed feelings.

It is defitnitely a DVD purchase though.
 
I like the movie, I think that it's says a lot with filmmaking language, it wasn’t necessary words to expressed certain things. The characters don't have names, but they don't need them. Technically speaking it's a great movie, it has a weird narrative, but it’s kind of cool when you get it. Still, there are some things that only makes noise. Those little things are what make this movie hard to understand.
Spoilers:
What's the deal with the third brother? He doesn’t have any narrative sense. This really bothers me, the other two are so closed, and the third one is like … I wasn’t even sure if he exists, I had to ask a friend if they were three.
The burn friend too, we don’t know why the brother die (me and my friend believe that he commit suicide or die in a war). I think that Sean Penn is de eldest, and the one who dies is the middle one. A friend of mine thinks than Sean Penn is the middle one, and the eldest killed himself.
You are never sure what it’s actually going on. Plus, Sean Penn acts like 7 minutes, I’m not kidding. Brad Pitt does act more time, not enough to earn the right of being in the cover (my opinion). All the actors are excellent, the two brothers in particular, are incredible.
 
I give it a thumbs up. A great example of how to make use of a visual medium. (You can't watch it with your eyes closed, see?)

Its not 2001, but I like how it stands apart from everything else in the same way 2001 did.

And yes, 2001 should be shown in a temple somewhere 24/7.

So Dave, will you now please open the damn pod bay door?
 
I just watched THE NEW WORLD EXTENDED CUT on Blu Ray last weekend and the criterion Blu of THIN RED LINE. Terence Malick definitely has a distinctive style and he is probably the closest living filmmaker to Kubrick in terms of reverence with class.

Overall, I am in love with Malick's movies. After time, I think TREE OF LIFE was a work of genius. I spent so much time thinking about it, mulling it over, and the fact that it lived inside my head for months shows that it touched me inside in a way that most movies, even great ones, do NOT.

TREE OF LIFE is one of the rare times where narrative is overrated.
 
I did view this movie. I will say it is something new but unclear. The best part of this movie for me was the cinematography.

There needed to be a clearer point to the movie. It seemed to much like a modern home movie blended with imagination. No clear conclusion on what this movie is about.
 
I see quite a lot of people here really arent fans of unconventional art films.

Personally I'm still a bit unsure what to think, I feel I need to watch it again. The whole style and vibe of the film was fantastic, but I can't lie and say I didn't get a bit bored towards the middle...will be watching again though, really interesting
 
Finally got to see it.

I did like it. I like it when experienced directors take a larger perspective and try to deliver something profound. It's a risk theyre taking but a risk worth taking imo.

However, i have to agree with what Sean Penn said about this one. That the same idea and message could have been conveyed in a better manner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top