Out now on dvd/blu-ray
The People's Reviews
Rating:
11 ratings and 12 reviews
Dazzling! (Short review)
Winner of the Palme d'Or at this year's Cannes Film Festival, Terence Malick's The Tree of Life was arguably the most anticipated film of this year's festival. Indeed, anything from the famously reclusive director is always cause for celebration, given that in a career spanning 40 years, The Tree of Life is only his fifth film, and his previous works (Badlands, Days of Heaven, The Thin Red Line, The New World) are all regarded as fascinatingly original films. So, how does this new film fit into Malick's catalogue?
It's difficult to write about The Tree of Life after only one viewing. Malick is often cited as the cinema's greatest example of a 'visual poet', and while anyone can appreciate the pretentiousness of such a claim, the label actually does seem to fit, and nowhere is it more appropriate than in a discussion of The Tree of Life. Analysing a poem can be a challenging task, with the finest examples perhaps meaning little when taken at face value, and only through line by line deconstruction can a poet's true meaning be made evident. And challenging is a great word for describing this film. If you've ever seen a Malick film, little has changed in his style. Minimalist dialogue, largely in the form of fractured narration, runs parallel with highly disjointed editing (interestingly, the credits list no less than five editors), and achingly beautiful shots of nature are juxtaposed with characters looking thoughtfully off camera, into the distance. The style is jarring, yet it allows Malick the freedom to be at his most conceptual and introspective, and the result is an incredibly ambitious and uncompromising manifestation of his vision.
Many audience members may be put off by what seems to be a needlessly meandering story, the point of which is wrapped in so many layers that some may argue there is in fact no point. However, Malick's slow and deliberate pacing does in fact peel back these layers a little at a time, so that when the emotional climax does arrive, it is genuinely moving in a way that so few films are nowadays. The story itself takes second billing in favour of presenting a tone and a nostalgic mood that completely absorbs the viewer who is willing to let Malick take his time with his message. The Tree of Life is unlikely to make any new fans for Malick, but for those who appreciate his thoughtful style, the film is an all too rare treat, and may in fact be the finest display of his unique talent. Just like a great poem, the film demands repeated viewing to break it down and pore over the details, something which many will be looking forward to. There's no way to gauge who the audience for a film like this is, but regardless of whether you would agree that this is the best 2011 has offered so far, it is guaranteed you will have never seen a film quite like The Tree of Life before.
tinribs27.wordpress.com
A true and interesting masterpiece
This is a film about Jack played in as older man by Sean Penn. As a young boy growing up in the 1950's in the midwest he has a difficult relationship with his father played by Brad Pitt. The story follows his journey through childhood and his loss of innocence. He feels empty as an older man. This film contains amazing images of the beginning of time and the earth and its all around make up. It is difficult to describe how to follow this film but as a huge fan of film myself you just need to experience it
A stunning visual flurry
There's an ungodly amount of things to discuss about Terrence Malick's latest, so I'll just give my main compliment and complaint. It's a consistently stunning visual flurry, seemingly shot with a floating ectoplasmic camera. However, the half-hour existentialistic "scenarios" sandwich-board the main narrative more awkwardly than it should. Despite that, when the film hit, it hit me hard. Ultimately, The Tree Of Life is like life itself: it can be ambiguous, it can be rewarding, it can be frustrating as hell, but there's no denying the sheer amount of beauty within it that, unfortunately, will go completely unnoticed by some.
Spectacular but puzzling
Did I even like it? I'm not sure, it's a movie which is going to toss back and forth in my mind for a long time. Without doubt it's a very challenging movie, and one which seemed to divide the full house in half, there were quite a few murmurs in the audience and much restlessness. Me, I didn't feel that way.
Certainly it's not the easiest movie to watch, at times it's incredibly frustrating, it's also very, very pretentious and the ending certainly doesn't allow you to leave the cinema feeling satisfied. BUT, it is also one of the most beautiful and sensitive movies I have ever seen. The visuals are breathtaking. The images of planets aligning, cells splitting, volcano's erupting, they were some of the most incredible images I have ever seen on screen.
The story also had a very poignant theme, and at times caused a very emotional response in me. It's a film which questions how the impact of a father on a son can alter his opinions of what is right or wrong, and indeed the very meaning of life and the existence of God. At times it's pretty brutal cinema (in a good way). Pitt is very, very good in the role of the father, a stern authoritarian, a true father of the 1950s, a character you find yourself despising. And on the other hand you have Young Jack, and his performance was one of the very best I've seen in a young actor this year, probably save Elle Fanning the best, maybe even of the last few years. You feel for him, you understand his rage as he swings from the innocence of childhood under the care of his mother to the anger and hate he has for his father when you gets older, and how he debates whether doing what he is told will actually help him in the end. Penn plays Jack the older man, the man broken by his father, a man who wanders aimlessly through the modern world still trying to find meaning, and while he doesn't have much screen time to project his character, his visual emotions are very evocative.
However, there are also moments of true frustration for me in the movie. It agitated the hell out of me for long periods. I kept telling myself early on, just watch it to experience it, you may not enjoy it, but you will certainly experience something profound. And I did. But for some of the film I was so, so agitated. I wanted it to skip to the story, wondering when a story would start, while at the same time sitting in awe as the visuals engulfed my senses. I did, in the end, just accept the movie for being a directors movie. I could understand why some people left in the screening in the States (no doubt some left here too), but I thought it worth the patience. And it was. I was glad I saw it. It may be a long, long time before I feel the need to watch it again, but it certainly was worth seeing, for me at least. It was a quiet film, a sobering movie, one which divided the audience and my heart. But it was also something quite, I don't know, SOMETHING.
HAD TO LEAVE
Watched this movie for about an hour but it didn't seem to make much sense and my wife said this is depressing and we decided to leave as it was the worst movie I have ever seen in the last 20 years.
slow
Found this slow and boring. maybe others would enjoy it more
Grace & Nature
Astonishing in its visuals and soundscape, this movie just screams arthouse. That doesn't necessarily make a masterpiece, but I think in this instance a great film has come out of it. Its ambitious in its scope (hey not many folk would stick a 20 minute visual segment about the origins of earth in the middle of a story about family and love.
Lots of reviews have mentioned poetic cinema, tosh and balderdash was what I originally said after reading them, but believe them. Mr Malick is a true cinematic visionary....yeah perhaps I'm pretentious too :)
Go see and be bored, mystified and amazed.....but just go see.
At times beautiful, but equally frustrating
I wish I could write as eloquently as others above, but all the same - here goes. . . .
Whilst this was visually stunning, I found the flashing forward / flashing backward frustrating. I also have to admit that I was confused about what was going on, and what I was supposed to be referencing. The "story" kicks off about 1 hour in and as I tend to enjoy linear stories, this is the part I enjoyed.The exploration of the "American family unit" was certainly interesting, and had some really touching moments.
The last 10 minutes or so - again a bit confusing - I get what it was about, but. . . well - maybe a bit to "arty" for me.
Crazy
I'm not sure if I liked this Movie or not! The story line seemed to be non-existent with you feeling either completely bored or amazed (by the cinematography). It's worth a watch if you have a spare 3 hours :)
You have to see it on the big screen
A visual gem. Not much dialogue but story is so told with pictures. I'll remember this for a long time
Turn up, tune in and trip out...
If you surrender to 'Tree of Life' as a slow, meandering, meditation on, well, life, then you're in for a visual, audio and cerebal treat. Like Terrence Malick's 'The Thin Red Line' though - if you go in expecting a traditional linear narrative or Hollywood's standard big screen fare - you're gonna find this pretentious and dull. For me? It's 'Koyaanisquatsi' with movie stars. Think Kubrick's '2001' and Von Trier's 'Melancholia' and turn up, tune in and trip out...
UNIQUE !
If you have read a few reviews of this film you would have guessed you'd either love or hate it, either way you'll have a strong reaction.
I just had a look at FLICKS viewers reviews, and find it amusing that all the bad reviews are from people who don't or hardly ever review films, and the good ones are from obvious movie fanatics with numerous reviews under their belt ... I think this speaks for itself, really.
This film is philosophical. This film is not to be watched on a small screen. This film is simply a unique masterpiece, even if Joe Blogg does not "get it" !
-
comment / reply