Thread: Tree of Life, The

The opening half is totally arresting in its vision and grandure. The themes of family relationships, God, and the evolution of life and the universe are juggled with mesmerising skill by Mallick. The death of a child and the parents futile discourse with God about the meaning of it is put in startling perspective by interweaving with the scenes of the forces of nature at an interstellar as well as terrestrial level.

At half time it was on track to be my movie of the decade but unfortunately I think it lost its way a little in the second half. The conflict in the relationship between the son and the father was explored a bit too long. The time flip with Sean Penns grown up son did not add as much as it could have. The closing scene on the beach was not as satisfying as it could have been.

But I can live with these shortcomings since the first half of the film brings so much to the table.

I think this is too important a film to leave to passing hum drum comment on nooner's thread.

So what did you think?

Not worth watching IMHO.

Can you expand this a bit OhOh?

What did you not like about it?

Were there any aspects of it that you thought were good?

^ The end credits?

Terrence Malick is one the most talented film directors working today. He makes very few films. Each one is beautifully crafted. His cinematography is his trademark. Look at The Thin Red Line, The New World and The Tree of Life and you really get a sense of a consistent artistic vision. The Tree of Life is an attempt to get at the heart of everything and, in my opinion, it is a very beautiful film. Cynics will hate it.

I have read a bit about Malick since watching the movie. I am guessing he draws on personal experience for some of this film. He apparently was the eldest of 3 brothers, one of whom died as a young man, possibly committing suicide.

I enjoyed the Thin Red Line and The New World. I remember reading years ago about the exceptional cinematography in Days of Heaven but I never saw it. Will give it a go.

I'm just downloading it, and gonna watch it in an hour or so. Then I'll let you know...

We endeavoured to get into the movie for about 35 minutes but gave up as we had no idea where it was heading.I did read some of the reviews after of the film and found that many patrons left the cinema after watching the first section obviously as confused as we were.
Perhaps you being aware of what Malick was trying to achieve enabled you to have the right perspective on it.I will take your word though but I am not sure I could sit through the opening again even with your positive appraisal.
Horses for courses it seems. My preference is for Foreign movies, even with sub titles I find they have so much more depth than the other stuff we are served up.

Originally Posted by Aussie Tigger

Perhaps you being aware of what Malick was trying to achieve enabled you to have the right perspective on it

I had no idea what it was about or who was in it or who directed it. That is the way I like to approach movies so I try not to find out about them in advance other than rating scores.

I was suggesting to Indo-girlie that we watch Pirates of the Caribbean. She says 'have you got anything else'. I said 'mmm.. Tree of Life?' and she said 'oh that is Brad Pitt - lets watch!'. She did not enjoy it at all but I thought it was great

You bastard, Looper... if I ever meet up with you then you're in for a bloody clip around the ears... 25 minutes in and all I can think is: where's HAL???

I will attempt to get back into it in a few minutes.

Sorry, can't watch anymore; didn't even make it to 40 minutes...

The director's just having a wank; self-gratification with no or little regard for the viewer.

^Download Badlands (1972) with Martin Sheen and Sissy Spacek. It was Malick's first movie. A more linear plot with some excellent acting.

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

where's HAL???

Well spotted. The movie does owe a lot to 2001: A Space Odyssey by Stanley Kubrick. In form, not content.

^And not 1% of Kubrick's talent.

Im relieved I thought I was losing the plot as I enjoy deep films but agree the Director had little regard for his paying audience.

One of the marks of great art is its ability to move you in ways that you don't understand. Motion pictures do not always have to be rationally deconstructable.

It worked for me both as a piece of art and a narrative drama. I thought the two components were woven together in a clever way that made the whole much greater than the sum of the parts.

Film directors' artistic ambitions are usually balanced out by the commercial interests funding the movie. Malick is one of those rare exceptions who continues to make interesting films without enjoying much commercial success. Orson Welles was a maverick who gave us Citizen Kane, a film that enjoyed very little box office success and the emnity of many of the Hollywood moguls. I like to see a director push the envelope, even if it isn't always totally successful.

Twitter - Follow Us!

The Tree of Life hits theaters on May 27th, 2011.

Cast: Brad Pitt, Jessica Chastain, Sean Penn, Fiona Shaw, Crystal Mantecon, Tamara Jolaine, Joanna Going, Jackson Hurst

From Terrence Malick, the acclaimed director of such classic films as "Badlands", "Days of Heaven" and "The Thin Red Line", "The Tree of Life" is the impressionistic story of a Midwestern family in the 1950's. The film follows the life journey of the eldest son, Jack, through the innocence of childhood to his disillusioned adult years as he tries to reconcile a complicated relationship with his father (Brad Pitt). Jack (played as an adult by Sean Penn) finds himself a lost soul in the modern world, seeking answers to the origins and meaning of life while questioning the existence of faith. Through Malick's signature imagery, we see how both brute nature and spiritual grace shape not only our lives as individuals and families, but all life.

The Tree of Life trailer courtesy Fox Searchlight Pictures.

youtube.com

Originally Posted by Humbert

Terrence Malick is one the most talented film directors working today. He makes very few films. Each one is beautifully crafted. His cinematography is his trademark. Look at The Thin Red Line, The New World and The Tree of Life and you really get a sense of a consistent artistic vision. The Tree of Life is an attempt to get at the heart of everything and, in my opinion, it is a very beautiful film. Cynics will hate it.

Very true - to date, but he has 4 films in production or pre production 2 for release in 2012 and two in 2013.

One is called Lawless, set in Bangkok. Don't know much about it apart from it is about a Muay Thai bout.

Originally Posted by Looper

One of the marks of great art is its ability to move you in ways that you don't understand. Motion pictures do not always have to be rationally deconstructable.

It worked for me both as a piece of art and a narrative drama. I thought the two components were woven together in a clever way that made the whole much greater than the sum of the parts.

Rather think you may be flogging the proverbial on this one as far as some members of the board are concerned.

Can stupid people be existentialists?