The Tree of Life

Well, I just accidentally watched this film on a premium channel tonight. That's two hours I'll never get back.

Sorry, but the word that jumped into my mind (after "Kubrick?") within the first ten minutes was "pretentious." I don't know anything about Malick and frankly, I shouldn't need to know anything about the director to "get" a film.

As for the comment in this thread about directors making movies for themselves: As a writer I find this attitude amusing. I mean, if I want to write for myself, I'll write in a journal. If I publish thousands of copies and charge people money for it, then I'm no longer writing for myself.

Same here: If a director is putting together a major motion picture and then distributing it to theaters for people to pay hard-earned money to see it, he's NOT making it for himself, is he? Because otherwise he could simply make one copy and watch it in his home theater somewhere in L.A.

Having said that, I just couldn't get with the program. Sorry, all you philosophy majors and Malick fans out there. Within minutes I got the whole "yes, we're small and insignificant and look how awesome and huge the earth is, etc. etc. etc." The longer that sequence went on (oh, look, dinosaurs, what a shock! where are the apes with the monolith?), the more annoyed I got (despite the lovely images). I watch a movie to see a story told. If I want to watch awesome photography of earth, I'll watch the National Geographic Channel.

I started to wonder if Malick had to pay his writer based on how many words of dialogue he used and was trying to save money to pay for his awesome dinosaur and explosion shots. Sean Penn's world couldn't have gotten more sterile if they'd hosed off the footage with Clorox. Yesss, we get it. Move on... And setting the main focus of his point (well, the human aspects of his point) in the 1950s seemed irrelevant to me. This isn't how people act today. I get that this is how some people were raised and weaned -- myself included, having grown up in the 1960s -- but the setting and time period gave that whole sequence a sort of cliched quality to it, since we ALL know what the '50s were like, right? (Stereotypes, anyone?)

I realize I'm writing this right after seeing the movie, and I'm still pissed that I got sucked in to watch the whole thing (I was stunned into continuing to watch it, hoping against hope for an actual story with characters I'd care about, but frankly, I never really did).... This clouds this post. I admit that.

But seriously, I feel as if I'm the whistle-blower in The Emperor's New Clothes.

Once a movie's STORY becomes this inaccessible and ceases to be an actual story, it's lost me. The parts with actual people and characters was so small, insignificant, and unmoving that it mostly irked me. Bravo, Malick! Your point that we're insignificant was so well played that I didn't give a rip about these people. Why should I? They're only a blip on the huge radar screen of the history of mankind.

Do we have a graphic for a single kernel of popcorn? Preferrably the one that didn't pop right?

__________________
Linda's Author Website
Linda's Amazon Author page

I didn't hate the film at all, but I'm used to what Malick can do, although this goes far overboard from anything else he has done in an abstract way. Even so, I believe it's worth watching for people to make up their own minds with the caveat that if you don't like "plotless" or self-important movies then you should steer clear. However, all the reasons you loathe it are the same onesfor which it was lauded and why some love it so much. People go to movies for different reasons, now more than ever. Some very smart MoFos don't like conventional films and hate those in English even more, so maybe Malick was trying to make a non-English-language film by having so little dialogue. Even so, I plan on rewatching it again because I know I missed some things.

Also, I realize that you seem to have problems with 2001 but the only similarities I find with the films are that they cover an enormous length of history. Kubrick's film is told chronologically, has a plot and makes sense, at least to me. Malick's is more open to multiple explanations because it's more difficult to grasp its intentions than what you or I may seem to think. If you believe they also share boredom, that's your opinion, but that's exactly what it is.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

I don't have problems with Kubrick but Malick and this movie I did

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

Yes, precisely. I didn't mind 2001 very much at all, although I think I was far too young the first time I saw it. I've rewatched it in recent years (more than once) and I really "get" stuff I just didn't get when I was a teenager watching it (back when the most awesome filmmaker to me was Mel Brooks, ha ha).

There is definitely a plot and characters and a story arc in 2001 that all seem to be missing from The Tree of Life. Malick's human story elements were trite and dull to me, and they only seemed more so when juxtaposed with the gargantuan, epic shots of the entire history of creation. The juxtaposition didn't make humanity seem insignificant to me in the way Malick must have intended: It just made these particular characters seem shallow and irksome and their story uninteresting.

Malick should have found a way to make that general point about humanity without actually boring his audience in the process. My two cents ... which, with another five bucks, will get you a decent cup of coffee.

I don't think that Malick was trying to address the origins of our planet. There's two types of viewers here... those of us who watched the film, reminisced about our own childhood a bit and wept... and then those who saw dinosaurs and questioned the filmmaker's intent.

The Tree of Life is one of the worst movies ever made. Tarkovsky would spit on it if he were alive. Also, the comparisons between The Tree of Life and 2001 make no sense at all, these two movies are completely different beside the use of long takes, attempts of "epicness" and the use of grandiose classical music as soundtrack.

Totally brilliant film. Loss of innocence, emergence and development of empathy, ultimately ending with the barest implication of wisdom's beginning... and a glimpse into the sublimest connection of all.

__________________
#31 on SC's Top 100 Mofos list!!

Then he'd be an unsanitary jerk.

I wouldn't be so sure.

__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.

This film left me cold. It is very ambitious and I don't hate it. But i certainly don't love it and frankly I thought it was a waste of time. I loved the creation of earth sequence, but it's nowhere near as fantastic and thought provoking as 2001. Meh

Andrei Tarkovsky uses this forum!?!?

But really. To call The Tree of Life one of the worst films of all time is to completely deny that the film, while maybe not successful for you, attempts a unique and very cinematic vision. Whether you agree with any of the content or not, it's something very cinematic and untranslatable into another medium. Remember, "Cinema is a matter of what's inside the frame, and what's out" - Martin Scorsese. Malick's film founds itself on the concept of making logical connections due to the way that shots are edited and composed, and sometimes emotional ones. The Tree of Life is at least a film, with a comprehensive understanding and experimental approach to the medium. You can't deny that there are a massive number of films that are much less cinematic, or have a lack of understanding of how to shoot and edit a movie. Regardless of content, unlike a great number of films released today, it is a film.

__________________
Mubi

Nope, he "posted" these thoughts in his book Sculpting In Time.

His book? Sounds like a hipster.

Disgusting, i was almost sick, possibly the most pretentious self - absorbed film ever made

Bluedeed I understand what your saying, it is A film and has cinematic quality, but that's all, in a way it makes me dislike it more, save for the big bang sequence (shoulda just been that)

I now feel slightly nauseus just from recalling this film.

@dvd 29 I agree with you man. It left a bad taste in my mouth. Other than the beautiful photography the movie is pretty empty. Almost Completely hollow. It's not a bad movie,but it was a drag to watch, that's for sure.

Sad to see so many people hated the film, disappointed with the amount of comments in here from people who fail to even appreciate the film on at least one level and give it totally undeserved ratings. For me, this is a great film, when I first watched it I appreciated it more than flat out enjoying it, but another viewing I enjoyed it's beauty much more, it's a powerful and moving film that I think in many years to come may be regard in a true masterpiece

__________________

Thanks NBAluke nice to know not just me., yes so empty, they tried too much and failed, theres something called subtlety the makers of that film no nothing of, eugh i hated it, never again, even if i sense something remotly similiar i,ll back away, so very pretentious

Would you feel that the film was less pretentious and more subtle if not for the creation of the universe and birth of consciousness parts?

Ive been thinking about this and the films not that fresh in my mind but id say NO the creation parts were good, the big bang part felt like a film within a film, it is all the rest thats pretentious, theres only so many time you want to see a close up of a hand brushing someones cheek, and the whole feel of the film felt remote and far away and sombre, it didnt touch me in any way, like it so desperatly wanted to.