The Tree of Life

All valid points, but i just can't help but love this film. It reminded me of 2001: A space Odyssey.

I'm afraid i would have to agree with you as well. The narrative is really bad. 2001 makes you think. This one is a brain-freeze.

This is one movie that i will never watch again.

I think Tree of Life had very much potential but the director messed it up big time. Would not be anything larger than life, but a very nice film. Now it is a complete mess that just makes you cringe when watching it. Shame.

Complete bantha fodder. I almost walked out of the theater.

__________________

Visually marvelous, Malick deserves a Best Director nomination at the very least, but it was somewhat boring. It was trying to be a poignant drama and a 2001 homage at the same time; that's not exactly a formula that guarantees success.

__________________
"Puns are the highest form of literature." -Alfred Hitchcock

I'd argue that a substantive film and/or one by a significant director is always worthy of a second look, even if that second look comes years down the line. Sometimes a movie that seemed unimpressive the first time will be better appreciated after a second or third screening, whereas a film that appeared impressive initially will fail to withstand the scrutiny of a second showing.

And I'd argue that The Tree of Life is quite thought-provoking as a subversive critique of the American Dream, especially as presented in the paradigmatic ideal of small town 1950s Americana (Texas, no less). The correlative and revisionist explorations of family, fatherhood, and masculinity are also intellectually challenging. In short, Malick probes and deconstructs the normative notions and nostalgia that we usually take for granted in this society and culture, yet he avoids demonization or caricature. The film may be problematic in certain respects, but both aesthetically and thematically, The Tree of Life proves vivid and resonant.

See, I really didn't get that Warren. I thought while watching the film, that some of those things you mentioned are some of the things I may be "supposed to be thinking about", but the film was so vague and garbled that I just couldn't be bothered to dig too deeply.

Your point about second looks is valid, of course, but not always a winner either. I've tried more than once to re-visit films I dislike (Citizen Kane in particular) and most of the time I still struggle. Sometimes a first impression is a good one, I reckon. Not to dismiss your idea entirely. There have been some that I've found respect for and even come to enjoy.

__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...

... you mean, "makes me cringe." Malick did not shoot and structure the film in a way that would be amenable or pleasing to mass audiences (especially in Hollywood-conditioned America), but then he never intended to do so, either.

Ironically, Citizen Kane constitutes one of those movies that I failed to warm to upon my initial viewing, but that I then found amazing with a second screening.

With The Tree of Life, I suspect that the film lost or numbed you early and you never "recovered," so to speak. Malick took that risk with his unorthodox photographic and editing choices and his temporal and lyrical approach to narrative, but he arguably created a memorable movie as a result. Obviously, the operative word is "arguably."

I enjoyed the creation-of-the-planet and development-of-life-on-earth scenes and sequences early in the film. Not only were they visually gorgeous, mesmerizing, abstractly curious, and ironically poignant, but they helped set the tone for many of the film's meditations: fate and fatalism, the fragility of life, the primacy of nature and the primal nature that informs human behavior, and the smallness of humanity amidst the universe's and planet's grand continuum of time, space, and living organisms. I felt less positive, however, about Malick's laborious return to this type imagery late in the film, after the narrative proper concludes. Perhaps I'll prove more appreciative upon a second viewing and I understand the attraction of circular construction, but I felt that Malick had already made the point and he didn't need to return to it so excessively. In doing so, he may have disrupted the film's momentum and coda, but one may also be inclined to grant him more leeway because throughout the film, he has been challenging artistic boundaries or conventions.

I feel that the connections to 2001 are rather superficial. In The Tree of Life, humanity is central to the film's concerns, as opposed to constituting some gratuitously sentimental addendum. Yes, Malick utilizes (perhaps indulges) in abstract and cosmic imagery reminiscent of 2001, but for a very different purpose.

Wish I could say the same. I've sat through Citizen Kane three times now and I get colder after every viewing. Sometimes guys just make movies for themselves and could care less if anyone "gets" it. Did Malick do that here? Maybe. Probably. I don't really care. I may try to watch this again someday, but I gotta be honest. There's just too many movies I want to watch out there and to force myself to sit through a film again that I already really don't like just seems totally pointless.

... probably. Some filmmakers are inherently that way, and in those cases, the inclination would likely be even stronger in their senior years. Since I'm planning on jumping into the J. Edgar thread later in the day, here's a relevant quotation.

Film

The Films Are for Him. Got That?

By BRUCE HEADLAM
Published: December 10, 2008

CARMEL, Calif. ... He claims not to care deeply about awards. When asked whom he makes films for, Mr. Eastwood said, “You’re looking at him.” ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/14/movies/14head.html?pagewanted=all

With Malick, meanwhile, the answer probably doesn't need articulation.

I think that the images and questions are obliquely relevant and resonant, largely for the themes that I cited in post #50. But Malick's idiosyncratic manner in this film manages to be both stylized and naturalistic, abstract and phenomenological, objective and intimate, sentimental and detached. These impulses aren't necessarily contradictory, but they don't conventionally occupy the same space, thus alienating many viewers. Yet although I don't know if The Tree of Life is a "masterpiece" or "great" or whatever, I do find it memorable, both intellectually and viscerally. It fails to fade as readily as most movies.

Almost a great movie. Two beers for me.
Verdict: The Tree of Life is definitely a film of its own accord and will draw you in whether you understand it or not. The performances are great, the directing is unique, and the visuals are astounding. It may not be your cup of tea if films that don’t follow the typical linear storytelling method aren’t your thing, but it’s a film that’s worth seeing and contemplating your own beliefs with.

I don't know about you guys, but I was thoroughly enthralled the whole way through! I really don't quite get how this movie was boring. Like, I was getting constant shivers, leaning forward in my seat, just captivated.

I'm a major sucker for high-quality cinematography, and this had some of the best ever. Maybe that's why I was crazy for this. I was also addicted to sifting through the philosophical/religious imagery and figuring out exactly what Malick was trying to say.

Second viewing was equally awesome.

Had to really force myself to watch this to the end

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

There have been a lot of adjectives used to vouch for this movie's genius, but I'm not convinced. Or maybe they too are over my head.

Must be over mine too Maybe its one of those movies that gets better the more times you see it

I thought I was out there all by my lonesome in giving this one a couple of stars.

I always wanted to grasp the meaning of self-indulgence as used by Simon Cowell on American Idol. This movie was self-indulgent. I felt like I was cornered at my auntie's house and forced to look at photographs of an old vacation.

Malik tried to carry us along as he figured out the two ultimate questions, "Where do we come from?" and "Does life have a purpose?". Using well known internet photography and familiar sound scapes. Malik wasted a considerable chunk of my time trying to answer questions, when I have gotten the answer from Jehovah's Witnesses with less pain.

I have no problem with minimalism. I love movies that direct your imagination and let you fill in the blanks. But Malik took minimalism far beyond where he needed to go. If it was my job to do that much work constructing a movie, I could have done that at home without buying a ticket to this movie.

A far better minimalist movie that did achieve answering "Where do we come from?" and "Does life have a purpose?", while throwing in "Is there true forgiveness in this world?" would be ANOTHER EARTH, written by and starring Britt Marling. Albeit low budget, this movie was much more captivating (yes, the Science was awkward, but I forgave them).

I do not get all the HIGH BROW fawning over The Tree Of Life. I just don't.

Help me please!

Grade: B-[/quote]
I have to get use to this web space.

I did not get that the son who died was the second son. Nor did I get that he died in Viet Nam. I could have missed that through the confusion. However, it appeared to me that the death was a suicide and "which son die" was left open. Am I alone in this thinking?