• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

The Tree of Life (dir. Malick; Pitt, Penn)

Status
Not open for further replies.
big ander said:
Yeah, I honestly don't mind the existence of the pictures (I know a lot of people hate that they're publicizing it this way) but I don't feel it's necessary to post them here every day. Everyone who wants to see them knows where the blog is.
Click to expand...

Pretty much every single one is from the huge poster anyway. Just the hi-res versions of them. I also have no qualms if the pics put the film back in people's mind and the discussion keeps going. :)
 
I dont know if this was posted. Someone saw the movie and posted his experience. No spoilers. Although there is no proof that he actually saw it, the post was serious enough and discusses the movie in ample detail-

A little bit about my relationship with Malick, I loved everything he has done except for THE NEW WORLD, which after only seeing it once, I considered to be gorgeous, but confused in its message. Since then, I have seen that film two more times and feel I was wrong, I must have been in a different headspace when I fist saw it, but it's message is now very clear to me.

With TREE OF LIFE, you have a film that is tackling a very grand message: That forgiveness, compassion and kindness are linked with our evolution as a species. The film will rub some people the wrong way in its somewhat naive viewpoint. I, for one, saw the film in a very specific moment, where I myself was feeling naive and filled with optimism - the film captured me and I went with it and by the end of the screening me and my friend met in the parking lot of the studio and were crying, not from sadness, but from joy. And this wasn't just a film school nerd-out-session: No, the film touches on something very unpopular in modern films. It isn't ironic in it's melodrama, it is sincere and because of its earnestness it requires that you actually shed your hardened shell and give yourself to the film. For these reasons, it may garnish mixed reviews and befuddled reactions. But, rest assured, the film will be remembered as a masterpiece, I cannot overrate it enough because it sits with me as one of the best films ever made, here is my top ten, in no particular order, to (hopefully) legitimize my claim: DEEP END, MISHIMA, TAMPOPO, BLUE VELVET, EYES WIDE SHUT, THE TREE OF LIFE, DEAD RINGERS, SHERMAN'S MARCH, DON'T LOOK NOW & JAWS.

The film will be compared to 2001: A SPACE ODYSSY, for sure, and this has everything to do with an extended sequence that really catapults the film to another, mystical, level, and makes it an art film. The reasons for comparing it to 2001 are deeper than it having shots of planets and a very trippy sequence. No, the real reason the film is linked with 2001 is because on the origin of man sequence. In my opinion, what Kubrick argued in those opening moments, was that the foundation of life was built on violence and conquering the competition. Granted, you could argue that 2001 is Kubrick's most optimistic film, but there is a underlying message of inherent evil that looms over those monkeys. In TREE OF LIFE, you will find the exact opposite message, and yes, I am referring to this much talked about Dinosaur sequence. Without divulging too much about what happens, I can really only say that the way Malick views the dinosaurs is not as violent, but as animals capable of compassion and grace. I haven't even touched on Brad Pitt's amazing performance and a final moment of restrained acting on his part that will squeeze the hearts of even the coldest people. This scene is also about forgiveness.

Let me end on this: Around the time I saw this film I also had the displeasure of seeing KICK ASS. This was a horrible viewing experience for me and I found the film to be without any merit. Out of sheer boredom, I gazed around the theatre and something peculiar had caught my eye: A woman, in her mid thirties, was crying during the climatic scenes of KICK ASS. It was in this moment that I realized why something as gorgeous as TREE OF LIFE is going to have a hard time in the current market place. We do not value movies about love, we need ironic disconnect in order to feel safe. We're a society unwilling to love. Love admits need, foreshadows pain, and insists on vulnerability, and our culture privileges autonomy, prizes comfort, and idolizes disconnect. Modern audiences are not ready for this film, but that won't stop it's it from ascending the ranks of top tens lists, and I know it will hold a place in my heart forever.
Click to expand...

Cant wait!
 
nice! where is that from?

Also looks like Icon will release it May 4th - http://www.napiersnews.com/2011/04/exclusive-icon-confirm-theyll-release.html

tumblr_ljux6idtIM1qiotuao1_500.jpg


tumblr_ljuxfs9yX01qiotuao1_500.jpg
 
AlternativeUlster said:
My sources have told me that the
dino
was cut for the
mother dinosaur didn`t look motherly enough.
Haha.
Click to expand...
Seriously, or is that a joke?
 
That image is also getting me really excited for Discovery channel's upcoming "reign of the dinosaurs" series thing.
 
another screening impression:

First of all, This movie will be very polarizing, in the same way Antichrist was.

It's far less of a narrative story than I was expecting and more of a tone poem in the vein of Tarkovksy's work. Tonally, it feels a bit like the opening of 2001 with a tiny bit of Darren Aronofsky's The Fountain and a tiny bit of Benjamin Button. But at the same time, it is nothing like those. I really admire that this film got made considering who's involved. Plus, it's a f--king art film with CGI dinosaurs(!) I found it so audacious.

It's structure is also very unique. Near the start, it beautifully transitions into the beginning of time space scenes, dinosaurs, animals evolving into the animals we are today and perfectly weaves back into the story with Brad pitt and family. These scenes play out in a strangely jarring way which felt slightly hypnotic to me. as I said, it's more tone poem than straight forward narrative so it felt as if I was watching a collection of memories and/or small moments in their lives. Unfortunately, This also was a downside for me. It was as if I couldn't connect with any of the characters. There was a distance there. While im focusing on what I found problematic, I will say that the whispering multi narrators got a little tiresome after a while, crossing into self parody for Malick. What they say and how they say it will be a part of where the polarizing views will happen. Some will see that part as self important hogwash. My last problem is that of Sean Penn's character. He isn't in it as much as one would expect and hardly has a line of dialogue. He just vacantly stares while reflecting on his past with his father.

Maybe im missing a larger point here but I found the movie as a whole to be impenetrable in what exactly it's trying to say. And is 2.5 hours too much of an indulgence a director can give themselves to say it?

It is certainly something that I have been processing over the last couple nights and it has gotten better in my head, it's so unique that it thrown me off in having a clear opinion of it. I take that as a good sign. I can't wait to see it again.
Click to expand...
 
Terrence Malick's films are often described as tone poems, I believe, but it's never really been an apt descriptor of what he does. Really, his films are almost completely reliant on the development of characters and a pretty strong narrative, albeit one that builds itself visually rather than in dialog. That review basically just says that a lot of people are, on first viewing, going to miss the boat completely, as happened with pretty much every one of his other films, as well. The man's nearing seventy, these days, so just enjoy it; we likely won't get many more.
 
Snowman Prophet of Doom said:
Terrence Malick's films are often described as tone poems, I believe, but it's never really been an apt descriptor of what he does. Really, his films are almost completely reliant on the development of characters and a pretty strong narrative, albeit one that builds itself visually rather than in dialog. That review basically just says that a lot of people are, on first viewing, going to miss the boat completely, as happened with pretty much every one of his other films, as well. The man's nearing seventy, these days, so just enjoy it; we likely won't get many more.
Click to expand...

Damn, that hit me hard. ;__;

I don't want to be in a world without Malick.
 
Kraftwerk said:
Damn, that hit me hard. ;__;

I don't want to be in a world without Malick.
Click to expand...

If it's any consolation, he's already at work on his next film, so he may be upping his productivity in these later years to try and make up for lost time. That's my interpretation, anyway.

Still, he gave the world The Thin Red Line, one of the all-time great films. In a century, I think he'll be looked back on as one of the greatest early (i.e. first century) directors.
 
Snowman Prophet of Doom said:
If it's any consolation, he's already at work on his next film, so he may be upping his productivity in these later years to try and make up for lost time. That's my interpretation, anyway.

Still, he gave the world The Thin Red Line, one of the all-time great films. In a century, I think he'll be looked back on as one of the greatest early (i.e. first century) directors.
Click to expand...

Very True :)
 
icarus-daedelus said:
There is much dialog, but it's mostly internal and it's not the traditional type of descriptive narrative voiceover found so often in film; we get to know his characters by their thoughts and feelings as well as by the visual ideas expressed by the photography. I think it's a pretty brilliant technique myself, particularly in TTRL.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, of course. I just meant dialog in terms of "two characters talking to each other." He does have that, but you learn much more from the juxtaposition of the voiceover against the imagery and from the sorts of looks that people give each other. Hell, Days of Heaven would probably still be great if it were a silent film; the brilliant voiceover is just that little bit that bumps it up to god-tier.
 
&Divius said:
Is anyone else planning to rewatch all of Malick's film in anticipation of Tree of Life?
Click to expand...

Just rewatched New World and Thin Red Line. May catch theatrical showings of all his films at Moving Image here in NYC the week before ToL comes out.
 
This habit of mine has been going on for 2 months now.

On days that I'm off work, I'm lying down on my couch and reading a book while listening to classical music. My T.V is on, so is my bluray player, and I have a Terrence Malick movie playing on mute.

My friend called me a 'fucking snob' for this :)

It all works SO WELL. I'm focused on my book, and whenever I drift off I glance at the t.v and I'm met with an image of clouds, rolling green hills and a calm ocean.

Orgasmic.



Dreams-Visions said:
I am ashamed to admit I've never seen any of his films.

don't shoot me.
Click to expand...

Untitled2-4.jpg
 
some more details from the person that saw the film:
I'm a fan of Malicks other work, including The New World. What separates this one from that and his other works is the way the story is told. I'd say this is by far his most unconventional as far as story telling goes. It's heavily symbolic, fair few religious symbols too.
Click to expand...

Brad Pitt is excellent in it. But it's not a full-bodied lead performance worthy of an Oscar. It's more of a supporting Role to Sean Penn's character as a younger boy.
Click to expand...

regarding title sequence:
No title sequence. Opens with a bible quote
Click to expand...
It didn't go where my expectations wanted it to go so that gets in the way. And trying to process this thing after only one viewing doesn't help. I was left slightly cold by how minimal it is in terms of narrative. It slightly sags about 3/4's in as well. Why it's difficult to review is because it's certainly a movie that's more about the experience of seeing it. I was expecting to be emotionally overwhelmed, and to be honest I wasn't. But im hoping that it might be like the first time I saw L'Avventura. I was completely unsure of what to make of it but it has since grown to be one of my favorite films.
Click to expand...

It's not preachy but there's a clear religious subtext. I'm not religious and I wasn't offended by it so neither should you. There's mention of God, there's obvious religious symbols throughout like one
"walking on water"
shot.
Click to expand...

All the nature, universe, geology, etc stuff is
peppered throughout the entire thing but the main space sequence near the beginning of it goes for about 20 minutes.
It's gorgeous. There's sequences of
life forming, in dna spirals etc.
It looks amazing but I couldn't also help thinking about whether or not I should be cringing here. Malick treads a fine line. Any time a films comes off as trying to make a grand statement as this, it borders on being self important.
Click to expand...
 
I don't understand the hype behind malick. How can he make 2 films in the 70s and then when he returns 20 years later he has high profile actors begging to work with him?
 
Expendable. said:
Have you seen his films?
Click to expand...

No :/ I don't think I've ever seen red line or new world on TV, though I do plan on watching the former before watch this when it comes out next month
 
&Divius said:
Is anyone else planning to rewatch all of Malick's film in anticipation of Tree of Life?
Click to expand...
I've already re-watched days of heaven and thin red line recently, just need to do the same for badlands and the new world.
 
vehn said:
No :/ I don't think I've ever seen red line or new world on TV, though I do plan on watching the former before watch this when it comes out next month
Click to expand...

Watch 'em all! Doesn't take much time at all. I'd go in chronological order: Badlands -> Days of Heaven -> The Thin Red Line - > The New World.

Snuggler said:
will this be 3 or 4 hours long?
Click to expand...

2 hours and 18 minutes.
 
icarus-daedelus said:
Yeah, me too. In fact, I think I might have to put off that rewatch of Doomsday and do this right now. I feel bad because I've owned TNW extended cut on blu-ray for months now and never got all the way through it. :/
Click to expand...
Damn I'd kill to be on your couch right now.
 
icarus-daedelus said:
Naw, man, it's never to late to start. Well, there's the small matter of years-long gaps between most of them once you've gotten through his relatively tiny (but wonderful) filmography, but apparently that'll be rectified soon.
Click to expand...
what film do you guys recommend I start with?
 
Dreams-Visions said:
what film do you guys recommend I start with?
Click to expand...

I'd say Thin Red Line and then onto New World. And if you liked those go back to Days of Heaven.

But the rest will say start from Days of Heaven (or Badlands).

He's only made 4 films lol.
 
Dreams-Visions said:
what film do you guys recommend I start with?
Click to expand...

As Expendable said, I would start at the beginning. Badlands is definitely the most 'non-malicky' of the bunch. Once you see all of his works, you will know what it means. Still an amazing movie tho.

You have time. Take it slow and enjoy them all.
 
Blader5489 said:
Screening impressions make it sound as annoying as Malick's other films.
Click to expand...

Screening impressions make it sound as completely divine as Malick's other films, and likely to be as misunderstood and critically slandered for the first decade or so of its existence.

Seriously, you may not like Malick's other films (though I'd hold that they're objectively pretty fucking great), but annoying? I could at least see ponderous, or straining (even if both are utterly false descriptors of the man's work), but annoying? That reads like somebody describing Kubrick as sentimental to me.

Edit: Oh wait, you're the one who said something about being bothered by Jim Caviezel pouring water onto the plant. At least, that's all I really recall of your criticisms of the film. What was wrong with that, exactly?
 
Dreams-Visions said:
what film do you guys recommend I start with?
Click to expand...
Days of heaven is what i started with, and it turned me into a fan of his work.

In any case it doesn't really matter what film you start with, as unlike most directors, you are probably going go through his entire filmography in a relatively short time span.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Brad Pitt one of the best actors in cinema
2
98
3K
MayauMiao replied
What was the best year of your life (so far)?
2
68
1K
Toytown Assassin replied
What has been the worst year of your adult life?
47
780
Baemono replied
Hello cyberpunk2077 real life
6
88
Uberman77 replied
Roblox employee's 'day in the life' video goes viral
2
61
825
Boss Mog replied
Top Bottom