Tree Of Life (2011)

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by Cinemach

If you've been burned by Malick - and by that I'm going to assume you mean The Thin Red Line and/or The New World - if you didn't like those movies, then chances are high you will not like Tree of Life and it's smart to skip the premium theatrical experience and wait for video if you're so inclined.

I see your points about the technical aspects of Malick's films, and I agree with them. He obviously has talent for what he does, has a distinct vision, and his films are quite ambitious. I commend him for that, and really for being able to fully commit to that throughout his career in a way most filmmakers have not been able to.

I don't think that comes across the best way in his movies, however; and it's your point on 'maybe he shouldn't be a director' where this is salient. I feel that if he had made more films then the problems that I, and others, have with his films would be eradicated, reduced, or at least addressed: incredible redundancies, tangents that go nowhere, and too many esoteric dashes - some refer to it as visual poetry, but for me these tropes as employed by Malick just take me out of the picture.

There's a reason that Days of Heaven is the only film of his that I've seen that I recommend to people, even if it is to me kinda flawed (the narration): and it's not just because it's one of the most beautifully-filmed pictures of all time. It's because there's none of the 'fat' in it that takes me out of the movie in his other pictures. I have not seen Badlands, but I have the sense that it's of the same ilk in that regard.

It actually sounds like he's just finished production on one movie (with Ben Afleck and Rachel McAdams) and is starting production on another; so perhaps getting in the swing of things will see him addressing some of these issues. Or maybe not, they're his movies.

For the record, I'm a big fan of Lynch, Antonioni, Fellini, Kubrick and Bergman films.

Interesting how Days of Heaven is easily my favorite Malick film and one of my favs from any director. Its beautifully shot, beautifully directed and yet it has a coherent plot and story to tell us. That was my first Malick film and I was like "Damn - this guy has it going on!". Then, as you mentioned, I got b!tchslapped with New World and Thin RedLine which irritated me like no films ever had. I was so disappointed.... and bored to tears with both of them. New World is probably in my top 5 most unwatchable films ever.

Good points in your reply. The visual poetry has a limit to its usefullness.

Bergman is another one where Ive been both happy and let down depending on the film. I guess thats OK though - NO director has hit after hit after hit. They might financially but the great films are great because most others dont reach such heights.

[OrlandoEastwood]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

Get used to the "Go watch Transformers" line around here - its the "go to" card for the professional film watchers.

Seriously - Malicks films, much like Lynch or Kubrick, are love-hate deals. I've only sen a couple Malick films I like and cant stand the others. I love Kubrick & Lynch but even they put out a few stinkers from time to time.

Ive yet to see Tree Of Life but theres a good chance Ill skip it. I just dont think its my kind of thing and Ive been burned by Malick a few too many times. The guy has wicked talent behind the camera, does come up with some interesting concepts, and undertands the technical aspects of film-making. However, he cant really direct and for goodness sakes the guy doesnt understand pacing and has a tough time telling us a coherent story.

He should be a cinematographer or a director of photography.

I've stated my disgust towards the Transformers movies. I can't stand those movies at all. I don't blame Michael Bay, I just blame the design of the robots in those films. Most of the time I cannot tell which of those robots is which and in the second film those damn giant robot testicles. Ugh...

I like Kubrick and Lynch. At least you can easily follow their films. They are coherent films as big as WTF some of Lynch's films are. Sure, I prefer The Shining and Clockwork Orange over 2001, that's my taste. Lynch, I liked Lost Highway and felt Inland Empire was enjoyable.

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by OrlandoEastwood

I've stated my disgust towards the Transformers movies. I can't stand those movies at all. I don't blame Michael Bay, I just blame the design of the robots in those films. Most of the time I cannot tell which of those robots is which and in the second film those damn giant robot testicles. Ugh...

I like Kubrick and Lynch. At least you can easily follow their films. They are coherent films as big as WTF some of Lynch's films are. Sure, I prefer The Shining and Clockwork Orange over 2001, that's my taste. Lynch, I liked Lost Highway and felt Inland Empire was enjoyable.

Thats cool - I was just pointing out that you will get told to go watch them if you dont fall for the artsy, plotless films.

Yes, Kubrick and Lynch films arent quite as "tricky" as they seem. Its all usually right there - but not in the most straightforward way.

[Riff Magnum]

This movie was sent from Heaven. Goddamn beautiful!!

[expatCanuck]

Originally Posted by OrlandoEastwood

Because the main thing that was stressed to me in my four years of film classes was that story is key and to have your audience kept interested.

Originally Posted by Col. Zombie

I'm guessing Terrence Malick did what he does best? Bore the s*** out of the audience?

Originally Posted by s2mikey

The guy has wicked talent behind the camera, does come up with some interesting concepts, and undertands the technical aspects of film-making. However, he cant really direct and for goodness sakes the guy doesnt understand pacing and has a tough time telling us a coherent story.

He should be a cinematographer or a director of photography.

Originally Posted by Cinemach

If you've been burned by Malick ... it's smart to skip the premium theatrical experience and wait for video if you're so inclined.

For the record, I'm a big fan of Lynch, Antonioni, Fellini, Kubrick and Bergman films.

I think I fall in with these folks.
(Tho' I'd suggest to Cinemach that what there is to enjoy of this film is best enjoyed in a theatre.)

ToL had some remarkable cinematography but, overall, the film struck me as disjointed
to the point of distraction, unfocused, and self-indulgent art-house-to-the-max --
so much so that any cinematographic beauty was rendered academic. I also thought
that some of the cinematography was over the top.

Previously, my least enjoyable cinematic experiences were Camille Claudel and
A Song for Martin (lengthy French & Swedish angst, respectively). But at least
they were coherent, & told a good story.

I'll add that I had no knowledge of Malick's work prior to seeing the film.
In my 50+ years, I've developed strong preferences. I enjoy beautiful scenery /
cinematography, intelligent, witty dialogue, action & even some horror. I prefer
light to dark, but can appreciate a well-told tragic drama.

I've enjoyed some Lynch, Fellini & Kubrick films. (I don't believe I've seen
a Bergman or Antonioni film.)

All that said -- for me, ToL was simply the nastiest film experience of my life.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by expatCanuck

I'll add that I had no knowledge of Malick's work prior to seeing the film.

All that said -- for me, ToL was simply the nastiest film experience of my life.

I see in your collection that you dont avoid slow paced "thinking" Movies. So your dislike for this must be based on the obsessive Malick centric meandering.

I strongly recommend you stay far away from "The Thin Red Line" and "The New World".

"Badlands" and "Days of Heaven" are a lot more traditional in their storytelling style and MAY be something you would enjoy.

[BluVinyl]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

I see in your collection that you dont avoid slow paced "thinking" Movies. So your dislike for this must be based on the obsessive Malick centric meandering.

I strongly recommend you stay far away from "The Thin Red Line" and "The New World".

"Badlands" and "Days of Heaven" are a lot more traditional in their storytelling style and MAY be something you would enjoy.

I wouldn't agree with your recommendation on The Thin Red Line and The New World. I really enjoyed Thin Red Line and New World. But I still found Tree of Life too disjointed a story. In TRL and NW he didn't try and cover the beginning of the universe and dinosaurs. I think TOL could have good/great by staying within the lifetimes of the characters and exploring that timeframe more.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by BluVinyl

I wouldn't agree with your recommendation on The Thin Red Line and The New World. I really enjoyed Thin Red Line and New World. But I still found Tree of Life too disjointed a story. In TRL and NW he didn't try and cover the beginning of the universe and dinosaurs. I think TOL could have good/great by staying within the lifetimes of the characters and exploring that timeframe more.

Wow. I thought I was pretty safe with that "Heads up". I guess not.

Well then I'll leave it to him to roll the dice. Maybe he'll enjoy them as well.

[expatCanuck]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

So your dislike for this must be based on the obsessive Malick centric meandering.

Yep. The lack of coherent story / character development resulted in me
really not caring about what was going on. in the film.

Again, some delightful images/cinematography, but the end result struck me
as 'undisciplined' at best. And I know from the post-movie comments of
my fellow theatre-goers that I wasn't alone in my thinking.

I think it's fair, even desirable, to challenge the viewer, but the film-maker
should provide a quid pro quo. I don't think that ToL provided that.

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

I strongly recommend you stay far away from "The Thin Red Line" and "The New World".

"Badlands" and "Days of Heaven" are a lot more traditional in their storytelling style and MAY be something you would enjoy.

Originally Posted by BluVinyl

I wouldn't agree with your recommendation on The Thin Red Line and The New World. I really enjoyed Thin Red Line and New World. But I still found Tree of Life too disjointed ...

Is Days of Heaven considered to be Malick's most 'traditional' film?

[Romulus]

I've heard that Badlands is his most traditional. But it's Terrence Malick, I don't think you can apply the term "traditional" to any of his works they way you want to.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Romulus

I've heard that Badlands is his most traditional. But it's Terrence Malick, I don't think you can apply the term "traditional" to any of his works they way you want to.

I think we can as far as storytelling. Both are told in a linear and straight forward fashion. Their pacing and cinematography are very Malick though.

[BluVinyl]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Wow. I thought I was pretty safe with that "Heads up". I guess not.

Well then I'll leave it to him to roll the dice. Maybe he'll enjoy them as well.

Well, if it turns out he hates them as well, I guess I get the nastygram.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by expatCanuck

Yep. The lack of coherent story / character development resulted in me
really not caring about what was going on. in the film.

Again, some delightful images/cinematography, but the end result struck me
as 'undisciplined' at best. And I know from the post-movie comments of
my fellow theatre-goers that I wasn't alone in my thinking.

I think it's fair, even desirable, to challenge the viewer, but the film-maker
should provide a quid pro quo. I don't think that ToL provided that.

Fellow theater-goers also rush out to see Fast Five and Transformers, and Twilight... but that doesn't necessarily make them better, or even "good" for that matter.

I found a coherent story to follow in ToL. And the way it was shot evoked memories, which aren't always linear and complete... it was done that way on purpose. They did follow a script, they weren't just out shooting for the hell of it.

[expatCanuck]

Originally Posted by retablo

Fellow theater-goers also rush out to see Fast Five and Transformers, and Twilight... but that doesn't necessarily make them better, or even "good" for that matter.

Agreed. But, almost uniformly, I'd wager that folks are getting what they bargain for
when they go to see those films.

Originally Posted by retablo

I found a coherent story to follow in ToL.

Good on ya!
Perhaps one is there ... but I stopped caring about a third of the way into the film.
I just wanted it to be over ... in a big way.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by expatCanuck

Agreed. But, almost uniformly, I'd wager that folks are getting what they bargain for
when they go to see those films.

Not sure how you don't get what you bargain for in ToL. If you saw the trailer, it didn't mispresent the film in any way, or make it out to be something that it's not.

But again, whether you "get" what you bargain for or not, still doesn't make a movie "good", no more than saying it's good just because it's popular and makes a lot of money. The movies that make the most money are typically the ones dumed down for mass consumption so they please everyone, but in the end have no original thought.

[expatCanuck]

Depends on how one defines 'good'. I suspect that reasonable people may agree to disagree.
Or not.

[Dubstar]

I maybe answering my own question here, but is the 2014 film

'Voyage of Time'

the rumoured IMAX cut of the additional footage Malick had shot for 'Tree of Life'

[*PREACHER*]

Just watched this on my DVR and WOW...what an amazing piece of cinema!!!

[Show spoiler]My wife on the other hand wanted her 2 1/2 hours back...

[Scottie]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

I maybe answering my own question here, but is the 2014 film

'Voyage of Time'

the rumoured IMAX cut of the additional footage Malick had shot for 'Tree of Life'

That would certainly be neat!

[Bluyoda]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

Thats cool - I was just pointing out that you will get told to go watch them if you dont fall for the artsy, plotless films.

Yes, Kubrick and Lynch films arent quite as "tricky" as they seem. Its all usually right there - but not in the most straightforward way.

I really don't get you guys.

There is not a singly "plotless" Terrence Malick film.

They are just different from your regular flicks, and that's SO refreshing!

They are unique masterpieces, but if it's not your cup of tea, fine.

I know that Malick films aren't for everyone. It would be strange if they were.

They are very rich in plot, and incredibly meaningful in so many ways.

If you can't see that. Well, too bad, but it won't do your reputation any good calling them artsy, plotless films, because they are just absolutely HONEST.

That's one of the things I love about his films. He just lets his heart speak.

Michael Bay does his thing, Malick does his. They are all very different, but they are honest, and I respect that.

Cheers.