The Tree of Life (2011)

[hawaii sun]

How does this compare to The New World?

[dr_vasanth]

Originally Posted by Carl Elvis

Horrible horrible movie, I can't stress it enough. Complete waste of time, there is no real story or plot, just a mesh of pretty and strange imagery. If you like going to museums and trying to figure out meaning in abstract paintings then this is the movie for you.

This is exactly what I heard from one of my close friends whose opinion I trust. I had given it a pass, previously..Maybe, if it is super-cheap in a Thanksgiving sale or something, I'll think about picking this one up.

[mlittle3]

Originally Posted by Snicket

Malick's films are not for everyone that's for sure. But its certified fresh at RT with 85%, so calling it "horrable" is a bit out of line, but that's your opinion and your welcome to it.

RT scores mean nothing. They gave that crappy final HP movie the same score as many classic films. They have no credibility and are a laughing stock now.

[42041]

Originally Posted by mlittle3

RT scores mean nothing. They gave that crappy final HP movie the same score as many classic films. They have no credibility and are a laughing stock now.

They don't agree with your opinion on a movie and now they're a "laughing stock"? Get over yourself

If you don't enjoy films without a conventional narrative structure, skip Tree of Life. But in my opinion, for a so-called arthouse film it's very accessible.

[Snicket]

Originally Posted by mlittle3

RT scores mean nothing. They gave that crappy final HP movie the same score as many classic films. They have no credibility and are a laughing stock now.

To you perhaps. But "laughing stock" and "have no credibility" is just your opinion.

[double_l4488]

Originally Posted by Snicket

Malick's films are not for everyone that's for sure. But its certified fresh at RT with 85%, so calling it "horrable" is a bit out of line, but that's your opinion and your welcome to it.

It also won best picture at the Cannes Film Festival. Its very intresting, and worth a watch. The ending though.

[lemonski]

Originally Posted by Carl Elvis

Horrible horrible movie, I can't stress it enough. Complete waste of time, there is no real story or plot, just a mesh of pretty and strange imagery. If you like going to museums and trying to figure out meaning in abstract paintings then this is the movie for you.

Of course there's a story...it's just told in a different way than Sucker Punch, Transformers and Watchmen.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by Carl Elvis

Horrible horrible movie, I can't stress it enough. Complete waste of time, there is no real story or plot, just a mesh of pretty and strange imagery. If you like going to museums and trying to figure out meaning in abstract paintings then this is the movie for you.

You write that like it's a bad thing.

Anyway, I loved the film. It's definitely Malick's most unique work to date and I suspect that depending on your life experience, you'll extract different things from it. I think most of the people who hated this film were expecting to see "the new Brad Pitt and Sean Penn movie", but when they realized that what they were watching didn't have the narrative structure that they were accustom to, they couldn't handle it. A decent number of people walked out of my theater right before the dinosaurs came. Part of me wanted to yell, "Hey bros, there are ****ing dinosaurs in this shit, don't miss out!" I'm sure that would have kept some of them in their seats for a little while longer, lol.

[Carl Elvis]

Originally Posted by lemonski

Of course there's a story...it's just told in a different way than Sucker Punch, Transformers and Watchmen.

Lol, don't let my Blu collection fool you, I watch all kinds of movies.

[Carl Elvis]

Originally Posted by Jinto

You write that like it's a bad thing.

Anyway, I loved the film. It's definitely Malick's most unique work to date and I suspect that depending on your life experience, you'll extract different things from it. I think most of the people who hated this film were expecting to see "the new Brad Pitt and Sean Penn movie", but when they realized that what they were watching didn't have the narrative structure that they were accustom to, they couldn't handle it. A decent number of people walked out of my theater right before the dinosaurs came. Part of me wanted to yell, "Hey bros, there are ****ing dinosaurs in this shit, don't miss out!" I'm sure that would have kept some of them in their seats for a little while longer, lol.

No it's not a bad thing, but I don't think it works for films.

[lemonski]

Originally Posted by Carl Elvis

Lol, don't let my Blu collection fool you, I watch all kinds of movies.

I'm sure you do...it doesn't make my statement any less true though.

I don't know what's so difficult about it, the basic "story" of Tree of Life is pretty simple to see. I'm sure there's a lot of obscure references in it that went way over my head, but to say it has "no real story or plot" or is "just a mesh of pretty and strange imagery" you'd either have to be exaggerating for effect, or just not be very bright.

I accept that it's not a movie for everyone, and you're entitled to think what you like about it, but the reasoning behind your opinion is pretty silly.

[Rich Pure Doom]

Originally Posted by Carl Elvis

No it's not a bad thing, but I don't think it works for films.

Opinions are based on perceptions and life experiences of the viewer. If a viewer listens to 4 minute songs his whole life, he will automatically see a 30 minute song as "pretentious". Likewise, a film like Tree of Life that bucks that traditional structure throws most minds for a loop used to the convention. Have fun placing conventions on films and living inside your box.

[Variable_Star]

Originally Posted by Rich Pure Doom

Opinions are based on perceptions and life experiences of the viewer. If a viewer listens to 4 minute songs his whole life, he will automatically see a 30 minute song as "pretentious".

There's a lot of truth to that, but there's also a thin line between 'meaningful' and 'pretentious' for most audiences. You're correct in that we all have our own set of preconceived notions about what a film should and should not be and that dictates what resonates with us and what does not. Still, it's entirely possible for one to dislike an otherwise critically-acclaimed, revered film on their personal reasoning alone. It's not necessarily because they found the film inscrutable or are more acclimated to explosion-ridden Michael Bay movies.

There's a great piece the NY Times ran a few months ago called "Eating Your Cultural Vegetables" that expands on this point.

[Carl Elvis]

Originally Posted by Rich Pure Doom

Opinions are based on perceptions and life experiences of the viewer. If a viewer listens to 4 minute songs his whole life, he will automatically see a 30 minute song as "pretentious". Likewise, a film like Tree of Life that bucks that traditional structure throws most minds for a loop used to the convention. Have fun placing conventions on films and living inside your box.

***SPOILER WARNING***

My problem was the lack of a clear theme. The film has the mother questioning god "why" after learning of her son's death-and we immediately see the creation of Earth and evolution unfold, which I took as the director saying, "Why? Because life is a series of random events, that's why," a secular message. But at the end we see the entire family being reunited in an afterlife. Throughout the film story lines begin that are never resolved. The audience is not watching a work of art, they are meant to be a participant in the creation of the film in their mind. While different, this type of filmmaking isn't superior. The director no longer has to struggle to sculpt a clear narrative.

[lemonski]

Originally Posted by Carl Elvis

***SPOILER WARNING***

Throughout the film story lines begin that are never resolved. The audience is not watching a work of art, they are meant to be a participant in the creation of the film in their mind. While different, this type of filmmaking isn't superior. The director no longer has to struggle to sculpt a clear narrative.

There's no stuctured narrative because Jack is recalling his brother and his childhoold from some point in the future, as a series of memories and incidents. Think about how your own memory of your childhoold works - it's not a nice story with lots of detail that goes from point A to point B, it's just a fuzzy set of loosely related memories that build a feeling of what your childhood was (more so as you get as old as Jack ).

Anyway, have a read of this deconstruction of Tree of Life

http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,2048....html#20970048

After reading it I realised how much of this movie went over my head...which is why people calling it pretentious just seems like they really mean "I don't understand it so I'll call it pretentious"

[Jinto]

The problem with audiences today is that they don't want to think when going to the movies. So, when watching a film that challenges them on an intellectual level and they don't get it, it's quickly labeled as pretentious art house trash. People don't want to admit that they hated something because they couldn't follow it, so it immediately becomes the filmmaker's fault for not doing a good job at delivering the theme. That's the problem with Hollywood spoon feeding the masses and telling them what to think and how to feel in almost all of their films.

What bothers me is that there seems to be a strong hatred for films that ask the viewer to think, yet absolute drivel like Transformers always get a pass under the guise of "fun". Now, there is nothing wrong with escapism. However when that's all that's out there, it's a problem. While there are some incredible indie films released every year, they never get the recognition that they deserve. It hurts my soul that shit like Pirates 4 makes all that money and The Tree of Life can't even get a widespread release. I know why it's that way, but it doesn't mean I have to like it.

[benbess]

Originally Posted by Jinto

The problem with audiences today is that they don't want to think when going to the movies. So, when watching a film that challenges them on an intellectual level and they don't get it, it's quickly labeled as pretentious art house trash. People don't want to admit that they hated something because they couldn't follow it, so it immediately becomes the filmmaker's fault for not doing a good job at delivering the theme. That's the problem with Hollywood spoon feeding the masses and telling them what to think and how to feel in almost all of their films.

What bothers me is that there seems to be a strong hatred for films that ask the viewer to think, yet absolute drivel like Transformers always get a pass under the guise of "fun". Now, there is nothing wrong with escapism. However when that's all that's out there, it's a problem. While there are some incredible indie films released every year, they never get the recognition that they deserve. It hurts my soul that shit like Pirates 4 makes all that money and The Tree of Life can't even get a widespread release. I know why it's that way, but it doesn't mean I have to like it.

+1!

Well said. I liked this film a lot.

[Snicket]

Originally Posted by Jinto

The problem with audiences today is that they don't want to think when going to the movies. So, when watching a film that challenges them on an intellectual level and they don't get it, it's quickly labeled as pretentious art house trash. People don't want to admit that they hated something because they couldn't follow it, so it immediately becomes the filmmaker's fault for not doing a good job at delivering the theme. That's the problem with Hollywood spoon feeding the masses and telling them what to think and how to feel in almost all of their films.

What bothers me is that there seems to be a strong hatred for films that ask the viewer to think, yet absolute drivel like Transformers always get a pass under the guise of "fun". Now, there is nothing wrong with escapism. However when that's all that's out there, it's a problem. While there are some incredible indie films released every year, they never get the recognition that they deserve. It hurts my soul that shit like Pirates 4 makes all that money and The Tree of Life can't even get a widespread release. I know why it's that way, but it doesn't mean I have to like it.

+1, you summed things up very nicely.

[SammyJankis]

Originally Posted by Jinto

The problem with audiences today is that they don't want to think when going to the movies. So, when watching a film that challenges them on an intellectual level and they don't get it, it's quickly labeled as pretentious art house trash. People don't want to admit that they hated something because they couldn't follow it, so it immediately becomes the filmmaker's fault for not doing a good job at delivering the theme. That's the problem with Hollywood spoon feeding the masses and telling them what to think and how to feel in almost all of their films.

What bothers me is that there seems to be a strong hatred for films that ask the viewer to think, yet absolute drivel like Transformers always get a pass under the guise of "fun". Now, there is nothing wrong with escapism. However when that's all that's out there, it's a problem. While there are some incredible indie films released every year, they never get the recognition that they deserve. It hurts my soul that shit like Pirates 4 makes all that money and The Tree of Life can't even get a widespread release. I know why it's that way, but it doesn't mean I have to like it.

[Riff Magnum]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

Is it weird that I find the "sitting in the car in silence with my gf" portion of this comment a million times more unsettling than the "Terrence Malick could film me pooping" portion of it?

If you've seen the movie, his comment wouldn't seem so weird methinks. I had a similar reaction afterwards.