-A- New World? WTF?

How "religious" is this film? I'm kind of concerned about enjoying it if it's terribly religious.

There are references to Christianity, but they feel more...archaeological, as if Malick had to touch on the church in probing his Southern upbringing. The film itself suggests more of a spiritual presence, a sense of grace coursing through nature and humans and history and the future. Similar to Pocahontas addressing "Mother" in The New World or the Jim Caviezel character's new outlook in The Thin Red Line.

It's not a preachy Fireproof type experience, obviously.

I would call the film spiritual, not religious.

I was just scared by threads on IMDB titled:

The most brilliant Christian movie ever! (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0478304/boa ... 814479?p=1)

and

Inspiration for a new generation of religious film-making? (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0478304/boa ... /183816927)

nice flickr account

It's undeniably beautiful and poetic, but I almost found it too... abstract? Malick has always operated on a level beyond that of conventional narrative cinema, of course, but all his films still told a story. This one is more concerned with moods and thoughts and feelings. Which is fine, but I would've preferred more of a narrative arc (however loose or skeletal) connecting it all together. Even 2001, which this has been oft-compared to, has a definite forward narrative.

But still, it's hard to deny the raw power and craft on display here. The creation sequence is undoubtedly the highlight, but there are a lot of terrific moments sprinkled throughout. The giant in the attic (albeit rather Lynchian), Pitt blowing up at the dinner table, Chastain dancing in the wind. Though I wasn't as fond of the Penn section, it had its moments, although "everyone meets up on the beach/in heaven" wasn't one of them. A little too concrete and obvious for this film. I think the picture could've ended 15 minutes earlier and worked even better.

I'll have to see it again to confirm my thoughts, but for now, it's probably my favourite film of the year.

Purposefully obtuse and ludicrously self indulgent - - a pathetic misfire for Malick.


0 out of 5.


(I pray I never have to see The Tree of Life ever again.)


--------------------------------------------------------------------

Cue the mindless throngs of sycophants...

I don't care about the money, I want my 139 minutes back!

As people on other sites have pointed out, it's hilarious they used the word "auteur" on a note of that kind.

I don't understand how anyone can leave during the history-of-the-universe sequence. Though I'd still call them cunts, it'd be easier to understand if they left during the big a-year-in-the-life-of-the-O'Briens segment. Who leaves during the volcanoes and dinosaurs? "What?! An epic scene with DINOSAURS? My first instinct is to leave the theatre." Huh?

I'm not catching the hilarity.

"Auteur" doesn't seem out of place on a note from an art house cinema.

That it'd have any meaning to people who are gonna walk out of The Tree of Life cuz it's, like, sooooooo weird.

And the way the note is obviously written in sort of a subtly haughty, you-silly-fucks-won't-get-any-refunds kind of way.

It's a funny note.

Being a sucker for well-made visuals, I had an excellent time experiencing all those space shots and nature sequences. What kept it from being perfect for me though is the lack of deep affection for the characters despite their fine performances. I wasn't emotionally connected with the beach scene as well. Still, it was all in all a dazzling experience in the theater and the film would probably grow on me after repeat viewings.

B+

I loved everything about it. The visuals, the performances, the cinematography, and the raw emotion that came out of every shot.

I can't wait to see it 4-5 more times.

After watching it again, the ending coda feels terribly out of place. I'm not sure what Malick was going for, exactly (but does anyone, really?), but it's far too heavy-handed for such a delicate film.

Still, though, this is a masterful work.

It was probably personal reconciliation. The film does hit you harder on a second viewing.

TREE OF LIFE

I counted 11 walkouts and overheard uninterested thoughts by filmgoers after the film.

The whole sequence of what I assume was the beginning of the our galaxy and then earth was a bit interesting but blending it with the human story was beyond me. I actually did enjoy some of the family scenes but everything was so all over the place there wasn't much flow to it. I just didn't get it if there was something to be understood, so in the end I admit I left unsatisfied, bored and like it was a waste of 2 hours tbch.

Grade - D

I'm glad to see someone else actually got it.

Bradley Witherberry + nghtvsn: a match made in heaven.

Creationists, perhaps?

Pretty and sprawling, the film at times feels like a montage of a much longer film. Dialogue and and a traditional three-act structure are exchanged for a steady stream-of-consciousness flow of gorgeous imagery, with the movie's themes overpowering its characters. It unfolds as an idealized interpretation of how one might imagine the past.. Sure the family feels like a real emotional unit, but the star is not the actors but Lubezki's dynamic and restless camera. The Tree of Life 's themes might be too spiritual (a euphemism for religious) for some and too circuitous for others. The sojourn to the stars and our fossil history was a rather rich, almost overwhelmingly magnanimous sequence.

Lofty as the music, imgery, and ideas may be, I'm not afraid to celebrate The Tree of Life as profound and occasionally sublime.

Mind = blown

The film's main core is a good 2.5 star (B) movie, but the 30-minute beginning nonsense and then the stuff at the end wanted me to just beat the shit out of Malick. Those sequences just screamed of "Hey bitches look at what I'm doing, this should get an Oscar right? I mean I think this is fuckin' amazing!" It was so pretentious and other films this year took techniques that he used (long silences for example which Drive does a much better job working with) and used them to a tolerable degree. There was also no need for those scenes. The acting is good but there is nothing Oscar-winning in there though Pitt is impressive. Whatever. *1/2

It's a bit ridiculous, regardless of your general feelings, to suggest any of this equates to, "Hey bitches look at what I'm doing, this should get an Oscar right?"