I think of Malick the way Cézanne thought of Ingres:

Malick is not interested in the viewers of his films, thus I am not interested in the filmmaker Malick.

This will be the last film of his I saw in theatres.

Is it that bad?

Kind of, yes. Self-indulent beyond any decency. Malick's attempt at self-therapy.

I mean Malick together with Lubezki can make even a swewer or a construction site look GORGEOUS. Also, as Magnus has already said, McAdams and particularly Kurylenko (wowow!) have never looked better on screen. But there is nothing behind this. And worst of all, it could have ended at any point and would have never seemed random. Could have ended up 30 minutes or after 70...it wouldn't have mattered.

There was one scene at which an entire row of critics got up and went out. (Magnus can try to guess which)

Kurylenko easily comes out on top, though.

Oh and another thing with this film. It never conveys how on earth these two women could fall so much for Ben Affleck's character...




After 15 minutes a friend sitting next to me asked, whether Ben Affleck got no speaking role in the film...

I don't appreciate randomness for the sake of randomness. Knowing Malick, in the original cut the actress probably had the leading role

And Jessica Chastain and Michael Sheen and Amanda Peet and Barry Pepper...

How did Affleck do?

Hard to tell. Not that good, I suppose, but he also had nothing to work with. He says maybe 20 words in the whole film.

I love Rachel McAdams and Ben Affleck but I don't know if I plan on seeing this. The word is just too mixed and I found Tree Of Life to be a mixed bag to begin with (I loved the Pitt/Chastain scenes - HATED the Penn scenes and the first 40 minutes).

I need to note here that I actually loved The Tree of Life...

That's exactly how I felt about Tree of Life. Almost shut it off. But before I'd reached that point it started to get good. Starts bad, ends bad, but the middle was great. To The Wonder sounds like crap though and looks like Tree of Life 2.0. I love McAdams, so maybe I'll just watch her scenes on YouTube someday, but there doesn't seem to be anything worthwhile here outside of gorgeous cinematography.

I respect the fact it is a very ambitious and distinctive film exploring a range of big themes and topics, including Catholicism, heartache, and the environment, but I wish its fragmented and mystical blend of rhapsodic imagery (of France, of the American Midwest) and poetic whispering ("love that loves us") aroused more genuine feeling and thought. This is subjective, of course, but I found most of the film went in one ear and out the other, however beautiful on an aesthetic level. Despite the fact his character is more a peripheral tangent than a central concern, Javier Bardem is fantastic as a troubled priest no longer certain he believes in God. The scenes of him visiting marginalized people--the disabled, hospice patients, prison inmates--are by far the most moving and authentic to be found here.

B-

I actually liked this quite a bit more than I was expecting to after hearing all the negative buzz. Much like The Tree Of Life (which is overall a better movie) there were aspects of this I loved and aspects of it I absolutely hated. I almost wish that Terrence Malick would release versions of his films as they are originally intended in the script stage on DVD/Blu-ray at least. This one feels super choppy and it is clear that a lot was left on the cutting room floor. It also grows tiresome by the end in terms of the voiceover/nature shots/Olga's character twirling around fields (which she does a lot in this movie). Also small things about it started annoying me too - such as how none of the characters seemed to own any furniture. But I was actually pretty involved for a good portion of it, which surprised me. The cinematography is GORGEOUS as is the score, and for the most part the actors thrive when they are given material to work with. I thought the first 45 minutes or so were the best - I started losing interest after Rachel McAdams's abrupt exit. I also found Javier Bardem's character pointless. It's worth checking out at least once - though I feel like it could have been a much stronger, more effective film if Malick allowed for a bit more of an actual narrative. B-

I found the longing and searching of Bardem's character more interesting and moving than the lovers.

Malick partly fails him by turning it into such an anemic subplot, but I believe his acting is spot-on, and the idea--the melancholy of a priest in a foreign land as he endures a crisis of faith--is loaded with fascination and potential.

Yep.

If the movie had been centered on him, yes, it would have had potential.

But as a side plot it is just another of Malick's struggles with his own beliefs. Can't he just afford a therapist?

By the way, the Internet says:

Weisz played Neil's sister, who I believe is referenced at one point. Barry Pepper played another priest. Michael Sheen played Neil's boss (at the EPA?). Chastain played a woman with whom he has a brief fling (dude sure gets high-end tail for a sullen water tester living in rural Oklahoma).

Amanda Peet remains a mystery.

um... I hated this.

The first half hour or so was watchable, but when McAdams shows up and the film goes on (wtf @ Bardem's stuff) it was just really tedious to endure. Some good scenes and nice shots doesn't make up for the rest of the BS.

not to be, I dunno, predictable or whatever, but I'll give you one guess to how I felt about this film.

hint:

See, this is precisely the problem. "Cut scenes" that were cut for a reason.

I dunno, I thought they were just as effective without the future and past stuff of tree of life.

if the entirety of this movie were edited into the tree of life for a five hour spiritual journey, everyone would love it. I think. I dunno, I just didn't see any decrease in quality in any way from the tree of life...a lot of this was more powerful to me.

I think The Tree of Life was walking the very very fine line of pretentious bullshit and cinematic art, while managing to stay on the right side of it for most of the time. This one didn't.