Tree of Life does look interesting, but 2001 bored me silly, and I finally gave up on it two hours in. Is it possible to say what Tree does well without spoilers?
Printable View
Here's the trailer from the invaluable IMDB.
http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi612735001/
It's somewhat difficult to describe. While I think that this film is relatable to everyone, I think that everyone will experience it slightly differently. I was not bored with 2001, so in all honesty, you may be bored with moments of this. On the other hand, this has a much more human story attached to the wonder and strangeness of the universe, and though it is long, it isn't as long as 2001. There is very little dialogue, but the actors deliver phenomenal performances.
There are scenes that take the viewer along the path of evolution. In high quality cinematography, with shots and effects that seem impossible to have captured for the screen. It is rich with a modern classical score. Unlike 2001, I felt deep empathy for all involved. It's a story of family, childhood, and the memories which become exaggerated in a child's mind. The emotion of it sneaks up on the viewer.
Just after the film I thought "Wow, that was a very agnostic movie, or even atheist," but Terrence Malick is Christian, and I could understand Christians taking the science of this story and calling it God. To sum up, this is a film about the earthling experience. I can't do it justice with my review.
From the director of "Badlands," "The Thin Red Line," and "The New World." If any of you should see it, drop me a line and let me know what you thought/felt.
Thanks to Neely for the trailer too. That's a pretty good trailer. The film is destined to be a classic. Movies like this are rarely made in this era of cheap garbage "art." I forgot to mention that it's so much about the importance of love, and the need for it to sustain us.
I think the "human story," as you put it, is what makes the difference. The reason I gave up on 2001 is that after two hours, I realized that I still didn't care about anything that was happening or any of the characters.
Tarkovsky's Solaris, on the other hand, is also long and slow, but involves things happening to real people and their reactions. I'd happily watch that movie again.
So thanks for the clarification. I'll have to check it out now.
It's funny you mention "Solaris," because that's the other movie I could compare this to. I thought of that early on. I'm glad I was able to convey that. I hope you enjoy it.
Tonight I'm going to watch A History of Violence. It looks pretty good. I came across it by chance.
http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi1723072793/
I enjoyed "A History of Violence" much more than I was expecting.
Oh good. It seems to have mixed reviews, a love or hate sort of thing.
I'll be interested to know your reaction. I could see how someone might detest aspects of it, so it could go either way. Pardon me for carrying on. I love movie talk!
No, no thanks for the info. I'll post what I thought about it later on. It looks like I'll quite enjoy it from the trailer though.
For one frightful moment I thought the Americans had, in their desperation to find anything original, got hold of the funniest novel in the English language: Scoop by Evelyn Waugh. Having checked it out, I find that it is only the title that is the same. Gott sei Dank as they say in the fatherland.
Oh no, it's just the title. It's a top film though, full of typical Woody Allen humour all the way - I believe that it is the last film he has acted in as well. Watch the trailer, I'm sure you will be putting it on your Amazon wish list:
http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi1569063193/
Had to pause the History of Violence after 45 min because Mrs N is tired. I'm not too keen on it though. Watchable.