Tree of Life

[Ecurb]

Terrence Malick comes out with a new movie once every 6 or 7 years. His list includes “Badlands”, “Days of Heaven”, "The Thin Red Line", "The New World", and, now, Tree of Life.

None of Malick’s movies are flawless masterpieces. Instead they are messy but stunning gems. “ Days of Heaven” (for example) set up many of the shots to look like famous American paintings. It’s one of the most beautiful movies ever shot.

Tree of Life explores evolution and the connection of all things in the universe. It does so by looking at a family, three boys growing up in Texas in the 30s and 40s. The parents – Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain – include a disciplinarian father and an ethereal and loving mother. Their life is seen through the eyes of Jack, the oldest son (the story is told in a flashback – the eldest son Jack is Sean Penn as a modern adult), and the tension with the father and the angelic qualities of the mother are viewed through an Oedipal prism.

In two, long, abstract sections, the universe evolves from the big bang. The whole of creation, it seems to me, is compared to one family. By understanding the parts, we learn about the whole, and vice versa.

The movie is too long, but it is visually stunning. Great stuff. I can hardly wait for Malick’s next film (although it may be a while).

[qimissung]

Saw it, loved it. I talked to someone who worked in the theater after it was over and they said they got a lot of people who wanted their money back. What a shame.

It is very metaphorical in nature, and I loved that in a way he departed from traditional narrative, yet there is a recognizable story being told. The movie as a whole is almost pure metaphor.

And know one shoots more gorgeous movies than Malick. No one. OK, Caleb Deschanel, but that's it.

[Varenne Rodin]

I'm hoping to see this in the next week or two. Thank you for the review.

[Jack of Hearts]

It was hard to 'like' it. It can't be denied that it was beautifully shot but the more 'experimental' aspects (i.e., the middle and the end) are immensely disruptive. Is the goal of showing these things to offer 'context' to the characters' lives?

But the character exposition is heart-breakingly beautiful and is what left the theater with this viewer. The eldest son's arc is amazing and amazingly visible.

Could have gone without the ending, the middle, and Sean Penn's character, and had a phenomenal movie- but then that would've been only half the point, one supposes.






J

[irinmisfit92]

Is it really that good? I was shocked to know that it won the Palm d'Or in Cannes, since I have a strong personal bias against American indie movies that try to be very different from the mainstream. Like, seriously, there are very few of them which are actually THAT good and at least can keep me entertained.

I'm not asking for a movie that's full of action. I'm asking a movie that's beautiful and that's not too long and keeps me awake. European movies can do that most of the time, but American movies such as Primer just can't keep me interested at all. Frozen River was beautiful, but it was just too... I don't know how to explain it, "rough" in my opinion. I absolutely didn't like Winter's Bone that won many awards. Come on, guys, I can list so many other movies that totally deserve the awards better than that movie.

Seems from the comments that the movie's metaphors and everything are good just that it's too long and there should be some things that are removed.

[Varenne Rodin]

I thought this movie was fantastic. I don't mind long movies. This is comparable to 2001: A Space Odyssey, only Tree of Life is about 20 minutes shorter. The "middle" aspects someone talked about, if misunderstood, could be boring or confusing to some people, I suppose. They were taking the viewer along the path of evolution and the wonder, confusion, and heartbreak of existing. It's not just a mapping of the human experience, although the human story is compelling, it's delivering the earthling experience. For me, it was heartbreaking. As a secular person, I thought this film helped me to better understand faith, but I also thought it was a very secular point of view coming from a Christian director.

If you have experienced loss, and still feel it greatly, and if you have had questions about why the universe is as it is, why a god might or might not exist, and why he/she/it would make the decisions it does, this movie will stir emotions for you. It doesn't provide answers, exactly, and it made me feel some bitterness toward life, but the message seems to be to travel this journey with grace. It inspired me to treat people with more kindness and appreciation for our common predicament.

The Tree of Life is exquisite. It will probably be most appreciated by empathic people who have reached a high level of maturity.

[Varenne Rodin]

Also, if anything got removed it would be an incomplete work. It was shaved down from about 14 hours. The "slow" moments are building emotion that sneaks up on the audience. For me, they were mysterious and evocative. The shots from within volcanic liquid are unbelievable. They are impossible.

The acting is beautiful. Saying Sean Penn's character is unnecessary has to be a misunderstanding of the film. The human story is from his point of view. Those are the exaggerated memories of his childhood. The way a child sees things is very unique. The pure, special love of a mother, her beauty. The awe and rebellion toward a serious father. Feeling bad for mistakes made. Wanting to be good.

This is multi-layered. There isn't anything that doesn't fit if a person is capable of making the connections.