deanmartin12003

(2012-04-29 19:26:12)

So So ... Tried too Hard

Lets cut right to the chase. A very esoteric and somewhat artsy filmwith tons of angst as it presents an abusive father sonrelationship...and the spread to the three boys, with the helplessmother. The film didn't cut it for me. A much more effective treatmentof the subject matter is "The White Ribbon", a pre world war I Germanmovie that was more realistic and had more impact. I'd suggest the Treeof Life borrowed from it, at times, and "The Tree" knows not if it isan "imaginery" or "reality" in the making. For those reasons, I give ita 3 out of 10 and suggest a 'healthy'alternative - if there is such athing!

jashill

(2012-04-29 11:39:35)

Need answers?

I just broke the DVD before sending it back to Netflix so I can feelassured that I did not contribute to anyone else wasting their timewith this film!SPOILER ALERT (Be Warned!): Movie starts... Volcano, clouds, trees,dinosaurs, waves, babies, nebulous, door in ocean, sunflowers, randomfamily has some random emotions with no conflict or antagonist ordialogue, 3 hours later Sean Penn walks around building anxiously,grand canyon... movie over. For those of you who gave this movie apositive rating, thanks for ruining my night; I trusted you. For thoseof you that say this movie is deep, please watch any other film everproduced and you will be blown away with its depth (maybe start withShrek 3, don't want to blow your mind too much...). Deep requires*some* form of message, content, theme, or anything... Just becausenobody understands it, that doesn't mean it is deep!Ughh... so annoyed with my wasted night. The only redeeming thing aboutthis movie is the comical fact that I hung on 'til the end. I thought Imight get a surprise ending that would tie all of the nonsensetogether. Surprise!!! Still just a bunch of random nonsense!

Dave G

(2012-04-28 20:41:59)

Laboured and pretentious

I saw this film because of the good reviews on IMDb -- this was amistake, I can't see why this film is so highly rated. The topic isambitious: life the universe and everything. The implementation issimplistic -- life: lots of out-takes from natural history films; theuniverse: lots of planets and Hubble pictures (didn't Stanely Kubrik dothis 30 years ago?); and everything: this centred around clichГѓВ©d ritesof passage sequences of 1 of 3 brothers, 1 of whom dies at the start(demonstrating the circle of life). This film is torture to watch -- Ikept expecting it to end, but it went on and on. I think most of theaudience felt the same as me -- tell tale signs: people leaving beforethe end; chuckling at the particularly silly bits; and a spontaneousround of applause when it finally ended (applauding the endurance ofthe audience -- not the quality of the film). I love arty films, butthis is like a 16 year old's film studies project (with a huge budget).Perhaps the other reviewer saw a different film.

fumbo

(2012-04-28 12:43:51)

7.3 Please

I want my dollar back. A child dies and his mother asks god why, so themovie goes back to the beginning of life on the planet and pretty muchgoes real time from there. There are dinosaurs in this movie. I knowwhat your are thinking, a movie set in the 1950's about parenting andcoming of age and dinosaurs but I swear it's true. My IQ is 185 so I got it, even though there was not much to get. If youare an intelligent person, this movie is not for you. If you are a dimwit that's impressed with striking visuals and moving music, you aregoing to love this movie but remember you probably won't understand it,because it's so good. Brad Pitt should retire. Who ever wrote this,should retire. Did I say, I want my dollar back.

dlisa001

(2012-04-28 11:54:56)

Confusing

This was by far the most confusing movie I've seen in a long time.There were parts of it that seemed totally disconnected from the rest,and some of the most important things were never explained. The moviecontained more visual metaphors than it contained dialogue or plot, soin the end you might walk away from it feeling a little lost. From avisual standpoint, Tree of Life was beautiful. The special effects andart direction for the film were breathtaking -- in a sort of"Discovery: Life on Earth" kind of way. Unfortunately, the beauty of itis somewhat marred by the realization that it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING todo with the plot (if there even IS one). Ergo the visuals, despitetheir beauty, only serve to confuse the viewer. There were points inthe film (especially toward the beginning) that I wondered if theemployees had pointed me to the wrong theater. Although I found theimagery confusing and the story itself a bit lacking, I absolutelyloved the acting. The film was brilliantly cast, and the single mostdisappointing part of (in my opinion) is that I didn't get to see moreof them. Overall the movie was a confusing, disjointed, mess, and theonly good part about it -- the acting -- was very scarce. In the end,you get a movie that's visually intriguing but still unsatisfying.

auroraborealis7

(2012-04-28 03:09:41)

Interesting!

After watching this movie for about ten minutes, I decided its notgoing to be a narrative story and sort of agreed to suspend myjudgement for a while. What emerges is an impressionistic movie. Its acreative, artistic voyage through a memory of childhood in Waco, Texasin the 1950s....but its also bigger than this, the movie is also anexploration of Creation and the meaning of Life. The acting is great. There is a scene in a church, with a sermon aboutJob in the background, while the Father (Brad Pitt) walks over to thecandles to light one. This scene really stands out for me, because itshows the feeling of being Alone in the Universe on one hand, but weall share the same Life. Another series of scenes shows images of beinga child, this was amazing to me...the ability to capture Childhoodimages. I didn't grow up in this era, but I have similar types ofimages in my memory, and similar emotional experiences as were shown.I think some people may hate this movie because its not a traditionalform of story, some scene-montages of the Universe seem to go on a bitlong, and its somewhat confusing. Its not a commercial movie. Some callit pretentious, but I don't know why. Its not pretending to be anythingin my opinion, its a brave vision and i'm glad the director stuck withit.There are some elements of the movie that I am confused about: Did theFather kill someone? Is he a thief or crook? His character ismysterious and secretive. Is he the tall man in the attic? I suspectthe dinosaur scene in the first part of the movie hints at theevolution of man, or even how son surpasses father...but I'm absolutelynot sure about this!Also, I couldn't figure out which brother Sean Penn's character was, inthe future, until more than half way through the movie. I would haveliked to learn more about the modern Sean Penn character in relation tothe earlier child version...I don't know how this could have been donein a movie though, that would require more narrative and dialogue thanthis movie was willing to commit to.I would say check this one out if you are open-minded and willing tosee film as an art-form.

crafo-1

(2012-04-26 16:48:08)

Epic cinematic poem to the mystery of life

I was aware going into this that TREE OF LIFE put some people to sleepand forced others to leave the theatre way ahead of time. Yet, I haveseen Malick's other films and have always been a raving fan, so a bigpart of me did not believe or accept the negativity.I'll take it a step further: the vicious negative "reviews" make mewince. I don't expect everyone to agree or for everyone to recognize"greatness", but I would think serious film buffs would recognize anepic reaching, a monumental effort to plunge bravely into the abyss.This is flat out, hands down one of most spectacularly beautiful moviesI have ever seen in my lifetime, and I am no spring chicken.It is an epic cinematic poem to the mystery of life. I am in awe at theeffort here. I kneel in awe.In my opinion, this film is a cinematic equivalent to Milton's PARADISELOST or Dante's INFERNO. It is a non-linear, inventive, originaljourney.Certainly not for everyone. It breaks plenty of rules. There is no realplot. There is no climax. It is more of a Proustian memory piece, butthat is all right with me.I have never seen anything even remotely like it. Check out otherreviews if you want to know what it is "about." The truth is: it cannotbe summarized. Period.I think it is touched with Greatness!

criscal

(2012-04-26 15:58:01)

He is naked!

I want to shout out to the emperor and everybody else who thinks thatthis movie is magnificent. The cinematography is - no doubt about that- well done and I liked the scenes of nature very much. The "rest" ofthe movie appeared to be a non-coherent story of a subdued childhood inthe 50ties. I was fighting with sleep after just few minutes. If therewas any message to this movie, putting it in a bottle would have had abetter chance at reaching the audience. A total waste of time. I amdisgusted by IMDb forcing me to submit a review of at least ten lines.This is a total waste of space for this movie and putting in more linesis like watering the opinion I already got about that movie.

redd0531-232-883930

(2012-04-26 11:13:37)

I am soooOOOOooo confused

While visually stunning and powerfully underscored - this filmflounders... dreadfully.I feel the storytelling method could have had more impact WITHOUT themumbo jumbo and mystical elements....definitely NOT a movie for anyonewith even slightly less than perfect hearing for all the whispering andbackground conversations (really wish it had subtitles!). Somebody make another edit - about 30 minutes less in length and stickto the story, skip the mystical crap that really doesn't relate toanything (or at least I couldn't figure out what it related to??!!)AAAAAND evidently writing succinctly and to the point about yoursubject disqualifies ones' review from publication... so here, I haveto add several lines about nothing in particular in order for myopinion to actually 'count'.... go figure - either this system isadministrated by a former government official, or a man....

pattonfever

(2012-04-25 14:39:09)

Too Dumb To Recognize A Masterpiece

This is a perfect film. That is a fact. No one is trying to be Kubrick,and in many ways (especially after this film) I would say Malick hassurpassed Kubrick. When people do not understand what they are watchingthey decide to hate. When people do not get explosions or a similarformula they decide to hate as well. Just search any fantastic filmthat does not have the standard film formula. Drive and Bellflower bothcome to mind. Both are filled with reviews by people who understand thefilm, and those who do not. Read the reviews by those who do not, andyou will find the reviews are identical. Pretentious is the word theylove to throw around the most. I challenge you to think of all thefilms similar to this, and you will find the negative reviews have thesame context. It must be in the negative review by wanna be critics 101handbook along with repeatedly answering questions they have askedthemselves in their own review. Like the WHO KNOWS? guy. Any way thisis the greatest film of the decade so far, and I can't wait to see itagain. Oh and THIS FILM IS THE REASON BLU-RAY WAS INVENTED! Don't watchit any other way.

kosmasp

(2012-04-25 04:16:53)

Life is live

It is really hard to describe this movie. As a lot of other reviewershave already stated, this is more of a spiritual approach to life. Anexploration if you wanna call it that and evolution over time. Themovie takes it's time (and is superbly acted) and will divide peoplesopinion for sure. There will be those who see Brad Pitt on the coverand rent it. But they will be disappointed. This is mostly heavy stuff.And even it's lighter moments, it is not a movie that can be just"watched" ... it is an experience.I liked the movie, but I can see how people can feel it is draggingalong slowly. There is one sequence at the beginning that had me"confused". It is a 10 minute (I didn't count, let's say more or less)sequence of the circle of life/evolution and many other things. Whileit is beautifully photographed, I'm sure that some people will feelthat it is unnecessary. Again: this is a love it or hate it movie. Butwhile it has a family as facade for its themes, it does work on manylevels!

beglenrice

(2012-04-24 16:03:14)

Garbage

If this film was simply about the struggle between a father and son, itmight have been great. Instead, it badly attempts to include themes ofGod and creation as if they were intrinsic to the story. While thosethemes, according to certain people, are more than relevant, thismovie's treatment of them is beyond horrible. The incredible shots ofnature merely mask the writer's failure to truly include what issuggested. The threadbare plot turns out to be an excuse to be moodyand cinematic. The weepyend-before-the-beginning-sappy-taking-the-audience-for-granted-and-stupid opening scenes infuriate a genuinelyappreciative viewer. Which son dies? How does it happen? At nineteen?For the next two hours we wonder if there is a story here or if it is amontage of Mr. Malick's dream shot list. It turns out to be the latter.I admired young Jack's performance. He made Pitt look like an amateur.Brad Pitt cannot act, he is unnatural, he is self-conscious, and isobviously 'acting'. Credit to the line, "Why should I be good whenyou're aren't," or something to that effect, ostensibly referring toGod. Don't waste your time. Then again, certain people liked this. Thetree of life? Potentially riveting. It's relevance in the film?Non-existent. You're crazy if you try to rationalize this.. If you haveto make the audience stretch that much, you're full of yourself.

hipinocha

(2012-04-23 02:47:40)

the tree of life is not about narrative but feelings

Leaving aside whether T. Malick has been too pretentious or not, I haveto admit that I really enjoyed the film. But just to be clear: this isnot a film about a narrative where your brain just have to swallow andprocess the images it's getting...this is a film that tries to showsomething and provoke a feeling. At least that is the point I've got and I really liked the topics thefilm talk about (nature, parenthood, changing society, the beauty butunfairness of life...). I didn't understand very well the plot...in fact I had to discuss withmy boyfriend some important issues at the end (which brother was SeanPenn?-don't worry, I already know - or I think I know) but I left thetheater completely moved: the music, the images, the voices. Mr Malick did the trick: he just used the excuse of life and death tohave people going to see video art to commercial theaters. I understandsome people didn't like it (my boyfriend didn't either) but I can't butto take my hat off to T. Malick for cheating us all. Bravo!

dcroteau-266-509762

(2012-04-22 18:17:46)

When you try too much, you fail at it.

When you combine too much different colors of paint together, as muchas the individual color can be beautiful, you'll end up with a crappybrown disgusting paint.If a movie wants to talk about the lost of innocence, fine...but youdon't have to mix in a "National Geographic" documentary about thecreation of the Earth in it.This attempt of showing the beauty of the World (both physical andspiritual) with religion is a complete failure.When a movie tries too hard to be good and unique, it fails at it,miserably.When I see that this is associated with 46 wins & 24 nominations, itpains me to see that the cinematographic world has become so corrupted.

RMinSF

(2012-04-21 12:30:51)

Eye-rollingly Pretentious

Think "Koyaanisqatsi". Almost that tier. Trying so very hard to beprofound. Alas, it seemed just a bit silly.The more straight-forward narrative was affecting and well-acted. Butthe tedious, faux-ecclesiastic score and the embarrassingly lengthycosmic art shots were just too much.I will refrain from commenting on the inclusion and meaning of the soonto be famous dinosaur scene. And by "famous" I mean famous like"no-wire-hangers".That said, it is worth seeing. It's not without merit and I respect theambitions of the film. It is a very difficult endeavor to deal withwhat Malick is attempting to address. Did he fail? I think so. Butfailing at this is frankly much more admirable than succeeding at whatso many other directors succeed at.

zeno-of-alea

(2012-04-20 19:23:33)

Mawkish twaddle

Over-indulgent,over-long, mawkish twaddle with an overlay of pseudo-Christian feel-good factorMy friend reported to have felt close to panic after 2 hours but westuck it out in hope at least of an interesting ending: it didn'thappenSome nice dinosaurs, in fact, and pretty images of evolutionary stuffplus planets and cometsIt felt like 2 second-rate films which had been Burroughed togetherinto a smoothie of something-or-otherAll I can say is AVOID, AVOID, AVOID unless you enjoy watching paintdry or the grass growI would have preferred to stay outside in the rain for 2.5 hours

jazkat

(2012-04-20 11:36:00)

An abstract artistic film that is not for everyone

This film is definitely not for everyone. It is, however, visuallystunning, richly complex, accented with billowing subtle, surreal, andvivid graphic scenes backed with a score of classical masterpieces.Words can't do justice to this abstract cinematographic work of art.But, it is as abstract a film as any painting in a modern art museum.Unfortunately, as with an abstract painting, this film leaves a lot tothe viewer to interpret; which is not typically what we expect frommainstream films.Although "The Tree of Life" is beautiful, it is inaccessible to most ofthe movie-going public, hence all the 1 star reviews. It's cryptic, atbest, and has too many holes and interruptions that draw the vieweraway from finding continuity in the story. Film is a communication fromactors, directors, and writers. Unfortunately, just as with any otherform of artistic expression, if the artist(s) don't effectively conveytheir vision, or provide the audience with a key for interpreting thevision the audience won't understand or relate to the work. And such isthe case with "The Tree of Life".It is a noble attempt to convey intensely personal, complex, andemotional events of life in a way that has rarely been attempted. Iappreciated from a purely audio-visual art-work perspective. It was toolong and disorienting to be considered a good film. It's beautiful andthought-provoking, but not successful in making a connection with itsaudience.Some day this might be thought of as a landmark in cinematicexpression. Today, it's an unsuccessful attempt at stretching theconceptual boundaries of conventional film.

dim ver

(2012-04-19 20:57:35)

Slowest movie ever

After checking IMDb for the rating of this movie, and found it wasquite high,and with good actors, so I decided to go to the cinema. I amsorry for the people that love this movie, but this was the first movieever that I walked out. This brought me to write this review to spareother people a disappointing experience. Basically you will have 5 to10 minutes of acting, and then a picture show in movie format. Granted,the pictures are beautiful, but you can go to a photo exhibition forthat, and not a movie. The story was simple (how hard can it be in 5minutes), but to come to the plot was so dreadfully slow, that I couldnot bear to waste more of my time on it. I think an LSD trip must belike this, so if you do not want to use LSD, but like to have a trip,this is your movie of choice. I guess I am shouting in the desert, asit seems many people like it, but it was definitely not my cup of tea.I suggest to wait for the DVD to come out and watch it on 8 speed. Itwill still be a slow movie, but you might make it till the end.

ssrocks1995

(2012-04-19 16:18:48)

movie sucks

first of all i didn't watch the whole movie because this movie is soboring i bet u will take a nap during watching this if u are a sci-fior drama movie lovers this may let u down after watching 20 minutes ididn"t get any point what the movie is about i try to skip the moviefor some nice scenes then i see a dinosaur i really don't get a pointof this movie this movie is a big letdown for brad Pitt fan... :(then i see some reviews on face-book and IMDb those who get this moviesay "the best movie ever" and those who don"t "the worst movie ever" ididn"t encourage any person to hate or like this but from my view its athumbs down.

Jeff-123

(2012-04-19 07:02:19)

Rewards the patient, perceptive viewer

A lot of people didn't really get this movie, and that's to beexpected. It all made perfect sense to me. "The Tree Of Life". From our nebularbeginnings as atoms in the universe, through our very inception on thisearth. And the birth of mercy, compassion, love -- when the dinosaur,instead of eating its vulnerable prey, allows it to die with dignity.The movie basically tracks the birth of compassion, or the way grace isborn out of "nature red in tooth and claw". The way of nature --selfish, egotistic, unloving...or the way of grace, which makes alllife possible. It's laid out very clearly, and acted out by thefamily's story.There are a lot of visuals that were hard to parse, of course. This isMalick we're talking about. Surely they have meaning to him, or maybethey don't. But there's so much poetry here, there's layers upon layersof meaning a sensitive and receptive viewer will pick up. It's allthere. I can't imagine how any such viewer will fail to perceive thebeauty that suffuses this film -- which is indeed the very theme of themovie.