Movies: 18255 | TV Series: 3282 | Added today: 0 | Storage: 65637 GB
- Register |
- Forgot password? |
- Support |
- FAQ |
- Help
Buy The Tree of Life Movie. Watch online or Download
| Genres: | Drama | |
| Actors: | Sean Penn | |
| Brad Pitt | ||
| Fiona Shaw | ||
| Jessica Chastain | ||
| Hunter McCracken | ||
| Laramie Eppler | ||
| Tye Sheridan | ||
| Director(s): | Terrence Malick | |
| IMDB Rating: | 7.1 out of 10 (50060 votes) | |
| Year: | 2011 | |
| Country: | USA | |
Download Information
 |
The Tree of Life (iPod) | Resolution: 480x256 px | Total Size: 515 Mb | ||
 |
The Tree of Life (HD) | Resolution: 852x464 px | Total Size: 1239 Mb | ||
 |
The Tree of Life (HD 1080) | Resolution: 1920x1040 px | Total Size: 10060 Mb | ||
 |
The Tree of Life (HD 720) | Resolution: 1280x688 px | Total Size: 5587 Mb | ||
 |
1 | The Tree of Life (DivX) | Resolution: 624x336 px | Total Size: 701 Mb | |
|
|
2 | The Tree of Life (DivX) | Resolution: 624x336 px | Total Size: 700 Mb |
Storyline
Plot Summary:
The impressionistic story of a Texas family in the 1950s. The film follows the life journey of the eldest son, Jack, through the innocence of childhood to his disillusioned adult years as he tries to reconcile a complicated relationship with his father (Brad Pitt). Jack (played as an adult by Sean Penn) finds himself a lost soul in the modern world, seeking answers to the origins and meaning of life while questioning the existence of faith.
Movie Photos
We have taken some photos of "The Tree of Life".
They represent actual movie quality.
More Movies of this Genre
Drama
Fantasy, Horror, Drama
Crime, Thriller, Drama
Rise of the Planet of the Apes
Action, Thriller, Drama
Thriller, Fantasy, Horror
Visitors Review
a prayer
if you are a fan of Terrence Malick's work, rejoice ! this by far hishis best movie ever. i don't even know if it's alright to call it amovie? this is more of a prayer. the tree of life is Terrence Malick athis most spiritual hour. reminiscing Jack- played by Sean Penn-searches his childhood for the meaning and reasons of life, trying toover come events that he doesn't understand nor accept after decadespast, and revising his relationship with his father. of course this isnot your typical story , nor your typical story telling style. it is avisual translation of Terrence Malick's meditation and view on life. avisual and spiritual masterpiece.
emotional, spiritual, artsy not just your typical summer blockbuster
Tree of Life had some wonderful thoughts to it, not for the weak ofheart because it deals with life through the eyes of a young man goingthru his teenage years. It deals so much of what real people go thruPeer pressure and the rebellious stage in life young jack in his teens.If your expecting an full on story you will not find it because I feelthe film tries to get people to look within themselves and use theirimagination to figure what life is about and not letting it pass youby. It gets everyone thinking and some people nowadays can't handlethat. reason to why there are mixed reviews. Give it a try you may ormay not be disappointed but if emotion, and feeling is what you love ina film tree of life doesn't get any deeper.
Not great, but definitely very interesting
I do not consider myself a fan of director Terrence Malick's, but withthe exception of The New World, I liked his movies because they possessan intense sensibility which captures the prepared spectator andtransports him/her to the universe the characters live, in order toshare their experiences and speculate about their motivations. Andbesides of that, we have the visual quality Malick brings to thosemovies, which combined with their ethereal atmosphere, brings them aspiritual and dream-like tone which we do not see from any otherfilmmaker (maybe with the exception of David Lynch, even though I wouldnot dare myself to compare them because their films possess acompletely different tone). What brings me to The Tree of Life,Malick's most recent film, and maybe the densest one in ideas and mostambiguous one in narrative. The result is not great, but I definitelyfound it very interesting.If it had not been made with such a visual beauty and emotionalhonesty, I would have laughed at the huge ambition from The Tree ofLife. And if I were more cynical, I would say that I would have foundit a combination of naturalist documentary and pretentious art-housecinema with an excessively obtuse message in order to take itseriously. However, Malick's direction and his fine dramatic instinctsmake the substance to transcend the shape, becoming the slowness fromthe movie into methodical reflection, and the arbitrariness from itsnarrative into a puzzle which invites us to solve it, not necessarilyfor us to know the hidden shape in its fragments, but to discover thevalue from the process itself. On the other hand, I understand that notevery person will accept the homework of deciphering the intentionsfrom a film which does not seem interested in telling a coherent orconventional story. And The Tree of Life certainly suffers from some ofthe symptoms from the most pretentious independent cinema, like somewhispering dialogs which in fact say nothing, and confusingmanipulation of time without an apparent purpose.As any work of art worthy of being, The Tree of Life is deeply subjectto the personal interpretation. So, some people will take this film asa cathartic and intensely personal religious epiphany; to other people,the film could confirm the power of the pitiless natural order aboutthe spiritual fantasies from the egocentric human beings. In otherwords, the juxtaposition of prosaic domestic routines with views fromthe space might mean that the life, the memories and experiences fromhumans are as vast as the universe itself. Or it might mean that thebig tragedies, moments of happiness and decisions from our lives areinconsequential into the big scheme of the universal existence. Ihonestly do not know, and I am not worried in defining it, because Ithink that the experience itself of watching The Tree of Life is moreimportant than its message.The Tree of Life never bored me, because its mere combination of musicand images made it a very interesting spectacle, with a beautifulvisual style and a good level of emotional potency. So, I do not thinkit is a great film, but I think I can recommend it as an innovativeexperience (as strange as the comparison might sound, I would describeThe Tree of Life as a combination of The Assassination of Jesse Jamesby the Coward Robert Ford and 2001: A Space Odyssey -even though I didnot like it as much as those two films-).
More like a painting than a movie
Film is art, certainly, however, films require a central theme and somesort of purpose to hold the qualification of film.The Tree of Life feltlike a 2 hour observation. I sat through it largely dis-interestedhoping that the finish of the film would resonate some sort of meaning.Unfortunately, like every scene in the film, it's open tointerpretation. That is the meaning, the ending, the montages of nicevisuals, the characters, their actions, etc- all open tointerpretation. The range of interpretations is vast, which maybeexplains the critical praise and high IMDb score. For me, I was sodisappointed that I signed up for IMDb just to write a bad review.WATCH- If you like father-son type films If Planet Earth visuals reallyappeal to you If you just have to see for yourself (might like it?) Ifstaring off into the distance is your cup of tea Don't WATCH- If youneed entertainment If you need a good finale to a story If you likeclear themes in film If you need a good story
Ambitious undertaking
This movie tackles not just a global, but a cosmic theme. Yet, thevehicle used in very time-region specific: traditional small townAmerica in the 50s. The fact that this can generate such universalappeal to allow it to win the Palme d'Or attests to its success.Starting with a heart-wrenching scene showing how each of the parents(Brad Pitt, Jessica Chastain) receive the news of the death of their19-year-old eldest son, the movie flashes back to, would you know, BigBang and follows the evolution of the human species through molecularocean life to dinosaurs, to the birth of the third child of theprotagonist family. Anchoring on the reflections of the second son inpresent days, a successful architect (Sean Penn), the flashbackcontinues through coming of age of the three brother, focusing on thebond between the two older ones.This is really not much of a plot as the movie is character, idea andemotion driven. The opening scenes say much  how in complete silence(the mother reads the telegram and the father's telephone conversationinaudible behind noises) the parent's shock and agony upon hearing thedevastating news. What follows is another silently eloquent sceneshowing first the mother roaming purposelessly on the quiet road infront of their quiet suburban home. As the camera moves to place her atthe centre of the frame, the father appears at the far back and movescloser and closer to her to give comfort.The parent's characters are tenderly depicted. Father's authoritativenature is typical of the period but he is not embarrassed about showingaffection to his sons in public. The mother's loving gentleness offersa good balance and she is even playful (insert ice into the boy'spyjamas to wake them. Pitt and Chastain are simply wonderful. The movieends with a familiar-looking surreal scene with Penn in a sort ofafter-life vision.
Touching
Since I watched the trailer of this film, I knew it would be somethingvery extraordinary. It shows the life in all guises and forms but themost - under strong emotional content. It is a film you need tosubmerge and leave your reason and follow it by inner sentiment, theone of compassion and open heartiness, to understand that the life mustbe lived with grace and not by nature.The great amount of images of vast spaces in the universe,constellations and many more and their connection with life and itsformation reveal something divine.The film depicts such a strong family bonds between father, mother andchildren - fundamentals for life. The children are presented in such astriking way, showing heir innocence in their early age, untouched byany vices. It shows how the father (Brad Pitt) wants to breed andeducate them, to make them better men. What can be greater and moredignified than to be a wise and loving father for your children? Bradtries it best despite the influence coming from his job.Every feeling for life, every image and emotion, every dream andyearning to understand what life is and how it must be lived isrepresented so delicately - a true feast for senses.
Great idea... lousy directing...
I decided to watch this movie after hearing a lot of positive reviews,but without knowing who actually directed it. Then, about 15 minutesinto the movie I've recognized all the Terrence Malick "trademarks":incredibly slow pace, lack of a coherent storyline, HUGE gaps whereabsolutely nothing happens and you just see random "artistic" imageswith someone whispering some "meaningful" phrase in the background. Iwas thinking "oooh no, not this again!" since I really find hisdirecting to be THE most boring and pretentious ever. I forced myselfto watch it till the end and I must admit that the whole idea ofputting a human's death in the perspective of the creation of theUniverse is quite thought-provoking but I just can't stand TerrenceMalick's directing.
Tree of Boredom
It's epic. The cast is stellar and there are wonderful pieces ofcinematography. But that's where it ends, sadly.The Tree of Life is an alarmingly pretentious, pious movie. One minutewe're seeing a bereaved mother call out to God, and the next minutewe're up flying around the universe with some stock Discovery-channelvideo clips of the wonder of universe. Later we see an embarrassinglypointless scene featuring two dinosaurs. If this evokes somethingprofound in you, please explain it to me. Questions are asked aboutGod, but nothing original. "Are you out there?" is about as far as thismovie gets.I'm sure the movie will connect with male critics who grew up insimilarly emotionally stunted circumstances in religious Texas. For therest of us it's nothing more than sordid intellectual masturbation.
Pretentious, pietistic drivel
O.K, I'm a rationalist, and a supreme being, or a belief in such, playsno role in my life. This doesn't mean, however, that I can't appreciatea work that assumes a deistic definition of reality, but sittingthrough the "Tree of Life" is like being forced to listen to aseemingly endless Tent Meeting Sermon, gussied up with startlingphotography and made a bit more politically correct by giving a noddingacceptance to evolution (or at least to dinosaurs).An artist has a right to impose his definition of reality upon us, buteven if we leave Mr. Malick's pietistic beliefs aside, the reality hepresents simply makes no sense historically and sociologically: We knowfrom the family's name that they are Irish American Catholics, but thechurch they attend every Sunday seems to be ecumenicized. Aside fromBrad Pitt's quick kneel (without crossing himself) and a flash ofreligious imagery, there is no trace of Catholic ritual (no Latin mass,no communion, no confession.) It's a homogenized Christian church, andthe religion the family practices seems, really, quite Protestant. Sucha non denominational Christianity would be believable in a secularizedfamily, but religion is the center of this family's existence. Inshort, it's a piety that could not have existed in Waco in 1950.But is it really 1950? It is assumed that the son who is killed waskilled in combat. But in which war? From the costumes and cars, theaction of the film when the boy to be killed was growing up was theearly to mid 1950s; the boy is somewhere between 10 and 12. he waskilled when he was 19, that is to say 7 to 9 years later. The date ofhis death, then, could be at the latest, 1964, when very, very few USmilitary were killed. The serious fatalities among US militarypersonnel didn't begin until much later. In short, possible, but highlyunlikely. Moreover, the war itself is totally absent from the film. Itwas hardly absent from US society in the mid 1960s.But the most absurd aspect of the film is Brad Pitt's character'srelationship to his sons. His main function is to act as a stern,tyrannical disciplinarian. But he has to be humanized to show how muchhe really loves his sons. Otherwise, there would be no story. So, he isconstantly kissing and embracing them. Such physical expression ofpaternal affection was all but unknown among Irish Americans,especially lower middle class Irish Americans in Texas. It is totallyunbelievable. Especially since the character is not otherwisephysically demonstrative; he hardly ever touches his wife, except tofend off her aggression.That he is a musician manqué helps a bit; but even that is notparticularly credible. Couperin in Waco in 1955? Please! In short, thisis a family that never could have existed.I'm sure a scientist could say similar things about Mr. Malick'sversion of the Creation.
Pretentious twaddle
This was the second worst film I have ever seen, beaten (just) byWayne's World II.It was definitely a case of "If you can't dazzle themwith brilliance, baffle them with bs" as the saying goes. It brought tomind a large canvas where members of a family, including the dog, allcontributed splashes of colour in as haphazard as manner as possible... and then tried to sell it as a valuable piece of modern art. Wewere not fooled! The acting was wooden, in particular the performanceof Brad Pitt, while my favourite, Sean Penn, was seen more often fromthe rear than from the front. As my neighbour in the steadily emptyingcinema remarked "At least they didn't have to learn any lines". Ofdialogue, there was precious little. Emotions were clichéd andpredictable. The young boys were fine and at least appeared natural,but seeing them throwing a ball around time after time, was a bit likewatching old films taken in the back yard of one's father and uncles askids. There were a few (slightly) redeeming features: the photographywas great, especially the footage of volcanoes and the landscapes,although I must admit that I kept expecting David Attinborough toappear from behind a rock and provide a useful commentary. Strangely,considering I thought we were going to see a blockbuster with Brad andSean, the best part was the dinosaurs, incongruous as their presencemight have been. All in all, a shallow cop-out of a film that insultedthe intelligence of viewers. I wish I had stayed home and watched, yetagain, Planet Earth.
Malick's Job
The poet, painter, engraver, visionary, William Blake spent over 40 ofhis 70 years illustrating the Book of Job and his final set of 21engravings brought him his greatest recognition as an engraver andvisual artist, but not until after his death. He worked in almost totalanonymity in his lifetime and was misunderstood and unappreciated. Theengravings are remarkable for the subtle complexity of the symbols. Thestory of Job was obviously an important one to Blake.The story of Job is important to Terrence Malick too. The words whichopen the film from Chapter 38 when God answering Job's complaints aboutwhy he and his family are being unjustly punished God speaks fromwithin a whirlwind, "Where were you when I laid the foundations of theearth? When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of Godshouted for joy?" Basically God answers the question of the existenceof evil in the world by showing that unless you understand the whole ofexistence you cannot understand the parts.Malick sets about showing the viewer both the good and evil that existsin the world and he names them "the way of Grace and the way ofNature". The loss of a dearly beloved son and brother much before histime is the dramatic vehicle to attempt to "justify the ways of God toman" and why he allows the existence of good and evil in creation. Ifthe question of good and evil is "prattle" or "pretentious" then whatquestions are worthy of pondering? On the visual level the film isstunning and the cinematography and camera work incredible. The "childeye" angles, the swooping, swerving, circling, movement capture mymemory of growing up. The story is driven by the images and not throughdialogue which I see makes some uncomfortable. The acting is alsomarvelous given the same "limitations" of plot development andnarrative.I grew up in the 50's and for me the film does a masterful job ofrecreating the flow and rhythm of those times and the frustrations ofgrowing up in America then. It is not an easy task Malick attemptingand for me he succeeds completely.I knew before the film was released that this film would be greeted byderision by those viewers who need to be told directly what a film isabout and that people who appreciate subtlety in art would appreciateanother Malick masterpiece. He has been working 40 years towards thisachievement. I remember the reception "2001 A Space Odyssey" receivedin 1968 and how it is looked on now. In '68 a majority of professionalfilm critics got "2001" wrong. I think the positive critical responseto "The Tree of Life" in 2011 came in part because of the genius ofStanley Kubrick leading the way making films which challenge theaudience. Thank you to Stanley and Terrence.
Cinematic Poetry - A meditation
Just came back from seeing this movie and I feel as if I just meditatedfor an hour. This is very artsy and thick with imagery. It is poetryand like a poem, needs more than one take. If you choose to see thismovie, go in a relaxed non-tired state and be prepared by openingyourself up to a journey. Try not to think too much during it ... justtake it in. Don't try to figure it out or think too deep. Move with it.Feel it. I felt that the film revealed itself to my soul rather than tomy intellect. Perhaps it's the way to journey life itself. At the endof this film, I felt utterly content and at peace within. This wasentertainment for the soul.
Experimental
How hard I tried to enjoy in it I simply tortured myself to see it tillthe end. It is hard to express everything through this journey but itwas not exciting one.The Tree of Life is by my opinion pure experimental big budget movie. Ibelieve the director puts all of his efforts to make a masterpiece, butthe end he fails. The cast is very good as well is acting but...Pure artistic intentions are obvious, and with the image sequences aswell the camera work you can say that it is and Art film. But thereality side of the plot and with the cast ended as an typicalHollywood attempt to enter the pure Art zone.About that beautiful cinematography and images: if you are familiarwith movie Baraka you will find cinematography and images in this movieunoriginal at all.In Baraka you are touched emotionally in very strong manner. Whilewatching this movie I was not touched nor stunned near close. Therhythm is simply too slow, forced too be complicated, yet simple. Thereare however very wise lines in it (Father advices to his son), but itsimply looks to much American and to much forced to be the great work.So if you saw Baraka or Home before that movie you would probably findsome similar almost copy like elements in this movie. If not, you willbe probably astound with scenes in this one.No mater how hard it try to touch our deepest emotions with so manyintentions, still the complete movie can't touch that inner hearttruly. Something is not as it should be here, and the result is shallowyet visually solid movie.If you really want to ride through the essence of life, and truly feelit in any emotional sense, watch Baraka instead.
Pretentious with no redeeming quality
Horribly pretentious. Seems to me, only those who walk around withtheir noses high up in the air, and who regularly intersperse theirspeech with French words just to impress others will claim to like thismovie, just so they'll seem cool. But don't be fooled.This movie is so full of itself that it totally forgot to tell a story.Where's the dang storyline?? The whole movie consisted of fragmentedscenes of senseless rubbish, joined together with abundant footage ofnature scenes. If I wanted to look at beautiful images of nature, I'dhave watched a documentary on the discovery channel instead of thisdrivel. What a total waste of my time.
The Tree of Life (2011) - What a Family Tree!
Terrence Malick's visionary masterpiece, "The Tree of Life" is not thetype of movie you expect to munch on your popcorn to. It's achallenging journey like no other. "The Tree of Life" is a non-linearnarrative about a middle-aged man's childhood memories of his family in1950s Texas. Now, there some of many things I liked about this movie.Brad Pitt delivers one of the most powerful performances of his career,and I hope that he deserves an Oscar nomination for Best Actor. JessicaChastain delivers a perfect performance in this movie as well. Thecinematography by Emmanuel Lubezki is one of the most unique uses ofcinematography I have ever seen in cinema. The music is so inspiringand beautiful. Terrence Malick's vision is like none I have ever seen,and it's really unique. Then, we have extended sequences of theevolution of existence involving volcanic eruptions, sea-life,dinosaurs, and human kind. Yes, it's presented in a depressing way, butthat scene was made so beautifully. But there were so many problemswith the movie as well. This movie was really slow, and Sean Penn'sperformance was disappointing because he does not get enough screentime, and he does not bring his voice into it. But he honestly didn'tdo anything at all. He never bothered to talk or react, and all he everdid was walk and look around like an idiot. Sometimes Terrence Malickbrings a slow narrative to his movies, and it's a little silly. Theending wasn't really special, and there was nothing excellent about theending. But besides that, all of these positive and negative thoughtsmake "The Tree of Life" one of the most talked about movies of theyear. It's a powerful challenging journey that represents the trueuniqueness of filmmaking that brought Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A SpaceOdyssey" to life. "The Tree of Life", in my review, "a challengingjourney, but nothing remarkable".
This is a religious movie
One thing I kept reading about this movie is, that it is a meditationabout life and how things come into being. This is not exactly true.The movie shows, without really saying it, the history of the universein a lengthy sequence (about 45 minutes) of pictures from space, theearly earth etc - many of those are animated. Most of the views arenowadays well-known and not really fascinating - so the only thing youcan find interesting here is that the movie tries to tell "the" story,I guess.What looks like a scientific approach to the origins of life is in theend only the base, the background, for a religious movie whichpropagates a monotheistic god.Throughout the movie light, water, life, "doing good" (grace) are majorsubjects that are repeated again and again in all possible forms. It isnever really said what "doing good" means, but there are example offamily members which seem to act not good. The good mother (she isglorified beyond everything - seems she is even better than god) isjust dancing around in the garden, flying like an angle at one point,sometimes looking happy, but always worried about the good in theworld.The kids are normal kids and you see mainly one of them growing up andgathering a guilt complex - it would be good, if the movie would beabout a child gathering a guilt complex, but it is about god.In the end there are angles (young, blond, skinny ladies), the light ofgod and a lot of forgiving and good.The movie is mostly boring if you do not believe in anything spiritual.There are very few scenes which show you something that has a meaningoutside the "there is more to it" interpretation. I liked the scenewhen the boy broke into the neighbors house, for example - but thismovie destroys every good scene with an over-interpretation.My recommendation: watch 2001 (a Space Odyssee) if you want to see goodpictures from space mixed up with a fair amount of mysticism - thatmovie does not bother you with "I know the truth, just read my picturesright".
Malick's Nightmare!
(A non-narrative movie deserves a non-narrative review). "Visual melodrama" of the worst kind. Koyaanisqatsi light - 2001: light (but without great music). Malick here is like the heavy Asian girl on stage in the movie DonnieDarko. I'm like Drew Barrymore in the wings, looking on horrified atthe spectacle, yet prideful of the effort. The Tree of Life is definitely a heavyweight contender for the mostself-conscious mainstream film in history. That alone makes it a "mustwatch" (rental).(pillow shot) closeup of acorn. I'm reminded of Coppola's comment about a director's worst nightmare:"Waking up one day and realizing you've made a pretentious piece ofcrap". Sean Penn.. as Jessica Chastain & Brad Pitt's son (I bellowed inlaughter at the chutzpa). Self absorbed to absurdity. Not for a moment could I suspenddisbelief; or could I escape the fact that I was being shown acontrived piece of art-for-art-sake.(pillow shot) young boy in museum Âfascinated with the text on thedescriptor plate rather than the abstract painting the platerepresents. His overuse of poetic visuals here comes off to me like manipulativemusic from the 50's; huge swooning orchestra crescendos that reek ofkitsch, that reek of "dated". For a movie that manufactures so much visual subtlety and innuendo,oddly, there ends up being very little subtlety and innuendo. It lackscontrast/counterpoint in visual style. (Perhaps a cinema counterpart todroning ambient music?). Special Features states they had "10,000" auditions for the 3 youngboys, so there is no mitigation for a slight budget, or rush to market. Overly spiritual and sentimental. Bad poetry. Incoherent. I've loved all of Malick's work, but am unable tofight-the-good-fight here. (So of course I must go watch it again).
Yawn
OK.. I am all for Art Films. I adore them! But I have to agree with thelow rating viewers here.. I cannot fathom why some have rated this sohighly. It simply.......... tries too hard (and fails). I get all thespectacular shots... the forming of the earth, the meaning of life. Ijust found it so redundant that it was fit around a plot that to mecould have been a completely different movie altogether. If you want tosmoke something and then watch the movie for the visual effects - goahead. If you want to be moved by a story - don't bother. Oh I'm sureall those who think they are Intellectuals will rave about it. Sorryguys, I just couldn't find anything in this worthy of two and a halfhours of my time.
Rayuela
How do you watch such a film? You've got to lower any defenses youhave. You've got to not allow yourself to try to make a sense out ofeverything you see. You've got to take it all, and let it enter you,just as smoothly as the film enters dinosaurs, cells, planetaryevolution, or a simple living room of a troubled family. Make nojudgements, consider nothing except the pure experience of being there,wherever the film takes you. Search no explanation, for there was noreal rational reason other than intuition for images to be as they are.Imagine a film about everything, with a remote storyline that talksabout every theme, in every possible time of the world.Imagine a film without a beginning or an ending. Circularmeta-narratives, where you can pick up on any spot (i mean any) and youcan create whatever inner narrative you want. A sky of images (like themosaic poster of the film) where you can pick your own choices, andcreate whatever story you like. Or you can choose to frame the morepalpable story visible in the film in whatever fashion you want. Up toyou. The challenge is that you have to test the limits of your ownimagination to live the film in its full extent. Nothing is predefined.Go wherever you want.Now imagine all that delivered by someone who spent his entire filmlife trying to walk around the idea of plain old narrative layering.The absolute master of unrelated narratives, of off-screen details. Theman who films hands and corn fields when he wants to say love; Whoshoots the universe to build one of the most powerful expressions ofintimacy, of mind's solitude in the film world. Contrast.I don't know if this is the best film ever made. It probably is thestrongest experience in film world that i got first hand, while it wascoming out, new.What is it? a film inside Sean Penn's head? a Story framed in theuniverse? part of it? metaphor for it?I've heard a lot about how this film is a kind of 2001. I don't thinkso. Kubrick and Malick are 2 different kinds, 2 different approaches,purposes, different process, and different outcomes. Kubrick bendsnarratives to a point of perfection. Obsessive. Chess leaked all overfilmmaking. Malick is the other end of the stick. Pure visualintuition, enhanced by Malick's intellectual background. Just becauseboth directors are little fond of public appearances, and because boththis and 2001 feature planets, that doesn't bring the films closer.In 1963, Cortázar published one of the most important books of the lastcentury, Hopscotch. The title of this comment is related to itsoriginal title, in Spanish. I think this film and that book havesimilar aspirations. Trace your path, you have the chapters, but youhave to make an order out of them.How this is done is in pure mastery of every tool of film conception.Every image counts, each shot was taken care with competence andpassion, each frame, each camera move - Lubezki has worked with Malick,Iñarritu, Cuarón. Each collaboration adds a lot to what is being done.He really can read the director's aspirations, and deliver nothingshort of mastery. At this time he has entered enough important projectsto be considered one of the best cinematographers ever.The editing isworld class. Every cut, whether the space virtual shots or the familyscenes, matter to the narrative, whatever that is. What takes this to awhole new level is how, in this film, Malick tops his alreadyincredible leverage of music. Editing has always equally present thevisual as well as the sound scapes. Watch it, let it get absorbed.This film demands an incredible lot from you, as viewer. It demandsthat you be a different person after watching you, that indeed you maychange your generic approach to film- watching, or at least that youaccommodate in you a new way to watch films. On a basic level it'sabout Malick's intuitions. On another level, it's about what you get onscreen. But ultimately it's all about how you place yourself in theuniverse proposed.My opinion: 5/5http://www.7eyes.wordpress.com
An Eternity by Calvin Klein advert?
Well that's what portions of this film looked and felt like when itwasn't being a National Geographic documentary. I saw this at the pressscreening at Cannes (where it got some jeers amongst the claps). I willadmit that the scenes with the children were beautiful and in placesthought provoking but Sean Penn might as well not of have been in itand I found his scenes in the film the most "Calvin". Now don't get mewrong, I'm not averse to slow moving, "difficult" films and I admit itlooks and sounds great, but for me, there just wasn't enough... Shame,because I really wanted to love it. *See Nostalgia de la Luz - 2010(which was at Cannes last year) if you want to see a moving film aboutlife and what it means.