The Tree of Life

[ShogunRua]

I get it; everything philosophical is pretentious.

If "philosophical" means idiotic, cliched slogans written for 5 year olds and "artsy shots" of the sky and the Sun, then sure.

I just prefer to call it "pretentious", instead. I also get the suspicion that many people who call something "philosophical" have never actually read a book about philosophy, and thus, don't really know what the word means...

I also have to agree with Pickpocket that Malick seems to have entered a stage in his career where he can just do whatever he wants and regardless of that, there will be people who think they 'got' the movie and that it's the greatest thing ever..

I think that's a huge challenge every actor and director has to face. When everyone around you, for a period of years proclaims you the most brilliant genius of all time, it's difficult to keep that from warping your thinking and sense of reality.

Similar to Tarantino imo, who's only doing purely dialogue-driven MTV pulp trash these days (lazy and way past his prime imo, but Django Unchained may prove me wrong).

I'll actually disagree and defend QT here, much as I feel he's disgustingly overrated; "Inglorious Basterds" was an excellent picture, his best yet, and really, the kind of B-movie exploitation fare that he has been most influenced by, and always wanted to do the most.

[Gideon]

"Philosophy for dummies meets National Geographic meets After Effects rendered dinosaurs". Next.

[Pickpocket]

I get it; everything philosophical is pretentious.

This is the exact reason people are scared to post negative things about this movie. In reality it had really simplistic ideas and was laughable at times. I don't think I've ever seen a movie that was trying as hard as this one was.

the film is more comprehensible than your review of it at least

If you can't understand my review for it then you didn't understand The Tree of Life. Just cause I disagree with your view on this shit heap doesn't mean its necessarily wrong. PS, already has 4 stars so some people liked it.

Thanks for that review, man.

I had a very strong suspicion this was the case when I saw the trailer for "The Tree of Life" (one of the most insanely pretentious things ever) and heard it being compared to "2001: A Space Odyssey", so I waited to hear more.

In this case it took a while, since hardly anyone saw it in theaters...

I was pretty excited to see it as well because of the cast and director but it was a huge letdown. The worst part is going on rottentomatoes and seeing any critic just getting trashed for thinking this film was indulgent or stupid, which it was. I also think people were going to like it regardless of what the actual content was. No one will admit it but I know me personally I love PTA so I'm expecting The Master to be amazing and it already is in my mind. So I'm already biased towards liking it despite never seeing a frame or the script. Others feel the same way about Malick but this is clearly his worst film, by a mile.

I have to agree.. the first 20-30 minutes were visually overwhelming.. then came the dinosaur MS Paint scenes that are supposedly "not narratively connected, but thematically complementary pieces." but ultimately just pointless imo.. The rest of the movie are mainly 'Kodak moments'. I didn't really know what to make of the rest.. Just some clips of family life and seeing children grow up, and a couple emotional scenes, but barely enough on the surface to keep the movie going. I'm sure that some people here think they 'got' the movie, but from what I could tell, if you read the wikipedia summary there just isn't more to it.

I think Ixtiandur's review sums up what you're saying nicely: "The most pretentious drinking game. Sip everytime the sun is shown through the trees."

[sebby]

double post.

[sebby]

If "philosophical" means idiotic, cliched slogans written for 5 year olds and "artsy shots" of the sky and the Sun, then sure.

I just prefer to call it "pretentious", instead. I also get the suspicion that many people who call something "philosophical" have never actually read a book about philosophy, and thus, don't really know what the word means...

philosophy: of or relating to the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, or existence.

Philosophy abounds in The Tree of Life. Just because you didn't like it or thought it was simplistic doesn't make that false.

Pickpocket, I half-disagree with your point -- this movie has been bashed all over the place. I don't feel that people are afraid to say they didn't like it. In fact, I think any movie that merely comments on issues like life and death, the meaning of existence, etc., with even a modicum of artfulness will get a large share of vehemently negative responses from some people. These types of films really touch a nerve with those who either don't grasp the film's intention or simply don't enjoy it for whatever other reason. We have a tendency to attack anything on the high-brow side of cinema if we don't like it, calling it pretentious or what-have-you, because we don't want to say, "That's just not for me -- it's not the type of film I like to watch," about a movie that is either a classic or seen as intellectually difficult or obscenely arty. We have no problem saying this about less revered cinema -- chick-flicks or gorefests -- b/c the stakes are lower, so to speak. Additionally, the hatred comes from an overwhelming disappointment that we haven't been "touched by cinematic, life-altering genius" as the hype led us to believe. Fuck, these are things anyone would want from a film. When there's the possibility of being moved or wowed by a brilliant film and it fails for us, the disappointment is exponentially greater than if something with a modest pedigree like Legally Blonde fails for us, and thus the reaction must match.

However, there are those who do in fact claim to like films like this, 2001, The Seventh Seal, etc., for the exact same reason as those who mercilessly bash these films (that's why I said I only half-disagree with Pickpocket's point) -- they have trouble simply saying "It's not my cup of tea" and rather than justify, they submit.

The thing is, the exact same holds true for the reciprocal: there are films that no one admits to liking, at least in certain company (geeky discussion boards included) b/c they don't want to be the guy that sticks up for Forrest Gump or Titanic or Twilight when it's being bashed into oblivion by everyone else, even if they did happen to enjoy it.

When you say that "X" film is one of those movies people feel they have to pretend to like, you're making too much of a blanket statement because it's also one of those movies people will bash relentlessly, and it's an insult to anyone who actually likes the film for its actual merits.

[MmzHrrdb]

oh you mean people actually like this piece of shit? i just gave it a 97 to look cool and sofisticated

[Gideon]

Why exactly did you give it a 97? Now I'm interested.

[Pickpocket]

Pickpocket, I half-disagree with your point -- this movie has been bashed all over the place.

Currently an 85% on RT. That's pretty amazing for a movie that just came out on RT.

I don't feel that people are afraid to say they didn't like it. In fact, I think any movie that merely comments on issues like life and death, the meaning of existence, etc., with even a modicum of artfulness will get a large share of vehemently negative responses from some people.

It just depends where you are really. You could not walk into a party at Stanford and say you thought this movie sucked just in the same way you couldn't say you thought Bush was a good president at that same party. By the same token if you are in Miami, Florida you could say it sucked and people would fist bump you.

These types of films really touch a nerve with those who either don't grasp the film's intention or simply don't enjoy it for whatever other reason. We have a tendency to attack anything on the high-brow side of cinema if we don't like it, calling it pretentious or what-have-you, because we don't want to say, "That's just not for me -- it's not the type of film I like to watch,"

I agree, but the thing is this is a movie I typically enjoy. This was just devoid of any real substance and just came off as pretentious and like I said before trying way too fucking hard.

We have no problem saying this about less revered cinema -- chick-flicks or gorefests -- b/c the stakes are lower, so to speak.

Yes, this was my point. Many will say they liked this despite hating it to fit in, seem smart, etc.

However, there are those who do in fact claim to like films like this, 2001, The Seventh Seal, etc., for the exact same reason as those who mercilessly bash these films (that's why I said I only half-disagree with Pickpocket's point) -- they have trouble simply saying "It's not my cup of tea" and rather than justify, they submit.

Yeah, but the difference between those 2 films and this one is that they actually had a coherent story, this was just disjointed garbage thrown together to fool you into thinking it was something special when it wasn't. I guess I applaud Malick for being a master manipulator.

When you say that "X" film is one of those movies people feel they have to pretend to like, you're making too much of a blanket statement because it's also one of those movies people will bash relentlessly, and it's an insult to anyone who actually likes the film for its actual merits.

It's definitely a blanket statement (said more for humor then anything else) but at the same token it's also applicable to many, many people.

oh you mean people actually like this piece of shit? i just gave it a 97 to look cool and sofisticated

cool story bro

[ShogunRua]

If "philosophical" means idiotic, cliched slogans written for 5 year olds and "artsy shots" of the sky and the Sun, then sure.

I just prefer to call it "pretentious", instead. I also get the suspicion that many people who call something "philosophical" have never actually read a book about philosophy, and thus, don't really know what the word means...

philosophy: of or relating to the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, or existence.

Philosophy abounds in The Tree of Life. Just because you didn't like it or thought it was simplistic doesn't make that false.

As I stated above, I was talking about the trailer being insanely pretentious, not the "The Tree of Life" itself, which I haven't seen. Which, by the way, is an incredible (albeit dubious) achievement for a freaking trailer. And there was nothing philosophical about it; just a collection of artsy shots, characters wistfully starring off into space, and an annoying hushed narration.

Pretentious bullshit, in other words.

We have a tendency to attack anything on the high-brow side of cinema if we don't like it, calling it pretentious or what-have-you,

I don't feel this is the case. A couple of the friends I have who laughed at and hated "The Tree of Life" absolutely adore something like Bergman's "Wild Strawberries" almost as much as I do.

There's certainly a way to make a thoughtful, deep film, and it doesn't involve cliches, childish refrains, and a million shots of the sky.

It just depends where you are really.

Great point.

Among casual film watchers, there are a lot of people who disliked "The Tree of Life". But among the very self-selecting group of movie fans who signed up here on Criticker, it obviously has a much higher average rating.

But just like there's a way to shamelessly pander to and fool casual film-goers, there's a way to shamelessly pander to and fool film snobs, too. And I think everyone on here, myself included, is at least a bit of a snob.

In Malick's case, he's a legendary director with a mythical reputation among film fans, so it's that much easier for him to pander to and get rave reviews from self-styled "film connoisseurs".

And while I'm not saying there aren't some people who enjoyed the picture on its own merits, I can tell you its average rating would be WAY lower if the credits said the director was "Harry A. Humperdink" instead of "Terrence Malick".

[Anomaly]

This is the exact reason people are scared to post negative things about this movie.

Why do you get that impression? This is a bit of a snobby site but there's quite a few minireviews from people who were disappointed by the film.