Movies: 18255 | TV Series: 3282 | Added today: 0 | Storage: 65637 GB
- Forgot password?
- | Register
- | Support
- | FAQ
- | Help
Download, Watch online The Tree of Life Movie.
| Genres: | Dr |
| Starring: | Sean Penn, Brad Pitt, Fiona Shaw, Jessica Chastain, Hunter McCracken, Laramie Eppler, Tye Sheridan |
| Director(s): | Terrence Malick |
| Available Quality: | DivX, Hi Def, iPod, Hi Def, Hi Def |
| Country: | USA |
| Year: | 2011 |
| IMDB Rating: | 7.1 |
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.
 |
The Tree of Life (iPod) | Resolution: 480x256 px | Total Size: 515 Mb |
|
|
 |
The Tree of Life (Hi Def) | Resolution: 852x464 px | Total Size: 1239 Mb |
|
|
 |
The Tree of Life (Hi Def) | Resolution: 1920x1040 px | Total Size: 10060 Mb |
|
|
 |
The Tree of Life (Hi Def) | 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 |
|
Movie Photos: We have taken some photos of "The Tree of Life". They represent actual movie quality.
Visitor Reviews: (20)
Summer Coley 21 February 2012
Not for Everyone - A Poignant, Powerful Experience for a Lateral, Philosophical Thinker
Rich with contextual symbolism and following the often painful andironic development of the human soul and finding Grace. References tothe development of the Universe and Earth can make sense to a lateralthinker and adds awe factor to the film's philosophical exploration ofour human relationship with God. If you are yearning for a movie withdepth - a movie that requires your philosophical mind to work throughit, then you may love this work of cinematic-art as much as I did.Otherwise, if you are seeking a movie with a clearly laid-out plot - amovie which requires little thought process from you, this may not beyour idea of entertainment. Refreshingly meaningful and non-cliché.Great work Malick!
melancholic mordecai 21 February 2012
a thought - provoking experience about life's mysteries and purpose. A landmark to come .
" The Tree of Life " is the most original film I think I've ever seen.Its unlike any other film I have ever seen. But its more than a film.Its an experience. The plot is about a man , Jack , played by Sean Penn. He seems lost,and empty. It becomes evident he's questioning life, his existence andpurpose. This causes him to relate to where life began. This beginningpart of the film consists of beautiful imagery. This part shows imagessuch as cosmic explosions, landmasses expanding, space , and evendinosaurs. This part is superly - significant to the film though. Theseparts are accompanied by these eerie and mysterious voice - overs, thathave us thinking about them while we're watching. In my opinion, Ithink Jack thinks of the beginning of the world because, its where allexistence began. We often think of our lives. We think of how all ofthis began. And this part, I very much improved the movie.Then Jack references back to his childhood, growing up in Waco, Texasin the 1950's . This part is focused on a lot more than the creation ofthe universe . And it should be. Because what I think this partrepresents is Jack trying to understand his own life, on a personal,and a realistic level. So he thinks about his childhood , where helearned and experienced lots of life's wonders. He, and his 2 youngerbrothers explore the area, nature. They're guided by their two parents.Brad Pitt plays Mr O'Brien . He is more strict and and old - fashioned.But the way Brad Pitt portrayed him was perfect. He makes him strict,of course, but makes him just as much a loving and caring parent. Hejust can be too hard on his kids. He wants them to be what they want tobe. And live life to its fullest. You figure this out when he says hecould have been a piano player. But the fact is , he's not a bad personat all. He's just old school . And at no point do we think " geez whatan abusive father " . Then there's the mother , played by JessicaChastain, in a much more quiet, but equally impressive performance. Sheembodies spirit, nature, love , and patience. She is some-what passiveto her husband , because he's not afraid to be hard on the kids. Butshe is still a good parent. She understands her children. She lovesthem dearly. She plays with them outside. The entire movie doesn't havea whole lot of dialog, and her character has very little. But whatChastain does here is great. She is all body language. Just by the wayshe moves or looks, or her facial expressions, you know what she'sfeeling in a very specific way. There is a voice-over in which she says"there are two ways in life. The way of NATURE, and the way of GRACE ." Brad Pitt embodies nature. Strong, unflinching, and can even besomewhat destructive. But again , Brad Pitt is not a villain . Andgrace. The mother. Spirt. Earth. Graceful. Soft-spoken. Well either way, this is a film unlike no other. I really can't stopthinking about it. It really unravels questions. And this a verysubjective film, a part which makes it so great. It asks so manyquestions. Some parts you are certain mean something, but you try tofigure out why. I saw this film 2 weeks ago, and I'm trying to come upwith my very own opinion of how to feel about it. Everyone willinterpret this film in many different ways. But that's the beauty ofit. Its not something like " Inception " where you're confused, andyou're dying to know what is happening, and what the answers are. Inhere though, you're not confused, but full of thoughts and questions . Even if you're on the fence about this film , go see it . In a summerfilled with lame , generic comedies ; mindless , heartless actionflicks ; and other mainstream waste, ... " The Tree of Life " is reallysomething new. You will only hate the film if you don't give it achance, and walk out in the middle of it . This is a film that you mustwatch to the very end to really be blown away, and left asking what allof it meant. Its also very visual and beautiful . Every scene has acertain naturalistic beauty to it. But more importantly , it will makeyou think , and will make you become part of a beautiful experience.
Mario Beguiristain 21 February 2012
Malicks' Fractals--What, no TV?
The Tree of LifeMalick's fractal film. Why I found it delightfully enjoyable andimportant:1. New way to handle narrative. Traditional dramatic structure andscene structure is abolished 2. Emotional Memory rules 3. Fragments arenever resolved yet they become whole through their own 4. Dialoguebecomes impressionistic and unimportantÂagain, fragmented 5. Thetactile sensations are the key to the film and are conveyed with aheretofore unachieved power 6. Touch/Feel/Texture/Wet/Dry/Soft and soon That what it's about: the memory of touch 7. The steady cam cameracreates a hallucinogenic "pull of the tides" that takes you into thefilm and bathes you 8. No electronic media is present other than the LPrecord player 9. NO TELEVISION or RADIOÂamazing! To ignore the arrivalof these media is a significant choiceÂparticularly in a world as seenthrough the eyes of a 7-10 year old. Where was Howdy Doody andHoppalong Cassidy? Are they not universal? How come nobody hasmentioned this? 10. That Jack kid was truly screwed upÂa resentfullittle twisted sprig doomed to grow up into Sean PennÂand thank God,not a serial killer 11. Why did the middle kid have at times his headpartly shaved in the back? 12. I could have done without the galaxies,the nebulae and the dinosaurs but I'm glad Douglas Turnbull got a gig13. I could have done without Sean Penn, futuristic Huston, glasscurtains 14. I could have done without the Fellini 8 ½ cum Dolce Vitaending 15. I could have done without the "Persona" faces in the ending16. It would be a masterpiece if it had been just the family 17. Itshould be called "Fractals" 18. A fractal is a pattern that repeats atdifferent scales, and examples are all around us. 19.http://fractalfoundation.org/OFC/OFC-1-1.html
mattlee1004 20 February 2012
Ambitious, too ambitious
i thought the movie was exactly what the poster depicted it would be.dozens of very interesting snapshots assembled together. but it lacked a central theme- correction: a STRONG central theme. thecinematography and musical score were utterly mind-blowing, each scenewas immaculately constructed and powerful...but between each scene, was a lull which left the viewer sighingwith frustration. there was never any transition in any suitable form.Emmanuel Lubezki has done some seriously jaw-dropping work for thisfilm. all in all, i don't regret seeing this movie. in fact i even think thisis a must-see for anybody interested in photography or cinematography. 7 out of 10.
stjals 19 February 2012
Boring and Prententious, With a Dash of God-Fearing
Argh. That was, hands down, the WORST movie I've ever seen. Possiblythat anyone's ever seen. When the people behind me walked out fiveminutes in, I wanted to plead for them to take me with them. Apretentious, lengthy film that drags on and on. It's goal wasapparently to teach me to appreciate the glory of god. I must have donesome serious sinning if he felt I should have to sit through that.I hadto think about something else while watching it, so that my braindidn't rot. Attempts to convey some sort of emotion, although it doessuch a poor job, I can't say which emotion it might be. Outrageouslyterrible. I joined this site for the sole reason of telling people howpainfully bad this movie is, 0/5.
anubis-43 19 February 2012
The Missing Piece of the Puzzle...Seriously, it's not that difficult to find...
Like me, you may be somewhat hesitant to see this movie after readingall of the criticism of its unorthodox nature and, in some cases,surprisingly vehement dissatisfaction with its very existence. But ifthese negative reviews are on your mind, it may be helpful to you forme to point out that most of the criticism about this movie is based onpeople's frustration and inability to understand what it is about.While not entirely wrong, I imagine most of these critics just got upafter the movie befuddled and simply left it at that. That is somewhatsurprising to me, however, since it is fairly simple to find themissing piece of the puzzle to understanding this movie. I'llexplain...First, let me assure you that this movie is not your typical Hollywoodl'art pour l'art ("art for the sake of art") movie. On what basis do Isay this? Well, it may indeed seem that way on first impression, butconsider this: the writer and director of this movie is as much a bonafide PHILOSOPHER as he is a filmmaker (might I add, one that does notidentify with the Hollywood crowd). In fact, Malik is a summa cum laudephilosophy graduate of Harvard and a Rhodes Scholar. He studiedanalytic and continental philosophy under Stan Cavell at Harvard andhe, himself, later went on to teach philosophy at MIT. This, in itself,may give deference to fact that this movie is NOT just "art" but,rather, has significant meaning.Second, for those intellectually open enough to watch this movie, Iwould strongly encourage you to subsequently watch Fr. Robert Barron'sinsightful commentary on the movie, which is available on YouTube andonly about 10 minutes long.Herein lies the missing piece of the puzzle! Undoubtedly, this moviehas biblical undertones but they are not easily recognizable. No matterwhat your creed, though, listening to a learned individual'sexplanation in this commentary will definitely put things intoperspective and quickly at that. For me, the average movie-goer, thisis what made all the difference from believing that this movie was asomewhat forced piece of filmmaking art to realizing that this movie isa truly superb philosophical work that has made me think it over andover again.
irishshadowfax 18 February 2012
Maybe it's a good movie if you are stoned...?
After seeing a rating 7.3 on IMDb I was looking forward to this movie.During the film I kept thinking something must happen now, its prettyslow to start, something MUST happen now. But it just crawled throughover 2 hours by showing us lovely pictures of space and the ocean,along with some multi-interpretable quotes from the bible that somehippies must have obviously related to. I watched it to the end becauseI was convinced it had to get better at some point, but it just ended,I was filled with a mixture of relief that it was over and anger thatthey had wasted a 139 minutes of my life. Did I miss the point or theunderlying message. No. Avoid.
soler-88-69121 18 February 2012
The most annoying film I ever sat through - boring and incredibly self-indulgent
The Tree of Life is the most boring film I have sat through in the lastten years. No, make that fifteen. Why didn't I walk out? Somehow, Ididn't feel like pushing my way past the nice people sitting next tome. Also, I had no idea it was this loooonnnnnngggggggggggggg. I put myhead down and took off my glasses for the last 50 minutes. The film isturgid, pretentious, slow, obscure, preachy, self-indulgent andmaddeningly boring.The only kind things I can say about it are that the soundtrackfeatures classical music and that there are some fine shots of lavaflows and hammerhead sharks. What these have to do with the rest of thefilm, I have no idea. I liked the dinosaur sequence too, though it wasnot immediately clear how this related to the banal suburban familystory of this film. However, it has won the Palme d'Or at Cannes and85% of critics praise it. So maybe there is something wrong with me. Ifyou are insatiably curious to see how boys played in 1950s US then thismay be the film for you.
TermlnatriX 17 February 2012
visual poetry
The most anticipated film of mine for this year. Undoubtedly gorgeous,hypnotic, and surreal, no question about it. Personally, I delved deepinto this film as I have with The Thin Red Line and The New World.Malick, to me, is the type of a filmmaker that knows exactly how toappeal to a certain type of crowd. It is probably no surprise that hedivides the audiences in such a radical manner. People either love him,or hate him, with what I believe to be little chance of a middleground, although I do not dismiss its' existence. I find that Malickmakes films for a certain type of personality, the kind that he himselfpossesses. Quiet, meditative, observant, highly sentimental. And heknows, knows how to get all the right emotions out of people who watchhis films. Like a master psychologist, he pushes all the right buttonswith the way he blends imagery with sound, and music.I personally do not feel the need to dissect or even talk about thisfilm, as it is completely useless. Those who have seen the trailer, orknow his past work need not to read others' thoughts on his films inorder to go see them. If one feels repulsed or feels Malick ispretentious, you already know what to do. Just not watch it.[06-23-2011, 11:58 AM]
bowlerhat100 17 February 2012
Genuinely one of my worst cinema experiences
In my humble view the only way this film survives is on others wantingto like something seemingly challenging and artistic. I can think of noredeeming feature of this film. There was almost no characterdevelopment and no plot, and clumsy references to nature, fate and aspiritual world. It was incredibly fragmented and even some of thecinematography was completely undermined by being left swimming in apile of self-indulgent pap.The most contrived thing I've ever seen. I don't mind no plot. I don'tmind no character development. I don't mind some awkward editing. Butusually with films of this genre they push the boundaries of cinema forsome sort of purpose. They are groundbreaking in their use of prolongedsilences to make a compelling point about life or art. This seemed totry to be like so many other better films and failed miserably. It'suse of hammy voiceovers, laboured cut-scenes to 'otherworldy' footage.It took an inordinate amount of time to tell a very basic story verybadly.The acting was probably OK, in that all anyone really had to do wasstumble around looking angry or confused. Which they all did quitewell.Exhausting. I read a cinema in Italy accidentally switched the reelsand showed this back to front for the first week before anybodynoticed. I don't think it would make an iota of difference.Exhausting.
ruiresende84 16 February 2012
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
Yudhistir Saxena 16 February 2012
Senseless Art
I agree that movies are a form of art and that this fact has beenforgotten by many directors and viewers but one should understand thatthere are two types of art forms , one is art that makes sense andstands out as being intelligent and creative and entertaining at thesametime , other category is senseless art , remember going to apainting exhibition and looking at a painting that does not makes anysense at all but still has a high price and some weird guy comes alongand buys it and you wonder what an idiot he is and you could havepainted better , its just that the weird guy bought it for the onlyreason that it didn't make sense to you and it caused all the peoplelike u and me wonder what the hell it was , this is what it is ,senseless art , even if this movie would have made some sense out ofall what was shown I would have given it a straight 10 , unfortunatelyit didn't , just an attempt to inculcate an artistic way of storytelling into mainstream movies which has actually done more harm to artthan good , critics can give it good reviews but something like this isnot worth your time and money until and unless it makes some sense andhas a proper meaning that would touch you emotionally
adrian-little 15 February 2012
I personally wouldn't watch it!
IMDb generally has very good ratings, but I don't know what happenedwith this film.It is a 1 out of 10. HONESTLY! I like Shawshank Redemption, A Prophet(French) and plenty of other films. Watch the 'Tree of life' trailerand you'll get a feel for the film. It has some lovely imagery, but isjust all over the place. It felt like I was watching the NationalGeographic channel for the first hour. It is a film which maybe triesto be powerful but simply became ridiculous.I don't like slating films. However, my friends & I came out of thecinema all looking helplessly at each other.I feel that I must warn my fellow cinema goers!
meeza 15 February 2012
The Big Tree is pretty damn good!
It is easier to dissect former professional basketball player TreeRollins' NBA Career than to review Director Terrence Malick's "The Treeof Life" so please bear with me. The renowned Malick, who is a reclusein his personal life, does not play by the prototype Hollywood filmnarrative formula. And that is definitely exhibited in "The Tree ofLife". I could now divulge into the plot points of the movie (as Iusually do during this portion of my film reviews); but the problem isthat there is no plot in "The Tree of Life", and in fact it's notreally a problem. "The Tree of Life" branches itself primarily on thethemes of evolution, nature, grace, religion, and existentialism; andhas something in common with porno movies, it shows a "big bang" (butnot the one you're thinking, exiting gutter). All these aforementionedthemes are incorporated within the memories of the character Jackduring middle age as he fixates on his childhood in Waco, Texas withhis domineering father, free-spirit mother, and two brothers. Huh? Youjust gotta see it to know what I rambling about! "The Tree of Life" isnot an "Inception", it's not supposed to be a cerebral challenge forviewers. It is more a visual avenue where a viewer can analyze theirlife experiences within the context of the universe, etc. (believe mewhen I say etc.) Are you still with me? Do you think I am barking upthe wrong "Tree of Life"? Maybe so, but that is OK. Because how youplant the "The Tree of Life" in you is also OK, unless you dismiss itinstantly and don't give this tree a change to grow in yourconsciousness. Malick presents one of the most stunning cinematicvisual sequences you will ever see in a motion picture in "The Tree ofLife". Can someone already please hand over the Best CinematographyOscar to Emmanuel Lubezki? Yes, that good! "The Tree of Life" and "TheTree of LeBron" has something in common, they have mucho haters. It isnot a movie where after experiencing one says "It was OK, I guess". Ithas no middle ground, it's in "love it or hate it" territory. I reallyliked it, did not love it, but really liked it, and 93.4% it wasbecause of Malick's mastery direction. If it was like he was a ghostcharacter in the film, I can't really describe it; like his filmsreally. Brad Pitt was solid as bully dad (sorry Mr. O'Brien, I meantFather) Mr. O' Brien. Jessica Chastain as Mrs. O' Brien was quiet inverbose but at the right volume with expression with her wonderfulperformance. And crack in another impressive child actor because HunterMcCracken was a revelation with his impressive acting as Young Jack.The only Jack that should have been kept more in the box was Sean Pennplaying the older Jack. Even though his character was pivotal in thefilm, there was no need for Penn to play it. Any other actor could havedone what Penn did in just wandering around elevators, streets, hishome, and his office building. Malick's screenplay was not asimpressive as his direction, but the screenplay is not the trunk partof "The Tree of Life". The only movie that slightly resembles "The Treeof Life" is Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey". But even so,"The Tree of Life" will be like nothing you have ever seen before inthe cinema. When you do, just remember to open your cerebral roots ofyour mind and just let the Malickism take you away! **** Good
yasshir 15 February 2012
Dinosaurs
This movie was simply the worst movie I have ever seen in my life. Iwasted 2.5h and $20 on a Friday night. I came out of the movie theaterfeeling car sick.It's not clear to me why this movie is rated so highly. The moviecontains an hour of national geographics and an hour of nonsense andfive minutes of dinosaurs (which was probably the best part about themovie). There were a few groups who just left the theater 10 minutesinto the movie. They would have had to stay for another 20 minutes tofigure out what they were watching was about the creation of earth(which was apparently essential to the understanding of the movie). Inthe end, I didn't even understand which kid in the family died, if hedid.All in all, unless you're the type to enjoy watching computerscreensavers and dysfunctional families, just skip this movie.
bikeeandy 14 February 2012
Tedious
Well, there's 2 1/2 hours of my life I'll never get back! But, itseemed a lot longer. I would gladly have left after 10 minutes, but mywife likes Brad Pitt and wanted to give it a chance. If they cut anhour, it might have been watchable - save all that self-indulgentnonsense for the blu- ray 'special' edition. Fortunately, I had my ipodwith me, so was able to listen to a few podcasts. Although, theexcessively loud music at times made it difficult to hear that. I go tothe cinema most weeks and will see anything, but I consider this to bethe worst film I've ever had the misfortune to sit through. Some niceimagery every now and then, but pointless.
CubeRic9000 13 February 2012
Easy to dislike, but unlike anything
I don't think there will be many reviews on here that are 5 stars outof 10, for the simple fact that the majority either love or hate thisfilm. I can understand both sides of the argument, but personally findmyself somewhere in between.I could never say I enjoyed The Tree Of Life. I went in open minded,aware that it would be a challenging watch, but still struggled veryearly on. I left feeling disappointed it hadn't reached my expectation.But I also left knowing I'd just seen a film, unlike anything I haveever seen before.It is an extreme departure from all the traditional expectations thatfilm history and theory have given us. One of the most challenging ofthese departures being the lack of, or more so, non existence, of anarrative. Sure, there have been plenty of films with little to nostory in the past, but not like this. This is a visual and aural flowof deep observation into a family, and particularly, a boy's childhood.It's the way this is portrayed and the self reflection it evokes in theviewer, which is truly astonishing.The disjointed nature of the piece also is difficult. Again, films inthe past have jumped through time and space, without reason orexplanation, but again, there is normally a hint of narrative or atheme to provide the all important glue to keep you interested. But notwith The Tree Of Life. It jumps with no clear or even subtle reasoning,much like a dream or a memory popping into your head. Or a work of art,open to interpretation.Not providing the viewer with a character/s that they could feelsympathy, anger or concern for, is probably what I found hardest. I canwatch most things, but to not have a character that garners some sortof emotive interest, makes it a very difficult watch. I actually foundmyself getting annoyed at the amount of screen time dominated by theyoung boy. Screen time without dialogue. Just stares into the infinite,behind the camera, which in hindsight seems like such a different andhighly effective way to ask the viewer to engage with the character'sthoughts. This is too real for you to care for the characters. Toohonest, too true, not fictionalised or hyperbole, it presents theirfaults, and their struggle, through an ordinary everyday life.I think the above three points really outline why I was disappointedwith this film. But as soon as I was struggling with the lack ofnarrative, structure, or characters, I was overawed by the way it wasmaking me think and feel. I come back to my point that I could neversay I truly enjoyed The Tree Of Life, but I could never dismiss it. Asto me it presented a family on film unlike anything I have ever seen,and it made me think about my life during the movie and for a long timeafter. It makes you look inside yourself and revisit your past andthink of your loved ones, to discover how your unique life andpersonality has been shaped. It won't provide any clear cut answers orepiphanies, it won't turn you into a better person, or make you proudor disappointed in who you've become. But instead, it simply invitesyou to reflect, on the wonder of it all.
Scotty 13 February 2012
Artistic, ambitious, wandering
While visually I enjoyed the movie, I found myself, and my wife wastoo, asking more questions at the end of it than it answered. Perhapsthat was the author's intent, and we should be satisfied with that.It's definitely not in the realm of the modern comic book stuff thatHollywood is turning out lately.I can't score it higher than 8/10 however, because of the wanderingnature of the film and the fantastic idealized way in which it portraysthe life of a deeply troubled man. Although he seems to have made peacewith both himself, his dead brother, and his father by the end of thefilm, it's difficult to understand how or why he had to come to thatplace to begin with when he seems to have made peace with his fatherabout 3/4 of the way through the film - while yet a child? Artistically, I think the film rates an A, possibly an A+. It'sapparent from any angle the clash of ideas that fill this man's head,his thinking is fuddled and he cannot make sense of his own world,since he cannot come to grips with his beginnings.From a story-teller's standpoint, however, since I failed to discernthe point (the "main" point as you would call it) of the story, I haveto give the film a B, and thus the 8/10 rating. I can't say I really"enjoyed" it either, since it left me with so much confusion. Goodmovies do not necessarily have to be enjoyable, but they should alwaysmake you think, thinking in some particular philosophical directionwould have been a good goal for this movie, rather I was simplyquestioning what it was I just saw, instead of the ideas themselves.A- for effort too though.
svenfost 13 February 2012
Outstanding
Don't ever watch it! Any other movie would seem like ducks farting infront of a webcam. I missed poetry so much and thought I was the onlyone left looking for beauty and contemplation. I'm exalted, as moviecan for once depict my dreams. This is just a UFO in the middle ofvulgar claims, strident shouts, low instincts, stupid morals andexpected schemas. Just a piece of quite dream, and probably the firsttime I vote 10. I'm a neighbor of Godard, in Switzerland. His camera isfixed but he knows strength resides in silences. He'd be proud of you.I have to write ten lines to post in here, so I could go on like thisfor hours, but I think my first line was enough; rough, but enough.
khnoem 12 February 2012
I was so happy it was over...
This is one of the few movies that I blame myself for not walking outon. Now, I don't consider myself a stupid illiterate person and I canappreciate some really wacky stuff but this movie was really just artsynonsense. A pretentious voice over tries to lure you into someintricate existential problem that is not elaborated on. This wholeargument with God is such 1950's bullshit. Maybe this is an issue forthe elderly or Americans but posing insipid questions about "why doesGod let bad stuff happen" is really not something that tickles anyintellectual interest. This film is not of this time and it has no story to tell. It just haspretty pictures and a lot of self-indulgent arrogance. What a waste ofan evening.