Start to Download Movies in Seconds!
Downloading movies has never been so simple! Now with Movies you can easily find and download any movie you want. Our website guarantees fast download speed, no codec problems and of course - best quality. You can search our database and download the most popular hits or some rare classic movies that you always wanted to see. Movies guarantees your satisfaction as soon as you open the downloaded movie!
Buy The Tree of Life Movie. Watch online or Download
7.1
Genres are Dr Produced in 2011, USA
Available Quality: DivX, Hi Def, iPod, Hi Def, Hi Def
Rating: 7.1 out of 10 (50060 votes)
 |
480x256 | 515 MiB |
|
 |
852x464 | 1239 MiB |
|
 |
1920x1040 | 10060 MiB |
|
 |
1280x688 | 5587 MiB |
|
 |
1 | 624x336 | 701 MiB |
|
|
2 | 624x336 | 700 MiB |
|
| Actors | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Sean Penn | Brad Pitt | Fiona Shaw | Jessica Chastain |
| Hunter McCracken | Laramie Eppler | Tye Sheridan | |
| Directors | |||
| Terrence Malick | |||
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.
More Movies
Action, Thriller, Drama
Action, Thriller, Drama
Thriller, Horror, Drama
Romance, Drama
Drama
Lubomir Sandov
24 May 2012
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.
tiger jack
24 May 2012
Not worth it unless youre an evolutionist
I don't want to sound harsh, but this film was draining, andunfortunately like other films I have watched (one I'm thinking of isThere Will Be Blood), The Tree of Life is not an emotionally drainingmasterpiece. It is simply draining. Full stop.I will start with why I entered into this film. Why? First, the averageon IMDb is very high (8.0 before I entered the cinema). Second, thereviews sound fantastic...I didn't read deeply into the movies becausesometimes going too deep into the movie summary ruins the plot for me,but at a glance I read some comments about: "movie of the decade","art", "poetry", "haunting masterpiece" and the like.I was impressed...I read the short synopsis about a child losing hisinnocence. It grabbed my attention! I entered the movie and was veryhappy with the first few scenes and the dialogue. Then all of a suddena very long scene showing the evolution of life comes up. It may havetaken up 1/3 of the film. Yeh OK good. But seriously, it serves nopurpose in cinema. I would prefer to watch the documentary channel. Ididn't walk into a film about a child losing his innocence to discoverhow the earth came about to creation (from the perspective of thedirector), I didn't walk in to watch dinosaurs and ripple effects onthe Earth and the worlds after that exist.The movie is poetry? You got to be kidding me! The script for actualdialogue would have been 10 pages. Nothing is said in this film.Occasionally someone decides to do a voice over, a very short one andthen back to evolution.Some of the scenes with the children growing up are good, but itdragged out too much and plus the evolution aspect completelydistracted me from the child losing his "innocence." This movie doesn'tshow how a child loses his innocence, it shows how the world began andhow it will end for all of us.I would have preferred a focus on Sean Penn and the actual consequencesand affects his childhood had on him, not some last ditch effort whereeveryone is in heaven, happy, showing love.The concept of the movie from the beginning was good, but it was poorlyexecuted. We all wonder the purpose of life, we all wonder why we'rehere, what's going to happen to us when we die, etc...but the sad factI have to tell this director is that life goes on regardless ofevolution, regardless of what or who we are and where we end up. Westill have credit card debts, we still have children to look after, westill face moral choices everyday...our troubles don't disappear justbecause we're loving and because we (think) we've discovered where wecame from and where we will end up. You still have to live your lifedon't you? Seriously not recommended unless you like watching thediscovery channel and are an evolutionist.Another complaint I have, which I would not even have if I was happywith the movie is that Sean Penn and Brad Pitt (the "stars"), donothing. Zilch. Especially Sean Penn. His "older" character should havebeen studied more instead of showing me how the universe evolved andsome nice happy pictures of heaven and what not. The science (or lackof) behind the universe is something which cannot be proved ordisproved. Arguments from all over the place are thrown around. Well,the director thinks he has it all figured out. He has nicely laid outthe beginning, the middle and the end for us in the tree of life. Whatfor? Live your life, pondering about these concepts is not going tohelp you live your life. It may even be argued that by my very rationale I am contradictingmyself, but all I'm trying to do is a) give non viewers an insight intowhat the film is and who it is really for and b)show other viewers whodisliked this film that people in agreement exist. The director seriously has issues with his life. He has no idea why heis living, where he came from and where he will end, ultimately leadinghim to a desperate effort to make a film and give himself some falsecomfort.By the way, I believe in God, I believe in fat, heaven and hell, and Ibelieve in morals, love and being "good". But the concept in this movieis simply draining!I must also declare, this is on the rare occasion I have disliked anIMDb movie with a score of over 7.5 Usually over 7.5 and I'm reallyhappy with the movie and I thought I started a trend. Unfortunately I'mbrutally honest in this review, I did not like this film!
sonnex-218-372860
24 May 2012
What did I do to deserve that? Karma owes me BIGTIME
Now I know the phrase 'worst movie ever' gets banded about way toomuch, there are of course worse movies - for anyone who has ever usedthat expression for a movie that isn't 'The Tree of Life' then they arewrong, for 'The Tree of Life' is, undoubtedly, irrefutably,unquestionably: the worst movie ever made. This movie is not impressive in any way. If you enjoy it then that'sfine, good for you, I'm actually jealous as you'd probably enjoy yourown funeral - a place that, while watching the movie, I rather wishedI'd have bin. All comfortable in the sweet release of death. It was pretty. If you visit a gallery you might find lots of prettypictures, although, you usually find one or two that you love which putthe rest out thought. Here the director believes it all to be prettyand for the odd minute there will be something nice to look at. But nowhere near enough to get the rating anywhere near a mighty 2.
GG Eden
23 May 2012
You will love and hate it at the same time
Soon as I was watching it I was thinking to myself...."this is justlike Thin Red Line mixed with 2001: A Space Odyssey." Lol, little did Irealize until after I watched it, and read up on it, that it wasdirected by the director of Thin Red Line, and that all the specialeffects were done by the guy who did 2001: A Space Odyssey. That oldschool style of doing it all using real materials etc, rather than CGI.Which really does make everything look so real compared to CGI(naturally).As for the film itself, I agree with what Sean Penn said about it. Itwould've worked so much better if it was a linear narrative. I didn'tenjoy the movie much at all in its totality. Far too ponderous andself-infatuated, far too laboring in how the film just breaks up duringa narrative and goes into far too-extended periods of 2001: A SpaceOdyssey SFX. Especially around two-fifths of the way thru it when itbroke off for soooo long. I wanted to poke pencils into my eyes. Imean, 2001 is one of my all-time favorites, and I loved the actual SFXof Tree of Life, so beautiful etc. But it just didn't suit the movie,and not to the extent it was done. It really detracted. It was overkillx100. Too try-hard. Whereas it suited 2001, it wasn't overdone, it wasjarring, sinister and beautiful all at once.The reason I agree with Penn is because the actualstory/script/acting/directing of the real world scenes were among thebest in cinema. So many brilliant subtle little scenes, camera angles,and pov-like angles, so much said in just the unspoken acting betweencharacters. So many aspects of the family life being shown/told thatreminds us ALL so much of our own upbringing. That if the film was alinear narrative, only very tiny 2001 SFX, and the movie length kept tosomething like 90 mins, it would've been a veritable cinematicmasterpiece.
Reviews by Courtney
21 May 2012
Havent met a person who has enjoyed it yet...
I work at a movie theater, so I've seen a little bit of this movie andI thought it was very, very strange, but I didn't know much about it. Ifigured maybe somebody that knew more about it or watched the wholething would get it. WRONG! In the past day there were five people thatasked for refunds or to see a different movie! When I went to clean thetheater, I asked the guests on their way out what they thought of itand I heard everything form laughter, to it sucked, it was confusing,to just plain rotten! I'm sure there's somebody who would like thismovie, I just haven't met anybody who does yet. If you're questioninggoing to see it or not, I'd save my time and money.
Martin Teller
20 May 2012
The Tree of Life (2011)
I'm an idiot. I looked forward to this movie for months, watched thetrailer, went to the website. And when I had my chance to see it in thetheater... I blew it. I had plenty of time too. I just didn't want todeal with parking downtown. Moron. I promised myself that this year Iwould see more movies in the theater, and I haven't been to a singleone. More than any other, this is the one I regret missing. What you'reabout to read is gushing. Effusive gushing. Effusive, incoherentgushing. Effusive, incoherent, RELUCTANT gushing because my stupidcynical self doesn't want to gush over something that's alreadyreceived so much gushing from others.To say this is a beautiful film, perhaps even the most beautiful film,isn't enough. The film embodies beauty. Impressionistic fragments ofmemory flow into each other, and even when the images aren't gloriouslybedazzled with natural light (Malick seems to be constantly striving toinclude the sun in the proceedings, as if the camera itself is seekingGod) they exhibit a captivating sense of framing and movement. The filmalso showcases some of the most breathtaking use of special effectphotography and CG I've ever witnessed -- it's no surprise that 2001maestro Douglas Trumbull was involved. Is it enough for a film to beaesthetically brilliant and have breathtaking visuals? Well, yes, butthat's not all there is to it. You could accuse Malick of being tooambitious here, his philosophical musings perhaps not as profound asthe incredible imagery and rapturous music (a terrific score by Desplatwith a thoughtful selection of classical music) suggest, and I wouldn'tnecessarily argue. But I was swept into the poetry and rhythms of thevoice-over, the gentle exploration of life, its beginnings, itsconflicts, the duality of nature and grace. I also love that we arepresented with a father figure (Brad Pitt) who is fearful without beingmonstrous, and whose own voice is given equal weight as the moresympathetic characters. And the casting of the three children is superbas well. This is a movie I'll be returning to, and soon. It's hard tosay at this point whether this or THE NEW WORLD is my favorite Malick,or even if such a comparison has any meaning.
cultfilmfan
20 May 2012
The Tree of Life
As any fan of writer/director Terrence Malick can tell you, some of ushave been waiting for The Tree of Life for quite some time. I think itwas announced that he was making this film shortly after his 2005feature The New World. Different websites would report on any news theyhad on the film, but for the most part everything was in secrecy andwhat they did report just added more to the mystery. The release datefor the film kept getting changed around as well until finally thisyear it was released into theatres after a successful premiere at TheCannes Film Festival this year. Just to sum it up briefly, The Tree ofLife is a very spiritual, religious and poetic film that shows usbreathtaking images of one's idea of what the beginning and creating ofthe world looks like as well as some of this earth's earliest creaturesand some beautiful natural occurrences and the beauty of nature that isall around us. The film then focuses on a family growing up in the1950's in Texas. The film shows us how devoutly religious the family isand that through their years together as a family they experience muchjoy as well as heartache and sorrow. All of this is seen through theone son, Jack. He looks at his mother almost as a saint as she is verysoft spoken, kind and playful. His dad on the other hand has cause himgreat grief and trouble over the years even into his much later stagesin life. It is not that his father did not love him, but rather had adifferent way of showing it. His father was very strict and demandedrecognition and respect. Everything to him was very matter of fact androutine and there are some scenes we see him with his young childrenthat actually caused me some discomfort and anxiety. Not because theyare violent, but because of the emotional intensity of the scenes andhow real and believable it is. We get to see the young boys growing upwith each other and their friends and going about day to day life suchas school, chores and family life. Often at times there was a verypeaceful feeling I got while watching them and then in times of troubleyou could also really feel for this family and the young kids and itwould almost disturb you. The sequences showing the creating of theworld and this earth were very beautiful and done to some very poeticvoice overs and music and by the end of this film I felt quiteemotional. I felt that way because in this movie we see so much beautyand also the hardships and difficulties of life and because it feels soreal and personal I can not imagine it hitting home to most viewers whowatch it. The film is done in such a way that many will lose patiencewith it and not care for it whatsoever. This is more a film for thebraver filmgoers who like a challenge and liked to be challenged bytheir films and think about what they just saw. This film will leaveyou questions and perhaps in it's own way give you answers to your ownlife, existence and past memories you have had on your path down thislife whether they have been good, bad, or like most of us a little ofboth. The Tree of Life is a haunting and beautiful film that reached myinner emotions and left me quite quiet after I saw the film, but gaveme a lot of food for thought and it was definitely a very worthwhileand meaningful movie experience that I am glad I had. One of the bestfilms of the year.
peleserbia
19 May 2012
3, just because of beautiful cinematography.
I really don't know where to start this review...I was very skeptic, because Malick's movies never really had impact onme. This movie has no plot, it is completely non linear and some partsshould really be shortened. As for pros, I would say that i was really stunned with the imagescoming on screen. Terrence really showed us some spectacular shots, andthat's one of the reasons I can't give this movie a 1. Also, the kidthat plays role of Jack did an amazing job. It's very hard to deliversuch a performance with just a couple of lines. The bottom line is- completely abstract and not to be watched just forfun. You have to dig deep for this one.
chrismsawin
19 May 2012
Visually stunning, but the story doesnt quite match its visual strengths
I had never seen a Terrence Malick film before The Tree of Life.Despite not having any sort of expectations, the final product stillwasn't what I imagined it would be. The trailer didn't really revealmuch of anything either, at least as far as the story is concerned.Brad Pitt plays the father of a boy who eventually grows up to be SeanPenn. That's about it. While The Tree of Life may come off as slightlypretentious and more than a little overbearing, it's difficult to arguethat it isn't exactly that. But at least it offers an incrediblecinematic vision in the meantime.The cinematography in The Tree of Life is truly mesmerizing. Everyframe seems to tell its own unique story thanks to the way it was shotand the vibrant colors that are used throughout the film. Malick has away of making things like trees, waterfalls, and shadows seem way morespectacular than they really are. There's a fascination with the thirdperson perspective as we're constantly staring at the back of theactors as they react to the extraordinary world around them. Everythingin the film just seems to be so full of life.Less delightful things in life are shown in a fantastic light, as well.Devastation and how it's portrayed is one of them. Jessica Chastain'semotionally powerful reaction to the letter she receives in addition toBrad Pitt's face slowly melting into a look of both recognition andsorrow as the sun bathes his look of despair as he receives this newsover the phone illustrates this point to perfection. Dying trees andthe way their branches plague the sky leave a fairly large impact, aswell. Then there's the use of colors in the film. There's a heavy useof green for scenes that take place in the past while shades of grayare littered throughout the present. White is also used to symbolizeinnocence. Clouds and the sky in general are utilized throughout thefilm while skyscrapers seem to replace trees in present day. Perhapsthe most enthralling visuals are the scenes in space. The magnitude andvast infatuation of watching nebulae, planets, stars, and life fromspace as the film offers is something marvelous in itself.The story is where the film stumbles. We're shown various differentcircles of life, so to speak, but the O'Brien family fits in theresomewhere amongst outer space and dinosaurs and their story comes off alittle forced rather than natural. Jack's childhood takes a front seatas we see him get into mischief with his friends and brothers and weeventually watch him develop issues towards his father, but it doesn'treally go much deeper than that. A tragic event seems to bring thefamily together just as much as it pushes them apart. We're shown someof the trials and tribulations of life, but the story doesn't feel likeit goes nearly as deep as the visuals do. The ending doesn't providemuch closure either. Is Jack in heaven? Is this just his way of lettinggo of the past? Maybe it's just a way to symbolize his thoughts andemotional process? Is it acceptance? All of the above? The Tree of Lifejust left something to be desired when it came to its story.The Tree of Life is beautifully shot and eloquently acted, but is a lotto take in and feels twice as long as its 138-minute duration. Thefilm's score is breathtaking. In addition to its use of Brahms andoriginal pieces, simple sounds like birds and wind chimes and nothingmore during certain scenes made the film sound and feel like anexpression of life itself rather than just appear to look like it. TheTree of Life is incredibly abstract yet gorgeous and engrossing. Itjust has trouble finding its footing when it comes to storytelling.
jack_burton37
18 May 2012
Tree of ht
You'd be forgiven for thinking the first 40 minutes is in fact somelong drawn out commercial for a fragrance by Davidoff, then whilegrowing increasingly impatient as to hearing the sultrily whisperedbrand name which you've presupposed to be life, ocean or evolve, thewhole thing morphs into BBC's walking with dinosaurs minus theinteresting facts and warm Attenborough voice over of course. Out ofthis excruciating tangent of scenic imagery some semblance of a film isspawned albeit with limited dialogue, most of which amounts to semiaudible existential questions. It soon becomes apparent that this isthe extent of what we'll be offered in the way of non linear narrative,that being more or less a non existent one. And before one of thenavel-gazing, pompous Canne based critics who astonishingly awardedthis thing the Palme d'Or, objects citing the artistic symbolism, I getthe symbolism but that said, symbolism without substance is merely amarketing ploy married more to the advertising industry than film. If Iwanted beautiful imagery and nothing else I'd spend a few hoursstrolling around an art gallery and last I checked Malick is nopainter, he's the filmmaker that brought us Badlands but on this formhas lost his way.
Ljennifer789
17 May 2012
Awful, awful, awful
One of the worst movies I have ever had to suffer through. The camerawork/editing made me so dizzy and sick to my stomach I had to leave thetheater. However, this was not a problem, since I was following a longline of people who were disgusted and leaving the theater as well. Thecamera work was jerky and seldom held a scene long enough for you toenjoy to cinematography. In addition, the story line was so esoteric asto be incomprehensible. I cannot say that I enjoyed any of the actingsince the camera never stayed with an actor long enough for you to getan emotional connection. Awful is a nice way of saying how bad thisfilm was to the average viewer.
Celso
16 May 2012
What a Piece of C
Definitely not for everyone and hats off to you if you can sit throughthis one....I never feel the need to write a review but this....3rd attempt trying not to fall a sleep, don't watch this after a long aday. All the time i'm thinking Sean Penn, Brad Pitt there must besomething to it....Literally nothing happens in the first dare i say 45 min of themovie...but you hang in there because it has to start sometime but itnever does. Lots of pretty pictures of the earth and creation and whatnot. If i want to see that I buy a Planet Earth bluray set.Must be some kind of artistic mumbo jumbo i'm not privy to...God i've never seen anything so boring in my life...
Nuno Duarte
14 May 2012
movieinthepark.blogspot.com
The title The Tree of Life suggests a deep reflexion about the mostunclear questions of Life. It is mostly set in the middle of the lastcentury, within a 5-membered family. It focuses on the oldest son, Jack(Hunter McCracken and Sean Penn), now remembering his past, centred onhis puberty and his first opening to life, seeking answers about tolife, existence and our being. In fact, this movie has much more of areflection than a story being told. Remembering his teenhood, he findsanswers in what his mother (Jessica Chastain) thought the paths lifecould take, in the way his father (Brad Pitt) raised him, in the deathof one of his brothers, etc. The Tree of Life is obviously not aconcept created by Mallick to this movie, as it comes from very far,like Egypt. Always in time has the Tree of Life been used to unite lifeand death, life and nature, life and God, nature and grace. All of themare approached in this film one way or another. The best featureclearly doesn't lie in the movie itself, that even gets very annoyingand slow in some parts, but on some ideas. It's my first TerrenceMalick 's, but it's easy to notice that is a clear attempt to come backafter failed ones since The Thin Red Line. It's good, it's an 8/10 andI'll leave you with it's best thought.The nuns taught us there were two ways through life - the way of natureand the way of grace. You have to choose which one you'll follow. Gracedoesn't try to please itself. Accepts being slighted, forgotten,disliked. Accepts insults and injuries. Nature only wants to pleaseitself. Get others to please it too. Likes to lord it over them. Tohave its own way. It finds reasons to be unhappy when all the world isshining around it. And love is smiling through all things.
mrlugubrious
14 May 2012
Nuevo Gar-bage
I am a fan of any genre of good movie. I really look forward to seeingBrad Pitt do well as he is so capable. Sean Penn can be entertaining asanybody has ever been. I can only hope that the actors, no matter whothey are, fill the same capacity as a court jester. I know it seemsharsh but it is true they are only there to please me. If theycontinuously fail to hold my interest I do longer will indulge theirattempts. With this in mind I wish ALL of them would keep theirpolitical aspirations to themselves so I do not have to disagree withthem and somehow taint their unrelated performances. Now that I havefulfilled the mandatory ten lines to make a comment, I would like tosay that this movie sucked. Droll, artsie fartsie and a total waste ofMY personal time to engage this epic. C'mon Brad, give me some fightclub, 12 monkees, a river runs through it, you know something good.Sean, oh Sean we could probably be friends after we went at it forawhile, but remember Colors? I do and that was a good movie. Be the oldBull Sean......
Pizza_hut_delivery_guy
13 May 2012
Unwatchable!
I ordered this lousy movie from my on-demand cable service and calledthem back to request a refund. It's absolutely unwatchable. Why theybring in top-shelf talent like Pitt and Penn and then devote inordinateamounts of time to rehashed NASA footage is beyond me. Hey, don't getme wrong. I like NASA footage as much as the next guy, but just didn'tthink it worked here. I mean, the first 2 minutes were OK, but it justseemed to go on and on like a bad marriage. I will admit that when Ilook at some of the other reviews that actually liked this film, itmakes me wonder that maybe I missed something. But then I recall that Iwas with a group of friends when I rented it and none of us could standthis garbage. We're sitting there for like 25 minutes thinking, "OK,now it'll get better. Surely with all the hype and Pitt and Penn thismust be a decent movie". Nope!
camelotww
12 May 2012
Worst movie Ive ever seen
This is my personal review. Absolutely the worse movie I have everseen. Over two hours of unrelated gibberish. Boring, from start tomerciful finish. I do not wish to insult anyone writing his/heropinion, like other reviews have done, but this was a complete waste oftime. I have never been a Sean Penn fan, and he did not let me down. Heshowed no trace of acting ability. I am surprised that Brad Pittallowed his name to be associated with this film. Sorry Brad, neveragain. Some have found this film artsy, and criticized bad reviews.Fortunately, they don't make up the ticket buying public. Don't wasteyour time, you'll never get it back.
Don McKenzie
09 May 2012
Beautiful tree plastic roots.
Terence Malick is a director who allows the camera to do a lot. Heworks with cinematographers who are able to capture exquisite images,so much so that his films become a type of visual poetry. Combiningthis talent with a powerful story is the epitome of filmmaking talent Âwhich is why, after watching The Tree of Life, I am disappointed andeven angry.On the plus side, we have superb acting. The story of a familydominated by a loving and increasingly frustrated and paradoxicallyabusive father is told in an understated and extremely effectiveway.Pitt has never been better. We feel for all involved, particularlywhen tragedy strikes. The problem is that the simple and so effective story is hidden behindan intrusive stew of religious and evolutionary images in which Malickallows his CGA folk free rein. The DVD I hired told me to turn up thevolume: a first for me. Ten minutes in I understood, because most ofthe speech is whispered, with the occasional window-rattling burst ofsound. Early on, for about ten minutes I seemed to be watching a dirge musicvideo or screen saver, which was beautiful but fairly pointless onceone had appreciated the spring leaf/ volcano violence ambivalence.Somewhere we went into space, and then launched into an evolutionarysequence which ended with one form of dinosaur planting its foot onanother. I was hoping that this was going to continue, as acounterpoint to everyone's whispers to "God" who appears as a reddishwaving curtain (I think).No, we were back to the whispers.Then the film picked up, and for the next reel or two I was riveted bythe family dynamics, the acting and the beauty of the photography.Why am I angry? When the film actually appeared to be going somewhere,we were back to the planets and some dire beach where the dead or deadin spirit woodenly move in random directions greeting each other oreven worse, versions of each other. Sadly, they actually looked silly.I cannot help but feel that Malick has been seduced by the images atthe expense of the story and even the characters involved(somethingfrom which even Bergman could suffer). When the symbolism takes overthe film, it's self-indulgent, pretentious and something of a cop-out -which is a pity as much of the film shows that Malick is way betterthan this. If, during a wonderful performance of King Lear, everything shut downand people with beautiful pictures of lightning, and some withfireworks and others with artistic pictures of stars and swampscavorted about the stage for fifteen minutes to tell me what to feel, Iwould feel patronized beyond belief. Enough said. Still, overall, it's a visually stunning film to watch.
abell-19
09 May 2012
dreadful waste of money and time
this 'movie' if that is what people seriously call it is drivel howanyone can rate this is beyond me maybe life is full of people who needto feel part of the 'arty' community and so will give good reviews torubbish there are parts of serious thought that had the potential toprovide a classic structured movie but then the structure went out ofthe window for some art purpose? But really the directors attempt mademe think he was a Kubrick wannabee No wonder it took so long tocomplete - i think the director kept losing ideas and could not seewhere the work was taking him The director had no idea what he wastrying to achieve - thats the only answer What substance was theproducer on when they gave the money to make this Bemused
Christian Heynk
08 May 2012
Mother, Father....where did you hide the plot?
As many others have before, I'd like to point out that I actually am afan of Malick's work. BADLANDS was captivating and THE THIN RED LINEhad me on the edge of my seat. So, naturally I went to see THE TREE OF LIFE. The first ten minutesmade me brace myself for a great movie. Beautiful cinematography, theportentous voice from the off, meaningful dialogues and great acting. But what happened then? I believe this happened: Malick found achemistry set in the studio and accidentally dropped some of thebottles containing colourful liquids and all of a sudden ordered hiscameraman to film the concoction being dispersed on the floor. Then heand the cameraman experimented with more fluids and thought it lookedlike the milky way or whatever. Then Malick said: "What a shame that these ink-blot like pictures don'tfit the movie. Ah, nevermind, we'll work them in anyway!"And that's why I had to sit to twenty minutes with pictures of aRorschach-Test gone awry. And when the dinosaurs showed up, I couldn'thelp chuckling. Dear Terrence, let me remind you: You are a director, not the messiahor the next Ron Hubbard. You know how to tell a story, but next time,please make sure you have a story. This was a load of I don't knowwhat. When Malick finally, after seemingly endless twenty minutes, goes backto the Brad Pitt character and his family, you find yourself not givinga damn about them.After two hours I left the cinema, wondering what had made me stay tillthe end. Truth is I still don't know.
markuswills_9
08 May 2012
A masterpiece
Little has to be said after seeing this movie. its beautiful, hypnotic,and memorizing. The fact that it doesn't follow a structured storylineis a big turn off for some people, and i respect that, but i completelyembraced it. This movie gave me something more then just an experience.It was almost something outer worldly. The unstructured narrative WASthe journey for me.Don't listen to the other reviews, or the 'booing' articles. Go see itfor yourself. Submit for two complete hours, and just let malick enfoldyou in his wings. And I guarantee, that if you have a passion for life,and for art, then you will find yourself sitting in awe of this movie.Becayse when I came out of the cinema, i was sure i had just seen thegreatest film within the last decade.
Copyright SoulFilms © 2002-2012 All Rights Reserved.
- Support
- | Privacy Policy
- | Terms of Use
- | FAQ
- | Help
- | PDA version