MovieChat Forums > The Tree of Life (2011) Discussion > Whether you loved it or hate it, please ...

Whether you loved it or hate it, please explain why.

posted 11 years ago by amandaaaj
69 replies | jump to latest

I'm definitely full of conflicting feelings regarding this film and I came to imdb seeking exposure to other peoples' thought processes. Unfortunately, within most threads I've looked at all I've found is comments like these:

"This is a unique and beautiful masterpiece and one of the best films ever made."

or....

"Worst. Film. Ever.
End of story."

People rarely actually explain why they liked or disliked the movie. These are the most specific comments I have found on either side, and it's comments like these that I want to request in this thread:

"The film transcends categorization because it attempts to encompass the grandeur of not only human life, but of ALL life" (still pretty vague but honestly the most specific comment I found on the positive side).

or...

"I see little worth in a film with no structure, no plot and no coherence. I see little skill in filming a 20 minute sequence about the start of the world narrated by whispered nonsense and injecting it into a random part of the film. The only good thing was some nice visuals, but that doesn't make it unique."

What these people have done is provided reasons for their opinions. I challenge everyone in this thread to post your opinion of this film, and clearly EXPLAIN why you feel that way. I'm dying to actually understand everyone's opinions and thought processes. This is not a place to debate whether this was a good or bad film or to convince others the way they think is wrong, this is a place to express YOUR OWN opinion and then clearly explain why you feel that way. No cop-outs aloud.

I'm curious how many people are actually capable of defending any of their positions on this film.

[–] amandaaaj 11 years ago

I will start with the thoughts I have formulated so far.

From my perspective, this film had little to offer in terms of original content, little to offer from it's own heart. It relied on the beauty and magnificence that already exists in nature and just used that as the basis for the film. It added nothing TO it, and I realize that it probably didn't want to, but that still doesn't mean we can give credit to the film beyond where it was due-- where we really owe credit to is the brilliance of nature. I realize that this is what the film was trying to encapsulate, but that's all the film actually is-- encapsulating the beauty and magnificence that already exists in nature in a perpetual slideshow of incredibly beautiful yet irrelevant scenery. Personally speaking there just isn't anything impressive about that to me, apart from the beautiful cinematography. I realize many people might find beauty and appreciation in that and were able to experience a connection with the aspects of nature featured in the film, but the fact still remains that the film offered no original insight of its own. The plot was definitely what I would label as a "pseudo-plot," and the characters were "pseudo-characters." That was a BIG drawback for me. The characters resembled artsy paper cut-outs of people, rather than believable portrayals of real human beings. People are blatantly ignoring the minimal amount of talent it takes to create surface-level impressions of poorly defined characters. Some might view this as "BRILLIANT" and "GENIUS," but all I see is empty sketches of something that could be portrayed as convincing and real. From my perspective this film is a fancy illusion, and it's an illusion that some people can see through, into the inherent emptiness that lies beneath all the impressive pictures.

I think many of the people who see this movie as such a "masterpiece" are actually in fact reacting to the "masterpiece" and breathtaking beauty that is embodied in nature, life, and the creation of the universe. These aspects of nature itself are portrayed through the film, and since nature itself is beautiful people view the film as beautiful. That's just not the way my thought process works. When I watched the movie my thoughts were "wow nature is amazing," but that doesn't actually give any credit to the movie itself, again, apart from the skilled cinematography.

In conclusion, through my perceptions, the message this film delivered was pretty much " WOW LIFE.....MAN. LIFE IS DEEP..... MAN." And that's all it pretty much said, nothing more. And its true, life is deep, life is a masterpiece, life is everything that people are saying that this movie is, but it's just not impressive to me to take such a general and unoriginal stance on everything. The film was just portraying everything exactly how it is, and the subject matter is inherently deep to begin with so it doesn't take much work to just string together a bunch of scenes that you contribute nothing of your own insight on.

PLEASE SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS because I really want to hear them. My only request is that whatever you say, let it be fully and coherently articulated.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mbrudolph 11 years ago

Witnessing the birth of the universe sequence for the first time I realized I've never felt such a strong spiritual euphoria before it. This movie reminds me of how beautiful every minute and every second can be, and also how often that time is wasted..

Viva la l'astronomie!!!

I think we can all agree that stupidity does not further the cause of mankind.

[–] amandaaaj 11 years ago

to shaggy- agreed.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Fishelakh-In-Vaser 11 years ago

I think many of the people who see this movie as such a "masterpiece" are actually in fact reacting to the "masterpiece" and breathtaking beauty that is embodied in nature, life, and the creation of the universe. These aspects of nature itself are portrayed through the film, and since nature itself is beautiful people view the film as beautiful. That's just not the way my thought process works. When I watched the movie my thoughts were "wow nature is amazing," but that doesn't actually give any credit to the movie itself, again, apart from the skilled cinematography.

An interesting interpretation. What I find utterly fascinating about this line of reasoning is that it completely glosses over the fact that there's this explicitly subjective reverence for nature that's imbued in the very fabric of this film, in every single blade of grass, in every single ray of light.

While you say in contrast that Malick is simply presenting nature as it is, that this beauty merely constitutes window dressing. And furthermore, that there's nothing of substance in the overall narrative.

Clearly I don't think this is the case. Everything in this film is very carefully and thoughtfully arranged, there's purpose here lurking beneath the safety of surface observations.

It takes a certain perceptive personality to unearth all of the tangents of narrative, all of the visual cues, all of the symbolic imagery that is precisely cut into the film in fleeting, surreal, dream-like moments. If it doesn't make sense to you on some intuitive level, then I think is safe to say that you're not on the same wavelength so to speak.

And in many ways this film is like a reflection in the water: you behold in this film much of which you behold in yourself.

Like a kiss, soft, and wild with the delicate steps of petals fallen in a stream

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Fishelakh-In-Vaser 11 years ago

Astute as always, I see. It's been quite a while though, how are things on your end?

Like a kiss, soft, and wild with the delicate steps of petals fallen in a stream

[–] JohnQuincyPublic 9 years ago

An interesting interpretation. What I find utterly fascinating about this line of reasoning is that it completely glosses over the fact that there's this explicitly subjective reverence for nature that's imbued in the very fabric of this film, in every single blade of grass, in every single ray of light.

The reverence is for God.

I got news for em. Theres gonna be hell to pay. Cause I aint Daddys little boy no more

[–] relinqent 10 years ago

I completely understand why someone wouldn't like this movie, it isn't for everyone and when i say that i mean it because the reason i loved this movie had to do with my own childhood and obviously not everyone has had the same childhood as me so not everyone can enjoy the movie for the reasons i did. Almost every detail in this movie in terms of the relationships i had, how i viewed things, and especially my father in my childhood is perfectly represented in this movie and i didn't even grow up in the 50's. The resemblance between my dad and the dad in this movie is unbelievable, for example when the dad left for a trip and the kids started running all around the house, i remember having that exact same feeling every time my dad left the house, i also remember going to events like the funeral in the movie and having to be respectful but also being bored at the same time, i even had to call my dad Father like the kids did in the movie, i could go on and on for days explaining how every last detail in this movie felt like it was pulled straight from my childhood but i'll leave it at that. Although the birth of the universe stuff didn't really appeal to me and the ending where the mother was saying "i give my son to you" felt horribly pretentious, i loved this movie and connected with it on an insanely personal level.

[–] jab670 10 years ago

I agree, it felt like my childhood very much too. However, I loved the birth of the universe sequence and I wish it had lengthened the end of time sequence. To me, this elevates the film. I find this sort of history really interesting and the juxtaposition with a family just reminds me how inconsequential we are, but also how important it is to treat one another well while we are here. Not to mention, the parallels between the Bible and the history of the universe are quite astute.

While some might be put off by the Christian message, if you truly look at the Bible as a story and educational tool, it does tell you a lot about the world. After, one of the biggest influences on science came from monotheistic religions. People believe that the belief in a single god was the most revolutionary contribution of these religions, however, gods had been consolidated for some time prior and the jump from multiple gods to one god that can embody many isn't that drastic. However, it was the Bible's linear timeline, that first there was light, that introduced the concept that the world could end. Our understanding that our sun (which is God in many religions) will die in several billion years is a relatively modern discovery. Almost as modern as the concept that our sun is a star. And in the vastness of our solar system, our planet is the only that has had life almost from its origin and not only that, but that it has gone through many iterations. If you parallel this to the Bible, it's a fairly striking parable.

So, for me, the film's power comes from this. And the fact that the film's "plot" about the family can relate to so many people's childhood only further links this with our concept of time.

I agree that some lines toward the end are very on the nose, such as "I give you my son." However, judging from Malick's work and judging by his influences (Faulkner, Jules and Jim, etc.), he is very much a stream of conscious writer that formulates dialogue from the perspective of the character and does not make them any more articulate than they would be. Mrs. O'Brien is a Christian housewife in a small town. She's very much on the surface and does not mask her (little) dialogue throughout the film with subtle or indirectness. Whereas Mr. O'Brien talks A LOT, often making up stories, and hides himself emotionally from everyone. We don't get an honest word from him until late in the film when he says "I wanted to be loved because I was great." You can see this stream of conscious style earlier in the film with the toddler where their most advanced form of thought is simple observations: "blue" and "wet".

I truly think he looks at the characters, their environments, their historical settings, and their perspectives to generate the voice overs. The New World's voice overs were derived largely from historical texts relating to the John Smith, American colonies and even associations with other colonized territories elsewhere. This very much captures the perspective of the colonizers and the colonized. So, since his last two films had less extraordinary figures (like John Smith, or soldiers, or murderers, etc.), his voice overs are more natural to the characters - even if they might sound pretentious to us. But, my final opinion will be reserved after seeing Knight of Cups and the Untitled Austin film, both of which perspectives come from artists who might have a more opaque and unusual worldview that might be captured in the voice overs.

[–] BobbyDupea 9 years ago

However, it was the Bible's linear timeline, that first there was light, that introduced the concept that the world could end. Our understanding that our sun (which is God in many religions) will die in several billion years is a relatively modern discovery. Almost as modern as the concept that our sun is a star. And in the vastness of our solar system, our planet is the only that has had life almost from its origin and not only that, but that it has gone through many iterations. If you parallel this to the Bible, it's a fairly striking parable.

The timeline in the Bible(s) are not all that linear. For example, the story of creation in the Old Testament appears twice, separated by other narrative. In addition, linear timelines and many of the major themes and stories in the Old Testament were in earlier myths passed down through generations of story-telling, as in the Gilgamesh story and others.

My real name is Jeff

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] coolbrett 11 years ago

"The film transcends categorization because it attempts to encompass the grandeur of not only human life, but of ALL life"

that's actually a great sentence regarding this film. To me, this movie perfectly summarises the wonder/adventure/experience of life. The story of the family reminded me of my own childhood just a little bit, even though I was born in the late 80s, but I think my father carried the same parenting techniques of his father, although much less than fathers of the 50s. The story of the family interweaved in the prehistoric/birth of the universe sequences makes us think about our minescule place in the grand scheme of the universe and time. It is insignificant compared to that, but significant to us because we're living it. The experience of life shapes who we become. I don't know, it's a hard movie to explain perfectly. I still don't know the exact point of the film (if there is one), but I thought it was an amazing experience to watch it. It made me appreciate the real beauty of human nature and nature itself. Movies like this are meant to be interpreted by each individual viewer, in many different ways. It's not the type of movie with a plot that can be fully explained and that's just how it is. This movie is more about going with the poetic flow of the movie. Just as people describe Malick, his movies are visual poetry.

On top of that, the imagery was amazing (except for the dinosaur).

No expectations, no disappointments.

[–] MisterGumby 11 years ago

This film takes place deep inside the mind. It is an act of thought, a reflection, a prayer (I use Christian language because the mind that enacts these thoughts, not Malick, mind you, the character, is Christian) and the film is projecting the process by which someone reflects on his place in the world. The film does not use symbol the way many have claimed, as the most common critique of the film (apart from the deluge of "it doesn't have a story/it's all meaningless" which is an invalid argument) is that the imagery is hackneyed, cliche, faux-spiritual. But those who make this claim should consider that The Tree of Life is not making these objects/people/situations/sounds/sights symbols, it is showing the process by which these things become symbol. It's exposing the gears of the mind, in short, what it means to reflect or think about one's own existence.

I don't stand talkin' in the wind.

[–] toddtw 11 years ago

I love the film because it fills me with great feelings of joy and reverence. It puts focus on what is important in life, which are connections to other living beings. Even though it didn't change my philosophical views or anything like that, just the way everything was presented gave me a deeper appreciation for life.

Also, as a male, the young Jack parts bring back childhood memories and nostalgia. Most guys have done similar things as Jack growing up, just maybe in different ways. This film captures those unspoken things better than any other I've seen.

[–] The-Road-Warrior-96 11 years ago

I thought this movie was visually spectacular, but was deeply flawed as a piece of storytelling. I was never invested in any of the characters, and found the soft talking incredibly frustrating and annoying. It was an ambitious film, but I didn't care about the characters, the story just wasn't interesting but I thought it was visually very good. I just don't believe 2 hours of nature shots transfers to a good movie. I could see how someone would love this movie though. 6/10

[–] aeris20000 11 years ago

I didn't love or hate the film. I thought it deserved the Oscar more then the Artist did, but it was a pretty weak field again at the Oscars. Its a decent movie but not a very good one.

I liked the direction, the trippy and ethereal camera work and angles. I liked how there seemed hundreds of themes and issues flying at you constantly but before you can even put them into words or thought they are gone. It also felt like the viewer was on a trip through someones memories or inner world and the multitude of barely understandable thoughts.

The theme of life evolving constantly, hence the name of the film, the kids personal evolution and the idea all thoughts and memories from the beginning of time are kept within our cells and very being. The film should demand a re watch to catch more of this.

However there is a critical flaw with the movie. It is not that it is pretentious. While it def is pretentious I have seen hundreds of more pretentious movies. There is genuine depth in this movie, a lot more then Dark Knight Rises or Inception or many other so called 'deep' movies.

The critical flaw is the movie is not fun or entertaining. That is the primary reason to watch a movie, for fun. Unlike the far less deep but vastly more fun and superior Life of Pi or fellow Palme d'Or winner Amour, Tree of life is just hard work to watch. The only thing that masks the pain of watching is you spend most of the time mesmerised trying to make sense of the alien world you have been thrust into.

For that reason I have no desire to re watch the movie to discover more depth and meaning as I don't think I could cope with another view. Its a shame as the movie could have been much greater. But the Thin Red Line wasn't fun either. I respect his direction ability, it is masterful, but I come to expect chores from him, not fun.

[–] TheCineSinge 10 years ago

I could not disagree more with your assertion that main reason for watching a film is "for fun". (try Funny Games hoho)

This is the dominant mode of thinking in Hollywood and widely throughout the world; one based on entertainment and profit, but the best films are ones which put those secondary to opening up worlds to the viewer, posing questions, forcing and making us think, helping us expand our horizons as cognitive beings and not treating us as pacified zombies. Instead treating the viewer with respect.

Sure, I like fun films as much as the next person but something doesn't necessarily have to be entertaining to be good.
Surely good is being afforded the opportunity of getting deep inside oneself and opening the mind?
Anyone can make a fun, mindless action flick given the right amount of money but for any filmmaker or artist to attempt to elicit such intense reflection and reaction from an audience is truly something special.
Being successful in doing so is something else entirely.

Film is too often forgotten by its makers and viewers as an art form.

[–] dddmi7-1 11 years ago

Couldn't the 15 minutes plus of over-the-top special effects and God/evolution creating life documentary footage have been edited down to less than 5 minutes? Ouch, I get it already, stop beating my brain into submission with your art film/Phd film dissertation on "how great I am for filming footage of earth" BS...

...this director really loves himself, he should work in the white house and study under a true narcissist!

[–] xrayzor 11 years ago

The film transcends categorization because it attempts to encompass the grandeur of not only human life, but of ALL life

That's not the reason. Neither is that a good reason to not categorise. The film transcends categorization simply because we don't generally invent a new category for every new thing we come across that doesn't yet fit into one of the readily available categories. When something unique is made, we call it unique (actually unique is just a category for "everything we don't yet have a distinct category for). As soon as more of this same uniqueness is found in other/new things, we make a new category for these things to belong to. This is how nouns and genres come to be. I hope this film will keep "transcending categorization" for ever, because it means we won't ever have to endure anything similar. On the other hand, when a noun or a concept is made for something previously unique, it will lose its mysteriousness and become just another member of the category. Just picture 20 more similar movies being made, would you still think this is a masterpiece? People will say *beep*, another "look at the awesomeness of life" movie. You might say, okay but the first member of a new category will retain its status forever, like Newton being the first physicist or Westmalle Tripel being the first Tripel (very good Belgian beer). The only problem is, TOL isn't the first in its style, it's 2001 Space Oddysey.

So why I didn't like this movie? Ever notice that when a person is trying to make a point to you, or explain a premise, and somewhere along the conversation you get it and you just want him to move on to the next part of the story, but you're dealing with a very repetitive person who keeps saying the same thing over and over using slightly different words or different angles, you're like okay I've got it, move the *beep* on, your point is REALLY not hard to grasp, I GET IT just move on?
To me, it feels like the equivalent of having to watch the universe get created for 20 minutes. Okay, the trees, the sky, I get it, the universe, magnificent, great, some more trees, some clouds, awesome, nature is *beep* beautiful, the man is bothered about his past, and his dad and stuff, some clouds, his mom is an angel who likes to whisper, some clouds and trees, *beep*, beautiful, okay heaven, awesome, everyone's happy, all's well that ends well.