Anyone who calls this film visually impressive needs to study science.

I guess if you were born in the middle age you would have burn Malick in the cross. That satan. I'm being ironic by the way, just in case you didn't get it because for sure you have no idea what this movie is about.

I'm not sure whether to laugh or call the men in white coats.

People will defend it until the end of time because of the director.

I watched this a few months back in the middle of the night and is one of the few movies I still care to remember. It wasn't perfect and was a bit cheesy at the beginning and end, but it got its job done: entertainment.
Plenty of movies use footage from riots, war, political attacks, medical procedures, scientific studies/depictions, etc. And that's okay.

You're being silly and dramatic. Yes, you can have your opinion. Of course. However, calling this the worst movie you've ever seen? That's childish, plain and simple. Watch any SyFy Original or 'Date Movie.'

Even if you're right, nobody will take you seriously if you act so hard on your emotions.

tl;dr

"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography." Ambrose Bierce

Your scientific deconstruction of the movie is sound and indeed the list of reproduced/re-used images is probably correct. Your point however, which is hard to actually pin down, seems to be the fact that he used some already existing images. This is also true but within film and many works of art in all its fields people take inspiration from the world around them and contemporary's in the field. Michelangelo from Botticelli, Domenico Ghirlandaio, Perugino. Keats from Shelley from Byron from Milton. In architecture, technology, design, computing and God forbid even your beloved empirical science there is an accumulation of knowledge, theories, techniques, styles, fashions and ideas that result in various forms and the wonderful array of beauty and content that we as a species are able to produce and enjoy. And here is my point, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, sit back watch the film and enjoy it, don't think about what it means (clearly that is beyond you)don't stress about where the images come from or who will get credit for it, take it in and if you can't do that I feel sorry for you, your science has clouded your view.

I doubt this will gain a positive response from you, negativity seeps through your thread and so through your life. No doubt I will be chastised as a pretentious hippy. But I'm unlikely to take criticism from somebody who places a films integrity in its box office takings..

Typically, Securejames, if somebody spews attention-seeking hyperbole analogous to "WORST film ever" at "The Tree of Life", I tactically ignore them like a parent should a screaming child begging for sweets in a candy store. However, since you are presenting yourself as the tutelary saint of science, I feel compelled to bite and chime in. As someone who has three degrees in the physical and life sciences and studies science religiously, I'm overjoyed that actual science and scientific images that routinely captivate us science admirers have trickled into the arts so elegantly. In full disclosure, I consider "The Tree of Life" flawless and champion it as my favorite piece of the cinematic arts.

Not to sound pedantic or self-righteous, but I truly believe that you don't "understand" the film. Personally, not since Bergman's "Fanny & Alexander", have I been suffocated with as much nostalgia; not since Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" have I been as mesmerized with a film's visual imagery. If Chagall and Wyeth were to collaborate on a film, this would be the result; it's art in motion. Furthermore, as an agnostic borderline atheist, I'm also surprised to find myself pleasantly immersed in the spiritual aspects of the film.

If necessary, I'm willing to delve into the intricacies of film's abstract narrative, but the over-arching premise of the film, in my subjective perspective, is quite clear, and the film's prologue (Job 38: 4, 7) sets the stage for the performance. As an agnostic, I simply replace the verses' lecturer, God in the Bible, with my own lecturer, the universe. Existence of life on Earth, our existence as humans, against all empirical odds, is miraculous. However, we played no hand in existing; we merely woke up on third base and thought we hit a triple. As evolutionarily superior and entitled we deem ourselves as a species, we are nothing compared to the vastness and wonders of the cosmos and the physical/natural laws that allow us simply to be. As devastating our personal burdens are to us, they're less than meaningless to the universe; humanity's burdens are single-handedly ours to bear. The universe owes us nothing; it has already given us everything. This is why Malick juxtaposes the complex evolution of the universe with the relatively simple evolution of an adolescent in a mid-20th century family: it's a coming of age story for both the universe and the film's protagonist. The protagonist's parents personify the two opposing treks available to us through this life, through our burdens. If there is a watchful god or a cognizant universe, it is concerned, and rightly so, on matters far more important than a small group of organisms vacationing on a normal planet rotating around a very normal star. Therefore, on Earth, we only have each other; so, do we stop and help a fellow traveler whose vehicle has broken down on the long and winding road of life, or do we drive on with blinders and merely focus on our own well-being? These are the two options Malick presents us with. Of course, I could be wrong, but every subsequent viewing further re-affirms this narrative for me.

It's humbling, a characteristic you seem to sorely lack. For some reason, you're allowing your emotions to cloud your rationale, which, in itself, isn't very scientific. To establish an understanding of your cinematic tastes, may I ask what you consider to be a good film? Cheers!

My good fellow science-documentary-watching friend... Have you ever heard of stock footage? NASA sends up a probe to take pictures, then people make VFX sequences out of them. Stock footage companies buy them and sell them to whoever wants it, to use however they want with no need for a license. That's how a space documentary, a cleverly edited Vimeo short film, and a highly praised blockbuster art film can use exactly the same clip of the horse head nebula. I myself plan to make a film soon where I will be using images of the cosmos, and I will have complete permission to use every one.

Scientists put effort in designing a space telescope to get pictures, and then only they can use them? So, if anyone uses one of those pictures, they're stealing from science? This is so strange an idea I'm not even sure you yourself beleive it. Are you implying that Terrence Malick needs to build his own space telescope, launch it in his own rocket, and operate it himself if he wants to use images of celestial bodies in his movies? You say that putting it in art is stealing, but putting it into a documentary isn't? NASA doesn't make the documentaries, you know. Science channel and History channel make them, and they get the space footage exactly the same way as Malick.

Lastly, you say that because the nebulas are beautiful, and Malick wants to make his movie more beautiful, so he puts the nebulas into the film, he is unoriginal, and not creating beauty for himself? My friend, Terrence Malick creates his art with a CAMERA. A camera designed to perfectly replicate what it sees. He is supposed to use things that already exist, and put them in front of the camera to make a work of art. God created the nebulas, not Terrence Malick. God also created humans, not Terrence Malick. So how is Malick taking a shot of a human less unoriginal to you then him using a shot of a nebula? Malick had very much a reason to put in the nebulas, as well. They appear during a sequence about the creation of the universe. Well, the stars were created in nebulas, therefore not showing them would be like skipping a step.