MovieChat Forums > The Tree of Life (2011) Discussion > The most tedious, pretentious, boring an...

The most tedious, pretentious, boring and pointless film I've ever seen

posted 9 years ago by the-devil-boy
31 replies | jump to latest

Someone on The Fountain IMDB board suggested that Tree of Life was a film in a similar vein: beautifully filmed, about the Big Questions, unconventional, etc., so I gave this a go. I love films like that. I even enjoyed Upstream Color because it managed to be impressionistic and yet still preserve hidden structure and meaning that you could ponder and enjoy weeks later. The average viewer seems to enjoy a simple fast-paced conventional story with a simple resolution, but I like more challenging fare – a good, deep and intricate puzzle film especially rocks my boat.

But this, this was genuinely agonizing. There's some beautiful but fleeting impressionistic cinematography – I can’t argue with that. But it's strung together meaninglessly and disjointedly, and contribute *nothing* to the thin and pointless story being told. I’m even reluctant to call it a story, because it’s just a series of moments in the lives of a typical, boring, empty and pointless American family’s life. Oh - and an irrelevant depiction of evolution on Earth...what's that doing in here? Nothing, apparently - just another pointless diversion within a pointless diversion of a film.

It’s nearly impossible to make a film clocking in at nearly 2½ hours that doesn’t offer *some* kind of message, or meaning, or story arc, or new perspective. This one actually managed to do that. After the first ½ hour I felt frustrated - lots of tired clichéd Christian stuff that we’ve all heard a zillion times before “God giveth, and God taketh way” – that kind of vapid platitude. 90 minutes in I was actually angry and watching the timing indicator - it was becoming very clear that this thing was going nowhere. The characters remain distant and 2D, the structure is a catastrophe (why are there a fairly random series of Hubble Space Telescope photos suddenly injected in at a random place in the “story?"), and why does everything feel so labored and pretentious? And what’s with all the whispering "talking at God" stuff? And why doesn’t a single thing in this film connect with or contribute to the whole?

I don’t like to use the word “pretentious,” in fact I never use it, because it comes off sounding pretentious. And I’ve heard it used against genuinely fascinating and philosophically powerful films like The Fountain and 2001: A Space Odyssey. But where those films used big images to convey big and interesting ideas that come together like a brilliant mosaic in the end, this film exploits them to make itself feel important, and fails, because it doesn’t have anything to say. Or maybe it says “look how pretty.” Well, life already offers lots of pretty; a work of art/film should have -something to say about it-.

I guess that’s the heart of the matter: this ponderous and pointless 140-minute Titanic of a movie is bereft of that crucial component to a film: meaning. I suppose if you can spend 140 minutes looking at a random collection of Jackson Pollock paintings, or a flip-book of random photos, then you might like this film. Or if it made no sense to you but you fell for its hollow veneer of grandeur, perhaps you’ll –say- that you liked this film so other people won’t accuse you of “not getting It."

But if you’re hoping to find some real depth or something to think about or really any kind of take-away whatesoever, and you manage to wade through this thing (even the dumb and interminable scene where everyone is meandering around aimlessly on the beach like a scene from some expensive NYU student film where the actors are hoping for some kind of direction), then you’ll probably be experiencing real, physical pain (as I was) by the time the credits suddenly but thankfully roll.

The observer is the observed. - Jiddu Krishnamurti

[–] ecky-684-830837 9 years ago

My feelings exactly.But while saying that I will give it another try.

[–] the-devil-boy 9 years ago

Haha, I’ve gotta hand it to you - you’re a brave soul. I spent some time last night reading what the fans of this film have to say – predominantly out of a morbid curiosity regarding the paradox of a human mind actually enjoying this film. Some of the posts here heroically offer imponderable explanations about why Malick fans liked The Tree of Life are actually more compelling and poignant than the film itself. I’m even tempted in some distant abstract sense to find out how anyone can enjoy this experience while candidly conceding that it lacks story, substance, characterization, originality, and really anything else that elicits meaningful human thought.

The gist of their claims seems to be that this film *intentionally averts all of those vital artistic qualities* in favor of an entirely emotional response triggered by the shifting images. Apparently it’s my stubborn incapacity to disengage all of my higher brain functions that dooms me to detesting this film…if I could just relax, willfully induce a kind of catatonic/lobotomized/vacant viewing state…I would be moved deeply….without ever being able to convey why or how or to what purpose I had been moved. In fact, I wouldn’t even particularly be able to recall much about the film, beyond the inexplicable fact that it had somehow moved me at the time. “You had to be there,” y’know?

It occurs to me that perhaps the clearest evidentiary standard by which we might gauge the value of a work of art can be observed in its reflection – the quality of the interactions that result from our perception of it. I think most of us could recall postings here at IMDB that really make you think and kind of blow your mind. I’ve had that experience many times. There were some chats on the Solaris board that made my mind reel – and some on The Fountain board that were blindingly intense and gorgeously heart-rending…others which were simply startlingly observant and/or insightful. And there’s a wealth of brilliant solitary little gems strewn across these boards like the beads of a pearl necklace.

But instead of finding some weird and wonderful new insight into the human heart or mind, or the universe or death or the nature of time, or ancient mythology or the mystical experience - as I have often seen when visiting precious discussion boards here – the best finds here consist of some charming and yet deeply unconvincing posts that blithely proclaim this to be the finest film of all time, and, some keenly urbane dismissals of the whole rotten business.

Maybe one day, when I can reduce my expectations of a viewing experience so far that feeling nothing about it afterward isn’t going to infuriate me, perhaps I’ll follow suit, and surrender to the oblivion of this film as one might calmly resign oneself to the inevitability of death in that final sigh of life, and embrace the ultimate cold void of darkness as it engulfs my vanishing mind.

But in the meantime I’ll probably just light a bone and enjoy the cosmic vistas within - the poignant glimpses of distant memories and their sublime connections to abstract thought that actually mean something to me because they possess all of the rich context and substance that this film doesn’t.

The observer is the observed. - Jiddu Krishnamurti

[–] rickjames2505-677-364956 9 years ago

they most likely were on some kind of drugs or had some recent event in their life that altered them enough to where they would think a movie like this offered something.

[–] Eva_Yojimbo 8 years ago

The gist of their claims seems to be that this film *intentionally averts all of those vital artistic qualities* in favor of an entirely emotional response triggered by the shifting images. Apparently it’s my stubborn incapacity to disengage all of my higher brain functions that dooms me to detesting this film…if I could just relax, willfully induce a kind of catatonic/lobotomized/vacant viewing state…I would be moved deeply….without ever being able to convey why or how or to what purpose I had been moved. In fact, I wouldn’t even particularly be able to recall much about the film, beyond the inexplicable fact that it had somehow moved me at the time. “You had to be there,” y’know?

Kubrick once had a great quote that's relative to this point: "A film is - or should be - more like music than like fiction. It should be a progression of moods and feelings. The theme, what's behind the emotion, the meaning, all that comes later."

You're correct that the art of narrative, which most films are used for, is more of a "higher brain function," but there are (and have been) those artists who are after a more visceral, abstract, emotional, tonal response than what's achievable through narrative. Stan Brakhage was a great experimental filmmaker whose films are almost entirely abstract as he was after that very thing; he thought that such abstraction brought film closer to music and poetry, a means of creating unconscious reactions in people without relying on narratives as an anchor to achieve the more traditional emotions you get with narrative. Malick doesn't go that far, but he's definitely closer to that musical/poetic method and what it can achieve, likely influenced by his (PhD level) interest in philosophy. In particular, one of his favorite themes was that of the poet Wallace Stevens, who was very concerned about humans' capacity for "original seeing," which can be defined as experiencing reality without the wealth of banal associations and structures we attach to it over time. A child can see a box as a castle and live in that imaginative sight; most adults can't. So the question becomes how to get back to that original state of wonder, and the answer certainly can't be by relying on the traditional structures that got us here to begin with.

Certainly there are many other filmmakers concerned with similar things as well; so many of my favorites are so because they achieve certain tonal qualities that traditional films and filmmakers don't. Some examples would be Hou, Angelopoulos, Tarr, Weerasethakul, etc. Malick just happens to be one of the very few American filmmakers that do that.

Now, I won't make any of the claims you say others do about TTOL like "it's the best film ever made." For my money, Malick has never topped Days of Heaven and The Thin Red Line. I would say, however, that I appreciate the ambition of TTOL, as it's a filmmaker blatantly tackling the BIG questions about existence in a way that's trying to achieve the sublime. As I've often said, it's refreshing to see filmmakers shoot for the moon when so many are loath to shoot for the roof, and even if Malick doesn't hit the moon, I still think the attempt should be appreciated. I'm more ambivalent about the film, and I probably need to give it a rewatch, but I liked The Fountain better myself, as well as Synechdoche, New York for another mind-bendingly original film that's trying to dig into the depths of humanity and whatnot. Though for my money, no 20th century film has quite achieved the masterpiece status of Mulholland Drive, which is a truly profound work even if it's not overtly tackling the big subjects in a "sublime" mode.

aaahmemories: Trolls are just fascists with keyboards.

[–] romefan123 9 years ago

Guess the question really is...how is it that "meaning"...what you're so desperately searching for...was clear and obvious to me and many other viewers? I'd almost say something smart-alecky, like, "How could you miss it??", but I'm not here to pick a fight. Guess you had to want to like the movie. The trailer itself spells it out in fine fashion, and is a thing of beauty.

Movies are all about mood and investment...Im' not always in the mood for a contemplative film, or a horror film...but when I am, they're magic. Were you fighting it because you rushed it?

"Hey...I like that...I like that!!" Terry Silver Karate Kid III

[–] the-devil-boy 9 years ago

Oh good - I've been hoping that someone who liked this movie would attempt to defend it. Thanks =)

Guess the question really is...how is it that "meaning"...what you're so desperately searching for...was clear and obvious to me and many other viewers?

“Desperately" searching for? It’s more like “was reasonably expecting from a $32 million, 2½ hour art film that has all of the ponderous self-importance of a meaningful film…but none of the actual substance." I generally reserve "desperate" for things like facing a loaded gun or putting out a burning building.

But this part should be fun: go ahead, educate me. Tell me in clear terms, exactly what meaning my inferior brain failed to glean from watching this rotten thing, but which “was clear and obvious to (you) and many other viewers.” Because I’ve read what fans of this film had to say about that issue, and they were at a loss as well, and deferred to the “state of consciousness” escape clause, which claims that “it’s not really about the meaning, man…you have to learn how to disengage your analytical mind which enslaves you to trivial matters like story and content and conceptual significance…and just soak it in like a mushroom trip…that’s what’s so brilliant about this film – it frees your mind…like woah.”

I'd almost say something smart-alecky, like, "How could you miss it??"

No, you’re confusing “almost saying something smart-alecky,” with “actually saying something smart-alecky,” which you just did.

So why not stop patronizing me (and everyone else who “missed it”) and actually say what we “missed.” Because I’m betting money that you can’t. Because it doesn’t exist.

but I'm not here to pick a fight.

Ok, so you’re here to chide me for not “getting it,” without actually saying what I haven’t “gotten” yet – please do so now. Thank you.

Guess you had to want to like the movie.

Trust me – I wanted to like this movie. I kept it in my “must see” folder for nearly two years, waiting for a nice quiet night to dive into it. I started out calmly and filled with hope. Which eroded minute by minute, as the film proceeded with being unlikeable. It’s kinda like Megyn Kelly – nice to look at, but ultimately just a pretty husk bereft of soul.

The trailer itself spells it out in fine fashion, and is a thing of beauty.

I didn’t watch the trailer, I watched the movie. I guess I should’ve saved 2½ hours of my life and watched the trailer instead.

Movies are all about mood and investment...Im' not always in the mood for a contemplative film, or a horror film...but when I am, they're magic. Were you fighting it because you rushed it?

I’m always in the mood for a contemplative film. Of course, it helps if there’s something more profound to contemplate than the content of any given day of an uninteresting person’s predominantly empty and pointless life. Heck, I’m one of the five people who actually liked both versions of Solaris. And Upstream Color. Films so somniferous that Ambien considered a copyright infringement suit. But they actually had…wait for it…subtext. Imagine that – something deeper going on than a more or less random collection of stock footage and meandering scenes holding no real purpose or meaning in their relationship, which actually provokes thought after the experience is over. Y’know: art.

[–] romefan123 9 years ago

I'll try one more time. Watch the trailer. It bookends the film quite nicely in 2 minutes or so, and sort of lays out the groundwork.

For the rest of what you said, I feel I'm wasting my time because you're being such a douche.

And Solaris to me...was a bore.

"Hey...I like that...I like that!!" Terry Silver Karate Kid III

[–] the-devil-boy 9 years ago

I see: it's cool to be condescending to me and to anyone else who found this film to be a pretentious and bombastic presentation of a trite and overly-worn concept, but I'm a douche for being blunt with you after your conceited and unhelpful reply. Got it. I figured that I wouldn't generally like the fans of this film anymore than I liked the film itself.

I watched the trailer anyway. It's better than the film - it encapsulates the entire concept of this 140-minute behemoth in 2.1 minutes, with room to spare.

Like the film, first it presents the false dichotomy between nature and divine grace that's common to Catholic/Christian philosophy: "nature is brutal and harsh and impersonal and masculine" - as personified by the father character, and "grace is loving and transcendent and of the holy spirit" - as personified by the mother character.

I think we're supposed to find this concept to be profound and original, but it's neither.

And it skips the obvious resolution altogether, which is weird because the visuals make it pretty plain: everything is nature, and it's both brutal/impersonal and loving/creative. Apparently Sean Penn's character hasn't figured this out in the forty years following his childhood, because as a grown man he's still immobilized by the false nature/grace conflict.

This might've been a better film if it had explored the realization that the original dichotomy is a false one. But I guess Malick still hasn't figured it out either, because he spends 140 minutes laboring over the old nature/divine duality.

I'm thinking this may be a movie that only appeals to Christians. Between all of the Biblical content, and the church choir songs playing throughout this thing, I would imagine that it would hit close to home for Christians.

Let's find out: do any non-Christians here like this film?

The observer is the observed. - Jiddu Krishnamurti

[–] ecky-684-830837 9 years ago

I just watched the trailer and think i will give a repeat viewing of the the film a miss.Another two minutes of my life wasted.
Anyway,you claim to enjoy both versions of Solaris.While I find one to be a visually beautiful yet deeply disturbing masterpiece,the other to me is pure Hollywood trash with very few redeeming qualities.I find it strange you like both.

[–] the-devil-boy 9 years ago

Like I said, I'm maybe one of five people in the world who likes both versions. A significant part of what sold me on the more recent version is the amazing ambient soundtrack - it's not everyone's cup of tea of course, but when I hear those tracks I feel like I'm listening to the inner workings of an alien mind...which of course is a key element of the film. In a way that I really enjoyed, the soundtrack felt like an ever-present-and-yet-removed character in the film.

For some reason it also got me thinking long and hard about the nature of identity, reality, and the kind of absolute communication shock that we'll likely experience if we ever actually make contact with an alien intelligence - somehow the recent version provoked those thoughts much as the first one did for me. I dunno - often my estimation of a film's value pivots on the thoughts and feelings that occur after it's over....sometimes long after it's over, and I really enjoyed the places my mind went when I contemplated that film for weeks afterward.

The observer is the observed. - Jiddu Krishnamurti

[–] TopFrog 9 years ago

I'll go you one better -- I like both versions of Solaris, and The Tree of Life.

[–] the-devil-boy 9 years ago

Well now you're talkin' crazy =)

The observer is the observed. - Jiddu Krishnamurti

[–] ecky-684-830837 9 years ago

Yes,I must agree the soundtrack was first class.Thanks for reminding me about it.I went straight to Amazon and bought it.

[–] the-devil-boy 9 years ago

Yes,I must agree the soundtrack was first class.Thanks for reminding me about it.I went straight to Amazon and bought it.

Nice =) I still have most of that soundtrack on rotation in my primary playlist, years later. There are a couple of pieces that I had to delete, which were more story-driven than atmosphere-driven, but the rest of them have a remarkable conversational quality that’s really fascinating. You get that with some of the great classics of Beethoven, Bach, and Mozart, but it’s rare nowadays. Clint Mansell’s soundtrack for The Fountain is also quite beautiful.

The observer is the observed. - Jiddu Krishnamurti

[–] ecky-684-830837 9 years ago

Have you ever listened to Soil Festivities by Vangelis.I highly recommend it.It is one of my most treasured CDs.Ambience at its best.

[–] lordDEMAXUS 9 years ago

the movie wasnt abput Christianity. it is about a man looking back at his memories and his relationship between his mother and father and that is it. there is no Christianity *beep* unless you interpret it that way. you might be the only one that sees the movie like that. the movie isnt really a sci fi film. the movie is supposed to be up to our interpretation, movie has basically no genre. you might see it as christian propaganda thing, others look at it at as a sci fi movie, i just see it as movie about a lost man trying to rediscover who he is. also i am atheist, in case you use that you are christian *beep* on me.

[–] the-devil-boy 9 years ago

the movie wasnt abput Christianity.

I didn’t say this movie was about Christianity; I said that it’s heavy with Christian themes/philosophy/Bible quotes/choir music – which is true.

it is about a man looking back at his memories and his relationship between his mother and father and that is it.

What about that is interesting or good film making? I’m not being facetious – I’m asking honestly what you find interesting about that. I could go out onto the street right now and find a random stranger, take him to a bar and grab a drink, and spend the next 139 minutes having a far more compelling and emotionally engaging experience than this film offers.

there is no Christianity *beep* unless you interpret it that way.

See…that bird doesn’t fly. I didn’t imagine the Bible quotes. I didn’t imagine all of the boring “conversations with God” stuff. And I didn’t imagine the pointless choir music. This film is stuffed to the gills with Christian motifs and overtones – no interpretation required.

you might be the only one that sees the movie like that. the movie isnt really a sci fi film.

Wait, what? Who suggested that this was a sci fi film? I see nothing sci fi about this film at all. I wish I did. Sci fi often raises interesting questions and employs provocative subtext – actual substance that engages the mind. I haven’t found anything like that in this movie – and I’ve tried, hard.

the movie is supposed to be up to our interpretation

But see, that’s what people say about abstract paintings. And that duped people for awhile, until they realized that passing the buck to the viewer to imbue a work with meaning is just a cop-out employed by painters who don’t have any substance to convey.

i just see it as movie about a lost man trying to rediscover who he is.

I understand that – the flashback setting of this movie makes that quite clear. My contention is this: that’s a boring premise, entirely unworthy of a 139-minute Goliath of a film. Billions of people on this planet feel lost and confused every day, and often seek answers in their childhood memories. And quite a few of them are more interesting people than any of the characters in this movie. So why waste tens of millions of dollars, and millions of people’s viewing hours, portraying an extraordinarily mundane and unremarkable American life, when there are much better stories and far more compelling human beings everywhere you go?

also i am atheist, in case you use that you are christian *beep* on me.

See – that’s actually interesting. Because I can’t for the life of me understand how a non-Christian could enjoy this movie. It’s not intellectually engaging, or original, or even well told. It has some really pretty cinematography, but so do most car commercials. And I honestly can’t see how anyone would find it emotionally engaging unless choir music and Bible verses hit a nerve.

So I think you could provide a lot of clarity to this thread if you could explain what you think is good or notable about this movie. Can you do that?

The observer is the observed. - Jiddu Krishnamurti

[–] lordDEMAXUS 8 years ago

Finding “Christ figures” and “redemptive themes” in the movies can be overdone and convoluted, but if ever there were films where it was appropriate and natural, it would be Malick’s films. The director grew up Episcopalian and his films are full of christian imagery, language and Christian motifs. God is constantly being questioned, searched out, relied upon in his films—whether visually through upward glances at the sun and sky, or through voiced inquiries. Baptismal imagery is prevalent (at least two of his films contain literal baptism scenes), as are scenes of prayer, music and references to specific Bible passages and characters. The christian themes are there because the film is about the big question, "what is life". Religion is a big part of people's lives and since mallick was christian, he could only use christian themes and imagery to show

You say there is no substance in this movie eventhough you say there are christian themes. something feels ironic here. Also speaking of the movie not having substance. the movie has so much substance. the movie talks about life, religion, death, evil, good and they were all right in front of your face(you must be an idiot if you missed these themes) so the movie isnt pretentious but you were just thinking that way.

What about that is interesting or good film making?

GOOD FILMAKING? since when was story even part of good film making. That just makes me laugh, good filmaking has nothing to do with good story. A great film comes from the way they show it, not what they are showing. Also the movie is about life itself. It is about you, your life and not the characters shown in the movie. That is why they have random space imagery. FYI, the space imagery is about the earth getting formed and well, the formation of life.

What i meant with "there was no christian *beep* unless you interpret it that way", I meant the movie isnt a christian movie if you interpret it differently.

But see, that’s what people say about abstract paintings. And that duped people for awhile, until they realized that passing the buck to the viewer to imbue a work with meaning is just a cop-out employed by painters who don’t have any substance to convey.

A cop out? lol, paintings are always abstract. paintings have never tried to tell a story. art isnt a narrative medium and is supposed to give "substance". abstract art is just a term used for an art movement, not supposed to be taken literal. film is different than art, it is an art and an craft but nowadays filmakers have forgotten that film is an art and only care about the craft and this creates a less emotional experience and is less about you. art is supposed to show YOUR life and connect with you. the reason abstract films are more artistic is because they are to your interpretation. the more abstract a film is the more different it will be to everyone and will be emotional in different ways to everyone. like you said, the christian themes will makes Christians or even anyone of any religion more emotionally connected. the scenes of death will make people who have gone through suicide attempts or have lost someone they love; get more emotionally connected. At the end the movie is a spiritual movie. it is supposed to connect to you emotionally, not intellectually. it is aiming at your heart, not your brain. if it tries to be intellectual. it is less of an art but more of a science.

The christian themes wont just connect to christians. i have some extremely religious muslim firends and the once who have seen the movie, loved the religious themes.

Billions of people on this planet feel lost and confused every day, and often seek answers in their childhood memories

You hit the nail in the head right there. you are right and that is why this movie was even made. it connects with these billions of people. That is what art has been trying to do since the first work of art. It tries to connect with people by asking questions that relate with life. Synecdoche new york is my favourite film of all time and it is about a play director who obsesses over death. Billions of people obsess over death and death has happened to billions of people but why do i love it so much? because it gives a more emotional experience by leaving it up to your interpretations. by giving subtleties that you would have to watch frame by frame to understand. Tree of life isnt that level for sure but it still gives an emotional experience about you.

I again find it extremely ironic that you LOVED the fountain but hate tree of life even though they share some similarities and the fountain takes a lot of things from the bible itself. maybe it has a more intriuing and imaginative story. like i said, imagination doesnt come from from the story but the way they show it. that is called artistic intergrity. a film should be able to show an extremely boring, dull derivative story in a really imaginative, emotional and different way. To me the fountain was just good .it had some great parts but it was tonally messy. A lot scenes felt cut out. the movie felt unfinished. 3 stories being told in 96 minutes is impossible as shown by the fountain. There will probably a director's cut but the finished product ironically was unfinished.

What i loved in tree of life was that it has things that can connect to everyone. the cinematography was great and each scenes was place at the right time. tree of life might by have the best pacing i have ever seen in a movie. each transition, each cut, each scene felt so elegant and felt like poetry or music. film is visual music, it needs to have a flow and tree of life did. The themes were also well done. the only problem i had was that the flashbacks to the childhood memories felt hollow sometimes and the movie didnt have as much depth as the thin red line and badlands(two of my favourite movies of all time).

In the end it is all opinion. the thing with abstract films is the more abstract they get, the more personal they become and that means they are more subjective. the things i said were great things about the craft of the film, not the art. Art is extremely subjective, just like enjoyment or entertainment and the more abstract films get, the more artistic they get so in the end it is all opinion.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ZzBloopzZ 9 years ago

I agree 100% with your overall opinion.

Thanks for suggesting Solaris, I have never heard of it. Will watch original first then the remake. :c)

[–] the-devil-boy 8 years ago

I'm glad you found a useful suggestion in this thread ZzBloopzZ - I hope you find Solaris thought-provoking. Lately I've been wondering if the premise explains some of the more inexplicable ufo sighting reports...food for thought anyway =)

The observer is the observed. - Jiddu Krishnamurti

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Hemorrhage911 8 years ago

Look, if you find it tedious/boring, I don't care. But pointless? There's opinion and then there is simply being wrong, you're wrong on the latter criticism.

[–] the-devil-boy 8 years ago

I'm perfectly prepared to accept that; in fact I'd welcome it.

But first you have to explain "what is the point of this movie, if any?" Because "no you're wrong" isn't an argument, it's just an assertion.

The observer is the observed. - Jiddu Krishnamurti

[–] Hemorrhage911 8 years ago

This movie has been around since 2011. There are countless reviews out there and dissections of this movie out there. By now, if you TRULY wanted the meaning for this movie you would have already searched it out. But I digress.

Since you just wanted to toss out words, I'm guessing you had some quota to fill in your title, let's look at the definition of "pointless"

having no meaning, purpose, or effect

So, you are saying this film has NO meaning and no purpose? You think Malick, one of the most respected directors out there had no meaning behind this film? You can say the message wasn't executed well in the film, but there is certainly meaning behind it.

So, let's start off with the first hint to the meaning: The title - The Tree of Life. I'm not going to give you multiple paragraph's explaining it, so here is a link (If you're against Wiki, don't complain just click on the source links)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_life

You essentially have a film exploring both interpretations of the Tree of Life - the evolutionary and the spiritual. That's why you have the first 20-30 minutes of this film showing the beginnings of life on the planet (At least the most common theory) here's a great documentary to watch to understand the origins of life on Earth

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57merteLsBc

I would say the beginning of Tree of Life is a slight cliffnotes of this. But you don't even need it further explained, the film does a good enough job getting the evolutionary side across.

Now yes, this does have the exploration of a higher being, religion (Mainly Christianity), and spirituality in general; I never felt any of this was truly overbearing. Malick isn't a Christian in the traditional sense of the word.

But a good portion of this film also deal with life itself; birth, adolescence adulthood, family, marriage, tragedy and happiness. If it worked for you, I don't know and don't care (I'm guessing it didn't), but there is meaning in that.

The film ends with Sean Penn's character who throughout the film questions his place in the universe, the meaning of life in general which seems to be taking a toll on him in the present. The ending is, yes, left ambiguous. There is nothing wrong with this. I would say Sean Penn's character is having his spiritual epiphany, connecting with his faith that he lost (Which he mentions earlier on in the film).

So, saying this movie has no "point" is simply just wrong and a lazy criticism. I would also say labeling this film, or any of Malick's work as "pretentious" is a really insulting. This is coming from someone who didn't enjoy Tree of Life greatly and believes Malick is hit and miss.

[–] wheresjoeysmovie 8 years ago

Best review of this film and so very true on nearly every aspect imho.

[–] jcarpenter-1 8 years ago

The point of this film? Pure camera porn.

[–] slinkoff 8 years ago

Just wondering if your life neatly has "some kind of message, meaning or story arc"?

Do you think your own personal philosophy of this existence is fixed or do you think it will change over time with your experiences?

I don't think this is the "best film ever" because that statement is meaningless, but it is a film which provokes thought in many who see it. It teeters on indulgence at times and I don't necessarily chime with Malick's own view of spirituality (at this stage in my life anyway) but it's his film, his philosophy and he's entitled to present it and I'm happy to contemplate it in the same way I would any person speaking to me about their beliefs at a dinner table or over a drink.

The imagery does provoke us to consider the macroscopic enormity and strangeness of the universe while at the same time comparing the microscopic nuance and subtlety of human interaction, the space inbetween, the unspoken moments.

I also liked how despite the centre stage of the cinematography, it wasn't cinematic, in the same way that life isn't. I think we see so much that is neat and structured in TV and film that we expect somehow for our life to reflect that and life couldn't be more different. When I go to the park to play with my sons, the interaction is much more like an interaction depicted in this film than your typical mainstream movie. It's not about the ordered and meaningful conversation and the "this happened and then this happened". It's about what wasn't said. Instead what was felt, what was experienced. I liked how this film enabled me to relate to that. I actually think being a parent could make a difference here.

Sadly, once we are in a certain mindset during a film we can go down a path with it and lose all possibility of enjoyment. I've done it myself many times with films I have later enjoyed immensely. Groundhog Day and Ikiru are two personal examples of such films that just annoyed me the first time. I think often that it is not necessarily the film that determines whether we enjoy it but who we are and where we are in our life at the moment we see it. As with good music, I find that what I consider to be truly good films are not always the ones I enjoy the most the first time around. I also think they are usually the ones that really polarise opinion, like this one. Perhaps give this one another go in 20 years when you're in a different place. Maybe I'll do the same and think more like you, who knows!

[–] rdpublic 8 years ago

The movie is about Terrence Malick's own life and his experience growing up with a strict father in the 1950s, juxtaposed with the main character played by Sean Penn going through a sort of existential crisis. The nature imagery shows the inner struggle of Sean Penn's character.

If you noticed, the movie is shot and edited like a memories. When you think back at memories, you don't have the exact image. Instead, you have bits and pieces of what happened. What you were thinking. What you were saying to yourself etc. That's what the film's style is. Not for everyone but it's pretty interesting for me, although I was jarred many times by the fast cutting.

Terrence Malick's brother committed suicide as he couldn't become a musician. This is briefly said in the start of the film. This is what sets off the Sean Penn story as he remembers his childhood and all that *beep*

As you can see in the film, the kid played by Hunter McCracken tries to win his father's (Brad Pitt) love but finds it difficult. Brad Pitt in this film is also a failed musician and so he wants his son, Hunter McCracken's brother to be a musician. You can watch in the film he's playing piano and *beep* So does Brad Pitt.

The creation of the universe stuff was pretty prententious, especially that whole dinosaur thing I was disappointed when I found out the meaning. Terrence Malick wanted to show how different things evolved to form the universe exists today and the nature of God, about why bad things happen and so much suffering happen. After this question is asked, we get the creation of Universe to show how God has made everything in a way that fits perfectly etc.

I'm not the biggest expert in explaining and interpreting this sort of *beep* But I do know a video that explains pretty much all you have to know: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4Y4YcRbSDQ

And another video for people like you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSmCslrHMGM