"Tree of Life" Review
Brad. Jake. Tree of Life Review. Brother. Mother. Poo.
Original Series
Paranoia
Welcome
Previously featured on YouTube before ultimately being ousted by the powers that be (those powers being the people behind "Nail Gun Massacre") thecinemasnob.com will
feature all of the Snob's videos, old and new, and also brand new shows and full length original movies for those of us who already can't get enough of Z-Grade Cinema.
Links
Mike Bracken
The Spoony One
Tenebrous Kate
Eccentric Cinema
ThatGuyWithTheGlasses
Cinemassacre
Revolving Video
Shaun Millington
Shriek Freak Arrow in the Head
Leslie Jones Blastoff Network
I Spit on Your Taste
Vault of Horror
Bloody Disgusting
Varied Celluloid
Patrick Rodriguez
Avante Garde Theatre
DjDaymage Halloween Mix
Cheap Arse Film Review
Forgotten Junk
Banned From the Video Store
The Experience Cinematic
Fistful of Cult
Video Hero's Hollywood Rant
The Horror Channel
Full Moon Reviews
SFHFF Review
The Spoony One
Tenebrous Kate
Eccentric Cinema
ThatGuyWithTheGlasses
Cinemassacre
Revolving Video
Shaun Millington
Shriek Freak Arrow in the Head
Leslie Jones Blastoff Network
I Spit on Your Taste
Vault of Horror
Bloody Disgusting
Varied Celluloid
Patrick Rodriguez
Avante Garde Theatre
DjDaymage Halloween Mix
Cheap Arse Film Review
Forgotten Junk
Banned From the Video Store
The Experience Cinematic
Fistful of Cult
Video Hero's Hollywood Rant
The Horror Channel
Full Moon Reviews
SFHFF Review
The Cinema Snob: "Tree of Life" Review
BlogAds
Support
Help Support The Cinema Snob!
Unfortunately my page hates donate buttons and the link doesn't work, but if you would like to help out The Cinema Snob, my Paypal account is under thecinemasnob@yahoo.com
Unfortunately my page hates donate buttons and the link doesn't work, but if you would like to help out The Cinema Snob, my Paypal account is under thecinemasnob@yahoo.com
Seriously? We're doing this now? Alright. That's... something.
Reply to this
Reviewing movies? He's been doing that since the site started.
Reply to this
I don't know if that was directed at me Farnsworth, but I just meant I was surprised to see him review this movie.
Reply to this
For some reason, the way that came out made me really laugh.
Reply to this
Brad owns shoes?
Reply to this
I bet the cinema snob would love this movie.
Reply to this
John...that's not funny. Even one bit...you know that "The Thing's" prequel going to suck major cocks, so why are you telling this to Brad?
*Sarcasm*
Reply to this
I totally agree Brad. This film was an overly self indulgent piece that seemed to go nowhere and have nothing interesting to say. The movie is all over the place, even for one with an abstract narrative.
And this is coming from someone who likes Terrence Malick.
Reply to this
After hearing you talk about this movie, I'm starting to think that the movie would've been better if someone actually did fuck a tree and ejaculated sap.
Reply to this
with CGI cat nips!
Reply to this
As much as I despise Malick, I know have one thing to be thankful to him for - and that's for giving me one more slice of Jack Anger Pie this summer.
Reply to this
Proofreading is important children - that would be Jake... not Jack.
Reply to this
I was going to see this movie until I saw it was directed by Malik, The Thin Red Line is on my bottom 5 worst movie I've ever seen
Reply to this
STICK TO WATCHING MOVIES DONE BY THE ASYLUM.... THAT IS MORE OF YOUR INTELLIGENCE LEVEL. YOU GUYS ARE PATHETIC!!!!
Reply to this
it really does seem like this. like they arent really interested in movies.
Reply to this
How inarticulate is this argument...'Pathetic' 'They really aren't interested in films' 'you should stick to reviewing movies like The Asylum far more your intelligence level' . . . the main reason you probably love this film is because it's different than a style of filmmaking you might be accustomed to the common bubble gum pop style of Hollywood. And classical style of most films. This film does prattle on like beat poetry...it also has no story and its rich deep meaning is basically whatever you bring to the table cause Malik is being so vague and playing on the cliche's of middle American life and doing his same old sweeping motion and sloppy narration shtick because he's too cowardice to do anything different in his career. If you're going to propose any sort of intellectual debate you'd better back of your defense of this beatnik slideshow with more than just cliche trolling comments like 'it really does seem like this. like they arent really interested in movies.' I've seen all kinds, foreign, documentary, animation, obscure, art house, classic, golden age, silent...also listen to an eclectic variety of music, read a variety of books from different styles and have seen and enjoyed all different kinds of art...if you can't articulate anything better than 'it really does seem like this. like they arent really interested in movies.' also 'aren't' (yes I know my comments have spelling errors) anyways if you can't articulate a full opinion don't bother posting any comment because you just seem like a lazy internet troll. Why not trying to explain why you like the film as appose to pulling that blanketed b.s. statement 'well I guess you just don't get it' obviously if you can't articulate a statement maybe you 'just don't get it' because you're intelligence level doesn't understand the concept of debating, back and forth opinions, and articulation of mature ideas. If your going to critique his review give him something more than those two blanket statements please.
Reply to this
appose eh
Reply to this
Way to prove his point about debates. Though, a Malick fan who can't form full opinions at least fits with Malick himself not being able to form a full sensical narrative. I haven't seen the movie, but I can tell you right now, a movie that lets it's audience decide the majority of it's direction, meaning and plot is a LAZY FUCKING movie.
Reply to this
Over two hours of every English teacher I've had ejaculating on screen.
Reply to this
Yeah, Jack, you're an idiot. The difference between a movie like "Badlands" and "Tree of Life" is that "Badlands" is an actual good movie, with a very well-written screenplay, a great cast, and beautiful atmospheric directing and photography. "Tree of Life" is self-indulgent tripe made by a burned-out filmmaker who has no new ideas (particularly after a 30-year hiatus from directing). I guess you can't tell the difference.
Reply to this
Actually, a good example of an almost entirely visual movie that is also a stunning work of art on nearly every level is "The Conformist" by Bernardo Bertolucci. Malick couldn't make a film that impressive if he lived to be 150.
Reply to this
...he said in all caps.
Reply to this
cute.
now try to hop angry on one foot tearing out your hear and screaming at the top of your lungs....
better?
Reply to this
Why would you see this movie if you know that you haven't liked anything else that Terrence Malick has done outside of Badlands, aka his most conventional movie?
For what it's worth, criticisms of the beginning and end of this movie are entirely valid, but the middle section with the family life is unbelievably beautiful and some of the greatest filmmaking that I've ever seen.
adj789: The Thin Red Line is one of the ten greatest movies ever made, in my opinion.
Reply to this
Brad saw it because many viewers of this siteasked him to go and see it. He saw Spy Kids 4d, so why not see this?
Reply to this
Well, in fairness, even a lot of Malick fans I've seen seem to declare Badlands their favorite movie of his as well.
Reply to this
Also, your examples of how "easy to write" Malick's dialogue is are NOTHING like what is actually in the movie and show that you don't have much of a handle on the poetic. It's simply and demonstrably wrong to say that a movie like this is easy to write, even if that creation fugue WAS pointless and the ending terrible, which they were.
I like you a lot, Brad; you're an affable guy with a good sense of humor and an impressive knowledge of horror and exploitation movies. But for you to cast aspersions against people like me, to say that we only like Terrence Malick movies because they're directed by Terrence Malick and not because of his unique cinematic voice pisses me off, especially when I consider that I'm pretty sure that I've seen you praise a formulaic hack like Steven Spielberg, who never met a cliche that he didn't like.
Reply to this
Must one be pissed? Cherish thy difference unto ones opinion before the eyes of our Lord.
Reply to this
Brad, this has to stop. It has reached the level of torture. Leave Jake alone.
The guy has balls for keep watching movies for the enjoyment of all of us.
Or at least take him to Contagion, Warrior or Drive. Those seem to be good movies.
Anyway, great review guys, I laughed my ass off.
Reply to this
Brad, I can take differences. I really can. I've seen you praise things that I thought were absolute trash and ridicule things that were good. And, sometimes, as on Hobo with a Shotgun, we converge! What I can't take is you saying something utterly foolish like "critics praise Terrence Malick movies because they're made by Terrence Malick," because while there ARE directors that critics do that for - Lars von Trier being a prime example - Malick is one of those cases where there truly is substance there for the critics to pick up on and enjoy, and the fact that you choose to throw stones at his fans and call his movies/fans pseudo-intellectual without any real criticism actually backing it up, drawing comparisons to things like Beat poetry that Tree of Life is NOTHING like, even if you truly did hate it as much as you say, instead of merely stepping back and admitting that it's really just not your thing and you have no wish to engage with it, is what pisses me off. Perhaps I was a bit harsh in that initial post, but when your criticism smacks of not engaging with the movie on any real level, it does piss me off.
Consider, for example, the scene where Brad Pitt is working under the car and oldest son just stares at the jack that's holding the car up; with just a single well-placed glance, Malick communicates something of depth and complexity regarding the relationship between these characters. Indeed, the family section of this movie has as little in the way of cliche and as much depth and complexity as any movie that I've ever seen in my life, and so it does disappoint me when I see somebody just blatantly trash it, especially when, as in your case, I do think the person is intelligent enough that they could "get it," even if it wasn't their thing. It's just a shame, is all.
Reply to this
Uh huh.
Reply to this
The grammar on that first paragraph is kind of a clusterfuck, eh? Sorry about that; wrote it kinda hastily. I think the point is a fair one, though. Anyway, I'll get off the comment thread now; I just thought the movie could use an actual defender instead of the guys just trashing you without posting anything of substance about the film itself.
Reply to this
Might just be me but I'm picking up a distinct "Really doesn't care about anything you just said if he even made it halfway through" vibe from Brad in response to your essays.
Reply to this
Nahh, I'm picking that up too.
Reply to this
LOL Ripping on Lars von Trier. That guy is awesome. I like him objectively, not because he's von Trier, I just like the misogyny and mean-spiritedness of his films, that many people find hard to digest. Like, I feel bad for you Lars, because you apparently suffer deep depression, but at least it leads to awesome films.
Reply to this
Von Trier's early movies are OK. His later movies are awful. He shoots films like a drunken retard. "The Idiots" is one of the worst pieces of shit I've ever sat through. But at least he gets actresses like Bryce Dallas Howard and Kirsten Dunst to show vag. Props.
Reply to this
Do you have to make the same mistake yourself? While it is annoying when people claim that we only like Tree of life because it was directed by malick it is equally annoying when you claim that we only praise a von trier movie because its directed by von trier :/. Dogville and manderlay were great no matter who wrote or directed them.
Reply to this
You reprimand Brad for not backing up his criticisms, yet you don't defend the movie in context, either. You just kind of say, "Terrence Malick IS a good director and his movies DO have interesting subject matter." 'Kay. Examples?
Oh, I'm sorry, you mention the "jack and car" scene. Even if Malick WAS able to "communicate... the complexity regarding the relationship" of father and son with a "single glance" (which he didn't, he showed a son contemplating murdering his dad), you aren't addressing what Brad was complaining about: Brad Pitt wasn't a bad father, he was a NORMAL mid-20th century dad. There was no sense to why the kid might want to do that. I think thats Brad's main complaint, is there's no context or, to put it bluntly, rhyme or reason to any consequential scene in this movie.
By the way, the way you talk about the "jack and car" scene in your comment comes across as poetic and pretentious itself. I'd say that says something about who will stand up for this movie (sorry, FILM).
I'm not trying to be douchey or anything, I just figure a movie should be able to stand on it's own merits (directing, writing, acting) before it has the right to resort to secondary forms like audience interpretation or weird deep-thought imagery.
Reply to this
i wouldn´t say the creation fugue were entirely pointless, i think it created a great contrast which enforced the simple life story of the family. It puts something as grand as the creation of earth besides birth of a child, showing some of the beauty in the world and life.
It might sound pretensious, but i thought it was beautiful and awe inspiring. Though i would critice the ending and the beginning with Sean Penn, it didn´t really work as well as it should imo.
Reply to this
Pretentious is not a word I like throwing around, because I believe it is an empty criticism. I think it's a lazy word that is against ambition and advancements in cinema or unconventionality.
Though I agree with a big point of your review, I think Malick's films would be extremely improved if there were no words in them. I don't mind if the film makes no sense, but Malick is so much better at expressing himself in images than words.
Reply to this
I disagree. Pretentiousness is an artist's attempt to hide their incipient lack of knowledge (or lack of caring) about their craft by masking it through a visual or editing style. That's what this movie is: style over substance. Say what you will about the films of Bruno Mattei, Joe D'Amato, Ruggero Deodato, William Beaudine, Ed Wood, etc. They may be bad, but at least they're not pretentious.
Reply to this
The New World is pretty good. The story nice and linear. Plus it has both Bullseye and Batman.
I thought that The Thin Red Line was dull as anything can be. It was well photographed, though.
Reply to this
It's a million times more pretentious to say that all people only like a film because of its director than anything Malick has ever done.
Reply to this
Brad's right. If any two bit director made this movie, they would have gotten their asses handed to them by critics.
Reply to this
If any two-bit director made that family section, they'd be hailed as the next great visionary, and the parts that don't work - the creation fugue and the ending - would actually get brushed aside more easily as growing pains. Indeed, the fact that Malick IS so lauded is part of why this movie was so much more divisive in the critical establishment than other Malick movies.
And seriously, where is this thing about Beat poetry coming from? Have you guys ever even read that terrible Beat shit? Malick writes circles around those guys.
Reply to this
Have you ever read "On the Road", by Jack Kerouac or 'Howl' by Allen Ginsberg? Neither of those works are "sh*t", as you refer to them. They are certainly un-conventional and divisive, but so is this movie. I haven't seen the movie but I will say I like beat poetry(I think Jack Kerouac is BRILLIANT) and I think it is slightly unfair to criticize one artistic movement in defense of another. Just because you don't like beat poetry doesn't automatically mean that Malick's films are better, it just means Beat Poetry is not to your tastes, which is FINE. I like beat poetry and I identify with it, but I understand and respect why others don't like it. I just think it's a little mean-spirited to refer to it as sh*t.
As to the movie, I have no comment. I haven't seen it and I probably won't.
Reply to this
The first half of "On the Road" is okay. The second half is complete garbage. And nothing by Ginsberg is any good. William S. Burroughs was the only good Beat writer. The rest were just trying to copy him.
Reply to this
I respect that. My point is that we all have differing tastes and we should respect those tastes as opposed to insulting someones intelligence. I don't think liking On the Road makes me smarter than you or anyone who doesn't like it. It just means I like something you don't. You most likely like many things I don't, but which are intelligent and wonderful in their own ways. That is a GOOD thing.
As a side note, however, Ginsberg and Kerouac wrote before Burroughs. Kerouac is often considered the father of the beat generation.
Reply to this
Yeah, and some people like eating dog shit, like Divine. Doesn't mean I have to respect their tastes.
Reply to this
And Uwe Boll technically works with better cameras than shot on shitteo movies. Still crap though.
Reply to this
Yes, but this has nothing to do with anything that I wrote, so what of it? If what I wrote is that Malick's writing is NOT that prattling Beat shit and is actually much better than it, then that IS a substantive difference that I'm bringing up and not just the difference between the medium on which a bad movie is shot.
Reply to this
So you're saying his writing IS beat poetry? Well then cool, maybe I would like the movie.
Reply to this
I 100% agree. Someone did ask me if "Tree of Life" deserved cinematography and I told them no, because nothing about it serves a story, it's simply just pretty like a photographers slideshow, after a while you still get bored. The critical acclaim astonished me. It felt like a grown man jerking off into the camera. And if I've sat through Begotten & Zardoz than I can say I've sat through some ridiculous art movies...and this one was mind numbing. Also was I the only one that noticed the plastic hand soap bottle in the kitchen which felt rather modern for 1950's...maybe they were around in the 50's but that felt rather out of place. But I guess I got so bored my eyes were wandering throughout the film.
However I do own "Thin Red Line" on blu-ray and believe that film does have great characters, a serious plot, if not some of that beat poetry narration you talked about, has a much more cohesive narrative than 'Tree of Life' ever dreamed of while still keeping that artsy dreamlike quality I think can work well in smaller doses but a whole film of that style is like damn. He completely missed the point of filmmaking.
Reply to this
It is amazing how this film divides film fans of all merits. I mean I enjoyed 'Enter the Void' for what it was and pretty much that's a slow tedious art film for the most part, however...'Tree of Life' I am happy I saw it I suppose, but the impact of the film and it's meditation on life worked for about the first 30mins and then drug on. Although I hope to see more films out of Malick's DP.
Reply to this
This was hilarious!
Personally, I love this film! It's one of the best of the year behind Winnie the Pooh (no I'm not joking).
I'm only 15 so I haven't been exposed to that much Malick, I saw Thin Red Line, which was good and I saw New World which was painfully boring. The reason I liked this film was that it seemed as ambitious as 2001, which is my favorite film. The cinematography was outstanding, the creation of the universe scene really reminded my of 2001 and was some of the most amazing CGI ever, and the scenes with Brad Pitt and the kid growing up were really interesting. Brad Pitt deserves an Oscar nom and this film will be nominated for best director. I expected you guys not to like this movie, cause it IS the opposite of Cowboys and Aliens, which I found to be an okay film, but I know you guys loved it.
Also, was Days of Heaven really that bad? I thought that and Badlands were supposed to be his two "normal" films
Reply to this
I really dislike the "film"/"movie"/"art film" distinction. Can't we just abolish all barriers between cinema and enjoy cinema as its own entity? There's nothing that makes one film more artistic than any other. A Terrence Malick is every bit as artistic as a Lucio Fulci, it's all just a matter of what kind of artistic expression you prefer.
Reply to this
There should be a distinction between mass consumer product like the zookeeper or any of the summer blockbusters and more so-called eclectic films like "Tree of Life" and films from the French New Wave, for instance.
Reply to this
Why?
Your argument relies on films being afforded a special level of deference based om who is likely to watch them.
Reply to this
Hey Brad and Jake, good review for the most part. I was one of the people who have not been able to see this film due to only being shown in select theaters, but now after your review I am hesitant about actually seeing it. I have never seen a Terrence Malick movie, but I do like artsy films that have plots, such as like you mentioned Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey." One of my favorite movies of all time is Richard Kelly's "Donnie Darko", and I was becoming more curious throughout your review what your opinion about "Donnie Darko" is. Now after watching this review I am skeptical of whether I should sit through this film or not. The other movies I wanted to check out these year were Source Code and Submarine. I don't know if you guys have an opinion on those movies as well. Thanks for doing a review on this movie though, it was worth listening to you guys talk about it. I'm also curious to see what Sean Penn is complaining about.
Reply to this
Great review. The actress who plays the mother is Jessica Chastain(she is very beautiful.)
Reply to this
Terrence Malick is to art films what Michael Bay is to action films.
Reply to this
I hate that I'm becoming the one-man defense force on this comment section, but this statement is absolutely ridiculous. Malick is every bit the equal of other great directors like Kubrick, Herzog, and young Scorsese, and his style is perhaps even more distinct and individuated than any of them.
Reply to this
Peace my brother, peace. Don't give into the hate. For we are all in the hands of our brother's keeper.
Reply to this
Good one!
Reply to this
Wait, which one of us is your brother?
Reply to this
All yet none?
Reply to this
Just chipping in to say I also really liked "Tree of Life". I was a bit put off beforehand by the critics saying it was a fairly 'Christian' movie, but after seeing it I think they were exaggerating about that. It's a difficult movie to take for most viewers, because at the moment there's a lot of really downbeat films getting the plaudits and Malick's is essentially very positive and earnest. In fact, the earnestness is probably the most potentially problematic part of it - if you're not into the 'tone' of the movie, it'll all seem like total guff. It certainly wasn't perfect, but the main 'family' part was wonderful and the editing and cinematography was fantastic throughout.
Reply to this
Yeah, it's _so_ surprisign that on a site devoted to exploitation films, one person is defending Malick. It's surprising even that one person exists, I mean, not that there is "only" one.
And, nope. Kubrick, Herzog, and Scorsese fucking dominate Malick in every conceivable way. One minute of A Clockwork Orange has thousands of times more merit than any Malick could ever do, and Herzog and Scorsese are not far behind.
I am a fan of some art films, mostly the kind Oancitizen reviews (read: weird shit, preferably full of nudity, and non the boring kind like Gus van Shit makes, like the atrocious Gerry), but it is clear that Malick is a hack.
In the same way, I like some action films, but I can admit Michael Bay is a worthless hack, and brings down the genre, in that he encourages proliferation of CGI, remakes of horror films, and retardation.
Oh, wait, I'm wrong.
Michael Bay is way better than Terence Malick. Bay at least made one really enjoyable film, The Rock, and one okay film, the Island. Besdies that, everything he has ever done has been worthless shit, like the horrific Bad Boys movies, or the abominable Transformers movies.
Neverhtless, Bay at least had the decency to make The Rock, whereas Malick has never made anything even better than Transformers 3.
Reply to this
Malick is hardly a "hack." You may not like his movies, but "hack" refers to a specific kind of person that Malick is most certainly not.
Reply to this
Well....*I* liked it....
But I respect everyone else's opinions, and I can see why people dont like it.
Reply to this
I actually like this movie, but i totally understand you people that don't
the review Is amazing as always xD
Reply to this
First: If you want a dare movie, watch Storm of the Century. Sober.
As for Terrence Malick, I'm still waiting for my money back after The New World. There's nothing amazing or fantastic about what he does. Its just self-aggrandizing pretention heaped on steaming piles of boredom. Its a bunch of inane dialogue trussed up with fancy words to make it sound philosophical and deep to other pretentious neo-beatnicks and hipsters trying to look philosophical and deep because they're watching a Terrence Malick film. Whoever greenlights the funds for this tripe should be forced to sit and watch it ala Clockwork Orange.
Reply to this
I find it amusing that people are surprised that the creator of the Cinema Snob, a character who spoofs critics who love this kind of movie and then complain that Friday the 13th didn't have enough underlying meaning.
Personally, this kind of film is not my cup of tea.
Reply to this
If this movie destroyed Jake, then Brad, you need to get a bootleg copy of the "Cremaster Cycle" of films by Matthew Barney - weird plot, insanely artsy, was not made to be shown in theaters....yeah, that ought to blow his brains out of his skull on it's own. I saw films 1 and 2 (they don't have titles) and they were just bizarre, almost hermetic, non-narratives.
Reply to this
When my brother and I saw "A New World" (purely because Christian Bale was in it) we got so fucking bored that we riffed it the entire way through. It only took half the movie for the rest of the audience to be laughing along with us. And, of course, Christian Bale didn't show up until more than half way through. Goddamn it, give me the Disney Pocahontas any day.
Reply to this
Art movies like this and peers of mine in university are why I almost never go to the theatre anymore. I just don't get this fucking boring ass art house bullshit. I love sci fi and I always fall asleep during 2001, though at least with that one I get that it's good.
Reply to this
=D
Oh, and why is this, because 2001 is acclaimed and you're too afraid to slam it?
Reply to this
God why is everyone getting so defensive over Brad and Jake's opinion of this film? Seriously what they hell did you guys expect from Brad? Hes gone on to say time and time again that he much prefers exploitation then "art house" cinema. Its just his personal taste. Now yes i understand Brad has a thick skin to all criticisms and will like what he likes. But honestly why did people go in to the video thinking "Oh Brad surely will like this!"? I mean the guys has over 100 videos of him parodying a film critic that likes pseudo-intellectual art house films.
If you didn't know the site or his characters, or him well enough from his other hundred or so Vlogs, then all you had to hear was "I can't stand shit like this" and then shut it off if you didn't want to hear it. Yes, you have the right to watch the whole thing, but deal with it. Don't attack a guy for his opinion and him trying to entertain his fans.
Maybe these Terrence Malick fans are just feeling a little insecure, cause one guy that entertains them is calling them and one director out on some bullshit?
Reply to this
Just so you know, saying this is the Malickiest of all Malick films can go twice as far if you say it in Greece.
Malakia: mastrubation
Malakies (plural): mastrubations
It's pronounced exactly as Jake says it. "This movie is the malickiest" but with less of a "t" at the end.
Ergo, this flick is malakies...
Reply to this
I love your reviews, Brad, but watching this one is painful. Listening to some dork say "fuck" every other word for 47 minutes is just a bit much for my patience.
Reply to this
I found Tree of Life really really boring.
I think the dialogue was about as insightful as Eric Zoolander's "Water is the essence of life, life is the essence of water" merman ad and that the overall look of the movie was reminiscent of mid 70s John Denver style album covers. I was forced into watching it by my current young lady. Well, I say forced but, really, I simply nodded my head.
Honestly, if I never see another waist level shot of someone walking slowlu, whilst bathed in the golden autumnal glow of saturated film stock or hear a ponderous pseudo poetic internal monologue again, I will be a happy man. It's just two odd hours of utter cod's wallop. Cabin Fever for the art-house set.
Reply to this
This director strikes me as appropriate for Penn, having just seen Red Line myself I got this impression. Same ponderous, high-handed style.
Pretension can work if the viewer is respected and not spoken down to or at directly. Some things just flat-out aren't entertaining, though, as being purposely cryptic smacks of insincerity. The message isn't so complex or so profound as to not be suited to addressing it more directly.
Reply to this
This was harder to watch than A Serbian Film?
Reply to this
drad.
i forgot to say thank you for very funny and accurate review of this godawful sub self-help book rubbish.
I really appreciated the reference to Stage Fright. I love that film.
It Terrence Malick directed a slasher film it would look a lot like All the Boys Love Mandy Lane, except it would be two hours and forty minutes long and the grass would would have an internal monologue. The music would be much better.
Reply to this
Taking this movie, re-editing it, and making up a story with riffing would be fun.
Reply to this
Not that Im trying to come off as an asshole, but Jake was at his best with your summer movie reviews...I dont know if you're trying to crowbar him in to your website to get some more attention, but Jake doesn't fare better with any of the other stuff you put him in...Topo Chico included.
of course thsi is just me, but I think Jake is best left as your special weapon of choice...used sparingly and to great effect. To have him show up all the time now is kind of overexposure, because he's really not THAT interesting unless he's pissed off.
Im just saying. I like you all, but Jake's just not the same...
Reply to this
http://www.mediafire.com/?8xo346xs417p3yx
Try reading the screenplay, it really might help you guys!
You guys missed a massive amount of what was going on in the movie. It's almost the equivalent of watching Ghostbusters, and not having any idea what a ghost is while refusing to use any context clues to fill you in.
When you write off "the Job quote" as pretentious and refuse to acknowledge its essential role to the movie, you aren't even trying to understand the movie. Furthermore, you almost completely avoided the dualism between nature and grace while giving off stupid laughter when describing scenes that you felt were "random", yet were essential to the film! lol
Anyways, try checking out the Tree of Life screenplay since it's obvious you missed so much of the movie doing whatever it was you were doing in the theater. Otherwise, try watching the movie "Idiocracy!" It's a great movie for people that really don't prefer to use a brain while watching a movie, and you will feel at home with all of the stupid laughter to keep you company!!!
Good Luck!!!
Reply to this
If you need to read supplemental material to understand what happened in a movie, the movie didn't work. Like many things, this point is seemingly lost on a generation who has grown up on Michael Bay films.
Reply to this
Idiocracy is a very apt reference point. It features the immortal Oscar winning ASS, which is a film of a backside doing nothing. I took this to be a joke about a culture so degraded that it couldn't distinguish between art and things that are up their own arse. If Terence Malick had made Ass his defenders would probably weep in joy, proclaim it a masterpiece and call anyone who said it was just a wobbly bottom a philistine.
I can't stand Malick's films. I'm not even that keen on Badlands which I firmly believe is a stilted version of Gun Crazy.
But if I was going to defend him I would say this. He's a nice old bloke making personal films and if some people like them that's fine. Instead, they demand that we all gasp in appreciation of his and their alleged sensitivity and then claim we are all idiots if we fail to comply. It's that Art Culture. "our taste is important. we're bestest" arrogance that gets my back up.
Reply to this
I agree 100%. While I loved Badlands and kind of liked Thin Red Line, I can't stand Malick's other work
However, there's one thing I disagree with you guys on: Modest Mouse is an awesome band
Reply to this
SYMBOLISM! THE MOVIE!
Filmbrain shooting that would make a great "ToL in 5 secs" clip.
Man did this one get a lot of funny butt-hurt comments. Especially that last Ghostbusters one.
It's not because a film is deeply philosophical or symbolic that it makes it great, guys. If that's all it took, A Serbian Film or Nekromantik would be masterpieces. Stop trying to act like you're superior just because you "get it". Other people "get" things all the time too.
Reply to this
No, but having deep, well-limned characters, excellent cinematography, great music, and an excellent combination of silent film techniques with talkie techniques sure does. It's not a matter of superior but a matter of actually engaging with a work of art instead of writing it off as inferior because it chooses a differing, poetic method of delivery instead of typical Hollywood, story-driven methods.
Reply to this
Both A Serbian Film and Nekromantik are awesome, they have stuff happening.
Reply to this
Oh no!
Brad and Jake have an opinion! Quick, let's insult their intelligence because, clearly, this is the correct thing to do instead of just accepting the fact that differing tastes exist!
Reply to this
Seriously, the irony is half the comments here sound like they were written by the Cinema Snob.
Reply to this
not seen this film.... TBH only watched this review because for a split second of madness i thought it was the dragon ball z film you were talking about (its a bad film but from what i can gather perhaps better than this). personally i don't except the argument that someone just didn't get a film, its the film's job to MAKE me get it and MAKE me care about it (if it doesnt do that its a negative mark against the film not me).... symbolism and prettyiness are great but you need steak with your sauce
Reply to this
I'd love to see him Snob or Kund Tia Ted the Chinese Dragonball live action kongfu movies fromt he mid 80s!
Reply to this
No, no, no. Malick needs to make his next film in Aroma-Scope and 3D.
Reply to this
whats with jake wearing those bum shoes? Is he homeless?
Reply to this
Well I for one LOOOOOOVED the movie.
Reply to this
Another artsy film I liked was both Pan's Labrinyth and City of Lost Children (or something like that.
Reply to this
Pan's Labrinyth was pretty good. I didn't think of it as art house I thought it was a good fantacy film!
Reply to this
"Brad and Potatohead episode"
I had to pause the video because my laughter was drowning it out
Reply to this
Damn, I tried to watch this review earlier and it kept skipping and freezing up.
I have no interest in this movie at all. At 1st I heard of a movie called Tree of Life I was curious because of the Norse mythology connection, but then I learned it was some art house crap and lost all hope.
So to basically save this movie they'd have to do like the Brown Bunny, Necromantik and have a scene or 2 of creepy creepy sex to make it worth even a glancing watch!?
So, what no Shark Night 3D!?
Reply to this
Maybe it says a lot about me than it should, but the only "Artistic" "Student" "film" I've ever enjoyed was Clerks.
Which in essence was a slice of life art film, with blowjobs...
I am weird, aren't I?
Reply to this
Not at all! I totally agree, homie!
Reply to this
Not weird at all, Clerks is a fantastic film
Reply to this
You forgot to mention 'Pink Floyd: The Wall.' That is a great art film!
Reply to this
Terrance Mallick? Never heard of em. I know of a Carlton Mellick III though? Anybody want to talk about him?
Reply to this
I watched this review twice and still don't know what the movie is about.
Reply to this
Um, Barnes and Noble do not hold poetry readings. If you actually went to a Barnes and Noble (or any bookstore for that matter) you would know that they don't do this.
Reply to this
Yeah...k...except they do here in Springfield.
Reply to this
I live in Long Beach California, and yes, there are plenty of poetry readings you'll find at not only a Barnes and Noble, but many other bookstores in our area.
Reply to this
Way to be a dick that doesn't know shit. I work at a Barnes and Noble. There are frequently poetry readings.
Reply to this
Maybe Ferdie Fox lives in a red state, where the most thought-provoking poetry is:
"They paint these walls to hide my pen,
But the shit house poet strikes again!"
Reply to this
Yes they do. They also hold Yugioh tournaments. I'm sorry your store doesn't
Reply to this
if this was in 3d it would make avatar look like last airbender... well played sir
Reply to this
I haven't seen this movie, or very many art films. But I have to say that my favorite art films are the ones with Bob Ross.
On an unrelated note, I picked up Donnie Darko yesterday, and I think my painting has really improved.
Reply to this
You know it's bad when lloyd's trying to add to the review. Such a handsome kitty.
Reply to this
TO BOB
GO FUCK YOURSELF
DON'T ACT ALL SMART ARSE AND SHIT --- JUST BECAUSE YOU SUCK BRADS COCK FOR A LIVING DOESN'T MEAN YOU NEED TO BE A PRETENTIOUS PRICK ABOUT IT...
GO ON WRITE ANOTHER PARAGRAPH ON WHY I AM WRONG AND WHY YOU ARE RIGHT ABOUT BEING A TURD....... I AM WAITING ASSOLE!
Reply to this
Wow, I never thought I'd see the kind of pathetic comment like this outside of Youtube. Listen, the story was shit. It looked pretty, but it was a log of shit dressed up. Avatar was the same way, although that movie had the decency to have a coheirent narrative. This guy just can't direct a movie to save his life. Thin Red Line was crap and you know that The New World fucked up when the Disney Pocahontas movie was more enjoyable. Get a life, seriously. No one really cares is you think Malick is the greatest director ever.
Reply to this
I salute your thoughtful contributions to the discussion, my friend. May Bob remember your wisdom next time, lest he utter such lengthy wordage.
Reply to this
Take four red pills! In ten minutes, take two more! Help is on the way!
Reply to this
That was directed at JAPPAJ, just to be more clear.
Reply to this
I hope Kyle Kallgren reviews this with his Cinema Snob character!
Reply to this
Kyle Kallgren is my least favorite Brad Jones character.
Reply to this
In Kyles defense, at least he isn't The Blockbuster Buster.
Reply to this
Why the hate for Kyle? His character's meant to make fun of snobby critics, like the Snob, but his delivery and persona is quite different. He's actually become one of my favourite internet critics
Reply to this
tgwtg already has a satire of snobby critics. Kyle is just redundant. If he were on another reviewing site, that'd be one thing, but I don't get the point of him being there.
Reply to this
The whole point of Kyle being there is that he reviews independent and art house films and, unlike other movie reviewers, gives them a deep examination. Sometimes he likes them, often he doesn't. Either way, he still manages to be funny and insightful in his views.
And don't give me this "he's ripping off early Snob" nonsense. Even in his early videos, the Cinema Snob was still an arrogant, unlikable, profane bastard. Oancitizen, on the other hand, is much more calmer and collective.
Also, if you seen his Apollo 18 review, Brad knows who Kyle is and is apparently not bothered by him.
Reply to this
That is complete BS. The Snob is profane and angry when he's talking about something that he doesn't like; but in episodes where he is talking about something artsy that he likes ("Salo," "Death Bed," "Nightdreams") he does become calmer and collective, like you described Kyle. Kyle reviews art movies exactly like The Snob would.
Reply to this
Kyle's style of delivery is completely different from the Snob character. If anything, I see Kyle's character is more of a parody of someone like Armond White, while the Snob is a satire of Roger Ebert. And even if he is like the Snob, what does it matter? He comes up with his own jokes, his comedic timing is fantastic, and the way he did the Man Who Fell To Earth review was pretty damn clever.
Alot of people on the site are similar in one way or another. Blockbuster Buster is almost note-for-note the Nostalgia Critic(albeit MUCH less funny), JesuOtaku is similar to MarzGurl (although I like them both), and even FilmBrain and Mike J are pretty damn similar (Mike J being funnier). Of all the critics on the site to complain about, why Kyle? Why the guy who is by far the most talented of the new contributers?
Reply to this
More to the point: Why act like Kyle is the only person who gets criticized, or that he shouldn't be?
But I'm all for Blockbuster Buster busting! Hack, brown-noser, and just what the internet didn't need, another mainstream movie mocker.
Reply to this
Just heard an interview with him on Random Odds. And what a surprise. He's a douchebag.
Reply to this
Wow, just...wow. He is a little arrogant prick.
Reply to this
Yeah, it really comes across in his commentaries too. And he is BOOOOOORING when he's not scripted.
Reply to this
Wow, these comments are reaching Youtube and Cracked levels of bad!
With remarks like these it's no wonder he acts so frustrated. And FFS, he is NOTHING LIKE THE SNOB. He is a Snob rip-off in the same way Angry Joe is an AVGN rip-off, in that, he isn't, and that the only similarity they have is completely superficial at best and anyone who says otherwise has the thought process of a peanut.
Reply to this
Too bad you posted this in response to a comment that doesn't say that and just says "He was a douche in that interview".
Reply to this
Except the comments that that comment was responding to indeed did start to bring up the whole "Oan is a CS rip-off" debacle that I see get brought up here.
And how was he being a prick? He admitted to being a bit defensive at that one point, but he had good reason to be considering the crap that gets thrown out in the comments here.
Reply to this
I listened to the whole interview, he was very arrogant throughout it.
Reply to this
He gets compared to The Cinema Snob because they both play pretentious cinema snobs. But while Brad reviews movies the Snob hates, Kyle reviews movies that his snob character likes. I don't think he's a rip off, but there are similarities between the two characters.
Reply to this
I was recommended this film from a Malick fan and having thought "a new world" was good, I saw it. At the end I was very WTF?! but like you said, it definitely is a dare to watch, and I'm glad I watched it through all the fake endings but It should've been in 3D at least partially. I heard it was gonna be in Imax or something? It's a film that really makes you think. You and Jake should go watch "Midnight in Paris," It was my fave indie movie of the summer and its a real fun magical movie.
Reply to this
i luv jake. he is funny. i would like to meet him irl
Reply to this
You had me until you started praising Eraserhead. Seriously, Fuck Eraserhead!
Eraserhead is one of three films that has made me physically ill. I'd rather masturbate with a cheese grater than sit through that piece of ass again.
Reply to this
lol l can't believe someone uploaded the screenplay, if you have to read the source material to understand the movie, then you know this movie failed to execute its writing on screen.
Reply to this
Teacher! Mother! Secret lover.
Reply to this
Hey brad have you ever seen the film martyrs? It's a great french film where it could be argued that the ending message seems a bit pretentious but all around I enjoyed it very much. Its violent as hell and pretty creepy, i suggest checking it out if you haven't it seems like something right up your alley. If you have seen it how did you feel about it?
Reply to this
I mean, it's fine to not like a movie because it's pretentious, but simply "being pretentious" isn't a good reason not to like a movie.
Also, being pretentious doesn't automatically make a movie bad. You just have to look at it differently than you would, say, The Exterminator.
Some people can do that. Other people can't. What bothers me most is the venom and anger directed at Malick. Why would you hate any filmmaker? It just seems kind of... strange. Did you not like anything about Days of Heaven? That has to be on the short list of most beautiful films ever made. You may not like it, but you can't even understand why others might? Really? It's almost like you take his movies as some kind of personal offense.
I don't consider myself a pseudo-intellectual (I watched Chopping Mall the other day), and I appreciate your love of cinema, but I think you're being a bit too closed minded. Just my opinion of course...
Reply to this
Quote: "being pretentious" isn't a good reason not to like a movie.
Ummm... why?
Some people hate pretentious movies. Period. Just like some people hate romantic comedies. Who are you to dictate what qualifies as a valid reason for disliking a movie? Maybe people don't like pretentious dialogue being shoved down their throat for the length of a movie. Ram all the beautiful cinematography into a film you want, I haven't ever known anyone who's sole purpose in seeing a movie was, "Oh man I bet the visuals in that are awesome."
Reply to this
You (and Brad) act like "pretentious" is some definable thing. It's a subjective thing. Obtuse dialogue and enigmatic, nonlinear storytelling does not equal pretension.
And for the record, I don't personally like Tree of Life, but Brad and Jake are painting almost all nonlinear art as pretentious just because there's no story, and that's really close-minded and, ahem, pretentious. It's called being abstract. The way Brad labels all fans of abstract, obtuse filmmaking is just as stupid as the critics he satires who label all exploitation as junk.
Reply to this
Pretense is when an author forces the interpretation of allegory onto the person consuming the work. Eg: "Here's a picture of a mother and a baby, but I'm not going to outright tell you what that means."
Some consider that lazy story telling, as anyone can interpret anything as meaning something else. The more difficult job is actually telling a story.
Reply to this
I think the hate for Malick rises in direct proportion to the amount of praise he receives and the snobbery of a large section of his fans. It's a chance to let off steam.
Sure, hating a director is a bit ridiculous. But then again why are people allowed to pour hate on bits of pop culture that don't appeal to their personal taste, but are expected to show respect for things that are presented as art? I would argue that this is because one set of fans is denigrated or absent from the debate whilst another bobs up and down making vapid claims of objective quality. importance and universal truths.
One of the things that makes art-house movies and art culture sometimes annoying is that it demands uncritical deference, at the dame time as presenting it's elevated self-importance as almost scientifically provable evidence of superiority. You can't argue that taste is subjective and then argue that claims for the higher quality of one form of creativity over another is objective fact.
So once you accept that, why should people who dislike Terrence malick films be any more open-minded than people who don't like exploitation films or films aimed at young girls and children?
So logically can do one of two things (a) accept it that is common practice to present the subjective art of criticism as objective reality. in the knowledge that this sometimes involves stigmatizing people as either morons or pretentious backside-wipes, as part of the fun. Or (b) demand that all reviews be longer than the thing being reviewed, feature only statements qualified by the phrases 'I think' or IMO, preemptive apologies for any feelings that may be hurt and end with the acknowledgment that the views expressed may be inaccurate or wrong.
Me I, subjectively. think Tree of Life sucks bad.
Reply to this
What's really funny is that if I said I hated "Uwe Boll," no one would think it was weird that I used the word hate to describe a director. I don't hate Malick as a person, I hate him as a writer. There's a difference. And I don't hate this movie simply BECAUSE it's pretentious, I hate it because in my OPINION it's a bad form of pretentious. Two of my favorite directors are Stanley Kubrick and David Lynch, so seriously, I don't have a problem with pretentious movies (as I stated in this review). I don't like Terrence Malick's style of narration or "story"telling. We are all entitled to forms of filmmaking we don't like, and that doesn't make someone close minded. I wouldn't call you close minded if you didn't like stag reel violence like "Violent Shit." Point being, I will never take your beloved Terrence Malick away from you, so you can have him.
Reply to this
Before I took a screenwriting class I thought Malick and Andrey Tarkovskiy films where so good and I was so much better than every who found them boring, but now when I watch Mirror or this movie I'm like "there is no arc in this, or plot".
I can appreciate pretty pictures and it was cool that they hired Douglas Trumbull for the space scenes, but even I can tire of pretty pictures.(a guy who named himself after a suggestive Sci-fi channel original movie no less)
clearly this movie isn't everyone's cup of tea, Theaters have apparently put up warning signs(http://www.avclub.com/articles/no-connecticut-theater-wont-refund-your-money-beca,58076/) that the film is polarizing I don't blame em, and Sean Penn has no clue why he was in the movie (http://www.avclub.com/articles/sean-penn-has-no-idea-why-he-was-in-the-tree-of-li,60727/)
Reply to this
Screenwriting class were you learn to write movies in which every events are pre-programmed almost to the exact minute? First five minutes to introduce the characters, setting, the time and all that jazz. The next twenty minutes to flesh out these things. Catalyst at the 25th minute, etc. If there's one thing I got from screenwriting class is a lesser tolerance to incredibly mechanical scripts and more respect for films that try something different with their stories, arcs and plots. Screenwriting theories, no thanks. I'd rather have film scripts (or absence of 'em) of different flavors and colors.
Reply to this
yeah that happened too, you don't know pain till you watch an incredibly formulaic movie after trying not to pump one out yourself.
Reply to this
Truth to that!
Reply to this
My parents visited the town this movie was filmed in some time after the shooting was finished. They even went to the Italian restaurant Brad Pitt reportedly enjoyed during his stay. My dad even liked to brag to people that he sat in Brad Pitt's chair. They were both really looking forward to seeing this movie...
... Which remained in post production for more than two years, long enough for my father's inoperable brain tumor to come out of remission. My father died before he ever got the chance to see this movie.
Terrance Mallick, you killed my father.
Reply to this
You do realize that your movies are pretentious as hell, right? I tend to like most of your stuff, but you two are full of shit right here.
Reply to this
lol, you think my movie about a prostitute with a golden heart who fights gangsters is pretentious? Ok man, to each his own =) My movies are intended as exploitation films, that's it; nothing more. Also, even if my movies were "pretentious," I don't hate movies just because they're pretentious. I mention a lot of movies in this review that are EXTREMELY pretentious that I like; whether it's a Kubrick film or a David Lynch film.
Reply to this
I think the word pretensious looses it´s meaning if we start using it as something positive. I´m not sure that i would agree that a good Lynch movie or Kubrick movie could be called pretensious, as i think pretension would equal something bad. Like an artsy film that seems to convey a message but turns out to be about nothing at all. In the good Lynch and Kubrick movies there´s a meaning to the madness, an idea behind it all, it isn´t just art for the sake of art, which is why i would say that the word Pretensious becomes invalid with films like that.
Reply to this
The most pretentious one I can think of was about snuff films with a lead named Max Force. And I'd say its pretentiousness is due to editing and actresses who fell under mel gibson's spell.
Reply to this
That was my movie "Cheap." Some of the editing was pretentious because the movie was about a pretentious filmmaker, so the snuff films within the movie were shot like that.
Reply to this
I'm not sure if a movie that contains the line "your arm is more fuckable than your twat" is pretentious. That movie was simply about pretentious filmmakers (and they were the villains).
Reply to this
I said "most" pretentious. Meaning relative. Meaning none of his movies are very pretentious
Reply to this
lol that is fucking ridiculous. Oh yeah, a 1980s sleaze flick in the style of movies like "Vice Squad" is sooooo fucking pretentious. That's retarded.
Reply to this
I haven't seen this movie because I don't know anything about it...
but considering what I'm hearing, I'd like to know what you think of David Lynch films. He's pretentious and has almost no story arc, etc, etc...
I love David Lynch, but I'm just wondering what Brad thinks...
Reply to this
In the review I said that I love David Lynch. David Lynch does stuff like that well. Just because something is pretentious doesn't mean that I don't like it. I didn't think "Spy Kids 4" was funny, but that doesn't mean I don't like comedy. Some people do it well, some don't. I don't like the was Terrence Malick does it, it's not for me.
Reply to this
I had never seen a Terrence Malick film before, but The Tree of Life is easily one of the most interesting contemporary films I've seen. Your claim that people say they like this movie only because they're fans of Malick is absurd.
It is not "easy" to create a film that hits the viewer on a visceral, emotional level. The "easy" thing to do is dismiss a film like this as pretentious.
Reply to this
I agree with Vulpix. The Tree of Life was my first Terrence Malick film and I loved it.
Reply to this
He's not saying that all people who liked this movie only liked it for Terrence Malick. But some of them, including a lot of critics, did.
Reply to this
I love watching your reviews, but honestly, this time I feel you're so self-contradicting that it got me mad.
How can you of all people insult an art movie for being indulgent? Caligula is perhaps the most self indulgent BS ever put on film. That movie is the vile underbelly of pretentious filmmaking and yet you praise it and dump on Terrence Malick. You seem well aware of this even whilst you proudly display the movie behind you in as many videos as possible.
And really? You can praise Eraserhead and not The Tree of Life? I've seen both films and they both work for entirely different reasons and both can be perceived as boring by mainstream audiences.
At least Eraserhead and Tree of Life are being praised by their target audiences. Caligula? I hang with some pretentious movie goers and not a single one of them enjoys Caligula. It is garbage. You may love it, but that film is pure Grade-A garbage. I am not a prude, nor was I “offended” by the movie…well, actually I was. The piece of crap offended my intelligence. Never before has a film made me want to castrate Malcolm McDowell- and I LOVE Malcolm McDowell so that’s saying A LOT. In fact I wanted to beat the entire crew behind that movie with a crowbar. That’s how much I HATE Caligula.
I'm not here to stir to pot or start a fight, but honestly: I hate people who imply people only like certain movies because critics tell them to. That's BS. I loved The Tree of Life without reading a single review beforehand.
How dare you, sir? How dare you insult other people’s tastes? Do you honestly believe you’re better than everyone else? Film is an art form and to reject art films is to deny artistic liberty as a whole. People have their freedom of expression. Compelling storylines are not the only purpose of film.
Also: You summarizing of what you perceive as Malick’s structure and dialogue shows you don’t even have even the smallest grasp of why people loved this movie. If you were such a great writer, where’s your Palm dOr, Brad? I don’t mean to insult, but if you’re going to insult another man’s artistic triumph you’d better have to accolades/credentials to justify it. You don’t. I’ve been seeing lots of you internet critics lately getting on some high horse shouting out to the world how much better you are and how you know so much more about film. It’s making me sick how pretentious all of you on these various sites have become.
Anyways…Still a fan of the Cinema Snob videos, and will continue watching your reviews, but I just refused to just be a silent viewer on this particular video. You are always entitled to your opinion, but I’m a fan of your work, and I don’t like feeling if I watch your videos my taste in movies is going to be spat upon.
If I were Gene Wilder this would be where I'd say: “Good day, Sir!”
Reply to this
Uh huh.
Reply to this
You know, I expected a lot more maturity from you, Brad. Watching your site you seemed reasonably smart and open to critical discussion. Is this how you treat a fan?
I’ve honestly been watching –and ENJOYING- your videos for the past three years. I do not come onto your site to hate on you, or your opinions. Trust me; I have far better things to do with my time than post on an internet critic’s videos.
When I posted the above message it did not come out of malice or hatred for your work. I recognize that you just see me as text on the screen- you probably don’t even acknowledge that I’m a real person, or if you do you probably have just written me off as someone whose only purpose in these comments is to attempt to anger you. Perfectly understandable given the nature of the internet, but the reality remains: I am a human being, and I do enjoy watching your videos. I don’t like to watch videos when the language used would suggest that I’m an idiot for liking a certain movie.
This isn’t Michael Bay’s Transformers movies wherein anyone can tell they’re bad, or give reasons why they’re awful. For The Tree of Life it is purely a matter of TASTE not intelligence or rationality. David Lynch’s films are taste. 2001: A Space Odyssey is taste. Enjoying Terrence Malick’s films is taste.
You can’t simply belittle the work and thereby the fans of said work and then expect that simply saying “But nothing against those who enjoy it!” because that contradicts the entirety of your review. Your review tears the movie to shreds and insults every quality it has so that your final message actually comes out as: “I have nothing against you for liking this movie, but damn are you stupid!”
Believe it or not lots of people will watch this review and never give Malick a chance solely because of your vicious review spawned more from personal taste, and bias than actual objective reviewing. You’ve painted a picture for everyone who is unfamiliar with Malick’s work that says all of his movies and fans are pretentious idiots. The Tree of Life was my first ever exposure to Malick and I loved it! It’s a shame many watchers on your site will likely write it off as “crappy pretentious drama” and never share that experience simply because they’ve accepted your biased opinion as fact.
To top it all off you have to be completely disrespectful towards your fans who liked the movie, once again contracting your whole “But I won’t judge you” shtick. Your true message is in your words, both in the video, and in the replies you’ve given to your fans who defended Terrence Malick.
You know what the difference between you and a published critic like Roger Ebert is? With Roger Ebert I can disagree with his opinions, but I never feel insulted by him, or belittled by his words, or writing.
Reply to this
tl;dr But my god get over yourself.
Reply to this
Why don't you get over yourself, Wayne? I honestly have no opinion of myself. I certainly don't feel superior to anyone else, like you apparently do.
I don't believe I was directing this response to you. No need for you to be taking it personally. I swear, you're trying to be Brad's little lapdog, hoping that master will toss you a bone for attacking people who didn't agree with his video.
Reply to this
I'm a complicated person. SOmetimes I'm nice, sometimes I'm nasty. Actually, I'm capricious, fickle and do whatever I fancy to amuse myself. Short of lawbreaking anyway.
But still, this is FAR more interesting than your diatribes, I'm sure people agree.
Reply to this
I'm not here to be interesting. Nor am I here to entertain or pander to a group of potential readers. Nothing I say comes from any desire to promote or enhance my own self-image. I comment to express my own opinion.
What do I care if people are amused by it or not? I don't. This is the internet! I hardly expect anyone to do much of any reading at all, but that doesn't mean I can't express myself.
You're commenting for the attention - to poke people around and to get them upset because that entertains you. I'm sure you'll be disappointed to learn that I approach you with calm indifference. You may continue poking me, but I assure you that you'll never get me to start typing rage filled messages, which is what I know you desire most of me because that would amuse you if I did.
Reply to this
tl;dr (again, you'd think you'd learn by now) BUT
"I'm not here to be interesting. Nor am I "
QFT.
Reply to this
HELP HELP I'M BEING COMPRESSED!
Reply to this
Hah hah! Very good! I had to smile at that.
Reply to this
But look on the bright side, I'm the only person here who actually seems to give a shit your posting at all!
Reply to this
No =) That's how I respond to someone who claims I spit on their taste, then arrogantly responds by spitting on mine and questioning my intelligence. Which, I don't care, everyone has the right to hate Caligula. Even Malcolm McDowell hates it. I don't question the intelligence of Malick fans (though plenty of them are hilariously thin skinned). I just don't like his movies. I never once in this video claimed Malick fans were idiots. I know plenty of them, and they're very smart people. But I did say that some critics liked the movie simply because Malick did it (which I still believe).
Also, you've never seen Ebert belittle or insult his readers? This is the same guy who frequently says that if your significant other liked [insert movie], dump them. Or questions the psychological state of people who liked "Kick Ass" or "I Spit on Your Grave."
I don't question the psychological state of anyone who liked "Tree of Life," and by the end of the video I say that Malick fans can have him, and I will never take that away from them. He's yours =)
Reply to this
I'm sorry for getting overly dramatic in my first post- I did go over the top in it and I apologize. I never intended to insult your intelligence, but if that is how you interpreted it, I am sorry. Hell, there have been plenty of movies I’ve agreed with your evaluation when most others were against it (Tron Legacy), so I admit my initial response was awfully uncalled for. =(
I just felt a tad offended by this particular one because I know many people will interpret it as "Avoid this artsy fartsy BS" rather than going to try it for themselves. It is my opinion that it would actually be best for no one to review The Tree of Life because it worked best for everyone I know when they went in without any expectation.
I still think your videos are great! This certainly doesn’t change my opinion that you have one of the best shows on the internet dedicated to movies. =)
Reply to this
I ended up watching this review and reading its comments after checking out your "Worst Films of 2011" videos with Jake. I just want to say thanks for introducing me to Caligula through your reviews: I watched it, loved it, and now it's a tradition for me to watch that film each year on my birthday (I share my birthday with Caligula, so that's not quite as random as it probably sounds).
Reply to this
People who think Caligula is the most self indulgent Greco-Roman BS ever put on film never saw Federico Fellini's Satyricon.
Reply to this
Or Gladiator. God, I hated that movie.
Reply to this
I believe I am entitled to despising more than one Greco-Roman film.
Reply to this
No. Everybody gets one.
Reply to this
Well in that case Caligula still tops my list of most-hated Greco-Roman films (and yes I'm well aware of Satyricon).
Reply to this
Looks like Brad just laid down a tl;dr and/or Cool Story Bro on your ass. If you wanna write essays get a bloody blog.
Reply to this
Why would I dedicate an entire blog entry to the sole purpose of responding to another person's video blog? That seems highly illogical when there is a convenient comment section here. I thought the whole point of a comment section was to give feedback. Pardon me if I misunderstood that.
Reply to this
Outstanding oration old chap.
Reply to this
Gotta share this story.
My mom wanted to go out on a Sunday, and we couldn't agree on a movie. I kept rejecting what she wanted to see. Eventually, we agreed on Tree of Life. Tickets were 13 bucks each and my mom payed for me.
After 15-20 minutes, me and my mom looked at each other.
Me: "I... I have no idea whats going on."
Mom: "Neither do I."
Me: "You know... we can get a refund as long as we're under 25 minutes."
Mom: "I don't know... I keep thinking maybe it'll get better."
Me: "Me too."
Mom: "This is really boring."
Me: "I KNOW RIGHT."
A minute passes. I start thinking, if this movie doesn't get better I'm going to feel honor-bound to pay my mom back for this ticket. The guilt starting to creep in. WHAT HAVE I DONE.
Then out of the corner of my eye, I see a couple that had been sitting several rows behind us. They were leaving. THEY WERE LEAVING AND NOW THAT THEY'VE BROKEN THE ICE I CANNOT *NOT* LEAVE AS WELL.
I run out of the theatre to the box office to see if I'm still in time for a refund. I am. I start jogging back to get my mother, who had chosen to wait it out. We ran into each other.
Me: "You cracked?"
Mom: "There were dinosaurs. I decided, the hell with this."
AND THEN WE SAW HORRIBLE BOSSES AND IT WAS HILARIOUS. THE END.
Reply to this
You know Brad maybe you shouldn't be so civil to these people that keep bashing you for saying you insulted there taste in film. Even though you Clearly, said at the end of the review that you wouldn't judge them for liking other the film, or enjoying Terrence Malik. It's not going to matter what you say to explain yourself further, they already made up there minds about the subject and you. So might as well entertain yourself with some of the responses.
Reply to this
Clearly Brad you're an anti-intellectual! (Reference to Oancitizen being flamed for disliking You and Me and Everyone We Know)
Reply to this
Just listened to Oancitizen get all uppity and condescending when asked about Brad in an interview. It was awesomely awkward. He was a douche in the whole interview.
Reply to this
It was more him getting a bit flustered because of all the assholes (such as yourself probably) accusing him of being a "Snob ripoff," someone even going as far as impersonating him on one of this site's videos comments section just to state this, even when anyone who has actually watched one of his videos and has half a brain can clearly see that this is not the case. I don't blame him for acting a bit defensive, now go back to wiping the drool off your keyboard please.
Reply to this
He's not a snob rip off. He's an actual cinema snob. His videos are rough around the edges, but he does his research and is pretty good at his craft.
Reply to this
No he isn't an actual Cinema Snob. He became one out of convenience. He stated in his interview that before taking on this show he wasn't much of a film buff and went after arthouse movies because no one else is doing it. Too bad he didn't pick an original character.
Reply to this
At what point did he say he wasn't a "film buff"? From everything that I've gathered, these are the kind of films he is genuinely interested in and actively seeks out. That he is so interested in such movies IS a large part of the reason he did the show in the first place. I mean, I highly doubt that anyone would dedicate such analysis and accumulate so much information about such movies if all they were going to do it with is a review show on youtube (where he started) but sure, think what you want.
Reply to this
No, he's right. He did say towards the beginning that he didn't start out as a film buff, and chose to do art films because no one else was doing them. Which, there's nothing wrong with that, but that is what he said in the interview.
Reply to this
Heh, the "Internet critics are not to be criticized!" crowd are funny.
Reply to this
No, its more like if you are going to criticize an internet critic, do it in a civil and competent manner, not just make baseless accusations.
Reply to this
I'm kinda surprised by how personal people are taking this review. This maybe a negative commentary of a movie that some people may like, but that is it. Ok There are movies I like that I know others don't and visa verse. This isn't a huge philosophical debate into Objection-ism or Catholic dogma. I think your priorities are a little skewed if you take this to such a high level of offense. Please prepare to be offended often in life.
Reply to this
Failure to grasp abstract concepts does not a comprehensive review make. It is clear why this video is here, however; as Doug Stanhope put it: "THE AUDIENCE ARE F*CKING MONKEYS AND WE'LL MAKE MONEY OF OFF THEM". This otherwise useless review has served it's incendiary and monetary purpose. Bravo.
Reply to this
Failure to grasp that gibberish is just gibberish and that an inability to film a tree without bathing it in artificial saturated light shows a contempt for nature and not a a profound understanding acceptance of it, does not an intellectual titan make. Let's make this clear. monkeys go to art-house movies too.
Go grow a brain, you spoon fed numpty snob.
Reply to this
Brad, if you're even still reading these comments. You gotta check out this movie called Shatter Dead. Maybe good for the cinemasnob to review
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDDIABn-Dhk
Reply to this
I've never heard of Terrence Malick before, but from the looks of it, he seems to be to drama what Seltzer and Friedberg are to comedy.
Reply to this
It's not so much Brad and Jake's opinions on the movie I have a problem with as much as that it influences a huge influx of comments like this one. One may not like Malick, but the "Friedberg and Seltzer of drama"? Oh boy...
Reply to this
one could say he totally rips off Andrei Tarkovsky, but what kind of snob would say that?
Reply to this
I think I know what you can get Jake for Christmas.... tickets to see this
http://www.filmofilia.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/alvin_and_the_chipmunks_chipwrecked.jpg
Reply to this
It's kinda funny how people react to Brad's opinion to a certain movie, and have a bitch fit just cause he didn't like the movie like they do. It's his opinion, not yours. So don't act like a child, and just enjoy the movies you love, even if the people don't like it like you do.
Reply to this
Almost 48 minutes? Did the review have to be that long guys? 20-30 minutes is the perfect run time for a bunch of dudes talking about movies. Once you're almost at feature length (or approaching the length of an epic Kenneth Anger picture) you're starting to push the line for how much time your audience has to spare.
Just saying. I'm going to watch the film first then check out the review.
Reply to this
"Almost at feature length"? Dude, 48 minutes is NOT almost at feature length. An hour isn't even feature length. Feature length is usually 75 minutes or over. Honestly, I love it when he does long reviews like this. More to enjoy
Reply to this
I'm with Nicanor on this review. Brad if you know that you don't like these kind of movies don't watch them. Seriously the arrogance behind your "Uh Huh" comments is insulting and childish. I mean if you really think your view on this movie is so valid. Defend it. Discuss with your fans or haters. It's not asked to much I think
Reply to this
Hereafter you shall be known as "Mr hasn't read Brad in the comments"
Reply to this
Can we call you "Mister denies freedom of speech", Wayne?
Reply to this
Only if your middle name is ACTUALLY "Pulls-this-shit-out-his-arse"
Reply to this
Oh for an edit button... Anyways, encouraging a person to get a blog is hardly "suppressing" any sort of speech.
Reply to this
It would be awkward to share a middle name with you. I won't take it, because it fits you so much better, given your tendency to pull insults straight out of a 5th grader's mouth.
Strong language actually has the opposite effect when you're trying to sound mature.
Reply to this
What gave you the idea I was trying to sound mature smeg-for-brains?
Reply to this
I did discuss it in the comments. I just don't care about it anymore, sorry. If I'm going to debate something, I should probably care about the topic first. But that shouldn't stop anyone else from discussing or debating it in the comments. That's what the comments are here for (and that's why I don't delete comments). If I had to discuss and debate things with every person who disagreed with me, I'd be here for quite a long time =)
Reply to this
So Brad is being an arrogant and nasty dismissive boy because he wrote "uh huh" in response to someone who's allegedly reasoned arguments included references to wanting to beat people over the head with a crowbar!
The "if you don't like it don't watch argument" is just vapid. It could apply to Spy kids 4, Twilight and any other film ripped to pieces on this site or in any review. Do you think all reviews should be positive and if not why should a film presented as art or its fans be given more respect than is afforded any other film or set of fans? Do these cry babies all write in asking reviewers to give full explanations of why they hate Transformers 3? No.
I think a lot of malick fans, not all, but probably most are pretentious, not because they like his boring movies, but because they think liking them proves that they are intelligent and serious and more individual than the average cinema goer. It is pretentious because it involves self importance and snobbery. with little real justification.
And anyway a full explanation of why Brad thinks Tree or Life is garbage would be even longer than the 40 minutes he gave it.
All I can say is that I have a degree in Art History, have seen every kind of film under the sun and I think Brad was being overly generous to Tree of Life.
Reply to this
Way to twist my words to your own purposes to make me look crazy. I take it you're also have a degree from The Fox News School of Journalism?
Let me remind you of basic English literature terms: I was using a device known as hyperbole to try and describe how angry I was sitting through Caligula. Besides, that was only a side comment I made and not my primary argument.
Degree in art history... Pardon me, but, who gives a crap? Only people insecure in their own ego throw around their accolades whenever they can in order to justify their snobbery.
Plus, isn't this more of a subject for someone with a degree in Film History? They are seperate degrees after all.
"It is pretentious because it involves self importance and snobbery. with little real justification."
That sums up your "I have a degree in art history" comment pretty well! =)
Reply to this
Ah, the old foil: if you're not going to argue, just pull out the old "I have a degree!" gambit and hope that that cuts it. Well, it doesn't. At all. The difference between something like Spy Kids 4/Transformers 3/whatever and Malick films is that everybody EXPECTS those first three films to be crap. Is a serious review of Spy Kids 4 going to make a child any less likely to bug their parents into taking them to see it? Hell no. In the cases of movies like that, the video becomes more about the person - usually Jake, on this site - getting pissed off about all of the stupid, lowest-common-denominator BS being put on the screen.
Terrence Malick, on the other hand, is an artist with a real vision, a real voice, and something to say about the world. You may not like it, but art exists on two axes: like/dislike and good/bad. People may dislike Malick's films for one reason or another, but their depth, complexity, and poetry are practically undeniable, especially weighed against the horrible Hollywood hacks that get honored at the Oscars every year. Now, The Tree of Life DOES overextend its grasp; its one of the greatest movies about childhood ever filmed bookended by pointless scenes of the universe being created and memories walking into the light in the most cliche fashion possible. The Thin Red Line (Malick's best), on the other hand, is perhaps the most engrossing film that I've ever seen, but even if one is NOT engrossed on it, I could go minute by minute and point out the poetry, the gorgeousness of the cinematography, the complexity of the characters/characterization and themes, the lack of cliche, etc. and be speaking quite objectively about the movie, to the point where even if you don't LIKE the movie, you'd probably have to admit that it does do the things that I'm saying and that those things do add up to something showing skill and intelligence on the part of the creator. With a movie by a real artist like Malick, having Jake use the word "fuck" for 45 minutes simply does not cut it in terms of criticism, especially when almost every aspect of the review - at least with regard to the family portions of the movie - seems to imply that the two reviewers in question didn't really engage with what the movie was even going for or what the actual relationships between the characters were, which undermines the ability of the audience to take seriously their criticisms. And that's not to even mention their deriding of Malick's voiceover narration, only to come up with "off-the-cuff" examples that are nothing like what is in Malick's actual film, which undercuts their very claim that what Malick does is easy to write.
This is long and so will probably not be read (or will get an almost-worse-than-no-reply "uh uh" from Brad), but I don't care; taste is not the only thing at play in art, for like any human measure, there ARE objective metrics that come into play, and somebody has to remain conscious of that, else why have critics at all?
Reply to this
Sorry, meant to say '"uh huh" from Brad' toward the end there; typo on my part.
Reply to this
Uh-uh
Reply to this
I wasn't pulling out my degree for that reason. I was doing it to demonstrate that not even all of us Art Farts agree that things deserves deference simply because they're presented as art. It was more of an exasperated joke than a wang waving exercise in one upmanship.
I believe taste is just about the only thing at play in art. And even if it isn't you can spend so many years arguing about what the actual nature of any particular art-form is to the point where it might as well be.
These are my reasons for disliking Malick's films. They don't even do what his fans say they do. The alleged great cinematography is just some filters and sol-arising effects used in the manner of a photographer who doesn't trust what's in front of his eyes enough to let it be. There are black and white films that capture corn and summer better than Days of Heaven manages in full colour, for example Earth. Malick doesn't show nature he filters to death. Actors in Malick films are mostly reduced to standing and staring enigmatically into the middle distance whilst delivering great gobs of empty verbiage in a voice-over. In short they are not allowed to act. IMO this renders the films stilted and lifeless.
You say that negative views of films like Spy Kids 4 don't stop people going to see them. I say that negative reviews of Malick's films haven't stopped people who want to see them from seeing them either. Plus there aren't that many negative reviews of Tree of Life anyway.
The other thing is, you keep making unsupported statements such as *Malick. on the other hand. is an artist with a real vision. a real voice". This is belief not fact. You can't prove it with anymore validity than I can prove my belief that Malick is a coffee table hack, peddling truisms and over-egged puddings to people who like over-egged puddings.
The point is that people who dislike the films of Terence Malick could give 8 hour lectures, write books that go through his scripts line by line and you guys would still bob up and down saying "your missing the point". So it's pretty clear it is a matter of taste or at least might as well be. In the end the days when I felt duty bound to watch plotless meandering boreathons as an act of self improvement are long gone. I saw this one because my girlfriend wanted to see it. I like films with plots and stuff.
Reply to this
PS. I am very aware that I am self important and pretentious.
Reply to this
The fact that he has a voice IS pretty indisputable; like it or not, you can't watch three minutes of a Malick film and not know who directed it, much like Kubrick or early Scorsese or Ozu or Kurosawa or Fellini or Cassavetes or...
As for vision, I only have 3000 characters. But I'd say that there's pretty evidently a continuity of both world-view and artistry across all six of his films. As for your comment on his cinematography, you're entitled to it, but even among those who dislike his films, you'd be in a very tiny minority; it's not just the lighting in his films that work but the framing and perspective, as well. The acting in his films is usually quite top-notch, for the actors communicate things with only their eyes and faces, no voices; as they say, it's truly great acting when the words are superfluous (though of course they aren't). And while the voiceover in, say, The New World is a bit overdone, the voiceovers in The Thin Red Line and Days of Heaven are absolutely incredible. For example, take the shot of the face of a Japanese corpse in The Thin Red Line that is shown while voiceover from an American soldier seems to question the nature of violence and of war, such that the voiceover seems actually to be coming from the dead soldier himself. That, right there, is an example of something artistically unique and complex in terms of its connotations, and it all comes from Malick's combination of visuals and voiceover to create a dissonant sort of poetry. That IS good writing, a sort of writing that uses both the pen and the camera almost simultaneously. Indeed, in his own way, I might even claim Malick as the most cinematic of directors in that his is one of the only styles that truly could only exist in the cinema and nowhere else. So, yes, he DOES do what people say that he does in his work, and if you cannot see that, well, the fault lies in you, not the film.
Reply to this
I regret the dismissive arrogance I displayed in my previous comment on this page. I apologize and I have been a huge fan of Brads work for awhile now. Having said that; If we can completely dismiss Roger Eberts reviews for films such as Friday the 13th part IV, I Spit on Your Grave, Silent Night Deadly Night, and a plethora of other genre films as merely being "Not For Him", then I think the same sound reasoning applies to Brad for this "Tree Of Life" review. Art house cinema is not his thin. That is the note I'd like to leave on, and I will continue to be an avid viewer of the Cinema Snob for years to come.
Reply to this
The condescending interview Oancitizen gave that was talked about earlier. The one where he gets butthurt when asked about Brad. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4MPLKaxsK4
Reply to this
I think that's more of a reflection of some of the trolls that post over at TGWTG. (Not that I mean anything bad about that site, it's just that it gets the largest amount of traffic and is the most likely source for such incorrect comparisons between Brad and Kyle.)
Reply to this
No, it's all just here. Seriously, find the interview on tgwtg and you'll see that all of the unfair comparisons come from thecinemasnob.com comemmts section.
Oh, and by the way, don't bother clicking on the link. The clip is not available anymore. Apparently, the clip got so much negative attention from Youtube users that it was taken done.
Reply to this
Okay, I got about an hour into Tree of Life. I think it's beautifully shot but it has the same problem as The Thin Red Line, it's overlong. There's some things that didn't quite need to be in the film. But it is a good film. Reminding me of Koyanisquaatsi. But at the same time if you're making a film of pure imagery it has to be either this 'pure' film or a drama. It cannot be both.
Reply to this
I think it can be both (2001 proves this), just that it requires a very delicate balance to fully succeed. Malick's reach perhaps exceeded his grasp with this one, but the effort and ambition is nonetheless admirable and for the most part quite accomplished.
Reply to this
I wouldn't really call 2001 any kind of drama. There's definitely a defined story of some kind, but the closest we get to a real human story is the whole HAL section of the film and that interweaves with the film's overall existential/extraterrestrial voyage for lack of a better phrase. That section of the film is not drama, it is Sci Fi. It's not man vs man (the heart of drama) it is man vs machine and more specifically what is it that defines life? If HAL has all the capabilities of a human and has the same failings of a human, what separates him from being human aside from a human body?
Compare this to Tree of Life where it's trying to mingle Drama with Existentialism and it doesn't quite work. I will agree with Brad that the narration is unneeded and easy to write. I'm half-tempted to make my own cut of Tree of Life and cutting out all of the narration, all of the Sean Penn scenes, cutting down on the family, and maybe the dinosaurs. I don't have much of a problem with the dinosaurs but the CGI could've been better.
Reply to this
The differences between "Caligula" and "Tree of Life" are quite obvious.
One: "Caligula" is based (somewhat loosely, yes) on the real life Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus (that's a lot of names!) - "Tree of Life" is just fiction of small-town America during the late 1960s.
Two: Bob Guccione set out making "Caligula" knowing full well what he wanted, a porn set in pagan Rome. Obviously Bob got what he wanted and to date, "Caligula" remains Penthouse video's number one selling item.
Terrence Malick set out making "Tree of Life" unsure of what it was he was wanting to make. Disjointed imagery, scenes and characters that make no sense, this movie is completely pointless.
Three: "Caligula" has a PLOT! It follows the character development of Caligula as he becomes heir to the empire of Rome and falls victim to his madness and delusions of power.
There is NO PLOT to "Tree of Life" unless the idea of a plot is to just point the cameras at Brad Pitt and hope his celebrity star power can save an otherwise utterly dreadful movie.
Reply to this
The scenes and characters in the middle, childhood section of the film make perfect sense. And the movie DOESN'T have much of a plot, but you say that like it's a bad thing; plot can be a pretty throwaway thing. The movie DOES have narrative, though, at least in that childhood section.
As for the movie having no point: the point of the movie is to evoke the life of a family in suburban Texas and to set that against cosmic activity so that it can all be set as a part of God's great plan and to lead into the rather hammy ending of the memories walking into the light. I freely admit that the creation fugue and ending are disjointed, but that middle section of the movie with the family is not disjointed at all; the point is to show us as much about the family and its complexities as possible using minimal dialogue, and it is extremely successful and filled with amazing moments. From that shot of the toddler staring at the infant with wonder, to the scene where the toddler gets made at the baby and prepares to throw a toy at it, to the scene where Jack accidentally ejaculates onto the dress and sets it adrift on the river to hide the evidence, to the scene where he shoots his brother's finger with a BB Gun, to that fucking look that Jack gives the jack that's holding the car over his father, the family portion of the film does an absolutely amazing job of communicating the complex relationships of the family member's relationships to one another while simultaneously giving us insight into each's individual depths without invoking cliche or melodrama. So there was no plot. Who gives a shit about plot when the story and characters are good? Is character not the driver of plot regardless?
Reply to this
Characters need a motivation. Whether it's narrated or not really doesn't do anything unless you have a plot and a progression of a character.
Reply to this
In a film where a character is the focus of the narrative that would be true, but that is not what The Tree of Life used as the focus of its narrative.
There are many different ways to tell a story and not all of them follow the same guidelines. The Tree of Life does not follow a traditional narrative, and yet you're trying to evaluate/judge it on that basis, so of course it doesn't meet those guidelines, but that was never the primary focus of the picture.
Even then, the film certainly shows more character motivation, growth, and progression in the Texas segment than all of Caligula.
Reply to this
Totally unrelated to the thread but this one appears to be most active, so,
Brad, Lucio Fulci's Zombie will be released on blu-ray on Oct. 25. Perhaps another "blu-ray sleaze" installment just in time for Halloween? Just throwing it out there.
Reply to this
You know, Terrence Malick is kind of like the arthouse equivalent of George Lucas. Both made a great movie in the 70's, took 30-year sabbaticals from filmmaking, then returned with a series of terrible, severely over-hyped movies under their belts. Keep in mind that, if you're defending "Tree of Life," you're defending the arthouse equivalent of "Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace.
Reply to this
And that's your opinion.
Terrible is a subjective term, especially when you're dealing with art films.
To compare a film like this to The Phantom Menace has absolutely no basis. Aside from both directors starting their careers in the 1970s what credibility does your comparison have? Malick's films are far more well-received by audiences and critics than all of George Lucas' prequels, so your comparison has no ground to stand on other than to say that you personally hate Malick's recent work.
Tell me: did Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace win the Palm dOr or any other notable awards from critics and its peers? Nope. Not at all.
Reply to this
Dude, his point was pretty clear. Both made great movies in the 70s. After that, they took a long break, and once they came back, they made complete tripe. The only noteable film Malick has made since his return was Thin Red Line. New World was garbage, and Tree of Life was garbage as well. He wasn't comparing their actual movies (although the original Star Wars trilogy is far better than anything Malick has done, and so is American Grafitti). He was comparing their career paths.
As for the Palme d'Or, look at past movies that have won it, and see how superior they are to Tree of Life. Pulp Fiction, Sex Lies & Videotape, M*A*S*H, The Wind That Shakes The Barley, and Taxi Driver in in completely different league's than Tree of Life. If you like the movie, good for you, but I'll take Scorcese, Tarantino, Loach, Soderbergh, Altman (pre-90s), and many others over Malick
Reply to this
Except the movie he made when he came back was his best one! Would that we could all have such a nice comeback after 30 years.
Reply to this
I completely disagree. Terrance Malick's "Badlands" is an American classic and BY FAR his best movie, it's like a much darker version of "Bonnie and Clyde." It's terrific! The truly brilliant thing about is is it's completely deadpan tone, the result of which is that you don't even realize Sissy Spacek and Martin Sheen are (spoiler!) serial killers till halfway through the movie. It's done from their perspective; killing people means about as much to them as taking out the garbage, and the movie brilliantly reflects that. There's nothing that intelligent in any of his other movies, which are all style and visuals. I have great respect for Terence Malick for making it, but it is his only great movie. He had no ideas left after making it. I feel I have every right to compare it to PM; both films are entirely visual with no discernable subtext.
Reply to this
This conversation is cute.
Reply to this
Took a closer look at this thread; oh sweet merciful gods people, you do not understand the first thing about being a citizen of the internet. If you find yourself writing an essay defending a person you will never meet over a stupid movie, just close your browser window and go calm down. Jesus fucking christ.
Reply to this
I'll have you know, that my lengthy posts were mainly the result of alcohol and boredom
Reply to this
I want you in the cage Brad! You're going doooown!!!!!
Reply to this
Critics praise most of Malick's movies because, well, because they're great fucking movies, that's it.
Watch "Badlands", and tell me that that's a bad movie.
Reply to this
A great film without a great script is no great film at all.
Reply to this
Good thing Malick writes excellent scripts, then.
Reply to this
Uh huh.
Reply to this
Uh uh...
Reply to this
True.
Reply to this
Because film is, in fact, not a visual medium but a literary one amirite? Um...
Reply to this
Which is why older movies where nothing visually striking happens and people just talk a bunch like His Girl Friday, or Duck Soup, or something recent like Clerks are an insult to the medium and should be ignored. But really pretty movies like Sucker Punch are masterpieces! Oh wait...
Reply to this
Sucker Punch (and every other Zack Snyder movie for that matter) is basically one big crappy video game cut scene, the equivalent to a Thomas Kinkade painting or something.
His Girl Friday and Duck Soup may be remembered for their scripts but aren't any less cinematic in their overall style (especially Duck Soup and its visual gags). As for Clerks, well yes I would say that it's an insult, period, not just to its medium but that's another story.
Point is, you don't need a script, let alone a great one to make a great movie. Plenty of movies are made with scant or without any scripts in the first place. Documentaries, improvised works, avant-garde films (try watching some Brakhage some time), and that's because the only thing required for something to qualify as a film is that it be a series of moving images, and once you remove all other artificial barriers is when truly creative works start coming to play.
Reply to this
I like Bowling for Columbine and The Blair Witch Project, but that doesn't mean I put them in the same league as Lawrence of Arabia and A Clockwork Orange. If you wanted to prove me wrong in that a great film can be made without a script, sure, you've got me. But for every great film without a script you name, I can name twenty more with one, most of them better.
Reply to this
Clerks is an "insult"? How, exactly? It's one of the best films of the 90s, and a statement that needed to be made about the slacker generation. It has some of the best dialogue I've seen in a comedy, and proves that a film doesn't need to visually stimulate the watcher in order to be great. In making such a simple film, of two guys talking, Kevin Smith made one of the most human comedies I've ever seen
Reply to this
You consider a script a barrier to the creative process in a movie? All right, I'm not gonna bother arguing anything else with you, as you obviously have a weird view of how this medium works.
For what it's worth, 'moving images' and art done in a video medium are different things from 'movies.'
Reply to this
IMPY: Some of your favorite movies may be script-oriented, but the fact is a script is not a prerequisite to make a quality film. And for the record I believe Frederick Wiseman's documentaries are among the greatest films ever made, all without so much as a narration or interview.
Gonad: Sorry, but I cannot stand Kevin Smith's writing style nor the characters his films inhabit. Sure it's admirable he was able to put something like that together on such a low budget but it doesn't make the film any less annoying.
Ender: No, scripts in of themselves are not a barrier if the film calls for one, but the idea that films need a script, and/or a tightly structured plot, character development, etc. in order to be good or even "films," a broad term if there ever was one, IS a severely limiting concept for one to hold in terms of creativity and the seeking out and encouraging of creative works.
Reply to this
im gonna put this in a very simple way everybody can understand... Cradle of Fear is the best film ever made. if you disagree with this statement then "you didnt get it", critisising me or the film in anyway is hypocritical if you have insulted brad in these comments for his review.. whoever said that its ok to bag on universally excepted "bad movies" but not artsy ones is wrong. all films are art, art is sungective, good and bad are null and void
Reply to this
ROFL @ the mario brother's impression.
Reply to this
Aww, Modest Mouse is a great band.
Now, Moldy Peaches, I'm with you on that one.
Reply to this
tree of life is like a box of chocolates you never know what you're gonna get
Reply to this
I don't understand the point of getting worked up about whether someone likes or dislikes a movie. It doesn't matter what reasons folks give for why they like a movie or dislike a movie. If those were the deciding factors for them for liking or disliking something so be it.
Personally I found the review to be entertaining.
Reply to this
Lesson Learned: Do not mess with Terrence Malick fans. They will bore you to death with their blind love of the man.
Also: Pretentious. adj.
a:making usually unjustified or excessive claims (as of value or standing).
b : expressive of affected, unwarranted, or exaggerated importance, worth, or stature.
I haven't seen the movie and I never will. But if it fits one of those definitions, then IT IS pretentious.
Reply to this
Now I have to see this movie
Btw Brad,(assuming you still read these comments) after all this I'd really like to hear what you think of The Limits of Control by Jim Jarmusch, The Holy Mountain by Alejandro Jodorowsky and In Bruges by Martin McDonagh.
Those three just popped to my head while watching your video, reading all these comments and writing this.
Personally I like them all.
I think Jarmusch has great sense of humor and even if his movies are artsy, to say the least, they are very funny too. Some say The Limits of Control is boring as hell and I don't blame them. It is - and I like it
The reason I like The Holy Mountain might be pretty stupid, but I don't care. I like it just because it is so weird. Another reason is - and this goes for all these three movies - that it looks and sounds amazing. What more do you need than two hours of strait WTF-moments and beautiful cinematography. And I know there is lot of deeper meanings to it, but that's not really my thing.
For me In Bruges just hits bullseye in every level. Soundtrack, cast, characters, how it looks, HUMOR, simple story... everything. It became instant favorite for me.
Btw, check out McDonaghs new project.
It is going to be awesome.
Hopefully my opinions did not take too much space. After all I just wanted to know what you thing of them (assuming, again, you've seen all of them).
And so any of you don't think I'm a complete art-douche;
I'm off to play Street Fighter ->
Reply to this
I honestly don't know how you sit through all these new movies. I don't get the whole 3D thing. It actually keeps me from going to the theatre. I don't want little goggles strapped to my head just to watch a movie. It's gratifying to know that everything I predict from the previews usually turns out to be true.
Reply to this
So what was the deal with that cat? First howling off-screen at about 7 minutes in and then actually showing up.
Reply to this
Reading the comments is HILARIOUS. Malick fans can't take a single ounce of criticism without crying like babies and getting all defensive. If you don't like someones opinion, ignore it and move on because their opinion will never change what you think/like.
Reply to this
Yay! More Jake reviews! I found this entertaining to watch, which based on what was said, I definitely would not have been able to say about Tree of Life.
Reply to this
Good review guys enjoyed the opposing view and found it refreshing to hear.
Don't know if I'll see this anytime soon, if I'm going to sit through a Malick film I need a couch and a pause button handy. Worst experience I've had watching a movie was The Thin Red Line in a film class in college. My ass was so numb by the end of it I could not sit down until I went to bed that night. Yeah I know that's the shitty wooden chairs in the classroom's fault, but ass-pain is always what I will associate with that film and honestly I find that appropriate. No offense to Malick fans, to each their own.
Reply to this
Avatar is one of the most pretentious films I have seen. Tree Of Life is one of the greatest films I have seen. Are you sure you like Stanley Kubrick and David Lynch Brad? A critic once labeled Eraserhead an incredibly pretentious work. God, don't even mention all the bad press 2001 got at the beginning. But using the word 'pretentious' when it comes to honest artists like Lynch, Kubrick, and even Malick, is ridiculous in itself. They want to help you think. To expand your brain. They want to express their ideas, their fears, their passions, their interests, their disinterests, and hope that you find something in value to them and discuss them. They do this with HONESTY and with intentions to advance the cinematic language. Yet Hollywood continually funds self-important work time and time again. WHAT IS THIS RUSE YOU SAY? The Help. This biopic. That biopic. The other biopic. This very important thing that happened in another country. America the movie. The Tyler Perry movie. More Hollywood movies. MONEY: the movie. AVATAR. $$$. Yay! More illustrations of text on screen! Apparently, cinema is just like literature! Why read, when characters can "speak" their dialog and you can "see" them! Character arks, character development! Apparently these are all RULES in cinema written by the someone called THE MASS! Didn't you know? If cinema were to break these rules, you get called artsy smarty! Schmartsy Pansy! P R E T E N T I O U S <------------ YOUAREPRETENTUIOUPRETENTYOUAREPRETENTUIOUPRETENTYOUAREPRETENTUIOUPRETENTYOUAREPRETENTUIOUPRETENTYOUAREPRETENTUIOUPRETENTYOUAREPRETENTUIOUPRETENTYOUAREPRETENTUIOUPRETENTYOUAREPRETENTUIOUPRETENTYOUAREPRETENTUIOUPRETENTYOUAREPRETENTUIOUPRETENTYOUAREPRETENTUIOUPRETENTYOUAREPUIOUPRETENTYOUAREPRETENTUIOUPRETENTYOUAREPRETENTUIOUPRETENTYOUAREPRETENTUIOUPRETENTYOUAREPRETENTUIOUPRETENTYOUAREPRETENTUIOUPRETENTYOUAREPRETENTUIOUPRETENTYOUAREPRETENTUIOUPRETENTYOUAREPRETENTUIOUPRETENTYOUAREPRETENTUIOUPRETENTYOUAREPRETENTUIOUPRETENTYOUAREPRUIOUPRETENTYOUAREPRETENTUIOUPRETENTYOUAREPRETENTUIOUPRETENTYOUAREPRETENTUIOUPRETENTYOUAREPRETENTUIOUPRETENTYOUAREPRETENTUIOUPRETENTYOUAREPRETENTUIOUPRETENTYOUAREPRETENTUIOUPRETENTYOUAREPRETENTUIOUPRETENTYOUAREPRETENTUIOUPRETENTYOUAREPRETENTUIOUPRETENTYOUAREPRUIOUPRETENTYOUAREPRETENTUIOUPRETENTYOUAREPRETENTUIOUPRETENTYOUAREPRETENTUIOUPRETENTYOUAREPRETENTUIOUPRETENTYOUAREPRETENTUIOUPRETENTYOUAREPRETENTUIOUPRETENTYOUAREPRETENTUIOUPRETENTYOUAREPRETENTUIOUPRETENTYOUAREPRETENTUIOUPRETENTYOUAREPRETENTUIOUPRETENTYOUAREPRRETENTUIOUPRETENTYOUAREPRETENTUIOUPRETENTIOUSPTERNETENITOOSHNSSSCHHH*3*^%*YCHYEAAAAAAGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
But at the end of the day, its your bloody opinion, and even if I want to kill it and eat it for breakfast, you are entitled to it.
PS: Review some Albert Pyun films! I love the man. He is a GREAT artist who has made TERRIBLE art. I'm being serious damn it!
Reply to this
Sounds like 2001 space oddesy - a Rossach test more than a film, just pretty pictures
Reply to this
Turned it of after some 15 minutes.
I rather watch BBCs Earth/Life series when I want beautiful imagery.
Reply to this
Well think of it this way, Brad, ATLEAST it has practical effects.
Anyways, best film of the year
Reply to this
While I didn't like the movie as much as others, I think Malick's a decent director. Whatever metaphor that's there or not depends on how one sees it. Though I found those Dinosaurs very mispaced. The family story would have been enough for me. At least it took chanches but that doesen't mean it succeeds necessarily. For my taste this movie was "too kind"(if that makes any sense)
I also think it's a bit unfair to claim that Brad is self-contradictory for liking Lynch and Kubrick but not Malick because they make completely different movies. They're completely different in style
No matter how much one cares for movies there is no way one can like everything that comes out, not even those that are critically acclaimed.
I, myself am a real sucker for great visuals. Not just certain scenes in this movie but movies like the italian horror films of 1970s-1980s(or even Japanese exploitation films), "The beyond" and "Suspiria". Storywise those films were very loose and had many logical errors , but the style is so rich and the entertainment value is so high that it's (almost) forgivable.
Reply to this
Brad, you have some seriously unhinged fans, on both sides of this debate. 'Uh huh' indeed.
Reply to this
Jeez, I just wanted to revisit some Jake reviews after going through the Midnight Screenings again, but MAN, this comment section.
I have a degree in psychology and I still don't get people.
Reply to this
laughed my ass of during this video, even though I loved TOL and saw it over six times. Let me defend the movie real quick: I think your complaints about a lack of story are perfectly valid. There is NOT a traditional screenplay structure to speak of. I was able to get some meaning from the movie, though, but A) it was almost entirely through visuals and
That said, Lynch takes this "you need to be well-read to interpret all of the symbolism" approach in many of his movies, especially Mulholland Dr. I don't see nearly yhe kind of backlash towards his movies. If you understand the basic structure of most philosophical arguments, I think you can get the gist of the structure of Malick's film, which is mostly a bunch of micro/macro juxtapositions that lead to more questions than answers (like any good philosophical argument tends to do). I think what it boils down to in terms of people hating the movie is that it takes itself too seriously. Even Lynch movies have entertaining WTF moments and a strange sense of humor. There are no laughs in TOL whatsoever.
Reply to this
I think it was more of a film than a movie though. Notice how concepts were being communicated primarily through visual means. A movie tends to use a clear script as the spine to communicate concepts, and the imagery acts a datum. Film uses explicit images and techniques. Sometimes there is overlap, where you have a movie and film, where both are employed. However, both films and movies have a plot. This is a film, the plot will not be clearly communicated. Malick clearly designed a plot. His plot determines which images and scenes he would display. It's not clear however, it's abstracted. Either you appreciate the product of the abstraction, or you don't.-But what's nice about film, is that communicating plot is richer rather than clearer. Think of it like art. Really good art has a concept, but this drives how we experience it, not how we understand it. If the artist is rigorous enough, he achieves both. I thought Malick was successful. I understood concepts that surely scripting could never communicate alone. Open your minds you two, it wasn't nonsense. Why talk about it for this long if you thought it was garbage? We don't like what we don't understand
Reply to this
Hey, I like Modest Mouse, even if it did take them ten years to learn to write songs with tempos and melodies understandable to humans.
Reply to this
I like Modest Mouse too. I think it's unfair that they get lumped in with a lot of other hipstery shit. They've been making pretty unique and interesting music for almost 2 decades now. It's not like they've just jumped on the whole faux-indie hipster bandwagon along with twats like Crystal Castles and The Drums and shit. Oh well, each to their own.
Reply to this