Tree of Life movie

**Cyclonepride** · 10-15-2011, 07:42 PM

What the **** was that?

Seriously, we shut it off after 5 minutes of story, 10 minutes of vague imagery and then about 20 minutes of some inserted Nova documentary, including dinosaurs.

Anyone make it further than that and care to shed some light on why I should spend the next hour and a half sorting that all out?

**3TrueFans** · 10-15-2011, 07:51 PM

I typically like Brad Pitt, but that definitely doesn't look like a movie I would enjoy. User reviews on Metacritic are split between really good and really bad, so who knows.

**bugs4cy** · 10-15-2011, 10:24 PM

I sat through the whole thing because I thought at some point in time it would all come together. WRONG. One of the dumbest movies I've ever seen.

**purify** · 10-15-2011, 11:55 PM

It's a Terrence Malick film, not a Brad Pitt movie. I don't say that to be pretentious, but you have to know what you're getting into when you pick up something from Malick. Personally I really love some of his work, but his stuff is 90% imagery and 10% story. If you don't like the first 5 minutes, you won't like the next 145 minutes.

The imagery really is quite beautiful, like it was in The New World, but the story is so sparse and moves at a snails pace, like in The New World. Basically you're not missing much story-telling.

The thing with Malick is, he has a group of supporters who will defend his genius and look down upon those who 'don't get it'. It's bull, he does beautiful work, but that doesn't mean all his work is entertaining, or worth your time.

**Pitt_Clone** · 10-16-2011, 12:16 AM

Originally Posted by purify

It's a Terrence Malick film, not a Brad Pitt movie. I don't say that to be pretentious, but you have to know what you're getting into when you pick up something from Malick. Personally I really love some of his work, but his stuff is 90% imagery and 10% story. If you don't like the first 5 minutes, you won't like the next 145 minutes.

The imagery really is quite beautiful, like it was in The New World, but the story is so sparse and moves at a snails pace, like in The New World. Basically you're not missing much story-telling.

The thing with Malick is, he has a group of supporters who will defend his genius and look down upon those who 'don't get it'. It's bull, he does beautiful work, but that doesn't mean all his work is entertaining, or worth your time.

I thought The Thin Red Line was a phenomenal movie, which makes me want to see this one. It's in my queue so we'll see. Haven't seen The New World yet either.

**Cybyassociation** · 10-16-2011, 12:31 AM

I absolutely loved The New World. Caught it by mistake, but I really enjoyed it for some reason. It is incredibly slow, but pretty good.

EDIT: I'm going to go ahead and backtrack on my comments on the actress in The New World. Upon further research, turns out she was 14 when they shot the movie. Something to keep in mind.

**purify** · 10-16-2011, 01:21 AM

Originally Posted by Pitt_Clone

I thought The Thin Red Line was a phenomenal movie, which makes me want to see this one. It's in my queue so we'll see. Haven't seen The New World yet either.

The Thin Red Line was very good, and very accessible. The Tree of Life is not the Thin Red Line.

**purify** · 10-16-2011, 01:23 AM

Originally Posted by Cybyassociation

I absolutely loved The New World. Caught it by mistake, but I really enjoyed it for some reason. It is incredibly slow, but pretty good.

EDIT: I'm going to go ahead and backtrack on my comments on the actress in The New World. Upon further research, turns out she was 14 when they shot the movie. Something to keep in mind.

Haha, Chris Hansen probably wants a word with you.

But, if you like the New World, you should enjoy the tree of life. I rolled my eyes the second time they showed a 'getting lost in the beauty of a field' scene, I just thought it was too much.