I want to take every pretentious, snot-nosed dipshit who called this the movie of the year, and force them to watch nothing but big summer blockbusters. These are the types of people who will turn their noses up at anything that isn't "artistic."
It's strange how much I appreciated (as opposed to 'enjoyed', I suppose) this over, say, 2001: A Space Odyssey, but I think it's because 2001 is a 'vacuum', whereas Tree of Life is absolutely, fundamentally 'human'. I can't fucking stand 2001. Glad I watched the vid either way, fascinating thoughts on a partisan film. One of the best Kermode reviews I've seen, up there with the Transformers reviews. For the record, I completely understand why anyone would loathe the film. Completely.
Tree of Life was one of the first films in a very long time that genuinely made me reflect on my experiences and the time that I have spent on this planet. I believe if a film can make me think and reflect in such a way has enormous merit.
Some very interesting thoughts. I pretty much agree with what Kermode is saying here, particularly with regards to how completely unabashed it is. I'd argue that to call this film pretentious (which you're certainly entitled to) is to skirt over just how heartfelt it is and how much effort Malick poured into it. I don't think anyone can deny that the cinematography is nothing short of stunning throughout, for instance. Overwrought? Almost definitely. A film that needs to be seen? Absolutely.
@Oblivionator I thought the cinematography was a mess, and the good looking parts were poorly edited. I think Malick has a problem with what I have for a long time called "breathing room". The ULTIMATE scene of "breathing room" in a movie is The Shining when Jack talks to Delbert Grady - no fast editing or loud noises or music, no narration. Nothing but two people in a room, talking. And that one scene carries more impact than all of the combined features of Tree of Life.
My mum saw this and she said it was beautifully shot but dull. My dad fell asleep apparently. On another topic, it seems like Kermode really gets on Mayo's nerves sometimes. It could just be Mayo's way, sort of haughty, but look at 1:16 and tell me he's not getting cross with Kermode.
After watching this film for forty five minutes, nothing had happened to make me want to continue watching it. The voice over is meant to be meaningful and interesting but it is just...weird. I was looking forward to seeing this movie because Terrence Malick is such an impressive director but, I could not even finish the movie. If I wanted to see a movie on how the earth began I would go to the planetarium. I don't recommend this film at all.
He was way too nice about this film, especially towards the end. I don't think being "honest" makes the film any better and Kermode really should have come right out and said "this film is not worth anyone's time."
@Neekstarrr but it wouldnt be honest. This film has high aspirations, and well meant intentions and some outstanding shots. Theres also an interesting debate to have about it stuck somewhere in the middle. I think Kermode's review is spot on, I didnt like the film myself but its not devoid of merit and for anyone who likes movies and likes to think a bit about the deeper questions this is a good excuse, or rather better than most hollywood films
@MrCassavius I don't see how having "high aspirations" would increase anyone's enjoyment of the film. Mark Kermode obviously didn't think highly of the film so he should have said "I do not recommend this, it is not a film worth watching."
@Neekstarrr its obviously different a failure when it aims pretty low, like a teenage comedy or a conventional hollywood product, or way higher as it aims this one. Both are failures ultimately, but one has in its discourse and themes a more interesting failure to talk about. In fact there are failures way more interesting than complete successes. There are also greys to talk about when saying this movie didnt quite hit the mark, its not just black or whites.
Firstly, this is a beautifully shot film. There are a few genuinely moving moments.
Overall, however, this film was not good and would be laughed at if any other director had released it. Because it's Terence Malick, nobody wants to say the film simply doesn't work.
I remember watching The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, and while it did have a more linear storyline than the tree of life, it was still wild and out there and confusing. But by the end, I understood the purpose of it. I get that this is supposed to show how that in the end this family is such a small scale in the whole of creation or evolution or whatever, but that sort of message is more suited for paintings or books perhaps. As a venture to the big screen, it doesn't hold interest.
I didnt mind the birth of creation/dinosaur sequence... to be honest that was when my interest perked up. But it just went nowhere with it. Or rather, it went a long way to say very little.
I am a young transcendentalist (so i pride myself) and i enjoy the mix of judo-christian morals and pantheistic spirituality, this film was perfect for me, this film is flawed, it is at times pretentious, but it is a film that should be studied by high-school students like myself. It is a masterful work of literature, music, and visuals. It is bold- the solitary tole of its title- a masterpiece.
Mark Kermode should watch this film as a person and not a wannabe filmmaker or philosopher.....he doesn't fully grasp this film yet...watch it a few times mister Kermode and when you watch it feel ! instead of analysing...We think you missed it. You simply do not fully understand what Mister Malick is saying. The same happened with mister Kubrick..and then 10 years later they all hailed mister Kubrick..Oh well it's just Mark Kermode.
@JamesJesusAngleton Kubrick and Malick are opposite though. Kubrick is a genius who changed the form of film by messing with every possible convention, while still being able to make an accessible movie. Malick, at least with Tree of Life, didn't really change the form but just fell into art film cliches, while making an entirely not-accessible movie. Kubrick's popularity lag was a result of people "feeling" the movie when they should have been analyzing it.
I totally agree with his last statement. For those who have suffered a loss or who witness pain and death daily (I work in an intensive care unit), this film does resonate and bring one to a ?catharsis/?resolution/?consolation. Most of us going to a movie won't necessarily be in such a frame of mind; entertainment is what we usually seek, not introspection.
I put this film on the altar of the best films i watched in my entire life. Thank God i don't go with critics reviews ... Go watch it and make your own opinion. I wasn't a fan of Malick, till i watch this masterpiece. It's harsh for me to read and listen to so many people calling it pretensions (that word is the new black isn't it?) and boring and lacking on narrative ... do people actually know what narrative is? Don't they know silence and image and sound is also a way of narration?
The film is awful. it is indulgent, narcissistict an pointless . However there will be some people who will love it - the same people who loved the emperors new clothes.
@redken11 It is indulgent, but I welcome you to point out a single work of art that isn't. However, how exactly is the film "narcissistic?" I think the "point" is 1) to show us how Malick sees existence, through his perspective, 2) to chronicle his foray into sin and his redemption, 3) and to visualize everything from Genesis to Revelation while creating a response to the fundamental dilemma of theodicy from a Jobian standpoint.
this film is a masterpiece in my opinion. I can completely understand people not liking it, but thie film affected me like no other film ever has, and I'm sure there are others who feel the same, and others who diasgree, but I can't help but think that's what Malick intended.
I went to see it tonight and I walked out after 25 minutes. Simply attrocious, soooo pretentious and up it's own arse that I couldn't stomach any more whispering or scenes of volcanoes or scenes of trees in the wind or scenes of the universe that I happily walked out of it and into Super 8; a proper, entertaining, well-acted and nostalgic film that deserves credit far above this piece of crap.
@TheMikey3000 It wasn't as clever or intelligent or thought provoking as it tried to present itself. Whispering over the opening 5 minutes "the meaning of life" and other irrelevant sentences over the sound of wind chimes isn't intelligent or clever or thought-provoking; it's just dull and doesn't attract the viewer to become involved in the story as it just doesn't have any form of continuance, due to the continual changing of scene from 1 piece of rubbish (volcanoes?) to the next (dinosaurs?)
The script is designed that way. Malick has never been particularly subtle with his subject matter. Voice over's themselves, at their nature, are pretty blunt. I think you're looking for some kind of familiarity in a film that was never intended to A) be a traditional narrative where continuity is at a high priority and B ) attract the viewer to be involved in the onscreen story, but in their own lives, and put themselves vicariously into the character that most resembles them.
@robertmyatt I can't say that it's "clever" but it was certainly thought-provoking. The opening 5 minutes was NOT the "meaning of life." It was simply Jack (Hunter McCracken/Sean Penn's character) remembering what his mother (Jessica Chastain) taught him about life when he was young. Every sentence uttered was extremely relevant. Nothing was cryptic.
@robertmyatt It's not a rigid form of "continuance" but there is one. The movie is played out in "movements" similar to a piece of music, like a concerto: Allegro, Andante,Largo, back to Allegro. The Creation sequence mirrors God's response to Job in the Book of Job (after Jessica Chastain's character asked: Lord, why? where were You? the images of the universe that follows ask back: where were you (us human beings)?).
@carcariden Of course, there's never a right or wrong in critiquing something. We all see things in different ways. For example, I watched Crazy Stupid Love last night and really, really enjoyed whilst a lot of people thought it was extremely mediocre. We all see things and interpret things in different ways.
The heart of the film is brilliant. As is the acting. Brad Pritt was very impressive. But like Mark said it's a flawed film and one that I think failed slightly because of over reaching. But that's as good a reason as any to fail and I like that Malock told the story he wanted to rather than a film about ticking boxes. That's to be applauded. But I don't consider it a masterpiece. Oh and the whispering and wasting Sean Penn annoyed me too.
The heart of the film is brilliant. As is the acting. Brad Pritt was very impressive. But like Mark said it's a flawed film and one that I think failed slightly because of over reaching. But that's as good a reason as any to fail and I like that Malock told the story he wanted to rather than a film about ticking boxes. That's to be applauded. But I don't consider it a masterpiece.
The heart of the film is brilliant. As is the acting. Brad Pritt was very impressive. But like Mark said it's a flawed film and one that I think failed slightly because of over reaching. But that's as good a reason as any to fail and I like that Malock told the story he wanted to rather than a film about ticking boxes. That's to be applauded. But I don't consider it a masterpiece.
The heart of the film is brilliant. As is the acting. Brad Pritt was very impressive. But like Mark said it's a flawed film and one that I think failed slightly because of over reaching. But that's as good a reason as any to fail and I like that Malock told the story he wanted to rather than a film about ticking boxes. That's to be applauded. But I don't consider it a masterpiece.
Knew nothing about this film and was blown away. Such an ambitious, poetic and beautifully shot epic that captures the point/pointlessness of the existence of humanity and the universe, our relationship with the idea of a God, our struggle with coming to terms with each others mortality and our hopes and dreams for our lives told through the eyes of a family and their relationship with each other and their everyday experiences of trying to be a good father, mother and child.
If he loves film, then why did Terrence Malick bore everybody to suicide with a lengthy montage of nothing but space and dinosaurs? My mum nearly made us leave because we're beginning to lose patience. Sean Penn is billed as one of the main actors when he's only in it for 20 minutes. It was confusing. It's too long. It kept fading in and out towards the end which started to annoy me. I'd never watch this film again. The director must've been on drugs to even think about making this film.
@Cinemadman You say 'nothing but' space and dinosaurs.. that says it all, really. Saying that means you do not find space and dinosaurs interesting or relevant to the story of life. If that is so, I feel sorry for you, and I'm not surprised that you didn't enjoy the film. Have more patience. We need this film, as an antedote to the fast, predictable, money-making crap in cinemas today.
@skyflynite We don't need this film. We just need to fill the void that was created by Kubrick's death. But there's been PLENTY of people who have done a much better job. This film isn't "nothing but space and dinosaurs", but that perfectly sums up what IS wrong with the film - too much emphasis on trying to be symbolic, and not enough emphasis on giving some breathing room. The entire film feels like a montage, not like an actual series of events, making it hours too long.
@Bassbait It is heavily symbolic, and, at times, too much so. I know there are plenty of things that can be said about this film, and I certainly have my own criticisms, but it is still a brave, beautiful, poetic and highly necessary antidote to most of today's cinema. I think you make a mistake in bringing Kubrick into this, as the two bare no comparisons of style or quality. We don't need to keep comparing anybody to anybody: let everyone make their own work.
@skyflynite I know what you mean but I still disagree. I think Malick's intentions were honest and I think that I know exactly what he was going for - the symbolism was at times TOO obvious for it's own good. I know that it's supposed to feel like a memory just as it's supposed to feel like just a blip in the vast scale of life. But I also think that Malick's faults are his inablity to present ANY of these like something I can believe.
@Bassbait The film is a kind of montage, because it tries - I think - to create the feeling of memory and sense. Do not try to assign narrative to a clearly un-narrative driven film, it's not fair. The biggest problem with the criticism for this film is that people seem to be pissed that they didn't get the kind of film the expected. Well, I say: get over it, and accept to for what it is.
@skyflynite The acting wasn't really any good, the dialogue was too poetic to be realistic, the characters felt forced and one-dimensional. Regardless of it's symbolism or presentation, the film lacks the substance needed to justify it. If it were supposed to feel like a memory, it should have been less grand-scale and given some breathing room - not all memories are fuzzy, many memories are vivid. I think the best film when it comes to memory is The Shining.
@Bassbait Well you've expressed a fair and cogent opinion, and even though I disagree, this just sums up the best thing about art: it means different things to everyone.
@skyflynite I agree, I think that art is worth arguing over and I think the worth of art is stressed through argument. I'm not saying that The Tree of Life isn't art, and I'm not saying he's just trying to make money. I'm saying that his artistic endeavor was a failure (in my eyes). I think people who are in it for the money are pathetic, so I still respect Malick, but I don't like Tree of Life, being the only film I've seen by him.
Well said. I have a 16 year old younger brother who likes all the crap in cinemas today. One day him and I were watching TV. I was flicking through channels when I realised that 'The Seventh Seal' was on. I knew my brother would hate it so I went onto it. It showed the scene involving the knight playing chess with Death and after 4 seconds my brother said "Turn it over! This is crap! It's black & white, has words along the bottom and is showing death playing chess". lol
The thing about this film is you can knock it, say it's pretentious, overambitious, ridiculous even... But when I went to see it, after the lights went down, and this beautiful music started, and they lost their son, I began to cry. And I don't cry easily. 'The Tree of Life' is a beautiful work of art and it would be churlish not celebrate it.
Films that contain high spirituality levels and abstract originality, always get badly reviewed e.g Enter The Void which was highly original. This film is wonderful.
Some people walked out of the cinema where I saw it but personally I'm glad that it was not only made but has also seen such a wide release despite how experimental it is (I'm sure Pitt, Penn and the director's prestige obviously helped.) I went in with a decent understanding of Malick's films so overall I enjoyed and appreciated it on many levels, more so in hindsight. The abstract and difficult nature of it will clearly divide people but if given the chance, it's an incredibly rewarding film.
I watched The Tree of Life today not really knowing what to expect. I left the film feeling dazed...and the film itself was quite poignant, interesting....Mr Kermode is right, it depends on your frame of mind when you see it.
I can't believe they're not showing The Tree of Life at my local Vue or Odeon, surprisingly enough they're showing Transformers 3. I live in Preston and have been bombarded by people telling me how 'good' Transformers is and how 'bad' I am for trying to dispel them from watching it. I'm so distraught that I can't watch this, if anyone has the power to screen this film in the Preston please for the love of all things artful get it done. I will pay the price of a 3D ticket, if not more to watch it
The beach scene is not heaven. When did Sean Penn's character die? Brad Pitt's character is still alive in the modern-day scenes. It's Sean Penn's reconciliation with his past. You idiots.
The "soppy" dinosaur moment is key because it is ambigious (as is the creation of the universe). Does the predator move away as a sign of power or a sign of grace/love? Does Brad Pitt bully his family because he loves them? Where is "God" but in the cherishing of others?
@avastyer The beach scene could be interpreted in many ways. It wasn't meant to be taken literally, it's more experiential and allegorical than anything else. Whether or not they died and are in heaven, however the idea being explored is love, forgiveness and reconciliation indeed. The beach scene could be interpreted as heaven is on earth if we love and forgive one another. The dinosaur scene is about empathy. A prehistoric creature exercising empathy. It's consistent with the film.
@DoctorHello Hi there. I agree that it was not supposed to be taken literally. That's why I interpret it as Sean Penn's reconciliation with his past rather than his literally being in heaven - which is how many people, including those who hooted with derision at its Cannes screening, have interpreted it. It seemed to me as if Malick wanted to say that love and forgiveness are heavenly, if not heaven per se.
@DoctorHello I agree with your interpretation of the dinosaur scene. However, I also think this is why many people have reacted negatively towards that scene (and the film in general) as it appears to anthropomorphise dinosaurs. I believe that the scene can be viewed as I described it and also explains the confusions that arise in the family, between Pitt and Penn. As a boy, he asks himself: "Why do I do things I hate?" This also muddies the simplistic dualities that people have criticised.
@avastyer Further, Pitt's character represents Nature while the mother represents Grace. Nature is strong, bold and beautiful but can be brutal and harsh -- Survival of the fittest. These ideas are part of the father's character and could well explain his attitude toward his sons, teaching them how to be strong, brave and disciplined otherwise they'll be overpowered by others.
@DoctorHello PS: My original comment was copied a comment I made on the Guardian discussion board, where many people were heavily criticising the "heaven" and dinosaur parts of the film. Hence my "You idiots" comment. I thought I'd not copied that bit. Sorry, it makes me sound a bit trolly here.
I ask any film enthusiast, a fan of Malick's work or not, is 'The Tree of Life' not tremendously original? Is this not what cinema needs? Or are you content with the lack of ambition in the industry? Critics question Malick's ambition as if it's something to be embarrassed of. It's such a shame.
@gbrlmccllm maybe that's just the tension found between what Hollywood's thirst for profit is and truly original film-making? I would say that there is originality in the film industry, though the fact that these films aren't found just at your local cinema does not mean they don't exist.
@gbrlmccllm I don't think people criticise his ambition in itself - rather the results fall short of its incredibly high goals. You don't question a screwball comedy when it fails to be profound, but when a film includes the hallmarks of an art film (slow pace, obtuse sequences, beautiful imagery, 'deep' quotations), it can disappoint far more when its message comes off as a little trite. I'd take it over Transformers: The Sequel any day, but its boldness doesn't necessarily equate to greatness.
The lack of narrative is exactly what cinema needs right now. Though it does seem like if film let go of narrative, it would go into meaningless directions in the same way much of modern art has. Still, that shouldn't a thing to worry about. What film should worry about right now is how to change at the present moment. And sticking to conventional narrative and spoon-feeding audiences your ideas is not how that's going to happen.
Though I enjoyed Kermode's review, one of the things I couldn't agree with was how the dinosaur was somehow bad. It doesn't feel right that sequences as abstract and surreal as that should be labeled "good" or "bad." You cannot define any sequence with one word. There is so much going on within every moment--the colors, the movement, the composition, the sound--it seems you'd have to be incredibly perceptive if you were to definitively say, "This entire sequence was a mistake."
i have left the cinema during 3 films before the end , one was Jurassic Park another was this piece of dinosaur dung.
funnily enough I liked the dinosaur bit
all the mind blowing stuff? it might work on audiences who don't read or watch much sci-fi and fantasy but us geeks have seen it all done before and in much more skillful ways
@Kjobbit Yup. And all of those thick books written about Hamlet only prove what a trite piece of shit it is. Feel free to continue wallowing in your ignorance, I very much doubt our nation's cultural discourse will gain much from you finding a voice.
Following my previous comment (2): Tree of Life reminded me of what cinema can do as a form of and medium for expression, art, philosophy and storytelling. It reminded me of Andrei Tarkovski's works. It reminded me of my own childhood as it brought back certain childhood memories and feelings of mine. We need more films like Tree-of-Life, or at least more attempts at making such type of cinema; otherwise cinema will be forever hijacked by the Michael Bay and brainless action CGI flicks.
Following my previous comment: people are being quick to jump to conclusion about the film. Many people (and some film critics) forgot that cinema can be a form of art, that linear narrative isn't the only form of cinema. For instance, when you look at a Leonardo Da Vinci's painting, do you take one glance and say 'I got it' or 'I don't get it' to then walk away? No, you would need to contemplate the painting and reflect upon it. Tree of Life calls for contemplation and reflection.
Dear Kermode, I'm surprised in your review and analysis of the film, you didn't mention anything about 'the book of Job' which is clearly at the center of this film and its themes and structure. Malick gives us a hint in the opening as he quotes from the book. The space sequence comes right after the mother questions God by asking why God took his son away, and like in the book of Job, God answers by showing what he's been up to: hence the space sequence and creation of the universe etc...
Once again, as with his "review" of Godard's Film socialisme, Kermode proves himself a worthless philistine incapable of understanding the utility of cinema beyond the conveyance of basic narrative. Once a film shows itself to be more about ideas and concepts than plot, he invents a variety of bullshit reasoning to dismiss it and asserts that certain sequences just 'don't work'. Also, parables deal in ethical instruction, not metaphysics. Why do the BBC continue to pay this idiotic man?
@harrymjackson I second your opinion. I have much respect for Kermode as a film critic but he needs to expand his knowledge and understanding of cinema.
@harrymjackson His Film Socialisme review was irritating, but this one I find fair enough. Kermode clearly holds narrative film pretty dear but he certainly doesn't dismiss the film out of hand, and instead attempts a balanced summation of his thoughts and responses. How can you possibly complain about that? So you disagree? Fine, say so. Saying he's idiotic and calling for him to be thrown out of his job is so cheaply melodramatic I'm surprised you have any interest in 'films about ideas'.
@pomlyh The problem is that he does dismiss the film out of hand, simply because it doesn’t conform to his rigid notion of narrative cinema. From 5:14 he goes into a spiel about the enormous benefits of narrative. This argument is based on the obvious lies that parables are adept at dealing with metaphysical ideas, and that such ideas cannot be communicated without allegory (Mr. Kermode must obviously be unfamiliar with the concept of a philosophical treatise).
@pomlyh He also betrays a stunning ignorance about Mr. Malick’s body of films. His claim that Malick’s early work is in any way ‘rigorously narrative’ makes me question whether he’s even seen the films in question at all. Even more absurd is the implicit claim that those films gain anything but a small fraction of their meaning by virtue of having an identifiable plot, rather than the various cinematic techniques employed by Malick to produce meaning (not dissimilar to Tree of Life).
@harrymjackson I actually agree with Kermode that Malick's earlier films are more narrative focused. Can you really say that Badlands and Days of Heaven have less of a focused narrative than Tree of Life or The New World??
@pomlyh His arguments in this video are so shambolic that they don’t hold up to even the most basic scrutiny. I detest his ‘I liked x, I disliked y’, cut-and-paste style of film criticism, and I despise his supreme ignorance on matters of cinema. He pays lip service to Malick’s reputation, and doesn’t conduct this review in his typically shouting, braindead manner out of respect for that, but his response to the film is clearly borne out of narrow-mindedness.
keromode under estimates the public...at least the public who go to see a terrence malick movie.... i dont know about you but when i see a terrence mallick movie i look for extatic truth ....i f werner herzog.. who i love.. made this movie kermode would have praised it for an hour strait... kermode is a douche...ive said it once ill say it agian
lol how ironic that kermode finishes with "God bless him" when he's been showing his reticence throughout for anything that is openly religious or spiritual. The fact that he said it without irony and with sincerity shows that it definately has taken an effect on him rather then just another one of those "oh, its well meaning and humanistic but just doesn't hit the mark intended" type of films.
@haseyes You conspiracy guys don't even make any sense most of the time - just a bunch of Alex Jones' buzzwords thrown together haphazardly.
And if there was a New World Order, Illuminati, secret society of Reptilian Overlords from the Lower Fourth Dimension running the universe ... guess what? Lady Gaga and Jay Z wouldn't know about it, let alone some tubby loser with an internet connection and a life so dull he has to believe shit like this to make it interesting.
@davefgranger Filmmakers Spectrum as I see it: Terrence Malick/Stanley Kubrick/Andrei Tarkovsky - Dennis Dugan/Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer/Uwe Boll (Michael Bay escapes because I quite like The Rock and enjoyed the Bad Boys 2 refrence in Hot Fuzz)
To say this film has lots of problems I think is wrong. Art is completely subjective and the few objective quality's of this film are all perfect. People keep attacking this films narrative when they wanted something that the film never wanted to do. If that didn't work for you that's fine and you can say that but to say the film is flawed because of that is kind of silly.
@CarrotBallSquash a hellishly pretentious and self-indulgent concept that needed an editor as well as a director. over-blown, and well, just quite simply pretentious pap pretending to be art. again - need an editor, and a director with his head up his own arse. and if pitt and penn weren't in it it would never have even seen cinema release.
You know, we couldn't be the only two people in the country who, as soon as they heard that, thought exactly the same thing. But when Kermode is on those rants, he can't stop himself.
Finally someone who is not a footlicker of Malick. This was by far his worst film, utterly incomprehensible because there is little of value to comprehend. Quasi-Kubrickian BS.
His aside about Michael Bay kinda sums up the critical consensus for me. Giving Malick a rave is a way of taking a stand against movies like Transformers. But for me, The Tree of Life is opposite extreme and that's not a good thing.
This is now my favourite film
taosalyte 2 days ago
I want to take every pretentious, snot-nosed dipshit who called this the movie of the year, and force them to watch nothing but big summer blockbusters. These are the types of people who will turn their noses up at anything that isn't "artistic."
thejoker100ify 4 days ago
@thejoker100ify-I used to call things "pretentious" at every turn too. I grew up.
thegunclub123 2 days ago
I loved this film. It could've been 6 hours long.
amaxamon 1 month ago 3
God bless him indeed
lizardkingsajrs 1 month ago
The dinosaur doesn't mindlessly kill the other dying dinosaur. God lets a meteor hit the earth anyway. God is a prick.
lizardkingsajrs 1 month ago
Comment removed
lizardkingsajrs 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's strange how much I appreciated (as opposed to 'enjoyed', I suppose) this over, say, 2001: A Space Odyssey, but I think it's because 2001 is a 'vacuum', whereas Tree of Life is absolutely, fundamentally 'human'. I can't fucking stand 2001. Glad I watched the vid either way, fascinating thoughts on a partisan film. One of the best Kermode reviews I've seen, up there with the Transformers reviews. For the record, I completely understand why anyone would loathe the film. Completely.
Oblivionator 1 month ago
Comment removed
Oblivionator 1 month ago
Tree of Life was one of the first films in a very long time that genuinely made me reflect on my experiences and the time that I have spent on this planet. I believe if a film can make me think and reflect in such a way has enormous merit.
Oblivionator 1 month ago
Some very interesting thoughts. I pretty much agree with what Kermode is saying here, particularly with regards to how completely unabashed it is. I'd argue that to call this film pretentious (which you're certainly entitled to) is to skirt over just how heartfelt it is and how much effort Malick poured into it. I don't think anyone can deny that the cinematography is nothing short of stunning throughout, for instance. Overwrought? Almost definitely. A film that needs to be seen? Absolutely.
Oblivionator 1 month ago
@Oblivionator I thought the cinematography was a mess, and the good looking parts were poorly edited. I think Malick has a problem with what I have for a long time called "breathing room". The ULTIMATE scene of "breathing room" in a movie is The Shining when Jack talks to Delbert Grady - no fast editing or loud noises or music, no narration. Nothing but two people in a room, talking. And that one scene carries more impact than all of the combined features of Tree of Life.
Bassbait 3 weeks ago
My mum saw this and she said it was beautifully shot but dull. My dad fell asleep apparently. On another topic, it seems like Kermode really gets on Mayo's nerves sometimes. It could just be Mayo's way, sort of haughty, but look at 1:16 and tell me he's not getting cross with Kermode.
Stockmuncha 1 month ago
its one of those films that either love or hate ..personally I liked it ...covers life and death on a universal scale
TheTazzietiger 1 month ago
This film is one of the best that I've ever seen.
ViewtifulRaoul 1 month ago
'What a real angel?'
Why does Simon Mayo think that acting stupid somehow makes him clever? He's a complete gimp.
sanjuro4 1 month ago
@sanjuro4 Agreed. He gets on my jugs when he acts like that.
kinzeUK 1 month ago
After watching this film for forty five minutes, nothing had happened to make me want to continue watching it. The voice over is meant to be meaningful and interesting but it is just...weird. I was looking forward to seeing this movie because Terrence Malick is such an impressive director but, I could not even finish the movie. If I wanted to see a movie on how the earth began I would go to the planetarium. I don't recommend this film at all.
lifeisfunny1000 1 month ago
Deeply felt messages tend to be:
(a) Boring
(b) Incoherent
(c) Just plain silly, and obviously untrue
KapStuf 1 month ago
He was way too nice about this film, especially towards the end. I don't think being "honest" makes the film any better and Kermode really should have come right out and said "this film is not worth anyone's time."
Neekstarrr 1 month ago
@Neekstarrr but it wouldnt be honest. This film has high aspirations, and well meant intentions and some outstanding shots. Theres also an interesting debate to have about it stuck somewhere in the middle. I think Kermode's review is spot on, I didnt like the film myself but its not devoid of merit and for anyone who likes movies and likes to think a bit about the deeper questions this is a good excuse, or rather better than most hollywood films
MrCassavius 1 month ago
@MrCassavius I don't see how having "high aspirations" would increase anyone's enjoyment of the film. Mark Kermode obviously didn't think highly of the film so he should have said "I do not recommend this, it is not a film worth watching."
Neekstarrr 1 month ago
@Neekstarrr its obviously different a failure when it aims pretty low, like a teenage comedy or a conventional hollywood product, or way higher as it aims this one. Both are failures ultimately, but one has in its discourse and themes a more interesting failure to talk about. In fact there are failures way more interesting than complete successes. There are also greys to talk about when saying this movie didnt quite hit the mark, its not just black or whites.
MrCassavius 1 month ago
Firstly, this is a beautifully shot film. There are a few genuinely moving moments.
Overall, however, this film was not good and would be laughed at if any other director had released it. Because it's Terence Malick, nobody wants to say the film simply doesn't work.
DAC027 2 months ago
20 Minutes into the movie...... THIS SHIT SUCKS! DO NOT RENT! Here's my review: Random images, whispering...... that's it. Awesome!! (sarcasm)
Ninjatown5 2 months ago 2
@Ninjatown5 so stupid
WutangClan4LiF3 2 months ago
I remember watching The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, and while it did have a more linear storyline than the tree of life, it was still wild and out there and confusing. But by the end, I understood the purpose of it. I get that this is supposed to show how that in the end this family is such a small scale in the whole of creation or evolution or whatever, but that sort of message is more suited for paintings or books perhaps. As a venture to the big screen, it doesn't hold interest.
YeagerbombandTim 2 months ago
The film sounds so much better than it actually is. Listening to his description of the film almost made me forget that I didn't really enjoy it.
6663000 2 months ago
I didnt mind the birth of creation/dinosaur sequence... to be honest that was when my interest perked up. But it just went nowhere with it. Or rather, it went a long way to say very little.
haribo687 2 months ago
I am a young transcendentalist (so i pride myself) and i enjoy the mix of judo-christian morals and pantheistic spirituality, this film was perfect for me, this film is flawed, it is at times pretentious, but it is a film that should be studied by high-school students like myself. It is a masterful work of literature, music, and visuals. It is bold- the solitary tole of its title- a masterpiece.
FalconPunch256 2 months ago
if you see it, meaning will come.
TheDargleboy 3 months ago
Mark Kermode should watch this film as a person and not a wannabe filmmaker or philosopher.....he doesn't fully grasp this film yet...watch it a few times mister Kermode and when you watch it feel ! instead of analysing...We think you missed it. You simply do not fully understand what Mister Malick is saying. The same happened with mister Kubrick..and then 10 years later they all hailed mister Kubrick..Oh well it's just Mark Kermode.
JamesJesusAngleton 3 months ago
@JamesJesusAngleton Kubrick and Malick are opposite though. Kubrick is a genius who changed the form of film by messing with every possible convention, while still being able to make an accessible movie. Malick, at least with Tree of Life, didn't really change the form but just fell into art film cliches, while making an entirely not-accessible movie. Kubrick's popularity lag was a result of people "feeling" the movie when they should have been analyzing it.
Bassbait 3 weeks ago
It's really a stunning, flawed, and beautiful cinematic experience.
MegaFilmFanatic 3 months ago
I totally agree with his last statement. For those who have suffered a loss or who witness pain and death daily (I work in an intensive care unit), this film does resonate and bring one to a ?catharsis/?resolution/?consolation. Most of us going to a movie won't necessarily be in such a frame of mind; entertainment is what we usually seek, not introspection.
Pi10sco 3 months ago
I put this film on the altar of the best films i watched in my entire life. Thank God i don't go with critics reviews ... Go watch it and make your own opinion. I wasn't a fan of Malick, till i watch this masterpiece. It's harsh for me to read and listen to so many people calling it pretensions (that word is the new black isn't it?) and boring and lacking on narrative ... do people actually know what narrative is? Don't they know silence and image and sound is also a way of narration?
tacv 3 months ago
The film is awful. it is indulgent, narcissistict an pointless . However there will be some people who will love it - the same people who loved the emperors new clothes.
redken11 3 months ago
@redken11 It is indulgent, but I welcome you to point out a single work of art that isn't. However, how exactly is the film "narcissistic?" I think the "point" is 1) to show us how Malick sees existence, through his perspective, 2) to chronicle his foray into sin and his redemption, 3) and to visualize everything from Genesis to Revelation while creating a response to the fundamental dilemma of theodicy from a Jobian standpoint.
snillocgromreturns 3 months ago
It is a spiritaly story..It is all abouth sadnes..People who have spirit will understand that dinosaurs..Omg.
Metakism 3 months ago
Mark Kermode "Its easy to smirk"
Mark Kermodes favorite film? The Exorsist
The prosecution rests
keflar5 3 months ago
this film is a masterpiece in my opinion. I can completely understand people not liking it, but thie film affected me like no other film ever has, and I'm sure there are others who feel the same, and others who diasgree, but I can't help but think that's what Malick intended.
bubz123 4 months ago
Kermode is at his best here. Focused, articulate and funny voices kept to a minimum.
hippotoast 4 months ago
Why was the kid always depressed?
skinwalkerxxx 4 months ago
I went to see it tonight and I walked out after 25 minutes. Simply attrocious, soooo pretentious and up it's own arse that I couldn't stomach any more whispering or scenes of volcanoes or scenes of trees in the wind or scenes of the universe that I happily walked out of it and into Super 8; a proper, entertaining, well-acted and nostalgic film that deserves credit far above this piece of crap.
robertmyatt 5 months ago
@robertmyatt
Super 8 was crap
escaflowne3 4 months ago
@robertmyatt
I'm just curious about your definition of pretentious
TheMikey3000 4 months ago
@TheMikey3000 It wasn't as clever or intelligent or thought provoking as it tried to present itself. Whispering over the opening 5 minutes "the meaning of life" and other irrelevant sentences over the sound of wind chimes isn't intelligent or clever or thought-provoking; it's just dull and doesn't attract the viewer to become involved in the story as it just doesn't have any form of continuance, due to the continual changing of scene from 1 piece of rubbish (volcanoes?) to the next (dinosaurs?)
robertmyatt 4 months ago
@robertmyatt
The script is designed that way. Malick has never been particularly subtle with his subject matter. Voice over's themselves, at their nature, are pretty blunt. I think you're looking for some kind of familiarity in a film that was never intended to A) be a traditional narrative where continuity is at a high priority and B ) attract the viewer to be involved in the onscreen story, but in their own lives, and put themselves vicariously into the character that most resembles them.
TheMikey3000 4 months ago
@robertmyatt I can't say that it's "clever" but it was certainly thought-provoking. The opening 5 minutes was NOT the "meaning of life." It was simply Jack (Hunter McCracken/Sean Penn's character) remembering what his mother (Jessica Chastain) taught him about life when he was young. Every sentence uttered was extremely relevant. Nothing was cryptic.
snillocgromreturns 3 months ago
@robertmyatt It's not a rigid form of "continuance" but there is one. The movie is played out in "movements" similar to a piece of music, like a concerto: Allegro, Andante,Largo, back to Allegro. The Creation sequence mirrors God's response to Job in the Book of Job (after Jessica Chastain's character asked: Lord, why? where were You? the images of the universe that follows ask back: where were you (us human beings)?).
snillocgromreturns 3 months ago
@robertmyatt That's just, like, your opinion man.
carcariden 3 months ago
@carcariden Of course, there's never a right or wrong in critiquing something. We all see things in different ways. For example, I watched Crazy Stupid Love last night and really, really enjoyed whilst a lot of people thought it was extremely mediocre. We all see things and interpret things in different ways.
robertmyatt 3 months ago
The heart of the film is brilliant. As is the acting. Brad Pritt was very impressive. But like Mark said it's a flawed film and one that I think failed slightly because of over reaching. But that's as good a reason as any to fail and I like that Malock told the story he wanted to rather than a film about ticking boxes. That's to be applauded. But I don't consider it a masterpiece. Oh and the whispering and wasting Sean Penn annoyed me too.
simonh505 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The heart of the film is brilliant. As is the acting. Brad Pritt was very impressive. But like Mark said it's a flawed film and one that I think failed slightly because of over reaching. But that's as good a reason as any to fail and I like that Malock told the story he wanted to rather than a film about ticking boxes. That's to be applauded. But I don't consider it a masterpiece.
simonh505 5 months ago
The heart of the film is brilliant. As is the acting. Brad Pritt was very impressive. But like Mark said it's a flawed film and one that I think failed slightly because of over reaching. But that's as good a reason as any to fail and I like that Malock told the story he wanted to rather than a film about ticking boxes. That's to be applauded. But I don't consider it a masterpiece.
simonh505 5 months ago
The heart of the film is brilliant. As is the acting. Brad Pritt was very impressive. But like Mark said it's a flawed film and one that I think failed slightly because of over reaching. But that's as good a reason as any to fail and I like that Malock told the story he wanted to rather than a film about ticking boxes. That's to be applauded. But I don't consider it a masterpiece.
simonh505 5 months ago
Knew nothing about this film and was blown away. Such an ambitious, poetic and beautifully shot epic that captures the point/pointlessness of the existence of humanity and the universe, our relationship with the idea of a God, our struggle with coming to terms with each others mortality and our hopes and dreams for our lives told through the eyes of a family and their relationship with each other and their everyday experiences of trying to be a good father, mother and child.
paulchillage 5 months ago
this is exactly how i felt!
adam1214 5 months ago
Is Dr K implying he doesn't approve of the dinosaur parts?
Sarusource 5 months ago
sounds wank!
majorj0nny 5 months ago
If he loves film, then why did Terrence Malick bore everybody to suicide with a lengthy montage of nothing but space and dinosaurs? My mum nearly made us leave because we're beginning to lose patience. Sean Penn is billed as one of the main actors when he's only in it for 20 minutes. It was confusing. It's too long. It kept fading in and out towards the end which started to annoy me. I'd never watch this film again. The director must've been on drugs to even think about making this film.
Cinemadman 6 months ago
@Cinemadman You say 'nothing but' space and dinosaurs.. that says it all, really. Saying that means you do not find space and dinosaurs interesting or relevant to the story of life. If that is so, I feel sorry for you, and I'm not surprised that you didn't enjoy the film. Have more patience. We need this film, as an antedote to the fast, predictable, money-making crap in cinemas today.
skyflynite 6 months ago 17
@skyflynite We don't need this film. We just need to fill the void that was created by Kubrick's death. But there's been PLENTY of people who have done a much better job. This film isn't "nothing but space and dinosaurs", but that perfectly sums up what IS wrong with the film - too much emphasis on trying to be symbolic, and not enough emphasis on giving some breathing room. The entire film feels like a montage, not like an actual series of events, making it hours too long.
Bassbait 3 weeks ago
@Bassbait It is heavily symbolic, and, at times, too much so. I know there are plenty of things that can be said about this film, and I certainly have my own criticisms, but it is still a brave, beautiful, poetic and highly necessary antidote to most of today's cinema. I think you make a mistake in bringing Kubrick into this, as the two bare no comparisons of style or quality. We don't need to keep comparing anybody to anybody: let everyone make their own work.
skyflynite 3 weeks ago
@skyflynite I know what you mean but I still disagree. I think Malick's intentions were honest and I think that I know exactly what he was going for - the symbolism was at times TOO obvious for it's own good. I know that it's supposed to feel like a memory just as it's supposed to feel like just a blip in the vast scale of life. But I also think that Malick's faults are his inablity to present ANY of these like something I can believe.
Bassbait 3 weeks ago
@Bassbait The film is a kind of montage, because it tries - I think - to create the feeling of memory and sense. Do not try to assign narrative to a clearly un-narrative driven film, it's not fair. The biggest problem with the criticism for this film is that people seem to be pissed that they didn't get the kind of film the expected. Well, I say: get over it, and accept to for what it is.
skyflynite 3 weeks ago
@skyflynite The acting wasn't really any good, the dialogue was too poetic to be realistic, the characters felt forced and one-dimensional. Regardless of it's symbolism or presentation, the film lacks the substance needed to justify it. If it were supposed to feel like a memory, it should have been less grand-scale and given some breathing room - not all memories are fuzzy, many memories are vivid. I think the best film when it comes to memory is The Shining.
Bassbait 3 weeks ago
@Bassbait Well you've expressed a fair and cogent opinion, and even though I disagree, this just sums up the best thing about art: it means different things to everyone.
skyflynite 2 weeks ago
@skyflynite I agree, I think that art is worth arguing over and I think the worth of art is stressed through argument. I'm not saying that The Tree of Life isn't art, and I'm not saying he's just trying to make money. I'm saying that his artistic endeavor was a failure (in my eyes). I think people who are in it for the money are pathetic, so I still respect Malick, but I don't like Tree of Life, being the only film I've seen by him.
Bassbait 2 weeks ago
@skyflynite
Well said. I have a 16 year old younger brother who likes all the crap in cinemas today. One day him and I were watching TV. I was flicking through channels when I realised that 'The Seventh Seal' was on. I knew my brother would hate it so I went onto it. It showed the scene involving the knight playing chess with Death and after 4 seconds my brother said "Turn it over! This is crap! It's black & white, has words along the bottom and is showing death playing chess". lol
TheGroucho66 1 week ago
@TheGroucho66 Man, you should sit him down and force him to watch that great film!
skyflynite 5 days ago
@Cinemadman you are a low IQ idiot
generalissimus007 5 months ago
@generalissimus007 No I'm a person that has common sense. Dinosaurs don't belong in a movie set in the 1950's/
Cinemadman 5 months ago
@Cinemadman Good thing that the film isn't solely set in the 1950s then.
RockBottomRiser21 5 months ago
@generalissimus007 No! It's ''You have a low I.Q.!'' You say that sentence in that sort of way and you call me an idiot. Who's the idiot now?
Cinemadman 5 months ago
At least Terence Malick is trying.
3george7 6 months ago
Mark has managed to sum up everything I felt from watching this film.
Thank you Mark you have just cleared my chest!
tadabe12345678 6 months ago 7
The thing about this film is you can knock it, say it's pretentious, overambitious, ridiculous even... But when I went to see it, after the lights went down, and this beautiful music started, and they lost their son, I began to cry. And I don't cry easily. 'The Tree of Life' is a beautiful work of art and it would be churlish not celebrate it.
Jamesbharris2 6 months ago
My parents both went to see it. To quote mum: 'It was a tedious piece of drivel.' Dad: 'What was with those bloody dinosaurs?!?'
JessicaMDK 6 months ago
Films that contain high spirituality levels and abstract originality, always get badly reviewed e.g Enter The Void which was highly original. This film is wonderful.
dariusasghari 7 months ago
Hated the film personally.
mk741 7 months ago
I disagree with practically everything he said, but this is nonetheless a sensible, intelligent review, and I respect his opinion.
Seneschal118 7 months ago
A fair review of which I am mostly in agreement with.
fraserclubbx 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@davefgranger Great comment , Like it.
BadAssBen78 7 months ago
Comment removed
GenericMammal 7 months ago 2
Comment removed
GenericMammal 7 months ago 2
Some people walked out of the cinema where I saw it but personally I'm glad that it was not only made but has also seen such a wide release despite how experimental it is (I'm sure Pitt, Penn and the director's prestige obviously helped.) I went in with a decent understanding of Malick's films so overall I enjoyed and appreciated it on many levels, more so in hindsight. The abstract and difficult nature of it will clearly divide people but if given the chance, it's an incredibly rewarding film.
walidb123 7 months ago
somebody say dinosaurs?
ToBePhair 7 months ago
I watched The Tree of Life today not really knowing what to expect. I left the film feeling dazed...and the film itself was quite poignant, interesting....Mr Kermode is right, it depends on your frame of mind when you see it.
oogie11 7 months ago
A reviewer with sense... excellent.
Limbsy 7 months ago
I can't believe they're not showing The Tree of Life at my local Vue or Odeon, surprisingly enough they're showing Transformers 3. I live in Preston and have been bombarded by people telling me how 'good' Transformers is and how 'bad' I am for trying to dispel them from watching it. I'm so distraught that I can't watch this, if anyone has the power to screen this film in the Preston please for the love of all things artful get it done. I will pay the price of a 3D ticket, if not more to watch it
harrytheblurfan 7 months ago
The beach scene is not heaven. When did Sean Penn's character die? Brad Pitt's character is still alive in the modern-day scenes. It's Sean Penn's reconciliation with his past. You idiots.
The "soppy" dinosaur moment is key because it is ambigious (as is the creation of the universe). Does the predator move away as a sign of power or a sign of grace/love? Does Brad Pitt bully his family because he loves them? Where is "God" but in the cherishing of others?
avastyer 7 months ago 2
@avastyer The beach scene could be interpreted in many ways. It wasn't meant to be taken literally, it's more experiential and allegorical than anything else. Whether or not they died and are in heaven, however the idea being explored is love, forgiveness and reconciliation indeed. The beach scene could be interpreted as heaven is on earth if we love and forgive one another. The dinosaur scene is about empathy. A prehistoric creature exercising empathy. It's consistent with the film.
DoctorHello 7 months ago
@DoctorHello Hi there. I agree that it was not supposed to be taken literally. That's why I interpret it as Sean Penn's reconciliation with his past rather than his literally being in heaven - which is how many people, including those who hooted with derision at its Cannes screening, have interpreted it. It seemed to me as if Malick wanted to say that love and forgiveness are heavenly, if not heaven per se.
avastyer 7 months ago
@DoctorHello I agree with your interpretation of the dinosaur scene. However, I also think this is why many people have reacted negatively towards that scene (and the film in general) as it appears to anthropomorphise dinosaurs. I believe that the scene can be viewed as I described it and also explains the confusions that arise in the family, between Pitt and Penn. As a boy, he asks himself: "Why do I do things I hate?" This also muddies the simplistic dualities that people have criticised.
avastyer 7 months ago
Comment removed
DoctorHello 7 months ago
@avastyer Further, Pitt's character represents Nature while the mother represents Grace. Nature is strong, bold and beautiful but can be brutal and harsh -- Survival of the fittest. These ideas are part of the father's character and could well explain his attitude toward his sons, teaching them how to be strong, brave and disciplined otherwise they'll be overpowered by others.
DoctorHello 7 months ago
@DoctorHello PS: My original comment was copied a comment I made on the Guardian discussion board, where many people were heavily criticising the "heaven" and dinosaur parts of the film. Hence my "You idiots" comment. I thought I'd not copied that bit. Sorry, it makes me sound a bit trolly here.
avastyer 7 months ago
In Penn, I trust.
frenchkids 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This movie blowed ass sooooo bad that my friend puked from it. True story
MrMustyballs 7 months ago
@MrMustyballs i agree
thrillahboi 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
to misquote seething wells, the emperor struts bollock naked up the highway . . .
BettyBoolean 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this film sucks so much Dyson R&D have taken an interest
BettyBoolean 7 months ago
@BettyBoolean lmfaooo
thrillahboi 7 months ago
I ask any film enthusiast, a fan of Malick's work or not, is 'The Tree of Life' not tremendously original? Is this not what cinema needs? Or are you content with the lack of ambition in the industry? Critics question Malick's ambition as if it's something to be embarrassed of. It's such a shame.
gbrlmccllm 7 months ago 59
@gbrlmccllm maybe that's just the tension found between what Hollywood's thirst for profit is and truly original film-making? I would say that there is originality in the film industry, though the fact that these films aren't found just at your local cinema does not mean they don't exist.
MrShadyJeff 7 months ago
@gbrlmccllm I don't think people criticise his ambition in itself - rather the results fall short of its incredibly high goals. You don't question a screwball comedy when it fails to be profound, but when a film includes the hallmarks of an art film (slow pace, obtuse sequences, beautiful imagery, 'deep' quotations), it can disappoint far more when its message comes off as a little trite. I'd take it over Transformers: The Sequel any day, but its boldness doesn't necessarily equate to greatness.
julesli 7 months ago
@gbrlmccllm
The lack of narrative is exactly what cinema needs right now. Though it does seem like if film let go of narrative, it would go into meaningless directions in the same way much of modern art has. Still, that shouldn't a thing to worry about. What film should worry about right now is how to change at the present moment. And sticking to conventional narrative and spoon-feeding audiences your ideas is not how that's going to happen.
TrevorKingKwong 7 months ago
@gbrlmccllm
Though I enjoyed Kermode's review, one of the things I couldn't agree with was how the dinosaur was somehow bad. It doesn't feel right that sequences as abstract and surreal as that should be labeled "good" or "bad." You cannot define any sequence with one word. There is so much going on within every moment--the colors, the movement, the composition, the sound--it seems you'd have to be incredibly perceptive if you were to definitively say, "This entire sequence was a mistake."
TrevorKingKwong 7 months ago
@gbrlmccllm Couldn't have said it better myself. Nice one.
ardbastard1 3 months ago
i have left the cinema during 3 films before the end , one was Jurassic Park another was this piece of dinosaur dung.
funnily enough I liked the dinosaur bit
all the mind blowing stuff? it might work on audiences who don't read or watch much sci-fi and fantasy but us geeks have seen it all done before and in much more skillful ways
BettyBoolean 7 months ago
Great fucking review. Spot on.
YEAHYEAHYEP 7 months ago
You know a film's going to be shit when the people who like it take three paragraphs trying to explain why they're better than everyone else.
Kjobbit 7 months ago 4
@Kjobbit Yup. And all of those thick books written about Hamlet only prove what a trite piece of shit it is. Feel free to continue wallowing in your ignorance, I very much doubt our nation's cultural discourse will gain much from you finding a voice.
harrymjackson 7 months ago
@harrymjackson Haha I get it, your better than me.
Kjobbit 7 months ago
@Kjobbit since it's spelled YOU'RE, he probably is.
LePierre 7 months ago
Comment removed
GenericMammal 7 months ago 12
Ahh i love watching all the pseudo intellects crawl out from under all the rocks to complain...
Kjobbit 7 months ago
Following my previous comment (2): Tree of Life reminded me of what cinema can do as a form of and medium for expression, art, philosophy and storytelling. It reminded me of Andrei Tarkovski's works. It reminded me of my own childhood as it brought back certain childhood memories and feelings of mine. We need more films like Tree-of-Life, or at least more attempts at making such type of cinema; otherwise cinema will be forever hijacked by the Michael Bay and brainless action CGI flicks.
DoctorHello 7 months ago
Following my previous comment: people are being quick to jump to conclusion about the film. Many people (and some film critics) forgot that cinema can be a form of art, that linear narrative isn't the only form of cinema. For instance, when you look at a Leonardo Da Vinci's painting, do you take one glance and say 'I got it' or 'I don't get it' to then walk away? No, you would need to contemplate the painting and reflect upon it. Tree of Life calls for contemplation and reflection.
DoctorHello 7 months ago
Dear Kermode, I'm surprised in your review and analysis of the film, you didn't mention anything about 'the book of Job' which is clearly at the center of this film and its themes and structure. Malick gives us a hint in the opening as he quotes from the book. The space sequence comes right after the mother questions God by asking why God took his son away, and like in the book of Job, God answers by showing what he's been up to: hence the space sequence and creation of the universe etc...
DoctorHello 7 months ago
Once again, as with his "review" of Godard's Film socialisme, Kermode proves himself a worthless philistine incapable of understanding the utility of cinema beyond the conveyance of basic narrative. Once a film shows itself to be more about ideas and concepts than plot, he invents a variety of bullshit reasoning to dismiss it and asserts that certain sequences just 'don't work'. Also, parables deal in ethical instruction, not metaphysics. Why do the BBC continue to pay this idiotic man?
harrymjackson 7 months ago
@harrymjackson I second your opinion. I have much respect for Kermode as a film critic but he needs to expand his knowledge and understanding of cinema.
DoctorHello 7 months ago
@harrymjackson His Film Socialisme review was irritating, but this one I find fair enough. Kermode clearly holds narrative film pretty dear but he certainly doesn't dismiss the film out of hand, and instead attempts a balanced summation of his thoughts and responses. How can you possibly complain about that? So you disagree? Fine, say so. Saying he's idiotic and calling for him to be thrown out of his job is so cheaply melodramatic I'm surprised you have any interest in 'films about ideas'.
pomlyh 7 months ago
@pomlyh The problem is that he does dismiss the film out of hand, simply because it doesn’t conform to his rigid notion of narrative cinema. From 5:14 he goes into a spiel about the enormous benefits of narrative. This argument is based on the obvious lies that parables are adept at dealing with metaphysical ideas, and that such ideas cannot be communicated without allegory (Mr. Kermode must obviously be unfamiliar with the concept of a philosophical treatise).
harrymjackson 7 months ago
@pomlyh He also betrays a stunning ignorance about Mr. Malick’s body of films. His claim that Malick’s early work is in any way ‘rigorously narrative’ makes me question whether he’s even seen the films in question at all. Even more absurd is the implicit claim that those films gain anything but a small fraction of their meaning by virtue of having an identifiable plot, rather than the various cinematic techniques employed by Malick to produce meaning (not dissimilar to Tree of Life).
harrymjackson 7 months ago
@harrymjackson I actually agree with Kermode that Malick's earlier films are more narrative focused. Can you really say that Badlands and Days of Heaven have less of a focused narrative than Tree of Life or The New World??
simon271088 7 months ago
@pomlyh His arguments in this video are so shambolic that they don’t hold up to even the most basic scrutiny. I detest his ‘I liked x, I disliked y’, cut-and-paste style of film criticism, and I despise his supreme ignorance on matters of cinema. He pays lip service to Malick’s reputation, and doesn’t conduct this review in his typically shouting, braindead manner out of respect for that, but his response to the film is clearly borne out of narrow-mindedness.
harrymjackson 7 months ago
@harrymjackson I would like to see you criticise this review to his face.
rmcc86 7 months ago
@rmcc86 I would quite like to do it, but alas I fear Mr. Kermode is unreachable.
harrymjackson 7 months ago
@harrymjackson Go to his Kermode uncut blog and post a comment. He reads them.
hanshotfirst1138 7 months ago
Great music, great cinematography, great acting. Boring as fuck film.
xtremetvfan 7 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@xtremetvfan
Watch it again.
KillSwitch2 7 months ago
amazing film
outerlimits007 7 months ago
keromode under estimates the public...at least the public who go to see a terrence malick movie.... i dont know about you but when i see a terrence mallick movie i look for extatic truth ....i f werner herzog.. who i love.. made this movie kermode would have praised it for an hour strait... kermode is a douche...ive said it once ill say it agian
KingMinosxxvi 7 months ago
Hm. Still looks like incredibly pretentious Hollywood schmosch to me (yes, I did invent that word).
I may check it out anyway.
MrVinushka 7 months ago
@MrVinushka neologisms are a symptom of a variety of mental disorders, just a heads up
Isseinoyuu 7 months ago
@Isseinoyuu Shit man. Shakespeare must have been mad as a balloon.
MrVinushka 7 months ago
@davefgranger
I'm going to go assume that
(a) he's speaking entirely metaphorically, and
(b) by the opposite of the anti-Christ he means "someone who is compassionate and devoted to a higher truth".
Or ... something.
Roseblight 7 months ago
lol how ironic that kermode finishes with "God bless him" when he's been showing his reticence throughout for anything that is openly religious or spiritual. The fact that he said it without irony and with sincerity shows that it definately has taken an effect on him rather then just another one of those "oh, its well meaning and humanistic but just doesn't hit the mark intended" type of films.
djmax2k6 7 months ago
Jewish / Freemasonic title (again)
Wake up guys. Hollywood is a weapon
haseyes 7 months ago
@haseyes Yeah, well, I guess if Hollywood is a weapon, that makes you a tool. A blunt one.
SteveTheMovieGuy1 7 months ago
@haseyes against what?
SethHesio 7 months ago
@SethHesio against us - predictive programming & propaganda.
Also flooded with symbolism for those in the know. Eg one eye symbolism.
haseyes 7 months ago
@haseyes You conspiracy guys don't even make any sense most of the time - just a bunch of Alex Jones' buzzwords thrown together haphazardly.
And if there was a New World Order, Illuminati, secret society of Reptilian Overlords from the Lower Fourth Dimension running the universe ... guess what? Lady Gaga and Jay Z wouldn't know about it, let alone some tubby loser with an internet connection and a life so dull he has to believe shit like this to make it interesting.
MrVinushka 7 months ago 4
@MrVinushka yeah, I guess you must be right.
Interesting symbol by the way.
TUBAL CAIN is the password of a Master Freemason
haseyes 7 months ago
@haseyes ... I rest my case.
MrVinushka 7 months ago
@davefgranger Filmmakers Spectrum as I see it: Terrence Malick/Stanley Kubrick/Andrei Tarkovsky - Dennis Dugan/Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer/Uwe Boll (Michael Bay escapes because I quite like The Rock and enjoyed the Bad Boys 2 refrence in Hot Fuzz)
owdl114 7 months ago
To say this film has lots of problems I think is wrong. Art is completely subjective and the few objective quality's of this film are all perfect. People keep attacking this films narrative when they wanted something that the film never wanted to do. If that didn't work for you that's fine and you can say that but to say the film is flawed because of that is kind of silly.
onepiecefan74 7 months ago
The opposite of anti-christ, surely that's a double negative. He's the son of god, reborn.
Konve 7 months ago
Kermode clips can't come out soon enough, very addicting channel cheers
keflar5 7 months ago
Is the good doctor tongue tied? Did he like the movie or not?
Hyman74Roth 7 months ago
I like the good doctor, so I'm going to offer him a quick refresher on how to recognize a masterpiece.
Inception=not a masterpiece
The Tree Of Life=a masterpiece
right then carry on.
CarrotBallSquash 7 months ago
@CarrotBallSquash And who, might I ask... are you ?. Something tells me you're smarter than this daft comment makes you seem.
DannyBoy777 7 months ago
@CarrotBallSquash a hellishly pretentious and self-indulgent concept that needed an editor as well as a director. over-blown, and well, just quite simply pretentious pap pretending to be art. again - need an editor, and a director with his head up his own arse. and if pitt and penn weren't in it it would never have even seen cinema release.
JDurden33 7 months ago
@JDurden33 needed an editor?? There were 5.
simon271088 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@simon271088 "@JDurden33 needed an editor?? There were 5" . . . exactly.
JDurden33 7 months ago
Respond to this video... "god bless him for that" . . what does that even mean?
JDurden33 7 months ago
@davefgranger
You know, we couldn't be the only two people in the country who, as soon as they heard that, thought exactly the same thing. But when Kermode is on those rants, he can't stop himself.
TheConciseStatement 7 months ago
Great review.
Tinkererer 7 months ago
This is a great, great fucking movie...and to critcize it is missing the point entirely.
KingMinosxxvi 7 months ago
Finally someone who is not a footlicker of Malick. This was by far his worst film, utterly incomprehensible because there is little of value to comprehend. Quasi-Kubrickian BS.
samtheman152009 7 months ago
This is the first coherent review I've heard of this film and it made me want to see/endure it. And I don't much care for Malick's work, either.
Nataloff 7 months ago
A really nice review from Mark. Similar in tone with the verdict he gave of The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus.
owdl114 7 months ago
The Tree of Life is ultimately shallow. Certainly Malick's worst film.
dedalus1983 7 months ago
His aside about Michael Bay kinda sums up the critical consensus for me. Giving Malick a rave is a way of taking a stand against movies like Transformers. But for me, The Tree of Life is opposite extreme and that's not a good thing.
TulseLuper 7 months ago