The music that begins to play at the end of this clip was a structural device that Terrence Mallick used in the Tree of Life. The same thing with the music throughout this film, certain music is repeated at certain moments, hinting a relationship. This is the "before" moment in any film, the shift from Act 1 to Act 2. This film does have a structure , but the structure is hinted through music and sound rather than visuals in this film.
I definitely liked the movie, brought me to tears, but I thought it should have been toned down a little. It didn't even save its best material for pivotal scenes, it was just in a constant state of visual and emotional orgasm.
Having said that, this is probably the scene that I found weakest. This is the only scene that has overt special effects, which makes this merciful act by the coelophysis-like predator even less believable.
Don't get me wrong, I thought the visuals were gorgeous, they were beautiful. The film was beautiful. I loved the shot with the camera upside down filming the shadows of the boys.
When it lifted it's left foot off the of other dinosaur's head, how the heck was the two legged dinosaur balancing itself? Its right foot was WAY behind its centre of gravity.
@PokemonSPARROW2611 No, it's very clearly using its leg. Pattention to where it puts its left foot, and what happens to the baby dinosaur's head. It's stepping on the baby's head.
I can see why people think this film is pretentious. I think it is, too, but in a good way. It draws attention to itself in a way that brings to light a type of narrative structure that I call the "visual poem," which I think is great, because it is a style that needs way more attention. "The Tree of Life" is one of the most hypnotic films ever made, and it wouldn't be that way if it were made traditionally. It is a film that needs to be seen on the largest screen possible with full volume.
@jumpmanajf the fact you dont get it shows u dont understand the movie whatsoever or just dont care. the dino is dying, on his last breaths, and instead of eating it the other lets it live for however time is left. thats the point, the family's son died, hes gone forever and ever. theyre grieving by going not just reflecting on the childhood, but the beginning of time itself. the helplessness of seeing nature ruthlessly go by and having no choice but to one day die.
@02minuteman thats a good explanation and im sincerly glad you liked it i just tend to hate on movies that scream "Oscar". and honestly i didn't even see the movie i can just tell from the clips i saw that i probaly wouldn't like it that much. and the only reason i say pretentious is because it seems more for the filmaker than the audience. hell inglorious basterds was VERY pretentious at points still a good film
@jumpmanajf i thought it was pretentious the 1st time i half watched it because i had no clue what it was about. after reading up about it and watching it 2 more times i think its the opposite of pretentious. inglorious basterds is pretentious. this is a genuine film with a very powerful message if u can relate to it in ur life. lacrimosa, the opera song means "weeping", and gets drowned out by the viciousness of nature and time. the evolution of animals to the present day of you
@02minuteman im sorry if u hafta watch a movie 3 times to get it its doing too much lol. some movies should get better with viewings like fight club or scott pilgrim, but if u hafta do research and watch it 2 more times looking for a specific message that kinda defeats the purpose.
@jumpmanajf only caught parts of it the first time someone else was watching it. usually i at least watch the trailer before going blindly to see a movie. wish i coulda seen it in the theatre tho
@jumpmanajf Dude if you don t like the movie, that's ok. But to call something pretentious, just because you don't get it, is just stupid if not to say arrogant.You judge something on which many people, who are talented as hell and who are more skilled than most of us,have worked on.Don't forget that on every single picture you see, someone has spent hours and hours of thinking, creation, acting, rethinking, recreation and more acting.And you claim to understand it by seeing it once.
@solokom your absolutely right but i can label something anyway i want u shouldn't critique me for critquing a film thats my job if u want to make something personal free of judgement make an independent movie
@SmBeyOnNet That scene is about a predator suddenly feeling empathy or compassion. The whole point of the scene is exactly that the predator doesn't kill a defenseless prey. If you think it's bullshit, bravo, the movie doesn't pretend to be accurate - though we have documented cases of mammalian predators sparing their prey.
@Wotanraven When I say "if it is about life", I do not mean life as a concept, I talk about movie name "Tree of life". If you put "life" on title, the power of life consist in, so to speak, "law of life", and in accordance, the predator have to kill the prey (THIS IS LIFE, my man). On the other hand, If he wants to emphasize the "grace", the director could easily find other ways. Just my opinion.
I so wanted to like ths movie. I went in with the hope of being absolutely knocked out with some great concept or idea but was just bored. What did all that family stuff have to do with ANYTHING? It just goes on and on. Sean Penn has about two emotions throughout. I am no slave to plots or storylines but give me an idea or a theme or at least a clue to build on. That Malick whispery voice is getting tired. The film is visually stunning but ultimately empty. I left with a weird detached feeling.
@madahad9 I've read a bit about it, but haven't watched it. From what I'm *guessing*, the fact that the family scenes have nothing to do with anything is the point. That every life is insignificant, and yet WHOLLY significant to that person? I don't know.
@Bragnanymous It starts with a woman's voice saying something about following the path of nature or the path of "grace". I think this is in some way the theme of the movie but how this relates to these endless family scenes I don't know. First the father is nice and then he's bastard to his kids. The mother supernaturally nice. It's all get very tedious after a while. The occasional whispering narration (a Terrance Malick standard0 becomes incomprehensible at times. Too bad.
@madahad9 the idea of the movie was brilliant except for the family scenes i think. sean penn falls to his knees at the end because he finally connects the idea of relentless nature vs spirituality when his brother dies, which he had been wrestling with his whole life. the reason its so boring is to bombard you that nothing ever really happens in life. that if u love someone or something thats the only reason for living, other than pure existence
@02minuteman It stil makes for a boring movie. If one has accumulated the money and talent to make a movie why squander it on nothing. Say something. I am an atheist so I will always be on the side of nature and science and humanity. Thus far what I have read of religion it is very anti human and views us as something eternally indebted to this creator who created us with these fatal flaws. . I find more postive words in the works of Friedrich Nietzsche. Self overcoming.
@lockide What is the distinction between religious and spiritual They seem like similar paths leading to the same end. David Lynch called Eraserhead his most "spiritual" movie but does not elaborate on the idea. It not even worth debating about any longer. I just wanted a movie to rise above the dreck that is coming out nowadays and give me something to ponder. There is quote that goes "A great love should show you something new about yourself" That should apply to art as well.
@madahad9 spiritual doesnt mean religious. if uve been/know some1 whos been to AA or NA the 1st step is finding some sort of spirituality. as for your quote, not necessarily. a great love can be from finding something similar to you or ur life, which u can relate to. like a similar friend, which in turn makes u come alive, vs a concept or person who is just not compatible at all
...oh I'll finish my thought, accidental send button be damned. Stare in awe and weep in wonderment, and pretend you "get" this movie, all you movie snob, faux intellectuals. I hate Michael Bay as much as you, and think most of what Hollywood puts out is garbage, but this... This is a trite, showy dick measurement for Mallick.
That is such incredible crap. I don't care what your beliefs about how life started... let's forget about that. There's NO WAY an animal would show compassion. Not a predator/prey relationship. This isn't a predator with babies who are normally prey being shown compassion by it. Predators go after the weak and sick. We've learned that all our lives. Now this director wants us to believe that "compassion has been with us since the beginning"? Bull crap. Stare in awe and weep in wonderment and pr
@crookedcarrot I don't think this movie has the pretension of trying to explain "how things were". It's a philosophical movie, sure, but it's not scientific. Appreciate the cinematography, and the overall philosophy of it. Your critique of this film is flawed by the mere fact that you believe this movie tries to be accurate. It's not trying to be. It's a reflection on existence. Now you could say that's very pretentious, and I would agree on that. The movie remains a notable feat.
i don't think people can understand this film unless they've grieved the loss of a close loved one. my best friend from since infancy died in the war a year ago, he was 26, and when someone that close to you dies tragically & young, you start looking @ all of the universe and the mysteries of existence, of the earth, of all living things ... you become lost in the grandiosity of life, because you're tortured by the grandiosity of death.
The kids who complain about this movie were probably hoping for a bloodfest here, or for Rambo to come out of the forest and wrestle the predator dinosaur with his bare hands with the background forest burning from napalm.
@Wotanraven i hardly ask of this, but please don't generalize about "kids!" i was 15 when i saw this in theaters as soon as it got to my town, saw it, then loved it so much that i spent the rest of my paycheck on seeing it again. beautiful fucking film. the worst part was, the easily 40 or 50-year-olds in the theater walked out saying "that film was the worst three hours i've ever spent." i hate to be a hypocrite, but people that didn't like this movie just seem so uncreative and closeminded
@theracoonofjake Sorry, I didn't mean to generalize. By "kids" I meant in the broad sense for people, not just young people, who get excited about stuff, and in this case, who type in caps how much this film "sucked" and was "boring". Not that young people are always like that, or that older people aren't. I'm fairly young, and I too saw much older people than I am hate this movie.
@Wotanraven haha i don't really mind, just had to differentiate, so i appreciate it! but it's so true, too, too many cap-locked rants about this movie
This movie was beautiful and this scene really struck me, especially because I've loved Jurassic Park and Land Before Time since I was a kid. I was surprised when the dinosaur made a choice to spare his prey.
I really think this movie is just putting on display the mysteries of life. Even if we see how it might all come together, we can't really understand how it happens. And if this movie was just plain religious, than the earth formation would be like a minute long and we'd see no dinosaurs.
No one still knows or can prove what killed the dinosaurs, it seems that right after that humans evolved to the point they can reach space or did they, aliens are the only thing that can explain our existence, we walk, make things with hands, think, and smart, why don't you see other animals at our levels in this planet, because it wasn't evolution or god but aliens
@4085jones Dinosaurs died off 65 millions years ago. Modern humans appeared max 200,000 years ago, the homo genre appeared around 2 million years ago and hominids 6 million or so. Yet you say "No one still knows or can prove what killed the dinosaurs, it seems that right after that humans evolved". By "right after that" did you mean "60 million years"? Not to mention we have a pretty good idea why dinosaurs died off.
This philosophy extends to the whole movie in all sort of chaotic events. Little Jack has a (strong father) and a (loving mother). His father goes on a business trip and little Jack ends up losing control and ultimately losing innocence to find himself a disturbed adult. At the end of the movie, as his father realizes his done wrong to his kids (grace) he moves up, this ending up on the family's only known tragedy, the future death of his older son (nature).
After the meteor strikes our planet, we know human where created, What then:
One of the main purposes of this movie is to show us how the universe was created over the union of opposite forces. In this scene we see (nature) and (grace) against each other bringing (destruction) to ancient species but giving (creation) to the humans. Even prior to this scene we see (volcanoes) and (water) creating land and rock and so on and so forth is a big chain of life.
There's two ways in life, the way of nature and the way of grace. Nature can be cruel and only wants to please itself whereas grace accepts being rejected. Dinosaurs always followed their (nature), therefore harmony on earth always stood, however we see a dinosaur about to kill his prey but stops realizing it's already down so he runs away joyfully embracing life (grace). And what are the consecuensses to this? This scene is followed by a meteor hitting earth...
@Dipstikk: feathers in theropods, yes. Feathers in infants? Not yet proven. The theropod also has its hands facing the wrong way: they're clappers, not slappers! Heh.
I will say this for it though, even if this scene is a bit 'silly' in terms of the reality of the natural world, it is quite refreshing to see a dinosaur scene where they're not roaring like lions or relentlessly chasing prey/tearing things to shreds.
@Gizz47 if you are referring to Jurassic Park, Scientists say that those films are the closest to what they would be like, you yourself have proven this scene is silly, so this film is just about religion than science, that is what i have gathered, they want you to think, this is nothing more than a ploy by some Christians to push religion or "Grace" on you, like we are meant to think that Dinosaurs had a choose to eat each other, there were animals they ate to survive. ,
@BigSeayProductions Ooooh, it's one of *those* films. Gotcha. Well in that case realism and logical thinking will have nothing to do with this show! ;) As for Jurassic Park: actually, I wasn't specifically referring to this, but yeah it did have a lot of roaring. It's one of my all time favourite films, but the dinosaurs are far from accurate. I'd like to meet the scientists who think otherwise, cos I'd bore them to tears pointing out the mistakes! :)
@Gizz47 as for Jurassic Park, the first film was made back in 1992 and released in 1993 do yeah by know some of the information about Dinosaurs is outdated and the had a whole team of Paleontologists working on those films,
@BigSeayProductions And what you say about Jurassic Park being out of date was sort of my point: there have been better dinosaurs done since, because we know more. However, in my experience: if scientific advisors tell film productions to do something that doesn't 'fit' what they want, or is too tricky to animate, they tend to ignore it. I suspect the same happened when palaeontologists told Spielberg his _Velociraptors_ were supposed to be turkey sized!
@Gizz47 all I am saying is that this film says that there are only two ways in life and I dont think it is true how could animals choose between the two, but I dont wanna get into a big argument over this, film is art and is to be interpreted by any means and a film like this is supposed to raise questions.
@BigSeayProductions Yeah I get what you're saying about the film, no worries -I'm not arguing, I'm agreeing :) I was given a link to it from a friend and had no idea that it wasn't a scientific film. Reading the subsequent explanation of the scene below I see now that it is a philosophical film, therefore I'm leaving it well alone as far as scientific accurancy goes.
What the hell's the director trying to "say" here? That even animals with brains the size of walnuts are more progressive than humans because they can show mercy to defenselessness? What a load of crap.
the real point of it has to do with the dinosaur lying down. When the raptor pushed his head down with his foot, the dinosaur could have easily tried to get up and fight him. But instead of doing the natural thing, he just sat and there and accepted whatever fate was about to befall him, consequently achieving grace
The music that begins to play at the end of this clip was a structural device that Terrence Mallick used in the Tree of Life. The same thing with the music throughout this film, certain music is repeated at certain moments, hinting a relationship. This is the "before" moment in any film, the shift from Act 1 to Act 2. This film does have a structure , but the structure is hinted through music and sound rather than visuals in this film.
earthy075 3 days ago
I definitely liked the movie, brought me to tears, but I thought it should have been toned down a little. It didn't even save its best material for pivotal scenes, it was just in a constant state of visual and emotional orgasm.
Having said that, this is probably the scene that I found weakest. This is the only scene that has overt special effects, which makes this merciful act by the coelophysis-like predator even less believable.
LaodiceanMan 1 week ago
@MondoMagic3000 Transformers had good special effects. You should check it out.
kwajfreak 1 week ago
I realize this is a really artsy segment depicting some sort of mercy between two completely normal, prehistoric animals... but honestly...
I'm more willing to believe the predator must have noticed some form of contagious disease in the prey and thought it best not to eat it.
goji3755 1 week ago
Don't get me wrong, I thought the visuals were gorgeous, they were beautiful. The film was beautiful. I loved the shot with the camera upside down filming the shadows of the boys.
But I overall despised this film.
CaptinObvious1995 2 weeks ago
II don't get it
StarkillerExMachina 2 weeks ago
@StarkillerExMachina Your retarted then
iSleepyful 2 weeks ago
When it lifted it's left foot off the of other dinosaur's head, how the heck was the two legged dinosaur balancing itself? Its right foot was WAY behind its centre of gravity.
GalacticChimp 2 weeks ago
@GalacticChimp It's using it's arm, not leg.
PokemonSPARROW2611 1 week ago
@PokemonSPARROW2611 No, it's very clearly using its leg. Pattention to where it puts its left foot, and what happens to the baby dinosaur's head. It's stepping on the baby's head.
GalacticChimp 1 week ago
@GalacticChimp So, pattention = "pay attention" when your fingers move too fast -_-
GalacticChimp 1 week ago
That dinosaur is one massive troll.
gorboy 2 weeks ago
worst film i have ever seen in my life, utter bullcrap pretentious 2001:pace odyssey wannabee.
rckflare 2 weeks ago
dinosaurs are more real than jesus christ
kneegrowz004 2 weeks ago 3
@kneegrowz004 Easy there... commments like that killed the Beatles
tedcantu1 2 weeks ago
And I thought LOST had deep Flashbacks!
Utahraptor2012 3 weeks ago 3
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,YYYAAWWWWWN !!!!!!!
tedcantu1 3 weeks ago
go watch snooki some more then genius
02minuteman 3 weeks ago
@02minuteman Whooo, Im actually shaking in my shoes, you big bad man you !!
tedcantu1 3 weeks ago
I can see why people think this film is pretentious. I think it is, too, but in a good way. It draws attention to itself in a way that brings to light a type of narrative structure that I call the "visual poem," which I think is great, because it is a style that needs way more attention. "The Tree of Life" is one of the most hypnotic films ever made, and it wouldn't be that way if it were made traditionally. It is a film that needs to be seen on the largest screen possible with full volume.
Guigley 4 weeks ago
In the middle of watching a Palme d'Or-winning arthouse film, I am treated to a new episode of Walking with Dinosaurs :D
PenaltyKillah 1 month ago
Wow ! Its crazy how many people have no sensiblity and no open mind. Too bad.
TheStarDeth 1 month ago 15
@TheStarDeth What's really crazy is that the dinosaurs in jurassic park look better than the ones here.
gorboy 2 weeks ago
@gorboy Oh yeah sure...SprrRoouuT !
TheStarDeth 2 weeks ago
@TheStarDeth Are you fucking kidding? If I want to see dinasaurs I 'll go watch Land of the Lost.
tedcantu1 2 weeks ago
And the award for the most pretentious movie of all time goes to.... Tree Of Life for this retarded scene that seemingly has no context
jumpmanajf 1 month ago
@jumpmanajf the fact you dont get it shows u dont understand the movie whatsoever or just dont care. the dino is dying, on his last breaths, and instead of eating it the other lets it live for however time is left. thats the point, the family's son died, hes gone forever and ever. theyre grieving by going not just reflecting on the childhood, but the beginning of time itself. the helplessness of seeing nature ruthlessly go by and having no choice but to one day die.
02minuteman 1 month ago
@02minuteman thats a good explanation and im sincerly glad you liked it i just tend to hate on movies that scream "Oscar". and honestly i didn't even see the movie i can just tell from the clips i saw that i probaly wouldn't like it that much. and the only reason i say pretentious is because it seems more for the filmaker than the audience. hell inglorious basterds was VERY pretentious at points still a good film
jumpmanajf 4 weeks ago
@jumpmanajf i thought it was pretentious the 1st time i half watched it because i had no clue what it was about. after reading up about it and watching it 2 more times i think its the opposite of pretentious. inglorious basterds is pretentious. this is a genuine film with a very powerful message if u can relate to it in ur life. lacrimosa, the opera song means "weeping", and gets drowned out by the viciousness of nature and time. the evolution of animals to the present day of you
02minuteman 4 weeks ago
@02minuteman im sorry if u hafta watch a movie 3 times to get it its doing too much lol. some movies should get better with viewings like fight club or scott pilgrim, but if u hafta do research and watch it 2 more times looking for a specific message that kinda defeats the purpose.
jumpmanajf 4 weeks ago
@jumpmanajf only caught parts of it the first time someone else was watching it. usually i at least watch the trailer before going blindly to see a movie. wish i coulda seen it in the theatre tho
02minuteman 4 weeks ago
@jumpmanajf Dude if you don t like the movie, that's ok. But to call something pretentious, just because you don't get it, is just stupid if not to say arrogant.You judge something on which many people, who are talented as hell and who are more skilled than most of us,have worked on.Don't forget that on every single picture you see, someone has spent hours and hours of thinking, creation, acting, rethinking, recreation and more acting.And you claim to understand it by seeing it once.
solokom 4 weeks ago
@solokom your absolutely right but i can label something anyway i want u shouldn't critique me for critquing a film thats my job if u want to make something personal free of judgement make an independent movie
jumpmanajf 4 weeks ago
this movie could have used more dinosaurs...
ChameleonHead 1 month ago
If it is about life, then the predator have to kill the prey. This is not tree of life, it is masturbation of cinema.
SmBeyOnNet 1 month ago
@SmBeyOnNet That scene is about a predator suddenly feeling empathy or compassion. The whole point of the scene is exactly that the predator doesn't kill a defenseless prey. If you think it's bullshit, bravo, the movie doesn't pretend to be accurate - though we have documented cases of mammalian predators sparing their prey.
Wotanraven 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Wotanraven When I say "if it is about life", I do not mean life as a concept, I talk about movie name "Tree of life". If you put "life" on title, the power of life consist in, so to speak, "law of life", and in accordance, the predator have to kill the prey (THIS IS LIFE, my man). On the other hand, If he wants to emphasize the "grace", the director could easily find other ways. Just my opinion.
SmBeyOnNet 1 month ago
I so wanted to like ths movie. I went in with the hope of being absolutely knocked out with some great concept or idea but was just bored. What did all that family stuff have to do with ANYTHING? It just goes on and on. Sean Penn has about two emotions throughout. I am no slave to plots or storylines but give me an idea or a theme or at least a clue to build on. That Malick whispery voice is getting tired. The film is visually stunning but ultimately empty. I left with a weird detached feeling.
madahad9 1 month ago
@madahad9 I've read a bit about it, but haven't watched it. From what I'm *guessing*, the fact that the family scenes have nothing to do with anything is the point. That every life is insignificant, and yet WHOLLY significant to that person? I don't know.
Bragnanymous 1 month ago
@Bragnanymous It starts with a woman's voice saying something about following the path of nature or the path of "grace". I think this is in some way the theme of the movie but how this relates to these endless family scenes I don't know. First the father is nice and then he's bastard to his kids. The mother supernaturally nice. It's all get very tedious after a while. The occasional whispering narration (a Terrance Malick standard0 becomes incomprehensible at times. Too bad.
madahad9 1 month ago
@madahad9 the idea of the movie was brilliant except for the family scenes i think. sean penn falls to his knees at the end because he finally connects the idea of relentless nature vs spirituality when his brother dies, which he had been wrestling with his whole life. the reason its so boring is to bombard you that nothing ever really happens in life. that if u love someone or something thats the only reason for living, other than pure existence
02minuteman 1 month ago
@02minuteman It stil makes for a boring movie. If one has accumulated the money and talent to make a movie why squander it on nothing. Say something. I am an atheist so I will always be on the side of nature and science and humanity. Thus far what I have read of religion it is very anti human and views us as something eternally indebted to this creator who created us with these fatal flaws. . I find more postive words in the works of Friedrich Nietzsche. Self overcoming.
madahad9 1 month ago
@madahad9 it's not a religious movie, it's a spiritual movie
lockide 4 weeks ago
@lockide What is the distinction between religious and spiritual They seem like similar paths leading to the same end. David Lynch called Eraserhead his most "spiritual" movie but does not elaborate on the idea. It not even worth debating about any longer. I just wanted a movie to rise above the dreck that is coming out nowadays and give me something to ponder. There is quote that goes "A great love should show you something new about yourself" That should apply to art as well.
madahad9 4 weeks ago
@madahad9 spiritual doesnt mean religious. if uve been/know some1 whos been to AA or NA the 1st step is finding some sort of spirituality. as for your quote, not necessarily. a great love can be from finding something similar to you or ur life, which u can relate to. like a similar friend, which in turn makes u come alive, vs a concept or person who is just not compatible at all
02minuteman 4 weeks ago
@lockide in either case IT SUCKS !
tedcantu1 3 weeks ago
the velociraptor...bird of prey...just finished listening to some deepak chopra and discovered the beauty of life...what utter shit.
merchantIV 1 month ago
@merchantIV There is no velociraptor in that scene.
Wotanraven 1 month ago
...oh I'll finish my thought, accidental send button be damned. Stare in awe and weep in wonderment, and pretend you "get" this movie, all you movie snob, faux intellectuals. I hate Michael Bay as much as you, and think most of what Hollywood puts out is garbage, but this... This is a trite, showy dick measurement for Mallick.
crookedcarrot 1 month ago
That is such incredible crap. I don't care what your beliefs about how life started... let's forget about that. There's NO WAY an animal would show compassion. Not a predator/prey relationship. This isn't a predator with babies who are normally prey being shown compassion by it. Predators go after the weak and sick. We've learned that all our lives. Now this director wants us to believe that "compassion has been with us since the beginning"? Bull crap. Stare in awe and weep in wonderment and pr
crookedcarrot 1 month ago
@crookedcarrot I don't think this movie has the pretension of trying to explain "how things were". It's a philosophical movie, sure, but it's not scientific. Appreciate the cinematography, and the overall philosophy of it. Your critique of this film is flawed by the mere fact that you believe this movie tries to be accurate. It's not trying to be. It's a reflection on existence. Now you could say that's very pretentious, and I would agree on that. The movie remains a notable feat.
Wotanraven 1 month ago
@hairyvirgin I meant "homo genus" of course. I'm French, so I got confused with the French word for "genus", which is "genre". My bad.
Wotanraven 1 month ago
Jurassic Park was better.
operachild 1 month ago 2
the first sense of compassion
CaptainLilycat 1 month ago
GUTTER STOMP!
HardstyleShuffler98 1 month ago
i don't think people can understand this film unless they've grieved the loss of a close loved one. my best friend from since infancy died in the war a year ago, he was 26, and when someone that close to you dies tragically & young, you start looking @ all of the universe and the mysteries of existence, of the earth, of all living things ... you become lost in the grandiosity of life, because you're tortured by the grandiosity of death.
JazminEscobar 1 month ago
Thanks for uploading this. I love this scene.
The kids who complain about this movie were probably hoping for a bloodfest here, or for Rambo to come out of the forest and wrestle the predator dinosaur with his bare hands with the background forest burning from napalm.
Wotanraven 1 month ago
@Wotanraven i hardly ask of this, but please don't generalize about "kids!" i was 15 when i saw this in theaters as soon as it got to my town, saw it, then loved it so much that i spent the rest of my paycheck on seeing it again. beautiful fucking film. the worst part was, the easily 40 or 50-year-olds in the theater walked out saying "that film was the worst three hours i've ever spent." i hate to be a hypocrite, but people that didn't like this movie just seem so uncreative and closeminded
theracoonofjake 1 month ago
@theracoonofjake Sorry, I didn't mean to generalize. By "kids" I meant in the broad sense for people, not just young people, who get excited about stuff, and in this case, who type in caps how much this film "sucked" and was "boring". Not that young people are always like that, or that older people aren't. I'm fairly young, and I too saw much older people than I am hate this movie.
Wotanraven 1 month ago
@Wotanraven haha i don't really mind, just had to differentiate, so i appreciate it! but it's so true, too, too many cap-locked rants about this movie
theracoonofjake 1 month ago
this movie is fuckin' laaaaaaaame.... NOTHING IS HAPPENING
DirectorTurnerable 1 month ago
@DirectorTurnerable Formation of the universe, formation of the Earth, entire childhood of the protagonist. A lot happened in the movie.
Jonmad17 1 month ago 14
This movie was beautiful and this scene really struck me, especially because I've loved Jurassic Park and Land Before Time since I was a kid. I was surprised when the dinosaur made a choice to spare his prey.
I really think this movie is just putting on display the mysteries of life. Even if we see how it might all come together, we can't really understand how it happens. And if this movie was just plain religious, than the earth formation would be like a minute long and we'd see no dinosaurs.
ChurchOfMe93 1 month ago
This is the part of the film where I stopped suppressing my laughter.
AndGiraffes 1 month ago
No one still knows or can prove what killed the dinosaurs, it seems that right after that humans evolved to the point they can reach space or did they, aliens are the only thing that can explain our existence, we walk, make things with hands, think, and smart, why don't you see other animals at our levels in this planet, because it wasn't evolution or god but aliens
4085jones 1 month ago
@4085jones ANCIENT ALIENS DUDE!
reeft 1 month ago
@4085jones Dinosaurs died off 65 millions years ago. Modern humans appeared max 200,000 years ago, the homo genre appeared around 2 million years ago and hominids 6 million or so. Yet you say "No one still knows or can prove what killed the dinosaurs, it seems that right after that humans evolved". By "right after that" did you mean "60 million years"? Not to mention we have a pretty good idea why dinosaurs died off.
Wotanraven 1 month ago
the spirit of empathy was present from the first days. lil' terry with perfection
fullscale008 1 month ago
SCENE EXPLANATION: final part
This philosophy extends to the whole movie in all sort of chaotic events. Little Jack has a (strong father) and a (loving mother). His father goes on a business trip and little Jack ends up losing control and ultimately losing innocence to find himself a disturbed adult. At the end of the movie, as his father realizes his done wrong to his kids (grace) he moves up, this ending up on the family's only known tragedy, the future death of his older son (nature).
TheFilmCuts 1 month ago
SCENE EXPLANATION: second part
After the meteor strikes our planet, we know human where created, What then:
One of the main purposes of this movie is to show us how the universe was created over the union of opposite forces. In this scene we see (nature) and (grace) against each other bringing (destruction) to ancient species but giving (creation) to the humans. Even prior to this scene we see (volcanoes) and (water) creating land and rock and so on and so forth is a big chain of life.
TheFilmCuts 1 month ago
SCENE EXPLANATION: first part
There's two ways in life, the way of nature and the way of grace. Nature can be cruel and only wants to please itself whereas grace accepts being rejected. Dinosaurs always followed their (nature), therefore harmony on earth always stood, however we see a dinosaur about to kill his prey but stops realizing it's already down so he runs away joyfully embracing life (grace). And what are the consecuensses to this? This scene is followed by a meteor hitting earth...
TheFilmCuts 1 month ago
If You think this is garbage is because you don't see the life of the film, life in the film or this in your lives.
mersault002 1 month ago
@Dipstikk: feathers in theropods, yes. Feathers in infants? Not yet proven. The theropod also has its hands facing the wrong way: they're clappers, not slappers! Heh.
I will say this for it though, even if this scene is a bit 'silly' in terms of the reality of the natural world, it is quite refreshing to see a dinosaur scene where they're not roaring like lions or relentlessly chasing prey/tearing things to shreds.
Gizz47 2 months ago
@Gizz47 if you are referring to Jurassic Park, Scientists say that those films are the closest to what they would be like, you yourself have proven this scene is silly, so this film is just about religion than science, that is what i have gathered, they want you to think, this is nothing more than a ploy by some Christians to push religion or "Grace" on you, like we are meant to think that Dinosaurs had a choose to eat each other, there were animals they ate to survive. ,
BigSeayProductions 1 month ago
@BigSeayProductions Ooooh, it's one of *those* films. Gotcha. Well in that case realism and logical thinking will have nothing to do with this show! ;) As for Jurassic Park: actually, I wasn't specifically referring to this, but yeah it did have a lot of roaring. It's one of my all time favourite films, but the dinosaurs are far from accurate. I'd like to meet the scientists who think otherwise, cos I'd bore them to tears pointing out the mistakes! :)
Gizz47 1 month ago
@Gizz47 as for Jurassic Park, the first film was made back in 1992 and released in 1993 do yeah by know some of the information about Dinosaurs is outdated and the had a whole team of Paleontologists working on those films,
BigSeayProductions 1 month ago
@BigSeayProductions And what you say about Jurassic Park being out of date was sort of my point: there have been better dinosaurs done since, because we know more. However, in my experience: if scientific advisors tell film productions to do something that doesn't 'fit' what they want, or is too tricky to animate, they tend to ignore it. I suspect the same happened when palaeontologists told Spielberg his _Velociraptors_ were supposed to be turkey sized!
Gizz47 1 month ago
@Gizz47 I think the raptors' size could have been a side effect of the genetic engineering.
TimothoNuva 1 month ago
@Gizz47 all I am saying is that this film says that there are only two ways in life and I dont think it is true how could animals choose between the two, but I dont wanna get into a big argument over this, film is art and is to be interpreted by any means and a film like this is supposed to raise questions.
BigSeayProductions 1 month ago
@BigSeayProductions Yeah I get what you're saying about the film, no worries -I'm not arguing, I'm agreeing :) I was given a link to it from a friend and had no idea that it wasn't a scientific film. Reading the subsequent explanation of the scene below I see now that it is a philosophical film, therefore I'm leaving it well alone as far as scientific accurancy goes.
Gizz47 1 month ago
Ce film est une poubelle.
Pahra 2 months ago
Both of 'em need feathers. The theropod for being a theropod and the parasaurolophus for being an infant.
Dipstikk 2 months ago
What the hell's the director trying to "say" here? That even animals with brains the size of walnuts are more progressive than humans because they can show mercy to defenselessness? What a load of crap.
blagoyavichrod 2 months ago
@blagoyavichrod or Maybe the Raptor just wasn't hungry?
Malocosa 2 months ago
@blagoyavichrod The movie was about "choices made" ya know
Malocosa 2 months ago
@blagoyavichrod I don't think the dinosaur is showing mercy. I think he's experimenting with dominance
XBOXMASTER123456 2 months ago 2
CGI looks like an old BBC television dinosaur documentary. Not too bad for TV, but garbage for a big-budget movie.
limboslam 2 months ago 2
@limboslam this scene looks great to me, I really don't understand why you called it gaarbage.
tschuutschuubahn 2 months ago
@limboslam I'd hardly call Tree of Life a "big budget movie."
ShaneGentryRobb 1 month ago
FAKE
Ronin0212 2 months ago
Great film, crappy CGI.
OldSchoolGamer1203 2 months ago
the real point of it has to do with the dinosaur lying down. When the raptor pushed his head down with his foot, the dinosaur could have easily tried to get up and fight him. But instead of doing the natural thing, he just sat and there and accepted whatever fate was about to befall him, consequently achieving grace
beinDAman 2 months ago
Comment removed
BeatleBug12 3 months ago