Free The Tree of Life
Genres: Dr
Starring: Sean Penn, Brad Pitt, Fiona Shaw, Jessica Chastain, Hunter McCracken, Laramie Eppler, Tye Sheridan
Available Quality: DivX, Hi Def, iPod, Hi Def, Hi Def
Director(s): Terrence Malick
Country: USA
Year: 2011
IMDB Rating: 7.1
The impressionistic story of a Texas family in the 1950s. The film follows the life journey of the eldest son, Jack, through the innocence of childhood to his disillusioned adult years as he tries to reconcile a complicated relationship with his father (Brad Pitt). Jack (played as an adult by Sean Penn) finds himself a lost soul in the modern world, seeking answers to the origins and meaning of life while questioning the existence of faith.
 |
The Tree of Life (iPod) | Resolution: 480x256 px | Total Size: 515 Mb |
|
|
 |
The Tree of Life (Hi Def) | Resolution: 852x464 px | Total Size: 1239 Mb |
|
|
 |
The Tree of Life (Hi Def) | Resolution: 1920x1040 px | Total Size: 10060 Mb |
|
|
 |
The Tree of Life (Hi Def) | Resolution: 1280x688 px | Total Size: 5587 Mb |
|
|
 |
1 | The Tree of Life (DivX) | Resolution: 624x336 px | Total Size: 701 Mb |
|
|
|
2 | The Tree of Life (DivX) | Resolution: 624x336 px | Total Size: 700 Mb |
|
Movie Photos:
We have taken some photos of "The Tree of Life". They represent actual movie quality.
Visitors Review
Michael Douse (17 May 2012)
A lecture from a tired and troubled old thinker.
Terrence Malick has something to say about the nature of humanity inrelation to the universe, and you're quite mistaken if you think you'llget to have your say. Rather than raising new questions, Malick's intention seems to be toanswer questions and quarrels regarding the human condition. Thisquasai-anthropological venture into nature of our species (and I doargue that this is indeed what it was) left me feeling as though I hadendured a Q and A with my grandfather. It is difficult in every sense to accurately rate or explain this film,since I am not entirely sure if it either completely lacks depth, orMalick simply failed to speak coherently. With long montages of cosmicscreen-savers, and idyllic and stylised poetry written, I suppose, torelate to our core, idiosyncratic emotions, one might almost beconvinced to consider The Tree of Life a work of modern contemporary'art' - but is it really? There will be a very many people (indeed I have seen them myself) who,with every critique of the film, will claim that their peers simply"misunderstood" the message. You didn't understand it as I did. As wedid. But if there is no interpretation, other than that of those whounderstood, and those who misunderstood, then by what criteria do youconsider this art? Herein lies the problem with The Tree of Life. It relays information.It doesn't connote particularly complex messages within it's lavishlystylised imagery. In a similar vein, it makes no attempt at connotingat all. There is, quite contrary to art, nothing to denote. Thesymbolism is tantamount to labelled with post-it-notes, and the use ofmusic runs through the film like a laughter track in a sit-com. "Thisis when you're supposed to laugh - this is where you're supposed to go:oh my, this is beautiful."Perhaps I'm being a little harsh - after-all, it asks a lot of you, soit must have some depth. Well, there are those who rate a novel 5 starssimply because they made it through to the end. I fear this film willsuffer the same disingenuous fate. "I survived this - I'm cultured." An embittered and particularly snobby view, you might say - but withouta direct digression into the reception of the film, it is vital inunderstanding the problems.Indeed, as with often the best art, the work is a catalyst fordiscussion - discussion with a view to interpret. Herein is my pointabout reception. Forum discussions and controversy about a filmsvalidity, are not the criteria by which a film -being- a discussionabout it's subject, are considered true. In reality, A Tree of Life is drole pseudo-introspection through someidyllic and very familiar poetry; the vehicle by which to take usthrough the life of some 1950's family that in no way seemed to relateto myself, or any emotions (including the severity of the emotions)that I faced, or have ever faced. It paints the world as volatile - certainly, but it does this is such atame, almost religiously idyllic way as to promote Malick humanism,rather than an actual depiction of the human condition.There is one stage of the film that I do hold in high regard. That isthe seemingly inconsequential portrayal of pre-historic life. There wastrue beauty in the dinosaur shots. Malick, quite wonderfully, portrayedthem as alienating, subsequently terrifying in their alienation. However, if you see humanity as some super-sensitive, text-booksymbolic Madonna-mother, angry-son country-folk at odds with their ownearthly transgressions, then maybe you'll think very highly of thefilm. I for one prefer my philosophy from a philosopher, and my science froma scientist. The Tree of Life didn't touch upon anything that many, if not most,films already had - the most considerable difference, noted by SeanPenn: Malick offered no narrative. Whether that is a good or bad thing, I suppose, is up to you - but makeno mistake, there's no room for your opinion, or your thoughts, in thisfilm. You either relate, or you don't. To put it more simply, and perhaps even allegorically: Malick ispreaching to you - you either agree, or you don't. His eloquence is unmatched by his intelligence.
suvopyne49 (16 May 2012)
It's Personal by Malick
Somewhere I read that this is Malick's personal offering. It surereflects in the movie. The movie is certainly very personal. I don'tthink Malick made this one to please his viewers or win any sort ofawards. In this movie, we have got a director who just want to tell astory (maybe his own childhood's) in his own way by following his ownmannerisms. When the director chooses this way of making a movie, itcertainly demands a fair bit of compromise from the viewers' part. Ifthat compromise is done the movie would seem astounding. Throughout the movie the protagonist constantly questions life and itscreator or origin. Be that through the fantastic and mind-bogglingvisuals of creation of earth, volcanos, dinosaurs or through thedialogues by the characters; and along with that the viewers arecompelled to do the same. The story is about three brothers and theirrelationship with each other and their parents. The story is quitesimple; but the way it is shown is what the movie is all about. Theprotagonist, Jack, is the eldest brother and shares a frostyrelationship with his Father (Brad Pitt). The story is shown throughthe eyes of young and also adult (Sean Penn) Jack. It was a certainlyan accomplished performance from Pitt. He was fantastic with hisemotional scenes with Hunter McCraken who made the young Jack sobelievable. Jessica Chastain excelled as the timid and caring mother. Alittle disappointed as Sean Penn had hardly any moments to show what heis capable of. This is a movie one shouldn't miss even though theimpact of this movie can be of two extremes. 9/10
Harry_Henderson_NZ (16 May 2012)
A failed masterpiece?
When I was 9 my parents took me to an art gallery to see some of theworks by Pablo Picasso. Now, to me art was all about drawing somethingso that it looked like it did in real life, so I didn't understand whenI looked at a painting titled 'Seated woman' and it looked nothing likea woman on a seat, or a woman at all, it challenged my ideals on whatart was meant to be, and I didn't like it one bit.This is my introduction to my The Tree Of Life review, because watchingthis film made me feel like that 9 year old kid looking at a confusingpainting again. I did not enjoy this film. I had an idea of what kind of movie it wasfrom reading reviews and seeing clips of the movie on the net, and itlooked interesting and I figured that the negative reviews were justfrom people whose idea of art in movies is when Bruce Willis did SinCity. How wrong I was.Here is how the film goes. Someone says a statement/question like"Where are you?" then for the next 5 minutes we are bombarded withmetaphorical imagery that is so obscure that you give up trying to workout what it means and just look at the pretty pictures instead, thenanother statement/question, then another 5 minutes of imagery.Now the imagery is central to this film, and it looks stunning. Butsaying that, I have seen BBC nature shows that have the same amazingcinematography. Some people will say that every shot is a work of art.Kubrick did the same, but he also made movies that made sense and hadmore than one line of dialogue every 5 minutes. Slow burner movies withminimal dialogue are great to watch (Drive, 2001, Lost in Translation)but this is not one of them.It is almost as if this movie - and the director - are too clever forthemselves. Metaphorical imagery is fine in cinema, we as an audienceare used to it. But it has to be clear what the metaphor is. A dinosaurstomping its foot twice on the head of another smaller dinosaur, thenleaving it alive before running away, that is a metaphor for something,for what though, I do not know. I'm sure that it is clear to thedirector what the message of that scene was, but I know no one who hasa clear idea what it meant. And that sums up the movie. No one knowswhat it means, every person interprets it differently.Is it genius film making? I don't know.Is it enjoyable to watch? Not really, the pictures are nice.Did it tell a good story? I think it had a story hidden in amongst allthe imagery and metaphors. If it was good or not, I don't know becauseI can't decide if it was there in the first place.3/10 - If you are planning on watching this because it looks amazing,do yourself a favour and watch the BBC's Planet Earth instead, betterstory, and you'll enjoy it more.
RandomNeighbor (16 May 2012)
Why people hated it and how to appreciate it more *minor spoilers*
I think the reason why people hate the Tree Of Life is because theytake it as it is on the surface, but not what it's deeper meaning is.Now I am not distinguishing between intelligent and not intelligent. Ithink an intelligent person could not like this film also, but thisfilm has so much to think about and really if you take the time toanalyze it as you're watching it, you'll appeciate it a whole lot more.This film, as anything else art is subjective; this means that therewill always be people who like it and those who don't. But I am tryingto maybe help people who didn't like it, to like it more. Or justexplain why I liked it. The director was ambitious and tried a new takeon filmmaking. Technically, this is what a film should be: it's meaning and storybeautifully told through visuals. Which is what this film accomplished. I believe the point of this film is that creation of life is simple,but the development of it is complex and fragile. Life and love areextremely fragile but also very powerful and this was conveyed throughhow we try so desperately to explain them. This is living by nature,not grace. Grace is just being happy with life as it is, instead ofconstantly questioning it.People are loved for their grace, not for their nature, becausesubjective love itself is a part of subjective grace. But we need abalance of the two, which is what makes love and life so fragile andcomplex in the first place.The father (Brad Pitt) represents nature, and the mother representsgrace. Their son represents the struggle of the two and the growth thatcomes with it.Some say this film delivers a strong religious message, well it does,but it also does not try to convert you. Instead it leaves you with themessage that you should just live your life and be happy for what youhave and this alone is faith. Religion itself crosses faith because itteaches you to question life.*SEMI SPOILERS*At the end when Sean Penn lets his brother walk off into "oblivion" andhis mother comes to terms you can see that he has been able to come topeace and accept grace. That's why in the final shot, with the colours,nobody is speaking or asking anything of God.*END OF SPOILERS*This film was beautiful, brilliant and excellent in every form of thewords and in order to like the film, you have to accept what the filmconveys.
Ross Marriott (15 May 2012)
A Stunning Misfire
This film was obviously a labour of love for Terrence Malick, butunfortunately the recurring theme of nature as a beautifullydestructive, uncompromising, violent, and finally recursive force wasan aspect I truly wished was addressed more in the film. 'The Tree ofLife' could have played on its obvious strengths to accentuate theparallel between random change in nature and random changes in thelives of human beings.Regrettably, I feel that the the film failed to communicate the linkbetween the personal struggle of the protagonist, Jack - played withconviction by Sean Penn - and the gorgeously shot formation of theworld and it's subsequently interesting scenes; in a clever sceneflashing back to a prehistoric period, there's a flare of empathy shownby a carnivorous dinosaur to a herbivorous dinosaur. On a philosophical and religious level there could have been more roomleft for interpretation; Malick leaves every allusion to existentialistself-assessment pretty much stark and bare (which I found jarring,especially when the narrative is so strikingly non-linear). Despite the"straightforward" content, the emotional core was all but lost in theblurry impressionistic scenes, almost showing two separate films inparallel.The relationships in the film are wonderfully acted, and scenes withthe brothers really do stir a longing for childhood summers andbrotherly bonds, I just feel that it could truly have been a brilliantfilm, possibly even a rival to '2001: A Space Odyssey', if Malick hadran a more straightforward, honest and real narrative journey for SeanPenn's character in juxtaposition with the weirdness and chaos of themore enigmatic/experimental scenes.For scale and ambition, you can look to '2001' or 'Synecdoche, NewYork' as contemporaries to 'The Tree of Life' (the latter film holdinga truly breathtaking emotional grip on the viewer), but in my opinionthe ultimate execution in 'The Tree of Life' was too dry and tooflimsy. This review sounds very negative, but it's only because you can seewhat film 'The Tree of Life' COULD be as clearly as you can see what itis. I would still recommend the film to; a) people who aren't wellaccustomed to existentialist films - it could be a great starting point- and b) people who appreciate aesthetically pleasing films; thecinematography alone is worth the ticket.
nikodr-59-251301 (14 May 2012)
sometimes you have to have the guts to say nice try but not enough
Discussion bout a film is always good. Terrence Malick has a goodreputation and expectations where high. Technically beautiful movie,with national geographic material, but...as for a story or message ithink it failed his goal. It is supposed (i think) to be a tribute tolife a it is with all its beauty and pain, and a rational being againstthe forces of nature. however if someone can explain to me what thepurpose is of picture of the dinosaur ( OK nature has no pity, and youdon't look for a reason why in his behavior) and a scene where livingand dead meet, the story or message tends to go pathetic. Maybe OK forreligious and spiritual America but "i give you my child" and "lets alltry to do good" and we'll meet again, was a bridge to far for me. Thewhole movies tries to be a spiritual experience with choir music andghost voices. To many times i had the feeling "o please don't gothere". Courageous OK, But sorry, sometimes you have to have to guts tosay: "sorry this is not what a call a good movie". The movie made methink of "prosperos books" (dont ask me why) which came to me as adelight, here it was more deception.
JP Rams (09 May 2012)
Hands down, one of the most overrated and worst films of all time.
I went into this movie not thinking much of it, already having heardmixed reviews. My good friend told me it was the best picture of theyear, so I watched it. But right about the time where Sean Penn isreunited on the beach with his family, I simply could not put myselfthrough any more of this mess. I stopped and was distraught because Ihad just wasted 2 hours of my life. Yes, I appreciated the visionarymasterpiece of beautiful images having been assembled on a screen, butI can get a bunch of pictures from National Geographic or Time, addreflective music in the background, ask a few questions on the "meaningof life", and I would have created a replica of this movie. This moviewas simply thoughts, images, and some scenes with Brad Pitt. I cannotget over how bad this movie was, and going through some of the reviews,so happy I am not the only one.
cinemapichchi (09 May 2012)
Mindblowing !!
I have started watching this film in quite a bad mood and somehow, itso happened that it gave a modified feel. Maybe it is correct, as somereviews go, that this is not a movie for everyone. But, watch it! Itscomplicated as life is and beautiful as well. I was not able to digestthe connection Terrence was trying to prove in the straight way, butI've got a thin film of meditated philosophical notion of life I think,Tree of Life, wins a Academy Award for Cinematography, and getsnominated for direction, and Acting.You will never know how he made kids of 3 years age act !! Not possiblein reality !!
Steve Pulaski (05 May 2012)
Respect what will possibly reshape the definition of a "film"
The Tree of Life is broken up into three different halves. The firsthalf is the first twenty to twenty-five minutes of the film where youhave to get used to the way it's laid out. The second half is whenyou're beginning to get immersed in the characters' world. The finalhalf is when you're fully immersed in their world, and are craving moreimagery and more brilliance. That's what The Tree of Life is all about.Terrence Malick is one of the most interesting, yet subtle directorsworking today. Since 1973, he has only made five feature films, all ofwhich garnering critical acclaim, yet divided audience reception. Theyare love it or hate it films. Because of Malick's ambition to changethe way we see films, and since his films mainly follow the style of anon-linear piece, they can be quite a patience tester and for some justcompletely not interesting. So this is a hard one to recommend. I say -if you think the films the mainstream public are exposed to are not onpar with your expectations, if you like to dig for films that areseldomly seen and don't get their own spotlight, or if just independentcinema fascinates you, The Tree of Life should be at the very top ofyour must see list.Because of the film's non-linear narrative, explaining the plot isn'tan easy thing to do. The story is set in the 1950's with Brad Pitt andJessica Chastain living a middle-class life. We then get many quietnarrations, a whole ten minute long scene of the planets being formedand the galaxy expanding. Strange, yet intriguing scenes of a dinosaursshowing some of the first examples of true sympathy, and then it's backto the family.The family is the O'Briens, and over time they are bringing up threeboys. Brad Pitt plays Jack who is loud, strict, and the disciplinarianof the boys and his wife. His wife believes that Jack is too hard onthe boys, but keeps quiet most of the time to avoid confrontation.Scenes of the family continue to get mixed in with different shots ofthe world, collective imagery, sometimes shots spanning a single objectfor several moments, and more. We get it all. Not only is this aroller-coaster of a film, but it's one that is so different, soamazing, and so mindblowing and exciting it's almost too much to takein. Even only clocking in at almost two and a half hours it feels twiceas long as that - which isn't necessarily a bad thing.I imagine with repeated viewings one will notice more and more thingsquietly thrown in. Just by writing this, and contemplating the eventsof those two and a half hours, I remember a quote from the Book of Jobat the beginning of the film. Brad Pitt plays "Jack O'Brien" whoseinitials represent "JOB." It would not surprise me if that mentioningof Job is only one of many more throughout the course of the film.The Tree of Life can only get better with repeated viewings mainlybecause you'll never see the same movie twice. You'll keep seeingdifferent things and different messages meaning that maybe this is oneof the few films that can never truly be "seen." While I'm not sure ifthis could take home "Best Picture," "Best Cinematography" is easily inthe bag for The Tree of Life. I've never seen a film withcinematography as well done as this most likely because I've never seena film quite like this. Special effects wizard Emmanuel Lubezki workswith Malick to create effective and incomprehensible realism that willleave you speechless. Lubezki also worked with Malick on his lastproject The New World. Two totally different films - two totallydifferent series of effects.We are told in the beginning of the film that there are two ways of theworld; of nature and grace. I believe our two leads are supposed torepresent those two forces with Brad Pitt as nature and JessicaChastain with angelic grace.The Tree of Life doesn't act pretentious because of the fact it doesn'tboast itself to be bigger than everything out there. I didn't recallone commercial or one late night talk show interview with anyone fromthis film. Because it's a treasure you should decide if you want touncover. After being tied up for many years, Malick is pretty muchsaying "if you want me, come find me." From research, I've learned thatelements of a film Malick wanted to make tentatively titled Q wereincorporated in this. No one really knows what that would've been like,but I doubt that it would've been the cinematic achievement that is TheTree of Life.I haven't even scratched the surface of this film, but I'm stoppinghere because I feel I've already said a bit too much. This should be afilm you find, watch, form an opinion about, and then go and readothers thoughts on the film if you choose. You shouldn't base yourviews off of someone else's with any film, but I feel that if you readtoo many subjective remarks about The Tree of Life you'll either bepersuaded the wrong way, or have ruined your whole outlook on anamazing film. Let the film take you by the hand and lead you throughits world. That's what it did for me.Starring: Brad Pitt, Sean Penn, and Jessica Chastain. Directed by:Terrence Malick.
limoguy1 (05 May 2012)
A load of codswallop
What a load of self-indulgent, pretentious codswallop! Malick ought tobe ashamed to take money for this tripe - 150 minutes for a story thatshould have lasted no more than twenty minutes. If you're intosymphonic music, there's plenty of it, though why escapes me - totallyincongruous.The first thirty minutes is nothing but a slow flow of images of cloudformations, volcanic magma, spermatozoa, and galaxies that you can findanywhere on the Internet. I spent HALF AN HOUR wondering 'WTF isthis?'.Then there's a collection of disjointed clips of family life in nochronological order costing TOO MUCH THOUGHT trying to figure out whatthe hell's going on. Their story could have been and SHOULD HAVE BEENtold in maybe twenty or thirty minutes. Instead, Malick thinly spreadsit out for ninety minutes and follows it with yet more images ofSTUFF - too artsy-fartsy.SAVE YOUR MONEY!!!!!! One of the most disappointing movies I can everremember watching - ever. Why did I watch the whole thing? I keptthinking maybe it was me, maybe something will happen. It was likesitting in a traffic jam and waiting for the traffic to break and startmoving and it just never does.P.S. This film has had walk outs and drawn boos at Cannes andelsewhere. Shame I didn't find out until after watching it.
Chris_Docker (05 May 2012)
A magnificent spectacle if perhaps not a magnificent accomplishment
A big budget movie with religious themes treads warily to recoupinvestment without alienating viewers. Tree of Life (at $32 million) Âis no exception. Even with Brad Pitt and Sean Penn. It succeeds not bypleasing a mass audience  but by being sufficiently wonderful tobehold so enough people will come to stare. Each scene is almost amaster-class in sound and vision.Malick is true to himself, and draws a central line with philosophicalsleight-of-hand. On one hand Tree of Life is a semi-biopic of a 1950's,God-fearing, small-town family in America. On the other, momentousspecial effects look at the 'God question' in cosmological terms. Godas the formlessness from which all things spring (including the BigBang); versus an anthropomorphised Old Testament God that lives in thesky. Christians can well enjoy the large-scale attention given to theirbeliefs in general terms. Tolerant atheists (as opposed to Dawkinesqueevangelical ones) may appreciate the spectacle, and honest commentary.Just as one marvels at Gothic architecture or gargoyles, withoutcondoning the questionable practices and beliefs of the mediaevalChurch.Malick's stated approach posits a fundamental choice between grace andnature. (This is a red herring: the film is conceptually broader thanthese two 'options' from the voice-over.) Standard religious questions(and answers) fall from the mouths of the characters. The2001-Space-Odyssey Âstyle visuals might suggest God (if he/she/itexists) is light, from whence cometh all things: evolution, the world,disparate beliefs, and so on. By adroitly avoiding the biblical Jesus,Malick gets reasonably close to harmonising science vs religion camps,as well as the more atheistic creed of early Buddhism (to which Pittoften seems to give more than the occasional career nod).But on to our story. A Christian reading needs no interpretation. Thestruggling family (by middle-class America standards) is raising theirthree young boys. They 'do their best,' go to church, deal withbereavement, and look at their own shortcomings as parents. The storyof Job is recalled as inspiration.Brad Pitt plays Mr O'Brien. A strict, controlling father. Althoughthere is only one instance where O'Brien verges on violence, the(well-intentioned) power he emanates is still intimidating. Mrs O'Brien(Jessica Chastain) is housewife-mother, exuding a simplisticlove-and-peace. She leaves hubby to deal with the harsh realities ofthe world - and lets children (and hubby) walk all over her. (Criticsof Judeao-Christianity might observe that the father epitomises faultsof the Old Testament Jehovah, and the mother many of the faults of NewTestament Jesus).Our oldest son, understandably, makes hard work of his Oedipal journey.He reacts against Dad's unbending discipline. He fails to respect Mum'slack of backbone. Mrs O'Brien, with the luxury and frustrations of a50's kept woman, opines that love is nevertheless smiling through allthings. "The only way to be happy is to love. Unless you love, yourlife will flash by." Of course, she doesn't find true love or suchmeaningful and lasting reflection of it hubby. True to New Testamentthinking, her love is one of self-sacrifice (though the angels do offerher some comfort).Mrs O'Brien's "giving" of her son to God, as a way of mentally copingwith bereavement, struck me as unrealistic. Compare, for instance,Nicole Kidman's character, faced with a not dissimilar loss, in RabbitHole . . . (soothing voice): "God had to take her  he needed anotherangel ." (seething Kidman in reply): "Why didn't he just MAKE anotherangel!!?" Similarly Tree of Life feebly tells us that the suffering ofbereavement will, "one day go away." Whereas Rabbit Hole (with a scriptfar more worthy of shouting about) says more realistically, "At somepoint it becomes bearable. It turns into something you can crawl outfrom under, and carry around like a brick in your pocket."With or without love, at 139 minutes, Tree of Life doesn't flash by;and a lot of people in the screening I went to walked out. Although Ifelt entranced for almost its entirety, I admit, nothing much'happened.' This is a warning to cinema-goers demanding 'a good story.'There isn't one. You could write it on the back of a communion wafer.But more precisely, there is no plot development. Mrs O'Brien recallsthe Julianne Moore character from The Hours. Trapped 50's housewife.But whereas Moore made a break for self-enlightenment and freedom,O'Brien doesn't. The Tree of Life is not so much a story as a painting,a meditation, a beautiful canvas. The result is truly magnificent. Itsstaggeringly gorgeous visual collage of ideas is used almost toconvince us that the Heidegger-like approach to the phenomenology ofreligion isn't full of holes. Serious viewers might recall that thiselision of God and Nature was done with far less profligacy in Tarr'srecent Turin Horse (which also managed to discard it with Nietzscheanfrugality). It's almost like an enthusiastic preacher saying, "If Iplay the beautiful Mozart Requiem captivatingly enough, will you pleasebelieve in my God?" The Tree of Life offers little in the way ofanswers to the deep questions it pretentiously tries to raise: yet thatshould not stop you meditating on them  or even just enjoying thewonderful spectacle.
msoysta (05 May 2012)
Someone is eating mushrooms again...
OK, if you want to see some really cool Nat Geo scenes then go to theIMAX because that is what a VERY LARGE section of this movie is. Maybe there is a story here, and while not every movie needs to be anarrative with a cliché' beginning and end, there is not any type offlow or connection to the cool looking but non-effective placement ofthe nature/nice acid trip scenes. It is, as others have said, a pseudo-intellectual wannna be kind of blow hard movie that people will talkabout and act like they understand yet say things like they have towatch it over again to "really get it." We are beaten over the headwith "these people had a kid and he dies and they are sad and haveregrets." We get that. Repeatedly.Well not only do I not get it, I don't want to get it. I am so glad Idid not make a special trip to the theater but still want my fivedollar movie rental fee back from whoever is responsible for this.The dinosaur apparitions make this film outright laughable. Yes, it isawesome looking at times, but somebody ate the mushrooms and not thekind you buy legally. A good movie writer got together with someone onan acid trip and they got to film some really cool things then met upwith an architect who likes Sean Penn and another nifty fiftiesinterior decorator and a nature lover and made a movie. A stinky moviethat looks really good.
Pieter Roelants (29 April 2012)
The tree of wasting my time.
This is absolutely absurd. I cannot imagine how people can rate thismovie an 8. After 20 minutes, to be exact 23minutes & 54seconds ofcloud-watching and useless conversations I had to stop the movie.To be honest, this is the first time I write something in IMDb. I watchfilms daily, but first I always check the rating on IMDb. Now, I cantruly say that Brad & his colleges took 20minutes of my life. It wasworse than sitting in the traffic, sitting on the toilet with seriousdiarea without lecture. Even more, I think, If I ever get diagnosedwith ear or eye cancer, I MUST have been because of this movie. Youcannot imagine the anger I had when I turned my screen off, I reallywanted to stick my penis into the screen and say: "Now its my time tof*** you in the a**".
yacketyyack (28 April 2012)
The worst film I've seen since Clash of the Titans in the 1970s/80s
I would have walked out but my companion had gone to sleep.A woman receives a telegram and cries "my son!" A man is given somenews and looks sad. We assume they are the parents of a son who hasbeen killed. We assume he was in the military and the film is set at atime which leads us to assume it is Vietnam. Endless shots of scenery,desert scenes, jungle, skies exploding, cosmic night skies, wind,clouds, snowy landscapes, and so on and on and on, accompanied byover-loud music. There follows a faint storyline: flashbacks tocontrolling father;weak mother; boys growing up in the 50's. One getskilled. Another one looks back. Just when you hope it may be finishingthe music, fiery explosions, clouds, deserts and so on, all start upagain!
glers (27 April 2012)
tree of snooze
I could only describe this movie as Heavy! not for it's content orsubject matter, No I am referring to my eye lids i.e. this movie mademy eye lids real real heavy.What the hell this movie is about is beyond me, there is a lot ofsymbolism ,along with some great nature clips and some trippy visuals,I know some film school students may get what all this means but anaverage Joe like me starts to squirm 20 minutes in, wondering whydidn't I rent Bad Teacher!they combine to create a confusing, boring and un-entertaining movie! Iwould love to see the script they sent Sean Pen: walk around lookingstressed out, make a sour face, don't say a word, OK you're done.I do not recommend this movie unless you have run out of Ambien!
MisterWilliamTell (27 April 2012)
Projections of Thought and Being
Terrence Malick, the director and screenwriter of "The Tree of Life",an artist that, including this feature, has only directed five, andthat remains unseen in public, constructed a picture that doesn't onlyshock and impress and outrage, but is Mr. Malick's masterpiece, hisstroke of genius. This new picture, wonderfully called "The Tree ofLife", involves the story of a boy's childhood that is composed by theadult memories of that same boy, Jack (as an adult, Sean Penn; as ayoung boy Hunter McCracken). Thinking about "The Tree of Life": youwon't be seeing a better picture this year.And really the film happens in Jack's memories, it rarely occurs in thepresent  leaving Mr. Penn quite lost in the middle of the modernsimplicity of the film (but never nonetheless speechless). Memories ofmother, father and son (and at times Jack's brothers) make the featureinto a family picnic filled with flowering performances, the freshsmell of nature and grass and still the little salty flavor of scienceand sci-fi  a complete meal.We trace the evolution of Jack  always through memories - in theMidwest, who is one of three brothers. At first, the world seemsmarvellous to the child. He sees everything as his mother does, withthe eyes of his soul. "There are two ways through life: the way ofNature, and the way of Grace. You have to choose which one you'llfollow."  says Mrs. O'Brien (Jessica Chastain), Jack's mother, in thebeginning of the film. This character, which is a simple, true person,that represents love and mercy, reveals to be, as Jack's father (BradPitt)  a father that tries to teach his son the world's way, ofputting oneself first - a very important influence in his childhood.These two very different personalities shape Jack into the man that henow is.Therefore these two characters  mother and father  are in the filmrepresenting "nature and Grace", and because of their differences theirmarriage is also not the best. But they are everything Jack needs tobecome a good man, and it is as he has his first glimpses of sickness,suffering and death that the world, once a thing of glory, becomes alabyrinth.It is in between all his childhood memories that the (simple andcomplex) questions of life are brought up: he - and his mother - areconstantly making the most important questions, addressed to God, itseems, and focusing in the matters of the creation of the world, thebehaviour of the world, death and the existence of a God. Mostly"Why?". And what is so fascinating about this story (which can almostbe suggested as "lacking of drama") is that it speaks about mattersthat we can't, or just haven't, spoken about. Perhaps we don't thinkabout these subjects because they might bring up questions that are toodifficult to answer (or rather impossible) that we chose not even tosay them. Perhaps we just don't have enough strength to take them andconfess we don't know the answers. Or perhaps we just don't want tounderestimate the answers that we do know, or that perhaps by lookingfor them we might be offending God (the God some think exists  noteverybody -; the God we so much love and hate, for the questions andanswers He gives and doesn't give).Therefore these ideas instantly spread through the room and infiltrateyour mind very strongly: you will (like it happened to me) be thinkingabout the film a week after you've seen it. And this is what makes thisfilm unique and creative, and fresh. Mr. Malick had the guts to saywhat we didn't (but what we think about); Mr. Malick did what everybodydidn't (but wanted to); Mr. Malick awakes us with his film to reallife. Mr. Malick is awake himself.And together with a score (by Alexandre Desplat) brought from theHeavens, the result is the excellence of "The Tree of Life". There isno film, from all the ones I've seen, that brings such meaning andreality up; that clarifies, through two different characters, the wayof Nature and the way of Grace. That asks so many unanswered questions;that has such a power-full script. That seems to speak to God; thatrevolts and provokes anger, love and mind, involving such complexmatters of both faith and science. "The Tree of Life" relates to somany important points of being, mostly a filled childhood: again, "TheTree of Life" is excellence. Finally, and as you might already have understood, this film wasn'tmade to answer  we don't have any answers -, it wasn't made tounderstand  we cannot possibly understand -, "The Tree of Life" wasmade to pure, free and enlighten our minds. It completely and perfectlydoes.http://movienthusiastic.blogspot.com/
dcj_38 (24 April 2012)
God Awful Snoozer
I can't believe that the movie critics on Roger Ebert's show all threeof them included THE TREE OF LIFE in their top five movies of 2011. It was the absolute worst, most boring, most overbearing flick I'veseen since LA DOLCE VITA.I wanted to join those in the audience who were walking out, but I wastrapped! Trapped in the middle of a row with groups of old ladies oneither end. I had a choice of being obnoxious and climbing over the rowin front of me, or sitting tight, finishing my popcorn, and keepingawake. I chose to stick it out.You quickly learn that this is tracing some stupid family life, andbeyond that life in general, from the beginning to the end of time.What a horrible family -- dull, boring, and abusive.I can't say enough bad about this movie. I've lost respect for moviecritics after this turkey.
rancidswan (23 April 2012)
The Tree of "WHEN WILL IT END"?
The Tree of Life is the most cataclysmically painful attempt at a filmI have ever had the gross displeasure to experience. In the beginning of the film we see that there's been a death of one ofthe children, (I honestly don't know which one, nor could I muster theenergy to care) This seems like the start of what could be a promisingstory as you presume the entire film is going to trace back to how thishappened, or why - but it doesn't. Instead we see what seemed like about 4 days worth of unfinished scenesfrom the Discovery Channel, interspersed with Brad Pitt being a poorfather, and occasionally Sean Penn wandering aimless around what ispresumably his own workplace, looking like a confused constipatedmoron.In case a lot of the reviews on IMDb don't seem to make much sense toyou, here's a description of a typical 60 seconds of the film.A wobbly camera shows a small boy on a swing close-up shot of the same boy crying under a tree20 seconds of underwater footage of a sea cucumber Brad pit mutters something about grass to a child A smartly dressed Sean Penn is in a lift, looking lost. 10 seconds of footage of Saturn presumably taken from CassiniA different boy has his hair ruffled whilst looking fairly unhappy (During this entire sequence, a woman whispers something like "I likeham" in the background)This process is then repeated for 2.5 hours. At the end of the film, Sean Penn (still looking wildly constipated)wanders through a door frame on a beach and all the various'characters' are there with him too, which is presumably meant to be avisual metaphor for heaven, but again I could be wrong - it might be avisual metaphor for loft insulation for all I know.In the cinema I was tortured in, there was an audible sigh of reliefwhen the film ended. So in summary - no story, no plot, no start, beginning or end, possiblyedited by a schizophrenic brain damaged weasel. It was as enjoyable andinteresting as watching Jedward trying to explain Cubism to a deskclock.Avoid.
Manuj Sharma (22 April 2012)
What a profound experience of love, acceptance, truth and simplicity !
The holistic perspective of "The tree of life" simplifies complexity oflife to its very natural & simple being. It made me clearly witness andexperience that I am a part of an essential universal process which hasa beginning, a life span and a definite end. I just figured that withacceptance and love for self and all, life can be simple, joyful andpurposeful. It does with much clarity and in just two hours, what mostacademic or spiritual books are unable to do.Terrence Malick's truthful, simple and beautiful approach to the filmmade it an experience which might have a everlasting impact on my life.Kudos to Malick and the entire cast and crew of the film.
thmspierson-7-429326 (21 April 2012)
A Monumental Achievement in Cinema History
Since watching Terrence Malick's latest masterpiece The Tree of Life afew days ago I have attempted to write a review at least 5 times. Thereis no way to write a review of The Tree of Life that can adequatelydescribe the experience of watching the film. I am going to attempt todescribe the film's details, but even that will not do it justice.Terrence Malick works in a unique way. Malick does not go fortraditional narrative storytelling, his films seem to abandonstorytelling all together, but his films always feel as if you arewatching a structured story. Malick is not interested in dialog, mostof his films running time are essentially silent. Malick is a big fanof using voice-over, his films deal with his characters inner storywhich most of the time is the opposite of the visuals and "story" beingtold. Malick uses imagery and silent passages to tell his stories, orthe essence of his stories. To watch a Terrence Malick film the viewermust disregard every type of preconceived notion of what a movie is andhow a movie should be presented. Malick's films ask philosophicalquestions about human nature, man's relationship to nature, theexistence of God and the soul, but most importantly his films alwaysask Why. They ask questions that have no answer, but the questionscause the viewer to think about how insignificant human life is in auniverse that is infinite. Malick's latest film, The Tree of Life, is far and away his mostambitious film, and easily the most ambitious film ever made. Malickincorporates essentially everything in The Tree of Life. The film whichon the surface is the story of the O'Brien family and the summer daysthat they occupy in a small Texas town in the 1950s, also summarizesThe Big Bang and a spiritual realm, but is never preachy or evenreligious. The film details the freedom of summertime for children, andthe relationships between Mother, Father and their three sons. Theeldest is Jack (played by newcomer Hunter McCracken as a young boy, andby Sean Penn as a middle aged man) the film is from his point of view.As a boy who is reaching the age where he can be influenced, where hisbody begins to betray him, where he is reaching that age when thebattle to become an adult and the longing to stay a child conflict,Jack is seen as an inquisitive boy who begins to question the polardifferences between this father (Brad Pitt in his most mature and bestperformance) and his mother (a lovely, milky white Jessica Chastain)who take different approaches to parenting. Father is a walkingcontradiction, he is a man of strength, he demands respect in thestrictest ways, he is also a lover of classical music, he plays thepiano for pleasure, he is affectionate and loving with his three sonsoffering hugs and kisses whenever possible. Father is a good man, buthe strikes fear in his children. Mother is like an angel, giving herchildren only love and affection, never punishing them or causing themany type of harm. The film begins with the news that the O'Brien's middle son has died atthe age of nineteen. The film follows their grief, and theirquestioning...Why? The film then shows Jack as an adult, who isconflicted in his daily life and the experiences he had as a child. Ina voice over narration a character asks God "What are you?" The filmthen goes back to the beginning of time and in beautiful images showsthe birth of the universe, the planets, the earliest lifeforms on earthand the evolution of life. Here is where the film provokes mostthought. When the evolution process slows and focuses on theinteraction of two dinosaurs, questions about that interaction arise.Why do these creatures behave this way, what is it's reasoning, andwhat does this behavior mean? The film ends this portion with the birthof Jack, then the film follows the O'Brien family as two more sons areborn, and the relationships between the family members are developed.The film is a collage of images used to tell a family history. The film's final act is about Jack, now middle aged, but still hauntedby his childhood and the death of his brother. I cannot remember if acharacter asked "What happens next?" but for some reason I feel verystrongly that those words were uttered in voice over. The film thenmoves past life existing on earth and goes into the beyond. Here wherefamily members reunite in joy and harmony. Where parents are forgivenand redemption is achieved. And in a film that openly states that humanlife is unimportant, not that life has no meaning, but that humans maynot leave a mark during their brief time in the universe, the film doesoffer an answer to what is important in life...Love. The only thingthat humans can give to one another is love and to live without it isnot to live at all.The film's beautiful images washed over me, creating a sense of awewhere I did not take my eyes off the screen once. The film's emotionalpower, taken from those images is unimaginable. As the movie progressedI kept having this heaviness in my heart, while my mind was spinningwith questions. There was a sense of an inner experience I was havingthat I have not felt from any other movie experience. I have been agreat believer and advocator of Terrence Malick's work for over adecade, which began after seeing The Thin Red Line. I knew how heworked, how he arranges his films like symphonies, but nothing fromthose past experiences with a Malick film prepared me for The Tree ofLife.
Review total: 20, showing from 1 to 20