The Tree of Life (winner of the Palme d'Or)

duckworth

Saw it yesterday afternoon.

It's a biggie alright. If I had one criticism it is that Brad Pitt was badly cast - I think somebody else might have played the part better.

Still might get in my top ten of all time though.

I need to see it again soon..

Renn

Wow, first bad word I've heard about Pitt in this. Hardly his biggest fan but I thought he put in a pretty great performance here.

duckworth

He was fine in it - it's just that there are points in it where I could SEE his acting, and it kind of took me out of the world of the films for a split second. His constant jutting of his jaw in particular rang false for me.

Still, the film was something else to behold on the big screen. I now see what Spielberg talks about when he describes seeing Lawrence of Arabia on the big screen - just that sheer enormity of the experience.

The only thing I've seen in the cinema that came close was There Will Be Blood.

johnny_ultimate

I thought all the actors were pretty good, but TBH I'd imagine even the fiercest defenders of the films would have to agree there's only so much they can do with their characters given their very purposeful lack of great depth. Pitt does good anger, though.

Penn of everyone was the person who didn't really get much to do except drift aimlessly until he gets

a smile in at the end

. No, I didn't necessarily have to spoiler tag that :P

Renn

Ha, was going to mention that earlier - that the last film to make such an impact was There Will Be Blood. Btw, they're showing most of his other work in the IFI this month if you're interested.

johnny_ultimate

I personally thought Enter the Void had that uniquely cinematic vision last year, although one whose content I was less fond of than Tree of Life.

Renn

Enter the Void was my fav from last year but tbh doesn't come close to these two.

e_e

Instant top 50 film for me, and with only 1 viewing it feels like I haven't scratched the surface yet!

OutlawPete

Film feels like watching a decent story about how parents can suffocate their children as they are growing up (by not letting them fully express themselves and shows the inevitable consequences that can stem from that) that was for some reason missing 40% of it's footage - and the director decided to fill most of the missing gaps with a Discovery Channel documentary on The Big Bang and the rest of it with a couple of short segments that he recorded off a Christian Satellite Channel.

Pretentious, highfalutin, pompous navel gazing tripe. Would say a third of the audience walked out at the screening I was at. I've seen more interesting and engaging infomercials. The H2o mop one makes better viewing and is less forgettable.

OctavarIan

Was at the first showing in the IFI on Friday, wasn't quite sure what to make of it and the audience were very hushed when leaving. Honestly can't imagine a Cineworld crowd sticking through the full length of it.

That said it was astonishingly beautiful in parts. For someone interested in cinematography it's a film that will keep on giving with repeated viewings.

johnny_ultimate

OctavarIan wrote: »

Was at the first showing in the IFI on Friday, wasn't quite sure what to make of it and the audience were very hushed when leaving. Honestly can't imagine a Cineworld crowd sticking through the full length of it.

That said it was astonishingly beautiful in parts. For someone interested in cinematography it's a film that will keep on giving with repeated viewings.

Yup same screening, and didn't notice a single walkout. Ah, the joys of hushed silence.

But yeah, am absolutely in love with the film on a technical level. The birth - infant scenes were some of the most beautifully filmed I've ever seen, and of course the entirety of the creation sequence was cinematic poetry. It's so rare these days when the camera feels so utterly alive.

e_e

In the 5:30 screening at the IFI yesterday and it was one of the most polite audiences I've ever sat with. Silence all throughout the movie and even as the credits rolled people didn't wander out until after about 2 or 3 minutes (still not saying anything).

I was too glued to the screen to notice if anybody left. Even if some didn't enjoy it they didn't feel the need to announce it in the usual arsey way (fidgeting, yawning, grumbling etc.). A hushed reverie indeed.

BTW does anybody know if the Screen or Cineworld are playing the digital print? I hope to go again and I reckon it'll be worth watching in a different format. Though Cineworld audiences are usually the quickest to show hostility towards a movie (I saw Antichrist there, which was mental to say the least :pac:).

duckworth

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

It's not like the characters have much in the way of depth.

I have no idea what you mean by this. How can you say the kid's character lacked depth? It's one of the most fully-realized and fleshed out characters I've seen in years! Same with the Pitt character - I especially thought the treatment of his career ambitions and subsequent failures were great. How is that lacking depth?

krudler

Neither of the cinemas in Limerick are showing this, yet have 5 screens in one cinema dedicated to transformers and harry potter, blah

krudler

cursai wrote: »

Not showing ANYWHERE outside Dublin. Not driving up to Dublin just to walk into a movie in a bad mood so i think ill have to wait for the download!

I'm tempted to go up and see it, it screams "cinema movie"

johnny_ultimate

duckworth wrote: »

I have no idea what you mean by this. How can you say the kid's character lacked depth? It's one of the most fully-realized and fleshed out characters I've seen in years! Same with the Pitt character - I especially thought the treatment of his career ambitions and subsequent failures were great. How is that lacking depth?

I concede Jack had depth, but i think the others were purposefully broad - nature and grace, one could say! i think its a strength for the majority but a wee bit of a weakness as they repeat ideas frequently - such as the career advancement thread you mention. The point is to paint the characters with broad as opposed to subtle strokes imo
.

OutlawPete

I have to laugh at the discussions on character depth to be honest, not that the points being made are not apt, it's just that it's all irrelevant, as it all went nowhere. Sure, they were many scenes were the characters were fleshed out (they were the interesting parts of the film) but then we would be graced with ostentatious nonsense that is nothing more than the director masturbating because he can, the cinematographer being the fleshlight.

Just watch This Boys Life, followed by a documentary on evolution. You'll get the same thing, only then you'll have seen the very best of both, rather than this mess which (at best and being very kind) just touches on the essence of them.

Phony Scott

OutlawPete wrote: »

the cinematographer being the fleshlight.

I've heard Douglas Trumbull called many things after doing the visuals for 'Blade Runner,' 'Close Encounters...' and 'Silent Running,' but that's the first time I've ever heard him called that! :pac:

duckworth

OutlawPete wrote: »

I have to laugh at the discussions on character depth to be honest, not that the points being made are not apt, it's just that it's all irrelevant, as it all went nowhere. Sure, they were many scenes were the characters were fleshed out (they were the interesting parts of the film) but then we would be graced with ostentatious nonsense that is nothing more than the director masturbating because he can, the cinematographer being the fleshlight.

Just watch This Boys Life, followed by a documentary on evolution. You'll get the same thing, only then you'll have seen the very best of both, rather than this mess which (at best and being very kind) just touches on the essence of them.

I wholeheartedly disagree with everything you just said.

I think you can tell a story in more ways than one - i.e. the narrative doesn't always have to be plot-based, and it doesn't have to always have the usual cause-and-effect or action/reaction conflict.

Just because it didn't have a conventional plot, doesn't mean it didn't go anywhere.

I admit though, it's unusual to see it in such a big-budget/mainstream affair usually this style is limited to small art-house films.

Zamboni

Saw it Cineworld today.
A number of walk outs about 15-20 minutes in.
Good performances from the eldest child and the pleisiosaur.

Renn

Phony Scott wrote: »

I've heard Douglas Trumbull called many things after doing the visuals for 'Blade Runner,' 'Close Encounters...' and 'Silent Running,' but that's the first time I've ever heard him called that! :pac:

Emmanuel Lubezki was the cinematographer here fwiw.

Renn

duckworth wrote: »

I admit though, it's unusual to see it in such a big-budget/mainstream affair usually this style is limited to small art-house films.

Don't think it's unusual at all considering the reputation he's got within the industry, how well it did at Cannes, 20th Century Fox are the distributors (if that matters), he's done The Thin Red Line and The New World 'recently', although the latter didn't do too well iirc.

Phony Scott

Renn wrote: »

Emmanuel Lubezki was the cinematographer here fwiw.

Oops! I fell into that one.

OutlawPete

duckworth wrote: »

I wholeheartedly disagree with everything you just said.

I think you can tell a story in more ways than one - i.e. the narrative doesn't always have to be plot-based, and it doesn't have to always have the usual cause-and-effect or action/reaction conflict.

Just because it didn't have a conventional plot, doesn't mean it didn't go anywhere.

I admit though, it's unusual to see it in such a big-budget/mainstream affair usually this style is limited to small art-house films.

I have no problem with a film using any means necessary to tell a story in whatever way the director feels necessary. Danny Boyle having Ewan swimming for his lost suppositories springs to mind as being 'out there' and so that element of film-making I have no truck with.

I think every single frame of The Tree of Life is beautiful, it's just happens to also be one of the worst films I have ever had the displeasure of seeing. Only for the fact that I had to collect someone in the city after the film, I would have walked out. It was painful as it was totally and utterly DISJOINTED. It feels like an idea, rather than a completed movie. It's boring and scenes that may actually of added to the movie, instead .. suffocated it.

I wanted to like this film so much and initially, I thought I would but it's just so bad on so many levels. If anything, the audience reaction to it, is more interesting than the film itself. Best thing about the film is undoubtedly the cinematography and the acting. Malick I feel may want to check his local water supply though, as I fear it may be spiked with LSD.

Renn

I think every single frame of The Tree of Life is beautiful, it's just happens to also be one of the worst films I have ever had the displeasure of seeing.

Renn

And judging by your comments you probably have never seen a Malick film before as it's got all his ingredients. You praise the cinematography and the acting - what, do you think the director has nothing to do with this? This is all Malick, no doubt about that.

OutlawPete

Renn wrote: »

You imply a contradiction, there is none.

Renn wrote: »

And judging by your comments you probably have never seen a Malick film before as it's got all his ingredients.

I can hardly contain myself at the prospect of seeing Badlands on the big screen this coming Tuesday, what with it being one my favourite movies of all time and I also loved The Thin Red Line very much, so Trust me - I have seen much if not all the films which Malick directed and think him a fine director as a result.

Renn wrote: »

You praise the cinematography and the acting - what, do you think the director has nothing to do with this?

If you read my posts you will see that is the opposite of what I said.

My comment referring to the cinematographer as being used as a fleshlight alone, should make it clear that I fully acknowledge that Malick was responsible for what we saw on screen. A film however is far far more than the sum of it's parts and so no matter how beautiful a film is (with regards to it's cinematography, it's sound or score or even how brilliant the screenplay is) not one jot does of difference does it make, should the finished product be a mess, which of course is what I feel this film is, and an ostentatious peacocky one at that.

johnny_ultimate

I must argue against it being disjointed - i think its structured very carefully. its clearly Malik trying to visualize his memories. look at your own childhood - do you recall it in vivid detail? The core of the film is an adult trying to understand a tragedy by putting it in the context of everything else. and rarely has there been such a vivid look at memory and nostalgia.

Renn

OutlawPete wrote: »

You imply a contradiction, there is none.



I can hardly contain myself at the prospect of seeing Badlands on the big screen this coming Tuesday, what with it being one my favourite movies of all time and I also loved The Thin Red Line very much, so Trust me - I have seen much if not all the films which Malick directed and think him a fine director as a result.



If you read my posts you will see that is the opposite of what I said.

My comment referring to the cinematographer as being used as a fleshlight alone, should make it clear that I fully acknowledge that Malick was responsible for what we saw on screen. A film however is far far more than the sum of it's parts and so no matter how beautiful a film is (with regards to it's cinematography, it's sound or score or even how brilliant the screenplay is) not one jot does of difference does it make, should the finished product be a mess, which of course is what I feel this film is, and an ostentatious peacocky one at that.

It was probably the inclusion of the word 'seeing' that had me react like that. Still, it's an odd statement when you felt that every single frame in the film was beautiful.

You've seen some of his other stuff? Well then, absolutely none of this should be of surprise to you - and I'd be surprised if there were many fans of his other work that were not fans of this as it pretty much as all the elements of the older stuff, only this is far more ambitious.

Well you mentioned something about Malick and LCD (obviously meant as a negative comment) but in the same sentence praised the acting and cinematography.

duckworth

Renn wrote: »

Don't think it's unusual at all considering the reputation he's got within the industry, how well it did at Cannes, 20th Century Fox are the distributors (if that matters), he's done The Thin Red Line and The New World 'recently', although the latter didn't do too well iirc.

Oh come on, how many films with a narrative like this are given wide releases every year? It's highly unusual. In fact, of the past 5 years or so the only other one I can think of was The New World.