Jack /Hunter McCracken / Sean Penn / - a teenage boy who grows up under the influence of different views on the lives of his father and mother; an adult man who remembers his childhood
Brad Pitt is Jack’s father, an overbearing, strict, sometimes overly tough man who wants his sons to be strong and prepared for life in an unjust world.
Mrs. OBrien (Jessica Chastain) is the mother of Jack and his brothers, a soft, quiet, calm, believing in God woman who tries to instill in her children a sense of love and mutual help.
This monumental film is my acquaintance with the work of the notorious Terrence Malick, who, as I realized, is valued among connoisseurs and not loved among mere mortals. Well, I, of course, once again not bragging, but, it seems, again convinced that I belong to the first / in every joke there is a share of a joke, do not forget about it. . . /
I really liked the movie. After watching, I read critical articles, and the picture, which became the owner of the Palme d’Or at the Cannes Film Festival, was not liked by all critics. Many saw in her too much autobiography, bordering on self-admiration.
Many noted that there were no new - for Malik! - techniques in the film. But! Let me remind you that this was my acquaintance with the director, and I saw all these techniques for the first time, and I really liked them. The combination of music and pictures is perfect. Unusual angles and frames perfectly fit into the canvas of the film and helped the viewer get used to the picture.
It's a long movie. If you don’t like it, it will seem endless. More than sure that more than half of the film does not like such art viewers will be perceived as nonsense from the category of “This is public”.
Of course, I think that is very much what. Footage about the development of the Universe, the appearance of the Earth and the development of life on it, slowly succeeding each other to the music of Alexander Despl – very emotional. They can be interpreted by two conclusions in light of the events in the life of the O’Brien family, which were shown before. That every human being is a universe that is multifaceted, constantly evolving, but invariably dying. Or that all of us, on the scale of the universe, are utterly insignificant. Here everyone decides which of the thoughts is closer to him.
So, Jack's growing up. The influence on him of the worldviews of a quiet and uncomplaining, sincerely God-loving mother and a stern, low-emotional father who demands that he be called “sir” and “father”, not “dad”. My mother amazed me sometimes. On the one hand, it gave the children a lot of warmth. But at the same time, I could not stand up for them in especially difficult moments associated with my father.
The father is also ambiguous: seemingly tough, but on the other hand without excesses. No assault or other horrors, but constant psychological pressure. But it seems to me that more than half of the world’s inhabitants grow up in such conditions, and, in fact, this is not so bad, because the father raises sons, men, prepares them for life in a really not bright and kind world. But my husband doesn’t do that, he’s completely different, and I’m very happy that my son is growing up in a different psychological environment. While watching, I was constantly comparing my family and screen, for me this is significant, because it means that the film really touched something important for me personally.
In general, there were two impressions about each. And that's good, because it's very much like real life, a world where there's no black and white. Where you yourself are not a fluffy bunny, but a person who includes a whole universe of emotions.
In general, I definitely recommend the film to connoisseurs and lovers of difficult, emotional films that you have to think about. Fans of simple, understandable stories and spectacular blockbusters, he certainly will not be able to taste.
I feel I will soon stop watching award-winning films at Cannes. And so I knew from childhood that they were only given to the craziest movies, the silent, the slow, the boring, the mind wrapped, that didn't even show in theaters, because the crap wouldn't pay off anyway. But as an adult, I was convinced of this again when I started watching movies. Recently, "Melancholia" looked - what is there, that there are boring people sitting here, lamenting their bored life and abstruse shit in space in parallel is happening. Yes, I love philosophy, but I understand philosophy – when you are picked up on the stream of thought and led through images to conclusions, you can then agree with them or not, but you are provided with catharsis and you see what the author specifically worked on. And not a fool chased, filming some incomprehensible crowd of people in slow motion walking along the ocean barefoot, looking at the sky and kissing each other's hands. Who are all these people???? What are these two-and-a-half hours of kids running around and starbursts? Kitsch looks like it. On the verge of thrashing. The duration is like a powerful epic, and of these 139 minutes, about 100 show how people water their heels on the lawn, how the boys in the pool swim, stick a finger into the barrel of a gun, tie a toad to a firecracker. Read the information - it turned out to be the director of his biography up to every gesture in the frame of vanity. Who wants it? By the way, Wikipedia says: At the premiere in Cannes, the film was booed, which, however, did not prevent it from receiving the main award – the Golden Palm Branch and high ratings of film critics. Do you understand? I mean, it turns out it's a decision there made by the ass. They booed him. I also hated seeing Brad Pitt as a despotic, violent, crazy father. It doesn’t suit him, we’re used to seeing him well. Are there any pros? Yes, I liked the camera work, lighting, paint. The camera is very alive and travels for any action, which in fact only drowning the viewer in its movement and light saves everything. Also pleased completely heroin trips in the abyss of the universe and the world of dinosaurs, which frankly to say ... no need here.
The author’s story, enclosed in simple and concise images, records the history of the hero’s nostalgic memories of his childhood, his father and mother. These memories are woven into the history of the universe - from the Creation of the world to the universal Resurrection.
The film made an impression as a very honest, simple and concise work, without subtexts, variability of interpretations and hidden meanings, which is very rare in modern cinema, while devoid of artistic, poetic language and any imagery. This simplicity can be traced, first in camera work – the frames resemble documentary from the world of nature or animals, the scenes are devoid of poetry and depth, look as simplified as possible, even slightly emasculated, despite their external beauty. Perhaps the director would like to shoot shots like an artist or a poet, but it turned out that he had just the opposite – technically and simply, like postcards with beautiful views – there is beauty, but it did not turn out to convey it fully and especially to fill with mystery and inner content. Therefore, in the film, the frames look separately from each other - they are not combined into a single canvas with an internal meaning.
The texts that we hear behind the scenes are similar to a video sequence, they are beautiful and deep in their essence, because most of them are appeals to God, but are presented too unpretentiously, straightforwardly, which is why they are practically not remembered. They are not poetic, as if deprived of personal experience.
However, if you look at these features as the author's handwriting, you can see a really unusual picture that has its own stylistic features, and quite bright.
There are writers and artists who have something to say, but do it a little mechanically, using fairly simple images, as if they do not fully feel the nature and material, capture the inner content, but cannot properly reproduce it in the work.
By the way, cut the eye shot with a mask in the water, towards the end of the film – well, it’s not good at all! Too literal and stylistically beyond the visual fabric of the film.
In general, the picture made a positive impression, and primarily because it seemed very sincere, clean and kind.
It is possible to see a model of life in this film. How we live and, most importantly, raise our children. Touched on: the theme of family and relationships, the education of all family members under the influence of fate, the theme of God in life when you feel good and when you feel bad - the need for something higher that you can rely on in a difficult moment and who will definitely rejoice for you in the best moments of life. In general, it is indicative here that you need to love and help your children, also ' polish' not what you want, but to see some qualities of a good child and help him develop them.
Love is what you want to give without asking for anything in return. Love will tell you how to act in this or that situation - the order, encouragement and so on. fanaticism should not be. this film about life.
A very unusual painting by Terrence Malick. A film that confuses the opening scenes of a funeral, and the references and quotations of biblical lines shoot out of each episode. What's the movie about? About ordinary life, about growing up, about the discovery of the new and unknown, about educational processes. What does this movie lead to? To death! The initial footage seems to be about one event, but later you don’t know who died, who survived. The Tree of Life is like going to a museum. Unusual camera approximations, like a documentary or first-person shooting, quiet actions and an awkward state on the camera.
The mother’s quotations and conversations about the meaning of life introduce us to the family, where a strict father teaches etiquette and respect for sons. Three boys are introduced to us at an early age to assess the impact of their father on their situation. Further home and lawn, the plot does not move, showing the fence, the border on which the father emphasizes. Brad Pitt’s educational role is encouraging. Jessica Chastain's mother serves as a catalyst for harsh parenting. If you take an analogy, Pitt is a whip, and Chastain is a carrot.
It seems that you get used to routine life, and the plot does not move in breadth, but follows only the process of growing up. We see nothing but children and their perception of the world around them and their understanding of what is happening. In parallel, Terrence Malik conducts a dialogue directly with the creator: from frames of the birth of the universe to the natural selection of dinosaurs, from the landscape of sea waves to the relief of rocks. Such unusual transitions take us back to the main family to feel their significance in this world. Malik reminds Lars von Trier with his references and metaphors, Andrei Tarkovsky with slow plans of nature, but he puts his meaning into them.
It is not easy to understand this picture. It is seen as a tradition of life history. We see children growing up, arguing and showing character, and Brad's reaction to contradictions. A confrontation is created between the love of the mother and the love of the father, the issues of choosing a side are raised. The debut and only role in Hunter McCracken (don’t let it out!) is perfectly combined with the skill of Brad Ivanovich and the calm, gentle way Chastain.
The absence of a father gives adolescent discoveries, awareness of the correctness of actions. You literally see contradictions in the eyes of a guy who understands that yard guys do wrong, that his father does not approve of such behavior, but at the same time his father is not here, and the prohibition of actions greatly increases the desire to commit them. The picture brings to the initial events with the funeral, closing the flashback. The presence of Sean Penn is due to the movement to heaven (possibly!), which covers this canvas for meetings of all the characters in different age periods. Or not? Or can you see a different meaning? Everyone sees this movie in their own way. Opinions from the audience are different, and the director believes: “As it seemed to you at first glance the movie, so it was shot.” Everyone knows what’s going on.
You can safely dismiss this tape for a boring story, lack of dynamics, or you can enjoy allegories, references and comparisons with the divine origin of life. A similar reception was in Stanley Kubrick's "Space Odyssey," only Terrence Malick instead of a baby in a cocoon, a red canvas beginning and ending the story. The circle closed, thereby simply conveying the history of the family, the meaning of each of its members in the universe and more mundanely - the upbringing and acceptance of the world around.
The tragedy of one family, the story of one world.
Perfect on the part of the form - excellent visual effects and editing, excellent camera work, harmonious with the visual part, the selection of musical accompaniment, generally good acting, and extremely personal and deep from the content of the movie.
Visually, the film spread to a huge scale, and tried to capture about the same chunk of the world as ' Space Odyssey' in its time. By piece, I mean space and time.
Space glides from the past to the future, through memories that need to be accessed through the desert of consciousness, all mixed with the birth of life on Earth, which serves as a metaphorical start to the idea of the film, but more on that later.
Time. As already mentioned, the scale of time also moves from the creation of the first living organisms – the birth of Life – to the very finite moment where all people meet with their loved ones in one place. Perhaps this place is the memory of man, or perhaps it is the so-called Paradise, which goes to ' the subjective end of the world' i.e. Death.
The film has a very powerful and fascinating film language, with a lot of metaphors and talking images. In this regard, Malik managed to create something perfect, and in visual terms approach the level of arthouse classics.
Ideino, 'Tree of Life' tells about the choices of the way of man. In the film they were called 'The Way of Nature' and 'The Way of Grace'. The path of nature is such a path, entering into which a person allegedly becomes the master of life, the world revolves around him, the people around him will be toys in the hands of such a person, if he wants to. Along the way, people usually achieve great success in the material world, their self-love increases even more, and the confidence that they are right and on the true path only grows stronger. Biologically, the path of nature can be explained by the predominance of feelings of dominance, which, in turn, depends on testosterone in the body. In fact, these are people with a powerfully developed masculine, animal nature, in which domination over others is an integral part of existence. But there is a second way of life: The Way of Grace. This is a peaceful, benevolent path, entering which a person lives in harmony with nature within himself. Such a person directs his life to create comfort for himself and others, does not want to enter into conflicts, and suffers from the same. Perhaps this would fit the word ' Saint'. It is ' saint' and not 'spiritual' or 'peaceful'. The saint combines spirituality and peacefulness, but helplessness is also attached to all this. The whole path of grace is doomed to suffering and repression, because man is helpless against the external world, which is ruled by people who have chosen the more tenacious, animal way of nature.
As it became clear, these are two extremes of man, and people with one thing does not happen. Every human being has a path to follow. Falling in the direction of a certain path depends on upbringing, innate character, the external environment of residence, etc. But one path does not exclude the other, but simply begins to sway in its direction.
The film shows only these two sides as two peaks, but the main thing, as always, is in the center. Yes, maintaining balance could be the third way and, in my opinion, the right direction. With this way, of course, it is more difficult to become Prince Myshkin or Daniel Playview, but why become them when you can be a little everything.
Conceptually, it turned out a very sincere and extremely personal picture. In it, the director tells the story of his family and the idea, respectively, expresses from the experience of real life. The whole story is about Terrence Malik’s brother who committed suicide. In telling the story of his brother, he metaphorically compares the birth of a child with the emergence of life on Earth. For each person personally, the world is born and annihilated with himself, just as the great Russian poet sang: '. And Malik's brother, indeed, destroyed a world in which he was helpless, soft-bodied and oppressed by his father's rude upbringing. He couldn't bear everything he had. The director himself portrayed himself rushing between two ways, in childhood, but in the image of an adult, it was already clear that Malik stopped on the same path that his father raised him.
At the end of the film, the director says goodbye to his brother and lets go forever. The tree of life is a masterpiece!
Wandering through all sorts of Internet, quite accidentally came across a movie poster with reviews, among which was this film - 'Tree of Life'.
Jessica Chastain and Brad Pitt.
What is the name of a person who is suffocated with curiosity before everything related to the soul, consciousness, subconscious, divine and even near-divine? Well, here I am.
I mean, I love seeing signs from above. As in the fact that I unwittingly stuck on this film.
If you endure the first 30 minutes of the film, too much numinous music and psychedelic pictures, then it will be quite addictive.
An ordinary American family. Husband, wife, three boys. Sounds happy. I think it's okay. Woe. The voice of a mother calling out to God. Further events of previous years. Unfair father. Listening to the thoughts of a growing boy.
The film is one of those, after which a strange feeling remains for a long time ... um ... and gratitude for the fact that everything is fine today, regret about the transience of being and thinking about what is over us (well, I sin constantly, not only after watching such films). It wasn't just those heavy and clumsy feelings that haunted me. All this time I admired the crystal image of the romantic mother, who was so gracefully carried by Chastain.
Even though the film isn’t verbose, in principle. It can be easily read by quotations. One of them is “Never say – I can’t, always replace it with a phrase – I find it difficult.” I will probably use it for difficult situations.
I’m not going to watch this movie and I’m not going to recommend it. In general, the time spent watching the film is not sorry.
Probably the closest to the Kubrikovo Odyssey in scale and grandeur of the film. And at the same time the most distant in spirit - because the global and universal in the film in constant contrast with the intimate and personal. This is not an ode to reason, it is an ode to emotion, often illogical. Detached cosmic scales greatly benefit from the most beautiful special effects (the closest analogue is the Aronofsky Fountain), and the magnificent subjective camera of Emmanuel Lubecki seems to scour the expanses of memory, perfectly capturing a cloudless childhood in the pastoral outback, while the Gothic choir introduces into a meditative trance. The radical anthropocentrism of the picture falls very well on the biblical pathos, and Malik does not hesitate to use direct quotes from the Bible to emphasize this.
As for the situations described, they are quite, for lack of a better word, universal. But this can also be brought into the drawback - wanting to appeal to the individual experience of each person, Malik never goes beyond and uses half-tone - the father is strict, but not very, the children are hooligans, but not very, and everything seems so familiar, but if not for an exciting pitch, quite boring. Love is above the law, we have known for two millennia, nothing new. The central conflict with the father is resolved, besides, as a bad fantasy.
Brad Pitt feels quite comfortable in the role of ordinary American guys, and this role is no exception. But Jessica Chastain is beautiful, and her image here is largely iconic for her career.
A slightly strange sediment leaves a complete void in the plot between childhood and postmortem, as if a person has nothing good after 12 years, and the rest of his life he spends on autopilot.
As for me, I really liked it, but I'm biased. Because if Odysseus is Nietzsche in Cosmos, then the Tree of Life is an ultra-religious canvas.
9 out of 10
For the first time, I tried to watch the Tree of Life with my husband. He didn't like it so much that we turned it off after twenty minutes. Probably, only banal curiosity made me give the film a second chance, but I still could not watch until the end.
In essence, The Tree of Life is a drama with an emphasis on boring philosophical and religious reflections. There is much more reflection than drama, and the first 40 minutes of the plot practically does not move. But even after these tortured 40 minutes, the film is increasingly disappointing, repulsive and does not allow the eyes to see anything beautiful, and the ears to hear anything meaningful.
“There are only two ways in life: let nature and let grace” – this is how this “movie masterpiece” begins. It is clear that everyone has their own opinion on this matter, but personally I wanted to laugh the writers, and the director in the face. Life is too complex and too complex to be limited in two ways. There is no third, fourth, and twenty-fifth way. I understand that Malik reflects these two characters in Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain, but why is it so exaggerated and primitive? Does Terrence Malick think that there are no other types of personality? Can we only be blind believers or despotic? That is what the main characters of this film are. Alas, these two extremes are completely disposed to themselves and looking at everything that is happening, you simply do not believe that the director shot something not from a parallel universe, but allegedly a very real story. The head of the family is too harsh and too selfish to be an adequate father and husband. His wife, on the contrary, is extremely religious and too humble to empathize with her. It seems that even in cardboard boxes there is more versatility than in this primitive family. And why are we first informed of the death of the middle son, and all the rest of the timekeeping is shown through the prism of the eldest?
I don’t think the film was bad because of its philosophical and religious message. It just seems that the director wanted to tell about everything in the world, but in the dry residue he did not tell the viewer anything. What's "Tree of Life" about? About death, about life, about choice, about growing up, about faith or about our being? There is too much philosophy here, and it seems that if Malik settled on one thing, it would be more interesting. But everything in this drama is not just not interesting, but even not atmospheric. I wanted to hear something smart, but instead, the characters simply stamp one religious axiom after another. I wanted to see something beautiful, but the jumping camera, pathetic music and meaningful pauses simply do not allow you to perceive all this even as a beautiful background.
Allegedly significant accent of the film in the form of the Creation of the World, I personally did not cause any emotions, except boredom. It felt more like a scene from a documentary than a feature film. I wanted to turn it off as quickly as possible or at least rewind it. And in general, I do not understand why Malik considered it important to show an eternity, how algae swim in water, how a meteorite flies and how the Big Bang occurs. Malik is not the first director who decided to show in his film the birth of the universe, but for some reason it does not look so boring for others.
I can’t say anything good about the script either. The screenwriters decided not to bother much and, apparently, contained the replicas of all the characters of the two-hour film for two, maximum three pages.
In the end, I want to say that even without expecting too much from the drama, you are really disappointed in it.
It's a screensaver! That’s what I thought in the twentieth minute of the movie. And at 35 minutes, I wanted to kick my mouse to get back into the system, but it's not a computer. Too much yawn, spread to the cat and falling asleep moth, put the remote to the side and decided to examine.
Even morality is far-fetched. There is a shortage on all fronts. The mother is shown as a desirable woman with a stupid wet look; the father must be, in addition to soldierism, a maniac (at least this could justify his paranoid desire for ' hardening' firstborn); the firstborn is a cinderella slaughtered and tortured, but ready for an explosion; others (including brothers) are extras. Adult mother of three children, ' each ' Sunday of his life listening to the story of Job, is not able ' let go ' child to the beloved God. To the One to whom she silently trusts herself and all her own. ' Generous' The act of liberation at the end of the picture occurs when the elder is already gray in his temples, and it is not proper to show his parents (hence their young appearance from ' then').
The idea of a low budget and neglect comes to the viewer later, when you realize that the director deliberately does not show the brothers at the funeral, but only then we see the family. About the age of the untimely departed we learn only from the revelation on the edge of the bed gray Jack.
P.S. Please don't kick too hard for the first try.
General impression: Inspiration. Mystery is one of the genres of European medieval theater associated with religion. The plot of the mystery was usually taken from the Bible or the Gospel and interspersed with various everyday comic scenes.
Now, by the time you get to the movie, you can just imagine it was 370 miles of film, or 364 hours and 30 minutes of footage. Do you understand how much this is?! And the director's version, which lasts 6 hours, what is it for? What did you want to show, Malik? I still don’t like movies enough to watch Malik for 6 hours, so I endured it for 2 hours and 19 minutes. You want my opinion? Despite the fact that the picture in 2011 received the “Golden Palm”, it was booed and for good reason! This is a terribly boring movie in which the shots change each other, presenting us with dinosaurs, the boundless universe, then a quarrel in the family. In short, e is a soft-bodied mother (Jessica Chastain) who loves her children without limit, but will not say a word to her husband despot (Brad Pitt) , because he simply mocks the three sons. And now, when a tragedy happens, the heroes begin to chew and understand that they did not give something to their beloved children. And we are already shown the thinking of one son, who grew up, remembering his childhood, begins to understand who is to blame for the upbringing. And certainly with this periodic absurdity cram endless streams, dinosaurs, sprouts, blades of grass.
Do you want to see the director? And you know, I don’t think he knows that, under the guise of metaphor, there is an ordinary standard drama to which they wanted to impose as much majesty as possible. There's no genius or anything incomprehensible. The most important woman in a man? It's the mother. And the family drama, which Malik crossed out with his inserts about wildlife, just fucked! I tried to show the origin of the world, but it turned out to be depressingly depressing. What kind of meditation can we talk about? Do you think that classical music, coupled with dinosaurs and the Magellanic Cloud, is meditation?! I sat down to watch a movie, not to get carried away with yoga. After all, many people warned me about this “incredible” picture, but I decided to check for myself what is happening on the screen.
Cinema tries to look like smart when slipping phrases "Why do we do this", "I want him to die" and quotes from the Old Testament, but it is not enough to insert such phrases, they need to attach actions, fill with semantic presentation. But the dialogue in the film only floaty inserts encourage the tape, everything else is pictures. Speaking of footage, I don't like that kind of shooting. There are no claims to episodes with nature, but as soon as people appear in the frame, it seems that the viewer is superfluous, but here the claim is not to the operator, but again to the director (Malik, I hope you hiccup there).
Conclusion: Malik wanted to make an intellectual film, trying to capture every moment of the meditativeness of religion and man. Showing the extinction of one culture, the change of another and how insignificant man is. But he did not take into account that a conversation with God should not go to the scientific process. This is a crude project, not finalized on all fronts, Malik you cut out of 364 hours the wrong 2 hours. Exhale.
Movie "The Tree of Life" Terrence Malick offers the viewer a truly large scale of reflection. Deepening into the philosophical and cosmological theme, the author compares human life and death with the greatness of universal existence.
The main action takes place in the 1950s in Texas. A sensitive religious mother (Jessica Chastain) and a tyrannical father (Brad Pitt) are two parenting models. In the father there is honesty, hard measures he tries to adapt the boys to independent and harsh life, as it really is. The sensual nature of the mother reveals to the children a subtle perception of the world, at the level of metaphysics. Through the line of family drama, the director offers a look into the cosmos, the infinite space that is hidden in our very life, seemingly hopelessly hidden in difficult everyday life and material objects.
In the film "Tree of Life", first of all, I am impressed by the camera work, the close look of the camera at the heroes. A piercing tenderness to life is felt in every frame: in the blue sunny sky, the shine of water, in the green lawn, in the clean path leading to the house. From the bright expanse of the screen comes a warm breath.
We watch a movie about the structure of the Universe, the birth of the Earth, the appearance of life on it, everything in silent submission bows before the laws of being. Many people pay attention to the director’s message of religious hopes. The performer of the role of the father, Brad Pitt, commented: Malik’s film is more “spiritual” than religious. In my opinion, the film turns the inner and reveals the spiritual side of man, and the divine principle emphasizes the triumph of the cosmos.
The humanistic meaning of art is to prepare a person for death. With the continuity of the best representatives of cinema, Terrence Malik proposes to perceive death with humility as an immediate part of life. If I had to talk about the film in key guises, I would mark the movie with the hashtags: #life #death #space #love.
What can you look at forever? On Fire, Water and the Beauty of the Tree of Life These truly fascinating images go against all the old standards of beauty. So deep and meaningful aftertaste.
Mastodon of all cinematography – Lubetzky appeared in all its glory and expanded the already huge potential of the picture. Fantastic shots of the birth of life, made without a single hint of computer graphics, look delicious, and a quiet voiceover gently leads the narrative and you plunge into this visual fairy tale.
In this story, all facets of being are intertwined. Art, philosophy of life, relationships, conception of birth. Endless illusory topics that are pleasant to talk about, and even more pleasant to watch.
It would seem that the famous actor Brad Pitt appeared in this picture in a completely different way. A strict father, convinced of his principles, tries to teach his sons life. Boys-debutants, easily, naively, boyishly played the role.
This painting appeared to me like a piece of contemporary art. It is extremely amusing to look at, to look at subtle strokes, to find a message, to look for nested meaning. Definitely impressive.
In this incredibly strange and strangely incredible film, the viewer will see two and a little hours of being served from different sides, angles and keys, from the heart will think about nothing, and understand (well, or do not understand) why the movie is so called.
This book definitely deserves to be seen. But not viewing "for a tick" or even just from the brand "nothing to do in the evening." This is a film for a certain state of mind: when you are morally ready to disappear from the world for a whole hundred and thirty-eight minutes and swim in philosophical dreams is unclear where.
Only if you tune in to a great journey of spirit, slowness, inconsistency, and at times the incoherence of the narrative will attract, not annoy. Ultimately, you don’t have to expect anything special from the movie. There's nothing to expect from him. It can be admired, perceiving every second of viewing as the only thing that matters. Don’t think about what happens next: Malik doesn’t always think about it. Dissolution in the moment.
Ultimately, it is a work of art. But his co-author is certainly the viewer. Without the readiness of the viewer to creatively comprehend, apply paints to the obligingly submitted canvas, nothing will work. If you want to purify yourself a little, take a break from existence, feel some kind of awe before Life - the next stop is: Tree.
If you want to feel a little more than a human, go here. If you want to feel like something much smaller than the center of the universe, here you go.
If in the running of the world you have lost yourself: it is time to look here.
If the inner torments do not give you peace: it is time to find the lost world, to discover how small in comparison with it all that worries us.
Going beyond one person into life is one of the possible answers to the most difficult of questions addressed to God.
Before you will unfold a multi-valued meditation of immense beauty ... from an author who is not inclined to tire his audience with deciphering his messages.
8 out of 10
Although maybe I should drop that eight to see the infinity behind it.
..thoughts, sensuality, emotions, pain, morality. Something beyond beautiful and horrible, sick and soothing, reality and fantasy. Game of plans and references. Adequacy and madness. Logic and lack of it.
There is probably no more pain in the world than the pain of the irreversible. The pain of a lost parent.
The beauty is not in special effects. Not in imagery or entourage. In this film, beauty is conveyed by narrative.
The way the director (writer) communicates with the viewer and transmits information is brilliant. I haven’t seen a movie that is so rich in emotion. At the time of writing this review, I am 23 years old. I think that I am far from continuing my kind, but for a second it seemed that I was at some tiny percentage, but still managed to feel the joy of this beautiful moment - the reproduction of a new life, and the terrible sorrow of loss. I am sure that no matter how virtuoso the message of the creators of this tape would be, it is still impossible to survive something like this. Even a small percentage is impossible. But on a minuscule - the authors succeeded. And it's a masterpiece.
It is incredible how much information is told between the lines. Discuss religious topics and integrate them into everyday life. I can still list all the things that left an indelible impression on me. But it is better to see one (many) times than to read a couple of times.
As for acting (behind Brad Pete’s brackets), there’s only one thing I can’t understand. How could children play and get used to their roles so magnificently and so deeply?
Unique thought and execution. This movie is shot once in tens and hundreds of thousands. I enjoyed every second of it. This film will have a special place in my heart and memory.
10 out of 10
The terrible mistake of modern man: the identification of life with action, thought, etc., and the almost complete inability to live, that is, to feel, perceive, “live” life as an unceasing gift. Going to the station under a shallow, already spring rain, to see, feel, realize the movement of the sun’s ray on the wall is not only “the same” event. This is the very reality of life. Not a condition for action and for thought, not their indifferent background, but that, in essence, for what (so that it was, felt, "lived") and worth acting and thinking.
They demand that there be a hero, the heroine is stage spectacular. But in life not every minute shoot, hang, explain in love. And it's not every minute that smart things are said. They eat, drink, drag, talk nonsense. You need to see it on stage. It is necessary to create a play where people would come, go, have dinner, talk about the weather, play screw, not because the author needs it, but because it happens in real life. (A. P. Chekhov)
According to Tarkovsky, cinema as an art form is located somewhere between painting and music. In his opinion, the film does not need a plot. Not a “fascinating” or “twisted” plot, but the plot in general – as such.
But that's me, by the way. In “Tree” there is a plot – and very slim.
The film is positioned as "a hymn to life" - and perfectly copes with the stated task. I will say more – if you completely remove from the film any clashes and conflicts (on which it is mostly built) and on a given frequency to depict the growing up of a particular Jack, the picture would not lose. Well, in terms of art. In terms of audience interest, everything is different.
Terrence manages to enlist the support, as we remember, of painting and music, to penetrate somewhere deep, into the cool niches of life, which we most often do not notice, as we do not notice the small spring rain, for example. Sometimes, according to the terminology of the same Andrei Arsenyevich, I want to watch a movie as one looks at the landscape floating outside the train window. I want to immerse myself in the artist’s worldview, in which running through the field or dinner with family is what life is mostly made of. Not every second... well, you get it. The Tree of Life is perceived on an emotional level and is something intuitive that does not require verbal decoding.
Tellingly, Malik does not stop at the scale of one person, but sets a direct cosmic run-off, merging together the collision of planets and the slap of the father to the son. Rather not even so – the director takes the scale of one person to the cosmic level. “I am a man, I am in the middle of the world, behind me are myriads of infusoria, before me are myriads of stars.”
In general, this is a picture that you do not even want to decipher; you want to see it, absorb it into yourself - and that's all. Strict tools of analysis can violate the integrity of the perceived – and is this not to be feared?
Bravo.
P. S. How wonderful is the birth of a child! You have to carry Malik in your arms for one scene!
While you are sitting and waiting for something, everything passes. This is the life and this is the life. And it's over.
Let’s imagine what the film would be like if it wasn’t directed by Emmanuel Lubecki, and Jay Rabinowitz wasn’t behind the editing. Can you imagine? I'm not. Because if you ignore the work of these people, there is almost nothing left of Terrence Malick in this picture.
The Tree of Life tells us the story of a child growing up. He lives with two brothers, a naively good mother (Jessica Chastain) and a father (Brad Pitt), whom he hates to the point that he asks God for his “disappearance.” As it really is, due to the rigid method of raising a father, the whole family begins to have problems. The film's timeline is over 130 minutes, but the whole story could be told in an hour. And here reveals another feature of Malik's approach to his films. Speaking in simple language, he too often departs from the specified topic.
In addition to the period of becoming a child, we are shown the birth of the universe itself, dinosaurs, on which a meteorite is about to fall. This scene absolutely does not affect the integrity of the whole plot and the question arises “Why is all this necessary?”. Show us the beauty of the world that surrounds us. Of course, it is done very beautifully, but it has nothing to do with the main storyline. Maybe it's a comparison of one person to the whole universe. If the universe is born like a man, then it is like a man and dies. But let's be honest, this idea doesn't fit the narrative of an 11-year-old boy's adolescence. And if this is the story of a whole life of one person, then I feel some understatement.
The day will come when we will fall down and weep. And we will understand everything, we will understand almost everything.
Another drawback that immediately catches the eye is self-repeat. Anyone who has seen Malik's other films has probably noticed that it's not just beginning to repeat itself visually. Much of what is said in The Tree of Life has already been said to them in The Wastelands. And Mr. O'Brien's many words about how to live are really nothing but boredom and the realization that it's already happened.
In this world, to break through, you have to be ruthless. Everyone will sit on their neck.
Of course, the film has its own advantages. There are few, but there are. It was camera work that made me watch this film to the end and finally make sure that Lubetzky is a unique operator who can shoot any genre. Malik did not lose out with him, perhaps only because of the “beautiful picture” this film found its viewer in Cannes.
After the movie, there is only a feeling of emptiness inside you. It seems that everything is good – and the film is interesting, and the actors play great (I really hated Pitt’s hero). But if you put everything into a single picture, you get a raw, unfinished and, I do not fear the word, boring work.
If you want to see the history of the formation of man, watch "Boyhood". There is not so smooth and beautiful, but the meaning is much more than in the “Tree of Life”.
"What's the point of being good if you're not?"
A writer who writes the same thing is said to have written. I can say the same about Malik, he has already taken everything he wanted. I don't understand the religiosity of his latest paintings. I want to tell Mr. Malik that he is wrong, and the time of his own adolescence, from which he most likely drew inspiration for the film, is long gone. Everything is different now.
"Father." Mother. You will always fight within me.
The Tree of Life is a film about life and death, about faith, about love, about the soul.
In this film there is no rapid action, live dialogue, some ups and downs. First of all, you need to feel it, pass through yourself, and in the end understand everything that Malik wanted to tell us in his picture.
The first 20 to 30 minutes may seem boring. People who are used to seeing some action in the movies will want to turn it off or at least rewind it when something starts. But nothing will happen. It will be shown through the eyes of a child. His growing up, interaction with close people. There is love, and jealousy, and anger, and misunderstanding of the surrounding world. Life is shown through silence, emotions, gestures, views, without unnecessary dialogue and action.
On the one hand, a mother who teaches her children to love, be kind and open to the world. Jessica Chastain believes that the path of human development must be through compassion for others. That is why children love to spend time with their mother, who is always open and sincere with them. On the other hand, there is a father who causes fear in the child as soon as he appears on the doorstep of the house. A person who believes that one should put personal interests above all else. A father who shows love through harshness. Each of the parents tries to lure the child to his side, to show that the world is the way they see it. What should Jack do? He's lost in this life. Love for his mother breeds hatred for his father, and as a result, the boy realizes that he is more like him.
Someone in this picture will find something for his soul, will discover Malik and his philosophy, someone will criticize or not understand it at all. But the fact that “Tree of Life” will leave a bright mark after watching, that’s for sure.
10 out of 10
In 2011, Terrence Malick’s film The Tree of Life was released. By the way, Malik worked on this picture as a screenwriter. The cameraman was Emmanuel Lubecki, thereby providing the viewer with a beautiful picture throughout the film. And the picture, it is worth noting, lasts almost two and a half hours.
One of the roles was performed by Brad Pitt, which was repeatedly mentioned in the presentations, trailer and various posters for the film. Pitt plays the protagonist’s father, Jack. The plot revolves around an eleven-year-old boy, one of three brothers, who observes the world with the immediacy of a child. His mother teaches Jack goodness and love, and his father tries to grow him into a real man, ready for any difficulties, cruelty and pain. At the beginning of the film, the boy behaves like an ordinary child, enjoying life and quietly accepting the difficulties of upbringing. But after the dark events in the life of the hero, Jack increasingly manifests the Oedipus complex, unreasonable cruelty and misunderstanding of the world. The boy begins an inner struggle with himself and the God he believes in. In one scene, Jack asks God, “Why be good if you’re not?” This inner struggle of a little man with himself and with the surrounding reality can be traced through the whole picture.
The film is ambiguous and full of metaphors, sometimes difficult to understand. Part of the picture is occupied by microscopy, the image of nature and space. Sometimes such inserts last up to ten minutes, interrupting the main plot. It is worth noting that the “overall picture” of the film is fascinating. Exquisitely selected colors of the picture and the composition itself, qualitatively made special effects. However, the scenario itself does not cause such enthusiasm. There is too much understatement in this film. It is in the air from the beginning to the end of the picture. Despite the good performance of the actors, it is impossible to feel the sorrow of the characters, empathize with them or associate with themselves.
The film is recommended for viewing by real aesthetes and lovers “to think about the meaning of being”. You can’t call this picture entertaining. It plunges the viewer into the abyss of longing, but also, oddly enough, calm.
2 out of 10
What else can we talk about? The picture fascinates with its pure beauty, landscapes, the universe. Let’s talk about everything in detail.1-The play of actors is the most lively is the merit of Brad Pitt, Jessica Chastain, Sean Penn. 2-The camera work she's done here is 100%, it's the merit of Emmanuel Lubecki his perspectives not many given such a vision. No doubt he's a master of his craft. 3- Visual series and landscapes. Thank you to Emmanuel for his talent. Landscapes are pleasing to the eye as well as the visual range. Look at it and you will know everything. 4-Of course the director. Tarrence Malik doesn't know what's mysterious about him. But nobody shoots like him. One of my favorite directors. 5-Soundtrack. Alexander Depla is amazing, ego music fascinates no less than a picture. In general, it is beautiful.
The world is ruled by dogs, people are insatiable than ... They are pulling their paws to us.
The Tree of Life, which makes the viewer not think much, but look at the beauty of the universe, witness its very origin, witness the birth of a new one. But most importantly, I personally, and probably you too, fell in love with Malik. He forces you to go through all over again, look at your life lived a little differently, from individual moments you generally go into a stupor, the heart stops for a moment, and the reality outside the window becomes simply spit, as well as the opponents of the film. This is where the magic of cinema opens for me in its original form, this is the gold mine, this is the necessary medicine. A movie like the Tree of Life is the only way to see it, when you go through it, you find redemption. Perhaps even some purification of what you saw, the most imaginary and popular feeling of catharsis. You find peace, or just admire its beauty, even if the timekeeping is two hours long, and for some it may seem like a long lecture, full of unnecessary and already familiar to everyone philosophy of public Vkontakte. And the visual techniques are a little boring, and seem just a set of effects taken from the attractions of Bay, but in this plunge with your head!
As pretentious as it may sound, it does something completely different to you. In this film, you have the opportunity to be born again, and such a feeling is expensive, and such feelings from watching should be cherished, like the apple of an eye, to keep them in your memory. And no matter how many professors, film critics do not say that Malik is not the same, and he no longer has a place in the modern arena of cinema. I will send their arguments to a known and familiar address. After all, Malik just made a movie about life, about parental love, and, of course, he made it about you and about me. Malik, like Prometheus, from Greek mythology, wanted to light a fire in the hearts of people, which many have already extinguished, and very pathetic, most often it dies out in people who have their whole lives ahead. What about the Tree of Life? This is an amazing experiment, of course it can be blamed for a number of errors, only they are justified by the desire of the author to give the viewer something higher than simple relaxation and a sense of comfort. Because Malik is great, and he became great during his lifetime, because life itself, as we know, is not perfect. And only the appearance of such, make it more perfect, make it easier for you and for me, for those who just love life and love cinema!
Thank you for watching the movie.
"Tree of Life" by mysterious director Terrence Malick is a continuous symphony, a requiem over lost paradise. It's more than a movie, it's a whole universe on 2-hour film. A movie about choice, about the universe, about the balance of black and white, about the meaning of everything.
In the center of the plot there are 2 ways: the path of nature and the path of grace.
“Grace does not pursue pleasure, submissively accepts contempt, neglect, hatred, endures insults and beatings. Nature indulges only itself, it uses people for pleasure, it loves to rule people, to do everything only in its own way. It is given to despondency even where everything is sung with joy, and the light of love radiates from all sides.
The main character of the film - Jack (Seanne Penn), tormented by internal struggle, fragmentarily returns to his childhood to find answers to questions tormenting him. Before the eyes of young Jack (Hunter McCracken), the eldest of three brothers - father (Brad Pitt) and mother (Jessica Chastain), symbolizing the two named paths.
In addition to the semantic load of the film, it has a picture, which in my opinion should be included in the textbooks. So beautifully organized space and movement in the frame. If the camera is in the hands of Lubetzky, then, undoubtedly, the picture is a masterpiece of visual poetry. And what a montage!
Undoubtedly, this work Malik is not for everyone. For me, 2.5 hours was not enough to dig a tree under the root. About 360 hours of footage has been shot for this picture, and I’m hoping for a prolonged 6-hour version of the Cannes hit Tree of Life, which the director promised us.
9 out of 10
P.S. In 2016, Malik and Lubetzky merge in a new collaboration called “Gravity”.
"You have to find out for yourself." This time, I don’t have a ‘no’.
And I may be accused of superficiality, but the feeling of the film is quite neutral, which from negative barely reached neutral.
Feelings of wasted time, unintegrity seen.
At first, I didn’t know what to do for half an hour. I may not have looked deeply, but I had not yet understood how the constant whispers about God, computer images of the cosmos and music went, which together did not touch, but even annoyed, because I knew what they were, but even in the finale, there was no clear picture.
The line with the life of the main character is clear, here it is even possible to discuss two different aspects of upbringing, which are mentioned in the description. One cannot say that one of these lines is correct and one is not. I can’t judge anyone, probably it should be in the family, so it consists of a woman and a man with different complementary views of the world. The boy is growing up, he has a transitional age, the influence of the company, doubt about everything around him, and that's okay. It was a great drama.
Showing the mother's suffering? No movie will ever show this in its entirety.
In general, the feeling is torn: this was slightly touched, this is a little, and in general the puzzles did not meet, although I wanted to clear the horizon a little at the end. I do not dispute, some shots are very beautiful and atmospheric, the actors’ play is not bad, but in general, more likely not than yes.
6 out of 10
After watching The Tree of Life in high school, the essence of the story was never caught. I could only see fragments of phrases, fragments of this epochal message, which alone taught nothing. The message can be caught if you understand the structure of the film, its plot: what happens in the beginning, in the middle, in the end. And how do you understand, or even more difficult, accept the film, this is the message of Terrence Malick, having managed to assimilate with your unprepared and blind mind only the middle? Five years later, in an unexpected way, there was a need to revise the film. But there were still doubts in my heart, and will I be able to see the director’s message? After reading several reviews, interpretations, some scraps of memories, excerpts of the film, found meaning, and I sat down again to watch. What have I seen now?
It's the director's own quest. There are two paths: the path of nature and the path of grace.
Sean Penn’s character is in crisis. Prestigious work, a beautiful wife, a big house - he was able to achieve a lot in material terms. But money, careers don't feed the soul. A mental crisis is tormenting him. He's asking God about it. And in addressing him, he goes into the depths of his soul, the depths of his past, asking himself, if God created us, if he exists, why did he leave him? Why did he take away his brother, his family? Why did he give him such a life full of contradictions and pain?
God's ways are inscrutable. Terrence Malik shows us that God is with us, as if he is reproducing our entire lives every moment. And his creation is beautiful. And then we plunge into the wonderful process of creation. Each stage, like a masterpiece, is subtly and skillfully created by God. Beauty, love for your child permeates every frame. It is as if we are given to see what a person cannot see, to embrace the immense.
Next is the story of the past hero Sean Penn. We're seeing his family. His relationship with his father, with his mother, his spiritual quest, questions, his growing up, his search for the meaning of life. Philosophical questions, views, statements go smoothly. All of them are masterfully presented by the director by combining several components: the brilliant camera work of Emmanuel Lubecki and the delightful music of Alexander Depla.
Actors seem to live their roles. There's not a drop of pretense. Brad Pitt was the most impressed. The gait, the expression, I admired his play every shot. His character can be understood without words, just look.
The mother and father philosophy are two sides that invade the protagonist in his childhood. He cannot choose who is right because he sees his pros and cons on both sides. Terrible events, frameworks and norms of behavior, a difficult relationship with his father surround and blind him. He doesn't know where to find a way out. But gradually, after a series of spiritual quests and trials, he finds peace in love. And in the present tense, Sean Penn's hero sees a light in the darkness that brings him ashore. He meets images from the past. From the most important stage that affected his whole life.
It turns out that all the time he lived, beauty reigned everywhere in the world, but he did not see it. The search for meaning in life leads him to simply accepting all life events, each of which was not accidental. There is no sound of the city anymore. The cityscapes don't turn your eyes. It turns out that there is beauty in the city, it is worth noting. To see in every blade of grass, in every breath of wind, the creation of God, because God reproduces life every moment, and therefore he is with us.
10 out of 10
"You can't say I can't." Say “I don’t know” and “I don’t know yet” (c)
I have been waiting for this film for a long time, but the emotions were mixed.
One of the ideas of the film (which the mother of the family always talked about) is very close to me recently. But the rest ... did not understand much, did not mature, apparently. Definitely the film is extraordinary, stands out from the rest, even judging by the fact that we have crawled by the middle of the film was gone. Usually, such films are mine, but this one is definitely not mine: neither by emotions, nor by the dynamics of the picture, nor by camera work (although I note its unusualness and I see that such an unusual shooting is not for nothing - faces are very close there, I think, in order to show a person as he is - natural, without embellishment). The actors had almost no makeup: they appeared not in the best form, but rather as they are, with all the shortcomings of appearance.
The game Brad, Sean and Jessica is great. And the boys all hurriedly played, but did not touch. But a friend cried half the movie, I even fell asleep somewhere.
That’s how they are, the emotions of watching are very contradictory.
I respect the man who, without critical articles, will understand the ending. I honestly don’t understand.
Good to see everyone who will be watching! I went to read critical articles.
“The Tree of Life” is a film clearly intended not for a simple layman, and not for every highly intelligent individual to understand the director’s strange idea. We can say that he made the movie so murky that almost no one can understand this idea. In general, the sensations of watching are the most unpleasant.
One of the main problems of the film is excessive subjectivism. In everything, the author puts his vision, his view of things - in the end, practically deprives the cinema of any objectivity, respectively, and the meaning is lost. We see excerpts from the memories of an adult man about his childhood interspersed with obscure insertions in the form of the beauties of space, nature and the like. From an aesthetic point of view, these inserts seem to be a place, but in fact they do not carry any semantic load and deprive the film of adequacy.
The next drawback is the incredible level of pathosity of this film, which takes it very far from the real picture of the world. We see only a refined image of reality, too idealized, incomplete, inaccurate and fragmentary, passed through the director’s consciousness. It seems that he should correspond to the thinking of the child, but he does not form a clear worldview with all the ensuing - this is a huge minus and a drawback. Everything is shown so bright and beautiful that you subconsciously do not believe anything that happens on the screen.
It is worth dwelling on the characters of the film. The character of the man, whose memories form the basis of the film, is almost not revealed, but we fully see the identity of his father. And the picture is disappointing. This man is a real despot, a tyrant who keeps his sons and his wife in hedgehogs. It seems that he is mentally ill and complex, which leads to this strange cruelty and the desire for children to treat him not as a father, but as a master. He even calls him "Sir." Plus, he believes in God, and in this example we see evidence that the behavior of religious people is very far from the true values of love, mutual understanding, trust, friendliness and everything else that the dry and sadistic mind of this character lacks. It is worth noting Brad Pitt, who performed this role just fine. In this regard, it is impossible to find fault with him - the actor fully fulfilled his task, confirming his title of a good actor.
The next character is the mother. A faint and inconspicuous woman whose character is nothing special. A kind of grey mouse that goes with the flow and can't do anything. She is weak, unenterprising, short-sighted and uninteresting person. She is insanely devout, and thoughts of God occupy almost her entire consciousness. It seems that she is just obsessed with it and can not think sanely. I felt sorry for her that her head was so full of fables and meaningless dreams.
It was a pity for the children, because they live in such, at first glance, a prosperous family. But you really don't envy them. Parents, to put it mildly, are bad and cannot educate them correctly. Of them grow such careerists, unable to love and compassion. A father can communicate with them only as soldiers in the army, and nothing can be expected from his mother except ephemeral arguments about God and reading fairy tales. As a result, children grow like grass in the field.
In theory, it was supposed to show the formation of the character of the child and his worldview to the fullest extent, but instead we see only fragments of memories, unrelated, and the same meaningless fragments of phrases, of which 90% are thoughts about God. I had a strong feeling that the director of the film was a fanatic whose head could not adequately perceive reality, and whose religiosity had crossed all boundaries. And the film, accordingly, turned out to be just as fanatical - it scares away the audience, who are used to watching not aesthetically decorated nonsense, but the course of events that should be analyzed and draw certain conclusions for themselves. And here we see the perfect blank.
In general, the film does not teach anything - after that there is a feeling of emptiness and wasted time. And all this lasts almost two and a half hours! A real mockery of the viewer. From beginning to end, we are plagued by an overdose of religiosity. Especially unpleasant when the main character points to the sky and says “God lives there.” And he tells this to a young child without explaining it, which leads to the fact that the child will not learn to think for himself, ask questions and find answers to them. Children must decide for themselves what to believe, and here we see how certain subjective concepts are amorally hammered into their heads and given no explanation. This is an example of the terrible upbringing that we learned when we were watching a father abuse his own children.
The film is a rare nonsense. It’s hard to imagine anyone who would like it. And from the point of view of logic and common sense, the Tree of Life is stupid, meaningless and strange film that has no value to us.
1 out of 10
Having long thought about the concept of humanity as a whole, the existence and termination of life, the interaction of man and nature, the child and the parent, I could not even imagine that these are such integral, inseparable units. Terrence Malik in such a short time was able to lay down and reunite all the mysterious sides of the phenomenon called “life”.
The tree of life is not a story about a family, a boy or an upbringing, it is a piece of human consciousness and understanding of being as a fact. It's a story of prayer and conversation. This is a story of revelation and discovery (comparable in scientific and spiritual achievements).
Take a closer look and see each frame, an elevated tree, a building, a person, water spaces or cosmic dust. They are given to feel them and decipher the dialogue with the deity.
Look closely and feel every wrinkle of acting, which in turn conveys grief, reconciliation, hatred and love. Their faces scream silently from the screen.
Take a closer look and remove the topic of interaction of a small sprout with a progenitor. This situation cannot be considered in any way. A parent with a sense of power and duty to educate his descendant grows into an obsessed one, when, in turn, the immature mind and body develop and fertilize hatred more, more, more.
Thank you, Terrence Malik, for the directing and writing work. Thank you, Emmanuel Lubecki, for accurately conveying those moments that were worth capturing with beautiful shots. I thank Alexander Depl and other active composers, whose work was sounded, adding Kubrikovsky style to the film.
10 out of 10
I was enough for 29 minutes of this through the frenzy of an amazing film in " "
If you are a limited person, then most likely this picture will seem amazing, and if you are also a fanatic of the Christian religion, then that is all, sit down and fan along with Terrence.
The film shows too many incomprehensible and mysterious art scenes that I unfortunately could not understand. Most likely, this was shown for Jesus himself, but forgive me not him.
I still don’t know why they showed the outward appearance of our Milky Way, in order to hint that it was created by God. Or just Terrence as a child wanted to be an astronomer and could not resist? I'm sorry, I'm a twenty-first-century man, I refuse to understand what this man wants to convey.
Oppressed soundtracks, voice-over, la la la la and only camera work is commendable.
To me, the film only beat its budget because of such names on the list of actors as Sean Penn and Brad Pitt.
This work is definitely not worthy of attention.
“The only way to happiness is love! Without love, life will pass without a trace.
The Tree of Life is a very unusual, but certainly the greatest film. Many people live at a very primitive level of development. Such people I would compare with people from ancient Rome. They are completely uninterested in the development of the soul, and many of them have no idea what it is. All they need is entertainment. Their motto is Bread and Spectacle. So I’m certainly not surprised by a lot of negative reviews about this film, because a lot of people are simply not able to absorb the subtle information that this wonderful film contains. Russian people are losing their traditional values. Programs developed by the “global elite” successfully work. This movie is about the Christian beginning. Orthodoxy has always been at the forefront of our great country, and now of the 80% of people who call themselves Orthodox, only 3% regularly attend the church we all need. So, of course, I'm a bit upset by the negative criticism of this film.
Throughout the history of cinema, tons of film were shot in vain. There are a huge number of meaningless films, and this film is comparable to a pearl in the vast field of cinema. It shows not only the development of the relationship between father and children, but the relationship between brothers and the whole family. During the film, the father ceases to be rude and cruel, he softens. Towards the end of the film, he tells his son the following words:
“Everything I have achieved is nothing.” You are all that I have and all that will be.
The keynote speech in this film was certainly said at the time of the move:
There is only one way to happiness: love. And without love life flashes without a trace.
I completely agree with this statement, because love is the main thing in life. Love includes respect, kindness, patience, caress, support, and much more. Without it, life on our planet is unthinkable.
However, this film may interest even those who do not understand the meaning of the film. The Tree of Life is simply mind-blowing landscapes. It really amazes and surprises the camera work. You will not see such beauty in any other picture.
The soundtrack of the film was also very impressive. The film is saturated with beautiful classical music, which cannot but please.
In conclusion, there is only one thing:
“The only way to happiness is love! Without love, life will pass without a trace.
It’s a pity if you don’t understand it. Good luck!
Father and mother. You fight in me. And it will always be... (c)
For the first time "Tree of Life" I watched the autumn of the distant 2012 year. A good friend of mine recommended the film before it was sent to the army. Since Terrence Malik, what was left to do?
Today, many criticize the director for the fact that, starting with the Tree of Life, in the artistic sense, he began to repeat himself in his subsequent works. And it's already tiring and boring. But what is certain - "Tree of Life" really seemed to be a visual and aesthetic feast, the scope of which penetrated into the soul to the very depths.
Few words and few dialogues. A lot of action and a lot of emotion. Personally, I was thinking about global, large-scale. About my place in the world. Family relationships. About what you can see in a feature film with a superstar in the title role.
The Tree of Life is a film tour. Excursion into the stream of thoughts, from which each viewer will pull the necessary for himself. Each of us was a child and then a teenager. Each of us may have to become a father or mother. And in each case, the interpretation of thoughts and actions is always different. At the same time, life goes by. It can either be full of successes and failures, or break off at any second. And we still understand how we still do not understand everything in this life.
If Sean Penn didn’t understand what he was doing in the film, the duo from Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain combine perfectly. The husband of Angelina Jolie looks very organically in the role of a tough and straightforward head of the family, and the star of Interstellar in the role of a wordless, but clean and kind mother. Despite this lack of dialogue, these two personalities are constantly in an invisible struggle, even though they are married in the eyes of God. But who, if not parents, should be in a child who only knows the world around him?
It is not for nothing that Terrence Malik demonstrated in his creation the creation of our planet and the birth of living beings on it. On the one hand, the Earth is so huge and full of places for people in it. On the other hand, people have invented so many things throughout their existence that otherwise it can not be called garbage. This is how we live surrounded by rubbish side by side with billions of other people with hope and faith in God. The Tree of Life produces so many questions that it becomes sad. Because our life is a real moment. Today it is, and tomorrow it may not be. No one is immune from such a fate.
To be honest, the 2013 movie To a Miracle made me sleep well. “The Tree of Life” leaves me in no doubt that with each new viewing I will definitely wait for the 22nd minute of the film, when the operatic voice will sing the word “Lacrimosa”. With a breath, I will watch the magical footage of Emmanuel Lubecki. I will ask new questions and get new answers. And you won't sleep. I don’t care if Terrence Malik is a genius or a charlatan. But I am glad that he was able to bring to the screen his idea, which I enjoyed.