Whether you loved it or hate it, please explain why.

Hi!

well i didn't read all the comments, but i kinda get the idea of the post so im going to share my opinion...

First of all, i LOVED the film, Malick is definitely one of my favorite directors (my..50? favorite directors), heres the reason

I belive that every shot in the film haves an objective to fill into the story or the principal point of the movie, but i dont belive that the story of the family is the center of the film, i belive its humanity itself, why? well across the movie we go through various strong points that we can identify in perhaps any person, like the question about god (How he lets people die? you know the sequence of the mother, on of my favorites i have to say) or the relationship with our parents with is one of the most important parts of our lives, curiosity, fear, etc, etc.

and on the other hand the shots of nature and prehistoric stuff, i think this is like trying to capture the beauty of life, you know the nebulosas and stuff, and also to add a feeling of belonging, we are All a part of this. specially the dinasour kind of thing, i belive this knd of shows resonance in the story of the family, the interactions between the dinasours are making a reference to the relationships of the family, i think this was included to make you think that perhaps we are alike the other animals, aka belonging, and also to say that everything we do is present in everything... i can think of a phrase of Octavio Paz a writer that says:

"everything is presence, all the centuries are this present"

and also from Gladiator...

"Everything we do echos through eternity"

so i think the principal message that this film is trying to say is...

"Hey! look this beautyfull thing! this is life, and EVERYTHING and EVERYONE os a part of this, we are all one, everything we do or say, cares..."

perhaps im just delusioning, sorry if i dont explain myself enough, english is not my native lenguage :P

All I got to say is Terrence Malick. Everything he touches turns to $%$%.

I thought the film was a masterpiece. I will start with the basic things. Then move onto the more interpretive aspects of the film.

Soundtrack - I think the pieces of music that Terrence Malick used in the film were excellent. The sound design was also excellent.

Cinematography - In my opinion the cinematography was some of the best I've ever seen. This a staple of Malick films though. Emmanuel Lubezki demonstrated his mastery of the art of cinematography with this film.

Performances - This a rather hard aspect to judge as these are not typical performances. I would say that the main cast is very good. Jessica Chastain really stands out here. She displays a very large range in this film. Brad Pitt is good as the father but his role never reaches the levels that Chastains does. The children were all very good. Tye Sheridan is a standout among the three boys. Sean Penn is the weak point of the film to me as he mainly mumbles and walks around looking dreary.

Direction - Terrence Malick crafted this film with a very personal touch. He knew what he wanted to see and though it took years of editing to realize his vision I believe it is fully articulated on the screen. The film displays his spirituality, philosophies, and more or less his vision of life and the afterlife.

Meaning - The film was very confusing to me upon the first viewing as I knew nothing about Terrence Malick or the film. I was perplexed by it. I then saw it a second time when I attended an Oscar movie marathon at my local movie theater. The movie was met with boos. I was in awe after the second viewing. I viewed the film in a different way. I saw beauty. I saw it maybe 5 additional times in the span of two years. I read many articles, blog posts, and papers on the film. It became my favorite film. I don't know if i can explain very well what effect the film had on me, but it was a gargantuan influence on my spirituality. It really got me into a world of professors, and ideas that I never thought to look into. My interpretation of the film is solely unique to me. Though I believe the film has many things to say on human nature, love, the afterlife, morality, and life in general. I believe this will be even more influential as I just purchased the blu-ray and plan on viewing the film quite often.

Thank you very much for reading if you happen to have made it this far! Please keep up the friendly discussion, and thank you for the post!

The simple reason why so many can't really explain why they disliked or liked that movie is cause this movie doesn't live from a plot that is to understand or not to understand - it lives from the emotional impression it leaves on people.
So either it leaves you all in awe or it leaves you untouched.
And this has absolutely nothing to do with a lack of intelligence, like a lot of people claim on this board, but with your personal taste and your personal understanding from film making.

It's a while ago I watched it, I visited this board a couple of times since, and every time I read the first post of someone that started with "If you don't love this movie you didn't understand it." I instantly felt averse to even join the debate.

The request to explain why people either like or dislike "Tree of Life" is like asking people to explain why they dislike or like a painting of Jackson Pollock.
Either it speaks to you or not.

Though I'm a lover of arty movies I count to those who highly disliked it.
What is to explain about a movie that comes along as a stringing of photography and sound?
Yes, they are fragments of a plot, and many people may find something really profound in that fragments, but I didn't. And the visual representation just didn't speak to me.
PERSONALLY, to ME, it was simply vacous and it bored me stiff, it just didn't touch me. But that doesn't mean others cannot enjoy it. Good for them.

It's like with instrumental music, either a tune awakes good or not so good feelings in the listener.

I find the debates whether someone is intelligent or mature enough to "understand" this movie pretty ridiculous, to be honest.
To each their own.

I enjoy thought provoking films, visual films, and would consider myself very open to all film and most things in general.

That said...I almost turned it off while watching. I saw this film maybe a year ago so I'm reflecting a bit. The problem with this film is that someone, the editor maybe, needed to reign in malick. I'm gonna say 90% of people need limits placed on them in order to produce greatness. The limit can be money, direction, casting, run time etc. and normally some combination of everything. A clear example of what happens when someone's allowed to do whatever they want without restraint is george lucas.

What I'll call the focal point of this film, the family story, was amazingly written, shot, and acted. Personally it hit some nerves with my own childhood. Brad Pitt nailed another impressive performance of which he has been on quite a run leading up to and through this film.

The point I almost turned the film off was during that formation of the universe scene. There is absolutely no reason it needed to be so long. If I recall correctly, it was about 20 minutes long and ended with a dinosaur deciding to step on but not kill another in an obviously vulnerable state. The scene went on at least 10-15 minutes after my initial, 'when is this going to end' moment. If malick thought the universe formation was integral to the film, fine. Yes it was visually stunning but showcases the problems with this film.

The editing, not editing of the individual scenes, but of the film as a whole was poor. Things felt out of place and not in the allow-your-mind-to-think way. At this moment I'm drawing parallels to art that is made because the artist wants to see how far he can sell the boundaries of what art is. A la the extreme end of andy warhol. To me, once you start thinking about doing that you're no longer making art, you're playing with people. Back to the film, haha, the pace of the film, which is often overlooked as a measure but extremely important, was horrible. As a viewer you had no bearings and I feel that was not the intention of the film.

Its dull. I truly feel that any critics who said they got it were lying. I expected a point to the film but it never came. It is boring. ANd im not attention seeking and I dont want people saying im dumb because i dont get it. Films should have some level of engagement if it does not it fails its main purpose. It cant make you think or reflect if you dont engage with it.

http://whatculture.com/gaming/batman-6-existing-characters-arkham-knig ht.php

[deleted]

I didn't like The Tree of Life. It has exceptional visuals but no narration or story. Things happen here and there but it is boring to watch. The best thing I can say about it is that it was like watching an animated painting. But a great thing about paintings is that it's fine to look at one for just 10 seconds glance before walking away if you don't like it and you won't be considered to be an uneducated rube.