MovieChat Forums > The Tree of Life (2011) Discussion > Perhaps the best movie of all time.

Perhaps the best movie of all time.

posted 10 years ago by abominablesnowbat
41 replies | jump to latest

Just phenomenal! Absolutely wondrous and mesmerizing, so alive.

I know the pure literary types seem to hate Malick, but there is more to the world than novels and this guy is an incredible story teller in film and he is one who realizes that film is different format than a book. It probably helps if you are one who is full of awe and wonder and not the sort who drives past a glorious sunset or maple tree in the fall in a state of complete obliviousness. A quick visual flash can transmit the emotions, thought, ideas of 10,000 words and some seem to entirely miss this when it comes to most of his films.

The New World was fantastic too in the same way.

[–] romefan123 10 years ago

Grand post. If I had to take a true dark-horse, and say, what film puts all of it together...emotion, scenery, music, acting...this just might be it.

"Get the point...get the point!" Terry Silver Karate Kid III

[–] scorsese-1 10 years ago

Not the best, but in the top ten all time. Masterpiece. Malick is a genius.

[–] !!!deleted!!! (33407653) 10 years ago

Here are ten that are better that perhaps you should check out:

Battleship Potemkin (1925)
Sunrise (1927)
Dodsworth (1936)
Citizen Kane (1941)
Casablanca (1942)
All About Eve (1950)
Singin' in the Rain (1952)
North by Northwest (1959)
2001, a Space Odyssey (1968)
Chinatown (1974)

There are more, probably a thousand or so, but these ten are a good start. Of course these are films and that could be the difference.

[–] abominablesnowbat 10 years ago

blah blah blah

they are all FILMS, "Tree Of Life" including

and I've seen 7 of those, all 7 of those that I saw were great, but not a match for "Tree Of Life"

[–] !!!deleted!!! (33407653) 10 years ago

Casablanca is not as good as Tree of Life? Well yours is definitely a minority opinion, but it is yours and you are entitled to it. As I am mine. I do have to say that I am mystified. When a vanity project like this (I hesitate to call it a film) is as bad as this one is that some people cannot or refuse to see what a mockery of the film medium it is.

[–] abominablesnowbat 10 years ago

Or maybe some are just too stuck on a film having be too much like literature and turn their noses up at anything that is actually MORE filmic than most films.

[–] !!!deleted!!! (33407653) 10 years ago

Yeah, I guess I am hung up in that I kind of like my films to have some semblance of a plot, maybe a little characterization, maybe even some logic and reason. And maybe you don't. But anyone who told me that they thought that this was a better than Casablanca, well let me be polite.

[–] abominablesnowbat 10 years ago

So what you are trying to say is that you are rigid, stuck-up and lacking in a sense of wonder and imagination. Hey, it takes all types.
(BTW I do like Casablanca a LOT. It's just that I'm not simplistically stuck on a single form.)

[–] !!!deleted!!! (33407653) 10 years ago

Rigid, stuck-up? Well I don't think so. I have seen many films, all or almost all the classics and I do think I have a sense or wonder and imagination. It is just that I do not think that The Tree of Life does. It seems to be a movie made by Terence Malick for Terence Malick. I have no idea what it means and I do not find what is there on the screen compelling enough for me to try to figure out what he means. To me there is no there there. But that is my opinion, which I am certainly allowed to have. It is true that I find it difficult to understand what anyone sees in this film but if it gives you close to the same amount of pleasure I have received from seeing films like Wild Strawberries, The Best Years of Our Lives, Hair, or Annie Hall, just to name four out of a couple of thousand, who am I to argue?

[–] wheresjoeysmovie 9 years ago

Couldn't possibly agree with you more nyrunner. Many of my favorite films have a sense of awe and wonder. The only "awe and wonder" this film has (imo) is Malick for himself and the sheep came to pasture.

[–] abominablesnowbat 9 years ago

What does sheep have to do with anything?
I'm not some groupie and, my mom, this was the first film of his she had ever seen and she thought it was one the greatest films she had ever seen. She could hardly be a groupie of his if she didn't even seen a single one of his films before.

[–] antvolley 9 years ago

Exactly. In this (post?) post-modern age the idea of medium specificity is almost frowned upon but one of the things that makes Tree of Life such a great film is that it accomplishes effects that would be (in many cases) impossible to replicate in any other medium.

"Hot lesbian witches!"

[–] !!!deleted!!! (33407653) 9 years ago

Well those glorious effects you mention were totally lost on me and, judging by the fact that half the audience of the screening I attended walked out, were lost on alot of other people as well. Maybe I am just old fashioned. I expect the films I admire or just like to have something, some plot, for instance, or some characterization, or some coherance. As for me, I was simply bored. As I watched the end credits roll I was deeply envious of those who had walked out. But it was not a total loss. I had long thought that Mallick was overrated. After this travesty I regarded my prior opinion as too kind.

[–] abominablesnowbat 9 years ago

Just because you are so utterly verbal that you can't pick up on deeply rich plot delivered in different fashion doesn't mean those who can are wrong.

It's like someone who is red-green color blind trashing a painting and saying that it's pure trash without doubt because all the red and green just merges together and it all looks visually dull. Just because you are incapable of seeing something doesn't mean that others might not legitimately see and get things out of it that you are simply unable to.

[–] antvolley 9 years ago

Definitely agreee. It's an academically outdated idea now but as far as "medium specificity"....no one makes films as "purely" filmic as Malick. Not these days anyway.

"Hot lesbian witches!"

[–] scorsese-1 10 years ago

In the top 10.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jamielow1984 10 years ago

Even better than Sharknado......?

[–] crashdummy35 10 years ago

Even better than Sharknado......?

You ain't kidding.

And here I though:
1.CITIZEN KANE (1941)
2.CASABLANCA (1942)
3.GODFATHER, THE (1972)
4.GONE WITH THE WIND (1939)
5.LAWRENCE OF ARABIA (1962)
6.WIZARD OF OZ, THE (1939)
7.GRADUATE, THE (1967)
8.ON THE WATERFRONT (1954)
9.SCHINDLER'S LIST (1993)
10.SINGIN' IN THE RAIN (1952)
11.IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE (1946)
12.SUNSET BOULEVARD (1950)
13.BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI, THE (1957)
14.SOME LIKE IT HOT (1959)
15.STAR WARS (1977)
16.ALL ABOUT EVE (1950)
17.AFRICAN QUEEN, THE (1951)
18.PSYCHO (1960)
19.CHINATOWN (1974)
20.ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST (1975)
21.GRAPES OF WRATH, THE (1940)
22.2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (1968)
23.MALTESE FALCON, THE (1941)
24.RAGING BULL (1980)
25.E.T. THE EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL (1982)
26.DR. STRANGELOVE (1964)
27.BONNIE & CLYDE (1967)
28.APOCALYPSE NOW (1979)
29.MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (1939)
30.TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE (1948)
31.ANNIE HALL (1977)
32.GODFATHER PART II, THE (1974)
33.HIGH NOON (1952)
34.TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD (1962)
35.IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT (1934)
36.MIDNIGHT COWBOY (1969)
37.BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES, THE (1946)
38.DOUBLE INDEMNITY (1944)
39.DOCTOR ZHIVAGO (1965)
40.NORTH BY NORTHWEST (1959)
41.WEST SIDE STORY (1961)
42.REAR WINDOW (1954)
43.KING KONG (1933)
44.BIRTH OF A NATION, THE (1915)
45.STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE, A (1951)
46.CLOCKWORK ORANGE, A (1971)
47.TAXI DRIVER (1976)
48.JAWS (1975)
49.SNOW WHITE & THE SEVEN DWARFS (1937)
50.BUTCH CASSIDY & THE SUNDANCE KID (1969)
51.PHILADELPHIA STORY, THE(1940)

These movies were infinitely more deserving of that title. Guess that shows I know nothing. Even though I can honestly say I've watched every single one of these movies--including The Tree of Life--and I still feel TToL, is a beautifully filmed movie...as hollow as an f'ing smuggler's leg. Shoulda been titled "The Pretentious Tree of Life."

[–] crashdummy35 10 years ago

Samsara (I) (2011)

Go watch that.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] abominablesnowbat 9 years ago

Tree of Life has nothing to do with the pretentious. In fact, many of the most pretentious people I'm around are the very ones who didn't like it.

[–] abominablesnowbat 9 years ago

well ok maybe not but still second best ain't bad

[–] thechadmer25 10 years ago

I agree. The Tree of Life is my favorite film, and one of the best ever, although I must disagree with you on your argument that 'literary' people can't enjoy it as I consider myself a very literary film-goer. In my mind The Tree of Life is like poetry of stream of consciousness writing. It's a very different approach to telling a story or capturing an emotion.

I find it baffling that so many people are personally offended by this film. There are lots of great films that, like The Tree of Life, don't itemize a traditional plot and rely heavily on images to get the point across, including Man With a Movie Camera, Koyaanisqatsi, Andrei Rublev, Samsara (which a previous commenter mentioned) and 2001: A Space Odyssey.

All of these films are concerned with the language if cinema, as is The Tree of Life.

[–] abominablesnowbat 9 years ago

Sorry, by pure literary types I meant those who simply must have a deeply verbally presented story and didn't mean to include all literary types. I just meant a certain subset of literary types.

[–] coolbrett 9 years ago

Totally agree. Film is totally its own art form. I absolutely adored this film. It touched me in a way I can't describe or explain. It perfectly captured the wondrous creation of life in general.