MovieChat Forums > The Tree of Life (2011) Discussion > Shallow reasons many like this film

Shallow reasons many like this film

posted 12 years ago by knoxfan2008
125 replies | jump to latest

I am sick of people claiming that this lazy and unoriginal film is amazing.

There are 3 Shallow arguments that are used for this films defense.

the first is: "But the cinematography is beautiful and look rlly pretty"

A film should be based on its content more than its beauty. For example, Citizen Kane is considered a masterpiece because it had intriguing characters and a fascinating plot, the great visual effects enhance the movie. If KANE had not looked so beautiful, it would still be loved due to its content.

Tree of life however, has only visual effects going for it. The images are not even unique, they are images we have seen a million times before in documentaries and television shows. The cinematography alone doesn't make a good film. Yet this film has barely anything else. If this film was the exact same, yet did not have the same effects, you would absolutely hate this film, even if the shallow 'storyline' was the same. We are told never to judge someone solely on how they look, yet this is exactly how you judge this film

2nd: "but its Terrence Mallick"
If this film were the exact same yet wasn't directed by Mallick, at least half of the films fans would not care for it at all.

3rd and worst: "If you don't like it, it's because you don't understand and you're not deep"
Anyone who uses this excuse has already lost the argument. I can say the same thing about literally any other movie "you just don't understand what the conflicts present in Grown ups 2 represent" see? easy

Films are supposed to be open to interpretation, but this film is a blank slate for people to create their own interpretations. Its Twilight for the 'intellectual' hipsters.

This film was lazy, uninspired, unoriginal and infuriating. The fact that this got praise was only due to Mallick's name. And anyone claiming this is 'deep' and we don't understand... Fail to realize that you have been manipulated by a lazy, shallow yet pretty-looking movie

[–] jab670 12 years ago

Citizen Kane might have been loved for its content at its time but people would not have remembered it if it were not for its aesthetic progression. And Citizen Kane is not an apt comparison to the Tree of Life. That film is more similar to silent era films like Earth and French New Wave films like Jules et Jim.

I do not know anyone who argues the Tree of Life is good because of its cinematography alone. I think that's a straw man argument.

Regarding your second point, I do not believe that is true. You can even look at a film that is not necessarily similar but close-enough for comparison: Beasts of the Southern Wild. And that was a success from a first-time director.

I'm not sure what you mean "this film is a blank slate for people to create their own interpretations". I strongly disagree with you that the film was lazy or uninspired, perhaps uninspiring, but not uninspired. Even a blind man can see Malick's passion to make this film and how it is the film his career has worked toward. Perhaps it is a failure, but uninspired or lazy is not an accurate statement for what I think you meant as being unremarkable.

[–] knoxfan2008 12 years ago

It is a blank slate. It portrays images of space and nature (we have seen a million times), and then the viewers conjure up their own interpretations, when there is no substance to it. I assure you that the only reason people like this film is for the visuals. Absolutely it is lazy from a character and storyline perspective. There is nothing unique, nothing brave and nothing inspired about this film, a director saying "i'm gonna get people to make images of space on their computers for over 2 hours" is certainly a lazy directing stance.

The editors and cinematographers may have worked hard, but this is the kind of crap Mr Brainwash would make if he had a big budget

[–] Catrician 12 years ago

It certainly had a number of intended meanings.

Jack looking at the jack that held the car up signified his thoughts about wanting to kill his father. That one's a pretty obvious one.

Or: Jack coming out of the underwater house signifying the birth of himself (not sure on this one, haven't seen the film in a couple of months but it's something at least similar to that). Again, relatively simple to grasp.

Then you have more scenes that are a little more open to interpretation, like the beach scene (I understand that it's an afterlife scene and setting, but there are many different interpretations from what I can understand).

I love the visuals, the acting, the script, the character development (Jack is a 3 dimensional character, one of the most rounded out in recent memory). Sure it's not all that original; Malick used many different techniques that were already in place to make the film, but he brought them all together to make a masterpiece.

Every frame in the film is only in there because Malick wanted it there. He knows that the audience isn't stupid and gives them the ability to interpret some things, but he certainly has rather obvious implications in a number of scenes.

Writer for WhatCulture.com
Top 100 is here: http://www.imdb.com/list/mduBIpnlpTA/

[–] jab670 12 years ago

For one, there are plenty of experimental films that do what you describe, which is collecting random images and juxtaposing them for the audience to interpret.

But there is nothing in the Tree of Life that describes that. In fact, there's nothing about the film's style that didn't emerge from the film's content and substance. Perhaps you were looking for something far more in depth or unique, but I do not think that was the point of the film. Nothing in the film suggests he wanted to make something atypical, but rather, something everyone can relate to directly.

[–] knoxfan2008 12 years ago

Jack is definitely a very simple character, Someone with father issues. Yet the father is not the most horrible person ever, he is in fact rather toned back compared to what his character could have been. Jack is no-where near a fully realized character, and his whole hatred of his father comes off as totally melodramatic.

I have to disagree, he certainly wanted to make something atypical, he's a competent director who has made much more interesting and profound films so this film comes off as massively Lazy and "student film cliched" by comparison. If he wanted to make a film that everyone could relate to, he wouldn't have made this Oscar-bait film.

The fact that this film has been admired by so many critics as "a masterpiece" is so disappointing, especially when there are thousands of films with more interesting and complex things to say out there.

[–] Catrician 12 years ago

His dad could have been worse, but that's the thing - he wasn't. TONS of kids will have these feelings towards their parents, who aren't necessarily abusive per se, but very strict. I'll admit, I got pissed off at my mom a whole lot when I was younger, similar to the way Jack felt towards his dad. I love my mom to death now but it's a story that I feel like many can relate to, as kids of course.

I wouldn't call his father hatred melodramatic in the slightest; it's something that few films ever really touch on, probably because it's an awkward time and many are embarrassed to say that they can relate to Jack.

He made something a little different but what is film without experimentation? It's a nice change of pace from his other films; don't get me wrong, I love me some Malick, but I need a small change of pace at least from the rest of his masterpieces. I also wouldn't call the film Oscar bait at all; the only thing that might signify that is the ensemble cast (which I would say is probably because every actor in Hollywood wants to work with Malick).

It's true, there are plenty of films with more interesting things to say. It's true, they're not in mainstream films. It's true, one has to search a little more to find them. But few can match the raw beauty and emotions put forth in The Tree of Life; also, have you seen that script? It's fantastic.

Writer for WhatCulture.com
Top 100 is here: http://www.imdb.com/list/mduBIpnlpTA/

[–] knoxfan2008 12 years ago

It doesn't matter what the original script is. It's about the final product.

"Few films touch on"? Every second film out there has a character who has a terrible relationship with their dad.

And you are obviously going into this thing with the mindset "Terrence mallick makes masterpieces" so you are clearly massively biased in his favour.

There's a difference at getting pissed off at a parent, and contemplating murder, and celebrating when they are not around. It just made Jessica Chastain and the kids look like sheltered little drama queens.

[–] jab670 12 years ago

Why is it everyone who bashes Malick's work adds a second "L" to his last name? It's not a difficult last name, and every those who bash Spielberg or Kubrick misspell their names as Spiellburg or Kubbric.

Anyway, perhaps you watch a lot of father/son films, but that seems a bit of an overestimate that every second film is about that.

But you're right, the final product is what's more important and The Tree of Life's final product is fascinating and significant entry in his filmography and cinema history. I personally find it a bit more flawed than To the Wonder or Badlands, but it's in many ways more important than either film.

I'm not certain what you're looking for in a film that makes your opinion any less biased.

[–] Catrician 12 years ago

The script plays a part in the final product, so of course it matters. The final product matters more as a final effort is able to overcome issues in pacing, acting, etc. but to say the script does not matter is ludicrous.

I don't know about you, but many of the films I see with an abusive dad are rather one sided; whereas in TToL Jack's dad clearly is three-dimensional, wanting to be strict and to have his sons succeed.

When did I say I went into this film with that mindset? Malick's in my top 10 directors, and of course I'm biased; we all are. Since all of his films that I've seen have at least been very good, then I was expecting this one to be as well. There is nothing wrong with that kind of mindset.

You hit the nail on the head, there. It's something neither you nor I would do now, but as kids, who knows? My mom left for a soccer tournament one weekend a few years and I was overjoyed; me and my dad got to hang out the entire weekend. Again, few films really touch on this, when you get down to it, or few films honestly portray it with a non-single minded view.

Writer for WhatCulture.com
Top 100 is here: http://www.imdb.com/list/mduBIpnlpTA/

[–] icypierre 11 years ago

I agree with knoxfan2008 on this one. Jack was simple character with cheesy melodramatic father issues. And it seemed to me like he was aiming for Atypical with the whole white family in 1950s Texas. What other purpose would they serve? And what about the random Magma, darkness and nature scenes is appealing to everybody?

[–] mankhural 11 years ago

The whole point isn't that Jack = Person with father issues. The point is to explore what that can feel like. The immense hatred that grows internally within Jack is valid. When you are a little child and your world is as small as your immediate surroundings, Jack's situation is completely understandable. His father is strict sometimes and then relaxed sometimes. A child is left constantly on guard for the worst. Old Jack realizes that his hatred for his father was not deserved considering that his father was under immense burdens financially.

Try watching this again while putting yourself into the film. Treat each frame as your experience. The movie doesn't have anything to say. The movie does have a lot it can make you feel and experience.

[–] delriosong 9 years ago

I don't know how old you are. I and all my contemporaries were raised by people born about the time that the father would have been. Almost all of them were very much or exactly like him. They were the Depression Babies. They grew up in want and uncertainty and it had a psychological effect on them.

Just like "Duck and Cover" had a psychological effect on the next couple of generations.

The fact that this film has been admired by so many critics as "a masterpiece" is so disappointing, especially when there are thousands of films with more interesting and complex things to say out there.

I don't believe what film critics say anymore than I do the heads on the news. In my cynicism I firmly believe that if you have a microphone in 2016 you are using it to set an agenda for powers that have the ability to crush them at will.

Peace. Out.

I've lived upon the edge of chance for 20 years or more...
Del Rio's Song

[–] PsychoDingo 11 years ago

so you're saying that...

you completely understood the central theme that was laid out in the first five minutes of The Tree of Life, and...

you picked up on the many demonstrations of that theme throughout the rest of the movie, and...

you fully grasped the thematic purpose of Jack's character, as well as the conclusions drawn by the movie with respect to Jack's fulfillment of purpose and the outcome thereof...

...and yet you believe that your description of the movie as "a blank slate" has any credibility whatsoever?

given your comprehensive understanding of the film, how did you manage to come to the "blank slate" conclusion, and what makes you think that anyone else who understood the film would agree that it is without substance and relies on viewers to conjure up their own interpretations?

if you can convincingly answer those questions, then I will tip my hat to you for achieving an impressive feat of reasoning, which I had not previously considered possible...a logical coup d'etat, if you will

They'll hang you as sure as 10 dimes will buy a dollar

[–] knoxfan2008 11 years ago

you completely understood the central theme that was laid out in the first five minutes of The Tree of Life, and...

They literally never said that. The thematic purpose of Jacks character was simple and base. This film is a blank slate for those to insert their own personality into the slot.

You just say that people who don't like it 'don't understand' because you are insecure and in denial that there are those who can see through this rather bland, unoriginal film, with derivative themes.

BTW, next time you try to establish yourself as an intellectual, remember to start sentences with a capital letter...

[–] j_money77 11 years ago

I don't think the Tree of Life is supposed to be a blank slate, but I do think it's something, like a lot of works of art, where you get something different out of based on what you bring to it. Then again, authorial intent sometimes becomes meaningless…people will typically project their own viewpoints on anything after a while (saw a movie recently where people try to has out The Shining as a number of things including a film about native-american genocide, the holocaust and fake moon landings as well as read some criticism where people try to speculate that Milton wrote Paradise Lost as an explicit attempt to criticize the failure of Cromwellian and post cromwellian authority…all of these hypothesis seem off base to me, but people who brought certain baggage with them to those works seemed to have gotten that out of it…I wouldn't blame that on Kubrick or Milton, in a similar way I don't think Malick can be responsible for people projecting blank slates onto his film, it's not singular or indicative of a films quality.)

That's not a negative trait in my opinion (getting something new based on how/when you consume something), has happened to me with a lot of books and movies. I remember trying to read Moby Dick as a wee lad and I couldn't get much further than Queeqag and Ishmael sharing a bed in the seaport or tossing my copy of Absalom Absalom against the wall the first time I tried to read it or being pretty unaffected by Sansho the Bailiff the first time I watched, even with the Tree of Life, I remember responding to it differently the second time I saw it than the first.

For each of these, I reattempted said works several years after my first try and found all of them to be great works of art and highly affecting. A lot of times my mood or circumstances in life can influence how i'll respond to something.

[–] TheCineSinge 11 years ago

"i'm gonna get people to make images of space on their computers for over 2 hours" is certainly a lazy directing stance."

This shows just how little you know.

Terrence Malick deliberately sought out Doug Trumbell to create SPECIFICALLY non-computer generated images for the film - save from the dinosaurs (obviously).
He went to find a man who had not worked in special effects for over 30 years because he cared so deeply about getting the visuals right.
He did not just "make images of space on his computer for 2 hours": he couldn't have been more meticulous in creating those images with real gases, liquids, objects, different camera shutter speeds, special lenses and all the rest.
The work that must have went into it is unimaginable.

Christ, I'm infuriated I had to write this.

[–] franzkabuki 12 years ago

"The fact that this got praise was only due to Mallick`s name".

Well, no. And the same applies even if we were talking about Malick.

"It portrays images of space and nature and then the viewers conjure up their own interpretations".

Luckily, there are these scenes with Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain and the kids - scenes that the OP seems to have missed entirely - that help us out a great deal there.

"I assure you that the only reason people like this film is for the visuals".

That is probably the `main` thing as the visual aesthetic is indeed the most impressive aspect of it, but certainly not the `only` thing... but, of course, misrepresentation of the opponents` argument is indeed always such a cosy position from which to approach things. And I see yet another personage is stubbornly keeping the notions of "visuals" and "substance" apart while they`re, of course, inseparably interlinked.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] knoxfan2008 12 years ago

Franz, mate, stop trying to sound smart, ur last paragraph came off as trying waaaaaayyy too hard.

Just because they put scenes with Brad Pitt and Chastain in for a very small portion of the film does not help us out. In fact, it shows us brief glimpses and then decides not to develop them any further, instead going back to the safe and easy nature shots. If this film was smart, it would have been brave enough to develop the blank-slate characters more. Not just show nature shots and CGI dinosaurs with overused classical music overthetop.

[–] franzkabuki 12 years ago

Pitt and Chastain (and the kids) were not "in a very small portion of the film" by any stretch of imagination. As for "not developing them more", well, Malick has never done character studies, choosing to present a more cosmic view of things (that said, he does draw a convincing enough picture of the forces and experiences that shaped the protagonist`s character. The only problem is that the adult version of the protagonist, as played by Sean Penn, remains rather underwritten).

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] jab670 12 years ago

I agree with you Franz.

I don't know where this obsession came from about "character development", but for some reason that's perceived as the most essential element of a film. A film can be character-driven, plot-driven, or concept-driven (the latter being more like a visual essay).

Malick's characters, to the contrary, are very developed. Especially if you read the screenplay. But he is more interested in symbols and archetypes. It's especially clear with The Tree of Life and To the Wonder. One of his editors even said he cut out most of the dialogue from To the Wonder because the more they spoke, the more specific they became and less representative of the general male and female.

You can view this as a poor choice, but it seems logical. Especially with the inspirations he's taken from the Bible. Ever see "character development" in the Bible? No. But it doesn't make the stories in it any less substantial. To me, it seems Malick is making modern day fables.

[–] Lem_Fliggity 12 years ago

I think character development is a vastly overrated trope. When it comes to good stories, characterization is far more important. We need more well-written, internally consistent, believable people, not Ebenezer Scrooges who change over the course of the film.

That being said, there is character development in The Tree of Life. Mr. O'Brien, in fact, undergoes a profound transformation, to the point that toward the end, he remarks that he missed the glory of life (or something to that effect). Compare the tearful, mumbling man following R.L.'s death to the young, cocksure authoritarian who lectures his sons at every turn and tell me the film has no character development. The same goes for Mrs. O'Brien.

This development is presented unconventionally, primarily visually, and requires our emotional engagement to fully recognize, which is why it seemingly flies over the heads of viewers like knoxfan2008 who seem to prefer a more formulaic structure and style. Conventional films use exposition to deliver important plot and character beats, TTOL uses imagery and editing.

It's like in life: we can rarely be sure what a stranger is thinking or feeling, whereas we can judge our close friends' and loved ones' emotional states in a flash. The more you engage with TTOL, the more you recognize and understand.

hurried up for waiting

[–] LordElrondd 12 years ago

Dude. We can't take someone seriously when they use 'ur' in their sentence.

Put your trust in God.Your ass belongs to me.

[–] icypierre 11 years ago

Again, going to have to agree with knoxfan2008 here. Choosing not to further develop the characters or even go into detail about the rumored but never realized "Death in the family" that was mentioned earlier in the film shows that he was using the whole Family arc to distract from the nature shots and vise-versa. but it all goes wrong because this movie Failed to realize it's potential on both fronts. I think the editing had a lot do with that as well. This movie is so very long but so very shallow. NOT a good combination. I spent the last hour waiting for it to end. I admire the Directors attempt, Like with Cloud Atlas. But it just didn't work in the end.

[–] Lem_Fliggity 12 years ago

"I assure you that the only reason people like this film is for the visuals."

It's funny you say that, because Malick has been striving for a purely visual form of storytelling. He's like Lynd Ward that way. Film is a visual medium, after all.

The plot, the meaning, the themes, are there in the imagery. You cannot honestly say that the film is a blank slate given the similarity of critics' and fans' interpretations. The Tree of Life is only as open to interpretation as any other piece of art. You're just not used to watching a movie that isn't filled with exposition, and you're having trouble adjusting. It's okay, I went through it too. You just have to acclimate yourself.

The Twilight comparison makes absolutely zero sense in context of what you wrote before it. It's obviously just an attempt at insult in lieu of critique. Your comparison to Citizen Kane is likewise poor, as it is a film remembered for its groundbreaking technical, visual, and editorial achievements. "Fascinating plot" and "intriguing characters" are opinions that not everyone shares. Kane's influence on cinema is entirely because of what Welles achieved with his camera.

Face it, you don't like this style of visual storytelling. You like your plot delivered via exposition. That's fine. Accept that and move along. But calling TTOL "lazy" and "uninspired" because you don't like the style is lazy and uninspired.

hurried up for waiting

[–] jab670 12 years ago

[–] knoxfan2008 12 years ago

"you're just not used to watching a film that isn;t filled with explosions"
well done, nice call u Elitist moron...

I can say the same thing with you and other films, "You just don't like (insert film here) because it isn't filled with CGI dinosaurs. You sheltered little brat"

You probably criticize films like transformers 2 for being nothing but visuals, and then turn around and say this film is solely acceptable because of the visuals. :)

[–] jab670 12 years ago

You probably criticize films like transformers 2 for being nothing but visuals, and then turn around and say this film is solely acceptable because of the visuals. :)

That's just non-sense. There's soooo much to hate about Transformers 2, like racism and incoherent plot, that its visuals would probably be the last thing I'd even think to mention. Had you said Transformers 1 then you might have an argument.

[–] LordElrondd 12 years ago

Not to mention the robots. they get on my *beep* nerves!

Put your trust in God.Your ass belongs to me.

[–] Catrician 12 years ago

The thing with a film like Transformers 2 is that I can't really see what deeper material might be there, whereas I definitely can with The Tree of Life.

Writer for WhatCulture.com
Top 100 is here: http://www.imdb.com/list/mduBIpnlpTA/

[–] jab670 12 years ago

Transformers 2 is a hack job. They rushed it into production with a first draft script because of the WGA strikes. The first and third are at least fun and have pretty good CGI, though.

[–] Thought_Criminal_J62377 12 years ago

Transformers 2 is probably more intellectually stimulating to you knoxfan and as far as criticizing Franz for sounding ignorant you should read your own comments. 'Nowhere' is NOT hyphenated for example. I've read all your comments to this point, and before you decided to critique Franz, I already had the feeling you weren't highly educated from the presentation of your arguments. Your arguments are very weak and very childish.

[–] knoxfan2008 12 years ago

Wow, nice call man, hitting me where it hurts, my inability to hyphenate... Even though you clearly should have put a comma in your first sentence, but who cares?

Anyway, you act as if "getting the point" of Tree of Life is difficult. No, it's easy and way too cliched and derogative of so many other works. Also, why am I ignorant for not liking a film? Just because i don't like this film with 1. A multi-million dollar budget 2. Huge name actors 3. Acclaimed by snooty critics 4. and nominated for several Academy Award, that means I have no intelligence? Wow nice argument...

Trust me, you are all really 'deep' and 'intellectual' for liking this average and very safe film.

I don't care if you like a film, but don't act as whiny,melodramatic elitists when someone disagrees with you.

I guess I shouldn't bother talking to people who only enjoy films that have a heap of CGI. (See? Anyone can make that kind of bull-crap argument...)
^
(hey look! I used a hyphen, that makes me an intellectual!)

[–] Catrician 12 years ago

I don't care if you like a film

I am sick of people claiming that this lazy and unoriginal film is amazing.

I'm done here. This is one of the greatest films of all time, I'm sorry you're not seeing it.

Writer for WhatCulture.com
Top 100 is here: http://www.imdb.com/list/mduBIpnlpTA/

[–] Lem_Fliggity 12 years ago

"you're just not used to watching a film that isn;t filled with explosions"
well done, nice call u Elitist moron...

I said, "You're just not used to watching a movie that isn't filled with exposition." Not explosions. Try copying and pasting a quote next time instead of retyping it.

hurried up for waiting

[–] knoxfan2008 12 years ago

My main gripe is when people get all butt-hurt when someone disagrees with them about such an ordinary film.

"filled with exposition"

Okay, maybe I typed explosion instead of exposition but my point is still exactly the same. There are tonnes of great films that have heaps of exposition, just because someone doesn't like a film, you claim that it's because that person can't handle a different film? Your argument is still ridiculous and cheap.

And I am sick of people claiming that this flawed and unoriginal film is flawless and then attack others 'cause they do not like people disagreeing with them

[–] LordElrondd 12 years ago

I need to jump in here; I don't think anyone ever named this film as 'flawless'. there is no such a thing as a flawless movie.

and I believe the argument here is this: You don't understand this film. You're not used to this style of film making. better stick with Iron man 3 and Dogma or whatever else you enjoy.

No one is attacking you here. we're merely suggesting that you should try other films. instead of bashing something that is clearly out of your league.

Also, calling the film "uninspired" and "lazy" is a bit immature and close-mined. Just a tiny bit.

Put your trust in God.Your ass belongs to me.

[–] knoxfan2008 11 years ago

"Clearly out of your league" are you serious? A 5 year old can easily figure out the meaning of this film. Stop acting like a wannabe pseudo-intellectual.

[–] mike-seaman 11 years ago

There is a difference between novels and poetry, avant-garde filmmaking or music is more akin to poetry than it is to a novel. Expositional films are more akin to novels than poetry. One isn't better, but they are essentially different. You seem to be arguing that only novel and that form of expression are valid and anyone who disagrees is a "pseudo-intellectual" trying to sound smart.

I love both. Young Frankenstein, Die Hard, Tremors, Fargo, a ton of Hitchcock movies all being among my favorite movies. I am also in love with The Tree of Life.

The movie is not simple, not anymore than well-crafted poem. The few words spoken, including those in the background, are very purposeful and display deep themes regarding wrestling with faith, death, grace, and the pragmatism of nature. Malick paraphrases the bible, Soren Kierkegaard, and St. Augustine in dialogue of his characters throughout the film, that's not accidental or lazy and not something a 5 year old would know.

[–] Lem_Fliggity 11 years ago

You're still not getting it.

It's perfectly fair to say that one of the reasons people don't like this film is that the plot can be difficult to understand, and the reason that it's difficult is because the story is told visually - in fact, in many cases symbolically - instead of through dialogue. Audiences are taught how to understand films. We're not born with it, we're taught how to watch films by filmmakers and screenwriters who have built a bag of tricks that work really well in communicating plot, theme, and meaning. Malick has thrown that bag out the window - for better or worse - and is attempting to tell stories in a different way. That makes his films more challenging. It's like reading a different language.

You're taking it personally that I'm pointing out this simple fact, because you think it means I think you're stupid. I don't. I do, however, think you have trouble separating your personal reaction to the film from a critical analysis of what Malick's goals and means of execution are.

hurried up for waiting

[–] OldSamVimes 11 years ago

My main gripe is when people get all butt-hurt when someone disagrees with them about such an ordinary film.

And yet this whole thread reads like a bunch of whining by someone who is 'butt-hurt'.

[–] DonnyMovieMan 12 years ago

You should just admit that people see great things in this movie that you do not that are ACTUALLY there and beyond that it's a good looking movie. I see depth and significance in it. The film has meaning. I'm positive it does. It's not just a stupid interpretation of mine and I'm not pretending to like it. You don't see it. That's fine, but it's not shallow.

[–] coolbrett 11 years ago

I agree that there are MANY people who like this movie for shallow reasons, but it doesn't mean the rest of us who like it are shallow. I loved it because it was just a beautiful poem about life. It had perfectly paced poetic rhythm. The acting was amazing. I can't really explain beyond that. I loved the beautiful shots of nature of all kinds, but I think I loved the second half the most. The scenes with the family. For some reason I was just enthralled with what I was seeing, even if it seemed pointless to many people. It comes back to the poetic rhythm and flow. You're just glued to the screen and don't know why. Also, Roger Ebert thinks this movie is a masterpiece and is on his greatest movie list OF ALL TIME. I know one man's opinion isn't the be all and end all, but being the most famous movie reviewer of all time and is a known intellectual, I kinda value his opinion. Not that I was relying on it..

[–] tobias_681 11 years ago

A film should be based on its content more than its beauty

Personally I do give a *beep* if the movie has a plot at all. I watched "Chronos" yesterday. There is some sort of plot going on (more or less). But it leaves very much to you and has no dialouge at all and no actors. It is in my opinion a masterpiece and I loved it. Same goes for Tree of Life.

I guess you have your reasons for not liking it and I don't see how you could understand it even if I tried to explain. So let's just leave it as this: I loved it - you hated it (I guess you did since you made such a post).

You see things; and you say Why? But I dream things that never were and I say Why not?

[–] OldSamVimes 11 years ago

So you sit around and judge how deep or shallow other peoples reasons for liking a movie are?

Anonymous strangers on the internet? Seriously? Are you 5 years old?

People don't pretend to like a movie you don't like to appear smarter than you on the internet. Please don't make yourself seem insecure by believing this. Alternatively, you may need to get over yourself if you believe you're so important that strangers on the internet will lie and sit through movies they don't like just to seem smarter than you. Everyone has different tastes in movies and it's not personal.

I laugh at the pretentiousness of people who think anonymous strangers on the internet are going to give a crap that you think they're pretentious.

[–] knoxfan2008 11 years ago

Pretentious? Just read one of your reviews... You think people give a crap bout your poorly written reviews about how SALO is a masterpiece and Antichrist is great? Go suck off Wes Anderson and T Malick some more kiddo.

[–] xrayzrofl 11 years ago

People don't pretend to like a movie you don't like to appear smarter than you on the internet.

Yes they do. Peoples' motivations aren't always as clear cut as you just put it.

Some might end up thinking the movie is brilliant while not being exactly sure why. These people may feel like being called on their BS when they find that they have been admiring a blank slate, which would put them in auto-defence mode even before they've truly analyzed their own position and their arguments in support of their position. Or they might just refuse to accept that what they ended up liking was a figment of their imagination, loaded with emotional data from sound effects, whispers, clouds, trees and a merciful dinosaur.

[–] franzkabuki 11 years ago

"Yes they do".

There is no basis to such a statement, no reason to believe any significant number of people report liking something in order to appear "smarter" or whatever. Particularly in an anonymous forum like this one, which actually discourages group think or false claims borne out of some wannabe snobbery or wanting to belong in some kind of cultural "elite".

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] Nolegirl97 11 years ago

WELL GODAMNIT I LOVED IT AND SEND ME TO HELL OR CINEMA PRISON FOR IT. SO *beep* WHAT IF YOU LOVE A MOVIE BECAUSE IT IS BEAUTIFUL AND EVOKES EMOTIONS FROM SIMPLE IMAGES.

all of you that are trying to make arguments against this movie are ironically acting more pretentious than the movie that you claim is pretentious