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

[–] schizophonicguy 11 years ago

wow calm down You're entitled to your opinion as others are too. If people including myself got something out of this movie which I did then there's nothing wrong with that. Some people think 'Swept Away' is a great film lol. I believe in stating your opinion but wow yours seems to be full of a lot of hate and anger. At the end of the day it is just a movie dude. Jessica Chastain is awesome as usual.

[–] j-fillner 11 years ago

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

A film should be based on whatever the *beep* the viewer wants to base it on. This is art, there are no damn rules man.

[–] knoxfan2008 11 years ago

Hence the title "Shallow reasons many like this film"

[–] j-fillner 11 years ago

I'm not referring to the title, I'm referring to something you said in your post. I blatantly laid it out and replied to it. This is not that difficult to grasp.

People can enjoy a film for whatever reason they want, that is why I argued against your claim that "a film should be judged for it's content." I feel like I'm having to repeat myself here.

[–] TheCineSinge 11 years ago

These three "lazy, uninspired, unoriginal". I don't think I've ever disagreed with anything more. Hate the film, fine. But you if you can't see the passion in it then you are completely blind, I'm sorry.

Now, "infuriating" I could understand. For some it may be difficult to watch but to call this shallow defies belief. I don't think I've ever watched or will watch a more inherently ambitious film.

[–] knoxfan2008 11 years ago

I don't understand how this can be seen as the most ambitious film ever. I am calling it shallow. Just because he put heaps of effort into it (maybe into the visuals, but definitely not into the dialogue or characters or the CGI Dinosaurs) does not mean it can't be considered shallow. A lot of this film could be released as parody and I would genuinely believe it was a joke.

[–] j_money77 11 years ago

A lot of this film could be released as parody and I would genuinely believe it was a joke.

^ That's not much of a criticism in my view. A well done parody can make a mockery of anything. Just because someone can get amusement out of the situations, stylistic vision or particulars of a movie or book isn't a commentary about the work in my opinion.

[–] knoxfan2008 11 years ago

All those films you listed were much better than this. And there is a huge difference between Tree of Life and the films you listed. Those films had some sort of unique vision and something interesting to say. This film was just a bunch of pretty pictures over classical music like a lame film-student project, with laughably bad voiceovers. Those other films had substance and whilst ambiguous, were not so ambiguous that every interpretation could randomly be correct. Tree of Life is like a series of wallpapers with nothing to say, so every person that likes this film (and i call *beep* on you not caring about the look of the film, that's hilarious)can draw any interpretation, and that's a lazy film with othing to say.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] knoxfan2008 11 years ago

At least we can both agree that 'To The Wonder' was more hysterical than 'tree of Life'...

[–] franzkabuki 11 years ago

It would appear that most of the films this Dream guy named there, are in fact more open to interpretation than TTOL. And, really, what's so terribly ambiguous about TTOL, anyway? It's a pre-coming-of-age story presented as a fragmented flashback. Not too complicated.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] knoxfan2008 11 years ago

It's not complicated, it just lacks any intelligence. Also, the characters are very weak and one-dimensional. TTOL is SO open to interpretation, i could say anything about what the film 'stands for' and be right, because the thing has no structure or emotional/storytelling ties

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] knoxfan2008 11 years ago

LOL, stop being insecure and hurling insults because you insecure that this film actually isn't very good.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Loincloth 11 years ago

I'm sorry. Every argument you just made boils down to: I didn't like this film, so other people shouldn't either. Because I can't appreciate what other people could from this film, they didn't really feel it: they're just telling themselves they did.

Dude, different people have different opinions, different tastes, and different views of the world.

Grow up, and get over it.

[–] knoxfan2008 11 years ago

No my arguments didn't boil down to that, my arguments were that there was nothing special about this film creatively and that there is nothing truly unique about it to warrant the insane love by some. If you got something out of it, that's fine. But I hate to see people believe something is unique or special when it isn't. Like if someone said "captain America Winter Soldier Is a great, original film", that comments would be just as silly as saying the same for Tree Of Life

[–] Garmonbozia8 10 years ago

But I hate to see people believe something is unique or special when it isn't.

Who are you to be the judge of what can be said to be unique and what can't? I think you need to get over yourself. And why do you care so much about the personal opinions others have about a film? This film affected me deeply, it makes me feel a big array of emotions and it brings tears to my eyes. This film is beautiful and powerful to me and nothing you try to say will ever change that, nor do I need your approval. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

"The artist must know the manner whereby to convince others of the truthfulness of his lies.”

[–] Garmonbozia8 10 years ago

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

The Tree of Life is an amazing work of art. Is that better? :P

I would say the main reason people get so angered by those who praise the film isn't just the reasons they have for liking it, but also that they do not cling to standard expectations of what films should be. When you have no expectations then you can't feel "cheated" when the film doesn't deliver what you expected it to. This feeling of being "cheated" is, what I believe, brings a lot of the haters here to passionately voice how cheated they feel and how stupid people are if they don't also feel cheated.

At the end of the day art films are for appreciators of art, and what frustrates a lot of non-appreciators is that we do not always have a good explanation or reason for why we do appreciate certain works of art. But we don't need to explain ourselves, and that is the beauty of art. It has the power to express things that cannot be easily put into words. It can be its own language.

"The artist must know the manner whereby to convince others of the truthfulness of his lies.”

[–] knoxfan2008 10 years ago

U understand your comment, and i'm not gonna argue with you, but yes I do feel cheated. But I didn't have much of an expectation of this film. I was very open to it, but in the end I felt cheated because the film seemed too easy, too concept-above-execution and barely disciplined. But can you please not use the term 'haters'? Haters is a term used by insecure people who ca't accept valid criticism. It's used by lame pop artists with no integrity like lil Wayne and Miley Cyrus and it's just a terrible self-defense mechanism.

Not to say I don't see where your comment is coming from, just please refrain from calling me a 'hater'. 'Hater' implies jealousy, where if that was the case, i'd hate all of my favourite films due to how jealous of the film-makers I am.

[–] Garmonbozia8 10 years ago

'Hater' implies jealousy

No... it implies hate (obviously).... and since hate is passionate or intense dislike, which, imo, is exactly what you're expressing toward the film and toward its fans, then I don't see how the term is inappropriate.

Haters is a term used by insecure people who ca't accept valid criticism. It's used by lame pop artists with no integrity like lil Wayne and Miley Cyrus and it's just a terrible self-defense mechanism.

If you say so.... but you seem to think that anybody who says anything to you is doing so because they're insecure... interesting...

LOL, stop being insecure and hurling insults because you insecure that this film actually isn't very good.

😯

"The artist must know the manner whereby to convince others of the truthfulness of his lies.”

[–] knoxfan2008 10 years ago

No... it implies hate (obviously)....

Look at the context it is used in all those garbage pop songs, most often a 'hater' is someone who is jealous and therefore 'hates'.

but you seem to think that anybody who says anything to you is doing so because they're insecure... interesting...

How did I ever say ANYBODY saying ANYTHING to me is because they're insecure? That statement makes absolutely zero sense.

then I don't see how the term is inappropriate.

Because it is immature and just a way to easily palm off needing to make actual arguments.

[–] Garmonbozia8 10 years ago

Pop songs are irrelevant. If you look at its context in my post, "Hater" was used simply as a faster way of saying "those who dislike this film." Very simple. You're just focusing in on something small and trying to turn it into a separate argument to distract away from the original, b/c you already know you can't defend your points anymore b/c there is no way to defend yourself when you try to force your ideologies onto everybody else.

"The artist must know the manner whereby to convince others of the truthfulness of his lies.”

[–] knoxfan2008 10 years ago

trying to turn it into a separate argument to distract away from the original

No, it's just a pet peeve of mine when people use such a moronic word. Also, I stand by my criticisms of the film, the whispering in the film is hilarious and derivative, some shots feel like computer wallpapers, some shots are repetitive and steal form other works (how many times do we need to see the 'person in field grabs a piece of wheat' cliche? I guess Gladiator and Assassination of Jesse Jame hadn't already beaten that dead horse), and for a film trying to be subtle, it certainly bashes you over the head "My brother died"... Yes, thank you film, I gathered that, no need to blatantly tell us.

[–] Garmonbozia8 10 years ago

No, it's just a pet peeve of mine when people use such a moronic word. Also, I stand by my criticisms of the film, the whispering in the film is hilarious and derivative, some shots feel like computer wallpapers, some shots are repetitive and steal form other works (how many times do we need to see the 'person in field grabs a piece of wheat' cliche? I guess Gladiator and Assassination of Jesse Jame hadn't already beaten that dead horse), and for a film trying to be subtle, it certainly bashes you over the head "My brother died"... Yes, thank you film, I gathered that, no need to blatantly tell us.

You started this thread to tell people their reasons for liking this film are shallow, and now you just gave extremely shallow reasons for why you don't like the film. LOL, how amusingly hypocritical of you. 😏

"The artist must know the manner whereby to convince others of the truthfulness of his lies.”

[–] knoxfan2008 10 years ago

How is demonstrating how cliched, repetitive and film-studentish the film is, not to mention how lacking in subtlety it is, "shallow reasons"? Those are all legit criticisms that are a large part of the film. And those examples were exactly that, a few specific examples of the films many shortcomings.

Shallow would be disliking the film because of the director or just because i didn't find the visuals pretty. And it's obvious that if this film wasn't directed by Malick, it would have gotten nearly as much praise as it did. Simple as that; however, this isn't the only film to be a 'victim' of over-rating due to a director/writer.

Every instance I was growing fonder of the film, it would interrupt with cliched dialogue, a repetitive ambient score and some nice but ultimately unimpressive visual effects. Some shots are very nice though, and the shot of the father receiving the bad news is wonderful, but they ruin these good moments by adding unnecessary dialogue, as if the viewers can't figure out what's happening on their own.

[–] Garmonbozia8 10 years ago

How is demonstrating how cliched, repetitive and film-studentish the film is, not to mention how lacking in subtlety it is, "shallow reasons"?

Easy. B/c they just are. Every reason you offered me for why you dislike the film was extremely shallow whether you admit it or not. But of course you didn't admit it. I didn't expect you to. 😆

"The whispers are hilarious" is a very shallow reason to dislike the film.
"This film shows a hand touching wheat" is a very shallow reason to dislike the film.
And thinking that the film was bashing you in the face by having a voice whisper "my brother died?" Now that's just a nonsensical and weak reason to throw in there...

In other words: your reasons for bashing this film lack any depth whatsoever, therefore by definition they are shallow. And again, by definition, that makes you a big hypocrite.

"The artist must know the manner whereby to convince others of the truthfulness of his lies.”

[–] knoxfan2008 10 years ago

"The whispers are hilarious" is a very shallow reason to dislike the film.
"This film shows a hand touching wheat" is a very shallow reason to dislike the film.

Well done, you cannot elaborate and can't explain WHY they're shallow reasons not to like it, it's easy to just say "Oh but they are shallow reasons, the end! LALALALALALALA NOT LISTENING"

And thinking that the film was bashing you in the face by having a voice whisper "my brother died?" Now that's just a nonsensical and weak reason to throw in there...

Well maybe YOU needed the film to blatantly tell you exactly what happened a few minutes ago, but I found it annoying and distracting. Also, it is a problem with the dialogue throughout the film.

In other words: your reasons for bashing this film lack any depth whatsoever, therefore by definition they are shallow. And again, by definition, that makes you a big hypocrite.

I don't think you know what shallow means....

[–] Garmonbozia8 10 years ago

I don't think you know what shallow means....

I don't think you do...

I have disliked the film, YOU are the one taking personal offence to me not liking it.

You didn't start this thread to talk about why you dislike this film. Looking at the title alone, it's about insulting people who do like it. Obviously "personal offense" is the reaction you're gonna get. But I'm done. You go on disliking the film and I'll go on loving it. Peace out (oops, is that another term that only stupid pop stars use? sorry!). 😏

"The artist must know the manner whereby to convince others of the truthfulness of his lies.”

[–] knoxfan2008 10 years ago

Shallow reasons many like this film

Many implies MANY, not all.

And don't worry, I don't have anything against popular phrases like "peace out", just ones like 'haters' that are primarily used by talentless hack pop singers to justify ignoring criticism.

[–] Garmonbozia8 10 years ago

but they ruin these good moments by adding unnecessary dialogue, as if the viewers can't figure out what's happening on their own.

And that's fine that you felt that way, you don't have to like the film. But insulting and belittling people simply for liking this film is just plain wrong. It's the definition of (I keep saying that) bigotry.

And personally I disagree with your claim that the dialogue is unnecessary and implies the viewer can't figure out things on their own (and I also disagree that there is anything to figure out, there's only things to experience). The way you describe it, you make it seem like the voices are simply describing exactly whats happening on the screen, and that if we took out all the whispers the film would still have communicated the same things, and that is simply not true. The whispers include personal reflections, prayers, thoughts... things that cannot be communicated any other way (the same way you don't know what someone is thinking unless they tell you). The whispers are Malick's signature. The "marriage" between the whispers and the visuals is what creates Malick's unique cinematic style that, imo, turn his films into poetry.

I don't expect everyone to agree with me, or see what I see or feel what I feel. But if you're going to call my appreciation of this artwork "shallow" then this is what happens. You get called out, and your hypocrisy is revealed.

"The artist must know the manner whereby to convince others of the truthfulness of his lies.”

[–] knoxfan2008 10 years ago

The "marriage" between the whispers and the visuals is what creates Malick's unique cinematic style that, imo, turn his films into poetry.

"UNIQUE"

But if you're going to call my appreciation of this artwork "shallow" then this is what happens. You get called out, and your hypocrisy is revealed.

I love this line, as if you believe you have put me in my place. How have I gotten 'called out?' I made it clear what my opinions and flaws of the film were. Also, claiming how most people like the film for reasons having nothing to do with the product (famous director, attractive lead actors, satisfaction that you've watched a unique 'experimental/artsy' film when in reality you really haven't) is NOT the same as disliking it for flaws prevalent within the final product.

I have disliked the film, YOU are the one taking personal offence to me not liking it.