Cryptic is fine. Pointless, pretentious, plotless, and fake is another. It can win best cinematography if it wants to, but I found a lot of the cinematography to be phoned in and I'll tell you why: it had a lot of very cool looking natural shots, but nothing better than what you find on Planet Earth or something. Basically the naturality of the planet made the film pretty, not because of the director or DP.
How is it plotless? It has a plot: family grieves for the loss of their son/brother. It brings up questions that a lot of people ask when a sudden death occurs. Why did you allow this, God? Did you know this would happen? Who are we to you? Are we insignificant?
The entire movie is about how families are torn apart by abuse, whether by a father or a brother. It accurately captures what it was like for families at that time, ESPECIALLY when it comes to the stupid and false "American Dream."
What do you think is fake about it?
Pottermore username: DustBlade76
So Crucify the ego, before it's far too late, to leave behind this place so negative and blind and cynical. And you will come to find that we are all one mind, capable of all that's imagined and all conceivable.
I don't find that very interesting at all, it's not something that I personally care about seeing on-screen because I cannot find a narrative hook behind it other than go "gee golly this is what it must be like to be in an awkward family!" and all the Sean Penn shit was borderline laughable.
It's fake because the director pretty much used nature as a crutch as an excuse for gorgeous cinematography. Again I've seen similar shots in Planet Earth or any HD documentary about the planet, and the non-natural stuff was a lot of the same shots repeated. I just found it to be highly boring and phoned in pretentious nonsense.
It seems plotless watching It dot first time. But there's a lot of simbolism in every scene. Also, this is a short cut, The original cut is six hours long.
Yes, I saw the symbolism, like the child swimming through a submerged door before the woman in childbirth. I don't think that's brilliant and found it borderline laughable. Most of the symbolism was incredibly heavy handed and not particularly clever.
Also there were a lot of sequences in the film where absolutely nothing dramatic is happening, like kids running around doing shit, but the music is acting like its the conclusion of a great epic. Again, laughable and unearned dramatics.
I mean, why on earth would I want to watch Brad Pitt scold his children in awkward scenes? It doesn't provide me with any entertainment and it felt incredibly forced.
I liked it alot, even though I can totally understand why someone wouldn't. Overall it felt more to me like an experience than a movie, and I'm really glad I didn't turn off the player before it ended, as I almost did.
I usually watch the Oscar bait films in january after they are nominated just to know what happens in them all... I don't know if ill ever watch The Artist.. I want to watch The Descendents just because the girl from Secret Life is hot somewhat... I'll watch Moneyball soon too.
"If you make yourself more than just a man... If you devote yourself to an ideal... You become something else entirely- A Legend."
That's what I'm doing too. I actually bought The Tree of Life a few weeks ago but just now got around to watching it. It was like a cinematic sedative.
The Artist looks like another gimmick movie meant to celebrate obsolescence in the medium, much like Hugo.
Pottermore username: DustBlade76
So Crucify the ego, before it's far too late, to leave behind this place so negative and blind and cynical. And you will come to find that we are all one mind, capable of all that's imagined and all conceivable.
Actually-- I don't know. The dinosaurs looked awful, and the rest was abstract visuals that are a lot easier to pull off than stuff in other effects films. I dunno. I just didn't find a lot of extraordinary talent behind any of the visual aspects. Again it's a lot of stuff you could find on the Discovery Channel, and not really that much better. The dinosaur stuff looked like those cheap dramatizations you see on dinosaur featurettes.
Actually-- I don't know. The dinosaurs looked awful, and the rest was abstract visuals that are a lot easier to pull off than stuff in other effects films. I dunno. I just didn't find a lot of extraordinary talent behind any of the visual aspects. Again it's a lot of stuff you could find on the Discovery Channel, and not really that much better. The dinosaur stuff looked like those cheap dramatizations you see on dinosaur featurettes.
So yeah, effects in the film I'd say are definitely on par with Potter, Transformers, and Apes--and 10x better than Real Steel, which should've never gotten in.
Tree of Life is more an experience than a story on screen. I think it is a movie where you are supposed to feel it than understand or take conclusions from. I was totally astonished while watching it.
I'm biased towards that because I love space. Im more disinterested by the off based storytelling. I watch movies for a reason, and whatever this is trying to convey is not that reason...
"If you make yourself more than just a man... If you devote yourself to an ideal... You become something else entirely- A Legend."
I love space too. It's just that the film didn't really do anything interesting with it. It was just like "look how cool this looks it's cool isn't it"
I'm not taking this serious anymore... I like outlandish storytelling in books or paintings but not movies... I may not finish it... Why should I? It makes no fucking sense whatsoever, it's like people telling me something is an "acquired taste" well why would I want to like something you have to learn to like?
Honestly it's like watching a film version of Finnegan's Wake... If you've read even a page of that book you know exactly what I'm talking about.
"If you make yourself more than just a man... If you devote yourself to an ideal... You become something else entirely- A Legend."
It makes no sense, Darth, because you haven't finished it yet, at the time of your writing. It's a movie about how death is always a part of life, and that when someone dies, you go through various stages of grief. It's not that hard to understand. There's nothing in that movie that doesn't make sense to me.
Pottermore username: DustBlade76
So Crucify the ego, before it's far too late, to leave behind this place so negative and blind and cynical. And you will come to find that we are all one mind, capable of all that's imagined and all conceivable.
Man, that Harry Potter giving his life for those he loves isn't deep, poignant, or interesting. It's been done a billion times. Who says a film has to be deep? I'm not claiming this one is deep. I enjoy it because it feels like reading classic literature that is open to many interpretations.
The beach has to do with the afterlife, yes, but notice the doorway and contrast it with the doorway under water earlier in the film.
Pottermore username: DustBlade76
So Crucify the ego, before it's far too late, to leave behind this place so negative and blind and cynical. And you will come to find that we are all one mind, capable of all that's imagined and all conceivable.
Harry sacrificing himself was interesting in the sense that it mirrored the beginning of the series and fit into the storyline. Plus Rowling added her own twist to it with him surviving after all.
That being said, I have no basis to compare it to The Tree of Life, which I've only seen 30 minutes of.
My point was that these themes have been done to death and because someone else does it again, that doesn't mean it's bad. I personally think Tree of Life handled that theme exceptionally well.
Pottermore username: DustBlade76
So Crucify the ego, before it's far too late, to leave behind this place so negative and blind and cynical. And you will come to find that we are all one mind, capable of all that's imagined and all conceivable.
Just because something has been done doesn't make it bad, it's all about how it's presented. This film didn't give me interesting characters or a narrative that engaged me to the point where I felt that all the afterlife allegories were warranted. It felt like it was just going through the motions of symbolism along with pretty cinematography to mask the lack of depth. I respect your opinion and I don't think you're an idiot for loving the picture, but in my experience with it I did not find a narrative that rightly earned any of its allegories or pondering measurements. It simply didn't do anything interesting with the material. It was a compilation of shots reflecting life and death without a cohesive glue that adhered any of it together. It didn't propose any ideas that got me thinking, it simply ran through the motions.
Clearly you disagree and that's more than cool with me, but I understood the film perfectly fine (aside from the Sean Penn material which felt absolutely random) and I gave it the chance by actually sitting through the entire thing (I wanted to stop on more than one occasion) but I said, no, surely there's going to be some brilliant point or mesmerizing coda, which ultimately never arrived and it ended just as pretentiously as it began. Go ahead and write me off as someone who doesn't appreciate symbolism or abstract storytelling, but there are a number of other stories out there that I feel handle symbolism in a more mature and focused light without feeling tacked on or included for the sake of a director trying way too hard to look clever, that I would be more than happy to discuss ad nauseum, but The Tree of Life is not one of them.
Comments
It's supposed to be very cryptic, isn't it?
Mysterious thing time.
The entire movie is about how families are torn apart by abuse, whether by a father or a brother. It accurately captures what it was like for families at that time, ESPECIALLY when it comes to the stupid and false "American Dream."
What do you think is fake about it?
So Crucify the ego, before it's far too late, to leave behind this place so negative and blind and cynical. And you will come to find that we are all one mind, capable of all that's imagined and all conceivable.
It's fake because the director pretty much used nature as a crutch as an excuse for gorgeous cinematography. Again I've seen similar shots in Planet Earth or any HD documentary about the planet, and the non-natural stuff was a lot of the same shots repeated. I just found it to be highly boring and phoned in pretentious nonsense.
Not only beautiful, the family story was very entertaining.
Oh yeah?
Mysterious thing time.
Is is on demand?
Mysterious thing time.
So Crucify the ego, before it's far too late, to leave behind this place so negative and blind and cynical. And you will come to find that we are all one mind, capable of all that's imagined and all conceivable.
So yeah, effects in the film I'd say are definitely on par with Potter, Transformers, and Apes--and 10x better than Real Steel, which should've never gotten in.
Honestly it's like watching a film version of Finnegan's Wake... If you've read even a page of that book you know exactly what I'm talking about.
So Crucify the ego, before it's far too late, to leave behind this place so negative and blind and cynical. And you will come to find that we are all one mind, capable of all that's imagined and all conceivable.
Also please explain to me what everyone is doing on that beach at the end. Is it just them in the afterlife?
The beach has to do with the afterlife, yes, but notice the doorway and contrast it with the doorway under water earlier in the film.
So Crucify the ego, before it's far too late, to leave behind this place so negative and blind and cynical. And you will come to find that we are all one mind, capable of all that's imagined and all conceivable.
That being said, I have no basis to compare it to The Tree of Life, which I've only seen 30 minutes of.
So Crucify the ego, before it's far too late, to leave behind this place so negative and blind and cynical. And you will come to find that we are all one mind, capable of all that's imagined and all conceivable.
Clearly you disagree and that's more than cool with me, but I understood the film perfectly fine (aside from the Sean Penn material which felt absolutely random) and I gave it the chance by actually sitting through the entire thing (I wanted to stop on more than one occasion) but I said, no, surely there's going to be some brilliant point or mesmerizing coda, which ultimately never arrived and it ended just as pretentiously as it began. Go ahead and write me off as someone who doesn't appreciate symbolism or abstract storytelling, but there are a number of other stories out there that I feel handle symbolism in a more mature and focused light without feeling tacked on or included for the sake of a director trying way too hard to look clever, that I would be more than happy to discuss ad nauseum, but The Tree of Life is not one of them.