Brad Pitt's new movie Tree Of Life

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 30, 2011 8:41 PM GMT
    It won the "Palme D'Or" this year, it has a high profile cast, but I don't think it is getting the deserved publicity and commercial recognition.

    Please keep thie thread SPOILER FREE, but if anyone watched it, did you find it as amazing as it sounds?
  • suedeheadscot

    Posts: 1130

    Aug 30, 2011 9:25 PM GMT
    Its been out in the uk for a while. I thought it was, er, challenging. I like the concept though, and there's some beautiful imagery. Hope that hasn't spoiled it!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 30, 2011 9:43 PM GMT
    It was the first and only movie I've walked out of. The same applies to my friend I went and saw it with.

    Her friends recommended it to her and so we figured why not check it out. If they say it's good it must be decent.


    We talked for more than an hour after we left about how much we didn't like it =/


    EDIT: But by all means go see it. Like I said we walked out after an hour in the theatre meaning I didn't see the ending. Maybe the ending is fantastic or something idk
  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    Aug 30, 2011 10:41 PM GMT
    it's a big-budget art film, so it's not really profitable in the way James Joyce's Ulysses is not really popular reading because it is essentially too smart for the majority of people out there.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 30, 2011 10:43 PM GMT
    Walked out on it; wasn't entertained.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 30, 2011 10:48 PM GMT
    The problem with a movie like this is that people refer to it as "Brad Pitt's new movie Tree of Life."

    A more accurate description would be "Terrence Malick's new movie Tree of Life." Fewer walkouts.
  • trugh

    Posts: 27

    Aug 30, 2011 10:50 PM GMT
    Friends who went with me hated it, I loved it. It's that kind of a movie.

    I recommend you go with a very open mind about what "movie" means to you. It is not entertaining the way blockbusters are.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 30, 2011 10:50 PM GMT
    It was a sorry excuse for a film. Pretentious bullshit.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 30, 2011 10:52 PM GMT
    It's not new...it's been out for months...


    BEAUTIFULLY shot. I guess if you're part of the general audience and not an art house movie enthusiast, you won't really appreciate it much.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 31, 2011 6:34 AM GMT
    luvitohateit saidIt's not new...it's been out for months...


    It was supposed to come out here in Lebanon on August 18th, but it has been postponed... So it's still kinda new to me at least icon_razz.gif
  • metta

    Posts: 39089

    Aug 31, 2011 7:56 AM GMT
    I enjoy seeing good independent films.....this was not one that I enjoyed.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 01, 2011 11:54 PM GMT
    It's an art film. If the viewer isn't generally open to the idea of art films, they won't like this one because like any other art film, the subject matter is presented obliquely.

    Personally, I'm pretty sure I have some philosophical disagreements with the story/ending. But rather than go into that, the film made a lasting impression for other reasons. Ever since, almost every day that I step outdoors, there will be a moment that triggers the "buzz" effect that Malick used throughout the film, and so in turn I involuntarily recall some of the moods and themes in that film. And so it literally and viscerally changed my perceptions: not many films can claim to changing anything of substance at all in a casual viewer.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 13, 2011 6:17 AM GMT
    vincent7 saidWalked out on it; wasn't entertained.


    Just saw the film and I'll use that as my starting point. This isn't a film that will entertain you, amuse you, or provide you conventional enjoyment. If you look for that in a film (as 99.9% of filmgoers do), skip this. Skip this like the plague. It's not the point of the film, it doesn't pretend it is and it doesn't apologize for not being it.

    People who say art films are pretentious bullshit could very well make the assumption that something written in Chinese characters is pretentious bullshit to someone who only speaks English. If you haven't been taught how to read something you can't make a judgement on it simply because you don't know how to assimilate it.

    I think it was incredibly ballsy to release this on the general public, or rather on the general public that ventures out every third weekend to their Landmark cinema to experiment with an independent film. This isn't for the independent film-watching audience. This very thickly uses contemporary art tools that the general public is not equipped to chip away at. I have an art degree and I had to be taught how to read art.

    I didn't enjoy the film. That being said I cried my eyes out at the last 15 minutes of it. It was conceptually overwhelming for me at that point and I broke down. Hard.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 13, 2011 12:20 PM GMT
    I loved the movie. It was like re-living my childhood... then realizing that its all OK....

    I need to go see it twice. Plus, I loved the science aspect.... who'da though?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 13, 2011 12:25 PM GMT
    Didn't watch itt
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 22, 2011 4:02 AM GMT
    I just watched this movie on PPV. What the holy hell? Somebody should have told me to drop acid before I watched this.

    There were a lot of things I liked about it, but overall I think it left me more confused than enlightened. I did like how it spent 30 minutes showing what was virtually a nature documentary about how the earth and life evolved, but then filled the movie full of references to God and Christianity... a strange dichotomy. I'm still not quite sure what was the connection between that whole universe section and the Texas family.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 22, 2011 4:27 AM GMT
    I saw "Tree of Life" and enjoyed parts of it. Looking back, I think its been growing on me a little bit, although I'm not sure I'd buy it. It's a movie that that felt like it had been going 2 hrs but had only been going for 20 min...but then a week later I saw "Strange and Sacred Noise", a documentary on the composer John Luther Adams. THAT was the most pretentious piece of shit I had ever seen or heard. My friends were reviewing it for the local newspaper, so I had to stay the whole time. It was an assault on the ears. There was one 10 min stretch where they rang sirens (the old school hand cranked ones) by a mountain lake in the middle of Alaska. Compared to that, Tree of Life and Terrance Malick were both a walk in the park. icon_rolleyes.gif