Movies: 18255  |  TV Series: 3282  |  Added today: 0  |  Storage: 65637 GB

Buy The Tree of Life Movie. Watch online or Download

The Tree of Life
Genres: Dr
Starring: Sean Penn, Brad Pitt, Fiona Shaw, Jessica Chastain, Hunter McCracken, Laramie Eppler, Tye Sheridan
Director(s): Terrence Malick
Available Quality: DivX, Hi Def, iPod, Hi Def, Hi Def
Country: USA
Year:2011
IMDB Rating: 7.1

The impressionistic story of a Texas family in the 1950s. The film follows the life journey of the eldest son, Jack, through the innocence of childhood to his disillusioned adult years as he tries to reconcile a complicated relationship with his father (Brad Pitt). Jack (played as an adult by Sean Penn) finds himself a lost soul in the modern world, seeking answers to the origins and meaning of life while questioning the existence of faith.

The Tree of Life (iPod) Resolution: 480x256 px Total Size: 515 Mb
The Tree of Life (Hi Def) Resolution: 852x464 px Total Size: 1239 Mb
The Tree of Life (Hi Def) Resolution: 1920x1040 px Total Size: 10060 Mb
The Tree of Life (Hi Def) Resolution: 1280x688 px Total Size: 5587 Mb
1 The Tree of Life (DivX) Resolution: 624x336 px Total Size: 701 Mb
2 The Tree of Life (DivX) Resolution: 624x336 px Total Size: 700 Mb

Movie Photos: We have taken some photos of "The Tree of Life". They represent actual movie quality.

Visitor Reviews: (20)

22 February 2012

a tribute to life


I rushed to the screening somewhat on a rainy afternoon whim, fullyprepared to return home confused or even bored (given warnings from mydad who had watched it in Hong Kong last month).To my pleasant surprise, I found myself enjoying it profoundly (whilealso understanding completely why it wouldn't work for most moviegoersin Hong Kong - in the fast-paced culture with little patience, it'd behard to slow down or step back enough to stomach this type of work; butto be fair, even in the screening I attended in the US, the audienceseemed split 50/50 between being unimpressed/bored and beingtransfixed/blown away). I loved the cast (though I did wonder if SeanPenn was cast partly because the adult Jack appeared so rarely that aneasily recognizable face was necessary to serve as a quick anchor), andwas especially amazed by how the director was able to capture such raw,authentic emotions in the young cast (including the infants!)"The Tree of Life" provides one of those film experiences in whichthere is no pressure to demystify the "point" of every action or everyimage, for the plot is enwrapped in the thematic context of "lifeitself as a mystery". Indeed, in real life, not everything happens witha clear explanation, and so much of it is impossible to capture inwords and yet fully and equally real.To me, this film is part visual poem, part allegory, part prayer, and,overall, a tribute to life, a tribute that engages all the senses.Although a little bit of background knowledge about music and the Biblewould enhance one's understanding of some of the nuances, I think it isaccessible to anyone who goes prepared for something quite unusual.Then, simply allow the sights, sounds, and the story wash over you (notunlike waves on a sandy beach, a recurring image in the film) and thenexamine what treasures you find washed up on the shore.

peleserbia 21 February 2012

3, just because of beautiful cinematography.


I really don't know where to start this review...I was very skeptic, because Malick's movies never really had impact onme. This movie has no plot, it is completely non linear and some partsshould really be shortened. As for pros, I would say that i was really stunned with the imagescoming on screen. Terrence really showed us some spectacular shots, andthat's one of the reasons I can't give this movie a 1. Also, the kidthat plays role of Jack did an amazing job. It's very hard to deliversuch a performance with just a couple of lines. The bottom line is- completely abstract and not to be watched just forfun. You have to dig deep for this one.

khan2705 21 February 2012

a masterpiece.


From Terrence Malick, the acclaimed director of such classic films asBadlands, Days of Heaven and The Thin Red Line, The Tree of Life is theimpressionistic story of a Midwestern family in the 1950's. The filmfollows the life journey of the eldest son, Jack, through the innocenceof childhood to his disillusioned adult years as he tries to reconcilea complicated relationship with his father (Brad Pitt). Jack (played asan adult by Sean Penn) finds himself a lost soul in the modern world,seeking answers to the origins and meaning of life while questioningthe existence of faith. Through Malick's signature imagery, we see howboth brute nature and spiritual grace shape not only our lives asindividuals and families, but all life.Starring, Brad Pitt, Sean Penn, Jessica Chastain, Hunter McCracken,Fiona Shaw , Jessica Fuselier , Nicolas Gonda , William A. Wallace ,Kelly Koonce.Directed by the wonderful and enigmatic director Terrence Malick. whodirected The Thin Red Line, Days of Heaven and Badlands.Winner of this year's Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival.well here it is, another drama with surrealism and very experimentalelements used in it. this officially was my most awaited movie of theentire year after i saw the trailer, it really touched me and remindedme of 2001: A Space odyssey which right now is my most favorite movieof all time. The Tree Of Life surpassed my expectations from it,literally this movie was such an outstanding work. it stands alongsideHP7 2 and Midnight in Paris to be my most favorite movies of the year.and the most favorite to be exact.the film revolves around the meaning and origin of life by perceptionof a middle aged man, Penn's childhood memories in Texas 1950's,finding his place in this universe shown with the graphical imagery oforigins of the universe and the inception of life on Earth. this moviedefinitely received great reactions from Critics for the artistic andtechnical merits but many people didn't liked it for something i love,non- linear and fragmented narration. there were polarizing reactionswhen it was shown with Cannes with boos and claps.the style of Malick my be, or actually it is a hurdle between viewersbut i think those who actually like these kind of movies or arty indieflicks, those who are patient will love it and it will provide aemotional and visual treat for them. this movie has an extreme boldnessof vision just like 2001 but this one has more human feelings and moreconcerned with humans than that was. this is such a magnificent movie,epic and spectacular, it showed a childhood in a way i never seenbefore and also what goes on in a mind of a growing child seeing likethis was really overwhelming.Direction of this movie is pitch perfect, though if he handled thenarrative style a bit better in the quarter of 2nd half, the moviewould have been an actual flawless movie. it looses a lot of momentumand loses that whole track there and feels a bit flat. that is the onlyflaw i saw. great direction. screenplay was good, very good. plot wasreally heavy and confusing for many viewers, for me too. i still havethose imagery and scenes in my mind even though i didn't understoodsome of them. spectacular cinematography and art direction. with lovelycostumes and sound. greatly done editing and really good visualeffects. dinosaurs and earth's imagery is lovely with universe too.Brad Pitt gave a brilliant performance, almost in a sort of wayreminded me of The Curious Case O Benjamin Button. really goodperformance by him. also Jessica Chastain outshined in this movie, sheis an angel, a beautiful lovely and very delicate fairy. loved her. sheas their mother was just perfect. among the children, Hunter McCrackensurprisingly gave a marvelous performance. Sen Penn is not much in itbut still he leaves a bit of a mark. overall brilliant performances,one of the best things about this movie.about Oscars, it deserves recognition in Best Picture, Director, forBest Actor Brad Pitt (maybe) not sure though but Jessica Chastain is alock, she deserves it truly. also for Cinematography, visual effects,art direction, editing and Screenplay.it begins with the life and finishes with the death. the movie has avery sad tone. the way the life on earth, the formation of universe andthen a simple family growing is shown is just spectacular. brilliantcamera work with those imagery of flora and fauna alongwith everythingelse. this movie feels like an encyclopedia on Origins Of Life. i lovedand you will too.an utter masterpiece of the first rate. two thumbs up.

Ringaile Radojevic 20 February 2012

deep and fascinating


First words that come to my head after watching this movie - deep andfascinating. Simple and in other way complex story without unnecessary words anddialogues - views and music express everything, you just need to openyour mind and enjoy the philosophical journey through LIFE. I mayunderstand other negative reviews of this movie, because it isdefinitely not wide audience movie, it goes much further than nowadaysHollywood brings with its usual and boring plots. Do not expect theusual drama, long conversations and usual predictable plot, expectcomplex, multi-layered story, that flows slowly like river, expectimpressionism, flow of thoughts and verbally unexpressed ideas and youwon't get disappointed. It is a work of art.

tuttism 20 February 2012

An impressionistic sensorial ode to life


It was certainly Malick's epic ode to the age old dissension of gracevs. nature. The historicity of our humanistic experiences projectedthrough the trajectory of one mans personal crisis resulted in whatseemed like a random pastiche of impressionistic sensorial memoriescapturing the very fleeting nature of his personal nostalgia, crisis offaith & loss of identity. I found Malick's choices very interesting,almost like a visual symphony flowing like a river into the recesses ofJake's memories, into his desperation he felt for his mothers loss &searching to understand everything about the deep emotions of life heshared with his family & his confounding loneliness he felt at thatpoint in his life with the infinite. Very original in his personalstyle, very emotive. I can see why in an attempt to answer suchgrandiose meanings can often confound the literalist in me butnonetheless, I was touched by his poetry despite at times beingchallenged by the fleetingness of it all.

Steve Pulaski 19 February 2012

Respect what will possibly reshape the definition of a "film"


The Tree of Life is broken up into three different halves. The firsthalf is the first twenty to twenty-five minutes of the film where youhave to get used to the way it's laid out. The second half is whenyou're beginning to get immersed in the characters' world. The finalhalf is when you're fully immersed in their world, and are craving moreimagery and more brilliance. That's what The Tree of Life is all about.Terrence Malick is one of the most interesting, yet subtle directorsworking today. Since 1973, he has only made five feature films, all ofwhich garnering critical acclaim, yet divided audience reception. Theyare love it or hate it films. Because of Malick's ambition to changethe way we see films, and since his films mainly follow the style of anon-linear piece, they can be quite a patience tester and for some justcompletely not interesting. So this is a hard one to recommend. I say -if you think the films the mainstream public are exposed to are not onpar with your expectations, if you like to dig for films that areseldomly seen and don't get their own spotlight, or if just independentcinema fascinates you, The Tree of Life should be at the very top ofyour must see list.Because of the film's non-linear narrative, explaining the plot isn'tan easy thing to do. The story is set in the 1950's with Brad Pitt andJessica Chastain living a middle-class life. We then get many quietnarrations, a whole ten minute long scene of the planets being formedand the galaxy expanding. Strange, yet intriguing scenes of a dinosaursshowing some of the first examples of true sympathy, and then it's backto the family.The family is the O'Briens, and over time they are bringing up threeboys. Brad Pitt plays Jack who is loud, strict, and the disciplinarianof the boys and his wife. His wife believes that Jack is too hard onthe boys, but keeps quiet most of the time to avoid confrontation.Scenes of the family continue to get mixed in with different shots ofthe world, collective imagery, sometimes shots spanning a single objectfor several moments, and more. We get it all. Not only is this aroller-coaster of a film, but it's one that is so different, soamazing, and so mindblowing and exciting it's almost too much to takein. Even only clocking in at almost two and a half hours it feels twiceas long as that - which isn't necessarily a bad thing.I imagine with repeated viewings one will notice more and more thingsquietly thrown in. Just by writing this, and contemplating the eventsof those two and a half hours, I remember a quote from the Book of Jobat the beginning of the film. Brad Pitt plays "Jack O'Brien" whoseinitials represent "JOB." It would not surprise me if that mentioningof Job is only one of many more throughout the course of the film.The Tree of Life can only get better with repeated viewings mainlybecause you'll never see the same movie twice. You'll keep seeingdifferent things and different messages meaning that maybe this is oneof the few films that can never truly be "seen." While I'm not sure ifthis could take home "Best Picture," "Best Cinematography" is easily inthe bag for The Tree of Life. I've never seen a film withcinematography as well done as this most likely because I've never seena film quite like this. Special effects wizard Emmanuel Lubezki workswith Malick to create effective and incomprehensible realism that willleave you speechless. Lubezki also worked with Malick on his lastproject The New World. Two totally different films - two totallydifferent series of effects.We are told in the beginning of the film that there are two ways of theworld; of nature and grace. I believe our two leads are supposed torepresent those two forces with Brad Pitt as nature and JessicaChastain with angelic grace.The Tree of Life doesn't act pretentious because of the fact it doesn'tboast itself to be bigger than everything out there. I didn't recallone commercial or one late night talk show interview with anyone fromthis film. Because it's a treasure you should decide if you want touncover. After being tied up for many years, Malick is pretty muchsaying "if you want me, come find me." From research, I've learned thatelements of a film Malick wanted to make tentatively titled Q wereincorporated in this. No one really knows what that would've been like,but I doubt that it would've been the cinematic achievement that is TheTree of Life.I haven't even scratched the surface of this film, but I'm stoppinghere because I feel I've already said a bit too much. This should be afilm you find, watch, form an opinion about, and then go and readothers thoughts on the film if you choose. You shouldn't base yourviews off of someone else's with any film, but I feel that if you readtoo many subjective remarks about The Tree of Life you'll either bepersuaded the wrong way, or have ruined your whole outlook on anamazing film. Let the film take you by the hand and lead you throughits world. That's what it did for me.Starring: Brad Pitt, Sean Penn, and Jessica Chastain. Directed by:Terrence Malick.

dashjoe20 18 February 2012

An art exhibition material


Before I start commenting, I have to admit that I dozed off a little atthe beginning of the movie, the first few scenes of Sean Penn. That iswhy I did not see a lot of Sean Penn in the movie, even though I'veseen people commenting that Sean Penn could get acting awards from hisperformance here. I only remember him appearing in the modern world inthe beginning and in the end him walking around some strange places.I have never seen any previous movies directed by Terrence Malick. Ionly know that he has an Oscar nominated directorial "The Thin RedLine", which I have yet to watch. But I did hear good reviews of thismovie of his. Actually very extreme reviews, either extreme good orextreme bad.To me, this movie is definitely not a failure, but I am not sure if ithas succeeded as a 'movie'. Before I talk about the illusory side ofthe movie, the story was actually nice. The story surrounded thisfamily, with Brad Pitt as the father, Jessica Chastain as the motherand their three boys. The story about how the family lived at anearlier era, the strong culture and value from the earlier decades. Itstarted with the parents losing their second son, the pain andsuffering, before flashing back on their lives.Sounds like it could make a good story, but then came this long sectionin between. It is kind of like a symbolism, images starting to appear.I think it lasted about 30 minutes from the whole movie. I think thispart of the movie is very controversial. It can either leave you amazedor dumbfounded, not having a clue what is it about. It is a verydifferent approach of telling a story in a movie, trying to convey avery special message. The question is, does everyone get it?Acting wise, it was quite good over all. Brad Pitt did have a littlebreakthrough, and Jessica Chastain is definitely one actress thatshould be highlighted. It is sooner or later she will be discoveredfurther and turned into an A-list star. The three boys were quite OK. Ithink the second son has the most similar feature to Brad Pitt :).In my opinion, it is not a bad movie, but I think if this is shown inan art exhibition, it could have been better. It is a fabulous piece of'art', maybe not such a similar grade for a 'movie'. I have to admit itis a very unique approach though. Full marks as a good piece of art,but maybe failed to capture most of the audiences heart as a movie? Yougrade it.

clare-karu 18 February 2012

wish i could have liked this more


2/10 unfortunately - Mallick gets marks for great cinematography andability to direct children... but unfortunately that is all that ispositive about this overlong exercise in what appears to bepsychotherapy for the great director.After seeing the great 'Thin Red Line,' by Mallick I was hoping for asimilarly complex and satisfying exploration on the meaning ofexistence and relationships between and within people, people and war,people and nature. But,alas, what we get instead is a too personal andnarrow vision of a family grieving for a lost son and an odd, albeitvisually impressive,depiction of the origins of the universe, solarsystem, earth, life etc. slap in the middle of it. I understand, orrather, I think I understand that its a comment on the majesty andvastness yet impersonal nature of the universe seen through the eyes ofthe grieving, testing their belief in grace.. and that what we aregrieving is not just the son, but the very fact of our self-awarenessthat we are alone in the universe.. but somehow it all left me cold andimpatient. Why? I'm not sure, maybe it is because the opening 1/2 hour when we areintroduced to the family doesn't draw us in emotionally, or maybe it isthat this is not a film that was actually meant for the entertainmentor engagement of audiences and more to do with the creator satisfyinghis philosophical queries or resolving his psychological conflictsor,uncharitably,soothing his ego.(Which given the too obvious oedipalthemes in the film - is not too hard to believe),

Tree of Life Sucks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 17 February 2012

I created an account on IMDb to tell the world that this movie is awful


Go watch this movie if you like to see: footage of trees and wind andmore trees, laundry, dinosaurs that do nothing, stars and planets, BradPitt being angry and wearing glasses, two and a half hours of thinplot, pretentiousness, epic music, whispering (a lot of whispering),skyscrapers and people walking on a beach.No, seriously, the shots are beautiful and the acting is fine, but Ispent two and a half hours thinking "Oh man, I hope something is goingto happen soon!" and "This looks like one giant commercial!" and "MaybeI'm just not getting it!" and "Hmm, why do men have nipples? Oh wait,I'm watching a movie!" and "It pretends to be deep but is veryshallow." and "Yes I'm definitely getting it but it's just really bad".

bluejway-1 17 February 2012

Amazingly Boring Artistic "Disaster-Piece"


An amazing thing about this film was that none of the movie goers inthe relatively crowded theater in Tokyo where I saw it didn't leavebefore the film was over. I was even more amazed that I didn't leavebefore it ended. But most amazing of all was that the film didn'timplode on itself into a black hole of ravenous boredom. I don't meanto be a git or a crank, and I have seen many great films in my life.And I've seen over 50 films this year in total, but this film amazed meover and over again at how terribly boring it was. It was like I waitedfor it to start, waited all the way up to the very end. Obviously, people are liking this flick. I asked my brother about itwho is a high brow filmmaker dude, and if I want to get this reviewpublished here, I cannot repeat in a decent online forum what he saidabout it. Translation: he said it was bad, very bad. But it does haveredeeming qualities. There is plenty of emotion in it and empathy. Icould empathize with the kids and the parents. I could feel the pathos.But I didn't need to sit through 2 hours of rambling disconnections toget a dose of empathy. I could have seen a few photos of people introuble, dealing with death, and I would have come a way with a feelingof empathy, and not have wasted 2 hours enduring an artistic "disasterpiece."

subash-sadasivan 16 February 2012

Reminded me of Satyajit Ray's Apu Trilogy


I finally saw this film last at the cinema with my wife whom I livedwith and loved unconditionally for the last 25 years. As a TerenceMalick fan for many years, and after hearing so much about the film, Iattended, expecting an almost 'perfect' film. I was disappointed. Thecinematography was awesome but the rest ( including the screenplay aswell the obvious attempt to define the meaning of life ) was belowaverage. My wife liked it slightly better.Throughout the whole film, we were reminded of the 'Apu Trilogy'written & directed by the great Satyajit Ray approx over 50 years ago.It confirmed to me what great films they were and how Ray drew uscloser to nature brilliantly. The whole basis of 'advaita' principleswere there in those films and I found what Mr Malick was trying toconvey to the audience were already covered masterfully by Ray and hisfilms on Apu.Just see the 'Apu trilogy' and you'll see what I' saying. Trust me.

tabuno 16 February 2012

An Amalgam of Art and Drama Infused with Life


Too long, overly ambitious? With various strands of classic movies andbold, creative endeavors from the past, Terrence Mallick has created avisionary and auditory film experience that captures a spiritualessence of stream of consciousness and memory and emotions. Taking theimmersive authenticity of Lost in Translation (2003) and incorporatinga semi-linear storyline with plotpoints from movies such as Stand by Me(1986) and using the visual, conceptual elements from 2001: A SpaceOdyssey (1968) and powerfully, haunting, non-verbal Koyaanisqatsi(1983), A Tree of Life depicts a collage of sensory experiences aboutdeath, about the intimate small details of living as a family in the1950s.Avoiding the dramatic drama of a movie twist such as found in SevenPounds (2008), or the traditional strictly chronological presentationof emotive drama as found in The Soloist (2009), Under the Tuscan Sun(2003), The Pursuit of Happiness (2006), The Tree of Life closelycaptures the more sensual and more elusive essence of life itself. Incapturing our sense memory of real life, Mallick as avoided thetechnological 3-D advances that were so well adapted in Hugo (2011) andinstead relied on a much more older form of hand-held photography foundin the ground breaking work of Brain Storm (1983) and somehow retainedthe power of realism as with Unreal. "The Official Handbook forStarting Over (2004) or even Touching the Void (2004) and at the sametime presenting in the unconscious format of luscious art piece likethe brilliant Picnic At Hanging Rock (1975).To accomplish his vision of similar material as found in Where theLilies Bloom (1974), Holes (2003), Revolutionary Road (2008), andRabbit Hole (2010), Mallick can be seen as having taken film ideas fromeerie water planet of Solaris (2002), even otherworldy Star Trek: TheMotion Picture (1979), the sliding between reality and visionarySlipstream (2007), the time shifting Slaughter-House Five (1972), andmind altering Being John Malkovich (2000).The film's weakness seems to lie in its remarkable fusion of elementsand the perhaps too scattered and fluid its threads among its primarycharacters, past and present, and the spiritual connection being asstrong as it became towards the end with the more solidifiedpresentation on the salt flats in comparison to the more veiled Picnicat Hanging Rock as well as the difficulty in understanding a number ofthe internal self-talk going on, which in reality would be sharp anddistinct in most instances - connecting to the solid core.The Tree of Life like the original Solaris (1972) pushes the boundariesof human tolerance and understanding with its extended length andethereal elements. Nevertheless, The Tree of Life somehow retains itsgrounded essence with the more familiar period movies such as TheInformant! (2009) and The Lovely Bones (2009) and holding its own withthe powerful emotive, graphic family dramas of Margot at the Wedding(2007) and A History of Violence (2005). With the brilliant sensitiveacting of Brad Pitt whose role in Legends of the Fall (1994), SevenYears in Tibet (1997), and Meet Joe Black (1998) helped prepare him forhis role and production of this amazing experience.

midtra52 15 February 2012

Senseless, just plain senseless


Okay it's fine to have abstractions and surreal scenes when theycontribute to the storyline. This movie however does nothing of thesort. Instead we're bombarded with random nature videos or clips ofstairs, jellyfish, or whatever else they could get their hands on. Allof this while listening to classical music and wondering when thestoryline is going to develop. The movie seems to be an attempt to makean examination of the meaning of life, but if that's the case then thedisconnected scenes make little sense. Sure we have galaxies, our solarsystem formed, then there were dinosaurs, then there was a meteor, butwhat does this have to do with the main characters who we barely get toknow? There is just so very little substance to this movie if any atall. It was painful, what else can I say. With that said everyoneinvolved in making this movie should re-examine the meaning of theirlife.

15 February 2012

Sublime and Daring as Space Odyssey


Terrence Malick made a inspiring movie that involves the origin ofspecies, having some connections with the movie from Stanley Kubrick,that both talks about "the dawn of men", and the movie have too areligious side, a side of faith, showing us that the only way toovercome the problems and intrigues with among a family its withforgiveness. This film has two sides, one talking about science andanother about the casual problems of a 1950s family, and ourphilosopher Terrence Malick, that has grew up in a farm, connecting thetwo sides, he studied philosophy in Harvard, and was because of thisand the thing about farm he did "Days of Heaven", that I consider hisbest work.Brad Pitt and Sean Penn have a plausible role, doing all necessary, butnothing to be indicate on academy, BUT Jessica Chastain did a differentrole, a different role and she worked very well, it can be a award."The Tree of Life" is a important movie for the history of cinema, is adifferent experience and it can inspire you. Alexandre Desplat make agreat original music for the film, but what was really important onthis, was the cinematography, with a great editing and scenario. If youare not so addicted to cinema, you will think that the movie is alittle somnolent, but I said, the movie is more to think that ourexistence is really important, show us to don't do bad things, becausea little problem can destroy several lives.

andyshldn 14 February 2012

Malick has a vision that he can't put on film


The Tree of Life is a film I cannot recommend to anyone exceptreligious fanatics. I have never seen a film waste so much time tryingto explain evolution without a word. It basically stopped a story 20minutes into film to go on a Malick ego trip.Brad Pitt and the child actors did what they could to show middleincome and strict upbringing in the 1950's. Malick had a good moviewithin his grasp and left it on the editing room floor.Sean Penn was lost and wasted in this film and by his own admission hadno idea what Malick expected or was striving for in this movie. I really was looking forward to seeing this film but it was soconvoluted and bogged down by Malick's vision that it sank under theweight he created.

brucelei-1 14 February 2012

Pretentious, pietistic drivel


O.K, I'm a rationalist, and a supreme being, or a belief in such, playsno role in my life. This doesn't mean, however, that I can't appreciatea work that assumes a deistic definition of reality, but sittingthrough the "Tree of Life" is like being forced to listen to aseemingly endless Tent Meeting Sermon, gussied up with startlingphotography and made a bit more politically correct by giving a noddingacceptance to evolution (or at least to dinosaurs).An artist has a right to impose his definition of reality upon us, buteven if we leave Mr. Malick's pietistic beliefs aside, the reality hepresents simply makes no sense historically and sociologically: We knowfrom the family's name that they are Irish American Catholics, but thechurch they attend every Sunday seems to be ecumenicized. Aside fromBrad Pitt's quick kneel (without crossing himself) and a flash ofreligious imagery, there is no trace of Catholic ritual (no Latin mass,no communion, no confession.) It's a homogenized Christian church, andthe religion the family practices seems, really, quite Protestant. Sucha non denominational Christianity would be believable in a secularizedfamily, but religion is the center of this family's existence. Inshort, it's a piety that could not have existed in Waco in 1950.But is it really 1950? It is assumed that the son who is killed waskilled in combat. But in which war? From the costumes and cars, theaction of the film when the boy to be killed was growing up was theearly to mid 1950s; the boy is somewhere between 10 and 12. he waskilled when he was 19, that is to say 7 to 9 years later. The date ofhis death, then, could be at the latest, 1964, when very, very few USmilitary were killed. The serious fatalities among US militarypersonnel didn't begin until much later. In short, possible, but highlyunlikely. Moreover, the war itself is totally absent from the film. Itwas hardly absent from US society in the mid 1960s.But the most absurd aspect of the film is Brad Pitt's character'srelationship to his sons. His main function is to act as a stern,tyrannical disciplinarian. But he has to be humanized to show how muchhe really loves his sons. Otherwise, there would be no story. So, he isconstantly kissing and embracing them. Such physical expression ofpaternal affection was all but unknown among Irish Americans,especially lower middle class Irish Americans in Texas. It is totallyunbelievable. Especially since the character is not otherwisephysically demonstrative; he hardly ever touches his wife, except tofend off her aggression.That he is a musician manqué helps a bit; but even that is notparticularly credible. Couperin in Waco in 1955? Please! In short, thisis a family that never could have existed.I'm sure a scientist could say similar things about Mr. Malick'sversion of the Creation.

behroozmehr6 13 February 2012

This is not the kinda movie that everyone likes...and by like i mean LIKE


i can only start with the conversation i had with my friend over thephone after i watched the movie...he said that one of the KNOW CRITICShas gone over the movie in details and in the end he said...after 35years of spending in this career , i have to say if the whole attentionthat this movie is gathering and all the positive review says that it'sa masterpiece , i gotta say i'm an idiot for not understanding thismovie...in the response i just said that this is a piece of work thatyou can destroy in just a paragraph or you can make it look like amasterpiece of all time in just a page... In my opinion...this was agreat movie in all aspects...cause the certain thing is that u can'tdeny the directors ability to tell a very much simple story by just aprofessional use of light and camera movements and great edition...theadditional part of the world history is just not to satisfy theaudience sensibility , it's neither for reasoning the wholephilosophical view of the story...it's just the way he chooses toobserve and display the story...to make the connection and simply...andsimply...to make a kinda artistic work so it has a potential to becomea legend like any poem or book we read now from all over humanhistory...i guess what we don't consider is the fact that the overallknowledge of cultural class in todays society needs to be recorded insome sort of art-documentary , so it can be remembered for thefuture....all the conclusion that i can reach at the end would be this: when watching this movie don't go through a melancholic process ,trying to explain or criticize every part of this movie , just let thenarrator ( the camera ) takes you through and you will have anenjoyable time because other than that you can say for sure thatnothing in this movie is new and nothing is creative...it's just animage of our mind and knowledge in this period...which is portrayed ina beautiful manner. P.S. i tried to avoid to use any kindacinematographic terms , so i don't feel like a critic becausetruthfully they make me sick...the best views always belong to anaudience...just an audience

jeffpaquin 13 February 2012

Worst Movie Ever?


I love movies. All movies. I watch several movies each week. And thereare very few movies that I do not enjoy (or at least find somethingabout them to enjoy). I even managed one smile watching Roadhouse 2. But this is, by far, the worst movie I have ever seen in myhalf-century of life. I really, really tried hard to find theentertainment value in this film. Maybe I was too sober (I don'tdrink), or maybe I was supposed to pick-up "special glasses" at theadmissions counter that would somehow make this a better picture. Whoknows?Where is the refund desk?

jack_burton37 12 February 2012

Tree of $h*t


You'd be forgiven for thinking the first 40 minutes is in fact somelong drawn out commercial for a fragrance by Davidoff, then whilegrowing increasingly impatient as to hearing the sultrily whisperedbrand name which you've presupposed to be life, ocean or evolve, thewhole thing morphs into BBC's walking with dinosaurs minus theinteresting facts and warm Attenborough voice over of course. Out ofthis excruciating tangent of scenic imagery some semblance of a film isspawned albeit with limited dialogue, most of which amounts to semiaudible existential questions. It soon becomes apparent that this isthe extent of what we'll be offered in the way of non linear narrative,that being more or less a non existent one. And before one of thenavel-gazing, pompous Canne based critics who astonishingly awardedthis thing the Palme d'Or, objects citing the artistic symbolism, I getthe symbolism but that said, symbolism without substance is merely amarketing ploy married more to the advertising industry than film. If Iwanted beautiful imagery and nothing else I'd spend a few hoursstrolling around an art gallery and last I checked Malick is nopainter, he's the filmmaker that brought us Badlands but on this formhas lost his way.

RayWetCanvas 12 February 2012

A Chocolate Covered Cherry with the Cherry Missing


Think about receiving the car of your dreams free. It gets delivered infront of your house. There it is gleaming in the sunlight, brand newwith all the bells and whistles, You are so excited. It is what youwished for a long time. However when you go to turn the ignition withthe key, the car won't start because the engine's missing. That is howI equate this "art film" by Terence Malick. Beautiful cinematographywith the best actors, however a nebulous script with too manyunanswered questions.Is this arrogance?... that Malick should ask us to empathize with thesecharacters and get close to them, then when one dies, we know neitherthe reason or which character died because of all the fragmentedflashbacks. We are only left to surmise.The older "Jack" has this epiphany moment of his past life in hisoffice, a glass tower surrounded by other glass towers, symbols of ourmodern age. Why and when and how did this occur to Jack. We are leftvoid of information. Even Ingmar Bergman or Frederico Fellini, the masters of artisticcinema would not leave so many holes in a plot.One credit to Malick was this film had me thinking and asking questionsabout it the next day. That has always been an attribute for any movieI watched.

© 2009-2012 Free movie download, movie download, download All rights reserved