MyNameCriterionForum wrote:There is also reference to
cell phone snapshots captured images of a business-suited Sean Penn standing in the desert, or of crew members constructing a lone doorway in the desert
which I distinctly remember seeing myself, and which has troubled me since. Assuming the doorway was indeed for the film, I can imagine a few of its uses in the movie: Malick is very fond of empty or disabused houses (Thin Red Line especially has several, including the shot where the camera tilts up and out of the mother's room to the sky) and if the doorway is simply used as a sort-of-symbolic or metaphoric nudge, then that's fine. But what worries me is I also remember reading the suggestion that the doorway is one which Penn literally walks through to pass through time. Dear lord, please, no. That sounds incredibly clumsy and gimmicky, and I can only hope those reports were the silly thoughts of an uninformed fan.
Can we hold off on our critiques until we've actually seen at least two consecutive frames of footage?
Click through to the full page of pictures. It's hilarious. Malick eventually figures out that Pitt is waving to a paparazzo and walks the rest of the way down the street with a folder in front of his face. And there are two random crotch shots of Pitt.
"Brad Pitt wears an all beige outfit with holes in his pants as he leaves the Formosa Cafe with a friend in Hollywood. He appears to be in good spirits smiling and waving." I guess the crotch shots are there to better demonstrate the SHOCKING HOLES IN HIS PANTS.
domino harvey wrote:I can't even tell which one of you missed the joke
As a proud stalker, I know who I'm looking at when I see my own reflection in Brad Pitt's newly bald head
Reliable or not, the list of characters at the film's IMDB page continues to interest me:
First Woman in City
Third Woman
Sixth Woman
Symphony Patron
Swimmer
Girl with Flippers
Lame Man
Prisoner
Secretary to the Senator
Underwater Bride (!)
Angel (!!)
Sony Pictures Acquisitions had a partnership with Apparition to release Welcome to the Rileys, but they've apparently cancelled that deal and the film will now be released through Samuel Goldwyn Films.
The Tree of Life is the only film they now hold the rights to. Hopefully a better distributor picks up the film soon and it still gets released this year.
How might the sale of the film to a different distributor affect the content? Is there any possibility they would (or could) ask or demand cuts or changes of any kind?
If anyone actually believes this is going to get released this year, I've got a plot of wetlands and an ornithology field guide to sell you. Even if the business end of things were completely stable, it still wouldn't speed up Malick's postproduction.
Tom Hagen wrote:If anyone actually believes this is going to get released this year, I've got a plot of wetlands and an ornithology field guide to sell you. Even if the business end of things were completely stable, it still wouldn't speed up Malick's postproduction.
Ropes of Silicon wrote:Today's MPAA ratings deliver one of the most interesting updates to date and not because of the rating but because Terrence Malick's long delayed The Tree of Life has an MPAA rating and instead of listing Apparition as the distributor it lists Cottonwood Pictures, Inc., which is actually the production company.
I put a phone call into the MPAA and they were able to confirm this is Malick's picture, it is finished in terms of music, effects, etc. and it was screened for the Ratings Board within the last of couple of weeks.
Mr. Malick is contractually obligated to bring in Tree for release this year - or else, to put it bluntly, he'll recieve no money.
Regarding the runtime, latest talk puts it "closer to 3 hours than 2.5," as may be expected from Mr. Malick.
A recent elaboration of a (vital) shot of the 2-minute montage from the film, shown last year and at this years Berlinale to distribs and such, describes a panning shot of the namesake, The Tree of Life, up into a starlit sky (with the tree still in the foreground), as to suggest the connection through the (metaphorical) tree as a gateway of sorts, depending on the interpretation of the scene."
Hollywood Elsewhere wrote:A friend has read an early draft of Terrence Malick's Tree of Life script "and here's what I can tell you, other than that it's wonderful," he writes. "Of course, there is a very good chance that the finished film will look nothing like this, given Malick's track record. But it really does appear to have borrowed not just a page, but several whole chapters from 2001: A Space Odyssey's book.
MyNameCriterionForum, I wish I didn't have those words in my head before heading into this movie. I avoided the article so I could avoid details like that, whatever it means. Please spoiler tag for every little detail on this movie. Please?
Fierias wrote:MyNameCriterionForum, I wish I didn't have those words in my head before heading into this movie. I avoided the article so I could avoid details like that, whatever it means. Please spoiler tag for every little detail on this movie. Please?
There are no space vampires (much as it would please the Bava fan in me). The article starts off with that as a (dumb) joke but then gets to the good stuff... none of which I read, personally. Besides, everybody already knows this film is about dinosaur psychiatrists who have sex with their cavemen patients.
aox wrote:Jeffrey Wells is advising Malick to dump any and all dinosaur segments in the film saying that there is no way Malick can pull them off.
Too much is being made about the dinosaur segment IMO, it just makes for an easy headline: Malick, Pitt, Penn... and dinosaurs!
The chances are that any dinosaur scenes in TTOL will just be a very small part of whatever trip through space-time that Malick has in mind. Or, they could just as easily end up on the cutting room floor. Either way I'm confident that the end result will be a typically Malick-ian affair and those entering the cinema expecting some sort of Jurassic Park sub-plot will be hugely perturbed.
