criterionforum.org

I don't understand why Seattle/Tacoma always gets screwed and ends up being last every time just before it goes wide. We're people too dammit!

They know that after waiting for sunshine through all of the rain, you are the most patient people in the country.

MyNameCriterionForum wrote:

Fierias wrote:Adam - or, really, anyone else who has seen the film: was it shown on celluloid or was it a digital projection? In Cannes, they showed it digitally, which I thought was very strange. I think I'd greatly prefer it on 35mm.

I checked with my local small arthouse theater, which is apparently getting it a few weeks in advance of the wide release, and they claim they will be screening an actual film print, much to my relief. I'd call whatever place is showing the film near you.

It was a 35mm print at LACMA. Changeovers and everything. They don't have a great digital projector there yet anyway.

Looks like July 8th for me

I attended the US Premiere last night and WHOA. It's hard to even talk about how one feels after seeing this beautiful piece of art. I'm definitely still processing the film and feel like I still might be doing so for the rest of my life. This is no mere film, this is a staggering work of profundity and cinematic form. All I can say is that whoever booed this film at Cannes has the biggest balls ever and is a total moron. It's no wonder all the reviews are completely all over the place because there is no singular way to describe or talk about the power of this film. You can't even gauge or review it by the standards of any other film. It washes over your mind.

Also, all the hype some people have over spoilers and not wanting to know anything about it...trust me, even if you knew everything that happens in the film, nothing will prepare you for the experience. There are some SERIOUS WTF moments in this thing. My girlfriend and I talked about it for three straight hours after it was over. I found the film utterly amazing and beautiful and can't wait for my next viewing. Oh yeah, and it is COMPLETELY non-mainstream. This is 100% an art film.

Ben Affleck was also at the screening because as we all know he is in Malick's next one, 'The Burial.' I noticed cigarette burns on the film, so I assume it was a film print. Speaking of the film print, and everyone knows this if they've even seen the trailer, the cinematography of this film is FUCKING INSANE.

TREE OF FUCKING LIFE!

Got my tickets for midnight tonight at Landmark Sunshine in NYC, though I just read on their website that it's being projected digitally. ](*,)

Oh well, I'm sure I'll live. I was still in college when this finished shooting, making the wait seem all that much longer. 15 hours...

Grand Wazoo wrote:Got my tickets for midnight tonight at Landmark Sunshine in NYC, though I just read on their website that it's being projected digitally.

Yea I noticed that too, the weird thing is, I have my ticket for the 7:45 show on Friday and there is no note with the showtimes to say it's being projected digitally, unlike the midnight show. Oh how I wish this was opening at say, the Ziegfeld...

A.O. Scott's rave

And a typically clunky Armond review

tavernier wrote:And a typically clunky Armond review

Let me guess, he prefers films that limit their metaphysics to less self-indulgent expressions, such as dramatized conversations between aliens and sentient child robots recovered from the floor of the ocean.

Those weren't aliens. They were robots. White's review is more simplistic than you give it credit for. He just hates Malick's indifference.

There's actually not a Spielberg reference in the whole thing, at least that I spotted on a quick skim.

knives wrote:Those weren't aliens. They were robots.

Really? Did the robots evolve into alien-like creatures or something? That particular detail must have gone over my head at the time.

I hated that ending so much. It was the filmic equivalent of Camus adding an epilogue to The Myth of Sisyphus wherein some deus ex machina (let's say, Mickey Mouse) arrives and allows Sisyphus to re-live his favorite day of rock pushing one last time.

End of thread derail.

What movie?

AI

Oh, I thought thry were talking about some latest CGI kids movie.

I actually like AI

Brian C wrote:There's actually not a Spielberg reference in the whole thing, at least that I spotted on a quick skim.

There are references to David Gordon Green, Resnais, Godard, Troell, Altman, Kubrick and Griffith to compensate.

tavernier wrote:

Brian C wrote:There's actually not a Spielberg reference in the whole thing, at least that I spotted on a quick skim.

There are references to David Gordon Green, Resnais, Godard, Troell, Altman, Kubrick and Griffith to compensate.

Ooooo ... he's moving up in the world ...

Just got back from the midnight screening. I'm not sure I can accurately express my opinion of the film at this point, as I was unable to draw any innovative or moralistic intentions from Malick and the fact that I couldn't turn my brain off and just enjoy the absolutely gorgeous imagery and sound design really started to irk me and got in the way of my viewing.

I will just say that it really reminds me of Davies' The Long Day Closes, and that I will need to view it again with a more relaxed and receptive open mind to fully gauge my opinions of it (also like Davies' film).

Tom Hagen wrote:

knives wrote:Those weren't aliens. They were robots.

Really? Did the robots evolve into alien-like creatures or something? That particular detail must have gone over my head at the time.

I hated that ending so much. It was the filmic equivalent of Camus adding an epilogue to The Myth of Sisyphus wherein some deus ex machina (let's say, Mickey Mouse) arrives and allows Sisyphus to re-live his favorite day of rock pushing one last time.

End of thread derail.

Okay, I'm going to derail this one more time because the final sequence of AI is what the entire film is about and is in keeping with Kubrick's original vision. The robots that uncover David are the result of machines building machines for thousands of years. They are now superior to humans in intelligence and in physical/mental ability, but to them, humans represent the almost-mythical creator they've never known. David is valued because he is the only robot actually created by a human who survives. Humans are as unknowable to this race of androids as God is to humans and they are profoundly affected to have discovered something so unique. In this way, David achieves his goal as he is as close to a "real boy" as he is ever going to get. The tragedy of this is, of course, that the human race needs to be extinct for this to happen.

So, in a rather pathetic attempt to put this post back on-topic, I would suggest that THE TREE OF LIFE may be the first film since AI to have scenes set on Earth both populated and non-populated by humans!

I, like James, can't say much either after having seen the film. I feel as if I've seen a work of art, but I'm not sure how it made me feel, if really at all. Now, I'm not saying that all art must make one "feel", particularly. It's more that, really great art is able to function on an astounding level of personal ambition for its creator whilst not being overly alienating for its audience - in its storytelling. I'm not quite sure if The Tree of Life accomplishes this.

I want to see it again to see how I feel a second go around (but, should a great film really need a "retry" just for me to convince myself I love it?).

Two notes, though:
1) A Con! Dinosaurs. Much has been written on Malick's delay of Tree of Life, in parts due to the visual effects. Now, it seems, much more is being written on Voyage of Time, how Malick hopes to now complete it. And, if this IMAX presentation is to include the same quality of effects, in terms of dinosaurs, then I wont sit for it. Because, ultimately, no matter how beautiful the Universe creation, no matter how stunning the landscape photography is, a bad CG dinosaur is still a bad CG dinosaur. As soon as that Pleisiosaurus (Water Horse?) sat on the beach, I was out. The illusion broke. And the following scenes with other dino denizens, felt clunky, overly soundeffects heavy (what was with those pebbles?), and plastic. They had no texture, no life. Now, I for one, due to the amount of time Malick spent on this film, was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt in terms of VFX, but he too succumbed to the squint test. They really ruin the Creation sequence for me. What ever happened to those good ol' 1993 JP dinos?

2) A Pro! Brad Pitt is phenomenal. Finally, he leads with that jaw; finally the pretty boy is beaten out of him.

It's pointless trying to rush to judgment when seeing a new Malick for the first time, but I will say that the first hour is some of the most beautiful, impressionistic filmmaking I've ever seen. It's certainly the most radical form and content of a big budget Hollywood movie since....um, 2001, probably (however, there's no real link between the two films other than that). But after the hour mark, TREE seems to settle down into something more ordinary, although still occasionally beautiful; somehow the mystery and uniqueness of Malick's vision, so confident and purposeful in that first 60 minutes, slowly dissipates the longer the film goes on. It of course needs a second viewing, during which it might all fall into place.

James Mills wrote:I will just say that it really reminds me of Davies' The Long Day Closes, and that I will need to view it again with a more relaxed and receptive open mind to fully gauge my opinions of it (also like Davies' film).

I know exactly what you mean.* And in terms of an elliptical, poetic coming-of-age film that limns the line between memory and imagination, I definitely prefer The Long Day Closes (then again, it's one of my all-time favorite films). Whereas The Tree of Life attempts to unite the personal and the sublime, Davies' film elevates the personal to the sublime.

Still, they're two different films with very different methods, so here's my main issue with TTOL. While both the "cosmic documentary" and intimate coming-of-age tale were incredible on their own, their juxtaposition failed to resonate with me. Like two beautiful melodies...that don't necessarily work in counterpoint to each other. In other words, the whole wasn't greater than the sum of its glorious parts.

But I also realize that such criticisms are pretty minor, even pointless with a film like this -- which, unlike virtually every other so-called "art" film out there today, is meant to be experienced, not analyzed in terms of good and bad, success and failure. The only question that matters is whether Malick & Co. provided a stirring and singular aesthetic experience. And for me, the answer is a resounding YES. Dana Stevens had a great line in her NYT review of Yi-Yi: "In exchange for three hours of your time, Yi Yi will give you more life." I feel the same way about the 2+ hours I spent in the theater today.


*Also funny how both films were made by Ter(r)ences whose reputation is built on both the artistry and scarcity of their films.

...though a crucial difference between the two Ter(r)ences is that only one has a sparse output by choice.

Still at least Davies has finally completed a proper feature (as opposed to a "personal documentary") for the first time in over a decade - I think it's premiering at Venice.

Like most here who have seen the film, I feel like I need a second viewing as well. Or at least before I could type out a proper review. I will say this, this is seriously the most aesthetically radical film of Malick's career (and I'll definitely echo what someone else said, definitely the most aesthetically radical film to come out of Hollywood since Kubrick). As is the case with Malick, but even moreso, almost everything in the story in hinted at through small details and subtle implication, making it that much harder to grasp on a first viewing.

The movie is about 2 hours and 15 minutes and I would say there is about 20 minutes of dialogue in the entire thing, and most of it is of the elliptical Malick variety. I'm not sure if anyone else felt this way, but the "childhood" scenes that take up the middle section are some of the most haunting and beautiful cinema I've seen in the past few years. Malick does an unbelievable job of portraying, not childhood in the concrete sense, but what childhood actually feels like. And though I did not grow up in the 50s and did not live in Waco, some of these scenes seriously hit some sort of button on my subconscious.

Robert de la Cheyniest wrote: I'm not sure if anyone else felt this way, but the "childhood" scenes that take up the middle section are some of the most haunting and beautiful cinema I've seen in the past few years. Malick does an unbelievable job of portraying, not childhood in the concrete sense, but what childhood actually feels like. And though I did not grow up in the 50s and did not live in Waco, some of these scenes seriously hit some sort of button on my subconscious.

I'm not sure how much of the Waco sequence you're referring to, but for me the section detailing Jack's birth and growth and then the arrival of his siblings, is by far the most thrilling in the film, driven by the music and with nary a word of dialogue (and not even much voiceover). It was when it settles down into the more conventional rhythms of the antagonism between Pitt and the children that it became a little less unique. That's not a knock on Pitt by the way. He was very good indeed; for perhaps the first time in his career, he neither strove too keenly for actorly effect (a la Babel or Benjamin Button) nor coasted on his own charisma/persona (Fight Club or Seven) but instead completely disappeared into the character.

Lots to think about with this film. I'm very much looking forward to revisiting in a couple of weeks and seeing if the second half of the film resonates with me any better. It took a couple of viewings before I warmed to the last part of The Thin Red Line.