The Tree of Life Review

Posted by on June 28th, 2011   Filed under: Drama, Featured, Movie Review

The Tree of Life
Written & Directed by: Terrence Malick
Starring: Brad Pitt, Sean Penn, Jessica Chastain, Hunter McCracken

Terrence Malick’s existentialist experiment The Tree of Life triggered walkouts, exasperated sighs, and confused chatter. I loved every minute of it, but it’s easy to sympathize with an unprepared audience. Imagine it: half an hour into an otherwise grounded ’50s family drama, the universe is born. Their confusion was understandable, but their rudeness was less forgivable — I had to tell two whispering women behind me to curb their incessant chatting. With the shuffle of shopping bags, they not only obliged, they left.

Though not particularly fair, it’s easy to defend Tree of Life and condemn their reaction in the greater context of Malick’s body of work. I don’t know what contingent of the crowd had had exposure to the filmmaker, or consequently arrived as preconditioned to his introspective narrative stylings as I had. I’d venture a guess that a few of the least satisfied patrons likely hadn’t even seen the trailer. But if Tree of Life is only a great film if you’ve already seen Days of Heaven and The Thin Red Line, then it isn’t a great film.

The Tree of Life is great, but it will bewilder and bore an audience unwilling to entertain Malick’s bizarre tangents. I don’t pretend to understand exactly what the filmmaker is suggesting with each visual cue, but at their most visceral level, the images are appreciable as pure visual poetry. And written in the firestorm of newborn planets, Malick finds awesome beauty in the smoldering foundations of Earth, and the burgeoning life of our progenitors.

Opinion will doubtless hinge on this outstanding segment, but in truth Malick’s trip to the planetarium isn’t an especially significant aspect of the story. The birth of our world is an important prologue, but the director is more interested in comparably recent history. Sean Penn plays a modern man. Stuffed into a business suit and entombed in a monolithic glass office, he reflects on his upbringing with his parents and two brothers. With no conventional narrative to speak of, he’s left grasping at an odd assortment of memories and feelings.

First steps, family suppers, neglected chores. The genius of Malick’s film is playing these little moments on a galactic scale. Consider it this way: we meet a family with all the requisite triumphs and tragedies. Been there, done that. By pausing their story to illuminate the incalculably vast and random series of events that made possible their microscopic lives, the filmmaker gives us a new perspective on the size of even their shortest shortcomings. Juxtaposed with the unending expanse of the universe, the infinitesimal experiences that chip away and eventually shape their characters are monumental.

And then you’ve got the nuts and bolts of Malick’s filmmaking. Gorgeously shot by Emmanuel Lubezki and backed by Alexander Desplat’s emotive score, The Tree of Life deftly marries sight and sound with a Kubrickian flair that recalls the director in top form. It remains to be seen whether Malick’s oeuvre will have the lasting impact Kubrick’s did, but the two are alike foremost in their uncompromising commitment to their craft.

Tree of Life, like 2001: A Space Odyssey, is a big film. Its ideas are expansive, provocative, and timeless. As was demonstrated at the Cannes premiere and in my theater Saturday, the price of that intellectual ammunition is accessibility. This is not a film for everyone. It’s not a film that conventionally entertains. What Malick attempts to elicit from his viewers is infinitely more valuable than endorphins — a reverie for life itself and empathy for mankind. It must have worked, I feel sorry for those walkouts. — Colin

SCORE: 4 stars





  • Darksiders

    huge malick fan and i thought this movie was a disappointment. extremely heavy-handed obvious metaphors – especially the end. where malick’s other films are full of characterization and humanity, each of the characters in this film felt completely empty.

    the space sequence was beautiful, but kubrick did it better AND made it pertinent to the story.

  • Excellent review. I had a similair experience as you when seeing Enter The Void. People behind me started obnoixiously laughing and then started commenting on the film.

    Why people are so rude, I will never understand. If you don’t like the film you’re seeing cant you just save your comments until after the film instead of ruining an experience for others.

  • projectgenesis

    Seeing this in a suburban mall theater surrounded by angry old people was tedious. One old man pointed his cane at the screen during the space sequence, mumbling “what is this, National Geographic?”

    I like what Jay said on the podcast about the movie feeling like childhood. The running through the grass, fireworks, etc. were awesome, exactly what you would expect from Malick covering this territory.

    Elsewhere, the Sean Penn and dinosaur stuff felt out of place. I don’t know if it was just me, but the “Dino FX” looked worse than Carnosaur.

    Still, if you are a “lay down and F-ck me” kind of film goer. Prepare to be f-cked.

  • The more I hear about this the more I become intrigued by it.

    Personally, I can’t wait.

  • Sam

    Even knowing going in that there would be no conventional narrative, I still found myself getting restless after about 10-15 minutes. But I gradually became attuned to the film’s unique rhythm, and ended up loving it. I imagine it could be an alienating experience for those who weren’t prepped ahead of time, or who are unwilling to TRY to transcend their own (oft reinforced) preconceptions of what a movie should consist of….but fuck ‘em. You can’t go by them.

  • Tree of Life is like looking at a HD screen saver for 3 HOURS!! don’t be fooled, the characters and lives displayed are basic, overly poetic to the point of being a farce. In no way does Malick successfully create empathy for his characters, THEREFORE, it fails to hold your attention and allow the type of contemplation on ones life the director so desperately desires.

    the whole struggle within the fair tale family reminds me of the tweet “whitegirlproblems” – you think they are problems but they really are not. the structure is flawed as we concentrate on one brothers problem with his dad and keep flashing forward to the other brother?! all male filmmakers complain about female filmmakers making films about their vagina, here, is the worse example of male filmmakers basic film – their fractured relationship with their father!! really, is this first year film school?

    this film will be a cult classic for drinking games. take a shot every time someone looks lovingly towards the heavens and you will be hammered in ten minutes and stone cold dead in 40!! really, when have you ever seen people act this way, much less do it every 30 secs.?! I literally started laughing in the screening when Pitts character looked at the heavens, turned, and then started staring at a brick wall!!

    the ending is a mess – a great example of an unconfident filmmaker not knowing where to end so he uses ALL of his endings. what the hell is going on with the beach scene – did the other boys die to? one of my biggest cinematic disappointments ever!

  • see The Fountain – it is more beautiful and HAS ORIGINAL AND COMPLEX ideas unlike this film. and everyone needs to stop comparing this film to 2001, not even close. the level of ideas at the base of these two films is not even close. Just cause they are poetic does not make them in the same family – Shakespeare doesn’t sit next to Ice T on your shelf!

    A sign of a overhyped film, that people don’t know what to do with, is one were half the review talks about the peoples reaction in the theater. If the film is that great you should have more than enough things to say without focusing on audience reaction. Period.

  • bob

    well… it’s confusing, to say the least. Stunningly shot, no doubt about that, but what makes a movie a great movie is when all the elements (sights, sounds, story, etc.) come together as one cohesive unit and make you, the audience, conjure up some sort of emotion. Like others have said, when the movie ended, I felt nothing other than a little resentment towards the filmmaker in that it was an obvious attempt to out smart everyone. To put it another way, it was like listening to an inside joke that your on the outside of. Perhaps all the visuals and sounds had a cohesive point to make, but I can guarantee that the only person who got it all is the guy who made it.

    I was so focused on listening to all the whispering voiceovers that I missed about half the space scene. Then, once I realized the voiceovers meant nothing, they became a nuisance.

    But like you, I was disappointed with the audience in the theater. Blatant talking and laughter could be heard throughout. If your not going to give the film a chance, please leave. If you leave early enough you can even get your money back in some theaters.

    I gave it a shot; I was really excited to see it; I’ll even give it another chance one day, but like my friend said after we left the theater, “there is no way I can sit through that again at anytime in the next three months.” It’s an undertaking. It’s a struggle. Maybe there is some meaning in it for some people but at first glance, it was mind fuck that the filmmaker knew we’d all be too stupid to get.

  • and malick is working on a 6 hour directors cut – ridiculous. they should call it:

    “The Tree of Life – Security Camera Footage”

  • Darksiders

    @Adam – enter the void was amazing in the theatre! The first hour of THAT movie must have been what it was like to see 2001 in the movie theatre back when it was released.

    @Rus – gotta agree completely with you here. Malick really bordered on becoming a whiny bitch. An ode to waaaa, my daddy was mean to me.

    It feels as if Malick was parodying himself and his other films. While the voice overs in his other films are extremely insightful and humanistic and a gateway into the onscreen character’s psyche — this time around every single word was absolutely meaningless. Style over substance.

    Also, Sean Penn’s character? Nowhere to be found. He just walks around a building in downtown LA. Stares out the window. Says maybe all of 5 words in the whole movie — except for the voice over.

    Not wanna ruin anything for anyone that will see it but the last sequence? How mid-90s music video could you get?

    And yes — that dinosaur effect was……TERRIBLE!

    Was it beautifully shot? Yes. Was the space sequence beautiful? Yes. Was it a complete rip off of 2001? Hell yes! Did the family feel extremely fake? Yes. Brad Pitt and his wife had no connection whatsoever? Yes. Brad Pitt striking out against his sons was forced down our throats constantly? Yes. Did the entire film have any bearing on Sean Penn’s character’s life? I guess so because he looked out windows a lot. And he stared at things looking like a dog after you yelled at him for wiping his worms on your white carpet.

    If you liked the movie, why did you like the movie? How did it ring true to you? And not just the space scene…

  • Sam

    I don’t think it was confusing, just open to some degree of interpretation. I found the character arc of young Jack to be full of tension. I liked that the forks in his road were small, relatable moments in which, looking back on them, he could see the ripple effects. Did he plug in the lamp? Will he pull the trigger on his BB gun? That stuff rang true to me in a way I don’t often see.

  • SPOILER but why have large parts of the film completely centered on the child that passes away? how do scenes specifically dedicated to one character, where Sean Penn’s boyhood character is completely absence, relate then to Sean Penn’s older character? the central theme of the “Texas scenes” is the dead kids struggle with the dad, then we get lip service on Penn’s troubles?! really?! 3 hours and Malick can’t even get a central conflict thru the film?! And they say the kid dies at 19, so this is the most important summer? wait, it was longer then a summer. wait, why don’t we see the kid at 16? why are all the kids on the beach? why are they all still THE SAME AGE????!!!! WTF – are you saying they died Malick? no, then you must be saying that no other time mattered. really, not the year after, or right when the kid died???! FFFFUUUCCCCCKKKKKKK YYYYOOOOOUUUUU

  • and I know what people will say, “wait Jack is Sean Penns’ character.” No, the oldest died, the oldest was shamed by the father – the whole “I yelled at him for turning the sheet music wrongly” Jack is the oldest, Jack is the one shown turning sheet music and being disinterested in music. Jack and the father have the central struggle which completely undercuts Sean’s character struggle. The fact malick could not get two characters with their own well depicted struggles in a film this long is ridiculous.

  • Colin

    I ought to pull a Malick and disappear from criticism of my review…

    Rus, I’m not interested in workshopping Tree of Life from a storytelling perspective. If you’re going to psychoanalyze the characters and complain that their motivation isn’t dramatic enough, then you’re missing the visceral, emotional connection Malick is going for. Don’t overthink it.

    Darksiders, were you really expecting a fully realized character from Sean Penn? The film isn’t about that guy. Also, how exactly is Tree of Life a 2001 “rip off”? Thematically, the two couldn’t be more dissimilar.

  • see right there you contradict yourself. you say don’t over think it, you say if you were looking for dramatic character moments you are in the wrong film, yet those are the very elements that make 2001 a vastly different film and why this film isn’t anywhere close.

    and don’t act like you have the inside track on what Malick “is going for”, you don’t, noone does, because he NEVER TALKS! and since he doesn’t you have to judge the film on what it offers alone.

  • Colin

    Rus, I don’t see what contradiction you’re talking about. I didn’t compare Tree of Life to 2001 because of “character moments,” I compared them because they’re both films that trigger discussion beyond arbitrary plot points like the ones you’re harping on.

    And while you’re correct in suggesting I have no special audience with Malick, I think it’s safe to assume a film about memory is more right-brained than left.

  • Jack was the middle child.

  • Goon

    Havent seen TOL yet, but rus speaks my language when it comes to how I feel about the man. I haven’t even remotely liked anything he’s done, he can’t write a story, his “inisghts” are shallow and childish, the narration is always grating and boring. The very epitome of an Emperors New Clothes director.

  • But he shoots pretty pictures….

  • berserker01

    Starring Hunter McCracken. Son of Philip McCraken.

  • Sam

    Matt — Jack was the eldest child. Penn’s character remembers scenes where nobody else was present.

  • Goon

    “But he shoots pretty pictures….”

    Sometimes. But I object to the idea that Magic Hour automatically equals beauty. It’a a very expensive cheap trick.

  • “Matt — Jack was the eldest child. Penn’s character remembers scenes where nobody else was present.”

    exactly, its a f*cking mess.

    and to be clear, I wanted and desired to like this film. my frustration is that such an amazing opportunity to see a thought provoking and inspiring film from a visionary director is so poor. he really shows his age with this work…it feels like a visual film that would be made in the 90s when the general audience expected less story and character / family complexity.

    I mean really, in this day and age the family drama on screen is actually offensive when you open the paper and can read daily about serious woe in todays family structure. that is the byproduct of an out of touch director. and don’t give me “Im overanalyzing it” film is not created in a vacuum, it is always judged by the time period it premiers. the same thing holds true for when you watch old movies – you have to adjust your perspective to the time period it was made or you will never enjoy them.

  • Sam

    So their problems weren’t sensational enough to merit filming? I don’t get that at all. One too many monster reveals is my diagnosis….

  • I don’t think Malick is too interested in ‘hand holding’ in terms of narrative coherence. You get where he is going or not, he is certainly not trying for Spielberg-ian visual-clarity with his films.

    Jack is the eldest child, and Sean Penn is Jack as a man. It’s right in the end credits. Just because it doesn’t show the middle child turning the music pages, or being chastised for it, it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

    Malick is playing cinema as memory, and memories are not always ‘clear’ or linear or even logical. I think he does this type of filmmaking better than anyone.

  • well me and many others were confused by a point that Malick probably didn’t intend to be so confusing since it is so important to the basic structure. more reason it is a mess. the fact credits have to be consulted, after the fact, for a basic plot point is WEAK storytelling. more evidence of this unnecessary confusion is all the people that have stated Sean’s story seems unfulfilled. if they didn’t have to struggle to follow whose who they wouldn’t have been so disappointed with the Sean story. (not to mention the middle boy looked like Sean and the mother looked soooo young – even in the death scene) everyone can keep praising it but until they admit to the issues they would KILL other films for it all rings false.

  • Colin

    Rus, you can pick apart the skeleton all you want. You’re missing the soul.

  • right, I point out valid structural flaws but Im the one that is clueless… like getting a book with every 23rd page missing but the problem is that I EXPECTED all the pages to be there…right

  • Colin

    From my perspective, your complaints are more akin to misaligned pages on said novel. The book is there and it’s a pretty good book, but you’re hung up on a printing error.

  • to complete the total false read of people involved: my perspective you and others don’t know what to do with TOL, feel if you don’t praise it you will seem less than astute, therefore, you over compensate and ignore errors and say to others, “you don’t get it, you are over critical”

    I love poetic films that work, my all time favorite film is Cinema Paradiso

    time to move on, good debate, thats why I love filmjunk!

  • Fatbologna

    Reading Rus’ comments is like watching a retard tour the Guggenheim…

  • scoville

    “Reading Rus’ comments is like watching a retard tour the Guggenheim…”

    While I agree with what you’re trying to say, I know a lot of these people you would call a “retard” and they understand art more than Rus does.

  • DJ

    I lost a son who was 21 and I love classical music. The Tree of Life took me to some of those places that I experienced right after his death and then some. The themes of love and death driven by great music in a context of timelessness, vast space and unpredictable story is just what it’s like when you lose a child and this movie is just what I needed. I am going to go see it again.

  • Jeffry W

    Colin, I enjoyed your review and loved the movie. I teach a high school class, Film as Literature, in a California school and I will be attending Yale’s Teacher Institute. My former colleague and I have been teaching Jennifer Hollowell’s short story “A History of Everything, Including You” for many years, and now have a film to match it. They are nearly identical. I am working on a curriculum unit for the Institute, and for my classroom, and will likely reference your review and share it with my students. Thanks for writing and posting it.

  • Jeffry W

    Also planning to include Ridley Scott’s and Kevin MacDonald’s Life in a Day: http://www.youtube.com/lifeinaday

  • Colin

    I’m honored Jeffry, thanks for reading.

  • Nick

    Jumping in a bit late, but I finally saw the movie have read this entire string and I have to agree with Rus. I hated this thing.

    After seeing the trailer, I was honestly excited. Then I finally got to see it. Incoherent story, cinematography that reminded me of watching a screen saver or looking at postcards and most of all, it’s a self-indulgent disaster. It’s not that I don’t understand the film, because I get what it’s trying to do. It was so terribly edited and the story was so broken that it felt like a film-student (a not very good one) threw clips from National Geographic and Discovery Channel together mixed with scenes from other movies and called it a masterpiece.

    Here’s the big thing for me: If a movie has NO spoilers, then it has NO story which means you would be better off not wasting your time. To each their own. Keep it up.

  • Blizzrad

    Sorry to desecrate the peace of this dead thread, but I really need to. I have to say that I agree 100% with Rus, while kind of understanding why others might actually deeply enjoy the film. To me it was a let down precisely for the reasons Rus has laid out. I did how ever have a few moments of enjoyment. Pictures of vast space work for me every time. I would have actually preferred there was more of that.

    Somehow it felt as if Malick had seen The Fountain and thought: “boy, I want to make something like that myself”. Darren Aronofsky’s talent is just far, far beyond the reach here. Films like The Fountain, 2001, Blade Runner, etc. just keep giving after countless times. There’s no going back to this one, though. If the ones who so praised The Tree of Life can actually keep going back to it for more, well then I guess I actually have to feel a little sorry for the kind of cinephiles like myself and Rus.