Is the Tree of Life Full of Sh##? 

Dusty Partition this comment needs more likes

Keke 66 done

Dusty Partition fucking no

Interesting; I struggle however to decide whether or not it supersedes Critics previous masterpiece, "Bat Credit Card", which provided new insights on the relationships underlying consumerism and it relationship to the notion of childhood as a culmination of all our entertainment.

I think he is just crazy.

+jsCP94 I agree. Yet, he still gives Transformers crap all the time.

+jsCP94 I don't know if he Always respects another opinion. Sometimes I really feel that Doug considers something to just be bad, for instance with Alice in Wonderland. I don't know if he is flexible enough all the time to actually see why people would like a movie. He does say 'this is a bad movie, but if you like it, I understand guilty pleasures.' he can be a bit absolute in his opinions.

+jsCP94 is that your interpretation on bananas

Sandro Swen I think those are the instances when he comes off as condescending. But, if you saw his "Top 11 Worst Movies Nostalgic Critic's Reviewed Video", he says that when someone likes the movie that he doesn't like, he asks why. He likes to learn about people based on the answer. He hates people who say, "YOU LIKE THIS MOVIE? IDIOT, SCUM..." etc.

jsCP94 That is true. And I know it is hard to understand why others would like something when you intensely hate it(I have my own share of those, honestly).

People that think Starship Troopers is advocating for fascism just don't get it. People that think Fight Club celebrates Tyler Durden's 'anarchists' just don't get it' People that think the ending of the Soprano's was 'abstract' and the show was about 'answers' just don't get it. Lost however is just shit (but maybe I just don't get it.)

Jason: Which movie? 1ynx 夜: Do you mean that the ending of LOST was shit? Or the entire show?

Not that you don’t get it it’s just that some movies speak something to some people and because they are interested in that subject and to other people it’s won’t all art is subjective and so watching a movie multiple time or get it or you didn’t get it is just going to make you appreciate the movie but not love it

I admit it. That was me. But I don't get satire. So sue me!

It's hard to say this without coming across as a pretentious dick, but I feel like I'm one of the only people who "gets" The Tree of Life. I'd say the key to understanding the whole film is in the words of the Jessica Chastain character, saying the nuns told their students they must choose between a life of nature or grace. The rest of the movie is sort of a meditation on the conflict between nature and grace, or what could perhaps more simply be called selfishness versus selflessness. In the family the Jessica Chastain character and the son who died are on the side of grace while the Brad Pitt character and Sean Penn character are on the side of nature. The movie also shows examples of the conflict between nature and grace through history, including the dinosaur showing mercy to another. Keeping this in mind the movie makes complete sense, to me anyway, except I'm still fuzzy on the movie's title lol

+MaroonThief That's prolly it.

+MaroonThief Actually, there are a lot of analogies to the story of King Arthur in Pulp Fiction, so it's probably the holy grail. After all, only the most pious of the knights could attain the grail, and who is more pious than Jules?

+MaroonThief It's not a theory if there isn't at least some kind of evidence for it. Dirty underwear isn't something four people would risk getting killed over. No matter how dirty it is.

+MaroonThief www.cracked.com/article_19138_7-hotly-debated-movie-questions-that-totally-have-answers.html ^--- (if you don't want to know what was in the briefcase, then don't read this).

No its........... ..........a lightbulb.

What do you learned, that the cause for the reflection should be shattered, ?? (the bad movies are the mirror in my metapher)

Gato asuassssasssassssssaaaaassaaaaaaaasasaasassasaaussasassuwaasasps

+eclipsesonic 2001 A space Odyssey is my all time favorite movie, I wish I was old enough to see this masterpiece when it was released in cinemas, in 1969.

Noah Anderson 1968 actually, but yeah, it's my favourite film too. :)

+eclipsesonic those special effects still have me speechless....

I watched 2001 on a tiny tv that wasnt even HD and it was one of the greatest movie experiences for me. Kinda goes to show to those people that say you can only get great experiences in movie theathers

that was the very first art film I ever watched. Loved the type of cinema ever since

Exactly. I get BvS just fine, but it's still fucking terrible.

TheSefirosu200x then you still dont get it

lol, According to people today - nothing ever goes over our heads haha. Is it realistic that apparently EVERYTHING that might confuse you or upset you makes you better than it or smarter lol oh boy.

or defending the film "Prisoners". That movie was DUMB. Wankers think you can't hate a movie because there's a deeper meaning

it really sounds like you don't allow them to defend it. What kind of arguments have they given you??

Ik its 3 years later but it had to be said. "You are fucking stupid"

But it isn't just an animated Disney movie... It's an animated Pixar movie

Luke Johnston Because they look like bananas and are yellow

I despise the minions

Marvel fan That's the one.

It was good but it should had been a live action movie..

+Bob Jones Yeah it was decent. I'm not sure I'd call it underrate because it was by no means an amazing movie and I don't think it was that hugely hated by most people.

SomethingCireMovies Well, I think it's a LITTLE underrated. I think it at least deserves an 80%.

Bob Jones Man, it got a 71% from critics. It was not underrated at all lol. The fan percentage is much lower, but I think that's just cuz it's really not the type of movie that just anybody would enjoy.

Here. have it in gif form! i.imgur.com/OhLHP5H.gif

Beautiful.

I just made a lengthy comment on this film in the comment section. I hear you. I saw the film 4 times in the theater, and 30-40 times since at home on DVD. Oh, hell, I'll just paste the comment here so you can read it, since you get it I'd really like to share it with you. It's so hard to find ANYONE who really gets this film. --------------------------------------------- Son, you REALLY don't get this film. And, of course, that's okay, because I didn't read a single review when it came out in which the reviewer got the film. When this film was in the theater, I went to see it 4 times, because I understood Malick's vernacular, and it was so complex that I wanted to really analyze the film at a deep level. I have probably seen it 30-40 times since then. This film is similar to "Jacob's Ladder", "Mulholland Drive", and "Birdman", and even some of Fellini's films, like "Fellini Satyricon", in that it's communication framework is image, symbol, and dream logic. It's about Jungian interpretation of the unconscious, and an understanding of how our unconscious mind is driving our conscious mind through the vernacular of image and symbol. Once you understand this notion of dream logic, the language of symbols, you can understand and interpret the film. Let me give you a quick example. You mentioned in a dismissive way the presentation of the dinosaurs, as though it were random and unrelated to the film. The dinosaurs emerge during the 20- to 24-minute "history of the universe" segment. That segment is an imagistic history of the universe designed to illustrate God's point in the Job quote that is presented earlier, which is basically saying "if you had any idea how vast and old this universe that I've created is, and how your little life is just a meaningless speck of dust that rises and falls in the billions of years and unimaginable trillions of beings I've create and destroyed in that time". It's showing how the human condition is nothing new. But it's showing what sort of evolution took place to ultimately lead to that human condition you're experiencing. So what we see is after the Earth is formed, life emerges in the sea. And takes shape over billions of years. And it's a nasty life. But the creatures in that sea can sea the sun, which, as is established earlier, "where God lives". So you see those sea creatures eventually moving toward the light, toward the sun. And that leads that first dinosaur to end up on the shoreline, where life, or a creature, can escape the sea and get to land so they can get closer to and get a clearer picture of the sun. We see that wounded dinosaur escaping from the sea where it was attacked, and saving itself on the shore. Then we see dinosaurs evolving. And what do we see then? In the presence of the light, of the sun, of God, the first hint of love and compassion or empathy emerges. We see this when that one dinosaur is wounded on the ground, and the other dinosaur emerges from the woods, and spares its life --- it leaves it alone. You'll note also that the final seen takes place again on the shoreline, with the sun always present in the distance, on the horizon. That scene at the end on the beach is the mother unconsciously struggling to accept that her son has died, and to not PERSONALIZE it --- to see it in this larger context that the Job quote represents, the evolution of the universe scene illustrates. Throughout the film she is struggling to accept this, and she finally does on that beach when she says to God, to the sun, as the boy is about to separate from her, "I give him to you, I give you my son". i could go on and on. I could spend more than an hour alone just on that final beach scene. But this will just give you a flavor for the depth in that film that you are completely blind to.

Petrichor Yes it does.

I believe that was ScarJo herself and the writer who told everyone what was said. No real mystery

thanks! same with me.

@nightshaded What's the "best" movie you ever saw? What are some movies that you consider great? Not good, but great. I'm trying to sniff out where you're coming from with this comment.

i dont think mentioning the lighthouse gives you extra cred tbh

Personally I love the film, but you can never be told to love something. You can be taught where the director was coming from, how it was done, the language of it... but you can't be told to love a movie. Hope you find a love for it one day, I really found something special in it. But hey, if you don't, no matter. Though do give Badlands a whirl, Malick's first film. It's about a killing spree and quite different.

Lost's ending was pretty conclusive imo (without going into spoilers why), and The Sopranos was also way more about abstract feeling than "plans and strategies" like Doug was implying. Agree with your comment tho

+Boxo'Spoons Doctor had dinosaurs, space and family drama, WITH Nefritiri and a big game hunter as well. :) all in on episode

i like movies that make sense and do not take too much brain power. Life is too complex as is.

you defnitely should. It`s a movie you have too be in the right mood for. nothing for a sunday hangover chill. ;) wehn I watched "the fountain" the first time I thought it was just boring. but I watched it again luckily and it`s one of my all time favourites now. I wasn`t just in the right mood the first time and didn`t pay attention.

At this risk of hilarious crippling disappointment, I say - yeah - try it again. There's another cut by the director. He doesn't describe it as his 'intended vision', or a 'director's cut', just a variation that ends up with quite a different message. It has some standout sequences that are so striking - such as a tornado grazing the suburbs where they live. The different version gets more into the lives of the parents and it's a really good one. I can't decide which of the two I prefer. The first is more abstract and allegorical, the second is more narrative and leaves a profoundly different impression. They're both there in the new remastered re-release.

Just asking but where does your profile picture came from?

oh? but was he dreaming or awake? thats what open to interpretation.

no, the film answers it by showing you his dreams. Something happens in that final scene that never happened when he would dream about that moment. The devil is in the details as they say.

*SPOILER* Do you mean the ring? That could have meant something else, especially how it was never really mentioned. What if the wedding ring on his finger meant how he couldn't accept his wife's death, and kept visiting her in his dreams? By the end of the movie, however, he did accept her death. Maybe, at that point, he would have lost the ring, showing he moved on from his guilt.

Sandro Swen *SPOILER* I didn't even think of that. I was referring to the fact that his last memory of his kids was the one where he leaves before he sees their faces. It is an image repeated throughout: he spots the kids crouched down, they stand and turn, but before he sees their faces he is interrupted. Until the final scene. In the final scene, he sees his children in almost the exact same situation, but now they turn and he sees them- the top spinning is inconsequential at that point. In other words, Nolan has given us the answer without full on telling us by allowing that moment to complete itself. I'll put it to you this way- I'm the type of guy who loved Se7en and The Mist and anything that leaves you with an emotional gut punch, so any time a film leaves you with an open ending, my mind is hardwired to assume the worst possible outcome is the one that was intended. So I would have wanted to assume he was stuck, but the film told us that he wasn't, they just did it subtly.

What do you think of it now?