Never met a single person who has seen this movie

I have rated it 7 but I have no clue why. I probably watched it when it was first out.

I remember nothing about it.

What's wrong with camera moving? As to the second scene what are describing? I don't remember that being somehow prevalent in the film.

I think it’s only on people’s lists because of the space scene. Other than that it was a decent family drama thing

>Literally windows screen saver the movie

>How do you people like this crap?
they don't, they just want to seem interesting

You must be new then bc it was spammed here when it came out

I don't know. I like A Ghost Story and I know most brainlets are "too slow, give me my cartoons and capeshit back".

When she ate the pie for 10 minutes I turned it off.

Did I miss anything?

Literally the only time I stopped a movie half way though. That shit was unbearable.

Very creative considering it was made entirely b-roll footage for a cologne commercial and a jurassic park prequel.

After the pie scene, the pacing picks up considerably. Also I felt the complaints about that scene were over the top. It went by pretty quick and was a powerful scene.

Malick is pure soul, when will the pretentious meme end? The film is explained in the beginning and every sequence thematically ties in with it. The film is a great look at life, nature, being torn between parents, the beautiful parts and not so beautiful parts of being a child, the miracle of creation and complexity of human emotion. It's one of the most beautiful films ever. Not that autists on Yea Forums could ever understand that things like empathy and beauty exist.

Attached: terrence-malick-on-set-1108x0-c-default.jpg (1108x831, 167K)

>walking with someone
>point to the Sun and say "that's where God lives"
>they look at me like I'm crazy
hmm...

Attached: liking_pretentious_films.jpg (694x693, 65K)

Yes, but does it change the fact that it is pretentious? Unless you look for this symbolism you will get nothing out of Tree of Life other than some pretty wallpaper shots (if you like that it's ok I guess).

Lawrence of Arabia also tackles incredibly difficult themes, but it does so without being pretentious. You can watch it as an epic, or as a deep study of humanity, history, modernity vs tradition.

There are more ways to accomplish what Malick did without without divulging and alienating people, he himself accomplished it with his earlier films.

Attached: 7323423_l.jpg (768x768, 86K)

You are brainlet. Watching your capeshit having a 10 minute scene of nothing but explosions that could be over with a punch on another movie, is more waste of time.

Song to Song is Malick's best recent film. Unlike The Tree of Life its pretentiousness is relatively contained & the film isn't contemplative to a fault. It's also relatively accessible, and has got Goose and Mara.

1. Song to Song
2. Knight of Cups
3. The tree of Life
4. to the Wonder

Attached: Song_to_Song_film_poster[1].jpg (220x326, 102K)

I have not watched a superhero film in the last 5-8 or so years.

Keep spewing bullshit.

>Knight of Cups

Self indulgent bullshit.

Someone needs to stop this madman, Hollywood yesmen aren't going to until plebs like you keep paying for this crap thinking it's deep.

it's the marvel movie for plebs who think they are patricians

Literally impossible to understand if you didn’t have a classic education.
It’s not made for anybody and you shouldn’t hate it because you don’t have the abilities to watch it.

Pleb filtered
based
malick made the best film of this decade

Attached: Terrence Malick.jpg (630x1200, 89K)

What is it? footfag bait?

>contemplative to a fault
pleb

>Literally impossible to understand if you didn’t have a classic education.

Really? All that you need is an understanding of the dialogue between Job and God and that's it.

>durrr you didn't get it's so deep durrr but I won't say why or how

Attached: 1564248691487.png (882x624, 39K)

Please give me a definition of "pretentious"

i preferred knight of cups tbqhwydf

Attached: 5985A712-4239-4E31-BFDA-4EB109B0FA4B.png (495x495, 408K)

>attempting to impress by affecting greater importance or merit than is actually possessed.

WOW LOOK IT'S SPACE WE'RE LIKE SO SMALL

WOAH THAT DINOSAUR JUST SPARED THE OTHER DINOSAUR, BIRTH OF MORALITY WOAH

The meaning of life is a very complex topic.

Attached: Screenshot from 2019-08-05 12-18-54.png (133x156, 51K)

Uhhhhhhhhhhh.... jews?

It sounds like you've been filtered. You haven't met anyone that watches it because all of your friends consume their capeshit and then get excited for the next product once the trailer releases. The fact you called it pretentious, just goes to show how capable you are at explaining why you disliked something.

who else cried when you see one of the kids growing up and running around the house with the music swelling into a crescendo

It's not pretentious you cunt.
The point is that everything is spelled out at the beginning it's quite a simple film that poses some questions which you can think about. Do you think that every film with symbolism is pretentious? I mean are you retarded? The Tree of Life doesn't rely on symbolism. The basic layer of this film is very simple and everybody should be able to get it since it's explained at the beginning of the fucking film.
Lawrence of Arabia is completely different i don't even know why you even mention it.

>attempting to impress by affecting greater importance or merit than is actually possessed.
You can't quantify either of those things, so how do you determine which is greater?

terrible movie. Tree of Life is also very overrated. To the Wonder is an underrated masterpiece.

1. To the Wonder - 8/10
2. Knight of Cups - 7/10
3. Tree of Life - 6/10
4. Song to Song - 2/10

The last 10 minutes of the film are spelled out?

Unironically the greatest thing to ever happen to cinema

I forgot about that. It doesn't take a genius to get that, but yes you are correct that's not spelled out. The rest of the film is quite well explained, if you are annoyed with the last 10 minutes, you can just find it online later.

You have some of the worst opinions i have seen here. Also fuck you for saying that The Beach Bum is good. Fuck you.

>The Tree of Life doesn't rely on symbolism

Of course it does. What is the Lacrimosa section? What is the dinosaur and the b-roll of volcanoes? What is the ending of the film? Even the more grounded scenes all still do, say the scene where the boy steals the woman's underwear. This is all symbolic as it does not explicitly tell you what all of it means and requires you to interpret it.

>The basic layer of this film is very simple and everybody should be able to get it since it's explained at the beginning of the fucking film.

One quote from the Bible tells you very little, especially if you do not have a strong understanding of the Bible like most people. It is not straight forward for this reason, someone who is not a Christian will have a very difficult time connecting with what he sees because this movie is meant for Christians.

>Lawrence of Arabia is completely different i don't even know why you even mention it.

I'm sorry you're not able to read.

>It's not pretentious you cunt.
Yes, yes it is.

Attached: deal_with_it.jpg (550x550, 9K)

I only managed to get by through the scene comfortably because I'm a renowned admirer of Rooney's feet

You didn't. It's McDonald's arthouse pretending to be slow cinema.

Aka sharthouse

The main narrative is about a boy who is torn between father and mother. At the beginning Chastain explains what nuns told her. That's all you need to understand the basic layer of the film.
The Lacrimosa scenes are creation of the universe that's not hard to get. The ending is the only part that may be problematic and the dinos too but that's like 15 minutes max.
>One quote from the Bible tells you very little, especially if you do not have a strong understanding of the Bible like most people. It is not straight forward for this reason, someone who is not a Christian will have a very difficult time connecting with what he sees because this movie is meant for Christians.
I'm not Christian and i like it.
Lawrence is classically structured film, if you think different and more poetic means pretentious then we have to disagree.

No it's not.

>saying knight of cups is better than the tree of life
what a load of bullshit.
Could you please elaborate on why you think that?

>soulful movie
What does this mean? Is this some abstract meme for pseuds?

The movie would be a lot better without those random space or abstract scenes. I didn't get the purpose, were they suppose to be deep?

No it basically means a film that is emotionally powerful

I don't know what those meant i'll try to find out when I watch it for a third time

>The main narrative is about a boy who is torn between father and mother. At the beginning Chastain explains what nuns told her. That's all you need to understand the basic layer of the film.

You yourself don't seem to understand the main narrative, but maybe it's because you're an atheist and interpret it differently.. It is not about a boy being torn between his mother and father. That is a theme in the film, but the parents represent forces in the universe. The father is man, cruel, greedy, seeking fame and fortune. The mother is pure and all loving, she is the holy spirit (that's my take on it).

The main theme of the film is grief, grief over the death of one of the boys. The mother weeps and cannot understand why this has happened, and this takes us back to the opening line of the movie. The parents represent Job, wondering why this is happening to them when they are good people. The movie ends with mother coming to terms with god ("I give him to you, I give you my son"), just like Job did after realising that God cannot be understood by us people, since he is infinitely vast and all knowing.

I understand the movie and like it to a point, but it is still pretentious. Because we are having this disagreement about the film to it's core actually means really highlights my point that it is not straight forward, and if you think it is you're being a total pseud.

Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.
Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?
On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone—
while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels shouted for joy?
Job 38:4-7

It's God showing the mother that we humans do not understand his plan for this universe, and that blaming him for our grief is senseless since he is the one who made everything. He is endlessly compassionate and all loving, he is the creator and without him we would not be. Grief comes to righteous men, but asking why is meaningless since we could not grasp the answer if it was given to us.

tl;dr universe is big and vast, God made it and he knows what's up

Yea Forums no longer likes art, its contrarianism has gone full circle so now it can only talk about blockbusters and how much money they made and everything with an attempt at substance is "pretentious hipster garbage" because they're pretentious hipsters, mostly underage who couldn't get this movie anyway

>Not that autists on Yea Forums could ever understand that things like empathy and beauty exist.
But your entire post is austic as fuck

no

it flows a lot better and has an overall
better atmosphere

also the space & dino bits reduced my enjoyment of tree of life immensely

regards

I was going to reply, but then for some reason realized I got this confused with The Fountain.
Watched that in theaters back to back with Tenacious D. Man was that some mood whiplash.

>You yourself don't seem to understand the main narrative, but maybe it's because you're an atheist and interpret it differently.. It is not about a boy being torn between his mother and father. That is a theme in the film, but the parents represent forces in the universe. The father is man, cruel, greedy, seeking fame and fortune. The mother is pure and all loving, she is the holy spirit (that's my take on it).
I know, that's why i said that Chastain says at the beginning what the nuns told her. That's basically what she and Pitt represent.
>The main theme of the film is grief, grief over the death of one of the boys. (the whole paragraph, comment would be too long otherwise)
I mainly agree but this is something that you don't need to understand at the first watch. The connection to Bible doesn't have to be made in order to understand that it's about grief. You can read about the Biblical stuff later or you don't have to read it all. It doesn't diminish the narrative and the thing presented in the film on the basic level.
>I understand the movie and like it to a point, but it is still pretentious. Because we are having this disagreement about the film to it's core actually means really highlights my point that it is not straight forward, and if you think it is you're being a total pseud.
I didn't say that it's not straightforward. I said the basic layer of the film can be understood by everybody because it's explained at the beginning. Nature vs nurture, grief, childhood, good and evil, compassion, human emotion everything is communicated quite clearly and you can mostly understand what's going on (except the ending i guess). The knowledge of Bible enhances the viewing but it's not necessary for basic understanding of the film.

Why?

How does it flow better and how is the atmosphere better

yeah pretty much

That’s not the point. Malick was deeply Catholic when he made the tree of life

>Malick was deeply Catholic when he made the tree of life

Confirmed for not knowing anything. Malick is a Coptic Christian.

based and redpilled, but switch 3 and 4

>I mainly agree but this is something that you don't need to understand at the first watch. The connection to Bible doesn't have to be made in order to understand that it's about grief. You can read about the Biblical stuff later or you don't have to read it all. It doesn't diminish the narrative and the thing presented in the film on the basic level.
I strongly disagree with you here, I had a strong understanding of the Bible when I watched it, I knew that I was in for before even viewing the film. Days of Heaven also expects the viewer to understand the Bible, and to see the allegory the film presents, but much less so. THIS you can watch without knowing the Biblical story it is based on, and get something, but the Tree of life doesn't cut corners. Malick made the film he wanted to.

Without this understanding you miss so much, I believe that this is why so many people didn't like The Tree of life. When a Christian movie expects you to have a strong understanding of Christianity then all those who lack this knowledge will miss so much. But even still, even those who possess this knowledge can still miss it. My mother who is a devout Catholic didn't understand what she watched until I explained it to her.

Sure you can watch it as a family drama, but even in this sense the movie wouldn't actually come to any conclusion. Every aspect of this film is deeply linked to Christianity, and this cannot be taken away. If you miss that, then you miss the whole point. I deeply disagree with you that you can watch it and ignore "the Biblical stuff" as you put it.

What is your atheistic interpretation of the Lacrimosa scene? I actually want to know.

Not the guy you are replying to, but what is pretentious about that? Using WOW and WHOAH as arguments can make everything sound shitty.

It’s called art you fucking witless philistine.

Just look at it, I bet you own a fedora too

The film is a mix between Malicks personal life and the retelling of the Book of Job, which is even mentioned during the movie. The universe scene follows after the mom, like Job, asks why god lets bad things happen and is a visually retelling of god's answer to Job. The movie is more accessable if you actually familiar with catholicism. Sure, if you are just a autistic sperg who larps as a right winger on /pol/, you will think it's pretentious.

I hate both 2001 and Tree of Life. One is a kid's middleschool science project and the other is a prestige film pretending to be profound by loosely appropriating silent techniques in service of watering them down for mass approval. When you cut between the universe and shots in your neighborhood, that is the type of expansive garbage that only teenagers respond to. The differential is monumentally massive therefore FUCKING OBVIOUS. You have to dissect from micro then enlarge to macro, or disjunctively flip between not reserve time for NASA footage with calm classical music over. That's lazy, that's not metaphysics, that's not complex orientation. That's the perspective of a teenager that is awestruck by closeups of fucking bugs and a mash cut with nuclear phenomena because "bro it says life is insignificant but beautiful bro". It's why those same dipshits will hate Intolerance and Que Viva Mexico because they don't understand what is being said through the images, the intellectual montage is too complex for peabrains that want an expansive match cut with classical music over. Intolerance and Que Viva Mexico are breaking down entire civilizations and cultures down to the most infinitesimal constituents, but you're amazed by a fucking closeup of a CGI ant and a cut to CGI supernovas.

Malick is Episcopalian not Catholic. Probably high church tho.

I found Days of Heaven to be more incomprehensible than this.
I guess there are many interpretations. You can say that's it's just showing God's creation of universe. I think Chastain's character had some questions about the death of her son before the sequence. It can show the indifference of nature towards human suffering also that the death is only the fleeting part of much larger time frame of universe. It mixes beauty with scary almost apocalyptic and destructive images of nature so it shows many faces of nature. The dinos i thought were the birth morality/compassion.

Too bad you are so shallow.

Masterpiece

youtube.com/watch?v=VV_FbMbCP6Y

name a more kino scene made in the last 20 years

Kill yourself OP

I get not liking the CGI dino shit but if you weren't moved by the Brad Pitt father scenes, you weren't raised properly

it went full perfume commercial in the ed

Based anf mommy pilled

Listen you fucken roastie, this shit was the shit, you’re too much of a pleb to not understand how deep and philosophical it is much like my other favorite movie A Ghost Story (tm)

Remember back in the day when there was always a Malick thread on the first page? Seem so surreal now.

Of course the contrarians on Yea Forums have to pretend it's good, like with every crap movie.

But Avengers is bad guys, definitely not because it's popular.

Kill yourself

Tree of Life laid it on a little thick but Knight of Cups is film of the decade imo.

because watching a Mallick film (a good one at least) is like having a piece of your soul that's been dead for a long time revived for a short while

Best film of the decade so far.

Attached: tree of life god.webm (1280x688, 2.75M)

I can't believe what this board has become

any breastfeeding scenes?

Hopefully A Hidden Life will generate some interest.

Attached: b2BQCbwPXKFiY7R.jpg (1000x668, 153K)

Fakedeep midcult, what said.

cringe

Whats with the poster? Is this some sort of Quentin Taranino flick?

fuck off

its the best film of 21st century so far

Attached: 1420248290806.jpg (300x245, 6K)

Based Malick bros. Nice to see that Yea Forums isn't full of retarded mongoloids.

Attached: 1559945257639.gif (500x220, 1024K)

You have no soul

lol you fell for the meme

i liked it. Reminds me of my parents fighting

Daily reminder that Malick produced a lil Peep documentary
Can he get any more based?

mongoloid

I'm just waiting for the inevitable biopic starring ruffalo
wonder what it'd be about

No he can't, based Terry.

How many Kabbalistic concepts are in this film?

imagine being brain dead

>Who even watches crap like this?
Christcucks and promiscuous whores

Dinosaur scenes were kino. Wish we got a whole film like those.

Sarcastro strikes again.