The Tree Of Life (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews



Message


Empire Admin -> The Tree Of Life (28/6/2011 12:55:38 AM)

Post your comments on this article




Pappstar -> Review of the "review" (28/6/2011 12:55:38 AM)

Much as I appreciate a good wordsmith, and the eloquence that was corner-stone to this review, to debase the essentility of a said review for Empire on a film by reflecting the unashamed pretention which the afformentioned director systematically exemplifies via his cinematic representations does only to belitte those who fail to find ability to qualify his self-indulgent, procrastinated musings and those who find little time to invest in them, let alone those who are intrigued.

So there’s a long sentence. And paragraph. Wow. Imagine that. Isn’t it amazing?!? People can do word and stuff.

So let's skip the hyper-bloated BS of writing a review for Malick that is 5*. Yes, people can scribble in such a way that will try to show words as pictures on that screen. That’s fair. Don’t forget us who have to read it. Bloated? Bugger that. I also have little doubt that this film could be a 5* film, but is it necessary to write such a review, with such ideas above station that it's just a lyrical blow-job of "Terry"?

Sure someone he knows may read this review. I'm sure he won't. Next time use the crayons to write one that is actually for the readers to read. Your use of the language must mean you’re able to realise they’re the ones who’ll read this. [nb: check dictionary instead of thesaurus]

I know it’s a Malick film but, next time (or for publication), just tone it down. This is so overtly OTT. Many other journalists wanna be creative writers too. This is not the outlet. Don’t forget your audience.

Pretentious (even if good) movie a pretentious review should not make.

Sometimes I disagree with a review for the mag. This has been the first poorly written (in a too-well written way) I’ve ever read. Shame.




Pappstar -> Rating below is of review, not film (28/6/2011 1:25:57 AM)

Bad review




Deviation -> RE: Rating below is of review, not film (28/6/2011 2:59:52 AM)

Pappstar's initial comment was pretentious.  




UTB -> RE: Rating below is of review, not film (28/6/2011 8:14:41 AM)

Yes but what about the 3D??????




nhassell -> RE: Rating below is of review, not film (28/6/2011 3:15:10 PM)

I have a good knowledge of words, don't get me wrong; but I just cannot understand anything that, that review was trying to get across. It's too well written for its own good.




Pappstar -> (28/6/2011 4:53:03 PM)

Ha @ Deviation. I'm sure you got that that was the point and I was taking the piss out of the way the review had been written. My comment was well pretentious as I was pretending to be pretentious.




nice8520 -> RE: (29/6/2011 5:51:39 AM)

Its truly great to read this article, this one is mind blowing to get the best knowledge, Thanks for sharing.




danmorrish -> Beautifully written review (29/6/2011 8:10:57 PM)

Apologies but this is not a review, but a rebuke to the numpty who made the comments about the Empire review being pretentious. You weren't being ironic, you were being an idiot. I believe the review was a beautifully articulate highly insightful tribute to a film which the reviewer has interpreted in his own way. The language used was that of an intelligent, educated, informed and expressive individual who knows a thing or two about film and who I am happy to listen to. If you do not like the tone or the vocabulary used then I suggest you frequent a different magazine site more befitting your intelligence and linguistic level of understanding. Rant over.




nc_jj -> Brilliant, in all the senses of the word. (29/6/2011 10:14:56 PM)

You'll love it, or you'll hate it, that's for sure. Malick's vision will make small-minded, people to say that it was the worst film they've seen, same old, same old. But, whether you liked it or not, you can't describe what you just have seen (yeah, I know there's going to come the ass that's going to be all "No! It's plain rubbish" and that crap). But, to me, when it comes down to that, you know, it's a pleasure-to-see-it of a movie. It's just sheer visceral, exceptional and exciting filmmaking; an extraordinary compilation of feelings, images, words and everything you come to understand as beauty. It'll change your view of cinema and of life. There are no -isms in here to be compared to. It is purely unique filmmaking.




Squidward Hark Bugle -> RE: Brilliant, in all the senses of the word. (30/6/2011 3:24:00 AM)

I just read a review of this in my local newspaper (also five stars), and I'm absolutely drooling to see this. The notion of barely any narrative does it for me. I'll post my thoughts on the film after I've seen it.




bereski -> 3.5 (30/6/2011 12:33:57 PM)

boring, too pretentious, quasi religious, stereotypical kitsch. Family drama is good, but nothing else.




Squidward Hark Bugle -> RE: Brilliant, in all the senses of the word. (2/7/2011 5:56:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: nc_jj

You'll love it, or you'll hate it, that's for sure. Malick's vision will make small-minded, people to say that it was the worst film they've seen, same old, same old. But, whether you liked it or not, you can't describe what you just have seen (yeah, I know there's going to come the ass that's going to be all "No! It's plain rubbish" and that crap). But, to me, when it comes down to that, you know, it's a pleasure-to-see-it of a movie. It's just sheer visceral, exceptional and exciting filmmaking; an extraordinary compilation of feelings, images, words and everything you come to understand as beauty. It'll change your view of cinema and of life. There are no -isms in here to be compared to. It is purely unique filmmaking.


I agree completely. Since I saw the film I have been unable to do many things I used to do. I'm beginning to question what matters. The whole cinema was enraptured and completely silent for the entire duration (even the couple that left early). There is absolutely nothing like this anywhere. The bravery and ambition in such a vision, from the origins of the universe, the evolution of life on Earth, and all of humanity viewed through the microcosm of the family, is simply unprecedented.

Brad Pitt deserves an Oscar.




superdan -> RE: Brilliant, in all the senses of the word. (2/7/2011 6:11:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Squidward Hark Bugle
The whole cinema was enraptured and completely silent for the entire duration (even the couple that left early).


[:D] This made me chuckle, sorry.

I hope this comes to a cinema round my way because I'm eager to see it. As long as it'll keep me spellbound like Badlands did, rather than send me to sleep like The Thin Red Line did, that is.




paul_ie86 -> RE: Brilliant, in all the senses of the word. (4/7/2011 1:12:32 AM)

How can this get two stars if it's an improvement... oh sorry wrong thread




Whistler -> RE: Review of the "review" (4/7/2011 12:51:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pappstar

Much as I appreciate a good wordsmith, and the eloquence that was corner-stone to this review, to debase the essentility of a said review for Empire on a film by reflecting the unashamed pretention which the afformentioned director systematically exemplifies via his cinematic representations does only to belitte those who fail to find ability to qualify his self-indulgent, procrastinated musings and those who find little time to invest in them, let alone those who are intrigued.

So thereís a long sentence. And paragraph. Wow. Imagine that. Isnít it amazing?!? People can do word and stuff.

So let's skip the hyper-bloated BS of writing a review for Malick that is 5*. Yes, people can scribble in such a way that will try to show words as pictures on that screen. Thatís fair. Donít forget us who have to read it. Bloated? Bugger that. I also have little doubt that this film could be a 5* film, but is it necessary to write such a review, with such ideas above station that it's just a lyrical blow-job of "Terry"?

Sure someone he knows may read this review. I'm sure he won't. Next time use the crayons to write one that is actually for the readers to read. Your use of the language must mean youíre able to realise theyíre the ones whoíll read this. [nb: check dictionary instead of thesaurus]

I know itís a Malick film but, next time (or for publication), just tone it down. This is so overtly OTT. Many other journalists wanna be creative writers too. This is not the outlet. Donít forget your audience.

Pretentious (even if good) movie a pretentious review should not make.

Sometimes I disagree with a review for the mag. This has been the first poorly written (in a too-well written way) Iíve ever read. Shame.



What's wrong with someone being good with words and having a firm grasp of the language?  Surely it's better than if some moron who couldn't spell or use grammar had written it.  I think it's refreshing to read something like this in an age when proper writing, I feel, is slowly dying. 




spamandham -> The Tree Of Life (4/7/2011 3:34:54 PM)

 
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pappstar

Much as I blah blah blah...



You're not doing what you think you are.




prodigy1972 -> What?????? (4/7/2011 10:41:42 PM)

I have been unfortunate enough to read reviews such as this before, the name Will Self springs to mind, and like this, the reading experience was a "proper mission" (as we say in South London). Reviews of this nature are designed to divide the populus between those that know, and those that don't know, and as such, they are works of complete and total arrogance on the part of the reviewer. Why use ten big and complicated words when two small and simple ones would suffice?? Because he can. Because his vocabulary is bigger than yours and his level of understanding is deeper than yours. As he points out in the review, the essence of the dislike in Cannes is born from a lack of understanding, and that's why he takes a little pot shot at Transformers at the end. Reviews that make me feel like I'm going to be judged depending on my reaction to a movie, make me not want to watch that movie, which is a shame. Thanks for that Mr. Nathan, can't wait for your next character assassination.




bobbyperu -> Masterpiece (I hope so) - (4/7/2011 11:21:53 PM)

Terrence Malick has got to be the greatest living American film maker working today - I Adore all 4 of his previous films and am hoping this will be just as amazing - It looks like it may well be his masterpiece - You are either going to love of hate this film just like all of his others -




jeditommo -> Anothe 5 star Empire review (5/7/2011 8:23:44 AM)

This is another example of why I cancelled my subsciption to Empire. A few years ago a 5 star review was a reason to go to the cinema and watch a classic. Nowadays they only seem to give 5 stars to obscure films that nobody wants to watch. If you are saying this film is unmissablle then why is it an avid cinema goer like myself has no interest in seeing it, After 6 weeks on release in the US it has taken 7.4 million dollars and has the same averagie viewer rating as Transformers 3. I dp find nowadays empire seems to be mainly catering for the people who love the arty farty type of cinema and is against the massive blockbusters that keep cinemas open. I do go see a wide range of films from transformers to Hurt locker ( another 5 star waste of time ) yet nowadys if I took empires advice I would probably have only visited the cinema a handful of times this year rather than the 30 visits I have made. Why can empire not review films in context, this is a mindless blockbuster so I will review it in that context rather than conmapring it directly against films like the tree of life that has such limited appeal. Nobody expects great acting in transformers we just want to know is it fun.




narmour -> RE: Review of the "review" (5/7/2011 9:18:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Whistler

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pappstar

Much as I appreciate a good wordsmith, and the eloquence that was corner-stone to this review, to debase the essentility of a said review for Empire on a film by reflecting the unashamed pretention which the afformentioned director systematically exemplifies via his cinematic representations does only to belitte those who fail to find ability to qualify his self-indulgent, procrastinated musings and those who find little time to invest in them, let alone those who are intrigued.

So there's a long sentence. And paragraph. Wow. Imagine that. Isn't it amazing?!? People can do word and stuff.

So let's skip the hyper-bloated BS of writing a review for Malick that is 5*. Yes, people can scribble in such a way that will try to show words as pictures on that screen. That's fair. Don't forget us who have to read it. Bloated? Bugger that. I also have little doubt that this film could be a 5* film, but is it necessary to write such a review, with such ideas above station that it's just a lyrical blow-job of "Terry"?

Sure someone he knows may read this review. I'm sure he won't. Next time use the crayons to write one that is actually for the readers to read. Your use of the language must mean you're able to realise they're the ones who'll read this. [nb: check dictionary instead of thesaurus]

I know it's a Malick film but, next time (or for publication), just tone it down. This is so overtly OTT. Many other journalists wanna be creative writers too. This is not the outlet. Don't forget your audience.

Pretentious (even if good) movie a pretentious review should not make.

Sometimes I disagree with a review for the mag. This has been the first poorly written (in a too-well written way) I've ever read. Shame.



What's wrong with someone being good with words and having a firm grasp of the language?  Surely it's better than if some moron who couldn't spell or use grammar had written it.  I think it's refreshing to read something like this in an age when proper writing, I feel, is slowly dying. 



Hear hear, well said. No one should apologise for using language in such a rich descriptive way. Personally I had no problem understanding it. Perhaps it should be an alarm bell that if you don't understand the review, you maybe aren't going to get the film??? why should those of us who appreciate film as art and expression have to suffer our reviews being dumbed down so the Transformers 3 crew can understand them?




Coyleone -> RE: Review of the "review" (5/7/2011 11:52:31 AM)

I can't wait to see this!




shool -> RE: Review of the "review" (5/7/2011 12:10:22 PM)

I could read the review fine and it made perfect sense.
However I can see that this not going to be a film for me, not generally being a fan of abstract or impressionist films in general. I guess I'm a bit more literal in my thinking and prefer a film with a comprehensible story or narrative.




Bezerker -> RE: Anothe 5 star Empire review (5/7/2011 5:47:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jeditommo

This is another example of why I cancelled my subsciption to Empire. A few years ago a 5 star review was a reason to go to the cinema and watch a classic. Nowadays they only seem to give 5 stars to obscure films that nobody wants to watch. If you are saying this film is unmissablle then why is it an avid cinema goer like myself has no interest in seeing it, After 6 weeks on release in the US it has taken 7.4 million dollars and has the same averagie viewer rating as Transformers 3. I dp find nowadays empire seems to be mainly catering for the people who love the arty farty type of cinema and is against the massive blockbusters that keep cinemas open. I do go see a wide range of films from transformers to Hurt locker ( another 5 star waste of time ) yet nowadys if I took empires advice I would probably have only visited the cinema a handful of times this year rather than the 30 visits I have made. Why can empire not review films in context, this is a mindless blockbuster so I will review it in that context rather than conmapring it directly against films like the tree of life that has such limited appeal. Nobody expects great acting in transformers we just want to know is it fun.


This is silly. Firstly, I wouldn't call it an "obscure film" as such; I'd say most people on these boards at least have been well aware of the film for some time, and Malick is a fairly famous director, and least in film-y circles.

Secondly, surely it makes far more sense to plug a film that is "obscure", that otherwise might not be on the radar of many readers. The public as a whole is well aware of Harry Potter or Transformers or whatever - 5 star reviews or no, they're going to bust blocks. Obscure films need more help finding an audience, and good reviews might just contribute to that.

Furthermore: "If you are saying this film is unmissablle then why is it an avid cinema goer like myself has no interest in seeing it".
Surely you know the answer to this one? (It's because people are different from one another).




MonsterCat -> RE: Anothe 5 star Empire review (5/7/2011 6:12:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jeditommo

Nowadays they only seem to give 5 stars to obscure films that nobody wants to watch.




Would something like Inception, True Grit or The Fighter fall in to this catergory?

And how exactly is a Terrence Malick joint starring Brad Pitt obscure?







jamiemulls -> RE: Review of the "review" (5/7/2011 6:14:49 PM)

I'm sorry but the review was pretentious.




standbymefan -> So bad... (6/7/2011 2:10:58 AM)

My boyfriend and I went to see this in Paris about a month ago, heard it won the Palme D'or and were really excited for it, but we honestly sat there for a good 30 minutes wondering if we were being mocked! 30 minutes of water crashing, lava boiling, clouds etc etc, a medley of clipart basically. Maybe we're both missing something, maybe the other 30 members of the audience were too... There were boos from average joes too, and you can't say your everyday cinema-goer is so scathing.
I may sound uneducated, I'm sure that's the comeback I'll receive, but we visited the Georges Pompidou and the Louvre whilst in Paris too and thought the complex and abstract art was incredible. The Tree of Life on the other hand is far from it. I've never seen anything so pretentious in my life! It's like a parody of a really awful student film. Sorry if I'm missing 'the big picture', but I sincerely wish I hadn't wasted 8 Euro to watch this.




benskelly -> RE: So bad... (6/7/2011 3:41:16 AM)


I'm not going to call you ignorant, standbymefan - I'm just going to say it is very obvious you didn't stay and watch the rest of the film. And if you aren't patient enough to give a film some time to work it's way under your skin and into your mind, then there are a huge number of classic films that I'm sorry you'll never appreciate.

By the way, I really hate the film Stand By Me. It's a putrid treacly sentimental mess that turns one of Stephen King's best novellas into a big gooey Rob Reiner crapfest.

This is what makes horse races.




Deviation -> RE: Anothe 5 star Empire review (6/7/2011 5:13:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jeditommo

This is another example of why I cancelled my subsciption to Empire. A few years ago a 5 star review was a reason to go to the cinema and watch a classic. Nowadays they only seem to give 5 stars to obscure films that nobody wants to watch. If you are saying this film is unmissablle then why is it an avid cinema goer like myself has no interest in seeing it, After 6 weeks on release in the US it has taken 7.4 million dollars and has the same averagie viewer rating as Transformers 3. I dp find nowadays empire seems to be mainly catering for the people who love the arty farty type of cinema and is against the massive blockbusters that keep cinemas open. I do go see a wide range of films from transformers to Hurt locker ( another 5 star waste of time ) yet nowadys if I took empires advice I would probably have only visited the cinema a handful of times this year rather than the 30 visits I have made. Why can empire not review films in context, this is a mindless blockbuster so I will review it in that context rather than conmapring it directly against films like the tree of life that has such limited appeal. Nobody expects great acting in transformers we just want to know is it fun.


A- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0
B- 6 weeks in the States, opening very slowly in other theaters, currently at 228, while staying constantly in the Top 15. THAT'S DOING QUITE WELL. Not Midnight in Paris well, but doing very well. Considering the type of film it is, it's doing marvelously.
C- The bold part is a bloody lie.
D- You used the words "arty farty", therefore you should die a horrible death.




dragon_irl -> (6/7/2011 8:24:49 AM)

sounds like overhyped balls to me




Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.046875