RE: Review of the "review"

Follow @empiremagazine

Forum Home

Register for Free!

Log In

Moderator Tickets

FAQ

Users Online

RE: Review of the "review"

Logged in as: Guest

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: Review of the "review"

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Review of the "review" - 8/7/2011 11:06:16 PM

Dirk Miggler

Posts: 831
Joined: 14/1/2009

Im pretty certain I wont be giving this one a look. Yet !. Films like this deserve your full attention and I know for my own viewing pleasure (moaning, groaning and walkouts piss me off) and the fact no-one would see it with me, I will wait to watch it on the comfort of my sofa. Sounds intriguing.

(in reply to adambatman82)

Post #: 61

RE: Review of the "review" - 9/7/2011 2:44:13 AM

adambatman82

Posts: 11156
Joined: 15/12/2005
From: Sheffield

My review is up now, but its full of spoilers and 2000 words long, so don't think its really fair to stick it in here! Check it out if you feel compelled to do so.

(in reply to Dirk Miggler)

Post #: 62

RE: Review of the "review" - 9/7/2011 6:54:19 AM

Deviation

Posts: 26908
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82

My review is up now, but its full of spoilers and 2000 words long, so don't think its really fair to stick it in here! Check it out if you feel compelled to do so.

That's me not reading your review till 2031, which is the date I think the film will come out here.

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to adambatman82)

Post #: 63

RE: - 9/7/2011 7:26:56 AM

nickyoung

Posts: 10
Joined: 9/7/2011

Honestly, I telling you, I don't like this movie...

(in reply to dragon_irl)

Post #: 64

Unwatchable - 9/7/2011 9:26:27 AM

Riophoenix

Posts: 3
Joined: 3/12/2005
From: London

I walked out of it after 20 minutes. A patronising, pretentious Godfest I'm very thankful I didn't have to pay for. Run, don't walk - away. How anyone could give this 5* is utterly beyond me. I've given it 1*, but only because I can't give it 0.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 65

RE: Unwatchable - 9/7/2011 10:41:44 AM

cerebusboy

Posts: 1552
Joined: 1/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: Riophoenix

I walked out of it after 20 minutes. A patronising, pretentious Godfest I'm very thankful I didn't have to pay for. Run, don't walk - away. How anyone could give this 5* is utterly beyond me. I've given it 1*, but only because I can't give it 0.

Patronising? Seriously? How? Maybe it's beyond you because it is quite unashamedly art, and Malick-bashers seem to regard anything with ambitions grander than two hours of mindless explosions as "pretentious".

And, ethically speaking, you can only 'review' the first 20 minutes.

(in reply to Riophoenix)

Post #: 66

RE: Unwatchable - 9/7/2011 11:09:13 AM

adambatman82

Posts: 11156
Joined: 15/12/2005
From: Sheffield

quote:

ORIGINAL: Riophoenix

I walked out of it after 20 minutes. A patronising, pretentious Godfest I'm very thankful I didn't have to pay for. Run, don't walk - away. How anyone could give this 5* is utterly beyond me. I've given it 1*, but only because I can't give it 0.

Technically you shouldn't be giving it any stars, because you haven't actually seen the film.

I'm not exactly sure what a "Godfest" is, but I'm of the opinion that The Tree Of Life was anything but that. It was a response to faith, but not a film about religion.

(in reply to Riophoenix)

Post #: 67

God Awful - 9/7/2011 1:07:49 PM

J_BUltimatum

Posts: 109
Joined: 20/1/2007
From: Edinburgh

I wasn't going to give this a look in, mainly because I hate Sean Penn with a passion, but decided to give it a go because of the reviews that it has generated. I wish I had stuck with my instincts. It was utter shit, slow and boring with wooden performances from all involved. It's not artful, well written, acted or directed. And as a note, just because a film decides to use shots of a door in a desert with the sky moving by quickly, doesn't make it "cinematic inspiration". 9 times out of 10 it means the director is a twat who is full of himself. Also Sean Penn is a over rated twat! Avoid like the plague!

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 68

Amazing! - 9/7/2011 2:24:24 PM

MiaZappa

Posts: 9
Joined: 10/12/2009

If you go into this with an open mind and have quite a good attention span, you'll probably enjoy it. If not, I strongly suggest you avoid this film. I'll admit, the first half is slightly unbearable, as there isn't much dialogue & the montage of the light and dark sides of nature which is - despite being visually stunning - far too long. Half the people in the cinema (and there weren't that many to begin with) walked out before the montage even ended, and I completely understand why. However, I think if people gave it a chance and powered through the first act, they would've grown to love this film. The acting is superb by everyone involved, with Jessica Chastain's character clearly representing Grace, whilst Brad Pitt clearly was the way of nature. I was expecting Sean Penn to be in it more, let alone speak more. His segments in the film were probably when the film got too self-involved and arguably too 'artsy' and ridiculous, but I guess you could say that about the whole film. The pacing is probably the main issue - the film is 20 minutes too long, and both the first and the beginning of the second act are too slow. Like I stated earlier, the second half the film is really when it picks up and becomes a beautiful piece of cinema. That being said, this is a Terence Malick picture - were you really expecting an action-packed thrill ride?

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 69

RE: God Awful - 9/7/2011 4:31:08 PM

cerebusboy

Posts: 1552
Joined: 1/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: J_BUltimatum

I wasn't going to give this a look in, mainly because I hate Sean Penn with a passion, but decided to give it a go because of the reviews that it has generated. I wish I had stuck with my instincts. It was utter shit, slow and boring with wooden performances from all involved. It's not artful, well written, acted or directed. And as a note, just because a film decides to use shots of a door in a desert with the sky moving by quickly, doesn't make it "cinematic inspiration". 9 times out of 10 it means the director is a twat who is full of himself. Also Sean Penn is a over rated twat! Avoid like the plague!

Yes, you should have stuck with your instincts. Somehow who types such garbage would be more likely to be amused by ,say, throwing shit or eating crayons. Can you name these 9 twat desert sky directors? Truly, if someone decided to create a spam bot designed to make Malick's detractors look like morons they'd be hard pressed to 'top' the newbie nonsense on this thread.

(in reply to J_BUltimatum)

Post #: 70

- 9/7/2011 4:47:03 PM

carnine125

Posts: 9
Joined: 22/4/2008

Something tryuly unique. It's no masterpiece of course due to the many conflicting opinions but it is something very special.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 71

RE: - 9/7/2011 6:32:31 PM

jrewing1000

Posts: 469
Joined: 23/11/2005

Just seen it.

Lets get one thing straight. This is a visual POEM. And like all good poetry, you need to understand it, interpret it and apply yourself to get something out of it. There is a little narrative but it's too sparsely used to take hold of the film. This is about visual phrases, montage and meaning.

On a purely aesthetic level, this film is absolutely stunning. The photography is so beautiful, music a joy to hear. Each montage (although the entire film could be classed as a montage) whisks you around from subject to subject. The sound design is flawless. All actors play their parts with real emotion and subtlety. It really is a brilliantly made piece of cinema and for that alone it is worth watching.

On a meaningful level, as I have suggested above, this film has much to understand and you will need to put some work in to take any meaning from it! It certainly demands a lot of thought, yet why should this be a bad thing? Like well written poetry, the surface meaning works ok, but it is in the depths where you extract true meaning and become inspired.

I am looking forward to hearing more about what it all means.

(in reply to carnine125)

Post #: 72

RE: Unwatchable - 9/7/2011 6:34:01 PM

jrewing1000

Posts: 469
Joined: 23/11/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Riophoenix

I walked out of it after 20 minutes. A patronising, pretentious Godfest I'm very thankful I didn't have to pay for. Run, don't walk - away. How anyone could give this 5* is utterly beyond me. I've given it 1*, but only because I can't give it 0.

People are obviously entitled to their opinion, but this reviewer clearly wasn't in the mood for this kind of film! And having walked out after 20 mins, he can't really way anything about it.

(in reply to Riophoenix)

Post #: 73

RE: God Awful - 9/7/2011 6:36:01 PM

jrewing1000

Posts: 469
Joined: 23/11/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: J_BUltimatum

I wasn't going to give this a look in, mainly because I hate Sean Penn with a passion, but decided to give it a go because of the reviews that it has generated. I wish I had stuck with my instincts. It was utter shit, slow and boring with wooden performances from all involved. It's not artful, well written, acted or directed. And as a note, just because a film decides to use shots of a door in a desert with the sky moving by quickly, doesn't make it "cinematic inspiration". 9 times out of 10 it means the director is a twat who is full of himself. Also Sean Penn is a over rated twat! Avoid like the plague!

I'm clearly picking on negative reviews, but this one is quite ridiculous. To claim this wasn't well acted is utter hogwash. I can understand he thinks the director may be 'full of himself' (that's creativity for you), but to slate the craft in this film is wrong.

Think it pretentious if you want, but this is a brilliantly made film.

(in reply to J_BUltimatum)

Post #: 74

RE: Review of the "review" - 10/7/2011 3:42:28 AM

Qwerty Norris

Posts: 3156
Joined: 26/10/2005
From: Edinburgh

Thank you Mr. Ian Nathan for possibly the best film review I've ever read in this magazine / website.

As for the film itself? Utterly stunning.Even though there's echoes of the likes of 2001 & Koyaanisqatsi there really is nothing quite like it. A mesmerizing, hypnotic & absurdly beautiful work of art that deserves to be seen on the biggest screen possible.

Welcome back Terrence...

5/5

_____________________________

Qwerty's Top 10 of 2013 (so far)

1. Zero Dark Thirty
2. No
3. A Hijacking
4. In The Fog
5. Good Vibrations
6. McCullin
7. Beyond the Hills
8. The Place Beyond the Pines
9. Wreck-it Ralph
10. Shell

(in reply to adambatman82)

Post #: 75

RE: Review of the "review" - 10/7/2011 5:58:43 PM

jrewing1000

Posts: 469
Joined: 23/11/2005

Thinking further, I'm actually a little disappointed this film wasn't even more epic than it was.
Listening to some rather scathing criticism, I wonder if Malick was too restrained in his attempt to create something truly 'out there'. Maybe he should have gone one way or the other, instead he had a little bit of narrative, a little bit of montage, some crazy sequences of the universe, some spiritual moments etc etc.

If I was honest I wouldn't say it's the best film I've ever seen, it didn't move me like Magnolia, or more recent films like The Fighter or even the delightful Submarine. Perhaps it's too broad and unconventional to truly grip/move you like a more straightforward narrative can.

And another honest thought is that I probably enjoy more blatantly non-narrative films like Baraka or Koyaanisqatsi (links below if you're interested), simply because you're aware there's nothing to read other than allow the images to wash over you and it's a much more obvious attempt to create through montage and visual relationships.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baraka_(film)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XO1nSVy8q8I

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koyaanisqatsi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PirH8PADDgQ

Maybe he missed a chance to truly go for it the way other directors might. Imagine a more conventional storyteller like Spielberg attempting something like this. But that's Malick. He does his own thing, right or wrong. And what he did end up with was something quite beautiful and quite different. And for that I applaud his effort. We need more artists like him.

(in reply to Qwerty Norris)

Post #: 76

RE: - 11/7/2011 8:03:38 AM

thelas

Posts: 52
Joined: 17/11/2005

I really don't appreciate the snide patronising comments to those who didn't enjoy the film. I "got" it, and I "understood" it, it wasn't complicated. I did not enjoy it because in my opinion it was not challenging, not interesting and not entertaining. It certainly was different, I will give it that. I didn't see what we had to invest in the meandering thoughts of the character anyway.

I found it to be a thoroughly unenjoyable experience. I am surprised to see some comments say it is not "out there" enough.

(in reply to dragon_irl)

Post #: 77

RE: RE: - 11/7/2011 10:02:57 AM

jrewing1000

Posts: 469
Joined: 23/11/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: thelas

I really don't appreciate the snide patronising comments to those who didn't enjoy the film. I "got" it, and I "understood" it, it wasn't complicated. I did not enjoy it because in my opinion it was not challenging, not interesting and not entertaining. It certainly was different, I will give it that. I didn't see what we had to invest in the meandering thoughts of the character anyway.

I found it to be a thoroughly unenjoyable experience. I am surprised to see some comments say it is not "out there" enough.

There's a difference between not enjoying a film, and criticising its craft / technique / skill involved. One can't deny this is a brilliantly made film. Whether or not you enjoy its content is another matter. I'm all for fair criticism, hence my additional thoughts to my original review.

I suggested it wasn't 'out there' enough because I wonder if Malick relied too much on simply presenting images and ideas, without pushing his own meaning onto them, without taking more control in what people would take? Just a thought.

(in reply to thelas)

Post #: 78

RE: RE: - 11/7/2011 11:16:39 AM

pedros

Posts: 1658
Joined: 20/10/2005

I saw this on the weekend, I was really looking forward to it seeing as I am a big Malick fan. I found Tree of Life to be an extraordinary cinema experience. I was absolutely entranced by it, and being quite hungover at the time I just let all the incredible images and music wash over me. I loved the random scenes that seemed to have nothing to do with what little narrative there is - the one shot of the massive flock of birds for example. I thought it brilliantly encapsulated the fractured nature of memory. It is scenes like this that really stick in my mind, and which I have been playing over and over since watching the film. The creation of the universe sequence was incredible, and the shot of the wounded plesiosaur looking at the sunset was fantastic. I can see why people wouldn't like the film, and I certainly wouldn't say that they "didn't get it" or anything else that snobby. It was long, ponderously slow, had little to no storyline (at least not in the conventional sense), and was very pretentious. But I loved all those things about it, and I loved the film. I need to watch it again.

One other thing - the music was absolutely sublime. Does anyone know anything about how I can get some of the music that was featured? I guess it would be too much to hope for a compilation album released to coincide with the film. I know there is a score available but I also want some of the other compositions too.

_____________________________

I'd rather see Dave Lee Travis play Macbeth.

Hey, wha' happened???

(in reply to jrewing1000)

Post #: 79

RE: RE: - 11/7/2011 11:45:12 AM

Gretzky

Posts: 307
Joined: 20/12/2005

^ Yay! You mentioned the birds scene... That's one that stuck with me too. He captured them so beautifully against the sunset so perfectly it made it seem unique. I also liked any scene with the random cats... That free-flow of storytelling that's not necessarily about the most perfect take. I absolutely loved this film. Though I prefer the overall storyline and visuals and music of The Thin Red Line, I'm thrilled The Tree of Life didn't disappoint me.

_____________________________

~ Formerly Ash_Boomstick
Female Film Fan

(in reply to pedros)

Post #: 80

RE: RE: - 11/7/2011 4:16:29 PM

jrewing1000

Posts: 469
Joined: 23/11/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: pedros

One other thing - the music was absolutely sublime. Does anyone know anything about how I can get some of the music that was featured? I guess it would be too much to hope for a compilation album released to coincide with the film. I know there is a score available but I also want some of the other compositions too.[/size][/font][/size][/font]

You can buy the Desplat score but it doesn't include any of the classical works that Malick used. For that, do a search in google and you will come up with a few links to playlists that pick out those pieces of music. How you obtain those is down to you! ;)

Also - I agree, it doesn't matter whether or not people get it (plenty of films I don't quite get). But I do think the marketing department has a lot to answer for. This has surely been marketed as a mainstream film?

(in reply to pedros)

Post #: 81

amazing - 12/7/2011 11:59:49 AM

Benny Belmondo

Posts: 13
Joined: 21/10/2010
From: London

with this film, like a poem, you should let it wash over you and ENJOY it for the visual experience it offers first, then you can go back and worry about the meaning when you watch it second time (which you will want to). This is a visual poem, absolutely, but I think it is meant to trigger an emotional response first, not an intellectual one.

(in reply to jrewing1000)

Post #: 82

RE: amazing - 12/7/2011 12:55:12 PM

great_badir

Posts: 4178
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: A breaking rope bridge in the middle of the jungle

Where the fuck are all you people seeing it?!?!?!!?

We've gotta wait another two fucking weeks for it down here in the South West - GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

_____________________________

FAVE FILMS
BO BOMBS

(in reply to Benny Belmondo)

Post #: 83

RE: - 13/7/2011 7:56:45 AM

dougtherugg

Posts: 161
Joined: 5/10/2005
From: Edinburgh

The landscape and volcano scenes looked incredible on the big screen. I found the scenes with Bradley Pitts and the interaction with his family interesting and the Sean Penn scenes tedious(mainly because I am not a fan). I came out of the screening wondering what the purpose of the movie as a whole was though.

(in reply to dragon_irl)

Post #: 84

RE: RE: - 13/7/2011 10:03:36 AM

beancounter

Posts: 69
Joined: 30/9/2005

It's interesting that the majority of the comments on this thread are either completely for this film or completely against it. It's also interesting that several of the people against it walked out after only a short while. Quite possibly those people had not read Empire's review, but thought "it has Sean Penn and Brad Pitt and it won the Palme D'Or so it must be good".

The combination of the review and the comments (both good and bad) have given me a reasonable idea of what this film is like, but also make clear to me that I won't really know until I see it. The trailer seems to focus on the 'action' parts, mostly with Brad Pitt, which I can understand in that the trailer is designed to get audiences into the cinema, but possibly disingenious in that it doesn't truly reflect the full film (but then what trailer ever does that? Possibly food for another thread).

I for one am now looking forward to seeing this film.

_____________________________

I wish none of this had happened.
So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us.

(in reply to dougtherugg)

Post #: 85

Depends on what you want out of the film... - 13/7/2011 5:45:36 PM

Quentin Black

Posts: 36
Joined: 2/10/2005

While The Tree of Life is not Terrence Malick's greatest film it is his most beautiful and personal film yet. Malick has developed his style further with virtually no dialogue, naturalistic cinematography and experimental storytelling. The ideas and narrative are expressed through a series of thoughts and memories that evoke feelings ranging from the conflicting forces of childhood to the disappointment of adulthood.

It is easy to understand The Tree of Life's critics. It is Malick's most self indulgent film and although very frame deserves to be hung in an art gallery, if you go in with any misconceptions you will likely find it's long run time and poetic nature tiresome as, like all poetry, it demands a great deal of thought and interpretation. It's a case of what you get out of it depends on what you put into it and that is not always a popular notion.

In short, it is a beautiful piece of visual art that will divide audiences and critics alike, depending on their mood and tastes. Those seeking light escapism and traditional popcorn fare will likely walk out and there is no shame in that, since it is not every day that one wishes to go to a poetry recital or opera either. On the other hand, those who like films like The Thin Red Line, The New World and Into The Wild and are in the mood to explore life, the universe and everything will find it a revelation, a beautiful film that will leave you with stirred memories, fresh perspectives and new ideas to think about.

(in reply to beancounter)

Post #: 86

RE: Depends on what you want out of the film... - 13/7/2011 5:53:33 PM

Coyleone

Posts: 482
Joined: 13/10/2008

I don't know what to say because I don't want to spoil it for people who haven't seen it yet, but to put it simply, this is a film about life. IMO this is Malicks best film and is his masterpiece.

It is amazing, beautiful, stunning and it makes you ask alot of questions. Mallick is an absolute master at his craft, to me this is a pure work of art. I was entranced the whole way through and was stunned by some of the scenes/footage I saw on the screen. I understand the people who didn't like it, I can see why they didn't like it, but to me this was a masterpiece. You will either love or hate this, but if you are a fan of art...this is amazing.

I haven't seen anything quite like it. 10/10.

(in reply to Quentin Black)

Post #: 87

FIVE STARS MY ASS..... - 14/7/2011 12:58:31 PM

ROTGUT

Posts: 291
Joined: 14/7/2008

This "film" is pretentious, overlong, boring, dogmatic, self important twaddle - and a perfect example of what happens when an over rated director has too much time, too much money and too much control. It's the biggest piece of shit you'll see all year and I was plenty pissed off that I'd just wasted two hours of my life watching it. The Empire review is way off - the reviewer seems to have his nose so far up Malick's backside that he couldn't see the torrent of cinematic bilge which had just been dumped on him. I could film my toilet and call it "Art" - but no ones going to give me a hundred million dollars to do so. If there's any justice, this "film" should sink without a trace - it deserves to!!! Never mind one star..............ZERO STARS!!!

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 88

RE: FIVE STARS MY ASS..... - 14/7/2011 8:22:45 PM

Gazdance

Posts: 1237
Joined: 3/10/2005
From: Southampton

A frustrating film on many levels.

I didn't dislike it but I'd be hard pressed to say that I enjoyed it either. Whilst it had moments of outstanding beauty and I feel that I picked out a few of many possible themes, it just didn't add up to much.

What was the film trying to say? What on earth was going on with Sean Penn's character (his sections of the film drag it down and make the least amount of sense. Nothing to do with him, mind.)?

I'm really not a fan of Malick's shooting style either. I just wish someone would show him a steadycam or a dolly - many of his shots and the movement within them left me with a feeling of motion sickness for the last third of the film.

I loved the opening 45 minutes. It felt epic and majestic and I liked the parallels drawn between the beginnings of the Universe and the beginnings of a human life.

Overall, I just didn't get it. It was just OK.

(in reply to ROTGUT)

Post #: 89

RE: FIVE STARS MY ASS..... - 14/7/2011 8:29:39 PM

cerebusboy

Posts: 1552
Joined: 1/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: ROTGUT

This "film" is pretentious, overlong, boring, dogmatic, self important twaddle - and a perfect example of what happens when an over rated director has too much time, too much money and too much control. It's the biggest piece of shit you'll see all year and I was plenty pissed off that I'd just wasted two hours of my life watching it. The Empire review is way off - the reviewer seems to have his nose so far up Malick's backside that he couldn't see the torrent of cinematic bilge which had just been dumped on him. I could film my toilet and call it "Art" - but no ones going to give me a hundred million dollars to do so. If there's any justice, this "film" should sink without a trace - it deserves to!!! Never mind one star..............ZERO STARS!!!

And your quote is a perfect example of the brutalised,drooling, moronic, literally scatalogical nonsense that Mallick-bashers traffic in and so is, by implication, a validation of both the original review's presuppositions and Malick's halcyon charms. CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!!!!