The movie opens with the following: “There are two ways through life, the way of nature and the way of grace,” says a mother from the fifties. A laughable simplification of actual human existence, but she was only a housewife.
Tree of Life doesn’t really work. It is hard to separate myself from the fact that I like it when directors swing for the fences. However, Tree of Life is just a bad movie.
Malick is an incredibly talented person, but maybe the conventions of narrative films exist for a reason? Maybe movies like this don’t come around much because they’re bound to be fail unless the filmmakers hit a mark that is so very small.
There are extraordinary moments. The sequence containing the birth of the universe all the way up to the dinosaurs and beyond might be one of the best sequences of all time. I can’t wait to watch it again. Never have I been so captivated by a moment in a movie. Maybe the movie works just because of those fifteen minutes?
The problem is the movie’s narrative structure works against itself. It is told in typical Malick fashion with the whispering, contemplative voice-overs, but has too much of a boring central story about a Dad who flips out at his kids once and a while. Yes, it is a touching movie that will make you think, but that doesn’t mean it succeeded in being an entertainment or metaphysical consideration of the cosmos and spirituality.
Another failure of a movie, The Fountain, had similar faults: Its heart was in the right place, but dealt with the madness of our existence without narrative boundaries — a tactic that should not be adopted when trying to make a thoughtful film.
Maybe Malick, indeed, wanted to make a visual poem. That is fine and dandy, but when the conventions of even the most experimental narratives break down, you lose your audience.
The movie’s plot is right there in front of you: A snap-shot of a man who is still dealing with the death of his little brother. We see his childhood, his father who likes to be a dick once and while, and his mother who is considered as a saint. The characters are boring and Malick is so busy whispering about stuff, we never really get to know them. Sure, the Dad wishes he was more, the son wishes his father would act as he preaches, and the mother…well…I’m not sure. She is something. Loving? Very.
My interpretation of the movie is a religious one. Many other interpretations exist and will be endlessly discussed. None of that really matters. But I can’t separate myself from Malick’s childlike, religious imagery.
I did occasionally find the spiritual exploration touching and effective, but the whispering and cut-aways for their own sake damage the movie. The moments of 2001: Space Odyssey — a far superior movie — that are the most effective are in complete silence aside from music and sound effects.
What need is there for the whispering questions on existence and explanations of a character’s inner conflict? I know that is how Malick rolls, but so many and so frequently? Also, was I the only one who was annoyed by the endless cut-aways to nature photography?
Like I mentioned before though, the moments that do work are incredible. The reasons for Malick including the “creation” section in the middle is unknown to me. I can only guess because we only occupy a small time and space in the universe and it is better understood when things are out of order…maybe?
I think the ending of the movie is a disaster. Not because I revolt at the concept of a heaven (which I sort of do), but because its imagery is too transparent for the average viewer. I’m guessing 80% of people consider the ending heaven in some form. I don’t — but I might be wrong. Malick leaves a little room for guessing, but only a little.
Malick’s questions and introspection, imagery and wonder of nature and the cosmos, is that of a child. And maybe that is the point? He looks at nature and spirituality with a heightened awareness.
But is two hours of “look at that” enough? I’m not knocking poetry. I’m not even knocking Malick. I’m knocking boring movies and childish considerations of a complex universe. For those who have never considered such questions and events — The Big Bang, the (maybe) endless universe, death, and, above all of those, how life formed — this movie might be nauseatingly profound. What was most special about these segments was how it visualized a lot of things I’d spent so many nights trying to imagine in my mind.
Stripped of its spiritual messages, narrative structure, and thematic implications, Life is one of the great visual triumphs of medium. Emmanuel Lubezki proves time and time again that he is one of the greatest cinematographers working today. As a part of the Mexican New Wave I mention constantly, he provides an endlessly fascinating techqniue that combines practical lighting and creeping wide-angle shots. The movie owes a lot to him considering how much of the movie is devoted to beautiful images of nature.
I feel myself smirking because anyone reading this can tell that there is a lot I like about the movie, but I feel myself making a defense about why the movie remains a failure.
It is too direct. It is too preachy. Too boring. Too redundant. Too childlike in its contemplation of the universe and our place in it. You may appreciate the poetic images of a boy emerging through a door that is underwater or people moving through “gates” and “door ways”, but I didn’t. And plus, the “nice dinosaur” segment was embarrassing — again, like a child.
2001 was rejected in its time. Maybe this one will grow on me? But 2001 is ambiguous and considers the universe with awe. Tree of Life doesn’t really have much to be ambiguous about.
By Collin, on May 30th, 2011
13 Assassins and a few notes on Amazon On Demand
13 Assassins is such a good film that it shames other action movies with its awesomeness. Miike is a tremendous talent – one of the best. He remains one of the few directors who can incite jealousy and envy in me – David Fincher might be another director who can do so.
Miike’s film, Inchi the Killer, remains one of the greatest splatter house movies ever made. In a recent favorite movies list I placed it third. Even more shocking of a film, and maybe even more entertaining, is his contribution to the masters of horrors series, Imprint. A film so depraved that is was not included in the program’s line-up. I’d heard rumors it was tasteless, but was shocked at the lengths Miike went.
Moveover, 13 Assassins is a traditional samurai film including all the rich mythology and imagery that comes with the genre. I was reading Roger Ebert’s review of the movie and he mentions that young directors should study the movie as a modern example of how to film great action scenes. He he’s quite correct.
Great service! Do NOT steal this movie. Pay the five or six bucks.
Miike’s film style, in his gangster films at least, is very agressive – with a huge emphasis on strange camera movement and dynamic editing. Miike, as prolific as he is, managed to remain true to the samurai genre and make something truly fantastic.
The film is simple enough: The Meiji period (Japan’s modernization) is just over the horizon and many of the Samurai have become lazy, Ronin (masterless), or just plain spoiled.
Few “true” Samurai still exist. As in, contained an uncompromising commitment to their master and desire to die in his honor. The film has a truly evil villain that few besides Miike would dare create. For example Naritsugu, the villain, enjoys raping and tutoring a woman, cutting off her limbs, then leaving her to die in the middle of a storm. He kills women and children without remorse and the threat of him rising to be Shogun is too much of risk.
Shinzaemon is hired to collect a group of “true” samurai to take him out. In a series of events not dissimliar to a heist movie such as Ocean’s 11, different individuals are slowly gathered and we really get to know all the different angles and personalities. This pays off big time later.
The whole movie comes down to the last forty or fifty minutes where the assassins must face off against hundreds of others. Unlike 300, quite a bit of tricks and traps are involved in these fights. The way Miike shoots action and how he stages fights is such a breath of fresh air in comparison to the flash cutting and I-can’t-see-what-fuck-is-going-on action films. I’m not saying one is better than the other, just that it is nice to see someone who actually cares about choreographing a scene and letting the action happen in front of the camera.
The movie is shot with the spirit of all the greatest Japanese directors obsessed with the samurai - what makes the movie so enduring is that Miike’s one-of-a-kind touch can be seen everywhere.
Take one scene where one samurai, knowing death is near, jumps on an enemy with an explosive in his hand. Instead of just cutting away and hearing the blast or just showing it straight on, Miike decides to cut to some other characters, a blast is heard, and what could be enough blood to fill an olympic pool flies over one of the buildings.
Pure Joy.
The movie also contains countless decapitations, split humans, blood sprays, and everything else you expect from Miike. There also is a ponderous scene where a woman is standing in a stream and (forgive me if I saw this wrong because it is a quick cutaway) eating blood coming from her vagina.
Now, I know this sounds like I’ve been overly influenced by Imprint, but this is truly what I saw. When I get my hands on the DVD or Bluray I can investigate further. If anyone knows what was happening in this scene (it might have been edited out) let me know. (Comment or e-mail)
What Miike has created is an action masterpiece. Filled with violence, great characterization, and wonderfully shot action scenes. The only mistake is there is no “day-to-day” activities in the towns. We don’t get a feeling for the how the time period is really. It just jumps into the story, which might be a good thing.
It plays out like a graphic novel and that is in no way a bad thing.
A note on Amazon On Demand:
It has its kinks, but all-in-all is wonderful. I was planning on only watching the preview and ended up clicking to “Rent it”. I was annoyed, tried to cancel it, and ended up renting it a second time! I immediately e-mailed them my error and they removed one of the charges and I just decided to watch it. But the “rental” was gone. I e-mailed them regarding their error and they immediately, withing fifteeen minutes, placed the movie in my rental section.
I really insist people used On Demand (I receive no money from them) and hope to watch other “On Demand and in theaters” movies this way. The customer service was impeccable – it is a great service.
Writing a little bit about Everything Must Go isn’t hard at all. It is one of the more simple movies I’ve seen lately, but it’s a good one. I only went because I like Will Ferrell and heard he threw down a pretty interesting performance.
The movie is a simple story of Nick who loves drinking and loses everything because of it. His wife throws all his shit on the front lawn and tells him to piss off.
He decides not to and just chills out amongst his things. A cop he’s friends with comes up with a cute idea of having a yard sale so Nick doesn’t get arrested.
The movie moves along at a snails pace, which works, but some viewers – my brother comes to mind – will hate this. It is patience with its execution and never really hints at where it is going. This is its biggest flaw.
Ages ago I read a paper on how to write screenplays, I think it was “A Crash Course in Screening Writing”, but it stated that every movie should suggest an ending or conclusion is coming.
This is a classic story telling device.
But, Everything Must Go has no such thing. A possible ending would be him reconciling with his problems, but I never felt the movie was coming close to be wrapped up. At 81 minutes, all these problems become big problems. A movie this short shouldn’t feel this long.
Regardless, we stick around for Will Ferrill and the young, great Christopher Jordan Wallace. I’ve heard he’s Notorious BIG’s son, but I can’t confirm that without evidence. Regardless, he’s great. I can imagine about fifty cliche “little black kids” that the movie could have written in, but the writer (wisely) chose to make him a soft-spoken, alienated boy from another neighborhood.
I’ve seen these relationships before and they’ve felt contrived. This time it works.
The whole movie is unassuming and underwhelming, however, if you’ve got Neflix or something it will be worth a look then.
Great sets and photography are everywhere in this movie.
So I don’t know if this movie just caught me at a weird time or I just haven’t seen a good blockbuster lately, but this was one of the best comic book movies ever made. Plain and simple. I’ll revise my review after I see it again, but as of right now, this is a must-see.
Thor is a straight-up comic book movie. It isn’t just an action movie wearing a comic book movie’s disguise or a souped-up pet project with the title of a popular comic book series. It also isn’ t a crime drama with super heros in it (Dark Knight) and it isn’t a movie with comic book characters making cheesy jokes to the point of camp. It is a comic book movie with the humor, corniness, fun, high-drama, and all the other elements that made kids lean their noises into the pages of their favorite comics.
Saying that the movie didn’t take it self too seriously isn’t correct at all. It did. Instead, what the movie did is attempt to make the more awkward moments of the movie – mythical aliens with magical powers – funny and ironic.
All of it works really well.
The movie is about Thor (Hemsworth), soon to be King of Asgard, who is cocky, arrogant, foolhardy and leads a group of his colleagues into battle against his father’s orders. He gets banished to Earth, one of the ‘realms’, and ends up being the interest of a scientist Jane Foster (Portman). Her research seems to be at odds with Thor’s magic.
The rest of the movie unfolds like you might imagine it would, but many of the pleasures come from Thor, Foster, and her colleague Erik Selvig played by the great Stellan Skarsgard and Thor’s adjustments to being on planet Earth.
The fish-out-of-water theme might seem trivial in a comic book movie, but it works. It isn’t Clark Kent garbage either, Kent, after all, was born and raised here. Thor really is an alien and it shows. A fun little detail is when he runs out into the middle of the street and walks casually. He has no idea that your not supposed to do that. Best of all, the movie doesn’t have a close-up with a person exclaiming, “Hey! We walk on the sidewalks buddy.” It is taken in a long shot allowing for the audience to wonder, then snicker when they figure it out.
That takes me to the most appealing part of the movie: Its craftsmanship. Few comic book movies have been taken with such care and grace when it comes to the visuals. This shit is a great mix of the old school and new school. A film student considering how to make a great Hollywood movie should take notice.
Famously, or infamously, the canted angle was included numerously in Battlefield Earth. That movie got lambasted for having no idea how to use it or why. Those types of shots were for arty movies only. Not at all! Thor proves that if the director knows what he’s doing, you can shoot almost the entire movie off angle and it will be effective. Pay attention to how director Kenneth Branagh does fantastic canted push-ins on his characters. The producers must have bit their lips, cringed, and crossed their fingers that it would work.
It does.
Looks like he's about to drop a curse word.
Moreover, the sets are fantastic. Finally we get sets worthy of a Hollywood movie. Too many films figure they can use set extensions and green screen to fill in the set for them and save money. Rarely do we get to be in a universe we feel is “real”. It was so much fun to watch actual actors in custom walk through really beautiful places. I was reminded of the great sets from the eighties and nineties like Masters of the Universe and Stars Wars.
I’ve gone on too long already, but just see this damn movie. Everyone seems to be having fun with it. Director Kenneth Branagh was likely attracted to the material because of his Shakespearean background. There is a lot of that type of stuff here. The family drama that goes on is high drama of the most ridiculous kind, but I believed it all. Not to mention all the spacey backgrounds and magic spells. That shit was really awesome.
In the first fifteen minutes of the movie my criticisms and worries about the Water for Elephants adaptation were quickly answered. The movie was able to be quite good, while the novel was quite ordinary; if not mediocre. I wrote the following many months ago:
Water for Elephants suffered from its poor narrative structure. Much like The Notebook, a story which had a very effective love story in the past, the book jumps back and forth through time – from past to future. Now, if you’re going for nostalgia, that MIGHT be okay, but doing the jump so many times is poor writing. Most of all, it is annoying.
I got many E-mails saying I was a fool and couldn’t recognize great writing if my life depended on it. Regardless of the irony of stating WFE is great writing, I can now state that I was correct or at least the makers of the film would agree with me.
The director or writer immediately realized that jumping back and forth from past to present was counter productive in establishing an emotional investment in the characters, as well as served no purpose in the novel.
I’m not saying this to bash the book, but to celebrate the movie, which did what needed to be done.
Water for Elephants has a fantastic premise, an ivy-league boy, Jacob, loses his parents so he runs off with the circus. However, the story never really has a decent plot or decent ending.
Jacob’s family dies in a car crash so he leaves veterinary school before graduating and randomly jumps on a Benzini Brothers train. The circus show is struggling and needs someone like Jacob. Cool. He meets the owner August and quickly falls in love with August’s wife Marlena.
The scenes between Marlena and Jacob trying not to kiss will seem familiar and the movie quickly becomes boring. However, Christopher Waltz playing August instantly becomes the saving grace of the movie. August’s madness, balanced with his sensitive disposition to his wife, then further matched with Watlz’s performance, made the movie quite good.
The ending was overly sentimental. I didn’t quite get what the point was. Moreover, the scene where they first sleep together is an insult to true love that was apparent in the novel and now the movie. A weak writer considers such scenes a marker where they can scream, “Boom! Their in love” and lazily lean back in their chairs. Love does not equal sex. Something that more talented writers of movies, music, poems, and novels, have proven.
My conclusion is the movie is good, but like the book, instantly forgettable. Its saving grace is a masterful performance by Waltz, whose previous work in Inglorious Bastards was some of the best of that decade.
Recent Comments