I'm usually a huge fan of artsy films, but I disliked Tree of Life. Visually stunning, but lacking what was necessary to keep me interested. The rest of the audience clearly felt the same way as when the credits rolled, everyone let out a collective "Seriously?!"

I've since been trying to figure out what was missing for me. The easy answer is that it's missing clear goals and a strong central plot, but I love The Phantom of Liberty and that doesn't really have those things either. I like 2001 as well, which this has been likened to. And interestingly, my favorite part of Tree of Life is the twenty minute chunk where there are no people at all.

I haven't spoken to anyone who really liked it, though it obviously has fans as it won the Palme d'Or. But even some of the positive reviews I've read stray away from giving their thoughts on much other than the fact that it's a visual masterpiece. I agree with that, but the visual appeal just wasn't enough for me. Had I not paid the ridiculous LA ticket price, I would have quit watching fifteen minutes in.

Have you seen it Scott? Or anyone else who actually liked it? I'd love to know what the fans enjoyed other than the film's beauty.

I would definitely read the script, but it sounds like it was more of a novel.

I loved it. Five stars in my book. It's not only visually stunning, but the narrative (and yes, there is a narrative) is absolutely masterful. He does not tell his stories in a straight line, far from it, but he has such control over each story line and element that it's surprising, heartbreaking, shocking, comforting and beautiful in every turn.

It helps if you're open minded regarding story telling. People who expect a straight ahead narrative might be confused and disappointed, but so were Picasso's audience too when he asked them to view an object from multiple angles at once.

Here is a filmmaker where you cannot separate the different elements of his films and judge them on their own. The narrative, the characters, the camera angles, the light, the music, all play an equal part in making this work.

His choice of music for instance is not just to set the mood. He uses the first movement of Mahler's first symphony as a recurring theme. This is a piece of music that symbolizes beginnings and also encompasses all aspects of life. Mahler was a composer that would include every emotion possible in his symphonies. His view was that each work should be a complete world on its own and would include everything from life to death. So I believe using Mahler was a very deliberate (and perfect) choice.

The other recurring theme is Smetana's The Moldau - written as a tribute to the river with the same name. Rivers are a recurring theme in Malick's films and here we get the sense of the fleeting aspects of life, the sense that not only is childhood short but life itself disappears quickly and we are only here for a brief moment. It perfectly underscores the theme of the film.

People compare this to 2001: A Space Odyssey because there are not many other films that encompasses so much, from the Big Bang to dinosaurs to childhood and death. It's on such a grand scale.

I truly believe this film will be remembered as a masterpiece.

For more insight on how Terrence Malick operates, check out this interview with Jack Fisk, who has been the production designer on all his films:

http://www.boxofficemagazine.com/articles/2011-05-production-designer-jack-fisk-on-helping-terrence-malick-create-the-tree-of-life

Would a writer be able to pull that off if they were not also the director?

@Gabe

The short answer is no. This film was only partially created on the page. The script was more of a guide to moods and ideas than a blueprint for a final movie. Most of it was created during filming and the rest during editing where he could make decisions based on the material captured and add voice overs, sound and music to create an organic whole. This was hands-on storytelling.

@James: I have not seen TOL yet. I look forward to it.

@Gabe: With the caveat that I have yet to see the film, the fact the script has 25 pages of prose tells you right there you're dealing with a writer-director vision. Compare to There Will Be Blood, the beginning which is, I believe, about 15 minutes without any dialogue. Again PTA, writer-director. So I concur with Teddy: "This was hands-on storytelling."

Fire Walk With Me

@teddy sounds like you've got a pretty deep grasp on the film. Have you seen it multiple times?

@James No, just once. But I've been a fan of Malick for a long time and there are certain patterns that emerge throughout his films. I guess, the things that everybody's favorite film critic Armond White called "near self-parody" in his Tree of Life review.

I understand that Malick's style is not for everyone. He strikes a chord with me for some reason. I admire his dedication to the poetic side of cinema and it is always refreshing to see a filmmaker not bow down to trends or outside influences. He makes no excuses for what he likes and who he is.

But, I'm no film critic or scholar, just a guy who likes movies. I grew up watching a lot of European cinema and that probably influenced my taste quite a bit. I can't think of another American filmmaker that's more "European" than Malick. Or I should say "Non-Hollywood". That's one reason he is so liked in Europe, I presume.

Same thing with Sofia Coppola. Somewhere won the Golden Lion in Venice last year. Here, it didn't do well at all. It will be interesting to see what happens during awards season. Will people remember this film?

Isn't it funny that in Los Angeles, the weather pretty much stays the same year round so there are no real seasons, only awards season and non-awards season?