The Tree of Life [Blu-ray]

First of all, for those who have not yet read reviews, let me start by saying that this is not your "Brad Pitt/Sean Penn" labeled blockbuster.

As enigmatic as Terrence Malick films usually are, The Tree of Life poses quite a problem for anyone trying to make sense out of it. It's arguable whether the film actually has a story, and there's very little spoken dialogue. But it takes a true auteur to make a great film without those necessary elements. Ladies and gentlemen, I present you with Terrence Malick, art- house provocateur and world-class director.

The Tree of Life is, simply put, a masterpiece. It's pure art, a wonderfully ambitious mystery that runs just under two hours and a half. Malick has created cinema at its finest--it shocks, it causes awe, and it requires thought. While the entire cast's mostly silent performances are amazing, they're overshadowed by the visual poetry of Malick's creation.

The creation of the universe is what this movie opens with, and its destruction is its finale. Immediately, the viewer knows what he's getting into. Reviewers have called this the "most ambitious film since 2001: A Space Odyssey," and they're totally right in saying that. It's a literal journey of a movie, one that stretches from prehistoric times to the future, but one that focuses primarily on a family living in the 1950s in Texas. The father is Brad Pitt. He's stern and believes that the matriarch, played by Jessica Chastain, is naive for fostering a relationship with the world that allows for innocence. Their three children age with them, only to learn life's true lessons.

Most of the feeling of wonderment from in The Tree of Life arises from the fact that it is gorgeous. Cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki, who has worked with Malick previously on The New World, brings his visual prowess to the movie by putting so much care into every shot. The composition and camera angle of every single shot are not only beautiful but they're meaningful as well.

And yet Malick's film is still cryptic. While Lubezki presents the viewer with colorful, almost sensuous shots of nature, Malick has chosen to keep the viewer interpreting. The creation sequence, easily the best part of the film, includes dinosaurs, hammerhead sharks, jellyfish, close-ups of mitosis, and cosmic nebulae over Mozart's "Lacrimosa." It's all beautiful, but why is it here? That's for you to mull over.

The Tree of Life is an experience, not a movie. Movies present a story and portray a clear message to the viewer. Experiences are something more, and The Tree of Life is just this because it is something of a revelation. Riddled with biblical imagery, the movie's central themes are deeply religious and personal. The Tree of Life is cinematic heaven, a film that is so moving on a primordial level that it inspires fear and awe. There's simply nothing on earth like it.

Much has already been written about this controversial masterwork, and an immense amount more will certainly be written. It is undoubtedly deeply autobiographical. We know little of the reclusive Malick himself, but he grew up in the town where the film is set (Waco, Texas), and his own brother committed suicide at the same age as the brother in the film at his death. Critics who knew small-town Texas in the 1950s say that its portrayal in The Tree of Life is uncannily accurate. I would hazard a guess that the parents in the film are based closely on Malick's own parents. It seems unlikely, however, that the morose character Jack O'Brien representing (presumably) Malick himself, played by Sean Penn, is much like the director; those who have worked with him say he is a most delightful, friendly, and helpful man.

The Tree of Life is like no other film you have seen. Its nearest equivalent I know of is Tarkovsky's Mirror (1974), another autobiographical work about a man's childhood memories, though deeply rooted in mid-20th century Russian history. Other reference points are Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey (1969), for the controversial 18-minute sequence illustrating (seriously!) the evolution of the universe from the Big Bang, and Fellini's 8 1/2 (1963), for the broadly similar ending.

Apart from the portrayal of childhood in a Texan town, as seen through the reminiscences of a middle-aged man, the film is of course concerned with Big Themes, ultimately religious. The quote from the Book of Job which opens the film, "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?", is God's response to Job's crying out about the woes with which he is inflicted, like the woes inflicted on the O'Briens through the death of the son. The "history of the universe" section is Malick`s illustration of this, a kind of revelation to the adult Jack in his midlife crisis. There is the theme of "nature versus grace", represented by the tough-love father (Brad Pitt) and the saintly angelic mother (Jessica Chastain). There is the conflict between our ideals and our actions, expressed in St. Paul's letter to the Romans, and articulated at one point in Malick's film.

All seem to agree about the quality of the acting. I would particularly mention Jessica Chastain; just watch how her face flickers at moments when Brad Pitt unfairly chastises one of his sons, and she feels it is not her place (in 1950s America) to intervene against her husband. Equally memorable is Hunter McCracken as the young Jack; Malick clearly has a great gift with child actors.

Even those critics who do not warm to The Tree of Life, who use words to describe it like "pretentious" (which says more about those critics than about the film), admit that it is stunning to look at and to listen to (a whole range of European composers, both classical and modern, are featured). Admittedly there is no real storyline, and, as in Malick's earlier films, there is relatively little spoken dialogue, much of what there is being characters' interior thoughts and feelings. So if you want a good strong plot, with one scene following another in temporal sequence, The Tree of Life is not for you. But if you want a personal testament by a greatly admired filmmaker, like the aforementioned Mirror and 8 1/2 , Malick's masterwork is for you. I would make just one suggestion for the DVD-watching: switch on the subtitles for the hard-of-hearing, not just because much of the dialogue is whispered, but also because you can't always tell who is speaking, and the subtitles tell you. I found this very helpful for extra understanding.

In my opinion this film is destined to be ranked alongside the likes of Citizen Kane, The Godfather, and (in our own century) There Will Be Blood as one of the Great American Films.

It is actually quite difficult to give this film a bad review, for fear of the onslaught of people who will merely assume you lack the intelligence required to comprehend it and thus enjoy it. However, I am going to risk the inevitable deluge of unhelpful votes and tell it straight because I have seen many films in my life, and I thought this was a stinker.

The Tree Of Life is one of those films that tries too hard to be different, to be `out there'. These films are, in my opinion, deliberately confusing under the guise of being clever (when actually they are just plain rubbish) so that the viewer is ultimately confused but, not wishing to seem ignorant, professes the film to be profound and `a masterpiece'. It is a smug, pretentious film that takes itself too seriously, that thinks it's better than it actually is. It promises the earth, but delivers little.

The film has no plot, nothing actually happens. It's a boy reflecting on his childhood in 1950s America and the whole film is supposedly questioning whether there is a God and the meaning of life. It drifts aimlessly along, culminating in a downright strange ending. One comment I read in response to a negative review is that `the film reflects life, hence there are some things you won't understand'. What can I say? If you can relate to that comment then this film might be for you. That said, my intention in this review is not to criticise anyone who did actually enjoy the film - each to their own and perhaps it holds a special meaning for you that was lost on me - I am merely trying to counter the irritating recurring suggestion amongst some of these reviews that if you don't enjoy this film, you are somehow intellectually inferior to those who did.

I do agree that The Tree of Life has a lovely soundtrack and some of the shots were very arty and clever, however those two factors alone do not make a film in my eyes. As for the scenes of nature, again nicely shot but after approximately 20 minutes non-stop National Geographic-esque footage of exploding volcanoes, water and dinosaurs (yes, dinosaurs), interspersed with some dream-like whispering, I was starting to lose the will to live.

Given that this film is pretty evenly split between the `love it' and `hate it' camps, I can't tell you to avoid the Tree of Life as there is roughly a 50% chance you will enjoy it. So watch it if you remain defiant, and draw your own conclusion. However I remain in the `hate it' camp and wish I hadn't wasted over two hours of my life watching so-called philosophical drivel.