That's a pretty good point. It would certainly cater for a larger audience because the story is interesting but a little too frustrating in how its done
The whole point of the creation scene was that it was God's response to the mother's grief at losing her middle son. It can be interpreted a couple of ways, but my personal one is "Where were you when I made the world?", which is a quote from Job.
It also wasn't 45 minutes long. I believe it clocked in somewhere around 18.
Although purists might not agree, but it would have probably found a larger audience.
Purists could also opt to buy the Director's cut.
classic flick
went back three times to watch in in theater
lubezki is god
Saw this at the Bijou with my chick. It truly is a beautiful flick, but I agree about the dinosaurs, that part was a little silly. Overall, the movie was fantastic. Brad Pitt's acting is almost immaculate, not once was I not convinced that he was a loving, tortured man with high expectations of himself and his family.
The acting alone, is enough to rate this movie an 7.5, but since I thoroughly enjoyed it, I give it a 9.
i saw it in theaters, own it. really good movie, but not my favorite Malick film. i love the first half of the film, with its 2001 like similarities, but it seems to lose something when it just settles with the Catcher in the Rye teenage angst part. the ending though is great. perhaps they could have cut down on some of the family stuff. i'm not normally a Brad Pitt fan but he was great in this.
luzbecki says there is a 5 hour cut, which reminds me of Malick's rumored 6 hour cut of Thin Red Line.
exactly, I agree
I do agree about the 2001 thing, I thought many comparisons between the time travel at end of 2001 and the similar scene in tree of life.
I would have liked to see the 6 hour cut of thin red line, one of my favourite films
well if you're aussie as you say, I believed they shot most of Thin REd Line in Australia, or at least in that region. stunningly beautiful film, I saw it twice in theaters and love my BluRay copy. You should look up the cast that didn't make the cut, guys like Gary Oldman, Mickey Rourke etc...I also read the book so I imagine the 6 hour cut is more of a straightforward telling of the events, just like the script. In the book and original 6 hour cut of the film, Adrien Brody's character is the main guy, but at the last second Malick thought Jim Caviezel's character gave the film it's spiritual tone he was looking for. Plus Malick always edits everything into more of a tone poem, so you never what will end up in the film.
That's the thing with Malick, the dude shoots miles and miles of film. So when I hear about a 5 hour cut of Tree of Life, I wonder how much of it is more of them staring at each other, at nature etc...
But I love the first half of Tree of Life, it's just once things settled into his teenage years, it really slowed down, but least it picked up steam and ended in a way that is more mysterious than the beginning.
Of course it's always cool to see Tree of Life in Austin since you recognize some of the locations featured in it, though I believe they shot it in Waco, Dallas and Houston as well.
I watched about 10 minutes of it with my parents on HBO and we were like "what the is going on". We gave up on it and turned the channel.
You are Hollywood's present day audience.
You're right, it was filmed in the north of my state. Can be a nice area.
I have the book but haven't read much of it. I should try again. Interesting that Brody was main in book but Caviezel's character was that spiritual character that someone shaped the film
How cute.
When I was 9, I also watched with mommy and daddy.
How is that funny? People who have good relationships with their parents often watch movies together, no matter what the age is you toolHow cute.
When I was 9, I also watched with mommy and daddy.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote