Why is Sup Forums too dumb to understand Tree of Life?

Why is Sup Forums too dumb to understand Tree of Life?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tye_Sheridan#Filmography
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Malick is a fucking hack!
Pseudo-intellectual garbage that people pretend to like because they think it makes them look smarter...It's shit !
The only redeeming quality of most of Malick's films is the cinematography.

Best film of the decade so far.

And cinematography is the most important part of film, so.

I don't really understand this criticism because I don't see a clear distinction between what is pseudo-intellectual and what isn't

like give me an example of something you think is really thought-provoking in film and tell me how its delivery is really anything fundamentally different than tree of life

>me smart me watch mobie

...

i don't like it that much but the lacrimosa scene brings tears in my eyes every time

>The only redeeming quality of most of Malick's films is the cinematography.
yes? so? continue please...

Oh, don't expect anyone who uses the word "pseudo-intellectual" to be able to do that. They toss out that insult specifically BECAUSE they can dismiss a movie out of hand without having to back up their argument.

>the weeping scene makes me weep

>Equating your childhood experience with the evolution of the universe
You couldn't get more pretentious

Because most of Sup Forums is atheist

You have to have faith to some degree in order to fully appreciate this film

You can understand it all you want, doesn't mean the movie is good.

But Sup Forums loved it in 2011 and 2012
its the only reason I watched it the first place

I tried to make people understand, op. It worked for a while. Most people are too Biblically illiterate to care about religious art.

This makes absolutely no sense.

But it's not even Malick's best film of the decade.

Which one is his best? Knight of Cups?

Yes it does. What I'm saying is, the movie can have all the deep meanings you want, just because you get them or just because the movie has some hidden deep meaning, doesn't necessarily guarantee the movie is good.
And you can't assume that only people who didn't get it didn't like it. Same reason you can't assume people who don't laugh at a joke didn't get it, it could just be a bad joke.

It really is sad. I've lost count of how many movies I've seen Sup Forums sneer at for daring to have anything remotely religious.

It's weird that some people try to claim this site is Christian when it isn't, just like Trump.

This is all extremely hypothetical on your part and that irritates me. If someone has an issue with the movie then the very first thing they should do is name their specific issues with the movie instead of getting into some vague semantic argument.

Understanding a movie can help you contextualize it in a way that makes you enjoy it more

never cried while watching a movie except for the ending of Tree of Life. I don't care how much of a fucking meme this movie is, it is still amazing. imo not Malick's best.

I've never heard of it being a meme. Why, because it was the one modern Malick movie to receive good critical reviews?

>people connectimg their particular life experiences to universal themes
>pretentious

sad

...

...

...

Malick's a hack.

I was one of the haters when this came out in 2011, watched it again a couple of years later and now I love it. Definitely not something to watch casually, and I pity those of you who still hate on this true masterpiece.

Those of us who know, who’ve gleamed the insights that Malick offers with immaculate visual storytelling, who not only felt the emotions and beliefs on display but experienced them to our core, will never succumb to brutish critics on a Japanese image board. We feel not of anger or disdain, but merely pity that the fools of the world will never experience what we’ve experienced.

You totally did not get it

I'll say it again

BEST FILM OF THE 21ST CENTURY SO FAR

yep it really is THE BEST FILM OF 21ST THE CENTURY

Nah chill pic related my man

For a moment I thought you said "british critics" and thought "Yeah, that would make sense."

How come the kid hasn't been in anything but this movie? Where the heck did Malick even find him?

>too dumb to understand a movie constantly being interrupted by shots of space and volcanoes for 7 minutes at a time

Old Sup Forums loved the tree of life, that's something you newfags didn't know.

The New York Times (laugh if you want) had a pretty stellar review of this back in 2011

Malick is without a doubt one of the best directors working today. The way he's pushing the medium is amazing. I know it doesn't work for everyone, but it really is beautiful and packed full of emotion. And his films are quite literally too deep for some people, so much philosophical and religious allegory, you can take the film at its face aesthetic value and get totally swept up, or you can analyze it and find so much rich content and substance.

Which is too bad because religious art is some of the best, most inspired and beautiful work out there. Also I never really paid attention to your posts before but the past couple of days I have noticed some high quality posting, thank you.
I prefer Knight of Cups but both are 10/10
Me too
Richard Brody writes some great stuff about Malick as well

I don't know if there's any reason to laugh at New York Times, Peter Travers from Rolling Stone is the idiot critic I know of that is for some reason well-regarded.

That doesn't happen once after the Creation of the World prologue you dishonest kike

>he New York Times (laugh if you want)
Why, because the orange retard hates it? Not everyone is a Sup Forumsshit here.

>constantly
This is how I know you simply stopped the movie at this part because there was only one part of the movie that did that. I call it the pleb filter, looks like it worked.

Do you know of any other films that strike this chord for you I can tell you get it pls respond

Malick is exactly the kind of art director I like because he has such good visually focused films but doesn't sacrifice storytelling to make them. Even with all the visual spectacle there is still a concrete story to follow and lots of dialogue to mull over, unlike Refn's more recent works.

>When you see it

The father's internal conflict absolutely destroyed me. Was not ready for the feels.

I understood it, it's still a pretentious, boring piece of shit though. Like an even worse Babel or Magnolia.

>I wanted to be loved because I was great; A big man. For you. I'm nothing. Look at the glory around us; trees, birds. I lived in shame. I dishonored it all, and didn't notice the glory. I'm a foolish man.

Haha other Malick films is the best answer. Inland Empire is another favorite of mine; I think for the most part Lynch's films are quite shallow and just a wonderful style, but that one has tons to digest in terms of spirituality; in some ways its the stylistic antithesis of Knight of Cups while still being the only film on its level of totally absorbing you into it and having lots to look at. Franco Piavoli's Nostos: Il Ritorno strikes the same chord as well to a degree. Its far less narratively oriented than even Malick's films but is built of the story of The Odyssey and is just truly meditative and transcendent.
I enjoy Refn's stuff, but I agree there's not much there at all, they're just fun exercises in style. Malick has that concrete story as well as the abundance of allegory and philosophy which is great, but for me its that visual spectacle, that style that feels tangible in some way, that really affects me. Its like the emotions it evokes are abstract; it gives you these feelings of nostalgia or loss or hope for things that you never even experienced. And at the same time its impossible to put a finger on a specific event in the film that causes this. It just all moves in one grand gesture that fills you with emotion

These threads make feel bad, because it looks like malick comes here to cry that nobody understands what he wants to say

>Malick
>using the internet
Dude...

> to intelligent to be a box office hit

What is this post even supposed to mean? These threads make me feel bad too not just because someone as sincere and talented as Malick gets written off (because I'm sure he doesn't care) but because people are so close minded that they miss out on the unparalleled emotion and beauty of his films. They are glorious in every sense of the word. And in some cases it's not because the viewer is dumb, simply a missalignment of stylistic preferences, which is fine but I still feel bad for those missing out. I mean even I found myself not getting much out of To The Wonder but I see some people just praising it greatly and I keep revisiting it because I'm looking forward to the day it clicks and I get I have that profound experience that I know Malick can give

So it's an adaptation of Oedipus right?

I know that you're just shitposting but the film didn't even have a wide release in theaters. Not everything is a brainless blockbuster like the stuff you watch.

Malice has this fascination with light and domesticity that hits all kinds of registers for me. One of the few filmmakers today working with the transcendent. He just has these scenes man. I wasn't crazy about song to song but I'll never forget that 10 second clip of gosling feeling up Rooney Mara's face with the strobe gloves

Who else is hype for Radegund?

To the wonder was great, have yet to watch the last ones.

The fuck is that, the sephirots and the mason shit?
You know what? It seems like Malick is able to capture on film those simple moments in your life you will still remember 20 years later with longing and melancholy.

Because it's absolute garbage
>hurr durr everyone that dislikes my pretentious little movie is dumber than me
fuck off

From the book Pilgrim's Progress representing the soul's ascent to God

refreshing, thank you

Stay in your blade runner generals cinemalet

brainlets actually believe this

nah that's tarot stuff. The film does reference The Pilgrim's Progress but not really on the poster.

He has a movie career
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tye_Sheridan#Filmography

That's a weird way to reply because Blade Runner 2049 is actually getting hated by the brainlets right now for being "slow, pretentious, quiet" and so on.

...

Right so you read what I posted and you're still here?

No, not this kid, Hunter McCracken.

...

what's it even about, should i watch it tonight?
does it even have a story, i thought it was a film purely for visuals alone.

No I'm a different person who likes Tree of Life, I just think it's weird that you would imply Blade Runner is an unintelligent film.

...

...

It actually does have a story but there's a long intro before you get to the meat of it.

Really simple on the surface too, it's basically just a family living their life, largely from the perspective of one of the kids.

His best film is Days of Heaven. Plebs.

Is pretentious code for "I'm deep as a puddle and can't relate to sincere, heartfelt expressions of life"?

...

...

This isn't a Blade Runner 2049 or Logan thread, kiddo

>The only redeeming quality of most of Malick's films is the cinematography.
why is this a problem?
his films look really pretty and that makes them enjoyable to watch

>representing the soul's ascent to God
So it's the sephirots.
>tarot
Tarot is pretty late stuff.

That's a weird way to reply because Blade Runner 2049 is actually getting hated by the brainlets right now for being "slow, pretentious, quiet" and so on.

There's a range of stupidity.

>i thought it was a film purely for visuals alone
What? Why?

The OST is amazing, and obviously it was by Morricone.

Beautiful.

And yet plebs like you are eating it up

Because he doesn't know anything about it.

Thus, I really hope he does watch it.

I've never seen it.

>like you
Even better

What you guys think of this kino?

Is this a meme? It was so disjointed, didn't even have a plot

>m-muh plot, it didn't even have a plot, what about the plot

plebs

Would you please just leave my thread if you're going to do nothing but shitpost?

>film title is literally a tarot card