This movie was fucking fantastic. Why the fuck does Sup Forums hate it so much?

This movie was fucking fantastic. Why the fuck does Sup Forums hate it so much?

Attached: 572873-l-affiche-de-the-tree-of-life-de-950x0-2.jpg (950x1266, 99K)

Other urls found in this thread:

commonsensemedia.org/movie-reviews/american-made
twitter.com/AnonBabble

It perpetuates soy archetypes, uninteresting to a thinking and truly feeling audience.

The kid has progeria or something? What kind of kid has those feet. Apalling.

Attached: fabio.jpg (1280x720, 73K)

It's probably the best regarded of Malick's 21st century offerings here (and in general opinion too).

reddit the movie

>Muh evil nature dad
>Muh angel graceful mother
WOW what depth Malick!

pseudo intellectual steaming pile of shit. it has no real message, only visuals and dramatic OST

not enough green screen

>Sup Forums hate it so much?
it doesn't you newfag

The scenes in the past were great, the stupid framing shit and Sean Penn wandering around was retarded.

>Sup Forums
90s born queers hate everything.

it had its moments (the ending particularly, but I felt it did work to some extent throughout the rest of the film) but Sean Penn getting second billing on the poster is pretty funny considering the film doesn't really *need* him

yeeaah pitt's character is never shown as truly evil, only bitter and regretful, and if you do a minimal effort and not force yourself to dislike the film because you want to feel smarter than it, you will have empathy for him

Fuck off tumblr

Sup Forums adored it
faggets like u ruined Sup Forums

tumblr should probably hate Malick given that (((critics))) enjoy painting him as a misogynist in his filmmaking.

Tumblr wants to get raped by kylo

ttw>koc>tol>dogshit>sts

>(((critics))) enjoy painting him as a misogynist in his filmmaking.
Source on that?

>being so triggered by /rlg/ that you're bringing up Star Wars in a Tree of Life thread
Lmao you Sup Forumsedditors are losing it.

I don't get it

just google "malick misogynist" and you get plenty of results. Generally the criticism is that women function in relation to the men of the films i.e. they are means to develop male characters, more than developing as characters themselves. I think it's a case of missing the forest for the trees in that basically all non-protagonist characters in Malick's films aren't necessarily mean to be read as "real" and are designed to help explore aspects of the central character and their concerns.

The only results I got were from some literally who bloggers that nobody cares about.

There are a few results from guardian, huff po, indiewire etc. (the usual suspects). I originally discovered this line of thought existed when I was bored in my last year of uni and looked up papers on Malick, only to find a number dealing with the portrayal of women in Malick's films and coming to the conclusion that it was - at best - unconscious misogyny.

this
its dishonest and full of shite
samsara is a way better movie when it comes to masturbating to life on earth

Kill yourself tumblr

perhaps "the women of malick's films" might be a better search to get an idea of things, people seem reluctant to say outright that he's misogynist but do raise questions about how he portrays women.

This guy is losing his fucking mind.

Sup Forums doesn’t hate it, we were one of the only places to praise malick unconditionally
nu-Sup Forums however....

I never watched this movie but Sup Forums is full of retards....

I don't agree with the conclusions drawn, I just thought it was interesting given that I hadn't encountered these opinions in discussions on Sup Forums. I get the feeling that the sort of people complaining that Malick doesn't create interesting female characters are the same people who would say that a man is unable to create "real" characters because he doesn't know their lived experiences (or some shite like that). I can't understand people watching Tree of Life or the New World and deciding that those portrayals of women are ~problematic~

"real" female characters*

Kill yourself tumblr

thanks for your time.

I'm genuinely surprised you're bothering to respond to him.

there's no chance of having actual film discussion on Sup Forums if you don't at least try. Maybe we'll get /film/ one day.

lol american'ts

Attached: tree_life_sign500.jpg (530x699, 76K)

I don't understand why we almost got it and then immediately lost it that one time. I can't think of any other time when they were scared off creating a board by rampant shitposting. Maybe they just don't have the manpower for it. Sup Forums's already poorly moderated as it is and I've noticed that the only boards added in the last few years are dead boards that they don't have to bother moderating.

best film of this decade so far

Attached: Jessica Chastain Tree of Life.webm (1280x688, 2.75M)

What are your talking about

Tv voted it in their top 10 films of decade so far

Attached: IMG_3044.jpg (2100x1500, 305K)

A Ghost Story > Tree of Life

Attached: crowd.jpg (960x701, 103K)

Badlands > Days of Heaven > The New World > The Tree of Life > The Thin Red Line >>>> shit > the 'works' of nu-malick

>Badlands and Days of Heaven at the top
Boring film critic tier opinion.

Radegund when?

they're objectively his best though

Still boring. At least throw in a wild card like Voyage of Time.

KoC >>>>>>>>> TToL

KoC sucks CoK

Hey, does Days of Heaven have any profanity in it? It's on TV later so I was thinking of watching it but if I'm going to miss hearing people say fuck and so on then maybe I'll find a download instead.

according to commonsense.org it's suitable for ages 14+ and doesn't feature any strong language.

Attached: cap5.png (665x358, 14K)

what the fuck is this website.

how is Badlands boring? And i didn't include Voyage of Time because I refuse to see the edited cut and iirc that's the only one out.

this is how to shitpost.

Attached: cap6.png (451x467, 23K)

Thanks. I forgot about that place. Although this same site said American Made is suitable for kids and it literally has a sex scene so I'm not entirely sure of its accuracy.

>Malick said that, compared with his more recent films, with Radegund he had "repented and gone back to working with a much tighter script."

yeah...i'm thinking he's back

Radegund is sounding like the Hugo of Malick movies.

jews

Also, what does the Consumerism category entail? I looked at Star Wars which I thought would be a good example but it only has one bubble.

>thinking an R rated film is suitable for kids in any way, shape, or form
anyways, you know IMDB literally has a parental guide section for every movie in it's database right.

Two good films. Sad!

No, I wasn't aware of that, but I'll check it out.

And to be fair to American Made it is one of the least violent R-rated movies I've seen in a long time with most of the reason it's rated R being profanity, but it does have one sex scene so I was surprised by this website. Take a look:
commonsensemedia.org/movie-reviews/american-made

I honestly turned it off after about 40 minutes. Mallick was much better at weaving the visual storytelling into his films in the early days. Randomly cutting to a 20 minute sequence of the universe being born or whatever doesn’t make for an interesting viewing experience, and since it’s so on the nose there’s not really much to take from it. It’s just a pretty sequence of images that takes you out of the film rather than immerse you in it.

It just seems to be how much product placement/merchandising goes with the film, so how likely kids are going to be to demand new toys after watching it.
Attack of the Clones gets three "stars" for consumerism, but Force Awakens only gets one, despite the detailed description of the rating being more or less the same thing. So in a nutshell, it's absolute nonsense and I suspect the Mouse has had a hand in it

First off the universe sequence isn't THAT long, but second, it gets a lot more straightforward after that part so I can't help but think that people who didn't like it quit before the actual plot started.

>T'Challa is a born leader who's thoughtful, patient, and compassionate. The movie portrays women -- particularly T'Challa's inner circle of Okoye, Nakia, and Shuri -- as strong, smart, capable, and courageous. Shuri is an inventive tech genius. Even the main villain is complicated and thought-provoking. Positive representation of Marvel's first black superhero; diverse ensemble cast. A highly respected character is revealed to have made some pretty big mistakes in the past.

Love this site. I need to figure out how to create a successful thread about it.

Sorry, cutting away to a 16 minute sequence of the universe being born doesn’t make for a interesting viewing. It’s completely killed the pacing for me. If you want an example of this kind of thing done right, look at 2001 a space odyssey.

It's like 5 minutes at best.

I do like that sequence (aside from the dinosaurs perhaps) and I think, if you analyse it purely from the point of view of the "central" story - i.e. the life of the family - then your point is valid, and it doesn't necessarily add to the film besides being a chance for some nice visuals.
However, I think the quote Malick uses to open the film (from Job, with God talking about how humanity is in no position to understand his decision-making) justifies it, since he reframes the film as a demonstration of this fact: that whilst the audience may see young Sean Penn's character as the protagonist, and his family as the nucleus of the film, Malick isn't primarily interested in them as people but rather as an exploration of humanity reacting to the incomprehensible ways of the divine. Of course, exploration of them as people occurs alongside this, but it is a means to and end more than the end itself.

Actually true Sup Forums patrician always liked it now we have some barbarian redditor who praise unironically film like Fury road or Interstellar...

Why did Malick put those dinosaurs in there anyway? It's so weird? An amazing movie and he has to diminish it with some pointless CGI.

>Fellowship of the Ring
>2 bubbles for "consumerism" with the description starting with "Hard to ignore the original Tolkien books"
Jesus christ, how is a film adaptation which encourages viewers to read a classic piece of literature "consumerism"

The remakes took away some of the magic.

Attached: song-to-song.20170711104326.jpg (330x470, 23K)

a ghost story is at best a somewhat decent imitation of malick.

It's not even similar to Malick.

are you blind, its literally malick lite with a touch of hipster.

No it isn't. Are YOU blind?

Malick

who?

The bad guy from Yugioh

i remember that guy

Attached: 1490320135680.jpg (540x391, 31K)

LACRIMOOSSAAAA

Attached: Malick in Space.webm (1280x688, 2.91M)

Sup Forums loves everything Malick does

Don't drag the Torrents board into this you bastard. They've done nothing wrong.

>I don't agree with the conclusions drawn
>it was - at best - unconscious misogyny
nah, he's right. kys

I was paraphrasing the summary of what I had read you cretinous melt.

I've never heard melt used in this context and I can't find a definition that makes sense. What did you mean?

Read it as "idiot". Although in fairness, I can see that the post in question where I mention "unconscious misogyny" is open to interpretation as to whether I was talking about the conclusions I drew, or the conclusions drawn by those doing the analysis of what I read. So I retract my insult, and wish to clarify that I do not believe Malick is a misogynist (although I think my follow-up post clarified my statement and feelings on the matter adequately anyway).

analysis in what I read*

I have to say you are way too nice and thoughtful to be on a place like Sup Forums.

actually wrong

don't worry, I shitpost furiously in any and all brap and pusy threads, but when actual opportunities come up to discuss films I tend to be a bit more serious.

obvious and embarrassing samefag

you got me

Attached: cap7.png (336x189, 6K)

The main theme of Malick's films on spiritual dematerialism is not eschatological, but a phenomenological ontology. Thus he implies that we have to choose between predialectic construction and deconstructivist neodialectic theory, essentially Heideggerian as seen in the concept of Dasein. The subject is interpolated then into a cinematic dematerialism that includes spirituality as a whole. But if the Kierkegaardian worldview holds, we have to choose between the cultural paradigm of expression and atomism. In Malick's own "The Concept of Horizon in Husserl and Heidegger" he says that "dread marks the ‘collapse of the world’”. Inherent in this is how the function of Lebenswelt (translated by Malick as "world of life") operates in all his films, chiefly in Days of Heaven and The Tree of Life. We see a phenomenological approach to the world showing a cinematic logic that presupposes a strucutral constraint in rootedness, another intentionality central to his filmography and philosophy. Because "metaphysical comfort" is not an object of temporality per se, but rather an aspect of automatic condition, as suggested by Cavell. Hermeneutic interpretations are also apparent in his post-hiatus movies; in fact the interchangeable subjectivities are but another representation of Husserl's and Wittgenstein's "form of life". As his academic hero Heidegger succintly noted, "freedom is the ‘abyss’ of Dasein, its groundless or absent ground". This is essentially the thesis operating in Malick's films.

Attached: Voyage of Time - Life's Journey.mkv_snapshot_01.18.06_[2017.09.15_23.44.04].jpg (1920x1080, 557K)

Only an incredibly insecure person would post a cringy image like that. Like the kind that would call someone a "cretinous melt" and then take it back immediately in the next post.

Holy shit, Trump posts on this board?

You were attacking me for being a samefag engaged in some sort of convoluted ego-stroking and I was defending myself on that front. Now you're off on some strange tangent about insecurity.
I made a hasty comment, re-evaluated it, decided it was disproportionate, and retracted it.

whats moot?

It's a word that means "of no practical value." Essentially, it's saying it's an unimportant post.

I've never understood why people find the film incomprehensible. It's certainly self-indulgent (I still like it a lot though), but it's a fairly straightforward adaptation of the Book of Job and Augustine's Confessions.