DACrowe
Avenger
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2000
- Messages
- 30,765
- Reaction score
- 625
- Points
- 78
I wrote this about contrasting Melancholia with The Tree of Life somewhere else:
A better film to compare the Tree of Life with is Melancholia. Tree of Life is a spirtualist, optimistic and even religious view of the world while Melancholia is the cynical, misanthropic and I'm just going to say extremely selfish (as that is what Kirsten Dunst's character and the movie's viewpoint is) counterpoint to all that. I tend to agree on the spiritual and philosophical level more with Malick and than Van Triers, but I found Melancholia the much more engaging of the two films. With that said neither did a whole lot for me.
The thing about Tree of Life is that, like all Malick movies for me, it just is a stunning piece of eye candy with some wonderfully thought-provoking "big ideas" connecting them. Because it is so pretty and, for lack of a better word, intelligent, critics give his films a huge pass as narratives. But, they are all just so disjointed and disconnected that it constantly fails as a piece of storytelling to me. I've yet to see a Malick movie that captivates me in any way beyond the visual or on a purely academic, abstract level. And it's not because he is a visual/narrative "existentialist,' as I've loved the filmmakers he's influenced with his style--Paul Thomas Anderson's There Will Be Blood and Andrew Dominik's The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, for example. It's just Malick leaves me cold.

well her boobs are quite nice