[Penman]

According to Amazon , and

​

Corner (blog)[/URL] .


Controversial, opaque, ludicrous, hackneyed, visionary, evocative, ambitious, overwrought, tedious, inscrutable, transcendent...?


Now you can judge for yourself.


I personally think Tree of Life is Malick's direct reply to Kubrick's 2001.

 

[dvdmike007]

 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...php?p=20376165

 

[Penman]

I saw that thread, Mike, but figured since it was headlined for the French release and date, a new thread was justified.


But if I'm wrong, the mods will let us know.

 

[giantchicken]

October is already a crowded Blu-ray month and this was a divisive film. I'm not sure about a $28 blind buy on this one.

 

[42041]

Getting this. Probably in my top 3 films of the last 5 years.

 

[Penman]



video[/URL] with Christopher Nolan and David Fincher praising Malick's work (featurette promoting Tree of Life.)


Malick has become the filmmaker's filmmaker, apparently.

 

[djdmt]

The visuals are stunning in this film. When I saw it in the theater I was thinking "gotta get the blu"!

 

[oink]

Day 1 sale here.

 

[lwright84]

Apparently, even Sean Penn did not care for his role in this film

http://www.slashfilm.com/sean-penn-c...ole-tree-life/


I still haven't seen this yet though, so I can't comment further.

 

[rlsmith]

I recommend seeing it first before purchasing it. I don't want to get into a hassle here but I was very disappointed.

 

[Matt_Stevens]

I don't get how people continue to invest in his films. They do not make money. TREE OF LIFE cost 32 million and made just under 40 million worldwide. The studio keeps about 60% of that. After DVD and TV it might break even or make a little bit of green.


THE NEW WORLD cost 30 mil and made 30 mil. Major ouch.


With TREE, had Malick not edited himself to the point of insanity, he could have made something special. The same goes for The Thin Red Line. I am one of the lucky ones who saw an early edit that was not filled with tons of fractured and meaningless narrative speechifying. The early cut I saw was one of the best war films ever made and so vastly superior to the theatrical cut that it is a crime against audiences Malick was allowed to ruin it.


Whatever. Rant over.

 

[Bill C.]

Mileage varies: my Malick-fu is weak, but I adored The Thin Red Line when I saw it (and seeing that was what nudged me to go backwards and finally watch Badlands). I'll probably need to buy a lot of microwave popcorn for Tree, but it and The New World should make a lovely blind-buying double bill...

 

[Fanboyz]

It's like "The Fountain".

 

[Shaded Dogfood]

I liked it. Slow. Obscure. Lotsa poetry.

Malick has become the filmmaker's filmmaker, apparently.


Always has been.

 

[oink]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Stevens /forum/post/20859248



Whatever. Rant over.

Matt, if you're NOT ranting, you're not posting.

 

[Will2007]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaded Dogfood /forum/post/20860112


I liked it. Slow. Obscure. Lotsa poetry.

Malick has become the filmmaker's filmmaker, apparently.


Always has been.

Haven't see it yet, but I am looking forward to it. I have seen all of Malick's other films (all 4 of them). They are poems, tone poems for the screen, full of philosophical musings. Some people like that kind of thing, and some don't. I do.

 

[Vonbek777]

One of my favorite directors. I really love New World and Thin Red Line. Can't wait to see Tree of Life. The man makes art, a rare thing these days.

 

[foughman]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Stevens /forum/post/20859248


I don't get how people continue to invest in his films. They do not make money. TREE OF LIFE cost 32 million and made just under 40 million worldwide. The studio keeps about 60% of that. After DVD and TV it might break even or make a little bit of green.


THE NEW WORLD cost 30 mil and made 30 mil. Major ouch.


With TREE, had Malick not edited himself to the point of insanity, he could have made something special. The same goes for The Thin Red Line. I am one of the lucky ones who saw an early edit that was not filled with tons of fractured and meaningless narrative speechifying. The early cut I saw was one of the best war films ever made and so vastly superior to the theatrical cut that it is a crime against audiences Malick was allowed to ruin it.


Whatever. Rant over.

Because they want him to do what he is BEST at. He is probably the best director through history and there's other people that agree with me. Some have money and invests in his movies.

 

[Shaded Dogfood]

He is probably the best director through history and there's other people that agree with me. Some have money and invests in his movies.


Agreed. I think some moneyed people in the industry- and maybe outside of it too- are willing to finance his films because of their faith in his art. Kubrick got this sort of treatment at Warners, maybe Eastwood as well.

 

[Penman]



Quote:
Originally Posted by foughman /forum/post/20863403


Because they want him to do what he is BEST at. He is probably the best director through history and there's other people that agree with me. Some have money and invests in his movies.

(emphasis added)


Malick is one of a handful of commercially unspectacular filmmakers (Lynch, Davies, a few others) whose films I will pay premium dollar to see in first run and whose discs I'll buy at full price just to do my own very small part to subsidize their art in the hope that it will mean that they can make more of it. Your List May Vary, but I think the principle is sound.


Take a look at Orson Welles' career for a negative example, or even Olivier's (as a director). They simply couldn't get the money to do their art, and we are so much the poorer for it.


Malick is in his late 60's, and he seems ready now to make films at a rate to compensate for his 20-year drought between Days of Heaven and The Thin Red Line. I, for one, am happy to help him pump them out.