Tree of Life -- Spoiler Free Review (long)

Many of you already know whether you're going to fall at this movie's feet in praise or dismiss it without bothering having a look. For anyone who has no previous experience with Malick or those like him (he's almost stylistically unparalleled save for Andrei Tarkovsky), then I have to assume you'd be inclined to fall into the latter camp. But with due consideration you'll see why this is yet another masterstroke by, in my opinion, the best living American filmmaker.

If you've never seen his work, expect this much: Reverence for nature, monologues preferred over dialogues, deep contemplation of life death and love, wonderment of being alive, anxiety about what to do with that life, a chance at Eden -- paradise, apple, and snake. This biblical parallel would be out of place in most of his films, but this one is laden with overt Christian references. Luckily he's got the discretion and sensitivity to present a form of spirituality that does not bathe in its own dogmatic juices. It remains heartfelt enough to exist as a poem rather than scripture.

The imagery is sublime as usual. The story presents itself like a series of tone poems, like a collection of vignettes that should prompt the viewer with Roman Numerals headings rather than a linear progression. By the end of things there is only a loose mosaic of coherence. And because Malick's work is more interactive, i.e. they require lots of extracurricular thought, you fill in the gaps of the picture. If you're unwilling to participate in its philosophy and poetry and spirituality/religion ... then I guess Charlie Sheen is in town doing standup tonight, right?

The scope of Tree of Life is as big as Malick has ever achieved. I thought The Thin Red Line was epic, but this takes on the genesis* of earth (*captial G if you want, but much of the science is presented making it pretty secular... teeters between both though). The point is to show how the macro can be as beautiful and tenuous as the micro unit of a family.

Pitt is the co-star of the movie, along with his wife played by Jessica Chastain, and their sons. Sean Penn is utilized sparsely in intense portrait shots and overdubbed monologues. The central theme is how does one live? With sympathy imagination and love (Grace, as the movie puts it)? Or with ambitions to move up in society, accumulating material wealth and dominance over others (Nature, so says the monologue, but it seems more like Human Nature)? The mother is Grace and the father is Nature.

Ways that this movie is better than his others:
Music. So many glorious arias, operatic pieces, brief symphony snippets.
The photography is as sumptuous as ever, and because it tackles the cosmos, it's perhaps his most vibrant, imaginative presentation to date.

Ways in which Malick's voice is unchanged:
Treescape shots panning toward the sun as light fliters through the leaves
Poetry breathes over the more 'artistic' shots
Resiliency and acceptance of nature and fate

Ways in which it falls short:
Part of this complaint will have to be revealed in the spoilers thread, but its immense scope at one moment comes off as corny. It's hard to take this portion seriously when it tries to explain all of Time and Life on Earth ever.
It's his most disjointed narrative, making it adverse to the public moviegoers at large. It will be greatly misunderstood by many.

It's too soon for me to say exactly how good it is. I'm only about 2 hours out of the theater. It will take time to distill its full quality, but I can safely say that within Malick's frame of movies, it holds up with his best. If you don't like his style, you'll probably consider it his worst.

TL;DR --

Pt. 2