• Big Screen alerts

Well, no, not really. But wouldn't that be awesome?

Just to be clear. I liked Terrence Malick's latest a bit more than Reader critic David Elliott, who dinged it with a single star, saying, "Sadly but blatantly, the gaseous inflation of themes virtually destroys anything personal or profound...The Tree of Life strains so hard for the Big Picture that it suffers a soul hernia." Ouch! But I take his point.

Still, I liked the film's juxtaposition of the whole wide world of creation with the teeny tiny world of a single family, and also the way it illustrated a child's gradually expanding consciousness - from the point where Mom is the whole world, then the family, then the neighborhood, then the town, and on and on all the way to God.

THAT SAID, I'm not sure I'd be down for the six-hour version that Malick is rumored to be prepping. And wonder of wonders, his cinematographer has apparently said that the film's first cut was a full eight hours long (down from the that's-gotta-be-a-typo report of 370 hours of raw footage). That kind of cinematic excess, however profound, is just begging for a response from Tom Servo & Company...

Image

  • Big Screen alerts

More like this:

Comments

Sign in to comment

Win a Pair of Tickets to
the Del Mar Races

Join our newsletter list

Each newsletter subscription means another chance to win!

Close