I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Fantastic!

It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Terrence Malick's The Tree of Life is very much focused on creating and delivering a unique cinematic experience for the viewer more than it is in telling a cohesive story. The actual cohesiveness of this film doesn't ever really come into play, given what the abnormal "narrative" is going for, and any semblance of storytelling that occurs during the plot always leaves a lot to be desired as they're coated with sequences of surreal and naturalistic imagery along with some seemingly cryptic narration bits. This is where the divide is created among the viewers; enjoyment of something like this will come down to personal preference and while I enjoyed the way Malick went about this idea with this film as well as the idea itself, I didn't get the same reaction like many other fans did who felt mesmerized by the end.It's a visual experience, whose overall visual sense is strengthened by the talent of cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki (I love The Revenant partly due to his contributions). With nature as a prominent medium for the cinematography, The Tree of Life boasts a lot of pretty shots and frames showing different natural landscapes. I was surprised at how many sequences happened in space too, they reminded me of Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. Come to think of it, I think these two films are pretty similar in the way they zero in on the space visuals and portray the progression/evolution of life.There's definitely something to be said about being able to draw parallels (in film) between something as big as evolution or the acceptance of death to family relationships, a concept that most everyone is very familiar with. I really did enjoy the idea of The Tree of Life more than the movie itself, power to anyone who considers it a masterpiece.

This philosophical movie blew me away. Lubezkis camera makes me feel like I'm within in the movie and gives it a deep impression - almost like 3D but better - the actors are fantastic and the unusual way of telling a story shows that there is a lot of ways to make movies. That was very refreshing. The movie takes time to make it's plot live although there no real plot which is paradox. But it works. If you like intellectual movies you will definitly like it cause there will be a lot of questions to ask. It's like a movie revolution. Don't watch it with no clue people!

You could be content with "great" pictures and touching "How time flies and everything develops" romance, but somehow it is not enough to make such an end in itself.Malick wants to explain everything again, where there is nothing to explain. And between the spherical corners of the film, there is a bumpy social study of children being destroyed by their two parents, the stern and punitive father and the loving mother, who make every terrible event as a divine sacrifice and themselves Bearing machine considered in the cosmic whole.To quote from the foreword to Kant's Critique of Pure Reason on the question of what Enlightenment is: "I had to limit knowledge to make room for faith."Malick, on the other hand, does not limit his statements and therefore can not believe anything because he somehow derives everything and "recognizes". Pity!The film fits into a time when people call everything that does not suit them "fake news" and the big world explorers come back into fashion, even if the world is inexplicable.The tree and the life are a martyrdom, if you take yourself as seriously as Malick. After Brett Pitt had to play Bach and Beethoven on the piano, I got the frightening assumption that even Mozart could follow. And indeed: then, in all seriousness, even Mozart will come. Malick creates the only comic moment, albeit involuntarily.The minute-long scene with "child-waving helicopter parents in slow motion on the beach" to touching music at the end of the film, announce the end of the individual and the artistic content, the unanswerable (!) Question of the reason of our existence: The creator of the film has lost faith ,highest hazard class - therefore 1 star

This is my first review on IMDb. I just had to write this review because this "film" was seriously awful.I dismiss anyone who rated this film highly as pretentious and empty-headed. There were just too many scenes that didn't make any sense. Including, but not limited to Jessica Chastain floating by the tree, the child sending his mother's gown down the river, and the scene at the end where all these randoms start frolicking around.I appreciate unique and creative films but this one was just too... nonsensical. Utterly nonsensical. The point of the movie is never really made clear. It was only until I read the synopsis that I learned that Sean Penn, a celebrated actor who barely appears in 5% of the film, is actually the kid as a grown man. Either you have to be a genius to pick up on that, or I'm just too stupid to have figured that out, or I accidentally missed some scene in this film where Penn's character actually tells the audience "oh I'm the kid btw."A film should never be given a high rating solely based on artsiness or high production value. A film should have, more than anything, a plot. Which I never picked up on in those agonizing 2 hours and 19 minutes.