Wow. Thank you for this, Roger. This is one of many "meditations" I've seen about this film and I believe it is incredible for it's ability to evoke such immersive introspection that I've seen the past couple days. I can't wait to see it because I too was raised and grew up in a very small town in Illinois surrounded by prairies and corn fields and I have a feeling this film will affect me intensely.

This is everything I hoped the film would be. Thank you. I cannot wait to see it.

Prayer comes naturally to man.
"When desire becomes strong enough it becomes prayer."

This is a very good write-up. You make it sound existential and nostalgic at the same time (like Solaris). I'll have to wait for half-a-year to see it anyway, but I wonder whether it's more cosmically, epically, existentially curious or more nostalgic and precise. More 2001 or Amarcord, I guess.

Between this and "Midnight in Paris" and "The Artist," it sounds like a whimsical, hopeful, heady time to be in France. Sigh.

Interesting. I find our general obsession with the spatio-temporal scale to be a bit odd and misleading. Size isn't necessarily a measure of anything "important", and the more I learn, the more I come to understand that all life on Earth is important- cosmically so. If we are to remain strict empiricists, the evidence of the rarity of life exalts the Earth as a fine construct of cosmological evolution. It isn't the size that matters, but the uh... well... um... you know.

Then again, those who are keen on the grandiosity of the vacuum think being obsessed with human life is odd and misleading. Well, whatever, whatever floats your, well you know.

So looking forward to seeing this film. Your review/remembrance makes me want to see it that much more.

I really hope this will be screened at a theater close by. By far my most anticipated movie this year.

This film will mark cinema in a historic way. A once in a lifetime piece of work.

I appreciate this Mr. Ebert. I'm in my 30s and I'm fascinated with god, infinity, the brevity of life, the incomprehensible size of the cosmos, the weirdness of the Universe.
I just watched a TED talk featuring renowned scientist David Deutsch called "What is our place in the cosmos?" If you decided where to travel in space with a roll of the dice (assuming you can go anywhere) chances are you'd end up in utter pitch black void of deep space that is a mere couple degrees above absolute zero. This is what the Universe mostly is. You wouldn't be able to see anything whatsoever except pure black. If you had a decent telescope then you'd see the little galaxies scattered about in the distance. So weird to me, this place. Yet how else could it be. Or how could it not be weird however it was put together and reveled to us through our senses and technology?
Anyway I have enjoyed your musing on these limitless, timeless subjects. I've almost given up on answers to many questions. "We are born in mystery, live in mystery and die in mystery" is a quote I came across years ago and it has stuck with me.

I wanted to mention that director Terrence Malick was a student of American philosopher Hubert Dreyfus. Dreyfus is known for being a leading interpreter of the great and controversial German philosopher Martin Heidegger. Dreyfus has mentioned the Heidegger influence on Malick's work.

I've been really excited for this film for several months now and it seems like the kind of movie I was hoping it'd be. Thanks...

Actually, since this is my first time commenting, I just want to say thanks for doing what you do in writing these movie reviews. I don't always agree with your opinions, of course, but I always look at what you say anyway. And if you give a film a good review (four stars), I'll always see it. You've provided me with many, many films I would have otherwise been much slower to have discovered. So, from a complete stranger who's just an admirer of good writing, and good movies, Thanks so much...

That first pic is from The Fountain, not Tree of Life!

Sometimes it's real again. At a friend's house on a sunny Saturday afternoon, a neighbor kid has overshot their ball and it lands in our friend's backyard. Suddenly several of the adults are engaged in play, tossing the ball back in forth to the kids over the privacy fence and it is a blast.
The play is terminated because my friend deems this childish behavior. Well, Duh.

What I took from my year as a Christian some years ago was that you should not pray for what you want but rather for the strength to handle it if you don't get it. This insight comes from people with long experience with unrequited prayers. Even praying for strength is overly ambitious. God will not intervene to bestow strength. Rather I think that this kind of prayer is a search within yourself for the strength that the creator, such as she is, being or non-being, has already inscribed into your very creation. Prayer merely summons it within you and focuses your mind on your own resources.

All of the group prayer sessions involved an explicit acknowledgment that the prayer might not be fulfilled and an acceptance that this formed part of the greater plan - these were not just pleas for help but also expressions of gratitude. It was incredibly intimate and probably gained a lot of its value by being shared.

But I have always prayed, despite my atheist upbringing, and mostly alone. I prayed to God and her intermediaries, whoever I imagined them to be at the time. I prayed in times of stress or fear but my prayers did not always have any discernible content or aim. It was merely a state of mind that I had always intuitively understood and valued.

At other times I carried on conversations in my head with fictitious people, usually an angel or Goddess. There is value in this too.

By the sea, by the sea. Reminds me of a passage from my novel:

"In the chill he broke a window open with his hands, hoping that he would enter in upon a lighthouse. Fisherman held blue and white lights before dawn in the black water. The path down to the shore opened up a world unseen by the sun, a hidden enclave that promised to remain night forever. This comforted Elisha, accustomed as he was to using the night as a shield.
He wrote SOS on the beach with the branch of a tree. In one swift twist of the arm he threw his passport and identification into the ocean. These felt unnecessary; obsolete. It was a good, inky-black morning for sharks. Elisha splashed in the water for only a brief time, not wanting to tempt fate.

There seemed nowhere left to go but to follow the curve of the shoreline. It proved more difficult than it first seemed and soon Elisha gave in to his fatigue. With his hands on the ancient white rocks he made a great, elemental prayer. He looked behind him to peer at the distant horizon and knew that the world was very old."

This is some of the least polished and least thought-through passages in the book and I think that it is because it is based on things that happened to me. I did break a window open with my hands, I did write SOS on a beach and I did throw my passport into the ocean and make a prayer by the rocks. I had intended to escape to Rome but somehow ended up there instead, after tumbling down a (mild) cliff face, the only things keeping me from falling many feet downwards were the plants that caught me like a net.

But c'est la vie, insanity does not always persist and eventually that same passport, found by some good Samaritan and returned to me by the New South Wales police, a little tattered and damaged, got me all the way to France again. Working closely with refugees I have also come to have a much greater respect for the value of a passport.

Last night I watched "Beyond the clouds" again and loved it as much as when I first saw it at sixteen. It healed and refreshed me and reminded me of my best self. The accompanying documentary - which barely qualifies as a documentary and is more a jagged assortment of footage and interviews - gives some insight into how Antonioni was able to direct the film without being able to speak. The film is built of images, voices and silence and equal value is recognised in all three. It is the highest art I have ever encountered if taken on the right level, although others will doubtless have legitimate reservations and criticisms. I shall leave them where they are and follow my own heart.

Growing up my father was a real hard ass too. He never really said he was proud of me, and he was very confrontational, physically intimidating, sometimes physical. He once grabbed me by the collar and ripped the shirt I was wearing - a Christmas present from my Mom.
After moving out of the house and going to college and those types of things, I haven't really stopped resenting him for it. There's a lot of resentment towards myself also (getting over the issue is the right thing to do, there are children raised by fathers much worse, etc.). I moved out after graduating high school, and being now three years out of the house it feels like he shouldn't be an issue anymore.
Whenever we're together now, which is rare considering I moved 650 miles away, there is a tension that maybe he feels too. I don't ask.
Rarely a movie or book comes along and it evokes something personal in us. To you, Roger, it seems like an existential thing. I feel that a lot with writers like Cormac Mccarthy. Probably I will enjoy this movie for a different reason.

Fantastic review Roger! I too was lucky enough to have an unstructured childhood. I remember once when I was very little one of those slow lumbering giants asked me which was my favorite time of year. I looked at the adult in astonishment and then laughed out loud. It was such a silly question. How could I choose when they were all wonderful!

Magnificent review, Roger.

I've got to admit that the only Terence Malick film I've seen so far, is 'The New World'. That was due to your review, which made me want to explore Malick's career. I swore that I would be able to watch all of his films before 'The Tree of Life', but sadly in Estonia (where I live), the chance of seeing a film that isn't a big-budget action movie on DVD, is almost zero. Netflix does not "work" here in Estonia, and I'd hate to illegally download the films (I mean, it's ILLEGAL).

Now upon reading your very engrossing review, I find myself in a state of mind in which I CANNOT WAIT FOR 'THE TREE OF LIFE'. I am almost 100% certain that it won't be released here in Estonia, but I am hoping for it and praying God to make it happen.

When I saw 'The New World', I was completely overwhelmed of its beauty in every level. It was largely overlooked by audiences and critics (receiving a mere 60% rating on Rotten Tomatoes). Now, I'm hoping for a huge success for 'The Tree of Life', and I can't wait to see the film.

Man, I wish I were in Cannes.

- Karl (http://carlkevad.webs.com/)

Ohhhh so you like this movie and not Thor, you really are losing it old man

Ebert: So you've seen it?

I can't wait to see this movie. Malick is a rare artist. Thank you for stirring that old feeling of anticipation.

Nice, but the first screenshot is from Darren Aronofsky's "The Fountain"!

Ebert: I've changed it. I found it with an incautious Google search.

You create a wonderful picture with your words about Mr. Malick's film but my experience with him in the past has always been one of boredom. From your writing I actually want to see this film but I have a feeling I'm going to be disappointed once again as I've always been with Malick. His films to me seem empty and drawn out...I keep thinking of long takes on a leaf or blade of grass which mean nothing to me. I've been seduced time and again by critics just as yourself into seeing his films, having only missed The New World because I just didn't want to get taken in again. I remember going to see The Thin Red Line with such anticipation and excitement only to be bored out of my mind. So here I am again, wondering if I should give him one more chance to see if I can see what you see. Am I not smart enough? Do I not have the insight to understand Malick? Should his films be only for a select few to appreciate? I'm torn with wanting to see the movie you describe and kind of knowing that I won't see it because Mr. Malick will just leave me cold. I haven't made up my mind but I am leaning towards going to see it now just because I respect your opinion and I want to see what you see in him.

This is a tremendous film. And this is, quite simply, a wonderful review. You don't have to write another, more "official" review of this film, this article does that quite nicely.

I adored THE TREE OF LIFE. It's a monumental, transcendent film.

Roger,

Just like Inception last summer, The Tree of Life feels like an oasis of intelligent, passionate filmmaking in the midst of a maelstrom of mindless sequels and remakes. I've been waiting for it with baited breath since the first rumblings of a new Malick film appeared shortly after The New World, and intend to be first in line when it gets released here in NYC.

Films like this (and the films of Kubrick, Bresson, Tarkovsky, Bergman which are this film's spiritual predecessors) make all others feel small and insignificant. They remind us that this artform, which inspires so much small-minded vulgarity, is still capable of taking off to incredible heights of beauty and wonder.

I also hope that David Gordon Green goes to see this film and walks out of the screening feeling humbled and inspired to return to his roots as a thoughtful filmmaker, instead of plunging further into Apatow-ville.

P.S: You started this journal entry with an image from Darren Aronofsky's The Fountain. I remember that when the film came out, you were still being treated and Jim Emerson supplied the review. I've always been curious as to what you think of it.

Sincerely,
Daniel K.

So it this final review? Or it's just a prologue?

Thank you for your thoughts on prayer. I feel the same, but I've not been able to verbalize the feelings. I will keep a copy of your words.

Wow, Roger. Your writing just gets better and better.

When will this movie be released, do you know?

Can't wait to see it. I have been a Malick fan since "Badlands" and particularly loved "Days of Heaven." Interesting to watch it again now in light of the cosmic concerns of the new movie, since "Days" is filled with Biblical imagery.

A beautiful and heartfelt review. I really have to see this movie now.

"What Malick does in "Tree of Life" is create the span of lives."

Of white, Western lives. Not everyone in the world has the capacity to meditate with a vacant stare like Sean Penn's character does in the trailer on the meaning of life, some are more worried about day to day survival i.e. not starving to death, being killed in civil war etc. love your reviews, but you often are guilty of essentialism.

Your hard work shows in this essay, especially in what seems at first to be a throwaway line: "He will never again run outside and play." But "Go outside and play, you kids" in some form is deeply embedded in the American consciousness. A skinny book called OFFBEAT HUMOR, published at the tail end of the Beatnik era, had a joke about a stewardess who was so fed up with some kids that she made them go outside and play. "Go outside and play" IS childhood and innocence for millions of us.

I'll get more out of this movie when I see it, having read this essay of yours. Thanks.

Wonderful article Roger. I can't wait to see this film. Not sure when it will come to my little burg, but I'll be there.

There is, as always, a lot of meat in this article. A lot to ponder and discuss. I think I'll be back to talk about prayer, and what we pray.

My first reaction is to this:

I believe it stands free from conventional theologies,

Well, of course it does. What Hollywood film doesn't stand free from conventional theologies? Who in Hollywood embraces conventional theologies that would make a film that reflects conventional theologies?

Asked another way, where are Hollywood films that even attempt to portray conventional theologies - for example the mainstream Protestant evangelical Christianity that is my experience - honestly and without mockery?

Kirk Cameron's "Fireproof" nailed it, and was mocked. But, that was made outside of the mainstream Hollywood system, I believe.

"Hereafter" was billed as a spiritual film, but was also outside conventional theologies. It's topic was mis-billed. It had no serious discussion of the hereafter as conventional theologies would understand it. It's actual topic was how people deal with loss here. After.

I discussed this aspect of dealing with conventional theologies in my blog article review of "Natural Selection" after EbertFest. I got to talk with director Robbie Pickering there about the balance between picking on religion and respecting it in his portrayal. (I think he did both in a reasonable balance that I find rare.) I appreciated his comment on my blog on that topic. Click on my name for that blog post.

I'll be watching how "Tree of Life" deals with spiritual issues. In whatever unconventional sense. The unconventional sense being always conventional on theology in Hollywood products.

And, as always, I'm longing for more cinema that does deal with conventional theologies - and with respect instead of mockery.

More, later...

Beautiful review. Thanks for this.

I've been very eager to see this film for years, and it continues to be my most anticipated film of the year (with The Descendants, Cabret, Tintin, and a few others nipping at its heels). Unfortunately, almost no film could live up to the hype and expectation that have been foisted upon this film, but I'm hoping to do my best to approach it realistically and with an open mind.

Can't wait.

I'm startled at how a fair amount of the talk about the movie that I've bumped into elsewhere online has been of this tenor: "The Cannes audience booed it, therefore it's another bloated and pretentious piece of trash." People, it seems, will look for almost any excuse not to sit through a film -- especially one that was not made for the sake of (as you put it so pointedly) masturbating the senses.

I am not easily bored by a challenging movie. I think that's because I have a certain empathy with a filmmaker who wants to show us something new instead of just go through the motions of being entertaining so that someone, somewhere, can sell a product. I know full well some challenging movies are not successful: I didn't think "Solaris" (1972) was very good in the end but I respected the effort behind it. I might come back to it in time and see things there I didn't see before, where I don't think I could ever come back to a "Transformers" or a "Pirates of the Caribbean" and see anything that wasn't splashed across the screen the first time. And I also felt let down by "The Fountain" -- it felt like it had been gestating too long in Aronofsky's imagination -- but I would rather see more movies like that, even if they "fail", than any number of tired commercial products. There will always be an endless supply of commercial moviemakers and audiences for same; there is no guarantee that more personal, complex filmmaking will. I would be heartbroken if such moviemaking were confined entirely to the video-on-demand or word-of-mouth circuits, but that seems to be the trend.

This also isn't to say big commercial movies don't have their audiences. But those audiences are growing at the expense of audiences for movies like this, which have to fight to get made, fight to get released, fight to find an audience at all -- and now, it seems, fight to even be appreciated by the very audiences who ought to be best suited to reading them in the first place.

I found out about this song in a Guinness commercial, of all places, but I love it. This article invoked it, and memories of myself as a free-range kid in the mid to late eighties creating scavenger hunts for my father and sisters to follow around my neighborhood. Thank you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-5UYGccne4

Note: apologies if this message has been posted half a dozen times; I keep getting an error message, saying that I'm entering the text incorrectly.

Ebert: and those I consider a form of prayer. Not prayer "to" anyone or anything, but prayer "about" everyone and everything. I believe prayer that makes requests is pointless. What will be, will be. But I value the kind of prayer when you stand at the edge of the sea, or beneath a tree, or smell a flower, or love someone, or do a good thing. Those prayers validate existence and snatch it away from meaningless routine.

I appreciate reading your thoughts on prayer. Prayer of the wonderment variety.

I value that. I've experienced that, certainly. How could we not have awe at our existence? At our smallness in the scheme/ At the marvel of glories of creation? I understand the sentiment behind that being a "kind of prayer", even if I don't relate to that terminology.

For a Christian, for me, prayer is inextricably bound to a conversation. It has a "to". Even if it's just a moment of dumbstruck awe at existence, it's "Thank you, God, for my existence".

When you say that you believe that prayers that make requests are pointless, it is because you don't believe in a recipient of that prayer. In the very existence of a request-granter. There is no "to" there.

If you do, as I do, believe in a transcendental being on the receipient end of the prayer conversation, it makes a difference in what that prayer conversation should consist of.

Suppose even futher that the object of each prayer, the request-granter, was able to give you instructions on what the point of a prayer is or should be? Suppose the prayer receiver was able to tell you something like"

"When you pray", say something like this. Say "give us this day our daily bread..."

That's a request. For something tangible. What will be, may be. But, ask for it anyway.

So I assume you like this film more than Thor?

How science is religion to most people - from Slashdot.com:

Hugh Pickens writes:

"Pastabagel writes that the actual scientific answers to the questions of the origins of the universe, the evolution of man, and the fundamental nature of the cosmos involve things like wave equations and quantum electrodynamics and molecular biology that very few non-scientists can ever hope to understand and that if we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that we accept the incredibly complex scientific phenomena in physics, astronomy, and biology through the process of belief, not through reason. When Richard Fenyman wrote, 'I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics,' he was including himself which is disconcerting given how many books he wrote on that very subject. The fact is that it takes years of dedicated study before scientific truth in its truest, mathematical and symbolic forms can be understood. The rest of us rely on experts to explain it, someone who has seen and understood the truth and can dumb it down for us in a language we can understand. And therein lies the big problem for science and scientists. For most people, science is really a matter of trusting the expert who tells it to us and believing what they tell us. Trust and belief. Faith. Not understanding. How can we understand science, if we can't understand the language of science? 'We don't learn science by doing science, we learn science by reading and memorizing. The same way we learn history. Do you really know what an atom is, or that a Higgs boson is a rather important thing, or did you simply accept they were what someone told you they were?'"

this entry hit me in a way you may not have intended;

the father-son dynamic has always fascinated me.

i was raised by my grandparents; my grampa taught driving 10 hours a day. 7 days a week. so my gramma did everything parentingwise;.

the fact of my retracted testicles means ill miss the father-son ride coming and going. sigh'

A sensitive write-up, Ebert, and one that makes me even more excited to see the film. As a Christian who also harbors a profound love for great art -- the best (and even middling) films of Ingmar Bergman, the best films of Andrei Tarkovsky and Theo Angelopoulos (I know you're not an admirer of the latter, but we all miss the boat sometimes), the novels of Dickens and Marilynne Robinson and Peter Carey, the music of Bach -- I couldn't look more forward to a film functioning more as a tone poem than a film, and that takes the question(s) of God very seriously. I must say I'm a little irked by the way in which critics (not to mention Brad Pitt at the Cannes press conference) seem to be downplaying or diluting Malick's own sense of the religious as a kind of loopy Unitarian mysticism (one would think, from hearing Pitt talk about him, that Malick is a kind of New Age prophet, as opposed to -- if I'm not mistaken -- the Episcopalian he is).

Thanks again for the review -- but do try to watch those errors. I rarely read you anymore (where I used to read your work more than any other critic's) because I find your prose more pocked with typos (I count three in the eighth paragraph alone of this review) and factual hiccups (e.g. your mistaken description of John Ajvide Lindqvist in your review of Let Me In as the writer-director who made Let the Right One In) than it should be. It sometimes feels as if it hasn't been proofread.

darn it ebert, you made me tear up at work.

I'm so glad you liked, Roger! I guess I shouldn't be surprised when anybody else likes the movie as much as I did, as i do believe TREE OF LIFE is a major movie... but I guess the experience of watching it is so unavoidably personal, it's hard to picture someone else could feel so close to it - but I guess that's part of Malick's point.

And did you see in the LA Times that Jack Fisk (Malick's production designer, Sissy Spacek's husband) says they're in the midst of editing Malick's next film, and it's apparently even more daring? Age has nothing to do with anything, man. But perhaps living outside of the public eye allows a different kind of growth.

I personally believe that existence is a curse. I am a 25 year old man and the more older I become the more I despise our species. I am not a grumpy fella, quite the contrary as a matter of fact, but I go through an existentialist crisis on a daily basis and it pains me.

My life VS the life of the Universe is the theme of a story I am penning at the moment. Happiness is a state everyone longs for. Is it a situation, a place or a feeling? Suffice to say it is a fleeting moment – one we strive for every second of our existence. I think I have found happiness- A sense of belonging with nature combined with a thirst for knowledge, avoiding interaction with the man made society we live in(to an extent) while being in the best of health and mind. Oh, and never have children- I cannot wait for my time to get over and my lineage to have an end with me.

Rishi

Life: when you find yourself enjoying a movie about somebody your dad's age played by somebody your son's age.

I find it interesting when people conclude that because of our size we are insignificant in the grand scheme of things. People seem to forget that the Universe gets much, much smaller than us too.

There was a quote from a Native American sage in Edward Steichen's 1955 photography exhibit, "The Family of Man." (It's in the book too.) It went something like this:

"Do not concern yourself with size, there is no end to dimension."

Roger.
Appreciated your review. I saw the film yesterday at a screening for Indianapolis press and it put me in a quiet, reflective state. Out of all the amazing images, I most most taken with the hands of the father (played so well by Brad Pitt). Those hands, trying to push, protect, control, envelop, guide. Those were my dad's hands, and mine, as we keep trying. Trying. Quite a movie.
A typo alert before I close: Your review contains a reference to a "font porch swing." I'm sure that's not what you meant, but I like the idea of swinging on the porch while debating the merits of Arial Black vs Arial Rounded MT Bold.

Dear Roger,

If there is any director out there that can make seeing a film a religious experience, it is Terrence Malick. But what would be amazing is if a single film (maybe even "The Tree Of Life") could create a unity between different religions or reduce religion itself, at least in America. Many films have been created over the last 100 years, but very few contain the kind of "transcendence" that Malick's films provide. There are moments in "The Thin Red Line" and "The New World" that have affected me in ways no other films have. In the former, the philosophy and poetry combined with the music and innocence and timelessness when Jim Caviezel's character is swimming in the ocean playing with the children gives me that same emotional reaction as in "The New World", when the Colin Farrell character is embraced by the Native Indians and realities of time, politics, racial differences and war are diminished when those crucial elements of love, community, family, nature, peace and goodness come together in the most symbiotic of ways.

It is this symbiosis of love, nature and goodness that ultimately, in my opinion, creates the most transcendence when such a combination is used repeatedly in a film. Rather than being desensitized to all of the Hollywood violence and negativity that dehumanizes us as a movie audience, I seek to be revitalized and awakened. This is why I love Terrence Malick's work, because his films are sensitive and careful. And even though he never makes public appearances nor gives interviews, and that I will never meet him or know what truly runs through his mind, I will not need any explanations or deconstructions, for I myself am comforted to know which films enrich me, rather than spoil me.

I hope to see "The Tree Of Life" and be moved the same way his previous films have moved me. If I were to make my own feature films, I would want them to be just like Malick's films. Not exactly like his, but in the same vein of transcendence, meditation, prayer and sublimity. It is that for which I live for in much of my waking life in this universe.

Jonathan (a former and sometimes current independent filmmaker)

Thanks very much for this. I have been dealing with the issue Christian and Buddhist prayer recently and look forward very much to seeing the film.

Roger, you've always been an excellent writer but I think this is some of your best work. You've not only made baby boomers want to see this film, but also revealed your inner self to us in a way that we can relate to.

In response to Mr. Randy Masters' comment above - This is a film that I assume can speak to everyone, from every walk of life. Not just Protestant Evangelicals. I could go on but.... that's pretty much it.

Roger (forgive the familiarity),

Your musings on this film certainly make me add it to my must see list. In addition they remind me, and perhaps better articulate what I appreciate about the new show at the Griffith Observatory Lazarium here in Los Angeles. It takes the audience in pictures (as can be uniquely done in a dome theater) and words from a beautiful sunset, across the spans of time and discovery and perspective, to contemplate our place and uniqueness. From what you've said I think you might enjoy the show if you're ever in LA. I likewise will look for the movie to see and enjoy.

Best, Jon

Roger,
Your comments demonstrate that you deserve a shot at interviewing Malick more than perhaps anyone. Contact his publicist and see if an exception can be made.

A generously sensitive and introspective response to the film, thank you, Roger. You share Malick's talent for marrying the dauntingly large questions of life to minute and closely-observed, intensely personal, details that, in their evocation, transcend themselves.

Malick has always been a film maker whose position has struck me as always at a more distanced remove from the frantic gravities of living; his films, especially "The Thin Red Line" and "The New World", regard time and thoughtfulness from a more objective position than most. Informed by a sensitivity to our tendency to gloss over quiet moments of reflection, to my mind, his films have always been inflected with a patient and even reverent tone, aware of our humane realities while seeking to maintain a more objective perspective about their ephemeral smallness.

In this regard "Tree of Life" seems to explicate a theme long intrinsic to his work. From the first moment I saw the trailer I was possessed of a hunger to see the film, and pieces such as yours - and even the deliciously conflicting reports from Cannes - do nothing to satiate the feeling. We are all on our own place in the continuum of rural and urban (Urbana?) and films like "Tree of Life", as your describe it, draw us all together.

I cannot help but think that viewing this film and von Trier's "Melancholia" is such close proximity must make for an interesting dialogue.

Roger,
So you are at Cannes? You haven't talked about it as much as in previous years. And this obsession with Thor when surely Cannes would have given you something to be more enthusiastic about. It made me wonder if you had to miss out this year...

Ebert: Nope, I saw it in Chicago.

Lovely post Roger, if you get a chance you should read 'The Dark' by John McGahern, the great Irish novelist, it describes something like this - but more troubled - in the relationship between father and son.

Ebert: "In the span of the universe, we inhabit an unimaginably small space and time, and yet we think we are so important."

Ego breeds.

Thank you. I sincerely hope this film comes to my local theater, although I will try to seek it out. Yours is the second review that speaks of the breadth of this film and what Malick has accomplished.

The Year That Clayton Delaney Died: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V68-lM5sLrU

Roger, it sounds like you had an experience that comes only once in a while. I've been looking forward to this film for a long time and you just upped my anxiety to see it. There are movies that you sit and watch and there are movies that you experience. Back in 2008 I went and saw "Into the wild" and as corny as it sounds, it changed my life. Sean Penn said "Film is too powerful a medium to be called entertainment." And after seeing "Into the Wild" I completely understood what he meant. I've always thought of Malick as a quiet artist with an inner voice that can overpower anything. I'm hoping I walk out of Tree of Life a different person.

May I ask why you decided to stay in Chicago instead of going to Cannes this year?

Ebert: Final countdown on my memoirs.

Once more, Roger Ebert, you reveal your wonderfully generous and intelligent and sweet soul in this review of "The Tree of Life."

Why on earth critics are 'attacking' Malick's 'The Tree of Life' for its ambition is beyond me. It is, or at least should be, the essence of art - to be ambitious, and to do so with honesty and heart. Ebert's review here captures just how a reaction to a film such as Malick's ought to proceed, and not in the sense that he clearly enjoyed the film. He reacts with a similar honesty, leaving out mindless critical jargon or any ignorant attempt to discard Malick's work as pretentious simply for its scale of thought. I am not reacting to those who disliked the film, but the manner in which many have gone about voicing their dislike. 'Tree' is in every sense a work of philosophy, and so merits such scale in my opinion. The honesty of Malick's intentions make the film a beautiful act of humility.

Very curious and misguided use of language: "masturbate our senses".

I'm so torn about this film. It looks ambitious, cosmic, meditative, and just plain beautiful. However, I used to have a personal relationship with a member of the cast (whom shall remain anonymous). I was very dear friends and artistic partners with this person, and (again, without going into specifics) they hurt and betrayed me. Still stings. A lot. Right of the bat, I fear I won't be able to engage with the film because of this person's presence. I don't think I'll be able to reach the state of prayer described by Mr. Ebert. It'd probably be just to painful to watch.

This saddens me.

Rishi writes: "Happiness is a state everyone longs for. Is it a situation, a place or a feeling? "

None of the above, and most especially not a "state." Happiness is an activity, or to be more precise, perhaps, a mode of action. This idea goes back to Aristotle's Poetics: "It is in action that happiness and unhappiness are found, and the end we aim at is a kind of activity, not a quality." The idea that happiness is a state is probably responsible for more avoidable unhappiness (as opposed to the kind caused by specific hardship) than anything else.

I realized the truth of this idea years ago when I called my mother one weekend and, noting that she sounded in a particularly good mood, asked her what she was doing.

"Cleaning the 'fridge," she said.
Me, incredulous: "Cleaning the 'fridge? But you sound so happy!"
Her: "I've got music playing. The dogs are nearby. The 'fridge needs to be cleaned, so I know I'm accomplishing something useful. If I can't be happy cleaning the 'fridge, exactly when should I be happy?"

I hung up a few minutes later. I'm not sure if my mother had ever read Aristotle (her education was literally of the one-room schoolhouse variety in rural Michigan, but she read voraciously on her own), but he didn't say it any better.

Now, as to The Tree of Life, it looks like the kind of film that is wonderful if you are open to it, and in that it probably duplicates other experiences that impart a sense of the spiritual. I taught a class on the Literature of War this semester, and one optional assignment I gave students was to watch The Thin Red Line. None had seen it, while virtually everyone had seen Saving Private Ryan, which came out the same year. When some of the students discussed the film with me via e-mail (actually a list-serve, for those who know the difference), I explained that I thought SPR was an extremely well-made film on a technical level, and Spielberg (whom I often admire) had borrowed competently from Kurosawa for the battle scenes, but that I thought it was shallow and manipulative overall. One complaint I have is the framing narrative showing the D-Day commemoration ends with a zoom in on the old man's eyes, which then cuts to Tom Hanks' eyes, clearly implying that the old man is the same character -- just so the film can sucker-punch us with that character's death later. And meanwhile, the "Earn this" message is immoral, even obscene: as if anyone can carry the burden of earning the deaths of several other men, or should have to, especially given that he didn't ask to be saved.

In contrast, I think The Thin Red Line is flawed, as it would have to be, given that the original cut was something like six hours long, and the final cut was under three. Adrien Brody spent months filming with Malick and his part was cut down to maybe a minute and a half of screen time. Other parts played by John C. Reilly and Jared Leto were clearly cut way down. And a handful of actors who worked on the film -- including Gary Oldman, Viggo Mortensen, Bill Pullman, Mickey Rourke, and Lukas Haas -- were cut entirely. But a war film that ends by referencing Wordsworth's Prelude has high ambition, and I'd rather see a film that over-reaches and falls short than one that is technically excellent but safe. Any ambitious film can be damned with the word pretentious, so when that word comes out of someone's mouth, I tend to translate it as "This film asked more of me than I was willing to give." But as Robert Browning wrote, "Ah, but a man’s reach should exceed his grasp, / Or what’s a heaven for?" If the six-hour version were ever made available, I'd be first in line for it.

Malick isn't working within the conventions of genre. The Thin Red Line views war rather unconventionally as an aspect of nature, and thus probably inevitable. It's not an anti-war film or a pro-war film, any more than Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom is pro-lion or anti-gazelle. I think I remember that Roger thought the voice-over narration was too philosophical, and he was right if one thought of it as a war film. But if one thought of it as a philosophical rumination on nature, with war the lens through which nature is viewed, it's extraordinary. No wonder Martin Scorese named it his second favorite film of the entire decade.

Incidentally, the students who watched it were wildly split on it, with most loving it and a few haåting it. I had several former soldiers in the class, and two of them held the most extreme positions: one, an ex-army guy, saying it was haunting and powerful, and the second, a former marine, being frustrated by it and asking me if I would consider Battle for Los Angeles as an optional assignment. My answer was no, and I think I let a four-letter word or two slip out under my breath. But he was otherwise a good student.

Some years ago, Roger, I remember something that you wrote, that stayed with me. It was in your review of "28 Up". You wrote: "Somewhere at home are photographs taken when I was a child. A solemn, round-faced little boy gazes out at the camera, and as I look at him I know in my mind that he is me and I am him, but the idea has no reality. I cannot understand the connection, and as I think more deeply about the mystery of the passage of time, I feel a sense of awe."

Those words gave me a certain deep perspective on my place is this world and the mystery of time. At the other end of this calender year, I will turn 40 years old. I am in a position now, where I can look forward and back at the history and future of my life with the same reverence and joy. I don't know how long the God above will permit me to live, but I would hope that I get to experience middle age and then my senior years. I know it sounds silly to look forward to them but, I want the full breadth of life.

Whenever I visit my mother and father's home and look at the pictures on their wall, I feel as though I am staring into a mirror of time. They take me back to a time and place that I wish I could remember with deeper clarity. I am looking at a child locked forever in a moment of time and I think to myself "He has no idea of the times that lay before him."

Sometimes I mentally put myself back into his shoes and imagine how I might have changed things, but then I put it off, concluding that I want to retain all the heartache and pain that I have endured in my life because every single experience has been an education. Every brush with every person in my life has, in one way or another, built the blocks of who I am now.

We live in a box of time. I think of time is a long infinite ruler and we are all allowed our space on it. It begins the day we are born and it ends the day we die. That time is our time and OH! it is so short.

Sometimes, lying in my bed and staring at the ceiling fan, I mentally pull myself away from my body, out of my bedroom, away from Birmingham, up and away from Alabama, The United States, The planet Earth, past the moon, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Pluto and out to the Eagle Nebula. I imagine turning around and looking back at this small planet. I ponder it, I ponder the six billion human lives that live in the small place and then I ponder the space that surrounds it. We are billions and billions of years old and we don't even know our nearest neighbor. It is lonely out here. There is infinite space and there in that tiny mud ball is our bit of real estate.

I'm sorry, I've started rambling. You got my thinking, Roger. You got me thinking again about the spaces between time and the outer elements. All I can say is . . . thank you for that. Can't wait to see what I'll ponder when I get to see this film.

Admittedly off-topic, but it has to be said: What Joan Walsh said about Newt Gingrich is crap. "Food stamp president" is a racially coded term? Rubbish! More people are now dependent on government aid than any other time. Gingrich's smackdown of David Gregory on this question was spot-on.

Furthermore, Joan Walsh is so hypocritical and partisan, she keeps insisting there is no such thing as left-wing hate radio. If you bother to listen to the sewage emanating from Randi Rhodes, Mike Malloy, Ed Schultz and Stephanie Miller, you would know that her assertion is laughable. Face it: Salon.com is worthless.

Don't remember the last time I was this excited to see a film...in fact I didn't even read your review. The less I know about it the better (the amazing trailer and that its strongly influenced by Tarkovsky are the only two things about it Ive been exposed to) ...I just want it to wash over me as Im watching it. Will come back and read your review after watching it, but I scanned your first paragraph enough to know that you you thought it was amazing. Sweet relief.

As a quick aside, I always felt that Sophia Coppola aimed and missed at a Tarkovsky/Malick feel for her films (or even Antonioni's "L'eclisse"). Its something I always resented about her. The child of one of a world famous and powerful filmmaker getting the way paved for her so she can make films that examine the superficiality of life and human interaction and yet they are all superficial versions of the filmmakers I mentioned above. Oh the irony. And yet critics slobber all over her like Linda Lovelace on a corn cob. No accounting for taste or nepotism.

The images speak for themselves. I do hope, however, that the voiceover work does not steer into the maudlin and sentimental, as it did in the Thin Red Line, nearly ruining that movie for me. I firmly believe that a good edit of that film (removing 90% of the voiceover work and a few scenes) would make it a masterpiece on par with Badlands and Days of Heaven (incidentally, both of which have fantastic voiceover work, spare and to the point, without the philosophy 101 that plagued TRL).

Real art
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-fL_Yo0oWo

I'm really looking forward to seeing this film. I love Terrence Malick. He is my favorite filmmaker.

Beautiful review Roger. Beautiful. Just one question though, where's the star rating? I am assuming 4 stars after reading this, but there's no star rating on rogerebert.com.

I remember seeing a trailer for this movie quite a while ago. I was thinking 'how beautiful', every image a portrait. It has an Amelie feel to it, doesn't it? Yet with a more serious undertone. The up close camera capturing hundreds of quotidien moments and turning each one into a work of art which celebrates the common and everyday joy of our existence. How touching. Yet this movie hints at a dark side too, a little harsh reality. Not that this will detract from it. It shouldn't anyway. I look forward to seeing it.

For me, the movie which invokes spiritual awe has always been Castaway, starring Tom Hanks. I think that any film which succeeds in ripping away our patina of civility will bring one to a place of 'prayer with the universe'. I don't mean dead religious prayer, but something much more primal and real. Interesting that the movie you are describing seems to approach it from the exact opposite angle. Somehow evoking the grand universe through the everyday and familiar? The cars of the 50's, kids throwing rocks, tire swings and baby feet placed in a kind of Universe perspective. Very interesting and daring approach! That's the sense you are giving me anyway, I hope to find out first hand when I eventually see it. I'm sure this is the last review I will read about this movie. I can already tell that one should go into it completely blank in regards to expectations.

Back to Castaway and the patina of civility. Here was a man, not unlike every one of us. Working away at our jobs, or love ones, or life. Keeping everything in it's lane, everything in it's allotted space. Making sure those parcels and packages which make up our lives arrive when they are supposed to arrive and depart when they are supposed to depart. It's all by the book, everything working to the tick tick of our little human clocks. How important we make them, those little life clocks! Every TICK the word of a King.

Then it's all ripped away. With the snap of the fingers, in a flash. Now what? To have everything taken away which makes us feel so protected and safe, even valued and worthwhile, all of it gone. You're Castaway and alone with the Universe. I've never been stranded on an island, but I have been far enough into the wild to have a sense of what it would feel like. The feeling is one of utter human insignificance. All law erased, all culture abandoned. It's just you and wild untamed nature asking you 'whattya got?!'. Actually that's a lie, because nature is so completely indifferent that it never asks us anything. We just beg it to, because we crave an interaction that can never actually happen. So we invent gods and idols and assign them as spokesman for the Universe. Prayer in those terms is like Mel Gibson talking to his beaver (I hope you get the movie reference people, otherwise that didn't make any sense at all). Such wasted effort, another patina of civility that obscures the real picture. The truth is that every god ever invented is only a hand painted self-portrait. Rip it up, tear it down, cast it away.

This is what happened to the Tom Hanks character, against his will. Scary, frightening moments devoid of the usual security blankets. But then he gained what I would call a clear-eyed perspective on it all, he gained his Satori moment. Every facade was torn away. Where do you go from there? The movie ends at a crossroads. How perfect.

Thanks for your essay Roger. It's a great read.

Lately life has proven for me its fragility, its sweetness, its need to be treasured at every moment, for we never know when those moments will cease. Thank you for a meditative, provocative review of a movie I know I need to see.

Given that you really liked The New World and seemingly this film as well, I always found your review or assessment of The Thin Red Line to be focused too much on the war-film genre and the psychology of soldiers and not on the obvious and deliberate transcendental elements that make The New World and The Tree of Life so unique and strong. Any chance for a reassessment?

What does a "star rating", (or for that matter, two thumbs up,) mean, especially on a film like this? Does a Roger Ebert review today, mean the same as the Roger Ebert reviews before Gene Siskel died? Can you equate a star rating on "Cars" to a similar rating on "Tree", or "Hangover"? My opinion is, movies should not be rated. I desire Roger's opinion and guidance on a film. I approved of "Pig in the City" getting Roger's best film of the year, as I did for "Dark City". They, through Roger's guidance, meant more to me than the thumbs up.

Note: I always knew that if Roger and Gene both approved a film, I was going to enjoy it. I also feel that Roger was, and still is, in tune with my tastes and appreciation of film.

Ebert: Star ratings are silly. I'm stuck with them.

I'm looking forward to the movie and was glad to read your review and reflection upon how it made you remember your own youth.

I cannot comprehend how and why you and so many others can attribute this movie and its images to director Malick and his crew/actors (intelligent beings) and yet the universe and Earth and people from which they sprung are viewed as a series of natural processes that came into being without any Creator more intelligent than us. I have read elsewhere that the movie is prefaced by a quote from Jehovah in Job: "Where were you, when I created..."

I doubt that Malick cares to read critics' reviews, but if he ever read yours, I believe he would also shake his head in puzzlement that you still choose to see the world as having been initially formed by billions of chaotically-perfect accidents and now runs like clockwork. Malick and myself may not claim to have all the answers, but we both share awe that Someone with great love and attention to detail made this world and its people. It's a wonder/miracle that in this age of cinematic drivel that something like this could get made, too.

Ebert: When you write, "... the world as having been initially formed by billions of chaotically-perfect accidents.." it is evident you have (1) an inaccurate view of the process of natural selection, and (2) the belief that evolution offers a theory about how or why the universe came into being. It does not.

And while I normally frown on using the Blog to respond to current reviews (if you gave us a comment section, it wouldn't happen), while I agree there will probably be no Pirates of the Caribbean 5 to trot out the now eight-year-old joke one more time--
There's a bright side to that. At least no movie has yet been inspired by "It's a Small World."

...Roger, will you, as a positive role example to other critics, put a hand on your heart and swear NEVER to make that lame, corny, gag again if we say:
http://jimhillmedia.com/editor_in_chief1/b/jim_hill/archive/2003/09/30/153.aspx
What can we say, but, "Well you did ask"? :)

Ebert: It is inevitable they will make this.

My inpression while watching this trailer a month or so ago was that it was a more moving trailer than most films I've seen.

This is a fearless and contemplative piece. I really do admire your ability to boldly drop the easily consuming persona of the all-knowing cynic, step out of the box, and tell us what you've learned rather than what you already know. It shows courage and true freedom in writing and presents to the reader a vulnerability and understanding that is regrettably unusual. Thanks for all your work, Mr. Ebert.

By chance have you read The Life and Times of the Thunderbolt Kid by Bill Bryson? Laugh out loud funny in many parts, but also very evocative of those times of which you are speaking.

It speaks volumes about how much we've lost in the homogenization of America.

I've always noticed so many similarities between the styles and themes of Malick and Tarkovsky, and reading these comments I'm so happy to see I'm not the only one. He's always been my favorite living filmmaker. That an American movie highly influenced by a film like "The Mirror" could be made for $40 Million and released alongside shamelessly commodified dreck like "Thor" is nothing less than a rebirth in my faith in American cinema.

I've just seen Tree of Life and as an atheist I have to say that this is a film that speaks to anyone. I don't think it has to do with upbringing (I'm Irish and living in France) or age (I just turned 22) and it certainly doesn't matter what religion you belong to, if any. Just a few small complaints: 1. The editing of this film was so jumpy and grating at first that I felt I wouldn't be able to enjoy the movie. 2. The parents in the film are oversimplistic,especially the mother who is presented as a sort of flawless angel. Brad Pitt's character,as Roger hints in his review, is slightly more complex 3. Malick attempts to imagine a sort of heaven towards the end of the film, and maybe this is my atheism shining through, but as always seems to be the case this portrayal comes up short, as well as feeling unnecessary.

PS I've been reading this blog religiously(wink) for a long time now and have never before felt compelled to comment. Malick's film is something special and you come out feeling reborn, almost.

Oy. I'm guessing this movie is like every other Malick film that's so beautiful and important that makes no sense and is a chore to sit through.

Good news everyone: The emperor is back and he has some new clothes!

Chief cool down, you've made you're point, you're a great writer, now simmer down
a bit; you and you're pal Clint Eastwood are making your colleagues seem small in
comparison, him; a decade (his greatest decade as a movie icon; a director to be
specific) and you in equivalency as a critic.

I have a confession to make; you've put me in the spot, with respect and admiration
to all great American filmmakers, Terrence Malick is my favorite "American"
filmmaker (not necessarily the greatest) of my time (sometimes when I'm immersed
in his work; it's by a long shot); and what I mean by "my time" is like this:

The man made two wonderful and powerful movies in the seventies Badlands and
(Days of Heaven; which just swept me away); studied them at school, then disappeared
for two decades! and returned back to us thankfully from the support of a large array of
talented, wonderful, great and amazing actors; such as Sean Penn, Nick Nolte,
Christian Bale, Colin Farrell, Christopher Plummer, Brad Pitt and James Caviezel to name
a few; not to mention Micky Rourke (for you geeks; check out the criterion edition of
The Thin Red Line), (and I know one particular young director who had respect for him
and him returned it before fading from glory), the man gave us three wonderful films in
nearly a decade all thanks from the camaraderie of his actors.

When the man came back to us; a couple of decades after Days of Heaven, I was
already a new born geek; it was like I grew up with him, his movies are like a breath
of fresh air to my lungs (the man has a pristine conscience; alas a quintessential artist,
his scope of the medium nourishes ones imagination), there are few of them in the
world today; others that come in mind in comparison as a visionary; Stanley Kubrick,
Werner Herzog, Sergey Bodrov, Hayao Miyazaki, Vincent Ward and Anthony Minghella
(RIP.), he's the only American amongst them still with us.

Speaking of the late Anthony Minghella;
My overlooked movie; for this time is the beautiful Breaking and Entering,
in that year or two when you've been hospitalized; you've missed
on some wonderful films, this is one of them.
A movie made by the collaboration of two different yet distinguished director's
Anthony Minghella and Sydney Pollack(RIP); this is their last.

Gratitude. Feeling it means one has been touched by God's spirit in some way. It seems this movie did that for you.

Here is a quote that comes to mind...
Gratitude bestows reverence, allowing us to encounter everyday epiphanies, those transcendent moments of awe that change forever how we experience life and the world.

A lot of philosophical inspiration for Terrence Malick is Martin Heidegger, says Hubert Dreyfus, his former philosophy professor.
"All Things Shinning" is the name of a recent best seller by Dreyfus (and Sean Kelly) that takes its name from the last line (or one of the last?) from The Thin Red Line.

"The feeling of wonder and gratitude we're promoting is expressed so strongly in the movies of Terrence Malick..." -Dreyfus

I've been curious about how much philosophy you've read Mr. Ebert. I asked Jim Emerson about his background in this area on his blog. You guys are brilliant and both of you are very philosophically engaged people I might say. I learn from you.

Interesting interview with Dreyfus if anybody has interest.
http://vimeo.com/23470548

I can't speak to the philosophy of anything.

What I can say is that every image I have seen surrounding this film is breathtakingly gorgeous.

For all of Malik's faults as a film maker, his ability to create beauty on film is unequalled.

And that poster for the film is just so lovely.

When I watch Malik films, I almost always forget what they were about, but I always remember the visuals. Days of Heaven is the loveliest film ever produced.

Find it interesting the last movie I'll see before I'm raptured is "Night of the Hunter'' on TCM. It's almost 6:00.

Love...Hate. The Rev. Harry Powell. The Sainted Lillian Gish.

"Leaning...leaning...leaning on the everlasting life."

All I'm taking with is my cherished Director's cut DVD of "Bubba Ho-Tep." It's real close now.

Have moved to my rocking chair on the porch. So peaceful. The peyote buttons really helped. Now see all the blessed spirits beginning to rise up from the graveyard down the road. Should be going anytime now...

Now that TREE has most-deservedly (I presume, since its the only film from the bunch I've seen as far as in-competition) won the Palme d'Or, can we stop worrying so much when first-screening audiences on the Croisette boo?

Wow, this movie sounds beautiful. I can't wait to see it. Isn't it true that its always the small things that make us realize how grand this life is.

Your definition of "prayer" ... to be able to feel fully the beauty and goodness of something, of existence, is just beautiful. because it gives a centrality to our ability to feel, and be elevated by such feeling.

I also believe art in itself has the ability to evolve into a form of "prayer", just as you found the tree of life has, for you. I cannot completely appreciate artists who insist on art that is nihilistic. the message of a certain artistic creation may be nihilistic, like it is in one of my favorite films, "bring me the head of alfredo garcia", but the art itself should be uplifting always.

Thanks for sharing your touching thoughts.

I plan on seeing it.
However, the overly dramatic theme music (plus Brad Pitt and Sean Penn) of the trailer alone turns me off.
Benjamin Button Bollocks type stuff.

I personally prefer David Lynch's Eraserhead.

Remember ----> "In heaven everything is fine..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qrl3n2ZtK2E

Yet again, my comments aren't making it for some reason. I thought the "captcha" replaced the nefarious spam filter.

Saw 'Tree Of Life' at a Director's Guild screening, it's one of the all-time greatest movies, easily. It's BEYOND movies. Terence Malick reins in all the wild horses he's been conjuring in 'The Thin Red Line' and 'The New World' etcetera, and he's at his most successful with his methods here.

Everyone please go see it and help it outgross 'The Hangover: Part II' this weekend. 'Tree Of Life' certainly has a shot at doing so because it's closest approximation is '2001: A Space Odyssey', which was the third highest grossing movie in 1968. Choose an adult movie this weekend, folks, cast a vote for movies that go beyond themselves.

Thanks for the review... I have to say, though, historically, I've been let down by these Cannes film festival winners.

Not that they've been bad films... but some critics can overhype a film when describing it to someone who can't see it yet (I'm remembering Harry Knowles gushing over an early print of Star Wars Episode 2) so when you actually get to see it, you're expecting something mind altering and revolutionary, but when you just get a good film it's a disappointment.

I was reading this over, and the article really does highlight the human experience of the film, I guess that is why it is so interesting to me, it is a new movie experience in the fact that it is old. You know, it is just the idea of life and living being portrayed, no explosions, no cars, no Victoria's Secret models in push up bras. Just a family living life...

Very few movies actually allow you to discover something profound. I can't wait for this one... I love movies that leave you not so much with a memory, but rather a feeling...

Guy,

I will be seeing it as soon as it releases in Denver, which unfortunately isn't until 6/10. I agree that this film looks amazing from the trailer and, more importantly, from what the trailer ISN'T. I literally started to well up at the beauty of it from a 2-minute advertisement... it quite simply appears to be a meditation more than a film, and I can't wait to see it!

For those who are wondering when it will appear near you, here is the latest release schedule:

Google "tree of life release dates jabcat" and its the first link.

sean penn:acting::lady gaga:music

Roger, if the film is even half as beautiful, evocative, and haunting as your review, I know it'll be an extraordinary experience.

I think a lot of us have felt that sense of prayerful meditation, of immersion in the Being & Is-ness of existence. It's what's missing from so many people's live these days, in their vain pursuit of More, in their hunger to be "winners" -- a hunger that can only grow worse & more devouring with every tawdry thing they consume.

So I'm grateful to have a film like this ... a reminder of what really matters, of what our lives are really about ... or could be be about, if only we devoted a little more attention to them.

I've got a strong feeling this film will join the company of a select few, such as "2001" & "Tokyo Story" & "Ikiru" (among others), as works of art & grace.

Roger,

Nice job of staying on the good side of memory/nostalgia regarding your childhood -- not so different from the '50s on the NW Side of Chicago, actually (I agree with Zappa that the world will end in fire next time, probably, but we shouldn't count out paperwork or nostalgia.) VERY glad to hear about the memoirs!

It's sad that prayer and meditation seem to be two of the more underused human tools -- inexpensive, with glorious side effects.

How's Pitt's performance?

Roger, would you ever consider writing short fiction - or if in fact you have written it, would you consider sharing it with the world? As I read your introspective pieces like this, I am stirred with thoughts of Ray Bradbury.

The Tree of Life, Ebert & Bradbury --

ROGER -- Amid decades of wry musings & insights on world cinema, you've written a journal entry on Malick's TREE OF LIFE as though you have returned to the beginning of film criticism and "Know the place for the first time." What an eloquent tone poem on the meaning of life and the dream of life!

There is a clarity of thought here that I have not seen in American letters since reading that beautiful diary on creative writing by Ray Bradbury, where he distills the essence of successful storytellling down to a single, intuitive understanding:

"What do want more than anything else in the world? What do you love or what do you hate? Find a character, like yourself, who will want something or not want something, with all his heart. Give him running orders. Shoot him off. Then follow as fast as you can..."

And later, on growing up & memories: " It is the moment when the porch swing creaks gentle and a voice speaks. All hold their breath. The voice rises and falls, Dad tells of other years, A ghost rises off his lips... a muse ventures in the ferns below the porch where the summer boys, strewn on the lawn, listen. The words become poetry that no one minds because no one has thought to call it that. Time is there. Love is there. ... and he gives forth his infinitesimal portion of eternity. It sounds big in the summer night..."

Roger, I hope someday you will turn this journal into a living chronnicle of our times, reflecting as you do on the graceful dreams of our cinema explorers. Until then, thanks for the gracenotes you sometimes share with us now.
--B r i a n S h a w

I don't go to movies with people anymore. To me a film is a rich treat to be savoured alone with no one to dissolve my reverie when the lights come up with, "Did you enjoy it? What do you think?"
Yes, movies make me think, but what I cherish these days is that movies make me FEEL. I have seen Malick's Thin Red Line several times now, and each time I have ended up in tears. It's partly Caviezel's tone of spiritual resignation in the voice-over narrative; it's partly the director's imagery; and it's partly the realization of the futility, but perhaps inevitability, of war.
I shall be seeing The Tree of Life alone...

Beautifully written review. Congratulations on something that I would imagine matches the power of Malick's work.

I am very much looking forward to seeing this film!

I've seen this film twice now, and the second time was even more eye-opening than the first. I kind of disagree that the film "stands free of conventional theologies," as it seems clearly Christian in many moments, especially in its angelic ending. And I'm surprised it played so well in Europe, where religious faith isn't exactly a popular topic right now. Regardless, the movie is transfixing and transporting, especially in the family segments, and truly beautiful to watch unfold on screen.

This is commendable, but still MILLIONS of dollars spent on what?
Same old cliches, same old tired stars, same old everything.
People with incredible talent, with no names, no need to want to be seen at film festivals, or walk a red carpet, REAL LIVING BREATHING artists, something today's society would never appreciate, and that Roger himself probably wouldn't give the time of day to, well anyone with a brain left reading ( wont be many) can see what I am talking about. Talk about a FILM?
This floors me, unconditional no compromising art.
watch
www.mindyswishandfoundation.com

Dear Roger, Great review, sir, and an excellent piece of writing. Very nice to read. I know you've been a great fan of Malick since Badlands and you turned me on to him through your reviews. Thanks, man.

Love and best regards,
Scott Stirling
Framingham, MA

Awesome review Roger. Can't wait to see this film, I have loved everything Malick has done. I think his films are visual poetry. Just hoping it screens somewhere in Michigan so I can see it on the big screen.

Strangely, this movie seems to start— according to the poster, where the 2001, A SPACE ODYSSEY ended ( the star child orbiting the earth)...
Jesus (or Georges), do we live a formidable era!
André martin, Montreal

I hope this film is as wonderful as your review.
You are on entirely higher level than most critics,
and when a film maker creates something remarkable,
it brings out the best in you as well.
I am always wondering what makes a classic?
How can we know if a film will reach that elite status.
Perhaps we have found one?

Pondering the universe, I often read poetry. This is one of my favorites:

Trouble lies in sullen pools along the road I've taken.
Sightless windows stare the empty street.
No love beckons me save that which I've forsaken.
The anguish of my solitude is sweet.

- Robert Mitchum

Roger,

I have to admit....I'm not going to read this essay until after I've seen the film. I want everything about the movie to be entirely fresh. Malick is one of the few directors today that truly moves me. Days of Heaven, The Thin Red Line, and The New World are all very powerful.

By the way, the Criterion blu-ray transfer for The Thin Red Line is right up there with the best film transfer I've seen on blu-ray.

Anyway, I love reading your blog, but I have to pass on reading this post....for a little while! Hopefully this will eventually get a wide enough release I'll be able to catch it in theatres in my area.

Josh

Saw this last night in Hollywood and it was beyond description. I have to see it a couple of more times.

This review brought me to tears. So many thoughts, right there with you. Cannot wait to see this. Thank you.

I sat completely motionless for the entire 2 plus hours I watched this film...stunned.

Thank you for writing a review that moved me in a way the film has.

I did not grow up like you or Terrance but could completely identify with every scene, every emotion. He got it and gave it to me and I could feel it all.

Such a beautiful review. I'm enjoying your work more these days than ever before Roger. I've very much been looking forward to this film, but your review has inspired me even more.

Hope you are well Roger, I'm a huge fan.

I never write comments, but I feel compelled to write one after seeing this movie and reading your review. Tree of Life is not for the audience. This movie is strictly made for Malick. Which makes it so hard to criticize. I feel as if he picked this film directly from his brilliant brain and put on film without any regards for the audience. It’s a beautiful piece that I wanted to love, but it is hard to appreciate something that was made as a reflection or a prayer for the director.
I unfortunately could not relate to the family at all. The highs and lows that the family experienced were so mundane, yet the reactions to these issues were so grandiose. You have your beautiful home, parents who love you, although one might be unfair at times, and yet you react with deep-seated depression and repressed emotions. I just kept thinking, please get over yourself.

Man I love reading your writing - you are truly a gifted writer!! I have a quote of yours hanging in my room - keep up the amazing work, my dream is to one day create something worthwhile enough for you to review :)

Great review, Roger. I saw the movie yesterday and it has been resonating in me ever since, though I saw it more as a plea than a prayer.

Were you referencing Philip Larkin's "High Windows"? If so, quite appropriate!

"...Rather than words comes the thought of high windows:
The sun-comprehending glass,
And beyond it, the deep blue air, that shows
Nothing, and is nowhere, and is endless."

Great review, makes me want to see it even more! What rating would you give it? A lettter grade, or out a number/star rating? Just curious.

Teaching a student instructed course at Portland State University this term called Faith & Cinema. Tonight showed the final film of the term, Charlie Kaufman's SYNECDOCHE, NEW YORK (2008) - which I think also fits the first paragraph of your journal entry on TREE OF LIFE (2011) - the latter film opens next weekend in Portland and I for one can't wait :)

I'm just glad that I finally got to see so great a movie for the "first time". I never had any frisson from watching most great movies simply because they all either exist before my memory proper (The Wizard of Oz), or because they were first seen when I was too young to appreciate them (2001: A Space Odyssey), or because I grew up on them (Spielberg and Lucas movies).

I just saw this movie, knowing it was well reviewed but not knowing what to expect, and was overwhelmed - with or without the flaws. I don't know whether some scenes were necessary or not, but it doesn't even matter. Any flaw is overwhelmed by the thoughts and emotions evoked by the movie.

I was especially amazed at the movie's efficiency: better than in any movie I can think of, this movie painted a full picture of a family of human beings with as few words as possible.

I think everyone can relate to the film because it is about the Loss of Innocence. Or rather it is about the Erosion (like that of the canyons where rivers once flowed for eons) of Innocence. It doesn't happen in the same way for everyone. My childhood was not the same as Jack's or Malick's or Roger's or Your's. But we were once pure and in awe of the Universe and Life and then The World crept in with it's ugliness and truthiness and responsiblities and pushed out the Wonder.

Which is why the words of William Wordsworth resonate with me even though I didn't grow up in the English countryside in the 18th century.

"There was a time when meadow, grove, and stream,
The earth, and every common sight
To me did seem
Apparelled in celestial light,
The glory and the freshness of a dream.
It is not now as it hath been of yore;--
Turn wheresoe'er I may,
By night or day,
The things which I have seen I now can see no more.

. . . there hath past away a glory from the earth."

I may have misheard, but I thought Jack's line was "It's your house. You can throw me out if you want to..." -- which would show how the boy had come to realize the world's cruelty...

Beautiful piece. I had my own very special experience watching this film, an experience that I can only describe as spiritual, where it reached me in my own "box of space and time." You've evoked your own experience so beautifully, and in such personal terms, such concrete, sensory detail. I love the paragraph that begins, "Some films diminish us."

A fascinating piece as always, Mr. Ebert. I saw The Tree of Life earlier today, and found it to be a truly great film, so simple in its central ideas and yet so endlessly complicated in its implications. I don't quite think that its ambition is as explanatory of the whole world as you make it out to be, but rather it deals with a fairly specific set of ideas, particularly that of the two paths through life: that of nature, and that of grace. Grace is the idea that you simply accept the flow of life, which includes the disappointments and sadness, but also the joy and beauty. Nature, on the other hand, constitutes, fighting back against the world as a consequence of the inevitable despair and horror that life brings. I have so many thoughts I would love to share with you about this film. I wrote a review, which all are free to check out if they wish! http://ahillofbeans-moviesnick.blogspot.com/2011/06/two-ways-through-life-intersecting-and.html

Thanks so much as always, Mr. Ebert.

MoviesNick

I just saw TOL last night with my pregnant wife (we just got married this year). I must admit that I felt kind of bad for not warning her that this was a fairly long, contemplative, "arthousie" piece of cinema. I myself have been a huge fan of Malick ever since I saw Thin Red Line on the big screen and since then, I have seen Badlands, Days of Heaven, and New World. I guess what I am saying is that I knew what I was getting myself into, but I admit that I felt kinda bad for dragging my wife along when I knew that she primarily likes action films and watches movies more for their visceral entertainment value.

She was not alone in her dread however. I am sad to say that quite a few patrons left the theater several minutes into the sequences concerning the dawn of time. I felt a strange sense of pride for having stayed to gaze in awe at the poetic beauty that Malick was struggling to capture and express about existence. Fondly, I was reminded of the movie reviews I had read regarding Kubrick's 2001 which also stated that audience members had left their theaters.

My wife however, did not share my sentiments, and I ended up promising her that I would take her to see the upcoming Transformers film when it comes out (I dislike Michael Bay with intensity). After the film ended I heard another patron walking behind us comment about the audience members who walked out saying that "they should have known what they were walking into..."

In regards to this, Roger, I wanted to ask if you personally feel any obligation to your readers to warn them that a film may be perceived as "experimental" or perhaps caters to a specific degree of artistic appreciation? My wife agreed to come because from the trailers, it looked like a drama about the trails of family life, and yes, I know it IS about that, but really only in the sense that a Virginia Woolf book is about its central characters...

Anyway, I am at least happy to say that after watching the film, my wife and I could not stop discussing it all the way home and into the night. It is mysterious to me that a film which is interesting enough to generate such a result, in MY mind equates to great art and therefore IS entertaining, but she does not see it that way...

People shouldn't mistake your cynicism of beliefs as empiricism or materialism. It serves you well as you delve into deeper questions of existence in your essays. As yourself, I grew up under a Catholic system and grew to question the validity of all organized religions as well as their attempt to explain the impossible. My cynicism of religious assertions allows me to be open to all the wonder, beauty and mystery of reality without fracturing it into smaller bits of conviction. Carry on my friend, I am following you.

I'm still processing this film, but I agree with Mr. Ebert that this is the film Kubrick could have made if he had developed (or retained) a sense of wonder and innocence. "2001" was easily as ambitious as "TOL", but the only character with a shred of humanity and emotion wasn't human at all: HAL.

The wonderful backstory of the film is the rebirth of special effects guru Douglas Trumbull's career. Trumbull served as a consultant to FX supervisor Dan Glass, and the effects are as organic and etherial as any shot in "2001".

the film lifted me from the proverbial "lapels of my heart"; up and into the story and would not let me go until the end. Like the film's narrator (brother to one of the characters) my brother died very young. When the narrator asks generalized but hugely evocative questions like "when did you first enter my heart?" while the film takes the viewer into the specificity of remembered life of the dead brother--- I was not only lifted into the movie but into my own life history. The simultaneity of the experience amazed me. I thought that Malick's movie was indeed what performance art is meant to do. The attention to detail was another element that brought me right into the verisimilitude of Tree of Life too. Lastly, the film was stunningly gorgeous.

This is the best review I've ever read of yours.

And I'm so, so very glad that you "get it."

Someone had the gall to call this film self-indulgent!

I almost always like your reviews. But this one was as pretentious as the movie. Any honest review needs to mention the seemingly endless slideshow of water, volcanos, etc. with loud music, which is a very self-indulgent way of trying to make a point. This is not a good movie.

I experienced the film to be predominantly about men, specifically, fathers and the father-son dynamic.

I feel that Malick explored an all-too-common type of father, an all-too-common type of man, an all-too-common type of father-son relationship--and an all-too-common type of God-man relationship.

The film depicted tortured people; tortured in their human relationships, and tortured in their relationship with God.

It was a masterpiece; a searing expose on ego and authority misused.

Mr. O'Brien wasn't just a "strong disciplinarian," the dude was psychologically and emotionally (and spiritually) unaware and unevolved.

Aside from the character's numerous violent outbursts, the arrogant way in which he attempted to "school" (read: program) his sons while driving the car was cringe-inducing. That wasn't nurturing, that was performing.

The film showed very, very few depictions of unconditional love from Mr. O'Brien (if any). Heck, the film showed very few depictions of acceptable conditional love from him. And so it wasn't so shocking to witness how the children celebrated by running through the house upon their father's departure for Europe. Liberation elation.

Mr. O'Brien's life was almost exclusively about himself; he set up a little kingdom over which he could rule; everyone was a supporting player.

He looked like a damned fool throughout.

"Fetch me my lighter."

In a nutshell, the film is predominantly about the all-too-common pitfalls of being male; a film about fatherhood, including the concept of a divine Father. Other themes are certainly explored, but I experienced the film as mostly an expose of the male psychology--and an unflattering expose, at that.

I liked this movie because it was human. The actress that played the mother was beautiful and engaging, and Pitt was the same. The kids were perfect in their roles. I hate to admit that I enjoy Brad Pitt as an actor. I've tried to tear him down as a pretty boy actor, but his films clearly denounce this, for the most part. He can be melodramatic, but I still like him. Watching him in this film, I thought that he handled his role of fatherhood nicely.

Deep down, he is himself a scared child trying to fulfill what his image of a father should be. Tough, hardworking, and emotionally impenetrable. He said to his wife that he never missed a day of work in his life, and you believe him. The confused look on his face when his oldest son hugged him unexpectedly clearly stated he had no idea how to handle true emotion; something that was real and not part of the script that he'd been following so closely. He was hard because men are hard, and the world is hard, and life is hard.

So yes, go see this movie. It is rare to see anything on film these days that tries to be true to itself, and for better or worse, that is what this film does.

We have a choice. Nature or Love.

I had the great privilege of viewing this movie at one of my favorite theaters in my area: The Naro in Norfolk, VA. I agree with your sentiments, Roger, that this is very much a prayerful and meditative film. It also doesn't appeal to everyone. There were definitely a few walk-outs at the screening I attended. Still, most people sat for the entirety of the film. It is definitely unconventional, but I think that aspect of it is one of its strongest strengths. It takes the audience on a journey and allows each viewer to meditate and ponder on the ideas and philosophies that are presented. Some may call it pretentious, others may call it proselytizing, I call it a thoughtful, ambitious work of art. I can't recall a film within the past several years that has changed my mood, filled me with a sense of wonder and awe, and prompted serious discussion more than this film. This is a film for the thinking man. It does a great job of not answering all the questions and allowing the audience to have time to ponder and meditate during and after the film.

My question is: should there be a warning posted to those viewers who are used to the conventional type of film? I have read that there are some theaters that are doing so. I feel like it's unnecessary, but part of me doesn't want to sit in an audience with people who aren't taking the film seriously and making running commentary about how "boring" it is. The other side of me thinks that there may be that one person who thinks they're getting a vehicle with Sean Penn and Brad Pitt, but they end up leaving more satisfied. What do you think, Roger?

Though I did not care for the film AT ALL, I was actually moved by the review and found it to be quite poetic.

Beneath a Tree

Many films diminish us.
They cheapen us,
masturbate our senses,
hammer us with shabby thrills,
diminish the value of life.

Some films evoke
wonderment
of life's experience, and those
are a form of prayer.

Not prayer
to anyone or anything,
but prayer
about everyone and everything.

Prayer that makes requests
is pointless.
What will be,
will be.

But of value is the kind of prayer
when you stand at the edge of the sea,
or smell a flower,
or love someone,
or do a good thing
or occupy your own box of space and time
beneath a tree.

Those prayers validate existence
and snatch it away
from meaningless routine.

This is the first time I have so carefully read one of your reviews, Mr. Ebert, because my friend and I saw this film last night and left quite confused. We did not dislike it, in fact there were so many parts we liked including the parts of childhood you mention that I think are more universal than you may have thought, yet we did not know which son had died, which son was Penn, and so many other things seemed to jump time and place that we could not tell were part of the illustration of the subjective mind. I did find a symbolic and profound statement at the end equating woman/mother with god, which I liked, in addition to all the poetic visuals. Thank you, Michielle

Wow. I was mulling this over for Saturday, but I'm sold, Rog.

Thanks for the recommendation.

I saw this movie tonight and had a similar reaction, experiencing how the sensations of childhood are haphazardly connected in our memories, anchored to moments both important and not, but all part of a narrative that makes us into adults.

And one thing that really struck me was how unafraid the actors were to have the camera close in for long pauses, often with little dialogue, so you could see the imperfections (and the humanity) of their faces as they reflected what they were thinking. Good, brave work.

Thank you for this personal meditation on the film.

In answer to your question about whether someone from different circumstances would relate as personally, my own answer is a resounding yes. The exact circumstances of my own childhood were close but not the same (mid 60's, maryland and I'm female) yet they felt exactly the same. My memories have the same quality, they are fleeting glimpses and were tapped in a way no other film has come close to doing.

I have had the experience of spending several hours in a world of curated beauty (a garden, a painting exhibit, a movie) only to step outside and be disappointed at the plain and everyday. Not so after this film. I have been looking with wonder at everything.

Hey, I saw this movie earlier this week....actually, technically last week and was kinda mixed on it...but it's one of those films that grows in your mind as you think back on it....sort of like what Sean Penn's character does with remembering his childhood. I'll tried and renumerate what I thought worked and didn't work for this film. First what works: the editing on this film is much better than recent Malick efforts, such as The New World (which I found myself turning off after 25 minutes from boredom) and even The Thin Red Line (which also suffered a silmiliar problem but held my attention because it had actiion scenes). It seems Malick has difficulty editing his "masterpieces" down to a managable size (I heard that his Days of Heaven movie took a full two years to edit), and seems to have a stream-of-consciousness feel not unlike automatic writing or improvisational theater. What also worked was Brad Pitt's acting and enormous talent....I think if Malick had perhaps pulled back the focus on the larger aspects of the film and had narrowed his camera on Pitt's acting we'd be talking his first Oscar right now...but as such, it seems that Malick's first love is his vision, not his actors. Malick also captures the late-afternoon magic hour feeling of memories....he captures to celluloid the vague feelings that age brings to all memories, painting them in a golden hue and calling them nostalgia. This aspect of the film will be the enduring legacy that this movie brings....less so the "origin of life", or "dawn of man" sequences. Speaking of which, those particular sequences, although brilliantly directed and concieved, ultimately felt as though they belonged in a different film altogether.....like on a Nova special. It's funny that, if you notice, the most stagnant images and scenes in the film are when the boy's family are in the Episcopal church, or when the father is at work. Obviously Malick has a religious chip on his shoulder....not even owning up to a possibility of an after-life (Judeo-Christian 'heaven' notwithstanding) and forces his characters instead to reunite within the mind of the main character at the film's controversial ending. Malick doesn't end his movie in heaven because for him there is no heaven.....heaven is in the reminiscence of childhood. This I can see......but also plastering everyone's face in a specifically non-religious dogma of evolution is a little bombastic...and Malick does this so subtly that people will simply think he does this just to make some purty pichures. He isn't, and they're no accident. My particular favorite image is of Sean Penn's character (who, at first, I'll admit seemed tacked on for further star power, and extra draw on the movie poster) gives his father, on the 'beach of the mind' a pensive, almost furtive look, as if remembering all of the pain and fear he once held against him.......it's a very quick image but it's the one that has resonated with me the most at of the entire film and nearly a week later. Well, like Joyce seeing the universe in a day in Dublin, Malick see's the universe in Waco Texas in a sundrenched summer's memory.....and I'm glad to have been a part of it.

My wife and I were talking about Malick's films the other day and we wished he had filmed "At Play in the Fields of the Lord". An extraordinary novel that was made into a horrible movie.

I proudly walked out of this mess after 30 tortuous minutes. I've seen well over a thousand films in my life. This is only the third
one I've left before the ending credits rolled.

With reference to the lengthy collage of images close to the beginning of the film, viewers will appreciate them even more if they know that in the background music the singer intones "lacrimosa" over and over again. She is singing about tears. At the end of the collage, the image breaks up into small bubbles that look like tears. Indeed, after the collage is over, the narrative picks up with text regarding crying.

This is a film that is not for everyone. It is slow, sometimes difficult and at certain moments it feels like you're at the dentist's chair with your mouth open and getting your teeth pulled in what is seemingly lasting forever.
Having said that, you need to stay put and sit through the whole thing. You will completely miss out if you don't. You need to shift your way of thinking. The beginning is specially difficult since by force of habit, you'll be looking for plot dots to connect. Forget that. Focus on the absolutely stunning photography and take its beauty the way you would if you were standing at the edge of the Grand Canyon. Don't ask anything else from the film, and it will flow much easier. It will drag on, but take it in. You'll be better because of it. At the end, you'll be glad it's over, but at the same time you will not be able to help thinking about this film for many days afterwards. In fact, this is the kind of film you won't forget for the rest of your life.
The film does not preach anything you won't open yourself up to understand. It's more of a contemplation of our existence and you pretty much will draw your own conclusions. It doesn't tell you what you should think. It leaves that up to you.
I definitely think that the film could've been edited to be shorter, but oddly enough part of what made this film memorable, was that it was kind of grueling to watch. It's kind of like when you go camping: It's uncomfortable, beautiful, and at times feels like you've been there too long and you just want to go home. But once you've been home for a month, you remember the camping trip fondly and you forget having to go #2 in the middle of the forest, you forget the mosquito bites, the boredom, the cold, the inconvenience. All you remember are the good things: the beautiful things you saw, the fun times, the sense of adventure and the clean air.
At the end of the film, perhaps because it's so difficult to watch, you have a sense of accomplishment. Kind of like after you run a marathon. And I mean that in the best possible way.

Okay, so I've been waiting for the longest time for the July 8th wide release... But as far as I can tell, Tree of Life is not coming to ANY theaters in the entire state of Alabama. Who makes these decisions?! I am very disappointed / in shock.

correction: I sent in a comment saying no theaters in alabama were showing Tree of Life. It is however showing in Birmingham, 100 miles from where I live in Huntsville. Huntsville has 180,000 people and 500,000+ in the metro area, and I'm still disappointed as I had hoped to bring friends to see it. Anyway I see an hour and half drive in my near future.

Great review of a great movie (finally got to see it... at the Art in Champaign, IL). One minor correction however, Terrance Malick was born in Ottawa, IL not Waco, TX.

Great review.
A couple of days ago I saw this film for the second time. Interesting to me that I can't recall another film where I was so impelled to see it agin. I was not as bowled over by it's depth of feeling as I was the first time (although I still had tears at moments), as I was prepared for it's impact.
The overall structure however was much clearer to me on second viewing. (For example, on first viewing I missed the sunflowers at the beginning of the film.) I was not bored for a moment, as I could appreciate on second take the artistry of the floating camera more. Also, on second viewing, the ending that had seemed to me to be weak and trite took on more depth (the floating mask I felt was a key to the masquerade).
I also felt a tension between the grace-filled images of family life (exemplified by the wonderful sequence that begins with the 'floating' mother and links her to the shimmering grass) and the increasing use of ladder imagery as the film progressed. I prefer an immanent to a transcendent spirit.
Wonderful film.

I am 34 and just returned from seeing this film with my mother who is your age. We agreed that it is deep and exceptional. Four people left the theater during the first hour. At the very end, a woman laughed obnoxiously and my mother said, a bit too loudly, "What a stupid person."

I went to Rotten Tomatoes, basically to look at the negative reviews. Those 33 reviewers should quit reviewing films. One doesn't have to like "Tree of Life," but it is so ambitious, so beautiful, and so painstakingly created, that to give it a negative review is like placing a dunce cap on your own head.

I guess I don't understand the great reviews and hoopla for this film. I, my wife and 2 friends watched this film and we all had the same negative reaction, this movie was awful. Boring, drawn out, what does it all mean pretentiousness, but most of all not entertaining. The comments from those around us sounded the same and several people walked out after 25 minutes of non stop nature shots & dinosaurs. I myself had a hard time staying awake during the beginning. We find out a child has died and then segue to a nature travelogue/fantasy for a half an hour. Wow, what entertainment. I have nothing against artistic movies that make you think but frankly almost all aspects of this movie were unsatisfying, confusing, and most of all boring.

Further to my previous comment: When 'Moulin Rouge' was released, Rosie O'Donnell said she couldn't be friends with anyone who didn't like it. I think I'm now going to use "Tree of Life" as my determiner when choosing friends. They don't have to like it, but I will require that they respect it.

FYI - You say in both this article and your review that he says, "It's your house, you can do what you want." Your point being that the boy accepts the role of the disciplinarian father.

He actually says, "It's your house, you can kick me out whenever you want." He says this during the darkest time of his childhood relationship with his father and from a rather dark place. This changes the intention and the meaning you write about quite a bit, I think.

A new and comprehensive review
Explains the last shot of the Bridge and what is R.L.

http://terrencemalickstreeoflife.blogspot.com/

Thank you for a splendid review, Mr Ebert. I have just seen the film (it has just been released in Malta). You lived up to its incredible heights.

Malick's paean could be seen as the 21st century's vision of Teillhard de Chardin's "Mass on the World". Your writing couldn't have been closer that it is to the spirit of both works.

Nice Article.

Thanks for sharing this film. Surely will watch this.

God speed.

Thanks for your review Roger

Like you this film touched on many thoughts and introspections from my childhood. Terence Malick, more than any other film-maker, is interested in asking the big questions.

But there is a flaw at the heart of this masterpiece and it's the reason it's recieved such polarising reviews. Between finding out their son has died upto Sean Penn's in the city the film is too abstract. Mother and son are both asking questions of God but they have no weight to them as their characters and the story aren't defined yet.

We go into space and then earth without truly understanding the questions the film was asking. It was too early in my opinion.

They should have probably go into space solely off the back of the mother asking God why he took her son.

The Sean Penn sequence went on too long and was too abstract.

The Thin Red Line is still my favourite Malick film but this deserves to sit alongside it.

A great piece of writing Roger! I really enjoyed Kartina Richardson's too thanks to your link to it. I wonder if you'd care to share other films you think reach the prayer echelon. I'd include 2001, Eraserhead, My Darling Clementine, Ikiru, The Thin Red Line and maybe a few others. I'd love to read a blog on the topic.... you know, if you're taking requests.

Mr. Ebert, proof positive that you've got a pilgrim soul. What an eloquent review of a challenging, beautiful film.

I saw "Tree of Life" on a plane, late in the night on our umpteenth trip back to Europe after visiting family in the U.S. It had been a long summer, a long year, a long decade. My father had been sick for many years and finally succumbed to the beyond, this July.

He was also a boy who grew up in this era, a young child and then an early teen in the 1940s, with parents who lost a child at a young age and a father who was good and righteous and perhaps the pursuer of dreams unfulfilled, a man of a military background who was as firm and serious in his duties at home.

This isn't a film that easily taps those emotions. I found myself watching in the way one reads a complex poem, sometimes wanting an interpretation before continuing, but in a way that felt like the failure to understand was mine and not the filmmakers.

It's not a movie for a viewer looking to unplug for 90 minutes. I found it lyrical, raising questions about family and faith I almost felt guilty for not thinking to ask on my own, before seeing the film.

Anyway, thanks for the review. As always, well done, but maybe particularly poetic this time around.

I loved this film and what Malick does. Similar memories in my upbringing -- working dad, stay-at-home mom and us kids left to explore the world on our own. Excellent. Saw the film two days ago (via HD PPV)

This is a moving film and a wonderfully written piece here by Roger. The comments too, for the most part are so well written. Thanks.

Genius at Work -- looking forward to Malick's next few films, three already in the works! Genius Artist.

-KJP