TREE OF LIFE REVEALS STARS, TRAILER - Page 2

I recognized that it's a derivative of a classical piece, didn't know the one, but it's very obviously been re-imagined whether for the score or culled from a track made for some other purpose. Watch the trailer again.

Better known as The Moldau.

It looks amazing, but the narration struck as pretty rote. I hope the script lives up to the visuals.

The talk of "philosophical wankery" and pretentiousness is starting to remind me of the--unfortunate--time during freshman year when we were shown The Thin Red Line and people started to loudly complain there was no plot. You're kind of announcing that you are missing the point of his work on a weirdly large scale when you say or write things like that.

The guy was a doctorate-level Heidegger scholar. ALL of his films are philosophical investigations of one form or another. Days of Heaven should probably come with Heidegger and Arendt's work on technology and its role in shrinking the world and our communities bundled with either your ticket or DVD. Engaging the audience in a discussion of the world and the meaning and values they assign to and operate under in it is sort of the point of his work.

Also, the preference for The New World over The Thin Red Line is kind of puzzling to me. They're weirdly similar to each other--and considering Malick is just on his fifth film in nearly as many decades, it's slightly weirder than would normally be the case--and The New World is easily the least original and more "wankery" of the two. At least the Thin Red Line trusts the audience enough to engage it with original thought. In The New World, whenever Malick feels like engaging the audience, he quotes early American literature verbatim and there is literally nothing else in the film that suggests he is trying to engage in some sort of post-modern project.

Stunning trailer. Simply stunning.

Let us not forget that there are fucking DINOSAURS in this film. At the very least it's going to be fascinating.

You must be joking.

I'm the guy who first used the term "philosophical wankery" in this thread & it was neither a statement of fact concerning the film nor a comment on the filmmaker. It was a question asking whether Malick's reach will exceed or fall short of his ideological grasp in what appears to be an unusually bold work of cinematic art.

To dismiss others as "having missed the point of a filmmaker's work" based on a question is just plain obnoxious.

I love that shot of the kids shadows as they play on the street.

That shot definitely stuck out to me as well.

This is what I want films to be. Wow.

If you've never seen Malick, I would say start with The New World. But some warnings....

1. I feel bad for anyone not seeing it on the big screen. I drove 400 miles to LA to see The New World at ArcLight and I will drive 400 more to see TOL.

2. Please, for God sakes do NOT watch your first Malick on a damned computer. Watch it on as big a TV as you can.

3. See it when there is NO ONE to distract you. No kids. No dog. Turn off the computer, unplug the phone, turn off your cell.

After that, enjoy!

Hot damn, that's gorgeous. And Pitt looks more interesting in this trailer than anything I've seen him in since Babel.

That 1 second shot of the stained glass windows in the shape of a Fibonacci Circle made me gasp. In the theater on a big screen it will make me shake.

It will give me the shivers. And the stigmata.

At the very least, as with all things Malick, that was a delightful visual feast.

Agree with the FOUNTAIN mentions, too. Not just for imagery, either.

Also, cheers Spike for the heads up on the music.

Oh, and, gorgeously shot redheads FTW!

The first time I saw The Thin Red Line I went into it fully expecting it to be the Saving Private Ryan of the Pacific Front. I honestly hated it. I watched it again recently with a different mindset and now it's one of my favorites. I love it when that happens.

It's weird, a lot of actors in modern movies in that 50's setting don't look authentic, they look like they're playing dress-up. Pitt looks like he's stepped straight out of a faded black and white photo from the era.

It's quite wonderful watching him grow into such a physically interesting and captivating older leading man. You could even believe he was Penns father too.

Woah there! What of Assassination of Jesse James, Burn After Reading and Inglourious Basterds? He was interesting AND good (if not great) in all 3.

The Fountain comparisons are kind of funny, considering that Pitt almost starred in it, and "The Tree Of Life" would've been a perfectly fitting alternative title for it.

Anyway, gorgeous trailer, but pretty vague. But I'm guessing it's quite an abstract film. I have a lot of time for Malick but it's a little hard to argue against anyone concerned about the potential for pretentiousness, considering this movie is apparently quite literally tackling life, the universe and everything.

But christ people: a reclusive, unique film legend coming back this late in the game with the most ambitious project of his (if not just about anybodies) career - how can any movie lover not be a little bit excited? If the old script reports are accurate, even if this is a misfire I doubt there will be another movie quite like it.

May seems like a strange time to release it though. I have a hard time seeing it not getting painfully trampled by the mainstream fare.

DINOSAURS people. Dinosaurs!

It might be a refreshing change of pace to the May summer blockbuster onslaught.

looks beautiful

Man, fix that ASAP, Justin. Especially if you're the kind of guy who can enjoy something like The Fountain, Malick should be right up your alley.

Not that they're 1:1 comparisons, obviously. But his work deals with similar enough themes and... good god, just watch some of his films already.

Thin Red Line is still my favorite of his.

THE FOUNTAIN wouldn't exist without Terrence Malick.

Yeah, I think part of it is that he's always been more of a classically good looking dude than other modern Hollywood leads like Cruise or Depp or Leo, or even Matt Damon. Those guys are some degree of pretty, whereas Pitt is a more old school, rugged kind of handsome, in a similar mould to the likes of Kirk Douglas or Chuck Heston.


Woah there! Did you know there's a world of difference between more interesting than and that was the last time he was interesting at all?.

I enjoyed him well enough in those films - in fact I can't think of a performance of his that I've disliked (although I've avoided Benjamin Button) - but the performances in those three weren't particularly special to me. In Babel, as much as the film itself has a problem or two, he was as raw and real as he's ever been, and it was very impressive and moving. From the little this trailer shows me I feel like there's a promise he's hit another great note.

I thought it was her.

As for the trailer wow, just wow also
got the fountain vibe heh it's got pitt
in it who was originally casted for the fountain.

The Fountain comparisons are apt but the shot in orange posted here might be an implantation of an embryo. I loved this trailer.

umm no.

Also, maybe there are similarities because both are trying to recreate what hot gas in space looks like.

I wonder how much longer Pitt will still be playing the 30 odd year old guy

Ok, so I finally watched this last night (I sometimes drag because I wait to transfer the 1080p trailers down to my projector set up).

Holy. Fucking. Shit. I know it's annoying when people get all hyperbolic and overcooked off a fucking trailer but... man. Malick is hands down one of my favorite filmmakers and this film's subject matter couldn't be more in my wheelhouse apparently.

I knew the synopsis, but finally seeing some hint of where he's actually going with such a vague concept just floored me. I was seriously affected by this, so I can't imagine what I might be in for when I finally see the actual film.

Are there plans to show the actual film on IMAX? If so, I'm driving/flying wherever the hell I have to. Aaaaah! Geekgasm, sorry.

Yeah, is there any definite word on whether this is one film, or one film + companion piece and if either will be in IMAX?

Re all the Imax questions.....

Someone involved with the film stated last year that the outer space sequences were FILMED in Imax and on top of that, there will be a completely separate version of the movie for IMAX. So that no only answers your questions about it, but probably makes you even more psyched! It does me!!

Here are some quotes...

From Oscar-winning visual f/x supervisor Mike Fink from 2008: "We're just starting work on a project for Terrence Malick, animating dinosaurs. The film is The Tree of Life, starring Brad Pitt and Sean Penn. It'll be showing in IMAX - so the dinosaurs will actually be life size - and the shots of the creatures will be long and lingering."

From 2009....Well, an inside source revealed over at /Film that the reason for Malick’s Cannes absence is incomplete effects and IMAX work. Anonymous commenter ‘Stan’ wrote that 97% of the film is complete (we’re guessing that’s an estimation), and he had a few words about a screening of the film that he was able to attend.

According to ‘Stan’, whose boss is one of the VFX bods working on the film,“The visual effects aren’t done, but the footage that we’ve worked on is near complete. The reason for the delay in post is because of the amount of detail IMAX 70 MM requires. I can assure you that the results are worth the wait.”

This is from last year, when the rumor was that the space footage (at the time called Voyage In Time, was going to be a a separate movie, which now appears untrue....) "For the technical gurus out there, Voyage of Time was shot in IMAX 70mm while Tree of Life made use of both 35mm and the digital RED One camera, with the present day sequences shot with the RED and the past sequences shot in 35."

Hope this helps!!



Read more: Film news Malick’s Tree Of Life almost completed | TotalFilm.com

I guess I'll go ahead and be the guy with zero taste who gets shat upon by the film buffs, but...

I don't see what the excitement is about. It's a fine trailer, I suppose, but the gasping and slobbering to me seems out of place with what we've been given. I love Malick, and saw Days of Heaven during its theatrical release when I lived in NYC. But the gushing over this trailer seems out of proportion to what's onscreen, in my humble. I'm as emotional as anybody, if not more so now that I'm ancient, but this navel-gazing whispery exercise isn't doing it for me.

I'm not seeing anything in this trailer that merits the excessive outpouring of emotion in this thread. Am I just dead inside, or are you all in need of therapy?

It does the job a trailer should. It teases and intrigues. It's well cut, with good music. It makes you wanna see the whole thing.

If you got that out of it, then you're still with us, old man.

(but I do need therapy.)

I'm sure I need therapy, but it literally took my breath away. I got to the end of the trailer and realized I'd been holding my breath through the whole thing, then just gasped tremendously. The last trailer to do anything like that to me was the Where the Wild Things Are "Wake Up" trailer.

And I was watching it on my iPhone. I would have been a gibbering mess had I seen this thing theatrically.

iTunes has it - it's been on there since Thursday - but I keep getting an error message every time I try to download it. Anyone else getting this?