"The Martian": The Anti-"Alien"

The Martian

Director Ridley Scott’s recent return to sci-fi, Prometheus, was not very well-received (though I really enjoyed it) partially because it did not live up to the expectations created from Scott’s early sci-fi classic, Alien. Scott returns to science fiction again with The Martian, a film that could be called the anti-Alien.

Comparing The Martian to Alien simply because they are both sci-fi films directed by Scott is not fair. But the opening credits and score invite the comparison. The film begins with ominous music very similar to Alien as the title appears and then fades away one piece of a letter at a time, which is the reverse of the title reveal of Alien. That subtle nod lets the viewer know this is not going to be like Alien.

The difference is important to note because Scott’s filmography is filled with dark, ultra-serious movies. It would be easy for Scott to take the novel The Martian is based on, which is actually quite light-hearted despite the serious situation, and turn it into a much darker film. The intro makes it clear that Scott is venturing into new, nearly opposite territory, meaning The Martian is going to be fun, which is not a word typically associated with Ridley Scott.

The Martian has a setup that should be devoid of fun, however. Astronaut Mark Watney (Matt Damon) is presumed dead while his team aborts a Mars mission to return to Earth. It turns out he is still alive and must figure out how to survive on an inhospitable planet, alone, for four years. That alone sounds more like a depressing survival story than a fun movie, but add to it the logical higher-ups at NASA constantly discussing how impossible it will be for him to survive, and it sounds downright miserable. This is why tone is so important in writing and filmmaking. The source material (written by Andy Weir) deserves the most credit, as it is filled with sarcastic humor. Screenwriter Drew Goddard retained that comedy, and Ridley Scott finalized it with a bit of help from a great cast, many of whom are known for comedy. So instead of a depressing slog of a movie, we get a fast-paced space movie in which a funny astronaut solves every problem thrown his way.

The casting of Mark Watney is critical, and Matt Damon is the perfect choice. Watney needs to be someone you want to see saved, and Damon is very likable (despite his recent brushes with controversy in interviews and on Project Greenlight). He is also capable of carrying a film by himself for long stretches of time. Part of this is thanks to the fact that Watney is constantly talking to the NASA cameras tracking everything, which allows Watney’s portions of the film to be more dialogue-heavy than you would think. The other part of that is Damon’s abilities as an actor. This performance might get dismissed later in the year since the film is light-hearted at times, but he is truly impressive with seemingly no effort. But when you consider that he has make you laugh, cry, and care about him in general, all while talking to himself and reacting to typed messages, it becomes much clearer how great a performance this is. The rest of the cast is great and impressive, but this is definitely Matt Damon’s movie.

Performance and tone aside, any film that takes place on Mars needs to look great to work. This is where Ridley Scott truly shines. Say what you will about his less popular films, but Scott’s movies always look amazing. The sets look so intricate and realistic it’s easy to buy into this near-future of manned Mars missions. And Mars, created with a combination of a practical location (the Wadi Rum in Jordan) and CG, looks beautiful.

All of these elements combine to make The Martian the most exhilarating movie about space exploration in years. In fact, it almost felt like a promotional movie to get people interested in manned Mars missions (and with NASA’s obvious cooperation, I think it’s safe to say they see it that way too). But that doesn’t take away from the film at all. It’s refreshing to see a movie set in a world where space exploration is done for exploration’s sake rather than as a quest to save the world or escape a dead world or (insert depressing plotline here).

This is not to say The Martian is just some fun, empty, forgetful experience. Ridley Scott cannot make a film without plenty of thematic elements. The most dominant theme concerns how important a single human life is. The movie spells it out in no uncertain terms that every life is worth saving, and saving one person on a distant planet can unite everyone on this planet. Is this true? No. Of course not. If this were to happen in the real world, there would be an entire subsection of the population that would doubt that there was actually a mission sent to Mars at all. But The Martian is not the real world, which is why it’s a great, fun film. Alien is still the better film, but it’s hard to compete with the feeling you will have after watching The Martian.

The Martian receives a:

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

Hats off to Matt Damon and Jessica Chastain not being too afraid of doing similar projects to accept this role. Chastain's role isn't all that similar to Interstellar, but Damon's is. In fact, Interstellar works as an alternate ending. A kind of "This is what could have happened" warning.  

I loved that they kept the Elrond joke, especially since Sean Bean (Boromir) was in the scene. Speaking of Sean Bean, good for him for not dying in this one.

I'm getting pretty sick of seeing China pandered to in movies, but at least in this one, it was part of the book, and it makes much more sense as they do have a space program. In other movies (like Transformers: Revenge of the Returned Fallen or Whatever) the characters almost randomly end up in China. And the China stuff paid off in this film as we see a Chinese astronaut on the next Ares mission during the credits sequence.

Didn't see this one in 3D, but I can imagine some of it might have looked great. Visually speaking, it was plenty impressive in 2D. 

Finally, the ending is nearly sappy with optimism, but I still liked it. There was a time that maybe the "good" ending would have bothered me, but not anymore. I love darker sci-fi films like Alien, Blade Runner, Interstellar, etc. but sci-fi movies that honestly make me feel good for humanity at the end are so rare that I was okay with it. Plus, I truly wanted Watney to make it, and the tone of the film does not allow for a down ending.

I Loved "Interstellar." Keep Reading to Find Out Why.

Interstellar

Interstellar is a rare film for writer/director Christopher Nolan (The Dark Knight trilogy, Inception).  His films are notoriously cold and technical, though they excel when it comes to scope and visual beauty.  Emotion is usually quite lacking in his films.  This is not to say that there is no drama in a Nolan film.  There is emotional drama in everything he has done, but, at least for me, it has never been this effective.  Surprisingly, Nolan has found true emotion in a film that takes place largely in deep space, the loneliest possible environment. 

Interstellar is essentially a father-daughter story about a pilot/engineer (Matthew McConaughey) who missed his chance to go to outer space and his daughter (Mackenzie Foy), who feels abandoned by him when he does get the chance to leave.  McConaughey’s reason for leaving is pretty justifiable, though: he’s going to look for a new planet for the human race.  There are same vague comments about what has happened to Earth in this film (world wars over food, for one), but the real problems are just beginning with a blight that has wiped out most of our food supply except for corn, but corn might not be safe for long.  The film certainly makes Earth look miserable, though it’s done on a small scale.  We never get the broad view of what the world is like.  In fact, there are really only two locations for the film on Earth: a farm and a hidden NASA compound.  While a larger explanation of the status of the entire planet would be interesting on its own, it is not the point.  The film is called Interstellar after all.  You know McConaughey is going to leave; the question of the film is, how long will he be gone?

Leaving a child behind for an uncertain amount of time is emotionally charged already, but when the science of gravity and black holes is added, it becomes downright devastating.  Apparently, gravity near a black can mess with time.  An hour on, say, a planet near a black hole, could last years elsewhere.  (For the record, I have no idea why that is, but scientists claim this is true.)  This possible problem coupled with the fact that McConaughey and his fellow astronauts cannot send messages (they can only receive them) back to Earth makes his absence that much more heartbreaking.  This film, though very much science-fiction, is actually a love letter to Nolan’s daughter (the working title was Flora’s Letter), and you get the impression that going off to make these giant movies might be his version of leaving Earth while his daughter grows up.  It is quite clear that Nolan wanted to tug at the heartstrings with this one and, for me, at least, he accomplished his goal.  How else can you explain why a review of a science-fiction film written by an admitted dork has gone three paragraphs without gushing about visual effects and cool, weird robots? 

The emotional impact of the film was surprising, and it made me care about the characters in a Nolan film more than ever before.  It was truly unexpected.  The great visual effects and general cinematic excellence of the film?  That was expected.  This is what has been troubling me when it comes to reviewing Interstellar.  My first attempt ended up being a bit of a rant about why people should appreciate the movie (read it here if you want), and I explained how annoyed I was with people (critics and film buffs alike) calling the film “ambitious” in both negative and positive terms.  “Ambitious” is far too loaded of a word to use to describe any film (and I will attempt to stop using that word in my reviews from here on out).  It only implies that someone tried to do something.  Well, of course they did.  Interstellar is not an example of someone “trying.”  It is an example of Christopher Nolan and the rest of the filmmakers doing exactly what they set out to do: create an entertaining science-fiction film that adheres to reality as much as possible while also engaging the viewer on an emotional level.  And yes, it all looks great and should be seen on the biggest screen available (full disclosure: I saw it on a regular-sized screen at Tell City and still loved it).  My point is that it has become moot to discuss the technical brilliance of a Nolan film.  Let’s just assume the brilliance and move on.

Interstellar is much more interesting thematically, anyway.  The possibilities of life after Earth stayed with me, and I found, upon reflection, that the film was deeper than I initially thought.  It can be seen as a father-daughter love story, a save-the-Earth space thriller, a plea to stick with film instead of going digital, etc.  Any story that can be viewed symbolically always gets a few extra points from me.  The literal story of the film is more than enough, though.  Exploring deep space has always been more interesting to me on the human loneliness level than the visual level.  Normally, films in which characters are so far out in space are set in a distant future or world in which it is normal to be out there (like Star Wars or Guardians of the Galaxy).  This film keeps it grounded, so to speak, in reality.  Characters have to deal with being away from their loved ones.  This is rarely the focus in such films, and it is refreshing to see here. 

There's quite a bit of this.

Because of the focus on love and loneliness, the cast of Interstellar had a tough task.  They had to cry quite a bit and make the audience care about why they were crying.  To top it off, their characters were slightly one-dimensional in that everyone is simply trying to accomplish the goal of sustaining the human race.  Some would see this as a flaw, but I imagine (or hope) that people tasked with saving all of us would be singularly focused with the task at hand.  Because of this, there’s nothing terribly memorable about each character.  It’s up to the actors to bring their natural charisma to the role to make you care about them.  That said, Interstellar has an amazing cast.  McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, Jessica Chastain, Michael Caine, and everyone involved gets the job done. 

This review has been a long time coming because I loved the film on so many levels, and I wanted to see if that wore off a few days after watching it.  It didn’t, but I have still put off writing this in fear of not mentioning everything that was great about it.  Which reminds me: there are these amazing (and hilarious) robots in the film that look like the monolith from 2001.  The main robot, TARS, is actually my favorite character, now that I think about.  I’m sure I’m forgetting some other things, and I know I’m ignoring a lot of issues others have with the film (I will concede that McConaughey’s character definitely showed favoritism to his daughter and largely ignored his son, and that was never acknowledged in a fulfilling way).  It can’t be helped, though.  Interstellar is just such an awesome science-fiction film, and I am an unabashed fan of anything sci-fi.  I’m still trying to digest all of it (obviously), but it’s certainly going to be one of my favorite films of the year, and it’s definitely going to be a film I revisit over and over again.

Interstellar receives a:

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

"C'mon, TARS, let's go bust up the robot mafia."

I can't wait for the sequel in which McConaughey and his robot buddy, TARS, travel through the galaxy fighting crime.

Everyone seemed very much okay with Wes Bentley dying, didn't they?

Some have complained about the exposition in this film (and all of Nolan's films), but I like it. Is it weak storytelling?  Oftentimes exposition is, but here I don't think so.  I like that the characters explained the science and their plans every now and thing because that's how the world works.  How often do you do a job in which the manager/planner/whatever simply assumes you know what's going on?  Life deserves explanation sometimes.  Sometimes, it does not.  

Which brings me to all of these 2001 comparisons.  Who said that this was supposed to be just like 2001?  I never assumed that.  And I certainly didn't assume Nolan was trying to be Kubrick here, but many people have.  I suppose that's due to their nature of picking up on implications rather than looking at objective facts.  Nolan is not Kubrick and is not trying to be.  Interstellar is not 2001 and is not trying to be.  We can enjoy both of these directors/movies, by the way.  Just don't bring the same expectations to both.  If I went in to Interstellar wanting everything left to interpretation, I would leave extremely disappointed, and vice versa.  I'll never understand why some people who love one movie in a genre take up some unwarranted fight to crap all over anything else that comes after.  I just really like movies.  I guess I'm simple that way.  This doesn't mean I don't hate some movies, by the way.  Stay tuned for my Dumb and Dumber To review for proof...

"Zero Dark Thirty" Is About Much More Than Torture

 

Zero Dark Thirty - Directed by Kathryn Bigelow, written by Mark Boal, starring Jessica Chastain, Jason Clarke, Kyle Chandler, and Mark Strong - Rated R

 

 

 

 

The killing of Osama bin Laden, or UBL, as he’s referred to in this film, captivated me much as it captivated most of the western world.  It was one of those strange moments in history when we found ourselves cheerful and exuberant because of a death. Okay, not just “a” death, but “the” death of the world’s most infamous terrorist. After the good feelings subsided, the questions began. How did they find him? Who shot him? Where’s the body? Are their pictures? Those types of questions can hold interesting answers, sure, but there are much more important questions, such as: Does this change anything? Was all the work and money spent really worth it? Had people died in vain during the long search? Zero Dark Thirty, the latest from director Kathryn Bigelow (The Hurt Locker), attempts to answer, and at least asks, most if not all of both types of questions.

Zero Dark Thirty handles the why and the how of the manhunt expertly. We’re given multiple examples of the terrorism that explain the need for UBL’s capture, most notably the sounds of 9/11 played over a black screen. Then we are presented with how information was procured not just for UBL’s capture, but also in the attempt to thwart any terrorism. This, of course, is where the film ventures into controversial territory because torture (depending on your definition of the word) was used in the early years of the war on terror. The debate is whether the film condones torture as an effective means of gaining intelligence. Some are using the film as evidence that, yes, torture brought us the information to get UBL. Is that true? Sort of. Certainly advances are made by the investigators in the film thanks to torture, but in no way is this film some ringing endorsement of the practice. If anything, the film makes it clear that torture messes people up on both sides of the situation. It also shows that information can be gained through nonviolent means, as well. Anyway, this film will only start an argument about torture; it won’t finish it.

Because of the torture elements, Zero Dark Thirty can be a difficult film to watch, but that’s the point. The main character, CIA agent Maya (Jessica Chastain), appears to serve as a representative of the audience when we first see her. She is in the interrogation chamber, and she seems sickened by what she sees. Thankfully, Maya is not simply a personification of how the audience should feel because, once left alone with the detainee, she does not cry or turn into a sympathetic, helpful woman. Instead, she coldly lets the detainee know that they want information, and they are going to get it.

 

If Zero Dark Thirty is anything more than a procedural about the UBL manhunt, then it is a character portrait of Maya.  Perhaps Maya does not necessarily represent the audience so much as she is the personification of the war on terror.  Are terrible means justified by the ends?  Just how long can people keep fighting this war?  Maya has to go through all of that along with being faced with actual terrorism.  It is because of this focus, and Chastain’s amazing performance, that Zero Dark Thirty becomes much more than a docudrama.  Chastain is equal parts victim and perpetrator.  I don’t mean that legally speaking, but emotionally.  It’s a very hard balance to strike without seeming completely inconsistent, but Chastain is able to convey, believably, a character than can cry one moment and face down her boss or a detainee the next.

 

The rest of the cast is impressive, as well, if not for performances then for the sheer variety of it.  The standout, aside from Chastain, has to be Jason Clarke, as a slightly eccentric interrogator.  He brings some serious intensity to the role and a surprising amount of much needed comedic relief.  I’m not sure why he’s being left out of the previews so much because he carries a bit of the film’s weight.  The rest of the cast is great, but those two performances really stood out to me.

 

Watching the previews, one would assume that this film is largely about the raid on UBL’s compound.  This is misleading, just as the focus on Joel Edgerton and Chris Pratt in the previews is misleading (they are minor characters in the overall film).  Zero Dark Thirty is a modern spy film in that the majority of it is about the inner politics of the CIA and how information is gathered, lost, painstakingly analyzed, ignored, etc.  It is interesting that James Bond is experiencing a resurgence the same year that this film is released because Maya represents a realistic Bond character in that she is not allowed to do all the things Bond can do even though her ultimate goal is similar to Bond’s in that she wants to stop the bad guy.  There is nothing glamorous about the work Maya does.  To be honest, most of it is boring.  The tediousness of the work explains the lengthy running time of the film (over two and a half hours).  This was not a simple task, and it was also bogged down in politics.  There’s no need to try and spice that up and lie about how things work in the modern spy world.  It may seem strange to praise a film for focusing on tedium, but I feel that it helps the audience identify with Maya’s struggle throughout. 

 

Perhaps tedious is not the best word because I truly found all of the film to be interesting.  It’s just that at some point, since we all know the ending, you start to think, “Okay, come on, we get it, move on.”  This is what Maya is thinking the entire time, as well, though, which is why it works. 

 

There are certain spy elements that may seem a bit boring as Maya goes through files and videos, but Zero Dark Thirty also features some extremely skillfully filmed action elements.  Director Kathryn Bigelow (who was inexplicably snubbed by the Academy) has done an amazing job of recreating events and filming them in a clear way that is easy to follow.  And while Zero Dark Thirty may not contain as many insanely tense moments as The Hurt Locker, it still surpasses that film in ambition and technique.  Bigelow is certainly experiencing the apex of her career right now.  Credit is due to screenwriter Mark Boal, too, as he has turned in an exhaustively researched script that never feels fake or too extensive. 

 

Overall, I am glad I held off from compiling my top ten list until I had seen this film because it will certainly be on it.  Zero Dark Thirty is an immensely effective, entertaining, and thought-provoking film that features a masterful leading performance.  It pretty much does everything that I think a movie should do, and it does it well.  Don’t look to Zero Dark Thirty to form your opinion on torture, look to it for a much larger picture of the war on terror and what it has all been about.  It won’t answer all of the questions for you, necessarily, but it will make you think, and that is much more effective.

"Lawless"

Directed by John Hillcoat, written by Nick Cave, starring Tom Hardy, Shia LaBeouf, Jessica Chastain, and Guy Pearce - Rated R

Surprisingly fun movie from the director of The Road...that just doesn't sound right for some reason.

 

 

I’ve been following the careers of director John Hillcoat and writer/musician Nick Cave since I saw their phenomenal film, The Proposition.  Hillcoat followed that film with The Road which, while divisive, I found to be very engaging, if not extremely depressing.  The Proposition was certainly depressing as well, so I was surprised to find that Hillcoat and Cave’s latest collaboration, Lawless, was a fun movie.  Don’t get me wrong, Hillcoat’s previous films are enjoyable, but they are miles away from fun. 

Lawless lends itself to a fun tone because of the true story/legend of the Bondurant family of Tennessee during the Prohibition years.  The story of the Bondurant brothers is certainly violent, but it’s handled in a folksy, old-fashioned tall tale kind of way that left me with a smile on my face.  The story is a lengthy tale of a backwoods Virginia bootlegging family that had to deal with everything except actual law enforcement.  The setting of the film is truly lawless, as the cops seem to be much more villainous than the criminals.

The cops as the bad guys routine is nothing new.  If anything, Lawless makes it much simpler and removes any trepidation from the viewer.  Typically, when I find myself rooting for the lawbreaker of a film, I have to stop and deal with the fact that I am rooting for someone who is causing others harm (the first seasons of “Breaking Bad” come to mind).  Lawless can sidestep that because of the law that is being broken.  Most people, at this point, find Prohibition to be a ridiculous moment in our history.  It didn’t stop anyone from drinking and it gave rise to mass crime and corruption.  With that mentality, you can easily look to the cops as problems rather than solutions. 

The Bondurant boys of the film are just making their way in Franklin County, Tennessee.  It’s just that making their way involves making moonshine.  In a typical movie, the main issue would be cops busting up the stills.  That’s still the an issue, but the cops are only after the Bondurants because they don’t want to cut a deal with a mobster who wants to consolidate all off the alcohol he sells in the big cities.  The leader of the Bondurant clan, Forrest (Tom Hardy), is stubborn to say the least and decides to take the family down a different path, and brothers Howard (Jason Clarke) and Jack (Shia LaBeouf) have to accept that.  Creepy crooked cop (hello, alliteration) Charlie Rakes (Guy Pearce) represents the forces attempting to stop the Bondurants.  What follows is less backwoods war and more lighthearted, folksy goings-on scattered with extreme violence and surprising comedy. 

Tom Hardy creates most of the comedy, and violence for that matter, even if he is not the focus of the film (unfortunately).  He mumbles and grunts through each scene and it makes for some very funny moments.  He is also a very imposing character; this is the same guy who played Bane in The Dark Knight Rises.  But because he is a man of grunts rather than words, the movie relies on Jack to progress the story.

Shia LaBeouf does a fine job as Jack; it’s just that he is not nearly as interesting or talented as Tom Hardy.  This is certainly a step up from Transformers, though.  He plays a typical LaBeouf character as Jack wants to rush headfirst into everything and prove himself to anyone who is willing to pay attention.  Unfortunately for all involved, Guy Pearce is the person paying attention.

Pearce (a Hillcoat regular) livens up the screen with his portrayal of a strange, sadistic big city cop.  Every scene featuring Pearce is cringe-inducing, but he manages to keep it from becoming a moustache twirling villain role.  He is definitely the guy to root against, but he’s too weird too hate outright. 

Mia Wasikowska and Jessica Chastain (the woman who is in every other movie now) round out the cast as the love interests of two of the brothers.  They are a bit more than simple love interests, but they get the least to do in the film. 

Gary Oldman is also in the film, but I only mention him because I thought it was strange how he was plastered all over the marketing of the film yet his role is little more than a cameo.  His few scenes are great, though.  A little Oldman is better than none at all, I suppose.

The real star of the film is the writing.  This could have been a by-the-numbers “root for the outlaws” movie.  There’s nothing wrong with that, but it’s been done so many times.  Instead, the writers (and reality, since this is based on a true story) injected some tall tale humor into the mix.  I don’t want to ruin anything, so I’ll just say that there are a few moments in which severe violence happens and the resolution of said violence is not what you might expect.  It makes the movie slightly ridiculous a few times, but it is a welcome kind of ridiculous.  I laughed aloud multiple times watching this film, and I believe the filmmakers wanted that response.

Overall, Hillcoat and Cave have created an interesting film.  It’s much lighter than their previous collaboration, but if anyone needed to lighten up for a next film, it was these two.  So check it out when it comes out on video, because this is about as inviting and crowd-pleasing as Hillcoat and Cave are going to get…and that is definitely a compliment.

           

"The Tree of Life"

The Tree of Life - Written and directed by Terrence Malick, starring Brad Pitt, Sean Penn, and Jessica Chastain - Rated PG-13

A few years ago I would have given this film a "Bruce Banner's Dad," but now it gets a "Vader."  I have no explanation.

Terrence Malick. That name is very divisive in the cinematic world. Some people are transfixed by his melodic films, which almost always focus on nature and feature whispered, poetic narration. Others find him terribly pretentious to the point that no beauty on screen can make up for it. Oddly enough, I fit into both camps. You can read my full transformation here, but to keep it short, I started off absolutely hating all of Malick’s work and I now consider him one of my favorite filmmakers. The Tree of Life fits right into Malick’s canon so it is definitely a “love it or hate it” movie. I loved it.

The Tree of Life is certainly Malick’s most difficult film. It is very disjointed and lacks any semblance of a normal narrative structure. Anyone watching just to see Brad Pitt or Sean Penn’s latest will likely turn it off in less than an hour. Those who go in knowing it is Malick are much more likely to enjoy it, though that isn’t a guarantee. While the film isn’t told in a typical, straightforward way, it is still quite easy to pick up on the themes of the film. (Stop reading if you want to know absolutely nothing about the plot of this film, but, to be honest, who is reading this that hasn’t watched the film?) With a title like The Tree of Life, this film obviously deals with life and death, but also with the importance of one’s childhood. One (me, for example) could claim that Malick is comparing childhood in 1950s Texas with the birth of the universe. That’s where some could start to scoff and the word “pretentious” might show up. It’s hard to argue with anyone who calls this film pretentious because…it really is. Since the childhood moments in Texas supposedly mirror Malick’s own childhood it’s easy to condemn the film as pompous when twenty minutes or so into an autobiographical childhood film we are shown the birth of our universe.

Of course, this is just my interpretation and everyone is free to take from this film what they will. I found the film pretentious. I find most of Malick’s films pretentious, but I love them anyway, mainly because Malick makes absolutely beautiful films and this may be his most beautiful yet. The scenes detailing the origin of the universe and planet Earth are obviously the standout scenes especially since Malick, much like Darren Aronofsky did with The Fountain, used practical effects for most of these scenes. The violence of nature and creation has never looked better. But the scenes that take place in modern world are just as beautiful. The modern scenes have that Malick style, as the camera meanders around and with the characters, but what makes this film stand out is Malick’s ability to find beauty in nature and civilization. The present day scenes with Sean Penn are just as, if not more, impressive than the more natural shots during Brad Pitt’s segments.

The Tree of Life is beautiful not just visually, but atmospherically. At times, you may feel like you’re in the middle of a strange dream. After watching the film it can feel like you’ve just woken up and can’t quite put your finger on what the dream was about, you just know you want to go back to it. The disjointed nature of the film adds to the dream-like quality and yes, there are also elements and images that make no sense in almost any interpretation (much like how dreams contain random elements). That could be seen as problematic but it is very likely that it is all intentional. Who doesn’t look back on their childhood as if it was some distant dream? In that regard, Malick really captured the emotions of a childhood. Everyone cannot exactly identify with growing up in Texas in the 50s, of course, but most can identify with the feelings they had during their childhood.

As a dream, The Tree of Life works very well, but it is still a film and acting is a part of it. Thankfully, this film was cast perfectly. The child actors, mainly Hunter McCracken, are great. They are not professional actors and that is a good thing because they seemed very natural on screen. Jessica Chastain (who is currently attached to every single movie coming out in the next two years…) gives an equal parts happy and melancholic performance. Sean Penn (who has stated that he had no idea what he was supposed to be doing in the movie) is absolutely fantastic. Malick most likely didn’t tell Penn exactly what he was supposed to be doing because the character himself is lost. Whatever the circumstances were, they worked. Finally, Brad Pitt is very convincing as the complicated, overly stern father. Pitt has been on an absolute roll lately, opting for challenging roles. He continues to impress.

The Tree of Life can be enjoyed just by focusing on visuals and performance, but the narrative may disappoint and even infuriate some viewers. If you let yourself be taken in by the film, though, it can be an extremely rewarding experience. It’s all a matter of deciding if the film is worth thinking and reflecting about. If you decide it is worth your time, you won’t be disappointed. If there’s one thing you can say about Malick, it’s that he doesn’t disappoint his fans.