MaestroReviews

Deb and I are artists, painters actually. We go see films as often as once a week. That's right, we go to the theater and sit in a dark room with strangers to see movies. We rarely rent. We like "little" movies, foreign and documentary films. We try to stay away from mainstream and blockbusters whenever possible, but a couple sneak in each year. We seek out the obscure. We try to avoid violent movies, and that really limits our choices, most film makers seem to think violence makes a story interesting.
I try not to give anything away in the reviews, but offer an honest reaction.
We rate them 1~10, 10 being highest.

Saturday, June 25, 2011

Tree of Life


Deb 10 Me 9

We’d been seeing the previews for this for quite a while and it looked like it would be interesting just from the visual and musical point of view. It was. It also looked like it might be some heavy handed attempt at finding the meaning of life or an “art film” that was pretty but about as deep as a birdbath. It might be all those things but it’s also a good movie. I didn’t think the printed synopsis painted a very accurate picture of the movie and based on that, it doesn’t sound very good. It is. For me it was sort of Santini meets 2001 with a bit of City of Angels added in.

From the beginning I liked the tempo and level they created. It was whisper quiet at the beginning and it compelled you to listen carefully, look carefully, and get sucked right into the story. They indicated information rather than spell everything out and it worked well. Most of the story was about kids in the late 1950s, and the kids they got for actors were really amazing. But their direction was really noteworthy. The way they moved, got off their bikes, played and hollered was really authentic. The look of the movie had you thinking you were there or at least watching home movies of being there. Clothes, furniture, cars, all the “stuff” was period correct (except for a couple Tonka pieces) and really thoroughly researched. This level of detail added to the credibility of the story.

The 2001 parts worked well and felt like part of the movie. These were the ethereal and imaginative scenes we saw in the previews. I can imagine a lesser filmmaker trying to pull this off and not getting the cohesive qualities this guy achieved. I liked these elements.

The City of Angels element was the least developed and therefore the most confusing, but there were only a couple issues there and not enough to distract from the overall story.

When we left (the last ones out of the theater), the usher asked us what we thought. He had seen it four times and was interested in what old people thought of it. He told that it was the most visually exciting film that has been made in his 24 years of living and he wanted us to love it too. I thought about it, and I can’t remember anything since 1987 that beats it, so hats off to the usher, and to the filmmaker who has made a neat movie for young and … us.

No comments:

Post a Comment