Terrence Malick the eccentric genius of the cinema, a fit successor to Stanley Kubrick? Eccentric, sure, genius, I'm not so convinced.
On the positive side, every frame of this film is beautifully shot, the editing is wonderful and it is a visual feast. The theme, period and setting, growing up in the Texas town of Waco in the 1940s and fifties are all beautifully invoked. The acting is superb, especially the kids playing the O'Brien brothers, Jack, RL and Steve. And there's not much wrong with Brad Pitt's performance as their father. The mixed in creation sequences to which Kubrick's designer contributed are also spectacular. But why oh why bundle the two together? It's the Last Picture Show meets 2001. The reclusive Malick seems to think he has no need to explain himself but this film is said to be an autobiographical exercise. Malick's upbringing was not particularly horrendous on the evidence here. Like anyone with half a brain he is concerned with the ultimate questions about life – what are we here for, who is God, what does he want of us, what it's all about, and these questions arise in Texas as well as everywhere else. Putting all this into a movie about growing up though is just too big a call. The acting is great, but the actors are rather hobbled by the dialogue, or lack of it. It might as well be a silent film, for all it advances the story. We get more sense out of the narration. I don't quite know why the book of Job is quoted. Of course mankind was not present at the creation. Malick has a rather comprehensive background in philosophy and doubtless had a point to make, but I suspect its right over most viewers' heads. Abstract concepts are not easy to film and Malick at least has to be respected for trying, but there are too many loose ends and inexplicable incidents for a coherent argument.
What does work well are the portrayals of the relationships between father and son, older brother and younger brother and mother and son. There is very little insight into the parents' relationship, which rings true, since children seldom understand it, at least while growing up. I was a bit bothered by the closing sequence where a disullusioned adult Jack (Sean Penn) meets the rest of his family and his younger self (I think) on a beach in what seems to be a state of rapture. The universe can hardly be explained by reference to a religious myth and I find it hard to believe that someone with Malick's background in philosophy would give any credence to it. Perhaps it was a gesture to the religious right, but why bother – they are perfectly capable of producing fairy tales themselves.
I thought The Thin Red Line, based on James Jones' novel was a truly brilliant piece of work, especially since the novel had been filmed previously. Perhaps Malick is one of those directors who sees new possibilities in others 'work, rather than one who is an original creator. Compared to Thin Red Line, this film is gorgeous to look at, but a real dogs' breakfast otherwise. I was annoyed when I saw people walking out half way through, but at the end I had to acknowledge they had a point.
On the positive side, every frame of this film is beautifully shot, the editing is wonderful and it is a visual feast. The theme, period and setting, growing up in the Texas town of Waco in the 1940s and fifties are all beautifully invoked. The acting is superb, especially the kids playing the O'Brien brothers, Jack, RL and Steve. And there's not much wrong with Brad Pitt's performance as their father. The mixed in creation sequences to which Kubrick's designer contributed are also spectacular. But why oh why bundle the two together? It's the Last Picture Show meets 2001. The reclusive Malick seems to think he has no need to explain himself but this film is said to be an autobiographical exercise. Malick's upbringing was not particularly horrendous on the evidence here. Like anyone with half a brain he is concerned with the ultimate questions about life – what are we here for, who is God, what does he want of us, what it's all about, and these questions arise in Texas as well as everywhere else. Putting all this into a movie about growing up though is just too big a call. The acting is great, but the actors are rather hobbled by the dialogue, or lack of it. It might as well be a silent film, for all it advances the story. We get more sense out of the narration. I don't quite know why the book of Job is quoted. Of course mankind was not present at the creation. Malick has a rather comprehensive background in philosophy and doubtless had a point to make, but I suspect its right over most viewers' heads. Abstract concepts are not easy to film and Malick at least has to be respected for trying, but there are too many loose ends and inexplicable incidents for a coherent argument.
What does work well are the portrayals of the relationships between father and son, older brother and younger brother and mother and son. There is very little insight into the parents' relationship, which rings true, since children seldom understand it, at least while growing up. I was a bit bothered by the closing sequence where a disullusioned adult Jack (Sean Penn) meets the rest of his family and his younger self (I think) on a beach in what seems to be a state of rapture. The universe can hardly be explained by reference to a religious myth and I find it hard to believe that someone with Malick's background in philosophy would give any credence to it. Perhaps it was a gesture to the religious right, but why bother – they are perfectly capable of producing fairy tales themselves.
I thought The Thin Red Line, based on James Jones' novel was a truly brilliant piece of work, especially since the novel had been filmed previously. Perhaps Malick is one of those directors who sees new possibilities in others 'work, rather than one who is an original creator. Compared to Thin Red Line, this film is gorgeous to look at, but a real dogs' breakfast otherwise. I was annoyed when I saw people walking out half way through, but at the end I had to acknowledge they had a point.