Writer-director Terrence Malick's mostly-visual scrapbook of a man's life, from his formative years in suburban Texas in the 1950s to the present day, where he works as a businessman in the city. Cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki and his camera takes us on a journey as well, swimming, coasting, gliding and swooping across the landscapes and seashores of this country with dizzying artistic flourish. This is a handsome piece of goods, and the prime reason why the best actors working today want to work with Malick--he assures quality. Malick also does something unexpected: he gives actor and co-producer Brad Pitt one of the most revealing roles of his career. As the overly-critical father of three boys (ordinary kids, not troublemakers),he has a hard, unsentimental core, demanding though not altogether heartless. It's an amazing transformation for Pitt, who performs without any movie star allure (when he tells one boy to sit up straight at the dinner table, they all sit up--and maybe his spouse, too). The casting of Sean Penn as Pitt's now-grown son doesn't work as well; Penn's slack face and haunted eyes are so familiar to us that, by now, his features don't reveal anything unique. The film has an uncanny grasp of childhood, yet is essentially no more profound than a series of recognizable quirks, traits, situations and memories. It will touch some viewers deeply, others not so much. It is certainly a work of great expression, one with a quiet, subtle personality--tinged with sadness and regret. **1/2 from ****

Greetings again from the darkness. Rare are the times that I find myself lacking words to express my opinion on a movie just watched. But writer/director Terrence Malick does not play fair. First of all, what director makes five films in 40 years? Who makes a film about CREATION, life, evolution, spirituality, death and existence? What director seems to thrive when no real story is needed to make his points? Which director can so mess with the viewer's head through visual artistry never before seen on screen? The answer to these questions, of course, is Terrence Malick. And I hold him responsible the fact that I remain in somewhat of a semi-conscious fog four days after watching his latest masterpiece.

Any attempt to explain this film would be futile. It is so open to interpretation and quite a personal, intimate journey for any viewer who will free themselves for the experience. What I can tell you is that much of the film is focused on a typical family living in small town rural Texas in the early 1950's. Brad Pitt plays Mr. O'Brien, the stern disciplinarian father and husband to Jessica Chastain's much softer Mrs. O'Brien.

Near the beginning of the film, we get Mrs. O'Brien as narrator explaining that when she was a child, the nuns informed that in life one must choose between Nature and Grace. Nature being the real time of real life, whereas Grace is the more spiritual approach. Clearly, Mr. O'Brien has chosen Nature, while his wife embodies Grace. Watching their three boys evolve in this household is quite a treat - and is done with so little dialogue, it's almost shocking to the senses.

One of the many things that jumped out at me was the set and production design of Jack Fisk. Mr. Fisk is a frequent collaborator with Mr. Malick and is also the husband of Sissy Spacek, who starred in Malick's first film Badlands. Unlike many films, I did not have the feeling I was watching a film about the 50's. Instead, the look is directly IN the 50's ... slamming screen doors, tree houses, and family supper time! But don't think for a moment that this is a story about the O'Brien's and their sons. This family is merely Malick's vessel for showing the earthly connections between the universe and each of the particles within. If you think this sounds a bit pretentious, you should know that Mr. Malick graduated from Harvard with a philosophy degree, became a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford, and a professor at MIT. This is a thinking man and an artist.

Actually I would describe the experience as viewing an art exhibit and listening to poetry. It really sweeps over and through you, and takes you on a trip of introspection. So many human emotions are touched - the need to be loved, appreciated and respected. We see the oldest O'Brien son later in life. Sean Penn plays him as a very successful middle aged adult who still struggles with the death of a brother and communication skills learned from his childhood. This is an odd sequence but provided to give balance to the flurry of emotions the younger boy survives.

This was the 2011 Cannes Film Festival Palm d'Or winner and that means little if you don't open up as you walk into the theatre. It's a contemplative journey that you can either take part in or fight. My advice is to open up and let this beautiful impression of all life take your mind places it may have never been before.

"The Tree of Life" has won the prestigious Palme d'Or at Cannes and many other awards. It's also been nominated for the Best Picture Oscar--but we'll have to wait a couple weeks to find out if it wins that. If the Academy is basing the award on how pretentious and dull a film is, then the movie is a shoe-in (and with some past Best Picture winners, such as "The Last Emperor" and "The English Patient", this might just be the case). My vote is for "Hugo" or perhaps "The Artist"....heck, ANY film other than "Tree of Life"!

"Tree of Life" is 100% unconventional in its story telling. I could try to describe it, but you really have to see this indescribable film yourself--and then you STILL might not know what it is! The film bounces around stylistically. At times, it's an obvious art film with gorgeous graphics that seems to be making a statement about how insignificant we all are or about eternity. At other times, it's a story about a screwed up family--one where you really aren't given enough of the pieces to be 100% sure what is happening. To make it deep (i.e., more confusing and artsy),there is hardly any dialog for very long stretches, lots of internal monologues and the story about the family is completely non-linear--bouncing back and forth in time (further confusing the viewer). It also, believe it or not, has a sequence involving dinosaurs!! The bottom line is that although the film looks amazing at times (with some of the nicest scenes you'll ever see),it also often using a jerky handy-cam look. And, it has a story that the average viewer will be bored to tears to watch. All in all, an uneven and rather unpleasant viewing experience I don't wish to repeat.

Wouldn't it be nice to see nominees that were actually enjoyable to watch and had more than a very, very narrow appeal?!