
Yeah... Ahhhrrrt.
I am bothered. Watching this movie felt like I was back at one of my film classes again, but in a bad way. Though I find it comforting to see that there are still films out there that go against the Hollywood stereotypes, this felt like a film thesis ready to be grilled anytime by the panel, as if you needed an abstract to fully understand it.
It just felt like there were still other more interesting (and by interesting I don’t mean commercial or conventional) ways to tell this story. A life of a family told in fragments, juxtaposed with the birth of the universe and the evolution of the Earth as symbols or metaphors. I’ve seen this dozens of times from daring directors, and its usually a hit-or-miss thing.
I jokingly thought that if Nilda (2010) was compressed in one panel, it would feel like this. Fragments. Symbols. Memories. Personal.
No doubt Malick has proven himself to be an auteur here. But still, I get the feeling that this kind of thing has been done before. I can’t help but feel similarities on Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey in terms of visual treatment. It also tries to be personal, like Fellini’s 8 1/2 (though Fellini gets to pull this one off in a rather influential fashion)
The film can actually work, if the viewer gets to tie it down on a proper framework. But otherwise, carelessly appreciating this film without critically analyzing it and putting the director’s motivation in the picture
is merely being pretentious.



