Sign In Now ►
or Create A New Account ►
Rank This Matchup or Comment/Reply Below
OH! AH! Yaaaaaahhhh... hm! *ponders* Match-Up of the Year, surely? I love both films dearly but Melancholia speaks to my personality a little bit more - totally on personal preference I have to go with Mr. Von Trier's film.
the tree of life!!
I loved both movies quite a bit, but Melancholia wins it for me. It's got that sci-fi element and it's depressing, whereas Tree of Life takes a very hopeful approach to existence.
Wow. Two of the most over-praised, pretentious, slow-paced and mind-numbing films of the year battle it out. *yawn*
Both are pretentious for sure, but I also believe both have elements of greatness. The Tree of Life just had a few more of them and they were executed better.
This is a great match! Talk about the ultimate ying yang! I gotta go with The Tree of Life!
I hated The Tree of Life. The whispering was so annoying that I could barely sit through the movie. Also, I'm not sure that I even agree with the message. I don't believe in grace. Let's just say that. But the awful presentation pretty much destroyed any interest I had in what the film's meaning was. Melancholia much more fits my view of life, and I was actually entertained from watching it. Not irritated, as I was with The Tree of Life. I think Terrence Malick gets way too much praise. Sure, Lars von Trier might be a BS provocateur, but at least his films are enjoyable in their BS. Malick bores the shit out of me most of the time.
The Tree of Life takes it. Melancholia is great, but when you put it next to the towering ToL, well it's not much of a comparison.
Tree of Life, though both are great movies, Tree of Life just have more of a soul and makes you want to be a better person
Melancholia started out with a hint of promise. Never quite entertaining enough to merit a repeat viewing, but not quite sopofuckingrific enough to hate. That is, until it hits portion two and just sucks the absolute shit out of any potential for fun. Despite this, The Tree of Life is yet more tedious, yet more offensive in its absolute will to kill by boredom. It's close to being the worst film ever made and is, in truth, about as deep as a rat's cunt. If Terrence Mallick filmed his own brutal murder he would, without a fucking doubt, find a way to make it dull.
Tree of Life. Neither delivered as I would have hoped. But at least Malick made me think...
Yes, because EVERY film has to be snappy and to the point, right, Cleckley?? It's not like some films are trying to convey ideas and feelings through subtle representative imagery. What a ridiculous notion! All films should be about characters who confront an obvious conflict and deal with it without taking unexpected turns into metaphorical sequences. Really, though, it may not be your kind of movie- I get that. Perhaps you don't particularly enjoy watching art house fare or films with a loose, open structure- I get that. But saying it's one of the "OMG, WORST MOVIES EVAH!!" sounds really stupid. You strike me as someone who looks at movies purely as entertainment rather than art. The problem with a feeling like that is: Some films are (Surprise, surprise) not aiming to "entertain" you. The Tree of Life is not claiming to know anything and it's not trying to change you. I take it as a director trying to put the experience of life as he knows it on film. He's not trying to impart some grand wisdom, nor is he trying to excite you. It's the way Malick expresses the experience of life (It's little moments, it's conflicts, it's questions) by combining it with something on a more cosmic scale (thereby magnifying the depth of our struggles and strengthening the feelings of insignificance that the characters feel) that I admire. I personally connected with it emotionally and it's unfortunate that you didn't feel the same, but then again, when you come into a film like this, you can't exactly sit back and expect it do the work for you. A fair amount of connecting the dots and feeling out the symbolism is necessary to reach the heart of the thing.
Did homeboy just call me out? Is that a mini disquisition I see? I think he did and I think it is. And I think he also fired a few seriously spurious arguments across my bow with majorly specious, like ass-specious, assumptions. I'm grinning now because here lays an opportunity for my tongue (keyboard) to gavotte! My dilemma now, is how subtle to be when deconstructing his nonsense. He likes subtlety, he says. Also, should I drop the narrative approach? Is it too damn condescending? He almost seems the defensive type. Fuck it. (Right about here is where paragraphing could be really useful to Flickchart, dudes. You hear me Nathan & Jeremy?) Boonmee my dude, your first four sentences are entirely speculative, but seem to be written with an air of certainty. That's usually indicative of denial, hope or expectation. No matter. Where have I said, in straight-faced seriousness, that all movies (or "EVERY movie") have to be to the point? When have I said that conflict and, by extension, resolution need to be obvious, or indeed that they need to 'be' at all? Curb your hyperbole, brah. Anyway, maybe you went through my list and figured me for a plebeian? Or took sideways gaze at my avatar and thought "he verks every muscle but the one that counts"? Either way, let's analyse this assumption. Office Space at #1: Conflict and resolution OR a side-splittingly hilarious essay on the banal existence forced upon us by the tertiary-quaternary sector? Godfather at #2: Conflict and resolution OR a sympathetic (maybe empathetic) character study (maybe assassination) on a man who loses his soul in order to try and keep his family, becoming what he beheld in the process? Enter The Dragon at #3: Conflict and resolution OR... well I guess that one I enjoy because it's about a badass being a badass. A Few Good Men at #6: Conflict and resolution OR simply an exercise in charisma and musical language? I can go on, but I'm sure you get the point by now. Wait, maybe I was being too subtle. Maybe you didn't see Mulholland Dr and Waking Life (two films that have fuck all narrative and fuck all transparency) nearing the top of my list. The point is, bold-faced, on the nose conflict and resolution is rarely the reason I watch/enjoy movies. That's just the skeleton; the meat can be made up from all sorts. Now, to this business that you put in all caps: I don't believe I expressed my dislike of TToL in a trite, teenage girl, OC-cum-The Hills kind of way (haha, “cum”). I say it's one of the worst movies ever because it IS one of the worst movies ever. It sits 15th on the ass-end of my list, firmly between Man-Thing and Pretty Woman. And yes, I see movies as purely entertainment and, no, there exists no "problem with a feeling like that". From the perspective of individual decision making, all strata of existence, tangible or otherwise (there's an opener for a debate on ontology if I ever heard one), fall within a spectrum delineated by two simple motivations for interaction, namely 'Subsistence' and 'Entertainment'. I 'do' in order to live or in order to enjoy. Ergo 'art' is not explicitly removed from 'entertainment'. Rather it is a means FOR entertainment, which itself, follow me now, IS the end. Like, ‘Utility’ dude. I don’t look at movies as entertainment “rather than” art. I look at art as entertainment, essentially. Deep. Now whether this so-called art entertains you via intellectual, emotional, sexual stimulation, or otherwise, is of limited importance. And yeah, fuck objectivity in art. If a movie doesn't aim to entertain me on some level (indirectly even), it has already failed. TToL fails to stimulate on any level. It's numbing. It cuts off blood flow to my brain, my heart and my dick (metaphorically of course, I don’t have a heart). TToL exists partly as a mesh of shots that I can rip off of Google images or a Windows DT Wallpaper slideshow, partly as a soap opera without sex appeal, partly as pandering pseudo-intellectual fan service, partly as Terrence Mallick stroking his dick and partly as ass. I don't wanna see Mallick stroke off into the audience's collective ass. TToL is a series of photoshopped photo shots, followed by a series of clichéd familial skits interspersed with grandiose music and fortune-cookie dialogue. Nay, WHISPERING fortune cookie dialogue (see what I did there? Heheh). It's Koyaanisqatsi meets Days of Our Lives meets cowshit. That's why I don't enjoy it and that's why it's one of the worst movies EVAH. “Subtlety” and “representative imagery” don’t mean shit. A movie that waxes metaphorical isn’t implicitly good simply because it waxes metaphorical. Batman Returns is metaphorical. So is The Matrix. So what? Great movies. Great metaphors (well, maybe not). The metaphors alone mean nothing though. American Beauty is metaphorical (probably). So what? Avatar is metaphorical!! Fuck that noise. Also, please don't impugn my mental competence dude. It's presumptuous to think that I can't “connect dots” or at least recognise blah blah “symbolism”. And yeah, I figured I'd hate the movie, but I gave it the benefit of the doubt and watched it anyway. Guess what? It fucking blew.
Disclaimer: The idea that an auteur makes a film purely for said auteur is something I can get behind. I guess it promotes type of honesty in the film and, hopefully, a uniqueness of sorts.
Disclaimer 2: If you enjoy the film, I mean genuinely enjoy it (and I don’t understand how anybody could) than it’s a good film… for you. That’s it. No bullshit about objectivity. I just hope you aren’t one of those fuckers that think “Look. Film. Ponderous, slow and boring. Ahhh. Film good.” Those fuckers do exist. They shouldn’t (we need to cull them), but they do.
Of course having metaphors alone doesn't make a film great- that wasn't my argument. As I said, it's the way those metaphors are expressed and explored throughout the film the makes it great, and this is what I admire about Malick's work here. And no, I'm not someone who sees anything slow and ponderous as being perfect cinema. I generally like those kinds of films, but I've found on occasion that this approach doesn't suit all stories. My opinion on these matters are obviously subjective and I'm not going to argue that....And the caps were in place of italics, which we sadly do not have access to.
@Cleckley- I haven't seen either of the two but your comment was frickin' hilarious :D
I've only seen the last half of Tree of Life because I had just come back from a late nite high school football game and I'm like to my mom and dad: "Oh, what are you guys watching?" They say Tree of Life. Cool, so I sit down on the couch and watch the last half of it and I've got 3 letters to define the last half........WTF! Most confusing freaking movie! I know I haven't seen the 1st half but hey, I'm probably not gonna see the whole film period!!! I'm not gonna waste my time...ANYWAYS!! Showing a bridge for 10 seconds, dinosaurs, space for about 50 minutes, Penn and Chastain walking in the desert for about 5 minutes. The end was very like....MYSTERIOUS! I love movies that have a mysterious or quiet ending; for example: No Country for Old Men's ending. Well ALL of No Country was quiet and that's why I love it so much. I think the visuals in Tree of Life were amazing but yeah, didn't understand it.
Symbolism, connerwood- it makes sense in context. And, yes, it would've helped to have seen the first half.