Read the part of Exodus where Moses uses cannabis in rituals. >In the Old Testament, a common (and rather ordinary) plant called calamus is credited as a primary ingredient in this Holy anointing oil. However, both the Hebrew and Aramaic translations of the Old Testament instead list this ingredient as “kaneh-bosm,” – which is cannabis. The literal translation of kaneh-bosm (which has also been written as q’aneh-bosm, kaneh, kannabus, kanabos, and kineboisin) is “aromatic reed” or “aromatic hemp.”
Low effort hack shit. Malick made it non-linear in the editing room to hide how bad the plot was. He figured he could hide his incompetence behind cheap Tarantino tricks.
Portraying benevolence as not only existing within the confounds of human evolution and morality but as a universal construct intrinsically baked into life.
How is that any different from showing humans flying around? It's showing something that can be refuted with the background knowledge that animals eat each other.
It's easier to quantify and qualify in humans. I'm not saying animals never display acts of mercy ... but I'm aware that there's a difference between actual mercy and what appears to be mercy. Humans project onto and assume motivations about animals all the time. What does it mean if that one instance the dinosaur spared another, when probably later that day it fully indulged in an easy kill? Part of the way animals hunt is to seek out the easiest prey, it's the efficiency of instinct.
I'm not against the demonstration of animal mercy ... but I don't feel the scene with the dinosaurs is an organic display of that idea. It's something that's made to happen to make a point; that's the definition of contrived.
malick will always fall on deaf ears when the listener is a cynic. the dinosaurs mercy followed immediately by the visual of the meteor is a moral question presented. the dinosaur could’ve enjoyed that last meal because the meteor was coming anyway so ultimately it doesn’t matter. if the dinosaur knew the meteor was coming in advance, would he have just enjoyed that last meal? does the knowledge of mortality rush for self satisfaction affect moral choices?
It's easier to quantify and qualify in humans. I'm not saying animals never display acts of mercy ... but I'm aware that there's a difference between actual mercy and what appears to be mercy. Humans project onto and assume motivations about animals all the time. What does it mean if that one instance the dinosaur spared another, when probably later that day it fully indulged in an easy kill? Part of the way animals hunt is to seek out the easiest prey, it's the efficiency of instinct.
I'm not against the demonstration of animal mercy ... but I don't feel the scene with the dinosaurs is an organic display of that idea. It's something that's made to happen to make a point; that's the definition of contrived.
Malick peaked with Days of Heaven because he spent a lot of time editing it into an actual movie, which broke him. Tree of Life and all movies after are low effort mess - including The Hidden Life which many fake fans call "a return to form" when in fact it's very far from one.
No. Editing Days of Heaven was too painful for him, he's been afraid of repeating the pain since then, and the time he takes to edit isn't spent on actual work - end results are always sloppy, with very evident loop cycles in spreading scenes.
I’m due for a rewatch, seen it twice. The second watch, I kind of pieced together the central theme of love as a transcendent act, facing our existence with optimism, reconciliation with mortality. Malick is a bloomer at the end of the day. It feels similar to what Kubrick was trying to do with 2001, there’s a simple story which is placed within a much deeper context, trying to explain or understand humanity and purpose. It helps that the film is so beautiful to look at
malick is a hack
pretentious garbage
Get behind me Satan
>this is the tree of life
Read the part of Exodus where Moses uses cannabis in rituals.
>In the Old Testament, a common (and rather ordinary) plant called calamus is credited as a primary ingredient in this Holy anointing oil. However, both the Hebrew and Aramaic translations of the Old Testament instead list this ingredient as “kaneh-bosm,” – which is cannabis. The literal translation of kaneh-bosm (which has also been written as q’aneh-bosm, kaneh, kannabus, kanabos, and kineboisin) is “aromatic reed” or “aromatic hemp.”
Can you weedbros stop talking about weed for two seconds?
Malick is the dude weed of faux art house.
Beautifully shot but incredibly boring. I can enjoy slower, more abstract and thoughtful films but this was such a slog and I felt nothing.
Low effort hack shit. Malick made it non-linear in the editing room to hide how bad the plot was. He figured he could hide his incompetence behind cheap Tarantino tricks.
Well, Cinemaphile? Where were you?
What was the point of the dinosaur scene?
Portraying benevolence as not only existing within the confounds of human evolution and morality but as a universal construct intrinsically baked into life.
How is that any different from showing humans flying around? It's showing something that can be refuted with the background knowledge that animals eat each other.
Humans kill other humans, that doesn’t mean goodness doesn’t exist
>that doesn’t mean goodness doesn’t exist
also doesn't mean goodness does exist. Which makes it a completely moronic statement
malick will always fall on deaf ears when the listener is a cynic. the dinosaurs mercy followed immediately by the visual of the meteor is a moral question presented. the dinosaur could’ve enjoyed that last meal because the meteor was coming anyway so ultimately it doesn’t matter. if the dinosaur knew the meteor was coming in advance, would he have just enjoyed that last meal? does the knowledge of mortality rush for self satisfaction affect moral choices?
It's easier to quantify and qualify in humans. I'm not saying animals never display acts of mercy ... but I'm aware that there's a difference between actual mercy and what appears to be mercy. Humans project onto and assume motivations about animals all the time. What does it mean if that one instance the dinosaur spared another, when probably later that day it fully indulged in an easy kill? Part of the way animals hunt is to seek out the easiest prey, it's the efficiency of instinct.
I'm not against the demonstration of animal mercy ... but I don't feel the scene with the dinosaurs is an organic display of that idea. It's something that's made to happen to make a point; that's the definition of contrived.
God gave the dinosaurs cognizance and immediately regretted it so he sent an asteroid.
it's too long but i respect it a lot more than the thin red line which has aged horribly.
She is so perfect in this movie. And a perfect role for Brad Pitt who can only display one emotion to play an emotionally withdrawn father
It's also the most boring one
No. One of the most pretentious movies of all the history.
slop
Malick is the litmus test for taste. Cinemaphile operates more on the taste level of Nolan and Tarantino
Tree of Life is like a parody of Malick movies. He peaked with Days of Heaven.
Malick peaked with Days of Heaven because he spent a lot of time editing it into an actual movie, which broke him. Tree of Life and all movies after are low effort mess - including The Hidden Life which many fake fans call "a return to form" when in fact it's very far from one.
Malick spent a lot of time editing all of his movies.
No. Editing Days of Heaven was too painful for him, he's been afraid of repeating the pain since then, and the time he takes to edit isn't spent on actual work - end results are always sloppy, with very evident loop cycles in spreading scenes.
Malick is insane.
>babies first thought
shit sucks homosexual. Anyone who defends this tripe has a room temperature IQ
A three hour long insurance commercial
>So profound it changed my life
Lol u gay niga
I’m due for a rewatch, seen it twice. The second watch, I kind of pieced together the central theme of love as a transcendent act, facing our existence with optimism, reconciliation with mortality. Malick is a bloomer at the end of the day. It feels similar to what Kubrick was trying to do with 2001, there’s a simple story which is placed within a much deeper context, trying to explain or understand humanity and purpose. It helps that the film is so beautiful to look at