Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Overstreet

The Tree of Life (2011)

Recommended Posts

Here's my first-impression review:

Part One

Part Two

Since I had to contain this to only 2,000 words total, I'll be posting a more substantial review at Filmwell in a week or two.

It seems to me that the root of your issues with Tree of Life are that this film is so functionally different than Malick's other films. It's not that I think your personal responses are wrong -- it's a film that elicits exceptionally personal responses -- but I think your reservations say more about you than the film. And to be clear, I liked your review very much, and appreciated both how you've earnestly wrestled with the film, and how you've articulated that wrestling in your review. That said, here are my responses to your basic points of reservation:

1. The cosmic visuals are in fact quite revolutionary, and while reminiscent of galactic photographs, they are actually quite different. They are wholly unique...if you look closer. wink.gif

2. The film is less ponderous than most of Tarkovsky's films -- if this were a Tarkovsky film, it would be one of his more accessible, relatable, and narratively driven films. It's ponderous compared to Malick's other films, but that doesn't make it too ponderous.

3. Restraint has become the critical cliche in modern cinema. I for one am growing weary of arthouse actors working so hard to not to cry, when sometimes the more truthful response would be for their character to just break down and bawl their eyes out...but that's not in keeping with the unspoken art film restraint laws. And nowhere is the unspoken art film restraint law more severe than in the realm of spiritual (and specifically Christian) experience. I LOVED that Malick had moments of being so spiritually direct, of allowing his characters to pray and think as most Americans do. Any film that can be accused of being too ponderous and too preachy in the same review is clearly not playing by the rules, and that is a plus, not a minus. You also say it's possibly both too preachy and too minimalist -- and therein lies its greatness. More importantly, it's not Malick who is offering "lessons and sentiments declared for our edification". On the contrary, Malick is exploring the inexplicable mystery in front of all of us, the mystery before which many if not most of us at some point break down and admit to ourselves things like "I haven't noticing the glory." That is not Malick speaking, that is a character who is pondering God, nature, grace, and meaning...and pondering these things, what the hell else is he going to say or think? If Malick broke the rules with that line, then the rules needed to be broken. And yes, The New World let you consider conclusions without much help, but Tree of Life does something far more daring -- it forces the viewer to reckon with Jack's confrontation with the ineffable ultimates of life, and reach some definite self-articulated conclusions about them. That's a bolder vision -- it ventures into spiritual struggle in a way arthouse cinema is not supposed to.

4. The minimalism of this film is certainly hyper-clipped and uber-fragmented as you say...but it's greatness and originality comes from the sheer volume of those clips and fragments. The end result for me -- and I think this is what was intended -- is a massive tapestry that presents the whole of human existence, both spiritual and material, with greater reach than any other film.


In eternity this world will be Troy, I believe, and all that has passed here will be the epic of the universe, the ballad they sing in the streets. -- Gilead, by Marilynne Robinson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. The cosmic visuals are in fact quite revolutionary, and while reminiscent of galactic photographs, they are actually quite different. They are wholly unique...if you look closer. wink.gif

Meaning?

Any film that can be accused of being too ponderous and too preachy in the same review is clearly not playing by the rules, and that is a plus, not a minus.

Being on-the-nose and laborious at the same time is a plus? And this somehow makes THE TREE OF LIFE a maverick art film? I gotta say, that line of reasoning doesn't make much sense to me.

Anyway, still can't wait to see this film. It comes to Philadelphia itself next week, but I think I'll wait a week or two until it comes to my favorite local theater, the Bryn Mawr Film Institute.

Edited by Ryan H.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scott, *some* of the cosmic visuals worked for me. Others were certainly beautiful, but felt like they'd been filmed for another kind of project.

The end credits kind of confirmed that for me, when I saw that some of them were from other organizations.

That doesn't mean they don't reinforce Malick's intentions or meanings. They just looked, at times, more like the result of a mash-up video than Malick's carefully sculpted sequences.


P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

Takin' 'er easy for all you sinners at lookingcloser.org. Also abiding at Facebook and Twitter.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. The cosmic visuals are in fact quite revolutionary, and while reminiscent of galactic photographs, they are actually quite different. They are wholly unique...if you look closer. wink.gif

Meaning?

Meaning that most of those images are one-of-a-kind images -- though they are not all originally Malick's. But they are not things you see floating around in other medium, unless you have specifically looked at the works of the experimental and avante garde artists who Malick both borrowed from and actually used in Tree of Life. I was familiar with a fair number of these only because I spent a long time looking for "God-like" experimental images for Paradise Lost -- other than Stan Brackage, I wasn't familiar with any of them before that.

Here's a very nice piece about some of the specific artists that are licensed for the film and those who were simple influences: http://www.fandor.com/blog/?p=4492

Any film that can be accused of being too ponderous and too preachy in the same review is clearly not playing by the rules, and that is a plus, not a minus.

Being on-the-nose and laborious at the same time is a plus? And this somehow makes it a maverick art film? I gotta say, that line of reasoning doesn't make much sense to me.

Anyway, still can't wait to see this film. It comes to Philadelphia itself next week, but I think I'll wait a week or two until it comes to my favorite local theater, the Bryn Mawr Film Institute.

I didn't say that the film is good because it's both on-the-nose and laborious. First of all, I think it's neither. But my real point is that it is a film that reaches for radical extremes in sometimes opposing directions, and I think that ambition is a plus not a minus. If you actually find it ponderous or preachy as Jeff seems to have, then obviously it's not a plus.

Edited by Scott Derrickson

In eternity this world will be Troy, I believe, and all that has passed here will be the epic of the universe, the ballad they sing in the streets. -- Gilead, by Marilynne Robinson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scott, *some* of the cosmic visuals worked for me. Others were certainly beautiful, but felt like they'd been filmed for another kind of project.

The end credits kind of confirmed that for me, when I saw that some of them were from other organizations.

That doesn't mean they don't reinforce Malick's intentions or meanings. They just looked, at times, more like the result of a mash-up video than Malick's carefully sculpted sequences.

Well, it certainly is a major mash-up of materials...but I didn't find any of the selections arbitrary or oddly incongruous. But does in matter if he drew both influence and actual material from other sources? I don't know, it's such a subjective thing, how these kind of abstract images impact a viewer. All I can say is that the images had a very different impact on me than they did you, and they certainly aren't images I'd ever call familiar.

Edited by Scott Derrickson

In eternity this world will be Troy, I believe, and all that has passed here will be the epic of the universe, the ballad they sing in the streets. -- Gilead, by Marilynne Robinson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you actually find it ponderous or preachy as Jeff seems to have, then obviously it's not a plus.

Ah, gotcha. I can't say for certain, but given my reaction the script and its dialogue, in particular--dialogue I've heard replicated or echoed in trailers and reviews--I'm guessing I'm going to end up in Jeffrey's camp.

But ya never know. I'm one of the folks on this board for whom displays of cinematic Style, particularly when it is born out of grandiose, operatic ambition, is a real weakness, so I may walk away from TREE OF LIFE loving it.

Edited by Ryan H.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scott, you're so right about it being such a subjective thing. I mean, how could I be so transported by The New World, but not this, when they're so very similar in method and style? One has more of some things, less than others, but the differences are slight.

I'll see it again soon, and maybe I'll feel differently. That's why I put so many questions in my review: Was it this? Or, perhaps, this?

I wish we could see it together and go out for a meal!


P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

Takin' 'er easy for all you sinners at lookingcloser.org. Also abiding at Facebook and Twitter.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But ya never know. I'm one of the folks on this board for whom displays of cinematic Style, particularly when it is born out of grandiose, operatic ambition, is a real weakness, so I may walk away from TREE OF LIFE loving it.

Well, it doesn't get much more grandiose or operatic than the cosmic/nature montages in Tree of Life, so maybe not! smile.gif

Edited by Scott Derrickson

In eternity this world will be Troy, I believe, and all that has passed here will be the epic of the universe, the ballad they sing in the streets. -- Gilead, by Marilynne Robinson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But ya never know. I'm one of the folks on this board for whom displays of cinematic Style, particularly when it is born out of grandiose, operatic ambition, is a real weakness, so I may walk away from TREE OF LIFE loving it.

Well, it doesn't get much more grandiose or operatic than the cosmic/nature montages in Tree of Life, so maybe not! smile.gif

Scott: Ryan meant that grandiose, operatic displays of Style were a weakness of his. Not that he considers them a weakness in films.

Edited by SDG

“I write because I don’t know what I think until I read what I say.” — Flannery O'Connor

Writing at the new Decent Films | Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But ya never know. I'm one of the folks on this board for whom displays of cinematic Style, particularly when it is born out of grandiose, operatic ambition, is a real weakness, so I may walk away from TREE OF LIFE loving it.

Well, it doesn't get much more grandiose or operatic than the cosmic/nature montages in Tree of Life, so maybe not! smile.gif

Scott: Ryan meant that grandiose, operatic displays of Style were a weakness of his. Not that he considers them a weakness in the film.

Ah, weakness as in chocolate and booze. Got it. Thanks for stepping in there, Steven, since Ryan and I can't seem to understand each other on our own.biggrin.gif


In eternity this world will be Troy, I believe, and all that has passed here will be the epic of the universe, the ballad they sing in the streets. -- Gilead, by Marilynne Robinson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cinema Paradisio takes on The Tree of Life....

"This is just a fun story for those that love hearing some amusing film news from around the world. I caught on Twitter last night via @theangrymick that an Italian movie theater named Lumière apparently played Terrence Malick's new film The Tree of Life for a full week out of order, but no one really noticed.

more here

Edited by Jacques

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My review.

Occasionally, with certain films, I find it helpful to step back and look through a sociological lens rather than a critical one. For instance, what does the phenomenal success of a film like Titanic tell us about the society that embraces it? With The Tree of Life, I find myself stepping further back, contemplating it through an anthropological lens, as much as an artifact as a work of art. The riddle of existence is not a riddle the universe poses to us, but one we pose to ourselves, as Malick does in The Tree of Life. We are the riddle, and the very fact that we ask the questions we do is one of the best clues we have to the answers we seek.

Mr. O’Brien says grace at meals, prays in church and mentions tithing every week. Yet his worldview is essentially Darwinian ... It’s harder to say how Mrs. O’Brien embodies the idea of grace. She’s an archetypal mother, gentle and forgiving, but also passive. When tensions boil over in one excruciating family supper and Mr. O’Brien lashes out at his sons, his wife is unable to protect them or restrain him; instead, he restrains her. It’s queasily persuasive, but we seem to be firmly under the boot of nature, with no sign of the transcendent power of grace...

Malick’s camera wanders and swoops restlessly through these vignettes, capturing moments of power that never coalesce into a narrative or create a sense of characters transcending the individual scenes. The individual moments have only the power of the archetypal situations they evoke. Take any one of them out of the film, watch it in isolation, and it would play exactly the same.

I don’t mind that we don’t understand the O’Briens’ lives ... It does bother me, I think, that their voice-over monologues don’t convey a sense of their inner worlds, as the voice-overs did in The New World. Here, they only introduce or perpetuate free-floating themes that would be more powerful if they were more grounded in narrative reality. I’m not drawn into Jack’s story, much less that of the father or mother, who never seem entirely real. I do think of my own childhood — how I could have been kinder to my own younger brother, for instance.

Malick’s moral themes stretch back even to the prehistoric sequence. A beached plesiosaur—Job’s Leviathan, perhaps — contemplates a gash in its side: the problem of evil in a prehuman form. A meteor strikes the earth, presumably wiping out the dinosaurs while ushering in a new era of life on earth. In a much-discussed scene, a predatory dinosaur, coming upon a smaller dinosaur lying wounded near a stream, places its foot firmly on the other dinosaur’s head before moving on. In the film’s schema of “nature” and “grace,” is this “nature” asserting its dominance, or “grace” sparing the wounded creature’s life?

I’m not sure that Malick has succeeded in evoking the idea of grace in the way he seems to have wanted. But I think that the workings of grace are evident in the film nonetheless, and that for receptive viewers, unbelievers as well as believers, the film may offer an unexpected occasion of grace.


“I write because I don’t know what I think until I read what I say.” — Flannery O'Connor

Writing at the new Decent Films | Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My review.

s ... It does bother me, I think, that their voice-over monologues don’t convey a sense of their inner worlds, as the voice-overs did in The New World. Here, they only introduce or perpetuate free-floating themes that would be more powerful if they were more grounded in narrative reality. I’m not drawn into Jack’s story, much less that of the father or mother, who never seem entirely real.

Very much agreed.

I watched Days of Heaven last night, and was reminded again of how enjoyable and amazing the voice-over narration is there. It is a very, very particular voice. Even though the story doesn't follow the narrator's character very closely - she's very much a witness, like Jack O'Brien here - she is as real as any character I know at the movies. And she doesn't dwell on thematic questions; in fact, she hardly touches on them at all. Nevertheless, her dialogue implies the questions, reinforcing those suggested by the narrative.

The voice-overs in The Tree of Life don't do that for me at all.


P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

Takin' 'er easy for all you sinners at lookingcloser.org. Also abiding at Facebook and Twitter.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My review.

s ... It does bother me, I think, that their voice-over monologues don’t convey a sense of their inner worlds, as the voice-overs did in The New World. Here, they only introduce or perpetuate free-floating themes that would be more powerful if they were more grounded in narrative reality. I’m not drawn into Jack’s story, much less that of the father or mother, who never seem entirely real.

Very much agreed.

I watched Days of Heaven last night, and was reminded again of how enjoyable and amazing the voice-over narration is there. It is a very, very particular voice. Even though the story doesn't follow the narrator's character very closely - she's very much a witness, like Jack O'Brien here - she is as real as any character I know at the movies. And she doesn't dwell on thematic questions; in fact, she hardly touches on them at all. Nevertheless, her dialogue implies the questions, reinforcing those suggested by the narrative.

The voice-overs in The Tree of Life don't do that for me at all.

Obviously I'm a big advocate about this film, but I don't really disagree with this. Thin Red Line and Tree of Life have voice overs that are fragmented and objectified, whereas the intimate v.o. in Badland, Days of Heaven, and A New World are some of the best first person voice overs in film history. That said, I think the fragmented, less intimate v.o. in Tree of Life serves that film for what it is, and is still very successful, whereas I found the v.o. in Thin Red Line distracting and dislocated from the images in a way that just didn't quite work.


In eternity this world will be Troy, I believe, and all that has passed here will be the epic of the universe, the ballad they sing in the streets. -- Gilead, by Marilynne Robinson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

when the film ended, there was a combination of laughter and groans. mostly laughter but not the satisfying kind. my impression was that people were disappointed with the ending and the film. did anyone else experience this reaction?


"I am quietly judging you" - Magnolia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James Martin in America (The National Catholic Weekly):

When I prayed about the film the next day, I remembered last year's “Of Gods and Men,” about the martyred monks of Our Lady of Atlas monastery in Algeria. How similar, and how different, they are. The real-life French Trappists in North Africa in the 1990s struggled with some slightly different Big Questions: “What does God want us to do?” “Is martyrdom my future?” At the same time, they pondered some of the same questions that the fictional boys in 1950s Waco were asking that same God: “Do you care about us?”

Likewise, both “Of Gods and Men” and “Tree of Life” turn our gaze to small things of great and overlooked beauty: in one film, the waving grass, a reaching tree, a squalling baby; in the other, a monk tending a sick child; another monk pouring wine for his brothers; the communal singing of the psalms. Swaths of classical music are used to great effect by both directors. In the case of “Gods” the director Xavier Beauvois offers “Swan Lake” as an accompaniment to a sort of monastic Last Supper. In the case of “Tree,” almost every scene is scored with a piece from Brahms, Mahler, Berlioz, or my favorite selection (which Malick used in his “New World”) Smetana’s haunting “Moldau.” Both movies asked us to see. And hear.

But “Tree” differs from “Gods.” Ironically, the film about a noisy family has less talking than a film about monks who live a life of silence. The mother in “The Tree of Life” barely speaks at all, though she is perhaps the most influential character in her sons’s life. (Her silence reminded me of St. Francis of Assisi's dictum: "Preach the Gospel always; use words when necessary.") And Malick's film features more scenes that are strictly visual, wordless. As the modernist poets said, it shows rather than tells. Here is another irony: the abbot of the Trappist monastery, by contrast, talks a great deal, as do his brother monks. The active life is presented contemplatively by Malick; the contemplative life is presented actively by Beauvois.

Also different are the respective presentations of the afterlife. The final scene of “Of Gods and Men” shows the soon-to-be-martyred monks marching resolutely to their terrible fate. Not only are their deaths not shown onscreen, any question of heaven is left hanging. (Of course they’re saints, most viewers will think, but we do not see them after their earthly lives have ended.) Malick, on the other hand, does not quail from offering his vision of heaven: a powerful one that also acknowledges the different ages of people we will meet in the "fullness of time." Just the other day, in fact, I wondered aloud if a friend who, 30 years ago, died at 21 will be that age when we meet in heaven. Malick gives us an answer of sorts in his final, mystical vision.

Minor note, FWIW, but I've heard that the quote, while popularly attributed to St. Francis, wasn't actually ever said by him. I attributed it to him once and was swiftly corrected.

Edited by Overstreet

P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

Takin' 'er easy for all you sinners at lookingcloser.org. Also abiding at Facebook and Twitter.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yikes.

Kevin Collins in First Things:

“…for you know only

A heap of broken images, where the sun beats,

And the dead tree gives no shelter…” (TS Eliot, The Wasteland)

The press and others are making much of the religious or theological character of Terrence Malick’s new film, Tree of Life, a tremendously ambitious work featuring Brad Pitt, Jessica Chastain, and Sean Penn. It is rare, after all, that a Hollywood film delves into the subject of the numinous.

The film captures the joys and sufferings of a young, ostensibly Catholic family—the O’Brien’s—(Chastain, Pitt and three remarkable young actors playing their pre-adolescent sons) living in a small West Texas town in the 1950s, placing their lives in the context of larger cosmological questions about God, suffering, and the meaning of life.

With Tree of Life, Malick has created a cinematic tone poem abounding in visual beauty. The viewer is seduced by the swirling movement of images, landscapes, and light that fill Malick’s canvas, accompanied by beautiful sacred music, an atmospheric soundtrack, and natural sound.

Water swirls beneath the ocean surface in great waves and cascades hypnotically over magnificent falls; sand blows starkly across the desert floor; the sun shimmers in varied tones of blue and red sky and casts a beautiful light on everything. Malick masterfully places the viewer inside the full beauty of Creation, and he is to be commended for making a work so unapologetically philosophical and painterly.

Faithful Catholics and other Christians, however, should beware of expecting too much of the film’s supposedly faith-friendly view of the universe. While the characters speak openly about and to God and perform some very basic rituals of Catholic family life, there is nothing specifically Catholic or even Christian in Malick’s treatment of God, eternity, and the meaning of life.

...

In short: Go see Tree of Life if you are interested in cinematic form and if you can sit through more than two hours of visual and aural massaging. Do not go expecting to see an intelligent discussion of God, man, and the last things.

Edited by Overstreet

P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

Takin' 'er easy for all you sinners at lookingcloser.org. Also abiding at Facebook and Twitter.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alissa Wilkinson at QIdeas.

What Malick accomplishes is more significant: The Tree of Life is not just about the creation of man; it's about the creation of a man, about what our beginning has to do with our ends. A boy is born to beautiful parents; he lives in a lovely home, discovers the world with delight, rejoices in the love of his lovely mother, spends his early childhood in the sun-kissed eternal summer that most of us remember so well.

Then one day, he encounters temptation. And he falls. And his guilt turns him into a sullen, unhappy bully. His innocence is gone, and we know it won't return, even when he seeks and receives reconciliation with his father - a man whose fallenness haunts him as well - and his little brother, who he wantonly injures and who grants him forgiveness without guile.

In Adam's fall, we sinned all.

The vistas and beauty of Malick's creation story fill us with awe, make many of us believe in film as an art form again - and will likely spark not a few young minds to become astronomers and biologists. All worthy work.

But it is when he takes that grand story of creation and fall and stuffs it inside the life of a little boy that we start to understand. Each life re-enacts the first story. Each is created in beauty and falls in disgrace. We're each a microcosm of the whole story. And redemption is there, if we know how to lament what is lost.

Edited by Overstreet

P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

Takin' 'er easy for all you sinners at lookingcloser.org. Also abiding at Facebook and Twitter.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alissa Wilkinson at QIdeas.

But it is when he takes that grand story of creation and fall and stuffs it inside the life of a little boy that we start to understand. Each life re-enacts the first story. Each is created in beauty and falls in disgrace. We're each a microcosm of the whole story. And redemption is there, if we know how to lament what is lost.

That is some good stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Terrence Malick's Song of Himself V - The Tree of Life: Los Demiurgos from Niles Shwartz

And there is also some other essays on Malicks previous work as well.

note: pardon if content from this site has been mentioned before...just caught the a.m. showing of the film and in a bit of a fugue state.

Edited by Jacques

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Link probably unnecessary.)

SPOILERS!

(CC, B, Ab, EvEv, L, V, N, M) Strong but non-evangelistic Christian worldview with some moral elements and philosophical references/reveries, including questions to God and references about Creation and sinfulness, with references to biblical passages (including an explicit one to Job 38:4,7 which opens the movie), brief sermon on Job heard from preacher, grace said during two meals, woman’s narration says the nuns taught her that there are two ways through life – the way of Nature and the way of Grace, Catholic man preaches alone in church and makes sign of the cross, implied reference to Roman 7 (which discusses people’s sinful nature), boy looks at stained glass picture of Jesus on trial, and images apparently related to an afterlife reunion, but some negative role model aspects to the character of protagonist’s father, who is a devout Catholic with an anger problem, though he is also seen as very loving, and he eventually reconciles with his older son, who almost turned to the dark side of evil because of the father’s strict taskmaster rules, plus some impressionistic, implied but strong references to evolution as movie shows creation of an Old Earth, dinosaurs and Earth’s eventual withering as the sun dies, by implication billions of years hence; one “h” obscenity, one light exclamatory profanity and father tells son he has to grab life by its “nuts”; some light but scary violence as father shakes boy at the dinner table for talking, wife slaps husband, husband physically restrains wife but doesn’t hit her, boys fight, father teaches some boxing to his sons, visions of exploding gases in outer space, dinosaur apparently dying from a gaping wound that’s shown from a distance, dinosaur lays its foot on slightly smaller dinosaur’s head as it apparently lays dying near large stream but then walks away, boys put frog on firecracker rocket, boys smash window panes of empty house, boy injures his brother’s finger with air gun, mother gets message about one son’s death but it’s never revealed what really happened although later the oldest brother says to himself that his brother died at 19, and boy begins to turn into a bully, even bullying his younger brother, but boy eventually turns away from his anger; no sex; upper boy nudity; no alcohol; no smoking; and, bullying, boy steals nightgown from teenage girl’s house when no one’s there, strict father alienates three sons but later sort of apologizes to older son for being too harsh.
Edited by Overstreet

P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

Takin' 'er easy for all you sinners at lookingcloser.org. Also abiding at Facebook and Twitter.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you guys seen this recent promo video yet? The one in which Christopher Nolan and David Fincher vocalize their appreciation of Terry? Interesting marketing move having two extremely popular filmmakers plug the film right before it goes into wide release.

Edited by Nathaniel

"A great film is one that to some degree frees the viewer from this passive stupor and engages him or her in a creative process of viewing. The dynamic must be two-way. The great film not only comes at the viewer, it draws the viewer toward it." -Paul Schrader

Twitter     Letterboxd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Upper boy nudity?! When my boy's out of the bath tub I can't catch him before he's all over the house, and the upper is seroiusly only half the battle.


In an interstellar burst, I am back to save the Universe.

Filmsweep by Persona. 2013 Film Journal. IlPersona.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

visions of exploding gases in outer space

::tv_horror::

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(CC, B, Ab, EvEv, L, V, N, M) Strong but non-evangelistic Christian worldview with some moral elements and philosophical references/reveries

Sometimes I think I would like to write a parody of this style of content advisory. And then I think, how could I possibly?


“I write because I don’t know what I think until I read what I say.” — Flannery O'Connor

Writing at the new Decent Films | Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...