Based on 268 votes and 74 reviews.
This is not a typical movie, it does not flow nicely in story form. It took a while to release a "movie" expectation and just go with the imagery, which was stunning, the music was perfect, as was the "acting" by the whole cast! But more of a dream sequence than a "movie". The audience seemed uncomfortable, and any crinkling of candy wrappers or popcorn was annoying, as was the snickering. Felt like a co-ed health class at times- general discomfort and relief when it was over. Interesting experience overall, but go in aware that this is not the usual movie experience!
This is a polarizing movie. Some call it a masterpiece and others say it's meaningless tripe. Unfortunately for both the answer's more complex. The cinematography is so gorgeous it would do Kubrick proud. I was literally breathless for some of the early scenes. Unfortunately for the people hailing "masterpiece," the movie suffers from a weakness in its message. The "nature vs. grace" motif doesn't ring true for a lot of people apparently. He's spot on for much of the details, which is why it's so unfortunate: there were glimmers of brilliance here and it MIGHT have been a masterpiece, if only he had something else to unify this movie. Or maybe nothing at all? Because that's the reas
I'm not surprised by the so called negative "user reviews". This film isn't for everyone, like the people who grossed the hangover part 2 to 250+ mill. You all forget "movies" are there to entertain you and "Films" are there to shape you, teach you, move you. Don't knock a brilliant artist's work just because you didn't get it.
As one might assume from the opening quote, this film is something like a 20th century retelling of Job. It starts suggesting quite a nihilistic worldview, but as it goes on, it grows in warmth and complexity. The narration has an interesting feature in its fluidity; I don't know how to put this but there are many times when it can seem as if it is not just the character speaking to themselves (or internally toward someone else, or toward God) but perhaps God talking to the world that s/he created-- which makes sense to me in that all of the narrators are creator figures (inventor/musician, mother, musician, architect, painter, imaginer, whatever). The God of the world has as much to learn a
If I could give it less than one star I would. This was such a boring, senseless movie with a lot of wasted time and, although brilliant and clever, yet very meaningless scenes that made you feel like you were watching the discovery channel. It resembles the rantings of someone who is high on something. It attempts to explain the meaning and help the viewer accept death. Sean Penn did as much acting as the dinosaurs. Like the other poster, we sat it out hoping to get some sense in the end but were disappointed as were the others in the audience. I guess the only moron is the poster who actually liked it. Now tell me one thing, why did the critics give this movie such good reviews and trick u
Bizarre reflection on life and death in a family, with excessive nature scenes inserted to supposedly make one think of life on a grand scale and questioning one's existence, God, etc. One tries hard to appreciate the people moments, and that is where it counts most... should be redone minus the stock scenic shots... (blah!)
One of the most lifeless film I've seen in a while.
Brad Pitt must have been hurting for a buck to appear in this film.
If this was a freebie on TV it would have been flicked off after the first 10 minutes. If I wanted to watch a documentary on photos taken by the Hubble space telescope, I would have switched on the Discovery Channel. This movie was a complete waste of two hours. I want my two hours back!!
Positively mind-numbing as well as too metaphysical and metaphorical. I sat it out thiking/hoping that I'd be rewarded with some sense being made of it in the end!!? Alas! it didn't happen!