PaleyFilms

Terrence Malick’s The Tree of Life is less a narrative film with a story, than it is a visual collage of memories and ideas. It follows a single family, the O’Briens, in the small neighborhood of Waco, Texas during the 1950s. Mr. O’Brien (Brad Pitt), who represents nature, is a demanding father, and is often excessively hard on his children. It is the children, specifically Jack O’Brien (Hunter McCracken), whom Malick focuses on the most. Jack begins discovering the joys and pains of childhood, while turning to his mother (Jessica Chastain) to seek solace from the oppressive personality of his father. Mrs. O’Brien represents grace, and is gentler and and more approachable than her husband is. The underlying attributes of nature and grace held by the O’Brien parents conflict quite a bit with each other, sending Jack on a difficult and highly emotional journey. He asks complex questions about the meanings of life, love, and loss, even through his adulthood. Adult Jack (Sean Penn) lives in an unspecified point of time, though it is a cold future that exudes modernity through its slick, metallic surroundings.

In addition to troubled thoughts, told primarily through voice-overs (there is very little spoken dialogue), the film contains cosmic questions. We are shown a long, breathtaking scene that chronicles the Universe’s creation and expansion, from big bang through evolution. Here, Malick draws a bold parallel between the cycle of life, human emotion, and everything in between. In some ways, this is one of the most ambitious movies ever made, because it is essentially about everything.

For a film that could easily have been an epic disaster, The Tree of Life shows an undeniable level of craft. Terrence Malick creates scenes that are often so lyrically poetic, they become thrilling. Emmanuel Lubezki’s cinematography is so astoundingly beautiful that it actually adds greatly to the film’s substance. Beauty and nature are portrayed through the imagery, and get at the heart of the movie’s (many) themes. The creation of the Universe sequence is basically a screensaver, but what a gorgeous and mind-blowing screensaver it is!

With such a high level of emotional density, it is marvelous that the acting is so pitch-perfect. Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain do not play black-and-white opposites; rather, they are each as complex as their sons are. While Mr. O’Brien comes across as abusive, he is really more sympathetic than that. He is a flawed character who struggles to balance his love for his children with conceptions of fierce will and control. In a sense, Mr. O’Brien almost becomes a tragic character at one point, as we see him express guilt and regret that has built up over many years. What feels so human about the drama here, is that it is not exaggerated. Malick does not pass judgement on his characters; he lets the action play out in a raw, yet beautiful fashion.

Of course, the film does has its flaws. The final act, which serves as a sort of reconciliation between characters and ideas, is nice to look at, but goes on too long. Additionally, the ambitious nature of Malick’s project doesn’t allow the concepts to always fully meld, making it sprawling and messy. However, everything is executed so diligently that the problems become quibbles, and don’t stop the movie from being a unique and rewarding artistic production.

A major accomplishment on both a visual and emotional scale, The Tree of Life is Terrence Malick’s best film since his 1973 debut, Badlands. We need more filmmakers who are unafraid to be this bold and original; directors who embrace cinema as art. Even when the movie creaks under its own weight, it remains beautiful and asks its viewers to use their minds and hearts. Malick doesn’t just shoot for the stars here: he shoots for life, the universe, and everything.

Kung Fu Panda 2 continues the exploits of Po the panda (voiced flawlessly by Jack Black), picking up where the first film left off. Now a seasoned fighter, Po must help his team of kung fu masters defeat the evil Lord Shen (Gary Oldman), a peacock who is attempting to harness the explosive power of fireworks to conquer China. Along his journey, the brave panda meditatively tries finding his “inner peace,” and also learns to cope with revelations about his family’s history.

One of the things this film gets completely right is pacing. At only 90 minutes short, the story whisks by at a brisk and energetic pace, aided by its riveting action and clever set pieces. We are thrown into the fray right from the start, and as a result the movie takes very little time setting up its narrative. Director Jennifer Yuh takes full advantage of the film’s medium, giving us stylistically creative fight and flight sequences. One particularly memorable scene involving a dragon costume gobbling characters up (in a clever homage to Pac-Man) could not have been rendered in live action without looking incredibly cheesy. In glorious computer animation, however, it is insanely fun and fits in with the fluidity of the picture’s style.

The animation itself is stunning, switching between different visual styles. More important than the detailed CGI that encompasses most of the movie, is the use of hand-drawn animation during Po’s flashback scenes, which adds a heightened sense of tragedy to the material. This is not unlike the use of anime in Quentin Tarantino’s Kill Bill; both films’ flashbacks change their mediums of storytelling to temporarily heighten emotion.

As an action movie and an emotional story, Kung Fu Panda 2 is good, clean fun. However, the reason it falls short is the same reason its predecessor was so good. In the first film, we get to witness Po’s inauguration into the wonders of kung fu. There is a certain sense of discovery and revelation, not particularly seen in the sequel. Because most of the characters and situations were developed in Kung Fu Panda, it feels as if the screenwriters are now saying “let’s have fun with Po on a new adventure!” That’s all well and fine, as the characters are really likeable; however, the sequel is too simple and commonplace as a result. Sure, the emotional beats here are pretty great, but they never reach the same rhythmic propulsion as those in the original film.

I think the reason this movie falls a bit short for me is the fact that its predecessor brought something new to the table, while this one didn’t. Nevertheless, the film is pretty exciting while you are watching it. You may not remember many of the jokes or plot points later on, but that doesn’t stop it from being above-average entertainment. If you need a reason to see Kung Fu Panda 2, watch it for the animation and action alone, but don’t expect it to be as good as the first one.

In the mystical land of Asgard, the mighty Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is the clear successor to the throne, currently held by his father, Odin (Anthony Hopkins). When Thor foolishly provokes battle with former enemies of Asgard, the powerful Frost Giants of Jotunheim, Odin takes away his magic powers, and banishes his son to Earth. There, the former god is discovered by scientist Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) who tries to make sense of a man simply falling from the sky. Meanwhile, back on Asgard, a devious plot is being hatched by Thor’s Brother, Loki (Tom Hiddleston).

Kenneth Branagh’s Thor is perhaps the most frustrating kind of film; one that just lays there while it’s playing, and gets forgotten shortly after leaving the theater. Its action scenes are neither terrible nor riveting; rather, they are clunky and repetitive. In fact, for a film that cost $150 million to make, the special effects are overused and look far too obvious. The movie uses an unimaginative and dull color palette, which is a shame, as magic and mysticism play such huge roles in the story. Not once did I marvel at the supposed “splendor” of the land of Asgard, as the visuals end up being dull rather than aesthetically pleasing.

Now add to the mix a halfway decent, but halfway undercooked script. Besides for Thor and Loki, none of the film’s characters are developed enough. Thor has a group of Asgardian companions called the “Warriors Three” who play an important role in the story. Obviously the screenwriters didn’t think the group was important, though, as none of its members ever become more than caricatures. Jane Foster is a similarly flat character; when she eventually becomes Thor’s love interest, chemistry between the two is laughably absent. As interesting as some of the Norse mythology is, the dialogue is poor during the film’s serious moments, and is often “eye-rolling” worthy.

The script does work, however, during its moments of humor. Once the film’s location is switched to planet Earth, the comedy kicks in. In all fairness to the movie, the laughs mostly hit, providing refreshing relief from the mediocre action and drama. Thor’s reactions to the “mortal” planet of Earth are pretty funny, as is his exaggeratedly “manly” stature. The acting is pretty decent; Hemsworth has good timing and is generally fun to watch. Although scenes featuring Loki tend to be more serious and emotional, Hiddleston also does a great job in his role, and probably gives the film’s best performance.

Even with some redeeming qualities, Thor is a poor-man’s Marvel movie. Frankly, it wouldn’t surprise me if the film was only made to help set up the upcoming superhero team movie The Avengers (featuring Thor and some other Marvel comic book characters), rather than as a stand-alone labor of love. With all the talent and money put into this movie, it’s rather shameful that it turned out as unmemorable as it did. It plays out more like a studio-churned production than it does a distinctive piece of art, and loses most of its fun in the process.