As the scathing reviews have begun to arrive, it's time to note again that many if not most folks who make their careers as "film critics" simply have an intolerance for theological expression in contemporary art, even though every museum in the world is stocked with a dominance of religious and especially Christian subjects. High-minded disgust for religion always has been the sneaking basis for sneering at Malick.
Unbelievably grand in scope, but the voice-over was unnecessary for me (though it is not that present anyway, but "mother mother love, born", NO..). The images are beautiful and it is fascinating to see them just as they are, simply there. Creatures and moments of our history we cannot grasp or explain, cannot even name unless David A. would do it for us. Ultimately, it is our timeline filled with beautiful images.
Disappointing work from Malick, who I admired so much in "The Thin Red Line" and "The tree of life." The only saving grace in this work--great choice of music as in all Malick films, mostly Arvo Part and Beethoven. I prefer Godfrey Reggio's "Qatsi trilogy" to this Malick venture. Even Kubrick surpassed Malick in the early man depictions in "2001--A space odyssey". The editing here and in "Song to Song" is pedestrian.
Pour le critiquer, le film demande de s'abandonner totalement à lui, de lui donner toute sa foi, et ne réussit qu'à cette condition, car c'est un film sur la foi. Les images de nature (de "mother") sont sublimes, pleines de grâces. De la lave aux torrents, de l'infiniment petit à l'infiniment grand, du naturalisme à l'expérimental, tout y est sublime. Les seuls bémols: les images de synthèse et les premiers hommes.