The House Series

Five months ago (to the day!), I watched all four Psycho movies and wrote about the experience. I'm not entirely happy with the way it turned out, mostly because it just feels like I was live-Tweeting the whole thing. This time, instead of writing while I watched the House series, I just took notes, so hopefully everything comes out better. Truth be told, I didn't even realize there was a House series (aside from the TV show). I knew there was a sequel (with an awesome subtitle), but that was it. Since I just got the sequel from Netflix, I decided to rewatch the first and just fell into another movie marathon. Once again, I've got to give props to Movie Madness for having House IV on VHS. Movie Madness: For When You Need to See Every Movie.



What's amazing about the above trailer is how it doesn't get the movie's tone at all. House is the story of a horror, Roger Cobb (the Greatest American Hero himself, William Katt), with a tortured past (Vietnam vet, his son died, his TV star wife divorced him) who moves into his Aunt's old house after she dies so he can have some peace while he writes his Vietnam memoirs. We find all of this out in the first fifteen minutes of the film. Yeah... it's jam-packed with information. We see flashbacks of his son's drowning and Vietnam flashbacks as he writes. Flashbacks are one of the few things that all for House films have in common (the others: Sean Cunningham produces, Henry Manfredini does the score, and Kane Hodder does stunts).

Once all of the setup is out of the way, House is pretty damn fun. It's based on a story by Fred Dekker (Monster Squad!) annd it's a lot funnier than I remembered. If it had someone with the style of Sam Raimi or Peter Jackson at the helm instead of Steve Miner, it could be in the pantheon of great horror comedies if not great horror movies. William Katt isn't the best lead, but he does enough. Most of the credit can be distributed in three places: George Wendt, Richard Moll, and the monsters.

Wendt first. The man is a comedic powerhouse. After a scene in which Katt runs from the house in army gear and slides across the walkway to his house arms in the air, Wendt (who, for some reason, walked his dog into his neighbor's yard to have it go to the bathroom) comments to his dog, "Writing looks like fun, huh?" Another great line is, "Solitude's always better with someone else around." And When Wendt gets mislead into helping Katt catch a monster, his reaction is gold. Clearly, casting for House II recognized this as they cast John Ratzenberger for a small role to capture some more of that Cheers magic.

Richard Moll, better known as Bull on Night Court, plays the main villain (or the "boss" of the movie). Not only is he the ghost responsible for tormenting Katt, but Katt was in Vietnam with the man and wouldn't put him out of his misery, leaving Moll (Big Ben in the film) to be captured, tortured, and killed. He's psychotic as a man in the rinky-dink Vietnam flashbacks (clearly they had no money for those sets) and he's terrifying and sinister as the ghost.

Which brings me to the monsters. I love practical effects and even though everything is very clearly rubber, that doesn't make it any less fun or scary and, in fact, fits the tone of House very well. And the first monster we see really sucks the viewer into the world, waiting to see what's next.

The house is malicious and even though the result of the haunting really doesn't make any sense, the house does some awesome trippy things. My favorite is the lawn tools that stalk Katt. The film also gets a bit of mileage out of mirrors, but I won't say how. I'll just say I appreciated the effort.

I don't think it's spoiling anything to say that it's a happy ending with the family back together again. I wouldn't say anything at all, but come House IV, it's going to be an issue.

House is a near-classic, must-see horror comedy. I appreciated it much more upon second viewing. There's so much good in it that its easy to forgive the fact that the story really doesn't make too much sense. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for the remaining films.



Still brought to us by New World Pictures (Roger Corman rules!), but this House II is nothing like House. The trailer does a better job of capturing the tone of the film (and misses the fact that Bill Maher is in it), but it doesn't feel like a sequel. I think they had a script that featured a house, came up with the epic subtitle (The Second Story) and through it together. I'm actually all for films where it's a different movie under the same umbrella (like what John Carpenter wanted to do with Halloween), but House isn't broad enough subject to do it. House II has more in common with the Waxwork series than the first House (which has an awesome tag line in and of itself: Ding Dong. You're Dead). And yes, Waxwork was released after House II. And yes, the Waxwork series also veers off in an unrelated direction with its sequel.

The score for House II is an improvement from the first, which wasn't bad, it just wasn't that memorable. As mentioned, Bill Maher makes an appearance with Amy Yasbeck (Wings) and John Ratzenberger (who is featured far more prominently in the trailer than the film... and they use his best line). Ratzenberger is easily the highlight of the film and I can't believe it took Pixar to keep casting him in stuff. The man knows how to deliver a line (even he couldn't save Motel Hell, though).

There's a lot of convoluted mumbo jumbo about how a crystal skull can give someone eternal life and there's a bunch of historical time periods that pop up in rooms of the house to try to get the skull back. Gramps is wacky and fun-loving and the type of old person The Simpsons make fun of. There's really nothing in common with House except that they both take place in a house. House II isn't scary and I don't really think it's meant to be. It's an adventure movie, which is fine, except the subtitle "The Second Story" not only implies it's going to be the same house, but a continuation of the first story. You may enjoy it more knowing that it's nothing like the original, but realizing that killed House II for me.



That's right. This one isn't really called House III. It's The Horror Show, and a more unoriginal, unappealing name couldn't be found. At least, unlike House II, this one isn't a sequel or even a part of the series, but because it features a house that gets haunted (kind of), it was billed as a sequel in foreign markets. Gone are the Cheers cast members and the humor. Instead we have Lance Henriksen, normally awesome but not here, as a cop who is tortured by a man he caught and was eventually electrocuted (in a pretty cool scene). Once again, a man with a traumatic past is haunted by something in it, but this haunting isn't confined to a House. This film actually owes a lot to the Nightmare on Elm Street Series, especially through the finale. There's lots of "is this real" stuff and a lot of bad guy quipping. It's humorous that it feels like one Wes Craven creation since the story of an electrocuted man come back to kill is exactly the same as Craven's Shocker released the same year (and, oh yes, that is A.D. Skinner himself, Mitch Pileggi).

I don't get movies like this where the bad guy seems to have control as to whether he comes back as a ghost or not. Isn't there punishment in the afterlife? Plus, the explanation for how to kill him is completely absurd. Electricity turned him into a ghost, so it will bring him back? At the very least, The Horror Show has some tension, which is more than I can say about House II. There's a little homage to Videodrome which I didn't understand until I learned that the director views David Cronenberg as a mentor. The film is a mess with little making sense in the end. Not scary enough for a horror film. Not bad enough to laugh at.



Four Houses, four houses. Roger Cobb is back, which is silly because the House series has no connecting tissue and because if we're bringing Cobb back, why not send him to the original house instead of one we've never encountered before (though we get a glimpse of what is supposed to be the original swimming pool). Even worse, he has a daughter instead of a son and a new wife. So, maybe he didn't get back together with his wife at the end of the first. And maybe she has the son. We're not even going to mention that there is a past? Then why include him at all? Nothing in the story needs Roger Cobb to return except to make the film seem related to the original. It's horseshit.

Once again, the house is... kind of haunted? There's some Native American mysticism that I can't figure out because for some reason the house attacks Cobb's wife even though it should be happy because she's keeping the house. There's an evil step-brother who wants to develop the property (what a hackneyed and cliched plot point). There's a really weird midget in a wheelchair who hacks up a lot of phlegm and is out of a different movie completely (I almost want to say David Lynch's Dune). For some reason, the FBI are involved in this house. There are no monsters. Still no humor. I don't know why you bring William Katt back at all if there's going to be no relation in theme or story to the original aside from trying to hook viewers. Honestly, there are only two good aspect about this movie and they is the bug and snake costumes. The rest is horseshit.

So, there you go. Four movies, unrelated, yet part of the same series. It's a lesson in brand management, I guess, except I don't know how high the House stock ever got. Check out the first, leave the rest.

Rivera, Hoffman, and Saves

Mariano Rivera just broke the all-time saves record. By the end of his career, it'll be more like he smashed it, ground it into a fine powder, mixed it into his smoothie and drank it. I want so much to be able to refute all of the Yankees fans running around bragging about this. I want to be able to point out that Trevor Hoffman is still better or at least point to another closer. After all, the statistic has only been official since 1969. Surely there is someone else who is better. But there probably isn't.

I actually like Rivera. He goes about his business. Doesn't seems like an asshole or douchebag. I'm envious that the Yankees have had a solid closer for 15-odd years (except against the Red Sox, against whom he's blown the most saves, which is some solace). So instead of denigrating his achievement and, by proxy, the enthusiasm of Yankees fans, I'm going to denigrate the save statistic. It's the only way I can feel better about myself as the Red Sox have seen their Wild Card lead dwindle and the Yankees pull away.

But first, I can't help but try to poke some holes in Rivera's accomplishment even though it doesn't completely wash out. Rivera's numbers are, after all, slightly better than Hoffman's. I'll even forgive him for stealing another's entrance music (my entrance music would be Jeff Buckley's "Eternal Life", incidentally). However! Hoffman played for some pretty bad teams. Even though Hoffman, to this point, played more seasons than Rivera (he missed the 2003 season), his teams won a total of 1,243 games compared to the Yankees 1,460. Obviously, not every game the Yankees won had a save situation (same for the Padres), but I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that Rivera has had more opportunities to save games than Hoffman. In fact, over Rivera's career as closer, the Yankees have had less than 90 wins twice. Hoffman's teams have had more than 90 wins twice. What happens if Hoffman had played for the Yankees and Rivera for the Padres(/Brewers)? No way to tell. But their numbers are close enough that the argument could be turned around. The tipping point of the argument could be that as of June 29, 2009 Rivera hit 110 saves of more than one inning whereas Hoffman only had 55. Of course, that also increases the arguments for the likes of Goose Gossage and Rollie Fingers.

But the save is a ridiculous stat to begin with. It's a way to value a closer, but with the advanced statistics that have been developed, there's no need for it to tell how good a pitcher is. Why not use WHIP (Walks + Hits/Inning Pitched), Strikeout to Walk ratios, ERA+ (adjusts ERA to player's ballpark), or WAR (Wins Above Replacement player)? Just look at the requirements to register a save:

1. He is the finishing pitcher in a game won by his team;
2. He is not the winning pitcher;
3. He is credited with at least ⅓ of an inning pitched; and
4. He satisfies one of the following conditions:
   1. He enters the game with a lead of no more than three runs and pitches for at least one inning
   2. He enters the game, regardless of the count, with the potential tying run either on base, at bat or on deck
   3. He pitches for at least three innings

"A lead of no more than three runs"? Are you kidding me? A good pitcher has an ERA of around 3.00.  That means he gives up about 3 runs for every nine inning game. So a closer shouldn't be expected to not give up three runs in one or two innings? That's ridiculous. Any major league pitcher should be able to hold a team scoreless for one inning most of the time. Additionally, I would expect closers to have lower ERAs than starters since they only pitch for one inning most of the time. Sure, it's generally a high pressure inning (though I'd argue that a three run lead in the 9th isn't exactly high pressure), but it's not like they have the same type of fatigue. And if they're doing their job, they're only throwing about 15-20 pitches.

Also, I person can get a save for pitching at least three innings. Even if the scoreboard looks like this?:

Condition 2 is really the only one that makes sense. If that seems strict... well it should be. If you want to compete at an elite level, then you've got to have higher standards

Another Nightmare Made Out of Clay

It's been a while since my last stop-motion video. This one is slightly more ambitious than the last, though it doesn't necessarily feel that way. I hope you enjoy!

By the Power of Greyskull!

I had the He-Man theme stuck in my head all night assembling this and it bled right into my dreams. I'm glad I can now be done with it and pass the magic to you. I think their is one clip missing, but I'm OK with that. Also, it's a little surprising how extreme some of these lessons are. They really drive the point home occasionally.

Top Five Worst "Weird Al" Songs

At the beginning of the year, I made a list of the songs I would choose were I trying to elucidate the merits and considerable talent of "Weird Al" Yankovic. My love of the man knows no bounds, but even he has made some clunkers. Generally, these fall into general categories that I'll get to below. It's important to note that four of my five selections come from the late-'90s and beyond and one of them was just before I entered my teen years. My theory is that the I hadn't been over-exposed to the music prior to that time yet, so I'm not so pained by the memory of it. It's definitely not to say that I think "Weird Al" isn't as good as he used to be because he's also recording some of his best stuff on these newer albums. If anything, I think his older albums fall more in the middle ground and his newer work plays on extremes of good and bad. Something else of interest, these are all straightforward parodies. I think he's at his best doing pastiches or originals.

Regardless, nothing the man can do will ever make me love him less. Onward!

Achy Breaky Song

This song suffers from a fairly common phenomenon in "Weird Al's" work which is that a very bad song is very popular and almost necessitates that he parody it. Al (I'm sure he wouldn't mind if I called him that, for brevity's sake) does the only thing he can with the parody and makes it an assault on the original, but the song is simply too terrible and, unlike with many of his parodies, I can't look past the original to see the parody even though I agree with pretty much every sentiment expressed. I'm just constantly thinking about the Achy Breaky Song he's complaining about. It's simply a case where the irony succumbs to the awful (he borders on this again with the Lady Gaga parody, "Perform This Way").

Canadian Idiot

Again, it's pretty bad song to begin with, but that's not the main issue with Canadian Idiot. I hate even saying this, but it's just lazy. Picking on Canada (even satirically) is like picking on New Jersey. At his best, "Weird Al" brings something surprising to common tropes or offers a bizarre, silly perspective. Here, it's just a million things we've heard before compiled into a song.

Pretty Fly for a Rabbi

I substituted this for Grapefruit Diet because I really dug the "Go Fatty!" line in GD. Plus, the chorus of this is incredibly irritating. Al's voice can be somewhat taxing for those not used to it and he really pushes the boundaries doing this Offspring parody. And again, it's well-trod territory set to a fairly crappy song. It's a recipe for disaster.

The Saga Begins

I feel a little bad putting this on hear because a friend chose it as a duet at karaoke one time. That was fun, but the song still isn't great. Look... "Weird Al" struck gold with "Yoda." The song does a great job of laying out the plot and satirizing Star Wars. But Al gets in a rut with these types of songs. "Ode to a Superhero" has the same problems. Many of them he records before the movies are released, so their just major plot points without having much in the way of cultural references. It's just not that interesting to listen to a plot recap, even in song form.

Trash Day

"Weird Al" usually nails rap parodies, but this one just bombs. The chorus is completely forced. "Rotten here" is just terrible. "A little bit of ick ick." Trash Day also goes nowhere. It's a problem of other songs where they amount to nothing more than a list of things, but this is slightly different. The song just riffs on the fact that there's a lot of trash in the house and that it needs to be cleaned, but "Weird Al" is much more imaginative when he gets expansive. Sure, he mentions that it's been weeks of buildup and probably will be weeks more, but he doesn't make us feel it. The song reeks of writing a song around a poorly conceived concept. "Hot 'n' here, hmm? Rotten here! Nailed it."

Intrigue, Sex, and Disaster (and Babe)

I've got some other posts in mind, but my list of movies is growing (I was home alone over Labor Day weekend an racked up few more than normal) so I don't want my roundup to get too daunting for me or you.

Shadow of a Doubt -- Alfred Hitchcock
Zowee!

S*P*Y*S -- Irvin Kershner
I love Donald Sutherland and Elliott Gould has been growing on my ever since I saw The Long Goodbye, but S*P*Y*S is terrible. I flash to all the times I nearly blind-bought it because of the stars and rejoice that that money remained in my pocket. The biggest problem is that it's just not funny. Everything is forced and the chemistry between the two doesn't come through until the end. Kershner would go on to direct The Empire Strikes Back, so maybe he was working in a genre for which he didn't have a knack. Also, I can't help but think that since Gould and Sutherland starred in MASH and the TV show used the asterisks (M*A*S*H), that the producers were trying to remind the public of the connection by using the same format for this movie.

Angel Heart -- Alan Parker
Angel Heart has bit of a reputation amongst those who like genre movies. One might even call it a cult classic. Due to this, I had somewhat lofty expectations of this film that were no close to being met. Angel Heart is a drag. Mickey Rourke is a much better actor now that he's ugly and it's pretty clear that De Niro's performances started lacking long before the Analyze This/That movies. He's totally uninteresting and doesn't seem to give a damn about the movie (say what I will about Bang the Drum Slowly, but De Niro puts his all into that doofus). It doesn't work as horror and it doesn't work as noir. The most you're going to get out of it is seeing Lisa Bonet naked and Bill Cosby doesn't approve of that. Oh, and De Niro's name is Louis Cypher. Mull that over for a little.

Super Fly -- Gordon Parks Jr
Kablooey!

Salon Kitty -- Tinto Brass
I hated Brass' Caligula and I only saw the 100 minute version. There's little to recommend about it. I don't know what about that experience made me feel like I should check out Salon Kitty other than the fact that I probably didn't notice that Brass directed it, but I dug it! Shocking. It helps that the story is pretty interesting: the Nazi's use brothel filled with specially selected women to try to discover traitors amongst their ranks. There's a healthy dose of male and female nudity, as one would expect with Brass, but the acting and story are all there. It's probably a bit longer than it needs to be, but definitely worth watching. Now I have to debate whether I should risk another Tinto Brass joint. Lord knows I've latched onto worse filmmakers (*cough* Jess Franco *cough*).

Teorema - Pier Paulo Pasolini
It wasn't intentional that two sexually focused movies arrived back-to-back. I'm usually pretty attentive to spreading out genres (unless I happen to be on a particular genre kick). It's probably that I didn't really recognize Teorema by the name and kept thinking it was Francis Ford Coppola's Tetro. The most surprising aspect of Teorema is that it's not really all that explicit. That may not mean much to some, but considering Pasolini would later make Salo, or the 120 Days of Sodom, I was expecting all kinds of deviance. As with much Pasolini, there's been a lot of criticism and study about this work, but I tend to use my first viewing as a time to enjoy (or try to) and if the film connects, then I'll revisit it. Unfortunately, I was basically bored by the film, so I didn't put the work into figuring it out. I'm OK with that. Incidentally, I didn't recognize Terence Stamp at all and it wasn't until his character was gone that I realized that was him. Maybe I should have been putting a little more effort into the film.

Babe -- Chris Noonan
My nearly 13-year old boy attitude necessitated that I reject the stupid movie with talking animals as girly child's stuff. Adam Sandler and Jim Carrey were making movies, damn it! I remember scoffing that it was nominated for so many Academy Awards. Such a jaded heart for such a young person. Having now watched the movie (mostly so I can watch the sequel, which my co-worker claims as one of his favorite movies ever), I've got to say: it's delightful! The set design is amazing and the talking animals are only cringe-worthy a couple times. The only real detriment to Babe are those damned mice. So annoying. The ending is epically heartwarming, though my sense of fair play tells me that Babe was a horrible sheep dog and should never have won. It's hardly fair using the secret sheep code to beat the competition. That said, I'm pleased that I can now use "That'll do pig" without feeling like a liar.

Femme Fatale -- Brian de Palma
When Femme Fatale came out in 2002, my only interest was in Rebecca Romijn(-Stamos at the time). It's a wonder why:

That trailer is fascinating because it pretty much show the whole movie in sequence, which is awesome since people always complain that trailers give away too much, but it's also kind of a behind the scenes look at how to assemble a trailer. Honestly, my main reason for watching Femme Fatale now is that I've been becoming and bigger and bigger de Palma fan ever since I watched The Phantom of the Paradise and I wanted to see if any of his later films held up to his early work (also, The AVClub's New Cult Canon feature). And I've got to say, the movie is pure, twisty, sexy fun. De Palma ramps the style way up, which used to be an issue I had with him, but have learned to love, he lets things get bananas. There is a Funny Games-esque moment that almost lost me in the end, but the movie is pure pulp that's impossible to resist even if Romijn(-Stamos) isn't always up to the line readings.

Earthquake -- Mark Robson
I went on a mini disaster movie binge over Labor Day weekend. I've gained a new appreciation for the '70s-style mayhem movie. Maybe it's the amazing model work, giant sets, and practical effects, but they speak to me. Earthquake isn't great, but it's pretty fun. My biggest issue with it is that I don't find Charlton Heston to be a very compelling actor. I've liked movies he's starred in (Planet of the Apes), but largely he comes off as a parody of action stars. Give me the awesome power of George Kennedy any day (and Earthquake does!). Two things stuck out to me during the credits: Mario Puzo (The Godfather) has a co-writing credit (!) and Richard Roundtree (Shaft!) is in it. The latter makes me particularly happy because it's nice to see people from exploitation movies get a moment or two in the sun. One of my favorite conventions of the genre is the thick-headed authority who doesn't listen to the people warning of disaster or actively pursues danger regardless of the endangerment to thousands of people, which is on full display in Earthquake, though they acquiesce a little faster than most. Also fun: Walter Matthau as a drunk in a bar. Proof that being small time comic relief is the safest position in a disaster. Surprisingly, the ending is fairly emotional and unexpected.

The Towering Inferno -- John Guillermin and Irwin Allen (action sequences)
It's a wonder what a great cast can do for a movie. Whereas Earthquake struggled over it's lead performance, Towering Inferno has Paul Newman and Steve McQueen in lead roles (who famously butted heads, seemingly mostly due to the latter being a dick). Newman is always so effortless and elevates every movie I've seen him in. The film also deals with a subject it's easy not to think about: how does one fight a fire in a high rise? I know people who used to hate being above the third floor in building just for that reason (it may have been higher). In fact, The Towering Inferno plays almost as a lecture against architects building skyscrapers. Much like in many of these movies, women are sort of relegated to the background, even Faye Dunaway, once the shit hits the fan. The film is 2.5 hours, but nearly always entertaining and it's fun to watch (in all of these disaster movies) the peril escalate. It also uses the classic "maiden voyage" setup where the Grand Opening is met with disaster. I love this scenario particularly because I love when one extreme emotion (in this case, joy) changes to another (plunging to terror) with no way for anyone to know it's going to happen.

Leviathan -- George Pan Cosmatos
I was expecting something a bit different judging by this poster:
- 
However, I'm not unhappy with what I got. There's very little original about Leviathan. It plays like a mashup of The Thing, Alien, and The Abyss (with a touch of Jaws at the end). It's still fun as hell with some great special effects and a decent sense of terror. I'm quite surprised by the negative opinion of the film and I'm not really sure what people were expecting. There's not much more to say other than I think you all should check this out and get back to me with your thoughts.

The Poseidon Adventure -- Ronald Neame
This was supposed to be in the Earthquake position of my double feature with The Towering Inferno, but the disc from Netflix was cracked. So sad. I'd somehow forgotten that Gene Hackman was the star (and least sympathetic reverend ever) and put Ernest Borgnine in his place. As far as the disaster movies I watched this weekend go, this is the best. Even Shelley Winters is tolerable. Speaking of her: I mentioned above that women in these movies are usually told to stand aside as the men figured things out, but Winters is actually given something to do, which is much appreciated and is a great character moment for her. I also love seeing the grandpa from Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory in something else because he seems like a genuinely great guy. Incidentally, apparently Gene Wilder was to play the Red Buttons role but conflicts prevented him from doing so. That's a shame because I can see him being perfect in that role. It's also nice when a movie isn't afraid to kill of a few of it's main players since it so willingly kills off everyone else.

The Tree of Life

I finally got around to watching Tree of Life even though it just entered its third week showing there. Its reputation preceded it more than any story elements. I knew there were dinosaurs. I knew people were walking out because they were bored. And I knew that it got a very mixed reaction at Cannes. Given that a coworker gives me a hard time for being (paraphrasing) "too plot reliant," I wasn't sure what to expect. I was watching a late show, so at the very least, I was hoping for some fun hallucinations brought on by fighting away the tired. Color me surprised. Not only did I stay awake threw the film (with ease, mind you), but it only started to drag a little towards the end and I found Tree of Life to be intensely emotionally resonant. That's not to say it's a perfect, but I'll get to that below.

The first thirty minutes (maybe longer) is very disjointed. There are glimpses of a family in the '50s(the O'Briens, though I can't recall if that's ever actually said in the film), modern day life, shots of deep space, the aforementioned dinosaurs, microscopic action, and eventually, a narrative forms of a fetus developing then a child and family growing. The first thing that struck me about all of this is the floating camera work, the editing, the use of wide lenses that seem to push the borders of fisheye, and one amazing shadow shot that I'm certain I've never seen anywhere before. There's an intense, ethereal quality about it all and while I don't think the images always cut together smoothly, there's a rhythm and grace to the whole thing that feels like something I've never experienced in a theater. To put forth an old and hackneyed phrase, it felt like the closest expression of "pure cinema" that I've ever encountered. The editing seemed like it was time to an unheard score (and given the use and importance of (classical) music in Tree of Life, I wouldn't be surprised it that was the case. Given the nature of the editing, I can't even imagine how Malick shot the film without having a new set up after five second shots (this film very clearly doesn't subscribe to the notion that a director's hand should not be seen, which is not a knock against the film).

Terrence Malick does a good job of uniting the thematically linked space/dinosaur stuff with the narrative through visual motifs, water being the most noticeable. It isn't much of a reach to justify the existence of these elements in the film. By the time the main narrative kicks in, I was kind of mesmerized by the imagery to the point where I looked at my watch and was stunned that an hour had passed already.

As Tree of Life continues, we follow Jim O'Brien (Brad Pitt) and his three sons and wife (mostly focusing on the eldest son). Here is where the film really sunk its hooks into me. Even though the floating camera gets a little tedious at times and the editing feels a little clunky because it's alway cutting between moving images that aren't really compatible, the way it's all put together draws a picture of one of the most accurate and naturalistic childhood's I've ever seen depicted. Nearly everything that happens when the boys are playing I've either done or know people that have done them. Shoot someone with a BB Gun because they let you? I know people who willingly threw darts at each other. Play in the mist of the DDT truck? I know people that used to ride their bikes in behind the truck while it misted. What's remarkable is how much gets communicated to the audience with almost no exposition. You get to see the idyllic childhood and the harsh father both and there is very little dialogue between characters. It's shown with actions and glances. When there is finally a moment between father and son when emotions are actually expressed, it's incredibly powerful.

Upon further reflection, the film is put together in the manner of memory. Bits and pieces flitting about. Incomplete pictures mixed together. Thinking of it now, it's quite obvious why that is, but there's a lot of mental work that goes into watching Tree of Life that it's easy to miss the obvious. The only time the film slows down is during the Sean Penn scenes and only partially because I really don't care for the guy as an actor (I'd say human as well, but I don't know him). It veers in a direction that was much harder for me to unpack, though having talked with my friend after, I think we made some progress on it.

Tree of Life is long and deliberate, but if you're willing to put the moderate amount of work into it (which really isn't that much), it's an immensely rewarding experience, emotionally and cinematically. Even though I have my issues with the way it was shot and the editing (and Sean Penn), the combine to make something unique. It's rare that I have such a positive physical reaction to a film (see the last time I wrote about a new movie in this space). It's authentic, beautiful, and challenging and should be seen in the theaters. At the very least, it will give you something to talk about.

The Tree of Life Trailer HD - The best free videos are right here