Simon Dillon reviews the film

Terrence Malick: visionary genius or purveyor of the ponderous? It's a question I've wrestled with whenever he makes a new film (which isn't that often - for instance, 1998's The Thin Red Line came a staggering twenty years after 1978's Days of Heaven). However with this, his most divisive work yet, I am inclined to argue that the answer is both. I have a dislike of cinema that self-consciously strives to be art, but I must confess to being somewhat beguiled by the dazzling array of imagery and the sheer ambition Malick displays in The Tree of Life. Yet the familiar accusations people make about his work - the lack of a strong narrative being chief among them - still very much apply.

What boosts Malick's case here is as far as I'm concerned is that The Tree of Life is a profoundly Christian piece of work. I understand Malick does have a faith, and that is abundantly clear from the evidence here. On the surface it's a circle of life type plot (and I use the term "plot" very loosely) dealing with the relationship between fathers and sons and mothers and sons. But Malick delves far deeper than that, exploring the metaphysical by showing the start and end of time itself, as well as an afterlife. He is also grappling with the weighty spiritual question of why bad things happen to good people.

Into this mix are a clutch of excellent performances - most notably from Sean Penn as Jack, the son looking back on his childhood, Hunter McCracken who plays the younger version of him, Jessica Chastain as his mother and Brad Pitt who plays his very strict disciplinarian father. Pitt in particular really nails his deeply flawed character; an essentially good man striving unsuccessfully to make a name for himself, so ends up taking out his frustration on his family. The effect this has specifically on Jack forms the central thematic element of the film, and as such it is compelling and fascinating, assuming one can adjust to Malick's style. It hardly needs saying that the cinematography is stunning, and both Alexandre Desplat's score and the selections from existing classical pieces are absolutely spot-on.

It is only fair that in a review of a Terrence Malick film I discuss the thorny issue of his narrative style. Malick's deliberately enigmatic approach often raises viewer hackles, and I include myself in that. The closest he has come to a conventional story was his debut Badlands, but after that his films seem to become increasingly prone to the afore-mentioned ponderousness. They are all visually incredible - think of the locust swarm in Days of Heaven for instance - but I often go away from his films thinking the emperor has no clothes. Part of the problem is that I often can't quite decipher what he wants to say, though to be fair that is not as much of an issue with The Tree of Life. Even so, I struggled with this film at times, and that isn't just because I prefer three act archplots. Indeed, I have enjoyed several avant-garde films as well as miniplot subjects like Lost in Translation, In the Mood for Love and Five Easy Pieces. Yet Malick's unique oeuvre is something I struggle to engage with. Too often I find he tests my patience, so if I catch one of his films in the wrong mood there's a good chance I will not feel kindly disposed towards it.

In spite of this, there are times when this fractured approach works brilliantly. Take, for instance, the stunning sequence dealing with Jack's early life as a baby and toddler; a mesmerizing kaleidoscope of imagery shot from a child's perspective. Snatches of eating, playing, crying, looking at a baby brother and climbing the stairs for the first time are remarkable in that they superbly capture the fragmented memories of early childhood. There are many other images as well that will stay with you for the rest of your life: a vast flock of birds soaring around a skyscraper, a spectacular cascading waterfall, God-like sunsets bleeding through the trees and so forth.

Thematically Malick nails his colours to the mast at the very start (shortly after an apt onscreen Biblical quotation from Job), when a voiceover speaks of two paths in life; the path of nature that is selfish, and the path of grace that is selfless. Those on the path of grace, Malick notes, ultimately end up in peace and happiness. Grace is symbolised in the film by Jack's mother, who he looks back on as an ethereal, saintly, princess-like figure (something made clear in one peculiar shot by the surreal sight of her in a glass coffin aka Snow White). By contrast Jack's father represents the cruel, dog-eat-dog path of Nature, both by what he teaches, and his own thwarted ambitions. The film suggests that our views of God, our heavenly father, are inevitably coloured by those of our earthly father - something Jack is seen to wrestle with throughout. In addition, this also incorporates the struggle with sin (paraphrasing elements of Romans chapter 7), forgiveness, the Biblical response to suffering and many other Christian ideas. From that it is much easier to understand the cynical reception this film received in Cannes where it was booed and jeered, but on the other hand it is also understandable how it has generated rave reviews, even from the likes of Peter Bradshaw in The Guardian (who through gritted teeth acknowledges that it is thematically Christian - as though he were speaking of something highly distasteful, of course).

The comparisons people are making with Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey are unfounded. Yes, both films are challenging visionary works. Yes, both films feature extended wordless sequences in the vast beauty of the Universe, but there the similarities end. Kubrick is ambiguous about the existence (or otherwise) of a Supreme Being, but writer Arthur C Clarke (who wrote the short story on which 2001 is based) has strict views on the non-existence of God. Furthermore, unlike Malick's intuitive, dreamlike approach, 2001 is edited together with cold, logical precision following a clear narrative (albeit an extremely mysterious one) showing the evolution, as opposed to creation, of mankind.

The Tree of Life by contrast features an absolutely remarkable sequence which demonstrates visually the opening few verses of Genesis; ie God's spirit is hovering above the water, the "Let there be light" moment, and so on. True, this sequence is crafted in a manner subtle enough so as not to offend evolutionists (or Christians who unlike me don't believe in a literal six day creation), yet it is abundantly clear what Malick is trying to do. It's an astonishing, strangely moving and staggeringly beautiful sequence which, above all else, really does demonstrate what the Bible says in Psalm 19 that "the heavens declare the glory of God".

In spite of such positive themes, this really isn't a film for everyone given its audacious (some might argue pretentious) style. I submit that it is undoubtedly flawed, sprawling and self-indulgent. Yet those with a serious interest in cinema - and especially Christians with a serious interest in cinema - may just find it magnificent. Therefore, if you fall into that category, this is a must-see. If you don't, but you have seen Malick's previous films and like them, then it also is a must-see. And it must be seen in a cinema on the biggest screen possible.

For anyone else, approach with caution.