Review: 'To the Wonder' is Terrence Malick's typically enchanted Tree of Love

Heartfelt song to personal and spiritual intimacy proves predictably divisive

HitFix
B+
Readers
C+
<p>Ben Affleck and Rachel McAdams in &quot;To the Wonder.&quot;</p>

Ben Affleck and Rachel McAdams in "To the Wonder."

Credit: FilmNation Entertainment

Are you a fan of In Contention?

Sign up to get the latest updates instantly.

VENICE -- Stop the presses: There's been booing at a screening of the new Terrence Malick film. Whether they came from the same small-but-loud faction of supposed journalists who vocally expressed their displeasure at "The Tree of Life" in Cannes last year, or a fresh batch of doubters, such jeers are unusual for films that feature no purported moral transgressions, nor any sheer ineptitude of craft. (Films aren't booed at festivals simply for being bad, you know: a year ago, Madonna's "W.E." heard not a one.)

Rather, Malick is one of the few senior A-list filmmakers who can get razzed in this fashion for being too sincere, too lyrical, too himself. And he is all of those things, to both bewitching and bemusing effect, in "To the Wonder," a follow-up to "The Tree of Life" in more senses than mere proximity. With not even 16 months separating their premieres, they are by far the nearest-born works in a filmography otherwise thick with white space, underlining the impression of two sister films: both iridescently pictorial, ambiguously self-focused and inclined to lure critics into terms they should normally feel self-conscious about using. "Tone poem." "Meditation." "Elegy." "Prayer." Ghastly words when abused, the lot of them. Malick's cinema somehow wears them well.

So why, given this tonal and textual consistency, did I feel admiringly detached from "The Tree of Life," finding its explosion of formal beauty a discontinuous front for its unnourished human expressions, but far more stimulated and moved by his latest? "To the Wonder" is structurally a more modest, more linear film than "Tree" -- no dinosaurs here, folks, though fans of sea turtles should prick up their ears -- but it's no less vulnerable to charges of excessive preciosity, particularly from those whose secularity applies to churches beyond the House of Malick.

Though not evangelical, "Tree" was unapologetically steeped in the director's Christianity, its hushed negotiation of nature and grace culminating in a rapt celebration of the afterlife. The more earthbound "Wonder" isn't as fixated on such unknowables, but it's no less faith-based, and not just in the secondary presence of Javier Bardem as a Catholic priest  struggling to bring comfort to an economically famished Oklahoman community.

Its lean primary narrative, too, amounts to an investigation of sin, forgiveness and devotion in the domestic space, as Midwest engineer Neil (Ben Affleck) and his French lover Marina (Olga Kurylenko) struggle to build a moral foundation for their relationship, and subsequent marriage, on the unwelcoming, wind-blown plains of his home turf. (The "Wonder" of the title is the French island of Mont St. Michel, where the couple are shown frolicking in halcyon days.) At different stages of the protracted breakup, both fall prey to other people's arms: Marina, fleetingly, with a street acquaintance at an Econo Lodge; Neil, with more lasting and troubling impact, to former high-school flame Jane (Rachel McAdams). 

Seemingly inspired by the dissolution of the director's own second marriage in the 1980s, the story forms a less far-reaching basis for spiritual investigation than its predecessor's classical, era-hopping war between father and son, but there's dramatic satisfaction in watching these otherwise opaque characters emerge through their tussles with more contained moral decisions and consequences: it's the rare film that feels more affecting for the stakes being slightly smaller. Though Malick's requisite rolling landscapes and infinite bruise-colored skies are still very much present and correct (Emmanuel Lubezki devotees should prepare for, well, the wonder), it's the director's most intimate film since 1978's "Days of Heaven," as well as his most gaspingly romantic. If the title "Tree of Life" loftily bracketed a branching journey through mortality and beyond, this is his Tree of Love. 

"Everything's so beautiful here!" cries Marina's pre-teen daughter from a previous liaison, as the makeshift family wheels its way through a cavernous, hard-lit supermarket. The line prompts one of the few laughs ever likely to be heard during a Terrence Malick film, but it's indicative of the earnest enchantment coursing through "Wonder"'s veins that he and Lubezki themselves seek to beautify everything in this onscreen environment: the first fully contemporary setting of his career, and one even more grayishly forbidding than that explored in his 1974 debut "Badlands."

As befits the title, everything is a gaze-demanding spectacle in this simple world, be it minutiae like the shadow-box theater created by a gaudy chandelier in an underlit corridor and the technicolor tangle of real-life tattoos on Affleck's biceps, or more extravagantly surreal flourishes like the stormy herd of bison closing in on Affleck and Kurylenko as they embrace in a wheaten field. Speaking of which, we hardly need reminding at this point that no one shoots swaying expanses of grass like Malick -- and Lubezki's further virtuosic-yet-specific wizardry here marks a happy extension of their own professional romance. (Chalk up one non-negotiable Oscar nomination for a film that looks unlikely to be garlanded as generously as "The Tree of Life.")

Like Malick's customary accompanying swirl of highly recognizable classical scoring -- selected composers this time range from Tchaikovsky to Shostakovich to Arvo Part, with young Kiwi-born, Texas-based composer Hanan Townshend doing the bridging work -- this super-aestheticized approach is bound to aggravate as many as it enthralls, but in a film dedicated to ideal but elusive forms of love, it feels thematically grounded. Ditto the casting: with their vocal contributions limited to the same strain of hushed, ecstatic voiceover ("I open my eyes... I melt into the eternal light," and so on) delivered predominantly by Jessica Chastain in "The Tree of Life," the four stars aren't performers so much as motifs.

One could wonder why a director as famously indifferent to actors (and commerce) as Malick -- Rachel Weisz's role, incidentally, has been given the old Adrien Brody heave-ho here -- continues to hire such big-name actors. (You might think he of all directors would be in favor of non-pro casts.) The combined attractiveness of this star quartet runs the risk of making the film's least integrated or resonant sequences -- those in which Bardem wearily calls on all manner of buck-toothed, poverty-stricken local parishioners -- the teeniest bit condescending to boot. Even this faint absurdity, however, seems parcelled up in Malick's restless, tender, unfashionable quest for beauty in its highest physical and spiritual forms. Never, to crib a line from "A Clockwork Orange," has a Terrence Malick film felt more like gorgeousness and gorgeousity made flesh.

Oscar-statues-outside-the-82nd-academy-awards-at-the-kodak-theater-in-hollywood-ca._article_story_main_primary

Everything: Academy Awards

Latest news, photos, reviews, interviews, videos and more.

Guy-lodge-sm
Guy Lodge
Critic
Guy Lodge is a South African-born critic and sometime screenwriter. In addition to his work at In Contention, he is a freelance contributor to Variety, Time Out, Empire and The Guardian. He lives well beyond his means in London.

Comments

  • Option 1

    Comment instantly as a guest Guest
  • Option 2

    Connect
  • Option 3

    Login or create a HitFix account Login Signup
  • N25501058_36871357_8293821_talkback_profile

    Mykill

    Wow. Great review Guy. I had literally no idea what to expect from this film, but as you've described it as a more economically structured Tree of Life then you have officially gotten me interested in this film. I respected Tree of Life, but felt it was too long and indulgent and it bored me after a while. But I loved all the music and beautiful cinematography, so perhaps that will enhance the experience of watching this film (since it is shorter and slightly more linear.) I seriously wonder when a distributor is going to announce their plans to release the film this year?

    September 2, 2012 at 10:50AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Deena Jones' wig Your obsession with Guy is borderline creepy

      September 2, 2012 at 12:10PM EST
    • Images_talkback_profile

      Laura Stewart You're rude and I don't find kind words about Guy creepy at all.

      September 2, 2012 at 12:14PM EST
    • N25501058_36871357_8293821_talkback_profile

      Mykill LOL - Beyonce's weave is always so entertaining. Thanks for obsessing over the comments section of a film blog, it's pretty impressive that you have that much time on your hands.

      September 2, 2012 at 12:37PM EST
    • Guypic_talkback_profile

      Guy Lodge I don't think there's anything creepy about enthusiasm. I am a little creeped out, however, by trolls who join comment-thread discussions simply to toss abuse at people they don't know.

      September 2, 2012 at 2:13PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      carb @DEENA JONES' WIG yes, it is

      September 2, 2012 at 2:40PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      BAC Gosh, Deena Jones' Wig (AKA Afrika) is always so agro, isn't she/he?

      Afrika (AKA Deena Jones' Wig) has it in for you both, Guy and Kris, because you two didn't care too much for Keira Knightley's performance in A Dangerous Method. That's a damnable offense and makes you horrible critics, wrong on everything. Deena Jones' Afrika is Knightley's A#1 fanatic, you see.


      September 2, 2012 at 4:56PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Gautam

    @Guy .. great review ..

    Any Oscar hopes apart from cinematography ??

    September 2, 2012 at 11:18AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Guypic_talkback_profile

      Guy Lodge As suggested in the review, I don't imagine so.

      September 2, 2012 at 12:02PM EST
  • Hal_9000_talkback_profile

    DylanS

    Another great review, Guy. I'm hearing mixed reviews on this one, and not sure what to think. You make a comparison to "Days of Heaven", my favorite Malick film and one of my all-time favorites, so that could be a good sign. I like Malick's poetry when he's more linear and especially when he's kept the length of the film from rambling, so I'm looking forward to this.

    September 2, 2012 at 11:18AM EST Reply to Comment
    • N25501058_36871357_8293821_talkback_profile

      Mykill Days of Heaven really does live up very well and along with Badlands is the only Malick film I can ever stand to re-watch. If this new one recalls Days of Heaven, then I'm definitely psyched to see it.

      September 2, 2012 at 12:50PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    /3rt

    I don't think he cares about stars. They lineup and his financiers are pleased to have a marketable hook to promote to the unsuspecting. He'd use any of us if the material and his spidey-senses are aligned.

    September 2, 2012 at 11:45AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      /3rt I don't think he cares about stars. They lineup and his financiers are pleased to have a marketable hook to promote to the unsuspecting. He'd use us if the material and his spidey-senses were aligned.

      September 2, 2012 at 11:57AM EST
    • N25501058_36871357_8293821_talkback_profile

      Mykill I always find it interesting that so many good actors really want to work with him as much as they do. The only film of his that I think showcases the acting as much as his direction is Badlands (and to a certain extent Days of Heaven as well.) When I watch the rest of his (newer) films - I'm always so distracted by his visuals and all the cinematography and music going on that I can never even recall the performances. But I guess he wouldn't be given any money to make his films if he didn't have actors in them that audiences would actually pay to see (even if they have no idea what they are getting themselves into a la all the people that demanded their money back after watching Tree of Life because they thought they were gonna watch a Brad Pitt/Sean Penn film...)

      September 2, 2012 at 12:58PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      JLPatt How does "The Thin Red Line" not "showcase" the acting?

      September 2, 2012 at 4:24PM EST
    • Hal_9000_talkback_profile

      DylanS JLPATT- Just cause the film has a massive ensemble doesn't make it an actors showcase. To each his own, but I think "The Thin Red Line" uses the actors as anonymous faces in battle. It's a film, in my opinion, thats far more occupied by atmosphere than it it performance.

      September 2, 2012 at 10:23PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Deena Jones' wig

    This review seems generous. I sense you hated it more than you are willing to accept.

    September 2, 2012 at 12:11PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Liz Reviewer: I really liked this movie, and here are all the things I liked about it.
      Commenter: No, you hated it. I can tell.

      Those are some razor-sharp observational and reasoning skills you've got there, Deena.

      September 2, 2012 at 12:29PM EST
  • Images_talkback_profile

    Laura Stewart

    Judging by your reviews and a few others, this film is very emotional. Coming from someone who bawled her eyes out after watching The Tree of Life and who can't get through it present day without tearing up, I'm gearing up to buy a LOT of kleenex before seeing this film. Can you talk a little bit about Affleck and McAdams performances please?

    September 2, 2012 at 12:14PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Hal_9000_talkback_profile

      DylanS That's funny, I usually find Malick to be quite chilly and at arms-length emotionally. But I think that speaks volumes about how unspecific and ambiguous his films are, and how you can bring whatever emotion you want into them.

      September 2, 2012 at 12:45PM EST
    • N25501058_36871357_8293821_talkback_profile

      Mykill I'm definitely curious to see how the performances turned out with so many a-list actors, I wish there was at least a trailer or a clip available to shed some light on what Malick was going for (and how Affleck and the rest of the cast turned out.) For some reason, the description of the film from the different reviews I've read make me think of Wings of Desire or something like that.

      September 2, 2012 at 12:47PM EST
    • Guypic_talkback_profile

      Guy Lodge It's not an actors' movie, to be honest.

      September 2, 2012 at 2:15PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Voland And that's why you cast Affleck in the lead role!

      September 2, 2012 at 4:38PM EST
    • Images_talkback_profile

      Laura Stewart Voland- Affleck was quite good in The Town and if the reviews are to be trusted, he's equally if not better in Argo. I don't think he's necessarily a character actor but he's got a bit of hidden talent.

      Guy- Thanks. I figured... we just got really lucky with Pitt wowing us last year, I wasn't sure if THW featured a standout performance.

      September 2, 2012 at 6:27PM EST
    • Images_talkback_profile

      Laura Stewart And by THW I meant TTW. Long day.

      September 2, 2012 at 6:28PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Chuck

    Haven't seen his two earlier movies but I've seen everything since Thin Red Line and have to say Malick's entire approach to filmmaking puzzles me, to the point that I don't even think Tree of Life counts as a movie. The only strength I see in his work is the cinematography, everything else is muddled new-age jibberish, with no concern for narrative or audience interest. I'm not Steven saying that's wrong, as I do believe these are reflections of Mallick's inclinations as an artist and if he can get people to finance his ramblings, God bless him. I just don't have much interest in watching them, though I'll always reserve judgment and give each movie at least one chance to engage me.

    September 2, 2012 at 12:52PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      carb Who's Steven?

      September 2, 2012 at 2:46PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Chuck Should have read "even".... Damn iPad autocorrect

      September 2, 2012 at 3:27PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      JLPatt Movies come in myriad shapes and forms. Just because one doesn't conform to the typical narratives you are used to doesn't mean it doesn't "count as a movie" (whatever the hell that nonsense means).

      September 2, 2012 at 4:27PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Chuck Well could you show me an oil painting and ask me to rate it as a movie? That would definitely qualify as a "different form". There's no need to be insulting. I don't deny there is artistry in Tree of Life. I'm not sure it adds up to anything you can even remotely call a film. It has no story, barely any characters and no thematic throughline. I know others disagree and that's fine but no need to be a dick.

      September 2, 2012 at 4:45PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      david sans soleil counts as a film

      September 2, 2012 at 4:59PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      daniel la jetee

      September 2, 2012 at 5:03PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      JLPatt But again, why must a film have a conventional story? What is a story, even? I think there's plenty of story in "The Tree of Life." The story of a boy. The story of a family. The story of time, of growing up, of grief, reconciliation, spirituality. It tells its story through images. The story is about feelings. If you don't feel anything while watching it (something I can't fathom, but I'm sure it happens to some) then that's totally fine. But to deny that it's a movie just because it doesn't fit into your narrow conceptions of what that entails? No. That's ignorance plain and simple.

      September 2, 2012 at 5:15PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      laurence2174 People love to say this about Tree of Life, and I think it is just an inability to thread together abstraction and find a fluidity and meaning to it. That's either a preference for a more obvious narrative or simply a disaste for vague complexities. But it's like how people came out of Prometheus saying they couldn't follow the story, and all I could think was, "Are you thick?" These days I wonder more and more if people's attention spans are just too short or their critical faculties just too undeveloped (not a dig at you, sir).

      September 2, 2012 at 5:56PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Chuck I'm all for challenging narratives that don't conform to typical storytelling conventions. 2001 is the obvious example that does that perfectly. It is not "ignorance" to suggest that the raw materials of Tree of Life do not make up a movie, it's just a difference of opinion. I am not stupid, I am not easily bored. I simply look at ToL and have to admit... I. Do. Not. Get. It. So fine, if that makes me a simpleton, go ahead and believe that. The emperor's clothes are very beautiful, how dare I suggest otherwise!

      September 2, 2012 at 6:05PM EST
    • Batboy_talkback_profile

      Rev. Slappy Chuck--I'd recommend giving Days of Heaven and Badlands a spin. Also, I think The Tree of Life is essentially Malick trying to answer the question oh what life means and why we're here in the first place. ToL was a major artist asking major questions.

      September 2, 2012 at 10:17PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Adam

    Guy, we really want to get a copy of our film to you. It was just released but not supported by a studio. Love your work, esp. this review. This is the only way I can find to ask.

    September 2, 2012 at 2:51PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Guypic_talkback_profile

      Guy Lodge Hi Adam, the best way to reach me for this sort of thing is probably on Twitter: @GuyLodge.

      September 2, 2012 at 6:32PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Adam Thanks but no one here uses twitter.

      September 2, 2012 at 10:28PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Almo

    Got to say, I was quite angered by the booing thing. At my session not only were there boos, they then intensified in volume as people began applauding, as though to drown out and down those who enjoyed the film and invalidate that.

    I quite liked the film, and thought it much more in line with his two films from the 70s, which I'm still by far a fan of most. The only case of the actor's fame being a distraction for me was Javier Bardem. Just could not take him as a priest, even though he did quite well with the role.

    September 2, 2012 at 5:33PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Chuck Yeah, booing after a screening is just plain rude. You'd think these professionals and movie lovers could behave themselves like civilized people.

      September 2, 2012 at 6:09PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Voland It's childish behaviour at best. Where does the urgent need, to let everyone immediately know one's own opinion, come from?

      September 2, 2012 at 7:05PM EST
  • 100_0082_talkback_profile

    bludogk9

    I guess I am one of those who find Terrence Malick films just exercises in overindulgence. I realize this puts me in the minority.
    That being said, it's just my opinion. I believe he has an outstanding eye and Badlands and somewhat less so, Days of Heaven were actually ones I enjoyed. But everything else since has become far to personal in their making ,that I just can't watch them and recommend them or say they are even good. Someone commented here that Tree of Life was his way of answering some of life's questions. Really??? What "exactly" was his answer? I watched it twice and wish I could have that time back. He may be the master of filming a rolling field but filming it over and over?
    It's kind of the Stanley Kubrick syndrome. He always received excellent reviews and word of mouth and has grown in stature since his death but who is ever going to put Barry Lyndon or Eyes Wide Shut on the DVD player and say " Hey, let's watch these movies because they are simply great films!!" Honestly.
    The last 30 years of his film making life was another exercise in indulgence. Except Full Metal Jacket. And that was close to being a boring War Movie for God's Sake!!
    So, I often feel like because so many speak of Malick as a true auteur, that he has a vision unlike anyone working today that most critics just don't want to be known as a critic who doesn't like Malick as if that will stigmatizes them with their peers. I of course have no evidence of this so again, it's just my humble opinion. But even Guy tweeted when people/critics/whoever booed the film ""Enough with the booing, people, You're professionals. Supposedly. Shut the f--k up."
    (Actually standing up and shouting that would have made a much better impression on me and carried a little more weight I would think.)
    So apparently displaying your disapproving opinion of a film is disrespectful, rude, unprofessional but applauding is A-OK. This kind of thing feeds my opinion of critic fears. But anyway it comes down to if that's is Guy's opinion, then it is what it is. I like his work.
    The truly funny thing for me is that, This movie has a certain appeal to me and may be one I'll see.
    Go figure.

    September 3, 2012 at 1:00AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Shawn

    That "wheaten field" thing threw me. Who doesn't say "wheat field"? Then I saw a high res version of the publicity still and noticed it was prairie grass. The native grasses in Bartlesville, Oklahoma are big bluestem, little bluestem, switchgrass and indiangrass. On the subject of grasses, wild and cultivated, I wonder if Malick's oeuvre will ever bear sustained comparison to van Gogh's studies of wheat.

    September 3, 2012 at 1:24AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Guypic_talkback_profile

      Guy Lodge "Wheaten" was meant to refer more to the colour than the crop.

      September 3, 2012 at 2:22AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Shawn Yeah, it took me a while. If you're going to conform to my impression of you as an exotic writer, you'll have to try harder.

      September 3, 2012 at 4:30PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Budapeste gezi yerleri

    well well :) details makes perfect so no comment just let see

    September 3, 2012 at 6:47PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Budapeste gezi yerleri

    Budapeste waiting for own film festival at october. Great news

    September 3, 2012 at 6:48PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Th_529875-2_talkback_profile

    meep

    No boos and only deliberately measured - not to be confused with overly enthusiastic - applause from me for another well-crafted review from Guy. And, I have to say, the comments section is even more entertaining than usual.

    September 4, 2012 at 2:56PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Dinosaurs

    I loved The Tree of Life trailer but the movie didn't really work for me. Though I have a feeling that style would work a lot better with a love story than it did with a family saga.

    February 22, 2013 at 1:36PM EST Reply to Comment
2012-2013 OSCAR PREDICTIONS
UPDATED: FEB 25, 2013

Get Instant Alerts on In Contention

News From Our Partners