I saw "The Tree of Life" and I loved it, but you are right, Charles, you will probably hate it.

Predictably, I am also a Kubrick fan. You make a good point about the hate, but then in a culture of "Liking" things, the hate is kind of refreshing. I like Kubrick not because he hates, but because of what he hates. Have you ever watched "Eyes Wide Shut," deconstructing it with a Marxist scalpel? It's a scathing denunciation of Western culture. Practically every frame has something for leftists like us to chew on.

Or do I sound like just a middlebrow poser?

Yes.

Ha! I should have known better than to ask.

I did not actually read this article, other than the last sentence or two, but I think it is a reasonable assumption that it sucked.

Reading a Charles Mudede review is a bit like listening to a libertarian pontificate on life: they both have very strong points of view, every once in a long while I agree with them (but almost always for different reasons), and they both are breathtakingly narrow-minded yet simultaneously self-assured. (Sorry to be so harsh, but this bullshit deserves it).

Forget the merit of Malick or Kubrick or of CM's spew. Anyone who has the audacity to define what cinema (art) should be or should not be and what one should convey in art is, well..., a misanthrope. It's not hard to see some projection going on here.

In conclusion, I haven't seen Tree of Life yet either, but I think I'm gonna go with Terrence Malick's body of work of CM's.

@5, I love the novel Lolita. But I have no sexual feelings for girls. Please make this distinction. Please read my essay on parenting. @6, If I wrote that about Hitchcock, I was in a state of temporary insanity. North by Northwest is one of my favorite films of all time.

Here are three reasons why this view is idiotic:
1. Charles condemns Kubrick's worldview as misanthropic, yet he likes I Stand Alone? Huh? While the ending of I Stand Alone(where the [anti] protagonist "embraces" his daughter) does inject some degree of warmth into an otherwise unremittingly pessimistic worldview, Noe's worldview in that movie is still exactly that: unremittingly pessimistic. So if he dismisses Kubrick because of his pessimism, he should dismiss Noe because of his. And as long as we're talking about 2001. . .does anyone really interpret the ending of that movie as misanthropic? I'm actually curious. Inexplicable maybe. But misanthropic? No. And, actually, as long as we're still on Kubrick. . .Spartacus? Paths of Glory? You call those misanthropic? Have you seen any of Kubrick's movies pre-1968?
2. Bringing up Kubrick serves no purpose in this review. None. The only way in which Malick and Kubrick are at all similar is in their sense of ambition. They attempt to make grand statements and address big questions. Other than that they couldn't be further away from one another in terms of worldview. Whatever else you want to say about Malick, he isn't a misanthrope.
3. The entire thrust of the review is that Charles doesn't like a movie he hasn't seen because he doesn't like the worldview it represents. Well. . .if you want to view films through the prism of your extremely rigid worldview, then have at it. But maybe you should try to approach films on their own terms. Maybe you could also approach Malick's movies in terms of their stunning cinematography. Or their non-narrative/impressionistic structure. Or how downright courageous it is that a filmmaker is actually trying to say something meaningful and beautiful and profound without feeling the need to undercut his message with the requisite amount of ironic/self-aware BS that characterizes most of movie fare these days. Hmmm-"these days"?
Maybe I shouldn't have said that; it sounds like I'm some sort of reactionary, and also like I'm making a generalization. And I wouldn't want to do either in such a public place like the Stranger, especially given the stalwart example Charles has been. . .
Whoops!

I am reviewing Charle's Mudede's 'Zoo' without seeing it:

Based on a story about a man who fucks a horse and then hurts himself, goes to hospital, dies. (I think.) The poster for Zoo is of a horse's eye. It looks kind of sad. But maybe it also looks like this movie could be very funny and like it is loving life? (I don't know cause' I haven't seen it yet!) But I still don't think I'll ever see this movie. For some reason!

Anyway, years later for a Stranger review of movie he hasn't seen, Mudede criticizes Stanley Kubrick as the most overrated director of the 20th century, for hating life. He also criticizes Malick for having no sense of humor. Maybe these are jokes? You can never tell with him!
The end.

I didn't read your review of a movie you didn't watch and skipped straight to the comments because I decided I'd already hate it. I've read reviews before and they usually suck, and I've decided a review of a movie you haven't even seen is far worse than a credible review.

I didn't read your review of a movie you didn't watch (but I skipped straight to the comments) because I hate it. I've read reviews before and they usually suck, so I can imagine your review of a movie you haven't even seen is far worse than a credible review, and deserves negative comments.

I get it. Someone has a word quota he has to make, so he pilfers a crap idea from his Shitter account and name-drops his way through a non-review. For the love of all that is holy, stop writing Charlie!

This article was pretty silly, and funny, and I give it props for dissing the shit out of American Beauty, which is the worst movie to win Best Picture outside of maybe Forrest Gump and Shakespeare in Love.

This is the same Charles Mudede who hated The King's Speech because it had kings in it and he hated kings because he was a socialist. Or something.

Dude, I've read some of your other writing, and you're too good a writer to write idiotic drivel like this. It's like discussing philosophy with a third grader.

HAAAAAA hAAAA... I haven't read your article yet & I LOVE IT!!! lITERALLY HAD ME cackle OUT LOUD!!! Now I get the joy of reading it!

This is important why? Oh, because Charles said so...

There's a basic disconnect here for me in the way you compare American Beauty to Election because I think both films have a lot of comedy in them. They definitely both make me laugh. Then again, I also think Kubrick rocks. I think dismissing all of his work as misanthropic is narrow-minded, but even if some of it is misanthropic, isn't there room in the world for misanthropes and their views? A lot of great artists are very misanthropic.

Omg. I typically like what you have to say about stuff Mudede, but this time you sound like an esoteric hipster snob.

Can you please watch The Tree of Life and actually write a real review? Please? If it's really as pretentious and overwrought a piece of melodramatic Oscar bait as you're predicting, it will be refreshing and unusual to read a thoughtful, non-pandering review of it. (I haven't seen this movie either, but to judge by Ebert's review, I'm likely to hate it: "Terrence Malick's "The Tree of Life" is a film of vast ambition and deep humility, attempting no less than to encompass all of existence and view it through the prism of a few infinitesimal lives.")

I have not read Mudede's review of Tree Of Life nor do I read anything written by Mudede anymore (except headlines which are hard to avoid) because he is a self absorbed waste of time.

I didn't even bother reading the review but hoped for gold in the comments..and I was right!

I thought the whole point of American Beauty was that it's a satire of the angst of white suburbanites. I'm feeling #24 on this one...there's a pretty big disconnect here.

I think you really sank the ship you were sailing when treated a dick joke as great film lit.

Just because somebody isn't riding the same Lo-Brow trip you're on doesn't invalidate their own intellectualisation of a topic. If you want to get on about over-rated directors talk about James Cameron. At least "The Tree Of Life" isn't yet another sequel sell-out that treats movie goers like third graders in special ed.

Charles, a good column. Your fight with Stanley continues. Your analysis of his films still shines: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Conte…...
I don't think you're mad at Stanley the genius director, I think you're mad at his conclusions as an artist, as a puny human. Anyway, go back and revisit Malick's Badlands, before he was crowned a genius; it sings.

Pointless 'review' or 'commentary,' if we may call it that. Why write about this if you can't waste the few paltry hours of your otherwise culturally rich life to watch it and thoughtfully comment??? You seem to be saying that you like films that have humor and/or 'social information'--whatever the fuck that means. You are most decidedly NOT a film critic, let alone an intelligent critic. Same old, same shit: a few philosophical references and a strange inability to look at anything with eyes that can see any contours. Granted, you stupidly admit from the outset that you are writing about something you haven't seen, but still, what is the point of you even addressing this topic? Seriously, I realize you write for the Stranger and have never written any real piece of criticism in your life, as far as I am aware of, but perhaps you should re-think your writerly aims? I haven't seen the film yet, and perhaps it is 'heavy,' as you so oddly use as a negative, but i think I may just reserve judgment of film for someone who has proven that he can actually look at a film and not just name drop a pile of bullshit, wannabe intellectual pigeon droppings to an audience (typical Stranger reader) who seemingly tends to get off on either soupy irony or 'cultural criticism' for the sake of faux rebellion. Quoting Shaviro from the get go makes perfect sense for you, my friend. Perfect sense. You are as predictable as belltown.

Mugabe. Zoo. Marx. Armchair Hegel. Film for Dummies. I repeat: Mugabe.

You know, I'd really love to be proven wrong someday and discover some gem of thoughtful criticism that you've written, but I doubt that day will come. I really think you should enter a PhD program in cultural studies (aka English) because it would be such a nice suit for you to wear, assuming you even finished an undergraduate degree anyway.

I am sure that Zoo, though, is a film masterpiece, even though its poetry has not touched these cataract eyes.

Dear Charles,
I posted a comment earlier, trashing your comments and since I have seen Tree of Life. I don't hate ya. I think you've failed here though. You have let watching movies (and as the main film critic of the Stranger you are forced to watch countless movies) become a burden. In doing so, and in being human, you are forced to become economical as a way to do your job. Hence you label, the cardinal sin of true critique. You know this, but you still feel you can pull this kind of thing. Hence the "hipster" negative comments. I think people who care about Malick want your real opinion. They think you are smart. You are smart. You've shown Seattle true insight from a unique perspective. But you have lost your way as a film critic. It's not just this review either. You are human. It's ok. But hopefully this can be a wake-up call for you. I think the fatal flaw of The Stranger is the the over-reliance on the same writers.

Go see Tree of Life, and try to not bring all the baggage, and write a bad or good review, but really try to get outside yourself. I think it will help.

"I made another post on Twitter" O rly, well I took a shit in the woods. It had more of an impact.

I can't be bothered to sit through Mudede's ongoing performance art piece, "Self-Absorbed Hipster Proud Of Own Ignorance But Pretends To Know A Lot About Movies", but thanks to #4, 7, 9, and 26 I'm pretty sure it sucks, as if the title itself doesn't give that away.

Why the hell does this guy get paid for writing this pretentious drivel? Shit, and people accuse Dan Savage of trolling pitbull owners. At least he writes about other things most of the time.

(In case anyone cares, the fact that they share the last three letters of their names doesn't make Malick like Kubrick, and Tree of Life is a lot closer to Tarkovsky than 2001. An actual movie reviewer might have started an interesting discussion on the strengths and weaknesses of the film. Nothing of the sort is possible here.)

@34: you cannot compare tarkovsky to malick. that is just plain absurd. leave the great tarkovsky out of this.

re: Mudede. Ok. Than why not prove everyone mistaken and actually say something of substance. Why not compare them? What distinguishes each? Say something please beyond name checking and prove that you can actually say something about film. The great unanswered question here is: why should we read you on film if you can't manage any specific commentary or thoughtful engagement?
Then again, it's not as if you write for a real publication, and it's not as if the New Yorker or Vanity Fair or Harpers or what have you are beating down your door for your services. Hegel would laugh at you. Marx would be downright hostile.

1) Saying that Terrence Malick is overrated is silly, because he's not highly rated. People are not discussing The Thin Red fucking Line in tones of awe and admiration; they aren't discussing it at all. He's made one movie that seems to have stood the test of time (Badlands). Here, let me review it without having seen it: it's probably tolerable.

2) I don't think there's an objective scale by which American Beauty could be considered anything other than a good movie.

@38 agreed....both points.

This review lost my interest once it was stated that he preferred Election over American Beauty due to humorous content?

And if your going to lump those two vastly different movies, might as well throw Ice Storm right in there under the bus, as it was a pretty humourless movie dealing with white suburban sex.

Don't get it and won't bother ever reading a movie review here again.

@ 35: OK, you're right, I'm overlooking how hilarious Stalker was, or that sideplitting scene where the protagonist learns nuclear war has broken out in The Sacrifice, and Solaris, well, do I even need to mention that laugh-a-minute (all 165 of them) riot? And then there's the legendary slapstick of Andrei Rublev. How I could have thought any of them resembled The Tree of Life I'll never know - no one would ever mistake the comic family melodrama of The Mirror for the work of that ponderous bore Malick.

Can I have your job? You don't seem to be doing anything with it other than trolling.

@40: you have not watched tarkovsky. the stalker falling on the grass and freaking out over invisible things. the ending of the sacrifice. For chriss sake, just the ending. (please go back and watch it.) the killing of the chicken in the mirror--watch that scene in its context, watch it closely. or the astronaut who trips in solaris. sure, tarkovsky is no woody allen, but boy can he can be funny.

Tarkovsky's only had this problem: he thought his father was a great poet. that belief almost destroyed the mirror.

You lost me when you said "Irreversible" owed more to Hitchcock than to Kubrick. "Irreversible" was the "Who's There?" to 2001's "Knock, Knock." 2001: Man became civilized by learning (being taught by space aliens) to consciously commit violence against other humans. Irreversible: Civilization ended because of anal sex. Until Vincent Cassell's character asked for anal sex, Monica Belluci's character was blissfully and immaculately pregnant with Kubrick's 2001 space child. The request for anal sex led directly to the anal rape and the vengeful murder in The Rectum (even symbolically the existence of The Rectum bar itself. Once Cassell's character asked for rear entry, the rest was inevitable and his request once uttered was irreversible.

The misanthropy of "Irreversible" makes Kubrick look like Pollyanna.

I don't think Kubrick was misanthropic. He was a critic -- and critical, but not always both -- of war, the media, technology. 2001 is not about monkeys, it is about the stick. Read Kubrick's playboy interview if you need to confirm his life-affirming values. But there's very little connection between Kubrick and Malick. Malick would never use only Christmas lights to illuminate one of his films. And yes, 34's right, Tree of Life owes a lot to Tarkovsky, especially the Mirror and parts of Solaris.

Debts are nothing -- just look at what Vanilla Sky (and its pallid predecessor) did to Vertigo.

But let's say for argument's sake that Kubrick is misanthropic and garbage because of it. Malick is the opposite, he has nothing but pure, almost naive (like you say, Lutheran) appreciation of existence. And like the Italian neorealists, he makes films that are very trying in their gravitas and profundity, and lack the enjoyment of literary and filmic references like other "intellectual" or "pretentious" films do. But they are singular, and look nothing like what we have seen before. We can, like so few other films, feel them resounding. Malick is the Turrell of film.

The last scene in ToL is really dumb and corny, though, and almost makes me think Malick has no idea what he's doing.

Come on, Charles just wants a laugh. Summer comedies will get him back on the horse.

@ 41: And the irony has now come full circle. Except that I have watched Tarkovsky, avidly, which means that unlike you, I'm actually qualified to compare the two.

@ 44: He does kind of lose his way at the end, but the earlier stuff - the origin of the universe, the central family section - is pretty fucking brilliant. He knows what he's doing there, he just didn't seem to know where to go with it.

I was not going to see the movie, but because of your "review" (without having seen it--you're such as ass), I bought a ticket immediately. It was too long, but for the first 75 minutes I was hoping that I was the one to make this film; maybe it's because I teach Biology and Astronomy and the human condition. People should at least see it.

Kubric's Paths to Glory is a sledgehammer of a film... for that alone he is worth huge respect. Any film 'critic' who can't recognize or get over his own predujices in his writing is just a guy with an opinion.

This is the worst film review I have ever read in my life.

I've never seen Charles Mudede, but I'm pretty sure from some of the misguided reviews he's written it's a fair assumption that I'd hate him. Hate of course is a strong word, and actually I would probably not hate him, even though I can't understand his point of view...which is the main reason I have read for most peoples' dislike of this film - they didn't get it. Well so what? There is nothing to "get". It's a movie, just like a symphony is a piece of music that does not need to be understood to enjoy. The premise that one can review a movie without seeing it is...patently absurd. "Tree of Life" was a great film experience for me, just as Kubrick films are also spectacular visual works of art (to me). Saying that Kubrick's films lack humor is quite a statement, and I'd like to ask Charles if he also reviewed "Dr. Strangelove" without watching it. I'm sure Mr. Mudede thinks he's being pretty clever with this review, but I can't help but think it is foolish and vacuous.

I've never seen Charles Mudede, but I'm pretty sure from some of the misguided reviews he's written it's a fair assumption that I'd hate him. Hate of course is a strong word, and actually I would probably not hate him, even though I can't understand his point of view...which is the main reason I have read for most peoples' dislike of this film - they didn't get it. Well so what? There is nothing to "get". It's a movie, just like a symphony is a piece of music that does not need to be understood to be enjoyed. The premise that one can review a movie without seeing it is...well it's patently absurd. "Tree of Life" was a great film experience for me, just as Kubrick films are also spectacular visual works of art (to me). Saying that Kubrick's films lack humor is quite a statement, and I'd like to ask Charles if he also reviewed "Dr. Strangelove" without watching it. I'm sure Mr. Mudede thinks he's being pretty clever with this review, but I can't help but think it is foolish and vacuous.

Mr. Mudede,

In your post you make a lot of assertions without providing any sort of evidence for those assertions. Would you care to provide us reasons for why we should think that Kubrick hated life itself, that Kubrick was at the very least a misanthrope (and even worse), that Kubrick was the most overrated director of all time (please note that being a misanthrope is not sufficient for being a bad director), that Malick is the second most overrated director of all time, etc.? Thank you.

Sh!t. I saw this and came here to find the best piece of snark written. Instead all I got was this typical lame Mudede wankfest (who hasn't even seen it). You're too cool charles, you always will be. Tell me how funny Police Beat is?