Not so long ago, I posted this on Twitter: “I have an idea: Compare The Tree of Life to Enter the Void.” Steven Shaviro, one of America’s leading culture theorists and critics, responded with this post: “Makes sense, because both Tree of Life and Enter the Void are essentially remakes of 2001.” This is a great place to begin my negative review of a film I have not seen and will probably never see.
I’m a big fan of Gaspar Noé’s first two films, I Stand Alone and Irreversible (they owe a debt to the great Alfred Hitchcock). Enter the Void, however, failed because it owed nothing to Hitchcock and everything to Stanley Kubrick, the most overrated director of the 20th century. I would not even call Kubrick’s cinema misanthropic; it’s worse than that. It hates not human life, but life itself. This is the hate of a priest, but at least the priest offers his followers another world after life. With Kubrick, we get nothing but the hate. The second most overrated director of the 20th century (and the most overrated director of this century) is Terrence Malick, and the fact that his new film owes a debt to Kubrick spells big trouble for us all.
I made another post on Twitter: “The Tree of Life will be to Enter the Void what American Beauty is to Election.” What did I mean by this? American Beauty and Election are about the same thing: the sexual behaviors of white suburbanites. Both films are not great—but one, American Beauty, is much worse than the other, Election. Why? Because American Beauty has no laughter. It’s totally serious. The sexuality of white suburbanites turns out to be a surface that can be easily peeled to reveal the truth: The sexy Lolita is actually a virgin, the homophobic military father turns out to be gay, the horny married man turns out to be a decent chap with principles. And all of this is done with all seriousness. Election is less oppressive because it has a sense of humor.
And this is the problem with Malick’s cinema. It is so damn serious and heavy and deliberate and slow. But this heaviness is empty because that is all it is: heavy. We get nothing out of these films but the dead weight of lost hours. Malick has no social information and, worst of all, no humor. The ending of Enter the Void is great because it is hilarious. The film concludes with a huge penis (huge if you are watching it in a theater) thrusting into a vulva and ejaculating at us. Wow. How can you beat that: the cosmic by way of the comic? (One day I will tweet this: It’s instructive to compare the end of Enter the Void with the end of Dr. Strangelove.)
I heard from someone who may or may not be reliable that Malick’s film has a boy narrator. This boy talks to God, asking deep questions like: Why am I here? How did I get here? Where are you? Now, it’s very possible The Tree of Life has no such thing, no boy talking to God. But even if this is the case, it still sounds like something you’d expect to find in a Malick film. It’s Malickian for a boy (innocence) to talk to God (experience). How heavy and dull. How Heideggerian. How Eckhartian. How Lutheran. Indeed, wasn’t it Luther who went on and on about keeping life silent so that he could hear (be open to) the word of God? Pure mystical nonsense.
Then there is the title of the film. That title says everything we need to know: The Tree of Life. 
I don’t know anything about you. Some people might respect your opinionI guess, but the only thing this review tells me is that you’re an idiot. Go watch American Pie or something.
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.
What annoys me most about this pompous ass is that his supposed “marxism” is just a mask for his own misanthropy and just a way for him to talk about himself and how apparently smart he is, endlessly.
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?
I could poop in a plastic bag, flatten it, take a picture and post it to my Twitter account. In so doing, I would have contributed more artistic value to the world than the sum total of Charles Mudede’s writing career.
American Beauty and Election were ABOUT “the sexual behaviors of white suburbanites?” Kubrick’s cinema “hates life itself?” Tree of Life and Enter The Void “are essentially remakes of 2001?” The ending of Enter the Void is “hilarious?” Wow, this guy is viewing stuff on a totally different plane of existence than myself. What a bunch of odd assertions . . . really very strange, but I guess it at least might get some people riled up and maybe that’s good for something? But honestly I have a hard time even seeing the point in that. To Each His Own I Guess
Every time I accidentally read a Mudede article I feel like I’ve been trolled. I start reading, think “What is this crap? Oh shit, I bet it’s another Mudede article! Damn it, trolled again!”
Hiring Mudede has got to be the longest running inside joke in Stranger history. And the most annoying.