User Reviews

If you know Terrence Malick's work, then you pretty much know what you're walking into when you attend his movies. His films don't look, walk, talk or even sing like anyone else's. He is a cinema artist whose work is quiet, poetic and breaks away from the standard narrative, cutting down just enough plot and dialogue so they don't seem intrusive. With this stylistic approach, he is at work in a sea of mostly cookie-cutters. Other directors tread safe waters of action and romance while Malick is satisfied to let our expectations wade just a bit. We become lost in his tapestry of images. If you're willing to give yourself to his lyrical canvas, you find his work engrossing. If not, you'll find it frustrating and boring. It is strictly up to you.

"To the Wonder," his latest film, is an engaging cinematic poem that explores the mysterious chasms of the human heart. Wherein his last film "The Tree of Life" contrasted the evolution of the universe with his memories of growing up in Texas, this one tries to encompass the evolution of a relationship from courting, to settling in, to marriage, and eventually to its breakdown; all told with stunning images and a winsome soundtrack. What dialogue exists is heard in passing. We hear only what we need to hear, the visual canvas tells the story.

There isn't a lot that we need to be told in "To the Wonder" because, having experienced the rise and fall of relationships in our own lives, we recognize the situation. We meet Neil (Ben Affleck) and Marina (Olga Kurylenko), lovers who are spending time in Paris. He's an Oklahoman; she's a single mother from the Ukraine. We catch up with them after they have already fallen deeply in love in Paris at the pre-historic island of Mont Saint-Michel. Neil brings Marina home with him to Oklahoma, to an area where he works, overseeing the construction of a Southwestern suburb - moving from an ancient European preserve to the modern Middle-American world of rapid reconstruction (she is a stranger in a strange land). The sparseness of the dialogue symbolizes the lack of communication between them.

They settle into a life together, but then real life comes calling. They can't marry by sacrament of the Catholic church (she has an issue concerning a former marriage), among other normal everyday problems that occur in a relationship. What happens in their union is not surprising given what we know of them. They argue, they make mistakes, they reunite, they break-up, they make-up. They love each other from the depth of their being and their reaction to one another startles us. There is a moment when he becomes angry with her leaving her stranded by the side of the road, but what he does next is surprising. You don't see it in other films.

What is surprising is the way in which their story is told. Malick breaks away from the phony, Hallmark version of romance that is obtrusive in most Hollywood romances by telling us just enough about these people to allow us to care deeply about them. Ben Affleck, who has reinvented himself as a director and a much more focused actor, uses his screen-presence to great effect. He is the masculine part of this equation. Olga Kurylenko (seen this month in the Tom Cruise adventure "Oblivion") is an extraordinarily beautiful Ukranian actress, possessing a face and an essence that Vermeer might have captured on canvas. We're less familiar with her than we are with Affleck, and that make her much more of a mystery to us.

Their story is compelling, but it is only part of a larger canvas. Another story happening around them focuses on a Spanish priest Father Quintana (Javier Bardem), who has come to Oklahoma, making him another stranger in a strange land. His eyes tell us everything that we need to know. He is a servant of God, devoted to his work but whose heart is feeling the pangs of emptiness. All around him are people in joy and pain. He officiates a wedding, later he visits inmates at a prison. He visits the sick and the elderly, but there is doubt in his eyes. He wonders about his placement in God's service, has he given himself to the cloth at the expense of a joyful life? There is also the suspicion that he is feeling confined by his vows. He can officiate, and comfort but as a priest he is unable to have a life of his own. He sees lovers getting married but he knows that he can never experience this. Bardem, in his best work, is an actor who can speak volumes without speaking a word. It's all there in his face. In mainstream films, he plays villains as in "Skyfall" or his Oscar-winning performance in "No Country for Old Men", but this role proves that he can also be quietly and powerfully introspective.

Malick's films are not for everyone. There has been a mixed reaction to this film from critics who charge that he has made a film of empty images. You might agree or disagree depending on your point of view. This is not a popcorn movie by any stretch of the imagination. It is a work of art, a symphony of images with very few words. It is one of those movies that, on the surface seems baffling and incomprehensible, but the deeper we look the more it reveals.

**** (of four)

Attending the official screening at the 'Sala Grande' at the Venice film festival. The applause for the attending actors finally stops and I find myself waiting with some excitement for a film created by one of the most praised directors of the moment, lining up some great names like Ben Affleck, Rachel McAdams, Javier Bardem and Olga Kurylenko. I was also expecting another great actress to appear on the screen, Rachel Weisz. I would soon find out that she was being cut out, and some more were. It is not the first time this happens. Malick has a notable history of cutting actors out of his films, which is of course his good right.

After a typical romantic scene in Paris, more resembling a travel advert then anything else, I start to get nervous. Why? Because the romantic blah-blah doesn't seem to stop. An overhead voice speaking french doesn't make a movie artistic. Loosely filmed scenes in corn fields are not per definition beautiful.

Kurylenko, in the role of Marina, comes to the hometown of Neil (Affleck), some nowhere ville in Oklahoma where they continue their fairytale romance. Kurylenko is constantly doing little dances and pirouettes on the street, or where-ever she is located. Giggling, singing, hopping on the bed, and looking over her shoulder while laughing towards the camera. That kind of sums it up, since Affleck hardly speaks a word. He is just the typical guy and she is just the typical so called-artistic-french-loving-and-beautiful girl. After she and her daughter return to Paris, he has a identical affair with his hometown sweetheart (McAdams), as if super attractive women are just available everywhere. Then Kurylenko returns, because she needs a Greencard. Explained in just one very meaningful phrase "Forgive me" they have a fight. Also very typical (but yes, finally some action!). Of course some kind of vase is shattered and its all tears and gestures.

Then suddenly Javier Bardem appears as a priest seeking spiritual fulfillment in a church. These scenes seem detached from the rest of the story, although the same church is visited by other characters. Some cleaning personnel and people who are 'worn down by life' are also given some screen time, placed randomly into the movie (in high contrast to the blazing beauty of the main characters).

The religious undertone becomes stronger and stronger towards the end of the movie, making it all too clear that love and religion are one and the same. And that all of the Hallmark-inspired beauty seen before must be powered by the divine.

Enforcing religion onto an audience reminds me of brainwashing, and it is something I cannot appreciate. Showing religion in a movie is no problem; since it is a part of most people's lives, but trying to emotionally convey someone to a certain religion, doesn't matter which one, should be a priest's job not a film director's.

I must say I admire the wish to look upon cinema in new ways, and I can see very clearly what the idea was for making this movie: Malick tries to tell a story by not showing the key moments, conversations or explanations: he shows the in-between. The silent moments, 'life'.

This is how the movie fails: there doesn't seem to anything in-between. The emotions seem empty, love seems superficial, religion is fake.

The thing is, I applaud to art cinema, I am very much fond of romantic stories, I love it when a filmmaker pays attention to cinematography. Maybe all of this made me more disappointed in "To The Wonder" then anyone else.

After it was finished some applause but also loud booing was heard from the audience. I sure wasn't the only one frustrated and appalled by this movie.

Terrence Malick's only misfire as far as I'm concerned, To the Wonder is the movie his detractors have always accused him of making: rarefied, overlong and in desperate need of a stronger screenplay to sustain the dazzling visual talent of the director.

A meditation on love and loss, the movie follows the lives of Neil (Affleck), Marina (Kurylenko), Jane (McAdams) and Father Quintana (Bardem). Sadly, unlike in previous, better efforts by the director (The Thin Red Line, Days of Heaven), the sparse narrative isn't anchored by sharply defined characters. Neil is a bland cipher, Marina a capricious woman whose mood swings (it's implied she has a bipolar disorder) are meant to give an illusion of depth. McAdams in an all-too-brief appearance fares better as the vulnerable Jane; Bardem's sequences are the highlights of the movie, as his burnt-out Padre is by far the most intriguing character.

6/10

The newest film by director Terrance Malick (Badlands, The Thin Red Line, The Tree of Life) is an ambitious, beautiful and moving piece of cinema, starring Ben Affleck, Olga Kurylenko, Rachel McAdams and Javier Bardem. To The Wonder is mostly set in a small town in Oaklahoma and tells the love story of Neil (Ben Affleck) and Marina (Olga Kurylenko) which spans over the course of many years as they go through they're trials and emotional hardships. I will start off by saying that this is one of my favorite films of 2013 so far.

Though it has received mainly mixed reviews i managed to thoroughly enjoy it. One of the films major strong points is the cinematography. Terrance Malick has proved countless times that he is a master at capturing beautiful images with such films as "Badlands" and the more well known "The Tree of Life". The style and cinematography is very reminiscent of "The Tree of Life" in the sense that it alters between the regular story and a series of images from nature. Which in a sense can damage the story and be rather off-putting. Although i, personally felt it added to the overall feeling and increased the atmosphere of the film. The film deals with such subjects as the yearning for fulfillment in life and how people search aimlessly for happiness when they don't fully understand what they're looking for. If i had to summarize my interpretation of the film i would have to say that To The Wonder is an analysis of the human condition because it shows how people contemplate they're own faith, make mistakes and most importantly learn from those mistakes. My major issue with this film is that there is little or no character development at all and how underused Javier Bardem and Rachel Mcadams were. I felt if the story had also revolved around they're characters the film would have been more interesting and dynamic. Although Terrance Malick has been known to over-edit his films and shamelessly cut out pivotal plot points of the story.

The actors do a overall good job at portraying their characters, but they feel as if they were background extras in Terrance Malick's vision. To The Wonder is a fascinating piece of cinema and more of an artistic experience than a film, some may see it as pretentious, but i really liked it. I would recommend it to fans of Terrance Malick and people who are open minded to unconventional films.

According to this site, the DP for Terrence Malick's TO THE WONDER brags that this flick is the most "abstract" movie ever made. Fine and dandy. But let's accept this premise, and examine the faulty and deceptive advertising such an admission implies. If someone told you the 2014 Chevy Camaro was the "best tasting car" GM has ever made, would that be useful information? Assuming it was true, would that mean automobile consumers have had a hankering all these decades to EAT THEIR CARS and GM had finally jumped on it? Or would it mean that GM was film-flamming the public by trying to create a "need" where none existed, spending precious R & D resources (and jacking up the sticker price of Camaros) with money better spent on cup holders, airbags, gas mileage improvements, or not charged to buyers in the first place? Sure, they have "abstract" paintings in some museums, but NO ONE IS CHARGED TEN BUCKS TO SEE ONE ABSTRACT PAINTING! Further, no museum would stay open long by advertising traditional art and presenting only a big room full of sunflower seeds with a few wood chips mixed in. TO THE WONDER is the screen equivalent of seeds and wood chips, but movie theater chains are showing it (and charging admission for it) as if it were a REAL MOVIE with an understandable plot, characters, actions, and point. Terrence Malik could chew up a million pieces of gum, paste them all over a gallery, and call it "art" (or a "movie"), but no self-respecting museum would charge the public ten bucks plus with no clue as to what they were paying for. Yet American movie theater chains are doing exactly that with TO THE WONDER. Shame on them and Malik for stealing our money!!

This is a great movie ..... FOR SELLING TVS!!! I cannot find any other good use for this excuse of a movie.

I'm not kidding, in a point of the film, they run out of landscapes footages and they throw some TURTLES at us! SERIOUSLY?!?! I mean, what does the poor turtle has to do with anything? I just hope the turtle's payment was at least as big as Ben's, because they get about the same number of lines. Or should I say whispers.

That's another thing in this movie that is incredibly annoying: there are no dialogues! Only some random whisperings.

The Tree of Life was bad, but To the Wonder takes it to a whole new level of badness!

Summary: "I love you." (silence) "Let's get married." (more silence) "I need a visa." (Guess what? More silence) Then she leaves. There is also a random priest going through some middle age crisis.

And they make it goes for 2 hours by adding a bunch of Nat Geo footages.

Just a final comment: PLEASE, IF YOU DIDN'T GET THE MOVIE, IT DOES NOT MEAN IT IS A GOOD OR A CULT MOVIE! I don't know how anyone can give this movie a 10. It's like "I've no idea what the movie was about, so it must have been good." or "if I say I didn't get it, people will think I dumb."

And I don't respect who give it a 5 by saying "the story deserves a 0, but it is so pretty that I will give it a 5". They are saying that no matter what you throw at then, if it is mixed with some 'LED TVs add material', it deserves at least 5.

This is the worst movie I have ever seen. It's not a movie it's a screensaver. There is no dialogue except whispered incomplete voiceovers. There is no plot and no character development. There is nice moody classical music and nice moody visuals of people walking and twirling around in fields, supermarkets, streets, houses and churches, interrupted with domestic violence. It's two hours long and nothing happens.

Do not buy or rent this movie. You will have more fun choosing some of your favourite music and watching the gorgeous screensavers on your AppleTV or similar streaming device. This movie is such torture it's probably shown 24 hours a day in Guantanamo Bay prison.

Tree of frickin' Life was better than this! At least it had a story, characters, conflict, redemption, a dramatic arc blah, blah, besides the pretty meditative images of sunlight through trees and inscrutable close-ups.

Ben Affleck is bored, frustrated and angry but maintains an expressionless impassivity throughout. It doesn't matter because we mostly see the back of his head or parts of his work wear anyway. He doesn't have any dialogue at all.

Olga Kurylenko, who has the classic face of a European beauty, plays an undiagnosed, untreated bi-polar single mother who falls in love with Affleck in France, (the title has something to do with the French tourist attraction Mont St Michel) and thinks she needs to live with him in America. She spends most of the time regretting this decision and by turns, taunting and seducing her boyfriend to get some kind of reaction out of him. They grow to hate each other but not as much as the audience hates both of them.

Olga's visa runs out so she takes her daughter back to Paris, where she's lonely because her (obviously sensible) daughter leaves to live with her father and is much happier with him. Olga is unemployed and moping, dreaming of the USA again. She returns to Ben and managers to convince Ben to marry her for a green card. (Bad idea, because meanwhile, Ben has the hots for a normal mid-western American girl who won't do it with him). So he and Olga have a miserable little marriage in a miserable little town and the autumn sunsets are pretty.

The only two interesting people are the priest having a crisis of faith, played by Javier Bardem and the sweet object of Ben's lust played by Rachel McAdams who is a virginal horse whisperer or something to do with horses. Neither of these two characters are given a story line, much less a narrative arc, although if Ben and Olga somehow died in a car accident and the other two took over the movie it would have been much better... Horse Whisperer goes to Father Javier for confession - Father J falls for the pretty blond and wants to leave The Church - the steadfast faith and pure, simple life lead by the Horse Whisperer instead reignite Father's faith in God and his plan, - the Horse Whisperer joins Father J in his good work counselling and consoling the poor and the incarcerated, and they start a business training ex-cons to be ranch-hands or something... sorry I was daydreaming. This movie will do that to you.

Anyway, back with poor Ben and crazy Olga, at one point Olga goes onto a rooftop to look at the sky, (AGAIN) and I couldn't help yelling JUMP! at the screen. This Malick monstrosity is designed to play on a screen in an art gallery on an endless loop for passers-by to gawk at as if it's a work of art. Pretentious European crap. Avoid at all costs.

For the people who gave this film 5 or 6 because the scenery is pretty - well the cinematography isn't really that good and it's mostly shot in low light in some cold, boring part of the mid-west which most people would just fly over anyway. The story of the tragic lives of the poor locals (visited by the priest) could have made a much more engrossing film.

For the people giving this film a 9 or a 10, you're just doing that to inflate your sense of cultural superiority. These days you don't have to go to film festivals to see arthouse films, they're all over the streaming services, so everyone's seen them. It's just that this one is a complete failure.