The predominant attack against Malick, woefully undeserved in my book, is that his films are pretentious. But to me, when a group of people are arguing that your film is showy and overindulgent while a more respected group is claiming said film is brilliant and breathtaking, I tend to side with the more respected group (plus I evaluate the reasons behind the detractors criticism).

For one thing, Malick's films have always been divisive. Too many moviegoers just CANNOT appreciate intellectually driven, spectacularly shot, moving art. The vast majority of viewers want immediate gratification, relatively easy-to-follow narratives, cool action set pieces and visuals; that kind of stuff (which I also thoroughly appreciate and enjoy). Malick is the antithesis of this style. That reason is precisely why people deride his work, and it's incredibly unfair. There's a reason actors/producers/fans want to work with this guy—they know he takes his work painstakingly serious. Heck, the guy's a friggen Rhodes Scholar.

The critics that claim Tree of Life is pretentious are the same people who claim Kubrick's 2001 is pretentious. At a certain point, you have to ignore misguided sentiment. Critics mistake slow developing films for boring. While said films certainly can be, with Malick (given his track record), you can more readily understand his calculating, methodical pacing.

You probably haven't seen Badlands or Days of Heaven? Either movie would illustrate his genius. Martin Sheen said Badlands is the Best Movie he's EVER worked on (and he was in Apocalypse Now).

You have to appreciate Malick's movies as moving works of art; the breathtaking imagery, the deeply rooted philosophical underpinnings, the purposeful, perfectionist arrangement of shots and sequences...I can go on and on. Malick wants his audience to think critically about his movies. If a moviegoer doesn't take the ample time to really watch his film, feeling it is bland and visually/philosophically indulgent, then they are selling him short, criminally so. He wants you to think about his movies after the credits roll, sort of dissect the proceedings. I appreciate that approach.

I can easily defend him more thoroughly, but I've got to get back to work.

And Drive does look like a good movie.

LOL, well said my friend. And your take on LVT's antics are right on the ball.

I'm a dyed-in-the-wool believer in Cannes. Pulp Fiction's magical ride into our consciousness (a film we can all agree is FANTASTIC) began at Cannes, when it won the Palme d'Or; an honor it now shares with Tree of Life. I'm peeping it on opening day.