Voyage of Time (2016) User Reviews

An interesting experiment that mostly works

[Jeremy_Urquhart · 7/10 · 29 November 2022]

How do you condense the story of the universe into just 45 minutes? Well, you need:

• Poetic and vague voiceover narration from Brad Pitt
• Beautiful images
• A keen ear for music to match to said images, and
• To be Terrence Malick

I think this mostly works. It really does aim to encompass as much as it can in less than an hour, all with the patient pacing most Malick films have. It makes for an interesting experience. Sometimes, it feels a little too abstract, but other moments are quite powerful.

Still, it feels like a companion piece to Tree of Life, and almost like an extended version of that film's birth of the universe sequence. I don't think it's nearly as powerful as that sequence in that film, but it scratches a similar itch. Parts near the end reminded me a little of Koyaanisqatsi, too. It's also not nearly as good an exploration of Planet Earth and its inhabitants as that iconic documentary is.

But for any grievances I have, this documentary/art film is still very impressive. I know something would have been lost from having watched it at home, too, instead of an IMAX screen, so I'm willing to be a little more generous when it comes to rating this.

2016: A Malick Odyssey

[TroliusMaximus · 8/10 · 3 October 2017]

This film does not require much of a description... or, rather, it kind of defies it. However, given the paucity of extant reviews at time of writing, I thought I'd throw in my 2 shekels worth (NB: Nothing worse than few or zero reviews for one to scope out a potential viewing with... and without the ye olde forums to call upon for forewarning, going in blind is very risky nowadays).

'Voyage of Time' is essentially the hypnotic space sequences of Kubrick's 1968 seminal work, combined with 'HD Star Gaze'-type spacescape porn, and a sprinkling of the trademark Malick, meandering copy pasta (*the shtick is now getting to the point of overuse, that it almost feels vacuous... no "flowing curtains" here, though) thrown in for, err... coherence(?).

Do not see this expecting another 'Thin Red Line' or 'Days of Heaven' ― this is seemingly far more of an indulgence for Malick, than anything approaching an opus. The film is good ― do not misconstrue. It's just that it's more a spacescape with some evanescent Blanchett ruminations about "mutter" (?) ― then book-ended with an Australian aboriginal (perhaps inspired by the {vocal} presence of said actress... dunno) take on the '2001' director's famous "chimpanzee / Monolith" scenes ― than a film with a coherent tale underpinning its wistful veneer. There is a narrative one can interpolate here, but it's a 'each to their own' kind of offering.

I feel asleep watching this (twice)... But only because of how dreamy its visuals were; not because it was boring per se.

My God! It's made of 8 stars / 10.

See it on the biggest screen possible.

[MOscarbradley · 7/10 · 14 January 2022]

Not short enough to be a short and not long enough to be a feature, Terrence Malick's "Voyage of Time", (subtitled, 'The IMAX Experience' to give you an idea what kind of screen you should see it on), is like an extended sequence from "The Tree of Life" or outtakes from "2001; A Space Odyssey" and is visually superb as we might expect from Malick but it's hardly informative and even at 46 minutes is just as likely to bore as to enthrall.

Brad Pitt is the narrator who asks us do we ever wonder where we came from when we look at the stars or when did dust become life. Malick doesn't tell us and you will almost certainly get more information from a David Attenborough documentary than from this. That said, it looks amazing in ways that even Attenborough can't match and to Malick's credit he does ponder 'big' questions as if the asking itself is enough to satisfy the lack of an answer and anyone remotely interested in the visual power of cinema won't want to miss it and yes, see it on the biggest screen possible. There's also a 90 minute version, narrated by Cate Blanchet, and still awaiting a release.

Brilliant visual storytelling. (Director's Cut)

[steve-1794 · 9/10 · 10 April 2017]

I find most IMAX-specific films to be boring, pedestrian, and not very challenging. The visuals are great but the filmmaker often spoon feeds the viewer into understanding what is being shown. You don't get challenged and you don't have to think.

Not so with this film. Terrence Malick is a filmmaker who pushes the boundaries of cinematic storytelling. Because I was seeing the Director's Cut of this IMAX feature (that doesn't include Brad Pitt's narration) I wasn't sure how much Malick would concede to an audience who wants a thrill ride not a serious feature. I'm happy to report that he doesn't make any trade-offs with this excursion.

The film captures all about the evolution of life, the passage of time, and our minuscule and fragile participation in this enormous universe. By weaving jaw dropping visuals of the birth of our solar system and the constant push for life to continue to survive, Malick challenges the viewer to define their place within it. He juxtaposes these visions of birth and death with a small girl walking within a field. His point? That we got where we are by all the things that have gone on before us. And yet, he brilliantly shows us how our current selves are not entirely unique, we share the same needs (food), the same ego (leaving hand prints on rocks), and the same joys of family (laughing with children) as our ancestors from thousands of years ago. We do not live amongst nature, we are a part of it.

To those who decry that it is "boring" I suggest that when watching a Terrence Malick film you need to pay attention. Don't settle on being a passive observer, engage with the film. If you do, you will experience tremendous riches.

Modern Masterpiece

[yusufpiskin · 9/10 · 17 December 2021]

One of the greatest living directors; Terrence Malick.

One of the greatest living cinematographers is Paul Atkins.

And one of the best producer/actress in the world, Brad Pitt...

And our topic is space/time.

I have watched it 2 times already, I will watch this masterpiece at least 20 more times.

My recommendation; Watch with a good TV/Projection and sound system.

Masterpiece.

Harmonious dance of science, philosophy, and religion

[pyblain · 10/10 · 28 March 2022]

It's astonishing how fortunate we are to feel the way we do when watching nature unfold. This majestic and ethereal spectacle that warms our hearts. If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, we must feel infinitely thankful for how evolution shaped us in a way that lets us marvel so profoundly at nature.

The more we learn about how humans work, how society works, how civilization works, how biology and physics work, how the collapse of a star will impact distant galaxies, the more we realize that everything is connected. Time and space is one sandbox in which infinitely small events play with other ones of unbounded cosmological proportions, all in a perfectly deterministic manner.

This teaches us that the only way we can feel what we're all truly looking for, which is to be loved, is to show our love to the world. To show it to other people, to animals, to plants, to the wind, to nature. Because nature is everything there is to know, and love. Because you are nature. Because loving nature is loving yourself. And the more you will learn about the world, the more this will all make sense.

This is what this movie is about.

One of Malick's triumphs, and his shortest feature (or featurette)

[Quinoa1984 · 9/10 · 22 August 2023]

Finally watching this just as Mr. Malick intended (he deserves a Mister after his long and monolithic career, probably), on... MUBI. Well, it's the only way to watch this version (for now)! Why isn't this playing on National Cinema Day? Oh, well, let's go on this voyage and see what time I gain in 45 minutes...

(later) Wow, that was not the quickest nor the slowest 45 minutes of my life. It is... 45 minutes! It went by fully in exactly that amouny of time because of the grandeur on display that Malick and his special effects wizards conjure so vividly and ecstatically - Dan Glass the supervisor, who also worked a lot for better or worse with the Wachowskis in this century - to do nothing else but put you into awe at IMAX-frames per second. And I'd love to see it the intended format someday, if the opportunity presented itself, since it's without doubt the director and his team made this for the largest 20 foot story screens with a few dozen speakers and tracks going to blast you into the entire sonic symphony of the choral voices and orchestral majesty that this also puts you in.

This is easily criticized for being just more of the same that we saw with a human story in the context of The Tree of Life, and I dont doubt on some level Malick sees Voyage as another experiment in compliment of but not directly connected to that film (I admittedly haven't seen the other cut, it seems unavailable in the US for now). But that is also what makes Voyage in Time special as a pure shot of philosophical-poet-visual Planetarium-Maximus. These filmmakers mean to do nothing short of putting you into a context that you can't fully comprehend but you still feel anyway as... this is where it starts.

Everything, as in, the universe colliding upon itself this way and that through particles and gasses and things that would require an astronomer to unpack and even then what's the use when it's all on randomness and improbable chaos, and then what that leads to on Earth as the beginnings of life and death take hold. There are many arresting, bombastic images and Tableaus (and dinosaurs!) and so little time relatively to cover it all, not just in the space of how long the Earth has been here, but in comparison with other IMAX films, which this clocks as average. Yet the intensity of the spectacle, the thoughtfulness, comes not from Pitt's narration, which is written to be as blunt about the absolutism of Malick's ideology of nature's boundless forces and how humanity will never stop taking it for granted (or, conversely, can simply appreciate it more), but from the mere showing of all this itself.

To go back to my earlier point with Tree of Life, it's the scale and spectacle of what the universe does in its own cosmic poetical ways, about (hold laughter please) our caring and empathy for the planet to be paramount and our societies connecting back to what chaotic particles wrought, and given what is happening to nature in the world at present (hottest year recorded, ever), that should stop us in our tracks. And it does. This is all to say Voyage in Time is impressive most as an appreciation by the Grand Old Pure Hippie of American cinema (pure in his connection to the roots of the planet and Space and time, not the consumerist or druggie aspects) and if it stops short at a point where it could keep going it may just be for the best.

Aided by some astoundingly gifted collaborators, and some nifty IMAX 70mm film stock, it's best to temper your expectations depending on who you are - it isn't the Grand consciousness-expanding opera of Tree of Life (nor does it have that film's spots of ostentatious excesses), and it isn't the big PLANETS documentary you see in 4K with a stuffy British Narrator. It is... somewhere in between as an epic transcendentalist waking dream with eyes and ears opens and electrified in the experimental bliss and simple wisdom it unfurls, and I'm satisfied.

Like watching wallpapers

[andipopescu · 5/10 · 8 January 2022]

Nothing new, visually or otherwise. It's not even boring, it's just plain dull and unengaging. Watched it on MUBI and the best they could do apparently was 1080p, so I got to see all the artefacts and downsampling that just rendered it practically unwatchable. Just watch BBC's Planet Earth or Cosmos instead.

Pretentious...

[andyruth792004 · 3/10 · 20 February 2022]

Just like most of Malick's work from the last 20 years, pretentious, over-the-top, and boring. Some of the imagery and effects were good, except for the shots that were just made up nonsense. You don't even know what it is that you're watching when these appear, you'll know them when you see it. Also, Brad Pitt's whispering random words every 10 seconds seem to be just incoherent gibberish. Like a bad attempt at poetry? Pass on this one.

Boring boring boring

[elenaphysics · 2/10 · 11 January 2022]

As a scientist myself I enjoy this type of documentaries. I have watched plenty of documentary series on the universe and I always search for more bcs my kids like them as well. I can say without any hesitation that this was one of the worst I have ever watched. Very dull and boring Zero explanation.

I have watched youtube videos far more interesting.

I did not watch it on IMAX. Maybe there ,the cinematic experience would be better.

But on TV is is almost unbearable to watch.

I am really disappointed.

Don't watch when you're even a bit sleep deprived

[trantor2nd · 5/10 · 21 October 2016]

A very slow film with little narration. The CGI blends seamlessly and is undetectable. Many (scientific) inaccuracies though, either from artistic expression or from ignorance. I viewed this at the Smithsonian's laser iMAX for $9. What I thought would be the highlight of my trip to Washington turned out to be the trough. This was the newest iMAX film there (and made especially for the Air & Space Museum?) and with the most renowned director and narrator. I only realized afterwards why it had only a single showing compared to the other films. The iMAX theater was not any better than the one back home, and I dozed off a few times.

Pretentious

[TheKing2 · 2/10 · 25 March 2022]

Sometime along recording Sir Brad Pitt must have realized how PRETENTIOUS his lines are. Not his fault but he should have shown some respect to the awesome art directors and said "light....." , "dark....." , ehm, hey wait a minute, are seriously kidding me? Who wrote this crap?