Voyage of Time: The IMAX Experience

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.