People are voting emotionally.

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

I knew mostly what I was in for. I've seen a few of Malicks other work. So I expected basically another glorified cinematography showreel. And for the most part that is what I got. And yes, it is stunningly beautiful. Also, a couple of my favourite films of all time are the works of Ron Fricke. Beautiful imagery set to music and sound effects. So I'm no stranger to these "documentary" films. When they are left to their own devices they can be the closest thing to a transcendent experience that a stonehearted heathen like myself is ever going to achieve (hyperbolae, but I guess you get waht I'm getting at). This isn't the usual educational Macgivilray Freeman Docu short that usually has screentime at natural museums. So let's not expect that either.What really holds this film (I have only been able to see the feature length Cate Blanchett version) back is essentially the narration. If Malick could just let the images speak for themselves it would not feel nearly as vapid and navel-gazing. Imagine if we had a chance to take in what we are seeing instead of hearing the interruptions of the rambling infantile questions directed at a anthropomosised mother earth. Just imagine then what kind of conclusions we could get to if not hindered by a director that, I'm starting to suspect, have some serious parental issues. And on a smaller note I'd say that the random miniDV footage may have its place in the story that is being told. But I've seen quite a few IMAX documentaries and I suspect that in the giant screen 40 min version the miniDV is either not present at all, or if present the size of non IMAX footage is usually reduced to only a small part of the screen. This is done for two reasons, first, it lessens the dramatically pixelized and almost no dynamic range nature of the cheap miniDV. But mostly it helps contrast the grandure of the 15/65 footage. Having it as tall as the imax sourced parts does neither part any favor. Also. It may be just me. But I feel that the character cgi wasn't as jawdroppingly seamless as the dinosaurs in Tree of Life (where we first got a real peak at this long gestating project). I see in the featurette that Douglas Trumbul wasn't the VFX supervisor, so that may be it? The space stuff is flawless but the cgi animals were surprisingly lacking in simulated weight and realism. So yeah. Mostly jawdroppingly stunning visuals. Sound design will give a good home system a nice workout, the music is mostly christian church choirs which isn't really my thing but the main complaint is that darned nothingness of a narration. Some films are released with separate music and effects tracks... This one would greatly benefit from a bonus feature like that!

Some stunning photography of the beauty, complexity and diversity of life on this planet, showing creatures that could never have evolved. I found that very compelling the way it was emphasized.Confirms what most of us already knew. Maybe this would be good for schoolchildren to see who are confused about all the conflicting evolution theories.The underwater shots were magnificent. We saw incredible and very unusual fish that I'd never seen before. I had to look them up on the computer to get their names.It was funny seeing the Australian Aborigines in the outback looking at that ostrich. I guess the producer didn't know they have emus not ostriches in Australia. There were a few mistakes like that, but not many.The strangest parts were where it flashes back and forth to all those odd culture and religious practices. Some of that was brutal and strange. Didn't seem to fit the flow of the movie.Oh, and the poem read by Cate Blanchett to her mother was interesting but didn't really fit. It would have been better if she had told us more about these unusual animals all through the movie.Overall I was impressed. It was a little disjointed, but some great photography.

This film is a collage of scenes from astronomy, physical geography, marine biology and anthropology.I've watched many Terence Malick's recent films, so I know what to expect. It certainly does contain many visually beautiful scenes, that I would marvel at when I watch the National Geographic or the Discovery Channel. However, I'm not watching these channels. The narration tries to make the film sound deep and profound, but ultimately it isn't. It's a pretentious pseudo-philosophical film.

A gorgeous and visually perfect documentary, that is not educational, but it's kind of art, meditative and lyrical essay on the deepest possible theme - astonishment over nature, space and life on Earth. Just few words, mostly narrated by very fascinating and impressive visual. I like Malick's poetic art a lot, it's hard to find in the whole cinematography a director who could create at least a similarly fascinating visuals as this genius. Its close to be perfect, I only miss stronger emotions or better story, e.g. The Thin Red Line (best antiwar movie) or Days of Heaven I find phenomenal.