Visually stunning in every frame, but the storytelling is incoherent at best. Affleck was also a miscast. He just doesn't have the depth to portray the lead in Malick's spiritual experimental film. I think the movie would have been more interesting if Affleck's and Bardem's roles were swapped.

This movie litterally wasted two hours of my life that I'll never get back!!!!! It has a FANTASTIC CAST with Ben Affleck, Rachel McAdams and Olga Kurylenko. But I litterally almost DIED OF BOREDOM when i wasn't falling asleep.....because of boredom!!!! One of those DEEP THOUGHT movies with almost NOTHING to think about. I'm a fan of these actors........but the movie was simply terrible!!!!!!!!

Disliked by many for not being a traditional Hollywood film, but only reaffirming Terrence Malick’s talents

Wasting of almost two hours of my life. 🙄

No plot, no acting, no meaningful dialog. Artsy to a fault, to the point of zero anything. A totally useless and meaning less waste of time.

Love makes us one, is there nothing else we need if we love each other?, where are we when we are at the place we end up?, love is not only a feeling, it's a duty The movie is gorgeously filmed, has breathtaking cinematography, a top-notch cast, and some spiritual music Some might get annoyed with the fish eye lens and this ends up being emotionally vacant throughout But the film's intent is told through fractured memories and mainly asks what happens to love and where does it go after it fades You can just take the film in for what it is as an experience if not an entirely coherent, after all this is how Terrence Malick approaches the human subtext This gathers the nature of love, the love of nature, and the silence of God's loving ness and the beauty of compassion

Often painfully pretentious, too much artsiness and not enough clear narrative to be able to relate to these characters. I couldn't genuinely care about them and the lack of dialogue didn't help. Impressionism works in paintings, not so much on film. Ben Affleck is wooden as Neil, Kurylenko's character Marina is too child-like, fey and childish to command respect. Malick's women including McAdams' character are poorly delineated, flitting and twirling as if that is what it takes to get Neil to fall in love with them. With good intentions gone awry, Malick just indulged himself at the expense of his audience and actors. I kept fastforwarding to get it over with. Couldn't figure out the time sequences which was frustrating and couldn't engage even with the religion/spirituality storyline featuring Bardem. Love is passion as well as piquancy and constancy. Marina was too piquant and not genuinely loving because she wasn't grounded. Affleck's character Neil was so grounded he was killing her by clipping her wings. Oklahoma's barren, uncultured terrain didn't help, although it served its purpose to accentuate how love could go from gorgeous, romantic Mont St Michel to the lacklustre dustbowl of the American Midwest when it was transplanted. I actually detested the whole experience as rather bloodless, in spite of the critic's rationalizations as to Malick's sincerity and artistry.

This one had the makings but strangley Affleck, McAdams & Kurylenko don't really do much here.

Filmed in an unconventional style where spoken dialogue is secondary! We see the characters thoughts and feelings through the use of subtitles! Terence Mallick is a visual poet! Here he is aided by the gorgeous cinematography of Emmanuel Lubezki and the glorious score of Hanan Townshend! Must have been like a busman's holiday for Ben Affleck who has very little to do here! There is the gorgeous Olga Kurylenko and briefly Rachel Adams! I particularly liked how the story of the priest having a crisis of faith was handled! Definitely deserves a second viewing! I am still in awe of 26 year old New Zealand composer Hanan Townshend's magnificent score!

A correlation between religious and soulful desires where people have what they are asking for in front of their face. A woman who innocently loved and trusted a man and saw everything in wonder to wondering how everything got so bad to where she only sees ugliness. The emotions are reflected in the color scheme of the shots, symbols like a clock and time, the guys skull tattoo and web to show what he represents. The fighting scenes were deep and happen in most relationships of pain, leave or go, same with Javier struggle with his faith, leave or go. It's also shows the consequences of those effected if you don't do the job you're supposed to do such as EPA testing and sickness, Javier with the drug addict at his door, her losing her child because of her personal life and giving up independence that she had. It's a beautiful film and if you are a visual person, you don't need any lines in this movie to follow it. But you have to be deep to follow it.

Love makes us one, is there nothing else we need if we love each other?, where are we when we are at the place we end up?, love is not only a feeling, it’s a duty The movie is gorgeously filmed, has breathtaking cinematography, a top-notch cast, and some spiritual music Some might get annoyed with the fish eye lens and this ends up being emotionally vacant throughout But the film’s intent is told through fractured memories and mainly asks what happens to love and where does it go after it fades You can just take the film in for what it is as an experience if not an entirely coherent, after all this is how Terrence Malick approaches the human subtext This gathers the nature of love, the love of nature, and the silence of God’s loving ness and the beauty of compassion

Another film that is more artistic than has any actual plot.

Wow, I can't take anymore. 19 minutes in. Ugh...I've never given below 3 stars before. I feel like Ben worked 1 single day for the entire movie. Then they just threw him into editing to try to bring it all together. Sheesh, like no effort at all, or the writer was just too far into the clouds. Into the Clouds should have been the name of it.

Lot of people miss the whole point about this movie life is a mystery is only a dream!

This is a movie for Terrence Malick fans only. If you enjoy his films, this isn't his best, but it is worth watching. If you don't enjoy his films, this one will not change your opinion.

If you think the title is strange, wait until you see the movie. It is unusual at best. There is dialogue but most of the narrative is provided by narration and many times in French, translated to subtitles so you know what is said -- not that it matters. Not sure what fits where or the purpose for the presentation in this manner. It is difficult to know if anyone has a job or what anyone does to make money to exist. That may not be important but certainly is a curiosity. Why is everyone always whispering? The scene changes frequently and it is difficult to tell if that goes with the story. Exactly what is the story? There is arguing and fighting. loving, and reconciliation, in the same scene. What does the priest have to do with the main characters' walk through their lives? This movie is bizarre, difficult to follow, and, at times loses its continuity -- maybe that's what the director wanted.

Terrence Malick: "We did pretty good the last time I shot a movie in a wheat field, and at the golden hour. Let's try some of that again." With a director that absolutely refuses to abandon his taste for sparse, supposedly impactful narration, To the Wonder fails to compensate for its high-minded design with some of Malick's creative and engaging imagery (the cinematography is there, but the subject matter isn't). So in substituting much of the beautiful natural scenery that the director is known for capturing for midwestern McMansions and conflicts based around suburban sadness (and more intimate and profound personal crises), the audience is essentially forced to decide whether or not they actually like what post-2000 Malick is about, particularly his fluid plot design and the seemingly volatile emotional states that he imparts on his characters. While the film certainly explores an unusual hidden significance and drama in what is essentially an everyday setting (the soul, for lack of a better term) and often looks dang good doing it, overall To the Wonder just didn't pull me in; the poetic style that trades objectivity and plot progression for lyricism is polarizing for many, and I guess I skew more conventional on Wednesday nights. I get that pure believability is not Malick's intention, but it's a plot point that a woman from Europe ends up missing Oklahoma of all places such that she eventually has to go back. (2.5/5)

Okay, this was a beautiful film but it was a little too abstract. I didn't quite get the story or characters.

Terrence Malick's experiment was worth trying. The plot in this film is never clearly laid out. Most scenes are 20 seconds or less, and there is some jumping backward in time. Ben Affleck has VERY little to do. Olga Kurylenko and Javier Bardem are very good. The cinematography is enchanting, as is the score. But overall I consider the attempt a failure. There are numerous threads left dangling, which I am certain was deliberate; it did not suit me.

The vain attempts to replicate what has been achieved in "The Tree of Life" gets out of hand. Malick gets lost in useless mannerisms and seems unable to get rid of his rhetorical. Instead of learning from what he did in the past and delving into some recurring themes, growing up as an author, he gets lost in an orgy of magniloquence and pedantry. Urgent need to reinvent himself.