The Sea of Trees

A24 | Release Date: August 26, 2016

5.1	USER SCORE Mixed or average reviews based on 38 Ratings

USER RATING DISTRIBUTION

Positive:

Mixed:

Negative:

Watch Now

Buy on

Stream On

Expand

Review this movie

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Please sign in or create an account before writing a review.

Check box if your review contains spoilers

0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User score By date Most helpful

SpangleNov 9, 2016

I have seen far worse films than The Sea of Trees. Honestly, its harsh reaction at Cannes in 2015 feels as though it was quite unfair. Make no mistake, the film is not great. However, there are great elements within its mess of a story andI have seen far worse films than The Sea of Trees. Honestly, its harsh reaction at Cannes in 2015 feels as though it was quite unfair. Make no mistake, the film is not great. However, there are great elements within its mess of a story and the film is hardly worth laughing at. That said, the Cannes audience can be quite harsh and the film's sentimentality is certainly for everyone. While predictable, The Sea of Trees can be a moving tearjerker at times, but only when it really wants to be. Otherwise, it is a film that can seriously drag at times with incredible tonal shifts.

Jumping from suicide introspective to survival film to relationship drama to a heart warming and sentimental conclusion, The Sea of Trees struggles most often when in the forest. Traveling to the "Suicide Forest" in Japan, Arthur Brennan (Matthew McConaughey) is a heartbroken and depressed man who meets another man, Takumi Nakamura (Ken Watanabe) just as he is set to kill himself. What follows is the duo trying to get out of the forest with flashbacks to Arthur's life with his wife, Joan (Naomi Watts). It is in these flashbacks that the film truly delivers on its promise of being a thoroughly emotional film.

With a great relationship created between Arthur and Joan, director Gus Van Sant knows how to pull on the audience's heart strings. Though his approach is often obvious and predictable (the ambulance sequence), the film could work as a sentimental look at love and loss. However, Van Sant becomes obsessed with the forest. Though the forest is always lovingly shot by cinematographer Kasper Tuxen, there is not much of a story here. The survival element is silly and merely distracts from what the rest of the film is trying to accomplish. McConaughey and Watanabe just limp around the forest moaning in pain with very little to do and, as such, the film suffers greatly.

That said, one of the best moments does come in the forest when Arthur talks about his relationship with Joan, both the highs, the lows, and why he is in the forest. Here, the film finds it emotional power with McConaughey's great delivery of this monologue. From there on out, the film really turns into the emotional drama it should have been, though the punches it does throw are quite obvious. If you watch the film, you should have an idea by the 100th time Watanabe's character mentions the spirits in the forest. It is as if the film does not trust its audience to get it, so it starts laying the bread crumbs (heh) along the way to help lead you home.

This is why it is so unfortunate that the film itself gets lost in the forest. The forest, while interesting for a suicide drama, is not the focus in any world. The real dramatic juice comes from Arthur and Joan's relationship and that should have been the focus with flash forwards to Arthur in the forest with Takumi. Or, at the very least, not have them be lost in the forest, getting hurt, and struggling to get out. If Van Sant insisted on going in that direction, then it needed to be a straight forward survival drama where these two men learn they do want to live with no flashbacks. In other words, there were far better options than what we got, which is far too little of the flashbacks and far too much of the forest.

Now, what makes the flashbacks so great? Well, the film really instills them with an odd sort of warmth. Though what it shows can be quite the opposite, the flashbacks have a feeling that is unique within the film and capture the sentimentality the film wishes to imbue upon the audience. Essentially, it is this sentimentality for those near you whom you love and care about, even if things are not always great. The Sea of Trees captures this perfectly and is why these sequences work so well for the film.

Unfortunately, these scenes not plentiful enough. Instead, we get a film that jumps all over the place getting to its ending, drags heavily in the middle, and takes too long to get to the point. It is an unfortunate that this one wasted Watanabe entirely in a meaningless role and wasted good performances from McConaughey and Watts. As it stands, The Sea of Trees is not boo or laugh worthy, it is solely disappointment worthy given its promising cast, director, and positive elements.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

DecTheWallsMar 22, 2017

I really don't understand the extreme harsh reviews. The film is too long for the story and starts a bit slow as well as there being some unlikely or highly coincidental moments but there is so much emotion in the characters of this film andI really don't understand the extreme harsh reviews. The film is too long for the story and starts a bit slow as well as there being some unlikely or highly coincidental moments but there is so much emotion in the characters of this film and Mcconaughey especially relays this beautifully. Many tearful moments and a very satisfying ending. Impressive cinematography although a somewhat predictable score. The relationship between Watts and Mcconaughey is full of real emotion, grounded in reality.

Definitely worth the watch overall, however there are flaws to look past.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

MattBrady99Sep 2, 2016

I can't remember the last time I wanted to see a film so badly just to see what all the bad reception was about. For what was my most anticipated movie of 2015 to suddenly get forgotten after one screening at a festival, which that alone isI can't remember the last time I wanted to see a film so badly just to see what all the bad reception was about. For what was my most anticipated movie of 2015 to suddenly get forgotten after one screening at a festival, which that alone is bad sigh that your movie is bad. I loved "Elephant" and I couldn't wait to see this, but my heart sank after seeing the bad press the film got from the Cannes screening. Even reading the bad reviews I still couldn't get a gasp of how this turned out bad and it only made me want to see the movie even more.

And I finally got a chance to watch it and while I don't think it's as awful as people have said, but this is unfortunately a messy film that could have easily been good. If only it was in the right hands.

I remember a time when I couldn't stand McConaughey, but he really has proven himself as an actor that it eventually did win me over. And in this movie I would say that McConaughey did a decent performance and in the scenes where the character is having a breakdown I thought he was pretty good. Unfortunately it wasn't a great performance and that's because there was plenty of times where I found myself laughing at the wrong moments. There's a scene in this movie where McConaughey character falls over and lands straight down onto his face, and the sound of him in pain was so weird but laughable at the same time. I can't believe Gus Van Sant looked at that scene and thought it was good. Like, Come on Gus.

Gus Van Sant has made many movies that I liked and some that I consider misfires. But I personally think that this is Gus Van Sant biggest misfire, because there's nothing special in the film making and a lot of things felt like it was missing something. It lacks detail and there's so many things in this that I felt was a miss opportunity of being great. And the cheap flashback scenes really do drag this out and wasn't that interesting that I kinda zoned out every time it cuts back. It would have been great if there was a little bit of Mystery to McConaughey character of why he's there and what is he's motivations to bring himself to do this and drop little hints to get us thinking. But instead we get lazy flashback scenes with him and his wife (played by Naomi Watts) that makes it very clear straight away of what he's motivation are for ending he's life, because it's that predictable.

This movie is so predictable that I saw a lot of things coming. Like if a scene seems a bit too happy (for a depressing movie like this), you know something bad is going to happen and of course something bad happens. This really hurts the movie in terms of the emotional elements, because when there's tragic or emotional happening, I'm not really feeling it as I saw it coming miles away.

For a premise like this, that involves two suicidal people lost deep in the Forrest that's known for people going there to take their own lives, should at least been interesting. It should have a took a risk by asking unique and challenging questions that would make you think.

What really makes us so alive?

Or

What's the reason to stay alive?

It should have challenge you as an audience member and while some may disagree with it, at least it gets you talking.

Overall rating: The Sea of Trees was dull, empty and a massive disappointment. But hey, at least I finally know why this was panned by critics.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

DotTheEyesAug 26, 2016

American teacher Arthur (Matthew McConaughey) flies to Japan to end his life in the island nation's quote-unquote suicide forest. Just as he prepares to overdose, a Japanese man (Ken Watanabe) emerges from the trees, his clothes filthy andAmerican teacher Arthur (Matthew McConaughey) flies to Japan to end his life in the island nation's quote-unquote suicide forest. Just as he prepares to overdose, a Japanese man (Ken Watanabe) emerges from the trees, his clothes filthy and his wrists bleeding. Arthur agrees to delay his fatal plan to help the stranger find the trail, but both men realize they are lost, leaving them to endure the cold and navigate treacherous ground as they also reflect on what drew them to this foreboding place. For Arthur, the primary reason involves his intense, troubled relationship with his alcoholic wife (Naomi Watts). Gus Van Sant is one of my absolute favorite directors, but The Sea of Trees may be his worst film, unfortunately. He is as in control of aesthetic and mood as ever—the forest is an enigmatic and gorgeous location, alternately a deep, verdant dream realm and an eerie place of dense shadow and biting wind—and draws credible-if-overwrought performances from McConaughey and Watts, though Watanabe is hamstrung by a role too obviously designed to be exotic, inscrutable, and oh so wise. And this brings us to the film's chief problem: the screenplay by Buried writer Chris Sparling is uneven and at times simply abominable. To call it contrived is an understatement: there is obvious trouble when a slice-of-life grief drama leans on Rube Goldberg-style twists and turns, each more maudlin than the next and often requiring laborious remember-this-earlier-moment?/it-was-a-clue! explanation. The interplay of past and present is arbitrary and disorganized, the two prongs stunting the momentum of each other, and so many of the small details (the way certain lines are crafted, certain tensions introduced) ring false, defusing any potential emotional investment even as the music swells and totems of faux-import—mystical orchids, an unopened envelope—crowd the frame.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews