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.

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.

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.