The Sea of Trees

Name: The Sea of Trees
Genre: Drama
Released: August 26, 2016
Duration: 110 min
Rating: 23
Cast: Ken Watanabe, Matthew McConaughey, Naomi Watts

2016

METASCORE

Generally unfavorable reviews based on 18 Critic Reviews

See All

USER SCORE

Mixed or average reviews based on 36 Ratings

See All

5.1

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

5.1	Your Score
5.1	User Score Mixed or average reviews based on 36 Ratings

Would you like to write a review?

There is a 75 character minimum for reviews. If your review contains spoilers, please check the Spoiler box. Please do not use ALL CAPS. There is no linking or other HTML allowed. Your review may be edited for content. 0/5000

Check box if your review contains spoilers

Play Sound

Please enter your birth date to watch this video:

You are not allowed to view this material at this time.

The Sea Of Trees

Now Playing: The Sea Of Trees

Movie Details & Credits

A24 | Release Date: August 26, 2016 | PG-13

Starring: Ken Watanabe, Matthew McConaughey, Naomi Watts

Summary: Arthur Brennan (Matthew McConaughey), an American professor, travels to Japan in the midst of a personal crisis. As he wanders through a mysterious forest with a dark past, he experiences flashbacks of his fraught but loving relationship with his wife, Joan (Naomi Watts), and meets an enigmatic stranger, Takumi (Ken Watanabe), who is lostArthur Brennan (Matthew McConaughey), an American professor, travels to Japan in the midst of a personal crisis. As he wanders through a mysterious forest with a dark past, he experiences flashbacks of his fraught but loving relationship with his wife, Joan (Naomi Watts), and meets an enigmatic stranger, Takumi (Ken Watanabe), who is lost and injured. Arthur devotes himself to saving Takumi and returning him home to safety, and the two embark on a spiritual, life-changing journey of friendship, discovery, and healing—one which may ultimately re-connect Arthur with his love for his wife. [A24]… Expand

Director: Gus Van Sant

Genre(s): Drama

Rating: PG-13

Runtime: 110 min

See All Details and Credits

Watch Now

Buy on

Stream On

Metascore

Positive:

Mixed:

Negative:

Critic Reviews

Gary Goldstein

Aug 25, 2016

The Sea of Trees proves a stronger movie experience than one might expect. It’s anchored by a fine, understated performance by Matthew McConaughey and a deeply felt, if at times melodramatic, story that proves strangely immersive. Read full review

John Bleasdale

May 23, 2015

It has to be said that Van Sant is not above doing one for the studio but quite what sins he had committed to be made to make this pile of sub-Nicolas Sparks tripe will be beyond most. Read full review

Charles Gant

May 23, 2015

As all the dots join in a pattern that strives for deeper meaning, the just too-damned-cute Sea of Trees becomes undone by a surfeit of contrived ingenuity. Read full review

IndieWire Eric Kohn

May 23, 2015

Not even Matthew McConaughey can sustain the mushy, amateurish story, which digs itself a deeper hole as it moves along. The established talents of both director and star only serve to magnify the many wrong moves that this stunning misfire takes. Read full review

RogerEbert.com Brian Tallerico

Aug 26, 2016

On paper, it feels like a can’t-miss, especially when one considers how much it plays with themes that Van Sant has often - brilliantly explored before. Movies don’t exist on paper. And this one’s a mess. Read full review

Ignatiy Vishnevetsky

Aug 24, 2016

As it turns out, there is something worse than Nicholas Sparks, the king of morbid romantic kitsch, and that’s a Nicholas Sparks pretender with highfalutin pretensions. Read full review

The Playlist Oliver Lyttelton

May 23, 2015

From the cloying, ever-present score to the complete lack of narrative momentum, it all adds up to a film that's easily Van Sant's worst, and is a sad black mark on McConaughey's mostly excellent recent run. Ultimately, Sea Of Trees feels like an entirely appropriate title: it makes you feel like you're drowning, and it's full of sap. Read full review

SEE ALL 18 REVIEWS

Write a Review

User Reviews

Experiences

Aug 31, 2016

What's in a movie ? - That it makes you think and feel in meaningful ways. Well, this one did, for me. I think it is an important movie, with distinct character. For me, it was immersive. I dont know much about "Film Theory", and I think much of the down-nose critique reflects the writers'What's in a movie ? - That it makes you think and feel in meaningful ways. Well, this one did, for me. I think it is an important movie, with distinct character. For me, it was immersive. I dont know much about "Film Theory", and I think much of the down-nose critique reflects the writers' own phobias.… Expand

3 of 4 users found this helpful31

Xenogears

Dec 14, 2017

The elitism spewing out of the American paid reviewer community is mind boggling. Do everyone a favour and go cure cancer, then at least your efforts would have substance. I saw this from a completely different angle than the reviewers - in which I found the plot and direction to be solid,The elitism spewing out of the American paid reviewer community is mind boggling. Do everyone a favour and go cure cancer, then at least your efforts would have substance. I saw this from a completely different angle than the reviewers - in which I found the plot and direction to be solid, but casting to be really off. If some solid indie actors that were not tainted by trying so hard to please the oscars panel were put in the leading roles - it could have been understated, eerie and profound. I dont give a damn about some over thought and over done performance - subtlety, true subtlety, was missing from the American cast. Maybe my view on this film being an eight is only due to the shyte show the professional reviewers created but I enjoyed the plot, enjoyed the message and appreciated the non linear angle. Just the acting really let this down for me - a perfect example of trying too hard to be subtle to appease the ridiculously shallow and overhyped hollywood "overlords" hell bent on inducing extremes.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

Eilidh2

Sep 1, 2016

I watched this on VOD. I expected to be bored stiff or infuriated or even laugh - given the reviews.

I don't know why the film inspired such vitriol. The ending was Shymalanesque so it was somewhat annoying, or would have been but McConaughey totally sold it. The Shinto religiousI watched this on VOD. I expected to be bored stiff or infuriated or even laugh - given the reviews.

I don't know why the film inspired such vitriol. The ending was Shymalanesque so it was somewhat annoying, or would have been but McConaughey totally sold it. The Shinto religious undertones were probably disturbing to Western critics. If the film had been made in Japanese by a Japanese director, I assure you it would be proclaimed a masterpiece!

Ken Watanabe and Matthew McConaughey work very well together and give great performances and the scenes of them wandering lost in the forest are powerful (and beautifully photographed). Hats off to the cinematographer.

The film has flashbacks to McConaughey's life with Naomi Watts (whose character has died before the film begins). Some of these work well, others less well and the screenwriter introduced a silly, soap operaish plot contrivance that the film could have done without.

If there are films focussing on suicidal ideation, I've never seen them. It's a topic which could be very depressing (and did it disturb the critics more than they would openly admit?) or enlightening. Sea of Trees addresses the issue honestly for the most part.

The story is original. The plot is original. The setting is original. The acting is superb. It's not a masterpiece, but it's among the best films I've seen during this horrible-for-movies summer.

The film is far more successful than the critics gave it credit for.… Expand

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

DecTheWalls

Mar 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 and Mcconaughey especially relays this beautifully.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 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

Spangle

Nov 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 and the film is hardly worth laughing at. That said, theI 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

MattBrady99

Sep 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 is bad sigh that your movie is bad. I loved "Elephant"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 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

Thegodfatherson

Aug 26, 2016

An awful film that hammers its own extremely talented cast and shoves them into a lousy drag for two hours. The Sea Of Trees is a horribly long, weakly executed and poorly made film. It makes you wonder what Van Sant slipped into Kidman and McConnaghuy's drinks and made them sign up for this trash.

2 of 5 users found this helpful23

SEE ALL 9 REVIEWS