It took forty years. Seriously. While most directors are worrying about their next weekend box office numbers, Terrence Malick was busy thinking about the literal beginning of the universe. He started conceptualizing what would become the movie Voyage of Time back in the late seventies under the working title Q. It’s a project that makes most "epic" films look like home movies. This isn't just a documentary; it’s a cosmic tone poem that tries to squeeze the history of everything—from the Big Bang to the eventual collapse of the sun—into a single cinematic experience.
Honestly, it's kind of a miracle it even exists.
The film isn't a David Attenborough special. There are no cute meerkats doing funny things to a jaunty score. Instead, you get a sprawling, visual-heavy meditation on existence itself. If you’ve seen The Tree of Life, you remember that fifteen-minute sequence where the movie just stops being a 1950s family drama and starts showing you nebulae and dinosaurs. That was basically the pilot for this. Malick decided that the "history of the universe" bit deserved its own stage.
The Weird Logic of Two Different Versions
One thing people always get tripped up on is that there isn't just one version of the movie Voyage of Time. There are two. And they are wildly different vibes.
First, there’s Voyage of Time: Life’s Journey. This is the 90-minute feature-length version narrated by Cate Blanchett. It’s poetic. It’s dense. Blanchett’s narration sounds like she’s whispering secrets to the universe, asking "Mother" (nature/God/the void) why things are the way they are. It’s meant for the art-house crowd who doesn't mind a bit of existential dread with their popcorn.
Then you have Voyage of Time: The IMAX Experience. This one is only 45 minutes long and narrated by Brad Pitt. It’s punchier. It’s designed to be seen on a screen the size of a building. Pitt’s narration is more grounded, more like a guide than a philosopher. Most people actually prefer the shorter version because it feels like a shot of pure awe straight to the brain without the slower pacing of the Blanchett cut.
👉 See also: Is Heroes and Villains Legit? What You Need to Know Before Buying
How They Actually Filmed the Big Bang
You’d think a movie like this would be 100% CGI. It isn't.
Dan Glass, the visual effects supervisor who also worked on The Matrix, has talked extensively about how they used "chemical photography." They didn't just sit in front of a computer. They went to labs. They filmed chemical reactions in petri dishes. They used high-speed cameras to capture fluids mixing, smoke, and lights reflected through glass to create the appearance of galaxies forming.
This gives the movie Voyage of Time a texture that feels... real. Organic. When you see a cell dividing or a star exploding, your brain registers it differently than it does a Marvel movie explosion. It feels heavy. Malick and his team, including cinematographer Paul Atkins, traveled to locations like the Chilean deserts, the volcanoes of Iceland, and the depths of the ocean to find "primordial" Earth. They wanted to capture the planet in its rawest state.
- The VFX Philosophy: Use practical effects whenever possible to maintain a sense of "truth."
- The Research: Malick consulted with a fleet of advisors, including Dr. Andrew Knoll, a Fisher Professor of Natural History at Harvard. They weren't just guessing; they wanted the science of the Precambrian era to be as accurate as possible.
- The Edit: It took years. Malick is famous for finding the movie in the editing room, often discarding entire plotlines or characters. In this case, he was discarding entire epochs.
Why Some People Absolutely Hate It
Let's be real: for a lot of viewers, this movie is a total slog. If you go into it expecting a narrative, you're going to be frustrated. There are no characters. There is no plot. It’s just... being.
Critics often point out that the narration can feel a bit "extra." Cate Blanchett asking "Mother, where are you?" while looking at a jellyfish can feel a little bit like a high schooler's poetry journal if you're not in the right headspace. It’s a polarizing piece of art. Some see it as the pinnacle of what cinema can do—transporting us across time and space—while others see it as a glorified screensaver with a big budget.
✨ Don't miss: Jack Blocker American Idol Journey: What Most People Get Wrong
But here’s the thing: Malick doesn't care. He’s always been an outsider in Hollywood. After Days of Heaven in 1978, he basically vanished for twenty years. He lives in his own world. The movie Voyage of Time is the ultimate expression of that. It’s a film that asks you to stop checking your phone, sit in the dark, and realize how tiny you are. It’s humbling.
The Scientific Backbone
Despite the flowery narration, the science is surprisingly solid. Dr. Andrew Knoll helped ensure that the representation of early life—like the "Ediacaran" organisms that look more like quilted air mattresses than animals—was based on the latest paleontological findings.
They looked at:
- Fluid dynamics to simulate gas giants.
- The way light refracts in extreme environments.
- The morphology of prehistoric creatures (yes, there are dinosaurs, but they don't look like Jurassic Park).
One of the most striking sequences involves a group of early hominids. They aren't "actors in suits" in the traditional sense; they are filmed with a documentary-style handheld camera that makes it feel like you’re a time traveler spying on your ancestors. It’s gritty and weird. It’s not the "March of Progress" version of evolution we see in textbooks. It’s messy.
Is It Worth Watching Now?
If you can find an IMAX theater showing a revival, yes. Absolutely.
🔗 Read more: Why American Beauty by the Grateful Dead is Still the Gold Standard of Americana
Watching the movie Voyage of Time on a laptop or a phone is like trying to appreciate the Grand Canyon by looking at a postcard. It’s about scale. The film uses a massive 1.43:1 aspect ratio for the IMAX version, filling your entire field of vision. It’s an assault on the senses in the best way possible.
In a world where we are constantly bombarded by 15-second TikToks and "content" designed to be forgotten the moment it ends, Malick’s work is the opposite. It’s slow. It’s demanding. It’s basically a religious experience for people who don't like religion. It’s about the sheer, improbable luck of us being here at all.
How to Get the Most Out of Voyage of Time
To really appreciate what Malick was doing, you have to change how you watch. Don't look for a story. Look for patterns.
- Watch the IMAX version first. It’s more accessible and visually denser.
- Listen to the score. Ennio Morricone (yes, that Morricone) and others contributed music that makes the imagery feel ancient and sacred.
- Ignore the "Mother" stuff if it bugs you. Just look at the screen. The visuals of the protoplanetary disk and the birth of the moon are worth the price of admission alone.
- Research the "Deep Time" concept. The movie makes way more sense if you understand the scale of billions of years versus the blip of human history.
The movie Voyage of Time reminds us that the Earth was fine before us and will probably be fine long after we’re gone. It’s a bit of a cold comfort, sure, but it’s a beautiful one. It’s a film that stays with you, popping into your head whenever you look at a star or a puddle and realize they're made of the same stuff.
To truly experience this, seek out the 4K restoration if you have a high-end home theater setup. Most streaming versions don't do the bit-rate justice, and you'll lose the fine detail in the "chemical photography" sequences. Check your local library or specialty film shops for the Blu-ray "Life’s Journey" cut to see the full, unhurried vision Malick spent half his life trying to capture. It’s not just a movie; it’s a monument.