Call it a feeling...a sexy feeling!


No seriously. From the magnificent song from Baraka in the trailer to the (clearly) stunning images, I think the film get it.


It's like Geisha's quieter sister, in a way. Both are period pieces centred around a young woman. Except, I think this one will go all the way.

I hope so. I'm actually cheering for this more than Munich.

I hope Munich will die a ghastly death, so I'm definitely cheering more for this than for that one

I dont know, theres been some pretty damn good reviews so far, but some people also say how it might not really find an audience because of the pacing. Devin from Chud said it's very boring, pretty much if you arent too fond of Malick's other work you wont really enjoy this one either.

It might beat Memoir in some technical awards, but winning best picture? Slim to none, it's chances at being nominated are 50/50

I dont know if this was posted yet.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,177418,00.html#2

Pocahontas on Acid: New Malick Movie

I did get to see an advance screening yesterday afternoon of Terrence Malick’s new movie, "The New World." This is a much-anticipated New Line Cinema release for Christmas, with high hopes for awards, etc.

Malick directed one of my all time favorite movies, "Days of Heaven," as well as the much respected “Badlands” and "The Thin Red Line." He’s a noted recluse and eccentric, not bad things at all.

"The New World" is set in 1608-1616 mostly on the Virginia shore near Jamestown. It tells the story, sort of, of a romantic triangle involving Pocahontas, Capt. John Smith and English aristocrat John Rolfe.

In many ways the story is similar to that of "Days of Heaven," which revolved around a triangle — Richard Gere, Brooke Adams and Sam Shephard. "New World" has the same dreamy texture, with breathtaking, award-winning cinematography and music that sounds like Wagner’s "Gotterdammerung."

However: in most ways “The New World” is surreal, slow, confusing, choppy and just plain weird. I mean this in the best way — it’s really interesting filmmaking. But it’s also psychedelic and kooky.

For one thing, Smith and Rolfe are played by Colin Farrell — doing his first real work as an actor and movie star that counts — and an always reliable Christian Bale. With makeup, they each look like they’re in their late 30s.

Pocahontas (Q'Orianka Kilcher), however, is a child. She was 14 when they shot the movie, and, attractive as she is, she still a child.

Malick used 16-year-old Linda Manz in “Days of Heaven” as a wise narrator, but she wasn’t the object of anyone’s affection. It worked beautifully.

Here, I had a lot of trouble believing the love stories — and not just because of Kilcher’s age. Her narration was mumbled a lot, and I can’t recall anyone explaining how she learns English so fast. As for Farrell, he has a lot of inner monologues — there is very little dialogue in the movie at all.

Then there is the matter of nothing happening for a long time. It’s only at the 90 minute mark that there’s a real bloody skirmish between the Indians and the Brits.

It doesn’t last long, however. About 35 minutes or so later, the movie finally picks up unexpected speed when Rolfe takes Pocahontas to England. Malick’s eye is so keen that putting Pocahontas in this setting suddenly enlivens the entire film.

It may be too late, though. At that point, we’ve spent too much time in the Virginia woods.

You will find much brilliance in "The New World." Sometimes I felt like Malick made the dioramas at the American Museum of Natural History come alive. The scenes on the ships are enough to keep you captivated.

But I worry that "The New World" won’t find a mass audience. I wish it didn’t have to. Malick is a superior filmmaker. This film may turn out to have critical legs, but it’s almost too much to digest in the face of "King Kong," "Munich," "Memoirs of a Geisha," "Match Point," "Mrs. Henderson Presents," "Capote," "Walk the Line," "Transamerica" and other more, shall we say, coherent productions.

I hope it is good. I think if it was made out of rainbows and puppy dogs it probably wouldn't win. Malick just tends to be more... complex than ye olde average director.

But yeah, I hope it is good.

Reviews for Malick movies tend to contain a lot of hyperbole.

A 14 year old girl not a young woman.

Well, I pegged The New World, Geisha and Munich as frontrunners about 8-9 months ago, so it would be nice if I was right.

But I am still shaky on it....need more reviews.

8-9 months ago that wasn't all that hArd a call to make, though...

I mean...go read that early thread on Brokeback Mountain...people were like...100% down on that, and i'm pretty sure that was just in July.

:O

That's what passed for young woman back then.


Ok, I think The Last Emperor is a better comparison. The child was at the centre there too, and it too looked gorgeous.

Actually, to be fair, I guess that was more about it's box-office.

but yknow

I think I read somewhere that the real Pochahontas was 11. So 14 years old is generous.

She was 13 when she (apparently) saved John Smith, but she was 19 by the time she married John Rolfe.

Wait, Pocahontas was a real person? Really? I don't think so...:/

She definitely was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocahontas

hm. ok...but.

hm, nm

The more the others stick around, the more I do think New World might walk away with the win. Geisha ended up turning off too many people, Good night and Good Luck is to stylized, austere, and well, *small* to win. I don't know what the fifth entry will be. I personally think munich has no chance. Regardless of how good it is, and it will get alot of noms, it won't get the win. How many times can Spielberg win covering some horrible incident that involved Jews. He's got two Oscars for that already, both within the last decade.

As far as I'm concerned its between New World, Walk the Line, and as a yet unknown film. Walk the Line just didn't wow anyone over. it's a safe nom, pleasant enough, and will have a handful of acting noms to go with it, but it won't, and shouldn't win. What's left? New World, and unknown film. So we shall see, but things are looking mighty bright for New World right now if it can hold 75-80 approval rating over at RT.

no offense, dolce, but i think youre a lil bit insane.

Munich has no chance? That's ridiculous. I just dont understand that thinking.

And I dont understand why you think theres some film out there not currently being discussed that has a chance?

I mean...like WHAT? It's Dec 5. Everything coming out has been screened, basically. Just check the release dates thread, its all there to pick from.

I dunno, I could see the justification for counting out Memoirs, GNGL, and even Brokeback to a degree...Leaving New World with a fighting chance. But to say munich is a definite no win is...yeah, like i said, kinda insane.

Munich will gets a dozen nominations and be very well received. I'm not saying it won't win due to inferior quality or anything of the sort (I have yet to see it). I'm simply wondering if "they" will give Spielberg another win for doing yet another movie where the primary situation is violence against Jews. Even if its not, and he focuses more on the media present, the international experience, etc, most people who have to pen the winner will probably also remember The Last Days (Spielberg was a producer, it got best doc) and Schindler's List. And its not like The New World is some light and fluffy musical number. Its between two traumatic events that changed the course of international relations.

Well keep in mind, when you say "give Spielberg another win", SPR is widely considerd to be robbed of Best Picture. Since then, he's released a number of releases that are considered to be a much more mature Spielberg. So I'd almost argue he's considered more due then "won enough."

I´m not sure... but I don´t think that "Catch me if you can", "A.I.", or "The terminal" make him due in the eyes of anyone.

http://www.metacritic.com/video/titles/ai
http://www.metacritic.com/video/titles/minorityreport
http://www.metacritic.com/video/titles/catchmeifyoucan
http://www.metacritic.com/video/titles/terminal
http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/waroftheworlds

That's an average of 70 for the five films, which is a damn strong following line up. It doesn't make him due, but he certainly has earned his keep.

Eastwood was hardly "due" either last year. Not more than Scorsese at least. I don't think it will decide that much. If Munich is at least of SPR's quality, its Best Picture win is assured.

Still, not an average good enough to consider him due. And he was not nominated for any of those films. Eastwood at least had been nominated the previous year for "Mystic river"

I don´t know how much of a factor the "due" thing can be, but if that was that important, Malick would win, hands down. And Ang Lee would come second. Neither Mangold, Clooney or Marshall can be considered "due" at all. Or Spielberg. Not for a BD Oscar, anyway. I still think he is the frontrunner, and if "Munich is well received, the award is his to lose.

I think we will see a BP/BD split this year. Spielberg is, indeed, not due for Best Director and directors rarely ever win three times. Malick is a good contender for that one, I think.

But Best Picture is Munich's as of now.

Yep, I agree. Unless "Munich" is considered a total masterpiece, do they need to reward Spielberg again, with Malink and Lee on the running?

I bring up Lee cause he´s been nominated twice, never won. And in his last nomination, he won the DGA but lost the Oscar, something extremely rare.