I wanted to see it last week, but they'd already dumped it.

You know what I think? I think Mav should see New World asap.

If he likes it, it might be the only time Myself, Loyal, and Mav have ever all liked a movie. If he hates it, then it would just be his return for us hating Crash. Then we could fight about it alot, this thread would finally out-length all other review threads, New World would get more attention, and all would be good and happy anyways.

BEST
IDEA
EVER

B-

Stunning cinematography and moments of indescribible beauty and power, but the whole thing seems so shapeless, so confused.

I was really feeling those last minute cuts, especially at the beginning. The editing was downright baffling at points, especially the first 15 minutes or so.

But the film could occasionally be so beautiful I wanted to cry. I'm holding out hope that the longer cut lets the film breathe and flow like it needs to. At that length, perhaps it could be the masterpiece some of you are suggesting. Although, some of the voice-overs had me laughing out loud at the sheer portentousness on display.

It's funny. I remember when this project was announced. At the time I thought, "Hmm...I wondered if they've gotten in touch with Wes Studi's people yet?"

That's gotta be quite a burden for him, what with being the only actor qualified to play a Native American role.

I saw a version that was near 20 minutes longer than everyone else's. I'm not sure where most of the chopping was done though, maybe of the front? But some other people here have mentioned a scene half-way through that was missing, so maybe there. Apparently it was even longer (40 min) before going to theatre, so that's going to be on the DVD.

What parts almost made you cry?



What do you mean? I know several other consistent (and oft used) actors like Gary Farmer and Tantoo Cardinal. But I think Malick pulled Geisha, and just cast according to who he thought fit the role, etc. Then filled smaller roles with Native Americans. It's pretty common. Though I remember Kilcher had some background. Born in Germany, roots in South America, etc.

The pacing is slow but the movie still manages to generate some interest. I would normally rate this movie a B.

Due to the extremely painful and annoying presence of Mr. Dickwad aka Colin Farell, the movie loses all credibilty.


Rating: F-

Your grade dropped from a B to an F- because of Colin Farrell?

He wasn't good, but not that bad.

Yep. With somebody else in the lead, the movie would have been fine. With him, it is atrocious as far as I am concerned. I am amazed that people still cast him in movies.

But you would have given it a B otherwise? Good enough for me!

Thanks for checking it out.

I rather liked Farrell's performance. Still don't think the movie was very good. Closer to a C than a B, really.

Dolce, I wanted to cry in the sense that, "hey, here are these utterly mind-blowing images, this story that should feel powerful.....I wish I was being swept up, but I'm not." If that makes any sense.

It seems to me like everytime Hollywood makes a 'mainstream' film with Native Americans, they give ol' Wes a call. Dances With Wolves? Check. Geronimo? Check. Last of the Mohicans? Check. TNT's Into The West? Check.

The credit for that goes for people like you and others supporting the movie.

On the plus side, the girl (O. Kilcher) is absolutely gorgeous.

OK.... Thanks for checking it out. Respectable.

But Zing, no using this against us.

I can use it.

Just like PE#1 (who changed his grade to a C later on) and xiayun.

You wanna know why? Because they didn't like it. I supported the film in tech categories and performances (nominated it for six categories, actually), but what I saw sucked.

This single thread probably had the biggest overall impact on the movie awards than any other.

Uh-huh. Now we got to work up Kilcher (both categories), and score, cinematopgraphy, and design.

oh boy. You guys did raise my level of expectation.

I was bored. I didn't care one bit for the love story. I didn't understand if this was supposed to be about culture crashes or a love story or poetic visuals. I am really surprised so many are praising it. I hated the fade outs. I didn't really notice the score (with the exception of the end which was nice).

There was giggling at the end from some in the crowd.

I saw A Red Thin Line and LOVED that movie. I just didn't think it worked here. There were so many questions popping into my head while watching the movie such as "doesn't anyone care she is like 12 and he is 40???"

Two things saved this movie from total disaster for me: cinematography and Christian Bale. Whenever he was on screen, the movie came alive.

I, for one at least, was disappointed.

C

I love how almost everyone after the first batch of people (who loved it) are disappointed with this film because of this thread.

That means that you're not doing a good enough job at bashing the film...

This needs to be bumped continuously..



Beautiful, hypnotizing, lyrical, poetic, heartbreaking, ... loved it

Q'Orianka Kilcher is amazing and the rest of the supporting actors (including Colin Farrell) are quite good.


it's the third masterpiece from last year imo (along with Brokeback Mountain and A History of Violence). I thought The Thin Red Line was decent and only liked Badlands the first time I saw them, but I guess I really need to revisit them right now... Malick is one of those directors that needs to be appreciated by people with open minds and requires a certain level of maturity and patience. I really think I'm going to have a different view of these films with a rewatch...






(and I can't wait for the 3 and a half hour cut.. )

I will check this out over the weekend.

This was a weird movie to me. Still have to think about it. There were so many things I liked (Kilcher was awesome), and many things I didn't liked (nearly no dialogues between the characters..). About a B+ for now. I'm more on the positive side.

What was this one about, again - I forget...

read the last 15 pages as punishment...

B


It is hard for me to review this film because of its nature. I went in mostly neutral, having heard praises about it, but also many people lamenting that it is essentially just boring. I can't agree with either. For one, I was not bored during the film at all (I saw the 135 minutes version, so that you know), not for a moment. However, The New World is not a "normal" movie. It is like cinematically adapted poetry. The movie is very slow-burning, but that is all part of the deal. The images we are presented on the screen are enigmatic, captivating...simply beautiful. The whole movie is just so lyrical. The very-praised cinematography is, indeed, top notch and belongs to some of the best of 2005 (a year with generally great cinematogaphy examples). The make-up, the art direction and the score (especially one main theme) are good as well and complement each other. Not having music playing during the final credits, but much rather having noises of nature just supports the nature of this film. It just...fits...so...well.

The story is decent, but in this film it is more besides the main point actually. The culture clash is depicted well, at least during the first hour of the film. To me, the movie started falling apart after Colin Farrell's departure from the island. The beautiful visuals aside, the movie's story lived from the romance between Pocahontas and John Smith. Once it was gone and Christian Bale entered the scene, I became rapidly desinterested. Not bored, but just desinterested about all the on-screen happenings. This state remained until the end of the film which, sadly, had no emotional impact on me at all.

Christian Bale was pretty much wasted in the film and I couldn't begin much with his character anyway. Colin Farrell was decent, but I have seen him better. Q'Orianka Kilcher outshines both of them easily. She truly is the film's biggest strength besides the lyrical cinematography. Her snub for an Oscar nomination is a shame, she was at least better than Charlize Theron and Reese Witherspoon. Her amazing, captivating, subtly emotional and vivid performance carries the movie, even when the plot becomes less and less interesting towards the end. I thought her performance would be a little overhyped, but it turned out that she actually deserves all the praise she got for it.

Another gripe of mine with this film besides the ones I have also mentioned are the voiceover narrations of the characters. Not all of them were bad, but I think some sounded...very unnatural and because we had several of them, they became a bit confusing too. They could have done with less voiceover narration.

Terrence Malick has done a decent job with this film, but I can't help, but think that much more could have been done with this movie. I am waiting for the longer version of it which I might like more. Malick walks along the line between true cinematic "art" and pretentiousness/self-indulgeness, but thankfully he never really crosses it to the latter. His film is a piece of art where the storyline doesn't matter as much as it maybe should. It is nice to look at, it is very well-acted and yet, something is lacking. The first 90 minutes or so are great and this is where the masterpiece of this film shines through. The blooming, yet hesitant romance between Pocahonstas and John Smith is great. Once it disappears, the movie loses its focus and my interest. I hope the longer version can fix some of it. As of now, it stands as a could-be masterpiece and a decent film.

Well, now this thread has got a shot at becoming KJ's biggest, hehe.