Well, I certainly agree that once Smith is gone, the movie goes downhill because before that it mostly lived from the chemistry between Kilcher and Farrell.

Heh well I didn't mean we had the identical take, he was slightly more negative than me, I didn't mind it trying to be artistic and I didn't mind the silences. But basically that the first half is better, not just because of their chemistry but just it's better when it's Smiths point of view. Even without Pocahontas existing, it was more interesting seeing things from his angle, such as the scene where a settler (not sure what else to call them) shoots an Indian for stealing and Smith realizes this might cause a big problem and quickly punishes the guy in the water in front of the natives. The real problem was the script, it felt like an early draft, not a single memorable line when they did finally start talking a lot but the actors were trying to make it work.

Several people mention that the film's quality drops off dramatically when John Smith disappears from the movie and the story is told from Pocahontas' perspective. Interestingly, I found the movie's greatest strength to occur during this portion, and it is what made the film for me.

Whereas the first half of the movie was about discovery, curiosity, and culture clash so that it'd probably be more interesting to someone wanting to learn and explore about the natives and their cultural impact; I identify more with the second portion of the movie which is more about coping with loss through the transformation of one's identity.

After being shunned by her native community, Pocahontas has no choice but to become fully acclimated into the European culture. What she really wants to do is to follow her passionate feelings and just run away with John Smith. However, his "death" kills this fantasy as well as all the passion inside of her. I think that total transformation into a completely new identity is a way for her to try to forget her past and get over John Smith. Thus, she starts a new life where she lets go of everything what Smith found most attractive about her -- the chance to explore the "New World" of her native culture, her naive innocence in everything being pure and good, her state of natural freedom rather than the constraining structure and order of the European communities. (Or perhaps rather, a totally different perspective that she thought this transformation of herself would be the ultimate tribute to her love by becoming as similar to him culturally as she could be, not realizing that John Smith was that much of an outsider to his own community.)

Both Malick's direction and Kilcher's performance help convey Pocahontas' sense of loss and confusion as she adapts to a new life. As opposed to what we see as the strong point of view expressed by Smith during the first half of the movie, the audience is supposed to experience the loss of direction that Pocahontas feels in her own life, which could be misconstrued as a struggling and directionless script. Also, the lack of chemistry between Rolfe and Pocahontas before their Europe trip is also done on purpose to show Pocahontas' lack of true feelings for him, as she is still dead instead from her feelings for John Smith. If the depth of her feelings for John Smith wasn't very fully developed enough during the first half of the movie, the way Pochahontas internally grieves for him in the scenes afterwards with Rolfe help cement the gravity of her feelings for Smith.

It almost seems like that the people who disliked the second half exactly identifies with John Smith's perspective. Pocahontas (and the movie) is this alluring, happy, innocent character that draws the viewer in. But once she becomes a totally different person, one that is embittered and dead inside from her loss of love and who redefines herself by conforming to the familiarity of European culture and society, Pocahontas (and thus the movie) loses its charm and attraction to the viewer.

Seriously, this thread will never die.

Excellent review Archie. Your clarity helped me... understand some of the flaws people have been mentioning. Interesting points. I find the scenes in England to be just as interesting and masterful as the opening ones, and even a bit more dramatic. The switch in tones and themes is what makes the movie all the more interesting, imo... Tones of isolationism AND companionship and finally the alternative New World perspective were fascinating to me.

This same perspective sort of applies to The Crying Game... the swift change in the direction of the movie makes it all the more interesting and even insightful. I think the middle act is actually the best, even though most disagree. Whitaker was pretty awesome, though.

Anyway.

I should explain that I do understand a number of aspects to the movie that I didn't mention:

That Malick was comparing and contrasting her discovery of England to Smith's of the New World. That the animals in the cages for show in England were to some degree symbolic of her role in English society. That Rolfe was supposed to be boring and steadfast. That Smith was both attracted to Pocahontas and simultaneously felt like he was exploiting her and that this was a metaphor for the colonization as a whole.

Even though I didn't mention everything, I got what was being attempted even if in my opinion it didn't all work and should have been reshaped into a different dramatic arc.

I guess it's a movie you either really get and love, or really don't and don't like as much. What many people have praised it for (being "poetic," etc.) is what I didn't like about it. The non-stop voiceovers made the movie harder to follow, and I lost some interest when Colin Farrell's character John Smith was out of it. (Not every scene, but mainly after Smith supposedly died.)

The actors all did very good jobs. I was most impressed with Farrell and Kilcher, but I didn't feel that Christian Bale and Christopher Plummer were given enough to do. Plus, the movie just didn't seem sure of itself, and it was so determined to go far from the norm of historical epics that it just wasn't as appealing as it could have been.

But evidently it has a lot of love on this site.

I don't think this was intended to be an historical epic of any kind, at all. If it fits any genre, then it's a visual lyrical poem.

I like this.

Got the poster from work. I'm proudly displaying it along with Inside Man... suits the decor..

...bump... for Apocalypto parallels...

I can't believe I read the whole thing...

Now I REALLY need to see it.

God, I hope not.

After all, they are both historical dramas by auteur directors...

Oh my lord how is this thread 19 pages long

Because it was one of the most artistic movies last year...and an amazing film? Heh.

You were all bamboozled.

3/4 of the pages were just people telling others they should see it. There are surprisingly few real reviews in this thread.

And what a fun thread.

Indeed. I don't want to like Apocalypto.

12 more posts before this thread surpasses King Kong to become the longest thread in this forum

It's certainly more deserving than Kong.

I agree

so when is the extended cut dvd gonna come out?

I'm not sure, but y'all should nominate this for the 'best thread' category of the KJ awards. You know you want to. Whether you liked the movie or not, this thread is gold.

You're in Portland?!?!? Bastard!

As for the movie at hand, it's become my favorite film of 2005 after multiple viewings.