Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > Entertainment Discussions > Movie Talk
Reload this Page >

The New World (new Terrence Malick) Fall '05

Community
Search
Movie Talk A Discussion area for everything movie related including films In The Theaters

The New World (new Terrence Malick) Fall '05

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 01-20-06 | 02:56 PM
  #76  
Senior Member
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From: Esco, CA
Originally Posted by StuddThunders
There's an article in the NY Times about it. Manhola Dargis gave it an editor's pick. Gave both versions one, in fact. The review mentions that all three versions will be released on DVD. Not sure if they'll all be in the same set or not.

Yep. Just checked. All three versions will be in the same set.
Great news. Now I just wish they could release a longer version of The Thin Red Line.
Old 01-20-06 | 03:00 PM
  #77  
Member
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Here is the link (DVD is mentioned in the fourth paragraph):

http://movies2.nytimes.com/2006/01/2...es/20worl.html
Old 01-21-06 | 12:59 AM
  #78  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From: Hawaii, USA
I saw the film today and enjoyed it; however, I appreciate that many people will find it much too "poetic" and langurous for their tastes. I'd be very interested in seeing an extended version on DVD -- certain plot points seemed too abrupt and/or unexplained fully.
Old 01-21-06 | 08:49 AM
  #79  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 46,689
Received 1,391 Likes on 1,093 Posts
Originally Posted by rkndkn
I saw the film today and enjoyed it; however, I appreciate that many people will find it much too "poetic" and langurous for their tastes. I'd be very interested in seeing an extended version on DVD -- certain plot points seemed too abrupt and/or unexplained fully.
I heard that was an issue in the 150m version as well.
Old 01-21-06 | 11:18 AM
  #80  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,298
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
I seen this movie yesteday,and thought it was excellent.As long as you know what your getting yourself into,you should enjoy it.It had to be the quietest audience I have ever sat with in a theater.There was even applause at the end of the film.
Old 01-21-06 | 04:00 PM
  #81  
Senior Member
 
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 853
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Great, I had this long thought written out and everything but my page closed so I am not in the mood to type it all again. I will just say it probably works better if you aren't expecting 'plot points'. I just sat and allowed myself to be willed by the film and became slowly accepting of the interactions between these factions that were fueled more by confusion than dislike. Kilcher was overwhelmingly radiant which I felt was important in not feeling like some interactions were as hokey as they could have been since realistically these are actors and this is a film.

I'd like to be rich enough to open a theater without popcorn or drinks or anything like that. It can be extremely distracting. I wish my audience seemed as respectful as some of yours were because I got alot of walking to bathroom, popcorn, talking, and such. It is really frustrating but I guess that is what I get for living in Tennessee. My friend fell asleep within 20 minutes which was under the 30 minutes I gave him.

Last edited by cfloyd3; 01-21-06 at 04:06 PM.
Old 01-21-06 | 08:41 PM
  #82  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Joined: Apr 1999
Posts: 37,797
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
From: Duluth, GA, USA
This film does a good job of being a cinematic poem of sorts. It's all about visuals, inner thoughts, and emotions. The film engages you on a dreamy subconscious level, it does play with time to further mood and momentum of change at a frightful pace through the eyes of Pocahontas/Rebecca. In addition, the viewer is taken on a journey of what it was like to experience the cusp of such an important event in history as the Indians did when the ships of England show up on the shores of Virginia in 1607. "New World", indeed, is a film expressed with such assured cinematography and deliberate pacing. I wasn't as keen on the inner monologues at times, some of those scene felt over-written, but it's a minor offense given the tone and flavor of this tale of learning to be open to new change and challenges, even those that change the status quo forever.

I give it 3.75 stars, or a grade of A-.
Old 01-22-06 | 12:50 PM
  #83  
Needs to contact an admin about multiple accounts
 
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 2,830
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
From: Los Angeles, CA
this guy is a riot. he's joking right?

O tedious 'New World'
Photography beautiful, but story is deadly

By Paul Clinton
For CNN.com

'The New World'
Starring: Colin Farrell, Q'Orianka Kilcher, Christian Bale, Christopher Plummer
Directed and written by: Terrence Malick

(CNN) -- By 1607, the civilized world knew the earth was not flat. Unfortunately, nobody passed that tidbit of information along to writer-director Terrence Malick.

Malick's new film, "The New World" -- only his fourth in 32 years -- is as flat as a flapjack. This ponderous film -- about the settlement of the Jamestown colony by the British and the love story of Capt. John Smith and the Indian princess Pocahontas -- almost totally lacks exposition and offers colorless characters beyond the main leads, leaving the audience with little to hold on to.

It's a shame, because other aspects of the film are brilliant. Emmanuel Lubazki's cinematography is utterly stunning. Jack Frisk's production design and Jacqueline West's costume design are flawless. They truly capture how raw life must have been like for the 103 original settlers struggling to carve an existence out of the pristine -- and at times unforgiving -- wilderness of Virginia 400 years ago.

The story, such as it is, is extremely unfocused and unfolds mainly through a muddled and jerky narrative told -- for the most part -- in voice-over by Smith (Colin Farrell), Pocahontas (Q'Orianka Kilcher, 14 at the time of filming), and later by John Rolfe (Christian Bale), who eventually married Pocahontas.

In the dawning years of the 17th century, three English ships financed by the London Virginia Company crossed the Atlantic looking for gold and a shortcut to the South Seas. They were sorely disappointed on both counts. What they found instead was a land ruled by a powerful man, Chief Powhatan.

When Smith leads a food-gathering expedition he is captured by Powhatan's tribe and escapes death only because of the intervention of Powhatan's favorite child, Pocahontas. She teaches him the ways of her culture and months later he returns to Jamestown.

Later, when Powhatan discovers that the settlers actually intend to stay, he prepares for war. Pocahontas warns Smith of the impending attack and is banned from her people forever. Eventually the English and Smith take her in.

Smith is later ordered to head an exploration of the northern coast of America, as the British are still searching for a pathway to the South Seas. He arranges for Pocahontas to be told he died at sea.

Heartbroken, she eventually meets and falls in love with another Englishman, Rolfe, with whom she has a son. He took her to England where she was received by the King and Queen. Tragically she died before she could return to Virginia.

That's the story. But Malick can't decide whether he's making a nature film, a love story or an action/adventure flick.

There are endless shots of waving grain and dripping leaves, interspersed with bloody battles between the Native Americans (called Naturals in the film) and the settlers. The budding romance between Smith and Pocahontas s-l-o-w-l-y evolves over the course of about two-thirds of the film. The pacing of the film is enough to kill off any interest in the beauty of its images.

Watching "The New World" is like watching a snail cross an eight-lane highway. Perhaps there's a director, or editor, who could make that concept enthralling, but as for me, I kept longing that Jerry Bruckheimer would speed along in a Hummer and squish it flat.
Old 01-22-06 | 01:10 PM
  #84  
Thread Starter
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,656
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
From: Los Angeles
Originally Posted by Cygnet74
this guy is a riot. he's joking right?
only his fourth in 32 years
I love how this information is used in both positive and negative reviews, either insinuating Malick likes to take his time to decide how to make his next film, or he works as slow as his movies. With movies I know I want to see, I usually try to avoid reading any reviews until I've seen it, so I'm not tainted by them or to avoid getting upset about an idiotic review, like this one.
Old 01-22-06 | 06:50 PM
  #85  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,298
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Quote:
only his fourth in 32 years

As if Malick justs sits at home on the couch,until he feels like doing a film.
The guy is well entrenched in the industry,just look at his imdb profile.
Old 01-22-06 | 06:54 PM
  #86  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 12,306
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
that guy is crazy...great movie
Old 01-24-06 | 12:01 AM
  #87  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 4,064
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
From: looking for mangos in the jungle
The New World

Just saw this tonight. A new Terrence Malick flick is always something worth checking out. I found the story a little muddy and unfocused. It's shot beautifully and without the use of electric lights from what I've read. I was lusting after the leading lady and just found out that she was 14 at the time. Yowzer! Now I feel like a dirty old man.

All in all, it was enjoyable and has fine acting performances. I'm not sure how loyal it is to the actual historical events.
Old 01-24-06 | 02:01 AM
  #88  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 12,306
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
The New World Limited run will be 20. min longer than wide release
Old 01-24-06 | 12:31 PM
  #89  
Giles's Avatar
Moderator
 
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 33,646
Received 22 Likes on 17 Posts
From: Washington DC
Originally Posted by Cameron
that guy is crazy...great movie
I agree, I was very impressed with this film.
Old 01-24-06 | 02:49 PM
  #90  
Senior Member
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From: Port Moody, BC
Originally Posted by FinkPish
.. avoid getting upset about an idiotic review, like this one.
Why is it idiotic? If anything I found it extremely useful. His thoughts on this film matched what I thought about Thin Red Line. So by seeing this review I know that I would probably have the same problems with this film as I had with Thin Red Line, and that I should probably avoid it. I can't say just how much I hated Thin Red Line, so much so I was tempted to walk out.

This is not to say that it's a terrible movie. Nor am I saying that other people shouldn't enjoy it. But to call the reviewer an 'idiot' because he doesn’t have the same opinions as you is silly. Not everybody has to have the same likes and dislikes.
Old 01-24-06 | 04:59 PM
  #91  
BDB
DVD Talk Legend
 
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 24,474
Received 261 Likes on 217 Posts
From: San Francisco
I watched it Saturday, the 150 Min Version, and while I was moved by it, and loved the visuals, and the score, it felt like one big bore to me. I am glad I didn't pay to see it, that's for sure.

there were way too many long walks in the fields.
Old 03-04-06 | 04:02 PM
  #92  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 3,393
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Was this movie released widely? I remember seeing Ebert's review of it a couple months ago, but that was the last I've heard of it. Looks like it is only at the $12M point right now, and nobody here seems to have seen it, or is sharing their opinion of it.
Old 03-04-06 | 05:48 PM
  #93  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 20,098
Received 828 Likes on 577 Posts
Originally Posted by TheMadMonk
Was this movie released widely?
Its release was widened to 811 screens in January, so it depends on your definition of "widely."

I saw this earlier this week at a budget theater on "dollar night." This is the first Terrence Malick film I've seen, but I can say jaeufraser was spot on when he predicted the film would have "lots of various shots of nature with introspective voice over," so I'm guessing it's very similar in tone and style to his other features.

The film is somewhat oddly paced. There are long stretches where seemingly nothing is happening besides Colin Farrell and Q'Orianka Kilcher fawning at each other while wandering through nature. However, there are multiply points where the film will churn through several plot points all at once with ruthless efficiency in a kind of layered montage fashion. For example, later in the film when Cristian Bale's character is wooing Q'Orianka for what seemed like forever, my friend got up to go to the bathroom. In the three minutes he was gone, he managed to miss the marrage proposal, the wedding, and got back just in time to see their baby.

Also, while the film's first half seems to focus on Joseph Smith and the founding of Jamestown, Smith abrubtly vanishes and the film shifts focus to Pocahontas herself for the rest of the movie, and in retrospect was the focus of the first half as well. Leaving the theater, I theorized that the only reason that the film wasn't called "Pocahontas" was that Disney already took that name.

In fact, the name Pocahontas isn't uttered even once during the film. One person is even interrupted mid-sentence right before she's about to utter the name! Interestingly enough, the only time people refer to her by name is after she's taken the Christian name Rebecca.

Ultimately, I thought it was a good movie, but not great. It certainly hasn't driven me to want to see Malick's other films, although simultaneously I'm not really adverse to seeing his previous efforts.
Old 05-04-06 | 12:32 AM
  #94  
Member
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From: MI
The New World

Critically, the reviews look like a mixed bag. Just looking for some user opinions on the movie from those who have seen it.

I'm a big Farrell fan. It's been fun following his career through the highs (Minority Report) and the lows (Alexander).
Old 05-04-06 | 12:42 AM
  #95  
Needs to contact an admin about multiple accounts
 
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 2,830
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
From: Los Angeles, CA
http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread.php?t=449964&page=2
Old 05-04-06 | 07:48 PM
  #96  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 6,290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The movie is a masterpiece...it's one of those movies that has a soundtrack that makes the movie ten times more powerful (such as Requiem for a Dream). I wasn't crazy about the director's previous war movie, but this movie is totally entertaining and dreamlike. The pacing is great too, not at all bad as everyone has said. The movie follows Pocahantas' perspective...not Farrell or Bale. Those expecting this movie to be about John Smith's perspective will be disappointed...I don't know whether to buy the DVD right away or wait for a director's cut longer DVD....amazing movie! It's definitely a blind buy. And I like Farrell too, but even love Christian Bale more...The actress in the movie looks like a better looking Indian version of Jennifer Garner by the way...
Old 05-04-06 | 07:49 PM
  #97  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 6,290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The movie is a masterpiece...it's one of those movies that has a soundtrack that makes the movie ten times more powerful (such as Requiem for a Dream). I wasn't crazy about the director's previous war movie, but this movie is totally entertaining and dreamlike. The pacing is great too, not at all bad as everyone has said. The movie follows Pocahantas' perspective...not Farrell or Bale. Those expecting this movie to be about John Smith's perspective will be disappointed...I don't know whether to buy the DVD right away or wait for a director's cut longer DVD....amazing movie! It's definitely a blind buy. And I like Farrell too, but even love Christian Bale more...The actress in the movie looks like a better looking Indian version of Jennifer Garner by the way...
Old 05-04-06 | 07:54 PM
  #98  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,633
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
This was honestly one of my favorite films of the year, if not number one. It's long, very long, but it is just so god damn beautiful. It's an epic in every sense of the word. The way the film is broken up into three distinct parts was interesting. The awe that these people feel as they go to their respective "new worlds" is communicated so flawlessly, and that to me was probably the most effective part of the film. When Pocahantas is walking through the English palace during the third act, gazing up the massive spires and standing in front of the massive windows, it's just so powerful. Likewise, the absolute beauty Ferrell's character finds in nature was also very well done.
Old 05-06-06 | 05:49 AM
  #99  
Banned
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From: Houston
terrence malick, either love him or hate. i fiind his movies long, drawn out and boring, but i can see why people like his movies.
Old 05-06-06 | 07:55 PM
  #100  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 5,919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From: Philadelphia, PA
This was my favorite film of last year. I'm a huge fan of Terrence Malick though and he's easily one of my top 5 favorite directors despite his short list of accomplishments.


Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.