The New World (2005) User Reviews

Audiences will be very divided.

[A_Roode · 8/10 · 13 January 2006]

Let me start off by saying that I was introduced to the films of Terrence Malick in 1998 when I watched and was blown away by 'The Thin Red Line.' It is one of the best war movies ever made and while I can rant about it at length, that review belongs on a different page. It was with great anticipation that I waited for 'The New World.' I was lucky enough to get tickets to an advance screening and the theatre was full of people like me. Their take on the film was almost as interesting as the film was.

'The New World' is a film that will draw out one of two very powerful emotions: Love or Hate. I really don't believe there is a middle ground in this case. I think it is quite possibly the most beautifully photographed film I have ever seen. It is astonishing. The score from James Horner is, in my opinion, his greatest work. He's a wonderful composer but he has exceeded himself on every level. This is a movie that can be watched like art (because it is) and listened to as a symphony (it might as well be one). Very few movies leave me stunned and 'The New World' is so luscious that I think it is worth the journey, even if it is only to look at how beautiful it is and listen to how glorious it is. Is that a superficial way of looking at things? Perhaps, but they are the film's two most brilliant qualities.

'The New World' does have problems and I think it falls very much into a 'buyer beware' category. Malick's movie is long -- very long -- and feels every moment of it. I don't mind these things because I found it enchanting; many in the audience with me did not. These are not people who are 'dumb,' or who 'don't get it.' They are people who are used to 99% of the films that you will see. 'The New World' is very self-indulgent at times. No one can reasonably defend the pace of the film. I want to and I can't. This is a movie so full of substance that it is detrimental. It is so rich and textured that it would be hard to say where things could have been improved, but aside from the first forty minutes which deal largely with the question of whether or not the Europeans can survive the first winter or not, the dramatic 'action,' that is, the engine of a script that pushes one scene into the next, is idling at best. 'The New World' has a plodding pace and it took me on a nice quiet stroll that I enjoyed immensely. I can not, in good conscience though recommend to the man on the street that he go to see it. If less than a third of the theatre I was in walked out, I'd be stunned. I lost count because so many people left. Mostly the middle hour and a half of the film is to blame. Scenes drift from one to the next -- they're stunning and textured and personally I enjoyed them -- but they involved a lot of hanging out. Two people hanging out in the woods. I understand that the film has deep meditative and philosophical meanderings about man's relationship with nature and how one impacts the other. I get it. But a lot of the love story is about two people hanging out in the woods. All the time. If one of them had said 'Let us go watch the grass grow for the afternoon,' it would have been the most honest line in the entire film. It is the only thing I will fault Malick for here because it really does kill the film for a lot of people. His intelligence should not be questioned. I wish only he'd tried to focus the script a bit more and been specific rather than general. Can two people from different cultures be together? We get it already. We got it an hour ago. Oh, more grass growing ... must watch ... ha! Forgive my little joke.

The argument to be made though is that this film has not been made for everyone (the studio is no doubt surprised to learn this and will be scrambling to recover their money -- they did a good thing in making it but they're going to lose their shirts). It was made by Terrence Malick for Terrence Malick. I'm glad to have seen it but I spoke with twenty people who were not. There will be constant arguments on the user boards here at the IMDb. The film is going to have rabidly fanatical supporters who think everyone else is just too stupid to get it. And it is going to be criticized by many, many others who died a thousand deaths just trying to sift through the movie.

Two final thoughts: the first is that I hate myself for having to say anything negative about Malick or his film. He's a special film-maker and his films make it worth going to the theatre. 'The New World' is great but flawed and it is dishonest for anyone to pretend otherwise -- such behaviour is deceitful and pretentious.Thought number two is that although the film is equal parts challenging and rewarding (as great movies should be) it is especially important in the case of 'The New World' to see it in the theatre. It is so majestic in scope that I don't believe the greatest home theatre can do it justice. It is truly epic in its cinematography and score. If it doesn't win Oscars for both we will have witnessed a massive artistic injustice. NOTHING this year, NOTHING has come close to being a threat to 'The New World' for either of those two categories. Appreciate them as they were intended to be seen.

Foundation Myth

[JamesHitchcock · 7/10 · 21 August 2015]

During the 1970s Terrence Malick directed one excellent film, "Badlands", and one masterpiece, "Days of Heaven". After that he seemed to exile himself from the cinema for a long period, and it was twenty years before his third film, "The Thin Red Line", appeared. There then followed another period of silence, this time for seven years, before "The New World" came out in 2005.

The film recounts one of the foundation myths of American history, the story of Captain John Smith and the Native American princess Pocahontas. Now although both Smith and Pocahontas were undoubtedly both historical figures, the traditional version of the story, telling how she saved his life and how the two then fell in love, may only be legend. The latter part of the story, however, dealing with her marriage to another English settler, John Rolfe, is based upon historical fact.

Even though the romance of the two main figures may only be fiction, albeit a fiction hallowed by long tradition, Malick took great pains over historical details with regard to such matters as costume, weapons, tools and architecture, and shooting took place as close as possible to the site of the original Jamestown settlement in Virginia. He even went so far as to employ a linguist to reconstruct, as far as possible, the now-extinct Powhatan language which would have been spoken by the tribe to which Pocahontas belonged. In other respects, however, the film's accuracy has been faulted, in particular its advocacy of the now- fashionable idea that Native Americans were unselfish, peace-loving noble savages, quite innocent of the vices of the corrupt Old World. (In reality, Pocahontas' father owed his power and exalted position, a position which led the English settlers to regard him as a king rather than a mere chief, to his Powhatan tribe's superiority in warfare over their neighbours).

Some changes to the historical record seem to have been made to make the characters more sympathetic. In reality Smith was not commanded by King James I to mount an expedition in search of the North-West Passage, but the scriptwriters must have needed an explanation for his decision to abandon Pocahontas and return to England, leaving word for her that he was dead; in the 17th century a royal command was something you disobeyed at your peril.

The film is well acted, with notable performances from Colin Farrell as Smith, Q'orianka Kilcher as Pocahontas and (in a smaller but key role) Christian Bale as Rolfe. (Remarkably, Kilcher was only 14 at the time). The relationship between these three can be described as a sort of love- triangle because, although Pocahontas does not meet Rolfe until after she has been wrongly informed that Smith is dead, she still harbours feelings for her former lover. Both the main characters are torn by inner conflicts, Smith between his love for Pocahontas and his duty towards his king and country, and Pocahontas between her love for Smith and her inability to love her husband, whom she knows to be a good and kind man. Her inner conflict becomes all the greater when she realises that Smith is still alive.

As in his first two films, Malick makes effective use of music, with Mozart's Piano Concerto No. 23 taking on the role that was played by Orff's "Gassenhauer" in "Badlands" and Saint-Saëns' "Aquarium" in "Days of Heaven". Although there are some attractive shots, I did not, however, find the film as visually attractive as its predecessors, especially "Days of Heaven" which is notable for its strikingly beautiful photography throughout. In my view, however, the film's main fault is that it is overlong and, in places, too slow-moving. Malick's original 150-minute version was later cut to 135 minutes, but even this seemed too long for a story which could have been told in two hours or less. (I understand that there is also a third, 172-minute version, which has never been shown in cinemas).

The film did not do well at the Academy Awards, only receiving one nomination, but several critics hailed it as a masterpiece. Some of these praised the film in quite extravagant terms. Mick LaSalle of the San Francisco Chronicle said that it "contains some of the best film- making imaginable – some of it beyond imagining" and John Patterson of the Guardian confessed to literally weeping "tears of exultation". I know how these critics felt. I felt like that on watching "Days of Heaven", but "The New World" was never able to move me in the same way. 7/10

What You Would Expect From Malick

[gavin6942 · 6/10 · 16 June 2017]

The story of the English exploration of Virginia, and of the changing world and loves of Pocahontas.

There are, of course, historical issues with this film. Most scholars agree that there was no romantic relationship between Pocahontas and Smith. She would have been 10 years old in 1608 when they were said to have first met. So the whole premise is flawed. But in other areas, such as the attempt to have a native language spoken, some credit ought to be given.

Ultimately, I found the film to be good but somewhat trying. Malick is a strange director. Obviously talented, but he lets his artistic vision go unchecked. And then it starts feeling pretentious. Other directors could be accused of similar issues (David Lynch?), and I suppose it really comes down to artistic preference. My preference does not jibe with Malick, it seems.

Matoaka's Second Miranda

[tedg · 10 March 2006]

Malick's method is to frame films as remembrances. Remembrances of romantic notions, whether freedom, peace, war or love (as his four films trace). This way, he can exploit a languorous floating through remembered reality that never is that gentle or considered in actual reality. He can use his narration as things remembered, floating over the sights. To make this as effective as possible, he plays all sorts of tricks with the sound, having different boundaries of different types between what you see and hear.

Added to this is a considered approach to framing. You may have noticed that most filmmakers stage the action as if the world arranged itself to fit nicely in the window the camera sees. It makes for nice pictures and clear, precise drama, but we know it for what it is, a theatrical device. Malick is like Tarkovsky; he likes to discover things and if the way the world frames things so that they are off the window we see, so be it.

That's why his battle scenes are unique. With most directors, you'll have smiting and dying nicely so that we can see it. Or alternatively, we'll have point of view shots that are hectic as if we were a participant. These two battle scenes have the camera as a disembodied eye that shifts about as if it were the eye of dreams, or nearly lucid recalling or even retrospective invention. Sometimes hectic as if it were point of view, but never looking at what a combatant would, instead having a poetic avoidance.

I first met Malick when he was a lecturer at MIT and I a philosophy student. He spoke of French Objectivism, and was clearly bothered by how the notation and language constrained the ideas. At the time, I was doing my thesis on Thomas Harriot, who is the hidden motivator behind everything in this story — the real story. Malick never saw the thesis because by the time it was finished, he was off to explore this business of experiencing from the "outside" in cinematic language.

But Harriot is likely the inventor of the "external viewer of self" notions that Malick liked (as they reappeared in the French '60s) and uses in his philosophy of film. Harriot suggested he got it from the Chesapeake Indians. So the circle closes: a film about a people using their own mystical memory-visions.

If you take a little time to tune yourself to Malick's channel, you will find his work to be transcendent. I consider this one of the best films of 2005, despite its apparent commercial gloss and the mistaken notion that most will have that it is a love story. It is about remembering and inventing love in retrospect. A world is always new so long as the imagination of recall is supple.

+++++++++

The rest of this comment is of an historical nature. The love story is made up of course, but that's apt for a movie that is about invented memory. The Indians are mostly wrong, the body paint, hair and dress; according to the only document we have, the John White paintings, men and women were mostly nude even in winter and prided themselves on tolerance to the cold. There is no mention of the famous local hallucinogen, cypress puccoon which was widely traded and how a stone age people were able to survive in a land a hundred miles from the nearest stone.

(My original comment was deleted, presumably because there was a note about the unpeaceful nature of the people. Readers may want to consult good histories for that.)

Harriot (a scientist and mage) wintered over with a nearby "holy" tribe in 1585, and after he left, Powhatan destroyed the tribe lest they combine their magic with Harriot's and overcome his stranglehold on taxes. He married the wives of the chiefs he murdered. Matoaka (Pocahontas) was almost surely the offspring of this union and it is why he sent her as a naked 10 year old to negotiate with the Jamestown settlers, who Powhatan thought was Harriot returning.

Powhatan never exiled Matoaka. When negotiations with the settlers failed, he married her off to a satrap in the north to expand his empire. From there she was kidnapped. When he knew that Rolfe had shamelessly promoted his marriage to an Indian princess and arranged an audience with the King, Powhatan sent the two holy men to accompany and protect her, those you see here. She presented to James, her father's cloak that is also shown in the movie. It was designed by Harriot for the his host, the husband of Matoaka's mother.

The scenery is very accurate and was filmed where things actually happened and in a few spots within a few hundred yards of where Harriot wintered over (and I now reside).

The Harriot/Matoaka story is a key source for Shakespeare's "The Tempest," and it is likely that Shakespeare actually met Matoaka when she visited Harriot. One of the accompanying Indian priests had an argument over God with a Nixon-like cleric who subsequently published a list of all the demons thus mentioned. You can see that list of demons appearing throughout "King Lear."

Viewers interested in racial matters may be interested to know that by the time of these events, Spain and Portugal had already imported over a half a million African slaves to South and Central America.

Ted's Evaluation -- 4 of 3: Every cineliterate person should experience this.

Too much Malick's whispering instead of meaningful plot

[alansabljakovic-39044 · 6/10 · 13 June 2020]

EXTENDED CUT

I was digging the first part but then the plot kinda slowed down and nothing really happened besides beautiful cinematography. The pacing wasn't that good like in his other movies, maybe I'll like the shorter version more. Criterion edition of this movie looks incredible, one of the best looking films of 2000s. Lubezki really be carrying three directors huh

Very lone & very 'artsy'...

[ajs-10 · 6/10 · 10 July 2011]

This film was recommended to me and so, on good faith alone, I sat down to watch. I've heard many good things about Terrence Malick over the years and so was looking forward to a bit of a cinematic treat. Sometime things don't turn out the way you expect and this was one of those occasions. I will explain more after this brief summary.

It is the early 1600's and the eastern seaboard of America is being discovered and colonised. A group of English explorers find a place on the coast of Virginia and set up a base there. They send a group lead by Captain Smith out to trade with the natives. They capture him and are about to execute him when he is saved by the Chief's daughter, Pocahontas. Thus begins the famous love story. Eventually, after helping the colonists more than once, she is forced to go and live with them. Captain Smith is called back to England by the King and Pocahontas is left alone. Believing he is dead she takes a husband, John Rolfe, but this is not the end of the story. There, I said it was going to be brief.

On the positive side this film is beautifully shot with some beautiful scenery and great set pieces. Performance-wise, nobody put a foot wrong, Colin Farrell did a fine job as Captain Smith, although I felt he was totally miscast (more on that later). Q'orianka Kilcher was also great as Pocahontas, as was Christopher Plummer as Captain Newport and Christian Bale as John Rolfe. It just didn't have any energy about it. I felt so depressed by the time I got to the end of the two hours and thirty minutes.

On the casting, although I have nothing against Colin Farrell, he's a fine actor who has appeared in some great films. I just felt he was totally wrong for this role, to have an Irish man (with an Irish accent) playing the part of an English man I find totally stupid and slightly offensive. But enough of that, back to the film, I it found quite boring and also very depressing. It's very 'artsy' with the characters inner thoughts being voiced, but it just didn't work for me. I will give it a half decent score for the visuals and the music wasn't too bad either, but unless you've got a spare two hours and thirty minutes of you life you don't want back… Not recommended.

My Score: 5.6/10

A beautiful look at the birth of a nation

[eddie_baggins · 9/10 · 15 December 2019]

Undoubtedly not for everyone, Terrence Malick's slow moving yet quietly powerful and astoundingly beautiful epic The New World is a stunningly realised cinematic experience, that must surely go down as one of the most naturally beautifully and heartfelt pieces of filmmaking ever delivered, as the divisive Texan filmmaker takes us on a ponderous and contemplative trip back to the early America's to tell the true story of Pocahontas and her life filled with love and heartbreak.

Here reviewing the Extended Cut of Malick's film, drawn out to near 3 hours from its 2 and a half hour theatrical cut, The New World is never afraid to bask in its own thoughtful and imagery driven nature and for those that found the original cut too much to handle this is a version of the film you'd do best to steer very far away from but for anyone that has ever found themselves transfixed by Malick's unique filmmaking sensibilities, this stoically paced version of Malick's tale will be a joy to be a part of.

It's hard to put into words just how beautifully put together and hypnotic The New World is should you let it wash over you and take you away in a manner that only Malick at its best can do, as the filmmaker's collaboration with legendary production designer Jack Fisk and renowned cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki achieves resounding results in this end product.

It's not hard to see the similarities to Lubezki's work here to Oscar heavyweight The Revenant on which he was inspired by The New World from and his collaboration with Malick really is a match made in heaven, as if nothing else, this dream-like experience takes us on a visually splendid adventure to a time and place long since forgone.

Key to the effectiveness and moving nature of Malick's grand vision here however is how his clear affiliation and respect for the story of Pocahontas allows him to deliver one of his most straight-forward and accessible films of his career.

Never officially named in the film as Pocahontas, the Native American princess is luminously brought to life by then first time actress Q'orianka Kilcher, who lights up the film with her verve and energy that combines well with the more solid but grounded work of lead actors Christian Bale and Colin Farrell.

Her turn ranks right up the best turns in a Malick film, up there with Sissy Spacek's unforgettable performance in Badlands and Jessica Chastain's glowing turn in The Tree of Life and while the film may not reach the near perfectly pitched highs of Malick's adored Days of Heavens, Badlands, The Thin Red Line and The Tree of Life, The New World is arguably not far away from being just as quintessential as those works, works that assured Malick would go down as one of the all-time great filmmakers, regardless of the naysayers and unaffected by the more forgettable entries that Malick has delivered over the last decade.

Watching Pocahontas's story unfold before our very eyes as her love for Farrell's John Smith and then Christian Bales John Rolfe takes us on a spellbinding nature filled journey, examining man's place in this world and quest to better our more bloodthirsty and primitively destructive spirits is a cinematic delight, that whilst not perfect, is more affecting and illuminating that so many other cookie cutter offerings that Malick has managed to avoid over an impressively constructed career, driven by projects that inspire and move him and allow us as an audience to be left memorized by the results.

Final Say -

Allowing more time to enjoy the beauty on screen, this extended version of The New World is a must-watch for fans of Malick's work, as the once in a lifetime talent showcases a love story for the ages, that just so happens to act as one of the most eye-capturing films ever shot.

4 ½ kettles out of 5

Gorgeous but empty canvas of primitive art...

[Doylenf · 6/10 · 9 May 2006]

It's incredible to think what a great movie this could have been if as much attention was paid to giving us a literate script as was paid to reconstructing history with villages, Indians, battles, and sets that look like the real thing. The photography is breath-taking throughout, the acting is sincere, but the pace of the film is beyond slow as it recounts a vision of what is said to have happened when the colonists came to form America's Jamestown side by side with some savages who owned the land.

The John Smith/Pocahontas theme is nicely handled although all of this kind of story was handled in much more robust fashion by Disney's crew a few years ago when they did their animated version of the tale. And it was a might more entertaining than the way it is recounted here.

There is a wistful quality to the whole story and gorgeous landscapes to gape at, authentic sunsets with boats in full sail, and some very convincing looking battle scenes with Indians in full mode as painted savages. Nothing has been spared to give the look of the film authenticity and detailed realism.

But as entertainment, it falls far short of the mark. A huge part of the problem is a dull script with Colin Farrell given no opportunity to develop his role as John Smith and Christian Slater reduced to a secondary supporting role as John Rolfe, as is Christopher Plummer.

James Horner's music sounds appropriate enough although it is strangely silent at times when some emotional depth could have been aided by his score.

Summing up: Deserves credit for being an ambitious project, but ends up being a gorgeous empty canvas of primitive art with limited appeal to students of American history.

Staggering.

[cre8inator-1 · 10/10 · 29 January 2006]

This film was everything I had hoped for and infinite volumes more. Writer/Director Terrence Malik simply refuses to see film-making as anything short of an art form and handles his brushes (not to mention every frame) with the tender care and command of an artistic master.

The warnings are true... if you're looking for standard Hollywood fare, then run away. However, if you were trying hard to remember what film-making is supposed to be about, then this film is an absolute MUST SEE. While it is not forcefully spiritual in its aural narrative, I found this film to be a deeply religious experience in ways that words fail to express.

True to form, Malik affords the world of this film as much character as the humans themselves possess. Long stretches of nothing but ambient, nat sounds. Stunning snapshots of the peripheral influences to each scene (i.e. blowing grass, running streams, towering trees). Even an ending title sequence that lives beyond the narrative... breathing the last breaths of a tale that has managed to regularly transcends words.

Sharp. Detailed. Purposeful. Bold. Brilliant.

I have not been this happy about a film in a very long time. Well worth the money. Well worth the time. You will leave better for having seen it.

I could not recommend it more!

Has its moments, but...

[amolad · 6/10 · 10 December 2005]

I loved "The Thin Red Line" as well as Terrence Malick's earlier movies, and "The New World," which I saw tonight at a guild screening, is very similar in style to "The Thin Red Line." It is intensely visual, with many wordless sequences, and uses interior monologues/voice-over from several characters. Also like "The Thin Red Line," it creates a tapestry of nature and the elements to define its characters. The landscape, rivers, fields and forests are very much prominent characters here. The film is at times utterly mesmerizing and captivating on a visual level. However, it saddens me to say that overall, "The New World" just isn't THAT emotionally involving. At 2.5 hours, it's long. And what's worse, it feels it.

The cast does a fine job, and Q'orianka Kilcher is especially talented (and lovely), but the script isn't as strong or as focused as it needed to be. Still, I admired several sequences of powerfully visual storytelling, especially those depicting the lives of the native Americans, so in the end I would have to call my opinion mixed.

This film is a sedative.

[movie-mutt · 3/10 · 14 May 2006]

This film is a perfect example of a self-indulgent director-writer failing to edit it down to a watchable movie length just so he can get every one of his own visions on celluloid before his film career ends. This is one of the most slow-moving, melodramatic, contrived, over-the-top costume, cinematographic over-kill movies I have ever seen. Thank goodness someone had the sense to cast Christian Bale so that the film at least grabbed your attention for the short time he was on screen. Director Mr. Malik should perhaps take up nature photography instead of wasting studio money and the time that it takes for people to watch it.

Poignant and transcendental

[kaessner · 10/10 · 22 January 2006]

First, let me applaud this film. I have been waiting for Terrence Malick's fourth film ever since I saw The Thin Red Line. Arguably, Malick is one of the most adept and deliberate filmmakers right now. The New World is nearly flawless, and the beauty of Malick's direction adds to the argument that film can still be considered aesthetic. Much has been lost in the last 30 years, but Terrence Malick sticks to what he knows. What some people may complain about this movie are the long silences, the action-less movement, and the poetic voice over. This is what Malick does. He is a modern transcendentalist. What he does with film is comparable to what Emerson did in writing. The color is naturalistic, and the sounds are earthly. It helps that Malick uses natural light for his shots, giving the scenery more life and texture. As for the substance of the film, what isn't pantomimed in subtle gestures and movements is brought to life with flowing poetic voice over. This goes all the way back to Badlands for Malick. But here, we get varying minds contributing. There are some moments in this film when the viewer has to understand the characters by their facial expressions instead of their words. I think that will be hard for a lot of people who are expecting a more vocative and kinetic film. As for the acting, I was very impressed with all involved, particularly Q'Orianka Kilcher. This young woman played the part of innocence beautifully. I also have to give some credit to Colin Farrell, considering I never expect much out of him. Unlike some of his other movies, he was not in it to steal the spotlight. Everyone played their parts without any excessive over-acting. This movie is a historical drama, but I feel like the history aspect is merely a backdrop for the Terrence Malick play. In his production, the flowing waters and the forest canopy are the actors, and the gentle reflections of troubled minds are the words. Truly, this is an incredible film. I have waited a long time for Terrence Malick to wow me again, and he has done exactly that. If you want a movie that tears at your heart strings, then go see something recycled like Brokeback Mountain. If you want a transcendental experience, one that challenges you to go deeper than the surface of the film, then The New World is waiting.

First contact with 'aliens'--whether they are native Americans or the English--can be a shock.

[bevjohn · 7/10 · 21 January 2006]

In this stunningly filmed movie, we see the naturals (as the British settlers call them) before we see the sailing ships-- like three large, strange birds settled on wooden nests-- sail into Chesapeake Bay. Even before they have seen the ships and been stunned by that sight, the natives are as silent as if they are part of a tribe of mutes. We feel fear on their part. Little do they know who and what fate is sailing into their peaceful kingdom---but we know. We already know the history, sort of.

As played by Colin Farrell, John Smith, the hero, looks so excessively hairy and dirty in contrast to the almost hairless Indians that he seems the one who is primitive, a throw-back to some Cro-Magnon, perhaps. All right, we think; he's just made a trip across the ocean; they must all be a mess. Yet we can't help noticing that Christopher Plummer looks reasonably neat and well-groomed as the President of the Virginia Company, right from the moment he steps off the ship.

Farrell doesn't clean up on shore, either. He shows no sign of the kind of energy or intelligence that would suggest him capable of such disobedience as mutiny. He has no swagger, no spirit. As well, he looks so morose, even after he is spared from hanging, that his heavy eyebrows threaten to consume the entire film.

In voice-overs he says that he will let this new world be a new beginning for him, but he never looks hopeful. And when he speaks, it is in an interior monologue that sounds taken from his later journals, and is so mumbled that we can hardly hear what he says. Surely this role has been terribly miscast.. Later, when Christian Bale appears later as one of the second batch of English settlers, looking clean and handsome, and smiling tenderly at Pocahantas, should we really be wondering what she could have possibly seen in Smith? Or why Bale wasn't the one cast as Smith?

As played by Native American Q'Orianka Killich, Pocahantas strikes us as quite wonderful, a still, gentle and yet playful child of nature. Her face, which we see a lot of in this slow, meditative film, can look like something carved by the Incas when she is pensive, yet can look completely North American when she smiles and laughs in play. Her gestures are graceful, and her dignity gives new meaning to the phrase 'noble savage'.

Smith's infatuation with her is understandable, but as played by Farrell, it's as if he has gone from morose to lovesick with no suggestion that he has other moods, or any other personality. We see a few minutes in which he teaches her a few words of English, but that lesson is initiated by her, and he hardly seems to have enough concentration to take part in it. Nor does he seem at all interested in learning her language. It is a shock, not soon after, then, to hear her speak perfect English, and see him supposedly understanding what her father has to say to him. When did they have time to learn verbs, much less full sentences, of each other's languages? All they've been doing is drifting around looking at each other.

When he's not with her, Farrell/Smith keeps the same lovesick expression, even upon returning to the primitive Jamestown, which seems all the more primitive after our seeing the simple but well settled Indian camp. He does little to help the starving men: doesn't suggest that they might fish in the river, or hunt in the forest full of game. Nothing has been planted, or hunted. We wonder: were the English really this unprepared to make a settlement? Why?

The film's dialog doesn't tell us any more than that the men sent along on this expedition weren't 'very good.' And meanwhile, Smith, who been described by the President of the Company as a natural leader, just looks away from the mess with an expression that suggests he has a bad case of gas.No doubt he's supposed to be disgusted by the contrast between the Indian's ingenuity in survival and his own compatriot's, but he just looks as if he's thinking of his new Indian friend. More dialog is needed here; the script has failed both the actors and us.

The film still succeeds as a still, meditative piece, reminiscent of both 'Elvira Madigan' and 'Dances With Wolves'. The score here is beautiful, with haunting use of the prelude to Wagner's 'Rhinegold' to suggest the rich beauty of this world into which the settlers are sailing.

All in all, the film is so slow and gentle that it casts its spell over us, a spell that lasts for several hours after the credits have rolled. And yet I'll bet many viewers will run home and Google both Pocahantas and John Smith to learn the truth about their relationship: was it chaste or not? And they may also want to try to determine why on earth Farrell was chosen for this part. He, and the slow pace of this film will, I think, make it one a film that does not thrive by word of mouth advertisement.

Pretentious , dull, directorially self-indulgent rubbish

[peter-clancy · 1/10 · 24 March 2006]

Make no mistake about it, this movie is appalling.

Yes, it has some haunting music, some beautiful scenery and one cannot fault the authenticity of recreating the period of history. The problem comes when you start looking around for a dialogue, a story, any excitement or any involvement in the proceedings.

There is an awful lot of people wistfully staring at each other, a lot of trees blowing in the wind, rivers, birds, spiders and, well, wildlife. It seems as if the director is waiting for a story to come to him, and in the mean-time, look at that flock of birds.

Another thing that strikes you, is the lack of a script. I think in the 2 1/2 excruciatingly boring hours of film, there must have been about 100 words said. Ethereal musings like "Who is he?" and "Where did he come from?" and pretensions like "What is life, Mother?" come drifting down from the screen. Meanwhile, from around the theatre I could hear moviegoers asking each other "What the hells going on?", "What are those birds doing?" and "shall we go?".

I am sorry to the other reviewers who have rated this film so highly, as I can see what they are saying to some extent. The problem I have is that to make the points that this film is ramming down our throats - about the destruction of innocence and good-nature vs. evil-"civilisation" - it does not need such a deadly passive storyline to do it.

I cannot help feeling that the director was doing everything he possibly could to stop the film being labelled as an "action" movie. He dampens every potentially good action scene so that it doesn't get too exciting. Even the few battles there are, are short-lived 'hand-bag' affairs where no one seems to get hurt - It's like watching "Pocahontas and the A-Team".

Unfortunately, in striking the balance between poignancy, style and story, he got it completely wrong. Movies like "Last of the Mohicans" have beautiful scenery, a love story, excellent action sequences, script and makes all the points this movie tries to in much less time.

I fell asleep in this movie. Granted I was quite tired, but this movie pushed me over the edge. I fell asleep at the bit where the girl meets King James until she is walking in the garden having been reunited with Cap'n Smith. I cannot imagine anything interesting happened in the time I was out and I am pretty sure I will never find out as I will not be revisiting this disastrously overrated movie.

Discovering More of the Globe.

[tfrizzell · 6 May 2006]

John Smith (Colin Farrell) lands in the titled location of present-day North America in the late-17th century. Strains come from the natives immediately (led by chieftain August Schellenberg and warrior Wes Studi) as their balance of nature and peaceful surroundings is threatened. Pocahontas (a smashingly amazing starring debut by youngster Q'Orianka Kilcher) ends up being the liaison between her people and the British newcomers. A deep ethereal love blossoms between Farrell and Kilcher, but time and circumstance will not allow it to be. The focus shifts as more newcomers come and a young John Rolfe (dynamite role for Christian Bale) falls for the hypnotic Kilcher and marriage follows. Kilcher does not only win over the British in her land, but in theirs as well as historical fascinations bring her over as both a curiosity and also an early diplomat for connections between old time lands and new ones. Carrying a heavy burden not only historically but also cinematically, Kilcher's role becomes the thing legends are made of. "The New World" is simply out of this world all the way. The eclectic and highly enigmatic Terrence Malick (writer/director) appeared lost forever to the cinematic world after his triumphant "Days of Heaven" in 1978. He popped up again 20 years later with "The Thin Red Line" (the very best film of the 1990s). The rumor mill made it appear that he may not be heard from again. Thankfully he was some seven years later in 2005. Malick's production is everything you would expect from arguably the finest American filmmaker alive (the most interesting and fascinating anyway). Poetic undertones and the deep philosophical questioning of life and our place in this world mix with top-notch cinematography, a hauntingly beautiful score and wonderful set pieces. Farrell, made out to be the top-billed star, disappears about half-way through and the focus shifts to Bale and Kilcher. The three are on cinematic highs rarely reached and the supporting performers (most notably Christopher Plummer, Jonathan Pryce and Alexandra W.B. Malick in basically cameo roles) are well-placed players in Malick's operatic ode to this sometimes unbelievably beautiful and complex part of early North American/world history. Way too smart for most audiences and much too methodical and strategic for shallow cinematic viewers, "The New World" proudly sits next to Malick's other three masterpieces as one of the very best pictures ever conceived. 5 stars out of 5.

An Epic Romance

[claudio_carvalho · 7/10 · 7 February 2007]

In the beginning of the Seventeenth Century, along the English colonization of North America, Captain John Smith (Collin Farrell) leaves the Jamestown fort to explore another area and trade with the Indians, but he is captured. The princess Pocahontas (Q'Orianka Kilcher) asks her father to spare Captain Smith's life and they fall in love for each other. When he returns to the colony, he becomes the president of Jamestown and finds people starving, but Pocahontas brings supplies, saves them and falls in disgrace with her people. When the Indians realize that the English will not leave their country, they attack and after a bloody battle, the English trade Pocahontas and lodge her in the fort to protect their families, and Captain Smith loses his position because he does not agree with the arrangement. With the return of Captain Newport (Christopher Plummer), Captain Smith is promoted and sent back to England, and he asks a friend to tell Pocahontas that he drowned along the trip. Pocahontas is civilized and baptized by the English and John Rolfe (Christian Bale) proposes and marries her. Many years later, she hears that Captain Smith is alive, and she has to decide if she keeps her marriage or follows her heart.

"The New World" is an epic romance with a wonderful cinematography and soundtrack, but the low paced story is too cold in its narrative. Terrence Malick, as usual, builds the complex characters with many existential problems, leaving the passion and flame of love aside. I liked this beautiful adult version of "Pocahontas", but I did not feel any emotion in the end of the story. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil: "O Novo Mundo" ("The New World")

Captivating film poem undercut by repetition

[fertilecelluloid · 7/10 · 21 February 2006]

For the first hour I was captivated by the beautiful imagery (courtesy of Emmanuel Lubezki), the transporting score (by James Horner), the ace production design (by Jack Fisk, the director of "Raggedy Man") and Terrence Malick's delicate handling of the film's key relationship between Colin Farrell (John Smith) and Q'Orianka Kilcher (Rebecca). We are drawn into the world of the "Naturals" (the first Indians encountered by the British) and lulled, as was Smith, into a reality that was destined to change.

As the Smith/Rebecca relationship changes, so does the relationship between the British and the Indians. The result is brutal conflict, and these sequences, shot in a style similar to "The Thin Red Line", are stunningly choreographed. They are also tragic for they depict the beginning of a culture's destruction.

After Farrelly disappears from the scene, the melancholy Rebecca is courted by John Rolfe (Christian Bale), a kind Brit who is sensitive to her grief. Though they sire an offspring, the native woman's joy is extinguished by a revelation that sends her emotions into a spin.

"The New World" is a rumination on love and loss, of a culture, of individuals. It is narrated by the key characters and structured like a poem. Malick's forte is using imagery of the natural and not-so-natural world as metaphor for the characters' shifting, troubled emotions.

For mine, the film is too long, and some of the narrative content is repeated again and again. Kilcher is an extraordinarily beautiful, natural presence, and her Rebecca, the film's center, is compelling. Farrell is a muscular dramatic persona and conveys his conflicted loyalties faithfully. Christian Bale, always believable, does what he can with a mostly one-note role.

The film lingers like dew on morning grass, but it is overinflated with its own self-importance and would have been more effective if trimmed of its clearly much-loved fat.

Art

[Rathko · 10/10 · 23 January 2006]

A quite-literally breathtaking 120 minute montage of sights and sounds evoking the first British contact with North America. The narrative is minimal, even inconsequential, as perhaps it should be in a story that is predominantly about the human need to communicate even when language is a barrier rather than a vehicle to understanding. The performances are universally outstanding, the cinematography and editing award worthy, and the use of 'Das Rheingold' the most inspired use of Wagner ever in a movie. 'The New World' is a genuinely poetic, lyrical, visually stunning and heartbreaking movie. About as flawless as cinema gets. For those still unsure of my feelings, I loved this movie.

Yet another stunning masterpiece from Terrence Malick

[calspers · 7/10 · 30 September 2022]

The New World (2005) directed by Terrence Malick is a visually stunning film and based on an interesting tale of Pocahontas. Just wow! Malick has done it yet again in his fourth feature film.

The story of Pocahontas is well-known. Captain Smith is spared his mutinous hanging sentence after captain Newport's ship arrives in 1607 to found Jamestown, an English colony in Virginia. The initially friendly natives, who have no personal property concept, turn hostile after a 'theft' is 'punished' violently on the spot. During an armed exploration, Smith is captured, but spared when the chief's favorite daughter Pocahontas pleads for the stranger who soon becomes her lover and learns to love their naive 'savage' way of harmonious life. Ultimately he returns to the grim fort, which would starve hadn't she arranged for Indian generosity.

Terrence Malick is astounding with a camera, and every single shot of all of his films are works of art. It is highly recommended for its originality and cinematic and artful value. A disclaimer: Terrence Malick tends to attract very ambitious audiences of cinema.

A feast for the senses

[marika_alexandrou · 10/10 · 26 February 2006]

I finally saw "The New World" yesterday. It was quite an experience.This film is miles away from any other that I've ever seen before. It's a feast for the senses. Senses are the key to this movie. You either let them guide you or you've missed the whole point. I cannot blame anyone who has complained about how slow, boring or even irritating this picture was. This is not the kind of movie that can be appreciated by intelligent reading. Neither does it belong to the category of highbrow artistic films that aim to an intellectual elite of an audience and shut out the rest of us, poor lesser mortals. You don't have to "understand" this film, you have to "feel" it. Just open up your heart and let the emotions carry you away and elevate you. The plot is simple and far from original. Adam and Eve, paradise lost, human greed and personal ambition coming face to face with the beauty of nature and the joy of pure living. Clash between illusion and reality, dream and fact. The originality of this film lies in the way that these themes are depicted. Muted glances, forbidden touches, light and darkness mingle with the murmur of the river and the rustle of the wind – the breath of mother nature. Dialogs are scarce. Mainly voice overs run through the whole picture. I found them neither irritating nor useless. They are uttered in the form of inner thoughts, secret longings, muted prayers and they add to the dreamlike effect of this movie. Acting was actually very good. That was an extra bonus for a film like this, where actors are meant more to help the story and the images unfold, than astound us with their memorable performances. The actors' success in this movie lies in their ability to express their feelings through minor gestures, glances and body language. Q'Orianka Kilcher is a magnificent creature that embodies the essence of nature and beauty. She bends, she submits to the inevitability of assimilation but she never loses her freedom of spirit. Farrell's sad eyes speak volumes of emotion that could never be expressed in spoken words and Bale's kind-hearted demeanor is just perfect. "The New World" is like a poem. What I got out of it was a bitter-sweet taste in my mouth, a swirl of images and sounds in my mind and a wealth of emotion in my heart

slow burn

[wumbi · 7/10 · 28 December 2021]

Typical Malick movie where the nature is in the foreground and everything else is held together by a string which is the voice over narration. Still a beautifully poetic movie about love, desperation and hope in the new world.

Terrible Waste of Time

[WantsGoodMovies · 1/10 · 21 January 2006]

My wife and I love movies. It is not unusual for us to see two per week in the theater. In this year of so many disappointing movies, we were anxiously awaiting The New World, which appeared to have much promise from its previews. Unfortunately, The New World proved not only disappointing, but downright terrible!

Someone needs to tell director Terrence Malick that beautiful photography alone does not make a movie! People were actually walking out half-way through this empty, insubstantial picture, which was more of a boring slide-show than a feature film! There was so little script that viewers had no way of knowing who any of the characters were, and there were only haphazard indications of the passage of time. Tragically, this effort fails completely as a historical piece, and you will learn more about the story by reading the film's synopsis than by seeing the over-wrought film itself.

Worse, to call this disjointed slide-show a "movie" borders on false advertising, and New Line Cinema has done a dreadful dis-service to movie-lovers by releasing this tripe. I would not be surprised if some slick lawyer decides to file a class-action lawsuit on the part of the misled audience.

This slide-show of a film was tedious, vague, ill-conceived, ill-executed, horribly directed and just boring! I will never again waste money on any film that Terrence Malick directs! Never!

Die-hard movie fans to the end, my wife and I stuck it out to the very last frame, and we regretted doing so. As we left the theater, all we heard from the other exiting audience members were criticism after criticism. And many were not as kind as this review!

Rarely has a gathering of such talented actors, production designers and photographers been so ill-served by a flimsy script, terrible directing and inane editing. Not to mention a music score that was so inappropriate at times that it elicited laughs from the audience during tragic scenes.

The only consolation is that word-of-mouth will surely get this picture out of theaters very quickly.

Quite simply, sensational.

[thetempletterror · 10/10 · 3 February 2006]

This was incredible. I'm living at the moment in the awful urban sprawl of Dublin , Ireland and took myself right into the inner city to see this and, to my surprise, found myself being transported not only to another land but also to another time. When I came out, I was in a trance for the rest of the day, pining for a land and society that is no more and dreaming sweet dreams of angelic Pocahontas, gentle John Rolfe and ruggedly genuine John Smith. All three of course excellently played by Q'uiranka (is that right), Christian and even Colin who, though the accent may have been shaky, captured perfectly what it would have been to be in John Smith's situation. Mallick, of course, is a genius and when his films are this good they're well worth the decade or so of waiting. Also, I don't know who the director of photography was but what a job they did, possibly the most beautiful film ever put on screen. All in all, a masterpiece which I'll carry with me every step I take in this ofttimes sorry world.

Almost historically accurate.

[johnraut-58334 · 6/10 · 30 August 2018]

I am watching this movie for a history through film class. We are watching it to see how historically accurate films are.

The filmmaker is trying to tell the story of Pocahontas and John Smith. The movie surrounds their relationship and how it caused war and forgiveness between the settlers and the naturals. When the settlers first come into contact with the naturals there is much confusion. A small war starts when John Smith takes Pocahontas to Jamestown and is accused with "stealing" their princess.

The way the English settlers dressed and the way they built Jamestown shows the time period the story takes place in. They build their walls around Jamestown out of raw uncut wood. The naturals also show how long ago this was. They live in huts made of wood and leaves. Their technology is very behind because they use fires inside of their homes for warmth.

This movie made me question it's historical accuracy because every story of Pocahontas is different and no one really knows the true story. I'm not sure that John Smith would have been able to teach Pocahontas English that easily. I also don't think that many naturals would have been taken to England with them.

I did not notice any connections to other movies in the film. The only thing i noticed was that their love story was similar to the Disney cartoon version.

Three things i liked about the movie was the camera work, the setting, and the accuracy of their clothes. The camera work was very beautiful because it was very smooth and flowing. The setting the movie was shot in was very beautiful. There was lots of trees and water. The clothes they wore were very accurate to the time period.

The New World is a flop!

[stottlem · 1/10 · 21 January 2006]

Hi Everyone,

I must first tell you that I am in no way a movie critic. I just felt an obligation to inform everyone about the truth about this movie. I went to see this movie last night with my fiancé. The movie started out with promise. You were introduced to beautiful scenes of what is supposed to be 17th century Virginia. The only flaw I found here was that the music was irritating. It was a very loud group of strings which were pulsating for minutes on the same two tones.

I was very excited when the cast appeared and the story began. The first 20 minutes had plenty of conversations between the characters. But after that the movie went down hill. When we are introduced to Pocahontas the story was believable. The only problem is that she never really talks. You hear a narrator in her voice (as if you were hearing her thoughts) but her entire lines to the other cast, John Smith included, could have been placed on one page of the script. The story has no real fight scenes or action of any sort. My fiancé wanted to leave one hour in but I made her stay in hopes that this movie was just waiting for some climax.

First I must say I do not mind chick flicks. If there is humor, love, action or sports I am all for it, but this move lacked all of the above. All Pocahuntas kept asking herself is, "Who am I......Who am I." She falls in love, but never talks to him...he leaves...she falls in love again, never talks to him (maybe has a kid, I couldn't really tell), maybe wants to leave him.....and so on.

I am not lying when I tell you that the FEMALES IN THE THEATRE WERE SLEEPIN! All their dates were waking them up. When the movie was over you could hear one man say, "think God" from the back of the theater and a lady in front of me say, "That was the worst movie of history!" Just please save your money and go see Harry Potter again or something. Maybe rent this movie but I wouldn't even do that.

You can go and see this if you want but all I can figure by the rating is that people went and say this movie and were so bored that they decided to come home and vote that the movie was good. Now they are laughing at me because I wasted my money on it. It was the only way that they could find humor in wasting 2.5 hours of there life.