elmer_fishsticks
12Apr12
Elmer Fishsticks proverb: "People who think that The New World revels in the Native American world it depicts are probably not very intelligent."
Wall
Displaying wall posts 1 - 30 of 70 in total
Myles O'Mara
27May12
Terribly depressing. The entire cast slowly became more and more depraved throughout the film, but perhaps such were the colonial days... not too far off from medieval times.
Markus Baumknecht
9Apr12
Old Native American proverb: "Only when every cliché about Native Americans has been ruminated about a billion times you will realise that you can't go back to a past that never existed." Is there anything about this film that is not the narrative equivalent of Colin Farrell's acting?
Ultra Kebab likes this
-
-
-
uglyfact:filmsaremadeoutoffilms
12Apr12
i don't think it does. I think that's the point. John smith is just a dreamer. He wishes the native american world was that way...
-
Markus Baumknecht
19May12
I can imagine you are right and Malick didn't intend it to be like that, but still there is an element that really annoys me about this movie. Terence Malick's style is the same for all his more recent movies: The Thin Red Line, The New World, The Tree of Life. It's the same visual poetry, the combination of beautiful images and voiceover, but I think in the context of the individual films the result is quite different. Whereas in The Thin Red Line there is this amazing antithesis between the cruelty of war and the beauty of nature/the fragility of men, the same 'language' turns this movie into a farce. Contrary to what I said earlier I think you are right in the respect that Malick is not entirely romanticising Native Americans over the British, hence why Pocahontas goes to live a (sort of happy) life in England at the end. Still I think that the whole romance in nature thing is definitely too close to kitsch to begin with, which is made worse by the fact that the editing is a mess - too much stuff in there that's just unnecessary and confusing. I was really excited about it when I heard it came out, but I just can't find anything good about this movie. At worst it has a stupid message, at best it doesn't know what message it has.
HwCath
6Apr12
Too beautiful for words. It's something that has to be seen on the big screen. Fuck iphones. They won't capture the essences of the new world.
Harry Rossi likes this
Bret Bynum
6Apr12
Just watched this again. I have always loved this film but not more so than I did when I just watched it. It had me in a trance, with my eyes glued to the screen. It's so beautiful! So romantic! And it's narration, especially Pocahontas' narration, moved me and was incredibly poetic! Malick is a rare director where every one of his films are one of his best, because they are all masterpieces!
Bijoux Alexanderplatz
6Feb12
Why did I think I would hate this film? Oh, self of five years ago, how little you knew.
uglyfact:filmsaremadeoutoffilms
16Jan12
Watched it again and all I can say is that it is EPIC and by far my favorite film ever made.
Gondo likes this
Matt Turner
12Jan12
Really great. Visually extraordinary, even by Malick standards, romantic and depressing, and possibly the most suitable use of that style of soft spoken, contemplative narration. Lost its way a little bit towards the end, but not enough to hurt it particularly.
roger o. thornhill
30Dec11
brilliant and beautifully done. malick does more with less and lets the thoughts of the participants and their surroundings tell the story.
Noslen
22Dec11
Pode ter sido considerada a obra mais fraca de Malick, mas de facto tem a sua marca. Os planos estáticos, o movimento subtil, a apreciação da natureza, as vozes off. Podem, se quiserem, dizer que é a estória da Pocahontas, mas é a visão de Malick e por isso ganha imensa qualidade. Só prova uma coisa, a qualidade é cada um de nós que atribui.
HEDONIST
10Nov11
This film is so beautiful -- so much potential it is amazing... but yet, it is all ruined by Colin Farrell... In my book, he is a toxic force is every film that he appears in... he is pestilent. I respect Malick so much but how he got about to choosing Ferrel for this role I'll never understand... maybe it was the studio pushing him? God I hope so...
-
uglyfact:filmsaremadeoutoffilms
18Nov11
I'm pretty sure malick doesn't get his money from the studios
-
-
ramosbarajas
1Feb12
I didn't really like Farrell until I saw him in In Bruges... It's definitely a different genre, tough.
Joel
2Nov11
I still struggle with Malick simply because by description he does everything I should love. A slow contemplative pacing, a spiritual eye for a deeper meaning and longing in life, a love of nature. And I did truly enjoy this film. I think I always feel that his choice of so easily recognized Hollywood actors is distracting and this film didn't quite arc the way it felt it would. Still quite beautiful nonetheless.
Ancul
24Sep11
I find it very difficult to take this movie seriously with Colin Farrell playing the leading role...
reductio ad absurdum. likes this
-
-
MARK IS SUSPENDED IN GAFFA
30Sep11
Please don't complain. Just count your lucky stars it wasn't a certain New Zealand actor normally cast in Ridley Scott films. Anyway, I was fascinated by this film: Q'orianka Kilcher was amazing (How did she miss an Oscar nomination for this? Oh, that's right, she's not on the "A" list of "popular" stars). I'm going through a Terrence Malick retrospective at the Astor. His films are so beautiful, methodical, and they have such powerful sentiments. How did this film get only one nomination at the Oscars? Score, film, editing, costuming all excellent. Alas we live in the age of short attention spans. This film felt much quicker than it was.
AdamantCocoon
6Sep11
Malick makes good on his rep for his latest, I'll give him that. I also loved him for The Thin Red Line. But third inspection didn't prove my reservations unfounded: The New World is supererogatory.
Bleu Poster
10Aug11
Watching this the first time was like discovering a new cinematic world. Five viewings later, its magic undiminished, the sensation is still the same.
Irreversible93
5Aug11
Sheer beauty. The only thing that disappoints me is that it took me this long to discover Terrence Malick's films. This film is so visually moving and beautiful, and catches such an overwhelming spirituality that it moves me like no other films have before. I absolutely love the style of his films as well - with the quote-heavy narration by the main characters and the sweeping cinematography. Splendid work, Malick.
DT and Pierre-Joseph like this
Gondo
23Jul11
I never like to single out one film but here I have to. Although I am sure that all the other great films on this earth and all the films that i love and appriciate so deeply won't be mad at me for saying this. The New World is my absolute favourite film, something that moves beyond beeing just a film or just art. What Malick has created is something that has manifested itself in myself. Became a part of me. Forever.
Irreversible93 and CC Baxter like this
-
-
Bleu Poster
23Jan12
"It's been said that The New World doesn't have fans: it has disciples and partisans and fanatics."
陈 振礼
11Jul11
I was completely uninterested in the subject matter as well as Collin Farell, but I watch it because of Terrence Malick, I was moved by the sheer beauty of it and was impressed by how he managed to emote using purely visual/aural means as opposed to traditional dialogue oriented storytelling. I find that he and Michael Mann are 2 sides of the same coin, but TM gets a better rep due to his more "serious" subj matter.
DT likes this
Kamran
6Jul11
I just did a ranking of Malick's films, and this came last. However, I watched the extended version, so I will watch the theatrical version soon, and my placement and rating (3/5) may or may not change as a result. I did love the beginning, and maybe the Theatrical version will cut out all the uninteresting bits.
Kamran
3Jul11
As one would expect of Malick, the film is shot beautifully, with some incredible visuals. Unfortunately, that is all this film has going for it. The first half (or first 1/3) is MUCH better than the second; I may even give the first 1/3 a 5/5, it was so well done, but, while you thought the film would continue growing in intrigue, it did the exact opposite. Malick can sure shoot underwater scenes, though.
Inner Pattern
29May11
I've had a rocky relationship with this film. I saw it in theaters before I knew Malick's work and at the time I thought it was a very pretentious and boring film. Of course one of my favorite films back then was Meet The Parents so let's just say I've 'grown up' since ha. I liked it a lot on second viewing but lost interest after John Smith leaves. Still a beautiful film that I'll probably love on my third viewing.
-
High On This Lie
31May11
I lost interest in the second half. Maybe I just didn't find the story to be very capitivating. The voice-overs weren't as poetic as in The Thin Red Line.
-
Inner Pattern
31May11
Yeah The Thin Red Line is a much better film. I just hope 'The Tree Of Life' lives up to my expectations.
-
High On This Lie
31May11
It better be a thing of beauty or "some kind of masterpiece." I couldn't stand that quote in the Meek's Cutoff trailer. "Some kind of masterpiece" sounds like a vague insult.
Dave
23May11
The more times I watch it, the more I am convinced that it is probably the best piece of cinema I have ever seen. It is a piece of art that overwhelms all of the senses. It is Malick at his finest (pending finally seeing The Tree of Life!) and DP Emmanuel Lubezki produces one of the most gorgeous films I have ever seen.
NE1 and uglyfact:filmsaremadeoutoffilms like this