The New World
New Line Cinema | Release Date: December 25, 2005
6.8
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 223 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
140
Mixed:
38
Negative:
45
Watch Now
Stream On
Buy on
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Expand
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User scoreBy dateMost helpful
10
schrodingerNov 30, 2011
Terrence Malick is a genius and a real artist. Exactly... This film is lighter then The Thin Red Line, but The New World is an amazing philosophical orgasm. Long and slow, even so beautiful and never dull. Colin Farrell is a great actor, butTerrence Malick is a genius and a real artist. Exactly... This film is lighter then The Thin Red Line, but The New World is an amazing philosophical orgasm. Long and slow, even so beautiful and never dull. Colin Farrell is a great actor, but the best was Christian Bale. The script is lyrical, the shot is wonderful. Need more?… Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
4
HyZ.Jan 21, 2006
I must have seen a different film. The one I saw worked so hard at creating a sense of awe and awakening that it overshot the mark.The endless montage of nature turns that beauty into a calendar of sunsets backed by powerful symphonic I must have seen a different film. The one I saw worked so hard at creating a sense of awe and awakening that it overshot the mark.The endless montage of nature turns that beauty into a calendar of sunsets backed by powerful symphonic strains that are so continuous they sound like computer sound loops. How many times can you do "grandeur" in one film? Beyond this I wonder how these characters get to think in such contemporary terms? The obsessive costume design and the detail photography of it were also distracting. But Malicks efforts for authenticity seem to stop at the visual. This film is all dressed up with no place to go. It is a meditation on a dream that doesn't really hold together when its retold. It just repeats the same simplistic view backed by manipulative photography and music.… Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful
2
DoctorP.Feb 24, 2006
Ponderous and ridiculously self-indulgent, this movie evokes the same quiet panic that ensues when a tedious bore runs a never-ending slide show of a recent family reunion in Peoria. The only difference? Virginia is more beautiful than Ponderous and ridiculously self-indulgent, this movie evokes the same quiet panic that ensues when a tedious bore runs a never-ending slide show of a recent family reunion in Peoria. The only difference? Virginia is more beautiful than Peoria, but after about 90 minutes, you will be begging for mercy, anyway. Take a pillow or book to this one.… Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful
6
AlexisJan 27, 2006
Beautifully shot, fantastic performances but the score and the narrative becomes redundant, too much of one thing.
1 of 1 users found this helpful
3
CablesJan 30, 2006
I just don't get it. I understand it was shot in narrative format, but good lord. The script was terrible, and Colin Farrel? Are you serious? Didn't click for me at all, supremely dissapointed.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
aabJan 9, 2006
The best film of the year,
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
RichL.Apr 1, 2006
Transcendent moments of beauty shower The New World with a pure joy, not based on explosive plot jolting, but on purity itself.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
GiovanniJan 10, 2006
Pure Art.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
franktJan 3, 2006
Kudos to master malick for being a distinctive voice in the largely generic choir of american film. i'd rather feel a bit bored for stretches by malick than assaulted by vulgarians like... there are too many to name. the female Kudos to master malick for being a distinctive voice in the largely generic choir of american film. i'd rather feel a bit bored for stretches by malick than assaulted by vulgarians like... there are too many to name. the female character could have been handled in ways that would have been more emotionally engaging, without resorting to sentimentality or the usual manipulations, but she remained too enigmatic for too long. nice recovery in the final minutes, but there was too much fertile ground left fallow. being dislocated from your people, isolated and cast out should result in some drama, not just a change of wardrobe and address.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
MitchM.Feb 1, 2006
An utterly mesmerizing, gripping, tragic, beautiful, hallucinogenic experience sitting through this. The film captures some essential truth about the trainwreck that occured when these two disparate cultures collided, and most of it is visual.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
KenG.Feb 12, 2006
Beautifully told, beautifully shot, and beautifully acted.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
W.GlenFeb 3, 2006
This is a singular work of genius. Brilliantly conceived and executed as only few in the history of movie making have been--it has displaced one from my list of the ten best movies I have ever seen. My full essay critiique would contain only This is a singular work of genius. Brilliantly conceived and executed as only few in the history of movie making have been--it has displaced one from my list of the ten best movies I have ever seen. My full essay critiique would contain only superlatives. The artistry is sublime throughout in all dimensions.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
OLucJun 4, 2006
Despite misleading advertisingsome akward editing, The New World captivates with it's celestial visual style and it's isolated feel.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
MarkW.Jan 1, 2006
Another of Malick's meditations, this time on the birth of a nation and the nature of love. Beautifully scripted, acted, and shot.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
DavidA.Jan 21, 2006
I really liked this movie, the only bad thing is that it goes a little slow, but the rest is nearly perfect.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
DrewF.Jan 21, 2006
Absolutely beautiful film. Not everyone will like it, not everyone will GET it, but.. Isn't that true of all fine art? Malick is so great at getting fantastic performances out of the most unlikely of sources.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
TelyS.Jan 20, 2006
Terrence Malick's use of the medium of film is unconventional and completely unique, and The New World bears the director's unmistakable imprint. As was the case with his past films, The New World kept me breathlessly captivated Terrence Malick's use of the medium of film is unconventional and completely unique, and The New World bears the director's unmistakable imprint. As was the case with his past films, The New World kept me breathlessly captivated from the first frame to the last through his incredible use of image and sound. You either get it or you don… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
AndrewS.Jan 22, 2006
I cannot believe that some of the respondants are saying good things about this film. It is as empty and preposterous as any film released in years. Malick should be ashamed of himself.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
StephenZ.Jan 22, 2006
Breathtakingly beautiful, amazing how a film can reimagine history.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
DougJan 23, 2006
Idlers use the word, "pretentious" to criticize art they're unwilling to investigate or interpret. Pretenious, like bourgeois, is now a dead word. Malick has made no claims of genius; he does not put on airs (though he is a graduate of Idlers use the word, "pretentious" to criticize art they're unwilling to investigate or interpret. Pretenious, like bourgeois, is now a dead word. Malick has made no claims of genius; he does not put on airs (though he is a graduate of Harvard and the AFI, a Rhodes Scholar, and a director of four ambitious and interesting movies). In an era of deritative and formulaic films, we should not disregard an intelligent, courageous artist as simply "pretentious."… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
MarkJan 23, 2006
See the movie for what it's actually trying to do-not what you think it's supposed to be doing. The visuals and the sounds do show you everything you need to know-even though they don't spell it out in words.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
HughG.Jan 27, 2006
A wasted opportunity. "Four legs good, two legs bad" kind of mentality/morality. So California 60's. A dishonest tone poem. Even Anthropology 101 will tell you the "noble savage" was a myth. And we've all see the Indian with a tear A wasted opportunity. "Four legs good, two legs bad" kind of mentality/morality. So California 60's. A dishonest tone poem. Even Anthropology 101 will tell you the "noble savage" was a myth. And we've all see the Indian with a tear in the corner of his eye as he stands beside the polluted lake. Magnify this a hundred times and film your thesis as though it's a perfume commercial. Last year at Marienbad meets Ralph Lauren. Colin Farrell plays John Smith like a lip-quivering ninny. Q'Orianka Kilcher is "sensual, but not too far from innocence." As biopic the film is a lie. As a story of culture clash, the story is insipid. As love story the film lacks credibility and eroticism. Everyone else works while these two wander the scenery, bashful and goofy as 8th graders unsure of their crush. Too bad, because I, like so many, have waited for terrence Malick to make another credible movie like Badlands ever since. This film is a tone poem like Sibelius' Finlandia, as composed by Yanni.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
ElliottFeb 13, 2006
I can understand how some people would find this film slow, distancing, boring, etc. (though I certainly didn't), but to stamp this film with a '0' review is both inane and ludicrous. Such comments are impossible to take seriously.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
AdamBeachFeb 1, 2006
Quietly enchanting, The New World spoke in images. From the virgin landscape of a remote Virginia coastline, to the towering vegetation of a land untamed
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JansFeb 2, 2006
Cinematography, not predictable exposition or an overwrought soundtrack, make the plot move in this film. Slow, quiet, and beautiful; another fine film by Malick.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
SaraL.Feb 3, 2006
Granted- I saw a midnight showing- but this movie was so terrible it was funny. Not to mention, historically, it's garbage. Please do not tell me how beautiful the cinematography is, because it is in fact the same 3 scenes shown 50 Granted- I saw a midnight showing- but this movie was so terrible it was funny. Not to mention, historically, it's garbage. Please do not tell me how beautiful the cinematography is, because it is in fact the same 3 scenes shown 50 times with terrible, terrible monologues in the background. Yes, Pocohantas was a free spirit and she loved to frolic the backwoods in her fitted gucci native american attire, I GET IT… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
SoniaH.Feb 4, 2006
I think that film could have been better made. The whole concept of the movie is very good. It really takes you into the eyes of the explores when they first land in Virginia, and to the eyes of then Native American when they go to England, I think that film could have been better made. The whole concept of the movie is very good. It really takes you into the eyes of the explores when they first land in Virginia, and to the eyes of then Native American when they go to England, in scenery sense though. Some scenes most of the scenes are stretched out too much while being accompanied with evergoing music of Mozart, cresendo's and decrecendo's, which tend work against the scenes than to help them. This effect makes each stretched out scene anxious and just overdone. And i'm a very patient person. There were a lot of, but i mean a lot of scenes of landscapes and trees. I think that this emphasis on this disregarded other important features of the film. I would have liked to see the development of John's Smith character. There is a lot of poetry accross the film, from both Pocahontas, and John Smith expressing their thoughts and emotions, but i would have liked to see this in a more active form, including the poetry, but taking it down. I like Pocahontas character, i think she (the actress) did an awesome job. However, i think that instead of focussing on trees so much, i would have liked her character to have been developed more as well. I think that i would have liked to see, the psychological struggle between choosing to aid the English, and love John Smith, while at the same time staying loyal to her tribe, which have been and are being slaughtered by the English. After that I would have liked to see a tad more suffering for John Smith's abandonment. And finally, i know this isn't all, the sense that she is all alone, forsaken, both by her family, and the man she loves, and supposedly loves her. I would also liked to see more emotion in the native american's part, this is their family that is being slaughtered, but we don't get that. Another thing that bothered me, was that even though i'm not for rape and pillaging, this is what happened, and even though i would not have liked to see this, i would like to have it insinuated in some form, just for authenticity purposes. At last, but i know is not the only thing, I should have liked to see a more specific indication of the struggle for these explorers to survive in an unknown land, all they show is people walking among hungry and going mad. I would have liked to see and it would have made it better to see these men try to find food, and unable to. This film made me take a netral position, i had no indication and real sense of the struggle among the Native Americans or the English. I was looking to choose sides.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JohnV.Feb 7, 2006
Terence Malical comes through again, with a film that transends the conventional film experience to bring to our minds and eyes, a visually stunning peice of reflective and challenging cinema.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
JayDMay 8, 2006
This movie flows as smoothly as a bunch of jagged rocks! The scenery, music, story line, and the performance by Q'Orianka Kilcher were all thumbs up; however, Terrence Malick was somehow able to turn this film into a newly bought This movie flows as smoothly as a bunch of jagged rocks! The scenery, music, story line, and the performance by Q'Orianka Kilcher were all thumbs up; however, Terrence Malick was somehow able to turn this film into a newly bought "Rubik's Cube". So, I give thanks to the director for turning what could've been 2 hours of enjoyment into a -sadly- waste of time.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
ChrisM.Jun 14, 2006
the best film of the year. Unfortunately, it's too smart for most.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
emmaJun 29, 2006
I didnt understand it as much but, overall it was preety good except for the ending.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
HenryW.Jul 8, 2006
Absolutely astonishing, but I'm a big Malick fan anyway - it's something you either get or you don't. It's a deep, thoughtful, meditative film quite unlike anything that's ever been before (except Malick's Absolutely astonishing, but I'm a big Malick fan anyway - it's something you either get or you don't. It's a deep, thoughtful, meditative film quite unlike anything that's ever been before (except Malick's previous oeuvre), but if you can't stand not seeing a car blow up or someone getting their head kicked in every five seconds it may not be for you. Inspiring, incredible cinema, Malick is the greatest American filmmaker ever.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
GregA.Aug 10, 2006
There is good art and bad art; good poetry and bad poetry. This was just bad. The film took to extreme the fashion for portraying poetry and sensitivity through long, supposedly meaningful silences and lack of dialogue. It was almost as if There is good art and bad art; good poetry and bad poetry. This was just bad. The film took to extreme the fashion for portraying poetry and sensitivity through long, supposedly meaningful silences and lack of dialogue. It was almost as if the actors were miming their roles. This conspiracy against speech in an attempt to be artistic is not clever or challenging. It is lazy, simplistic and, to my mind, dishonest. In addition, the verbal and linguistic inaccuracy was embarrassing and the scenes of England, London and the court of James I were risible.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
PaulP.Mar 13, 2007
A real snoozer. The cinematography was great, but don't watch this if you want to stay awake.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
AndrewP.Dec 30, 2005
Malick surpasses himself, a visual feat.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
LandonC.Jan 1, 2006
Once again, Terrence Malick uses the setting and plot not as an end but as a means to relate the depth and weight of history and human experience. Devastatingly beautiful. One of the best films I have ever seen.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
WadeJan 21, 2006
Yes it is slow. If you view that as a negative then don't go see this. If you have a passion for cinema, this film is a gift. If you "just like going to the movies", then this film will cure your insomnia. Better to spend your cash on Yes it is slow. If you view that as a negative then don't go see this. If you have a passion for cinema, this film is a gift. If you "just like going to the movies", then this film will cure your insomnia. Better to spend your cash on Last Holiday and let true cinema nerds like me take in this masterpiece. Every. Single. Shot...is a work of art unto itself. I even forgot that I hate Colin Farrell. Thank you Mr. Malick. I look forward to your next masterpiece a decade from now.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
BillCJan 21, 2006
I expected more. Yeah, it's beautifully filmed,but poorly edited I thought. Colin Ferrel wasn't one of my favorites before the film, and after the film I'd say he's over rated. Not the worst movie of 2006,but far from a top 20.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
StuQ.Jan 21, 2006
An amzing film. This type of story-telling is very unique, and Malick's artistry and direction create and unforgettable story. Colin Farrell has never been better, and the emotions he conveys, without a word of dialogue---longing, An amzing film. This type of story-telling is very unique, and Malick's artistry and direction create and unforgettable story. Colin Farrell has never been better, and the emotions he conveys, without a word of dialogue---longing, worry, love---show him mastering the craft of acting. This is a movie that must be seen in the theater, no so for the enjoyment of it (like a King Kong), but I believe the big screen is the only way to see this fgilm for what it is. I cannot wait to view it a second time.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JohnM.Jan 20, 2006
Best movie of the year, hands down.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
GozerrulezJan 20, 2006
The LA weekly rereviewed this movie today and I couldn't agree more. It said, it is not only the film of the year, it is one of the greatest films I have ever seen. I must agree. I saw the original cut, and liked it very much and then, The LA weekly rereviewed this movie today and I couldn't agree more. It said, it is not only the film of the year, it is one of the greatest films I have ever seen. I must agree. I saw the original cut, and liked it very much and then, because some friends were going, and I have learned Malicks films get better the more one sees them, this afternoon I watched it again. Strangely enough it was almost a different film. Watching the first one was like watching a magnificent picture, today watching the second cut, it was like being sucked into that painting. This is a film we will talk about for decades to come. the term becomes jaded, but it is a masterpiece.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
KitJan 22, 2006
Tender and beautiful, unique and inspiring.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
FredO.Jan 22, 2006
You can't hear the narrator, the film has no forward motion, and the director is up to the same tricks he played to much btter effect in The Thin Red Line. The people in this forum that have given this film great reviews really need to You can't hear the narrator, the film has no forward motion, and the director is up to the same tricks he played to much btter effect in The Thin Red Line. The people in this forum that have given this film great reviews really need to get a grip.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
BaronJ.Jan 22, 2006
Beautiful, there ain't no other words to describe it
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
SamJ.Jan 22, 2006
A ponderous, vacuous and pointless film...best film of the year??? Next joke....maybe the worst!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
DWillyJan 23, 2006
Oh, I wanted to like this movie, but, just as he did with "Alexander," poor, clueless Collin Farrell kills this endeavor as well. Even with a decent performance from him and the young Native American girl, this would have been more properly Oh, I wanted to like this movie, but, just as he did with "Alexander," poor, clueless Collin Farrell kills this endeavor as well. Even with a decent performance from him and the young Native American girl, this would have been more properly a film installation in a museum than a regular movie (the script must have consisted of about twenty pages) I'm affraid the director's reach so far exceeds his grasp that it goes beyond dreamlike and dips well into idiotic.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
KathrynJan 23, 2006
A beautiful, contemplative, textured movie to be absorbed into. From the heart.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
AlexAJan 24, 2006
hey dont really care about the vote... but look at this: «The New World is a sweeping adventure set amidst the first encounter of European and Native American cultures during the founding of the Jamestown Virginia settlement in 1607. hey dont really care about the vote... but look at this: «The New World is a sweeping adventure set amidst the first encounter of European and Native American cultures during the founding of the Jamestown Virginia settlement in 1607. Acclaimed filmmaker Terence Malick brings to life his own » Heard of someone called Christopher Columbus ?!??!?! like 115 years before that... metacritic... u disapoint me, trying to rewrite history… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
ESJan 26, 2006
The best film yet from the only genius operating in American cinema since Kubrick died. But this is better than anything Kubrick has ever offered - perhaps the best thing that American cinema has ever offered. This is a masterpiece on the The best film yet from the only genius operating in American cinema since Kubrick died. But this is better than anything Kubrick has ever offered - perhaps the best thing that American cinema has ever offered. This is a masterpiece on the level of Kurosawa's RAN. Obviously, though, Malick is an aquired taste and not for everyone... but whatever objective critical ability I do possess tells me that this is not a film to be underestimated. The subjective part of me wants to call it the finest piece of cinematic art I've yet encountered. In every aspect this film is a stunner. Essential viewing for all filmgoers who profess to take the artform seriously and definately Best Picture material. See it, absorb it, and tell your friends to do the same!… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
V.MartinezJan 27, 2006
This movie was different but in a good way. Most people would think it was slow and it was (2.5 hrs). But I liked how it seemed real, like you were there in 1607. I didn't feel cheated, but it did have some nature scenes that could have This movie was different but in a good way. Most people would think it was slow and it was (2.5 hrs). But I liked how it seemed real, like you were there in 1607. I didn't feel cheated, but it did have some nature scenes that could have been cut. The love story part was excellent. Colin Farrell has like 3 lines in the whole movie. The other actors were great.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
LynetteS.Jan 27, 2006
Lots of pretty pictures. Poor storytelling.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
MiraL.Jan 3, 2006
The best American film of 2005. Unforgettable and transcendent.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
JonS.Feb 1, 2006
I went to this movie expecting a lot, so maybe it was just that I expected too much. This is the only movie that I have seriously considered leaving partway through. They only thing that kept me in my seat was that I was so bored that I I went to this movie expecting a lot, so maybe it was just that I expected too much. This is the only movie that I have seriously considered leaving partway through. They only thing that kept me in my seat was that I was so bored that I couldn't bring myself to stand. This is a film that was made to win Oscars. And it probably will. The problem is that the general public isn't a bunch of stuffy art-movie lovers. I am usually entertained in even the worst of movies, but I wasn't entertained for even a second. I'm sorry, but pictures of trees and grass just doesn't do it for me. The story was secondary to the artsy camera work, and I was confused at several points in the movie because of the way it skipped time throughout. The only reason I gave it a 1 is because of the amazing performance by the stunning Q'orianka Kilcher. I will make this as clear as possible...I will never see another Malick movie again. Although apparently it takes him decades to come up with this crap anyway.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
TheConundrumFeb 24, 2006
If you are seeking popcorn entertainment, do not go see this film. It is slow, poetic, languid, philisophical -- and enchanting. Most people will be bored (for God's sake don't take kids!), and I wouldn't blame them. But if If you are seeking popcorn entertainment, do not go see this film. It is slow, poetic, languid, philisophical -- and enchanting. Most people will be bored (for God's sake don't take kids!), and I wouldn't blame them. But if you're patient and open to truly artistic film-making, then don't miss this thought-provoking epic. The cinematography is magnificent, as one would expect from Terrence Malick. Be sure to see it on the big screen!… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
BenK.Feb 4, 2006
Nobody makes films like Terrence Malick. Unfortunately Malickian or Malickesque do not lend themselves freely to be used as adjectives. Malick's films are slow, deliberate, picturesque, perhaps the cinematic equivalent to a Henry James Nobody makes films like Terrence Malick. Unfortunately Malickian or Malickesque do not lend themselves freely to be used as adjectives. Malick's films are slow, deliberate, picturesque, perhaps the cinematic equivalent to a Henry James novel. A great movie that will only grow in complexity with multiple viewings.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
DougA.Feb 8, 2006
My gut reaction to this film was to think that the emperor has no clothes, but on reflection, that's not the problem at all. In fact, this emperor wears only the finest; problem is, he has no heart. I think I understand what those My gut reaction to this film was to think that the emperor has no clothes, but on reflection, that's not the problem at all. In fact, this emperor wears only the finest; problem is, he has no heart. I think I understand what those people are saying who rated this movie highly, but disagree with the implication that it's some kind of high "art" or "poetry" and you're somehow more sensitive or intelligent for liking it. Yes, the cinematography is beautiful; okay, it's not resorting to a maudlin Disney story line; all right, some of the actors are a talented, well-costumed lot; and fine, I suppose it's artfully rendered - if your taste in art runs to pretentious, long-winded tripe with nothing remarkable to say. This film had no significant plotline or story arc; no meaningful thematic development or tension of any kind; no depth of character or engaging signs of inner character conflict (hence the painful and repetitive postures and gesturing)...I could go on, but basically I'm saying this film had none of the attributes of true art or entertainment, other than its aesthetic beauty. This was a pretty picture, but true art is much more than that. Nor was it a "symphony"or "poem", for these forms have THEMES. Look up"art" in the dictionary; it talks about "human creative skill, as opposed to the work of nature." If you want to talk about high art, think Shakespeare, which has all of the elements this film lacked. Anything I got from this film, I really could have got from looking at a tree in the park - except the tree would ultimately have been more satisfying. This was the worst movie I've seen in a very long time, whether you're looking for entertainment or art. And even if it was only the "ignoramus" hockey fans who walked out, I wouldn't sneer at them. The "riffraff" were riveted at the Globe theatre in Shakespeare's day. And no, in case you're wondering, I don't watch hockey, and prefer good drama to action movies. Finally, as a Native person, I find this movie continues a long Hollywood tradition of reducing our whole existence to the level of props in some self-important white man's deluded frontier tale. It may be a somewhat sympathetic and well-meaning attempt, but, as with the B movies of the 50's, it does not even remotely approach an intelligent depiction of the unique genius of our societies, or our complexity as people. My sole sorry comfort was that all the Europeans in the movie suffered the same shallow fate.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JSS.Mar 7, 2006
An exploration of what it is to have a world, and the plurality of worlds. Brilliant and utterly absorbing.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
DamianP.May 12, 2006
I enjoyed the movie while Colin Farrell was in it, but then it got dull.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
MikebMay 13, 2006
Could have been much better. Hard to follow and lacked smoothness. Q'Orianka Kilcher captured the innocence of youth and Native Americans. The movie just was poorly edited and that is what hurt the film more than anything else
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
RichardC.May 22, 2006
A beautifully photographed film, well-cast and acted, but largely void of dialogue, and seemingly scored by a person who specialized in funeral music and orchestral warm-up pieces, and edited by a college art student whose hobby is scrap-booking.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
StephenMay 4, 2006
If The Thin Red Line was - emphatically
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
CzarJun 15, 2006
What can I say. It was dreary. The scene cuts were haphazard and I was lost half of the time. Things happened but it was unclear why. The movie is a mess. How could they spend this much money and end up with such a bothed movie? The movie What can I say. It was dreary. The scene cuts were haphazard and I was lost half of the time. Things happened but it was unclear why. The movie is a mess. How could they spend this much money and end up with such a bothed movie? The movie jerked from one scene to the next, there was no continuity and no smoothness to the scenes and dialouge. At 2:15 minutes it was way too long. After an hour I was bored to pieces.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
SteveJun 17, 2006
I fully expect to be told that the movie is "too smart" for me, but it is a poor experiment. It may be laudable art to write a movie where the dialogue is spoken emotion and secret thoughts, but it is painstakingly long and difficult to I fully expect to be told that the movie is "too smart" for me, but it is a poor experiment. It may be laudable art to write a movie where the dialogue is spoken emotion and secret thoughts, but it is painstakingly long and difficult to hear, let alone celebrate. I found myself needing the closed captioning just to discern the mumbled tones. Calling something intelligent is far different than calling it worthwhile.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
RickK.Jun 19, 2006
I agree with the main points: poor editing (scene cuts for example) and odd video clips just put in there for no reason really. It did build to somewhat of a climax than it just went downhill (right around the time christian bale and the I agree with the main points: poor editing (scene cuts for example) and odd video clips just put in there for no reason really. It did build to somewhat of a climax than it just went downhill (right around the time christian bale and the pochahontas characters had the baby). You'd think they would've had a big confrontation with the colin farrel character and the new "couple" but it looked far too rushed, almost like they were trying their hardest to keep it right around 2 hours and the movie had to pay for it unfortunately... could've been way better.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
DaveJul 10, 2006
Some understand poetry, and some dont. Malick is a poet and one of the greatest living filmaker's, and in an age when everything in film is hammering us over the head, its nice to see som subtlety and meditation.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
[Anonymous]Aug 19, 2006
Ironically, Malick's direction is what undermines this film's potential. His muddled narrative and overuse of long shots slows the whole thing to a beautiful, but dull bore. Of course, the cinematography brings about some redeeming Ironically, Malick's direction is what undermines this film's potential. His muddled narrative and overuse of long shots slows the whole thing to a beautiful, but dull bore. Of course, the cinematography brings about some redeeming moments, especially those gorgeous shots of the sunset over water, but ultimately, Terrence Malick's own direction sinks the project in dullness. Sure, Malick has his own taste, but its because of that taste that his films don't earn much. Only for those with the greatst patience.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
MarcelG.Sep 25, 2006
Malick's fertile imagination combines perfectly with his furtive politics; this Pocahontas isn't plucked from her environment. She leads John Smith around by his tail and leaves everybody, audience included, with much to reflect on Malick's fertile imagination combines perfectly with his furtive politics; this Pocahontas isn't plucked from her environment. She leads John Smith around by his tail and leaves everybody, audience included, with much to reflect on in this recreation of an old and no doubt tall tale.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
PatC.Apr 16, 2007
The style in which the story is told lacks continuity and personality development, resulting in a persistent sluggishness. Yet it is lavish audiovisually, does not impose stereotypes, and draws one completely into the world that was the The style in which the story is told lacks continuity and personality development, resulting in a persistent sluggishness. Yet it is lavish audiovisually, does not impose stereotypes, and draws one completely into the world that was the first frontier of our country. Its technique is wanting, but its heart is in the right place. Not necessarily time well spent, but not time wasted either.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
MrnieB.Dec 19, 2005
A trip... stunning.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
pmDec 27, 2005
From the poet Malick, another deep and wise vision of innocence, awe and reverence -- for the sacred human experience that is still possible. Most other films continue to appear superficial and trivial next to his achievements.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
BobbyDec 30, 2005
Malicks new masterpiece is an amazing work of art. Best movie of the year, if not decade. I am still taking it all in...peace son!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
aabDec 31, 2005
The best film of the year,
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
MLNov 25, 2006
Lyrical, beautiful and romantic. One of the year's most underrated films. Like a well-written book, this movie transports its viewers (believably) to another world, another time. Chemistry between Smith and Pocahontas believable and steamy.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
AaronS.Jan 21, 2006
Now this is 'pure cinema'. A Terrence Malick film is something of a rare event now, but as 'The New World' proves, it's worth the wait. I cannot believe some of the negative reactions this film is arousing from some Now this is 'pure cinema'. A Terrence Malick film is something of a rare event now, but as 'The New World' proves, it's worth the wait. I cannot believe some of the negative reactions this film is arousing from some critics and filmgoers. Has our culture become so 'dumbed down' that a brilliant film like Malick's (deliberately paced and making frequent radical use of sight and sound) gets panned because it's 'too slow', or there's 'not enought plot', or 'it has hardly any dialogue'? Like most of Kubrick's work, Malick has once again fashioned a film that seems to be light years ahead of its time. In a perfect world, this is the kind of film that would earn the attention of Oscars. One of the best films of 2005.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
KentP.Jan 22, 2006
Even with twenty minutes removed, it is over-long, pretentious, pompous, and indecipherable.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
JasonG.Jan 22, 2006
This wins the award as Turkey of the Year!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
JamesM.Jan 22, 2006
Incessant mumbling by a narrator that you can hardly hear, and visuals that have no narrative coherence. This film is PRETENTIOUS!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
TonyL.Jan 22, 2006
The newer version is no better than the original cut. A total and comprehensive failure.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
MariaA.Jan 22, 2006
2005's worst motion picture
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
ThomasJ.Jan 22, 2006
Metaphysical rambling and ruminative ponderance. A film devoid of any resonance or narrative coherence.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
AllanFishJan 22, 2006
The first time Mr. Malick has failed, and what a failure this one is.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
PeterD.Jan 22, 2006
At the half way point of the film, the audience slowly started filing out of the theatre. I can't say I blamed them.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
JeffreyM.Jan 22, 2006
I think it would be fair to say that Mr. Malick has crafted one of the all-time biggest movie abominations in the history of the cinema. This one makes Ishtar and Heaven's Gate look like masterpieces.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
LouisA.Jan 23, 2006
I think it is a sham that this site allows the same person to "stack the deck." This film has received extreemely mixed reviews nationwide and after seeing it, it gives pretentiousness a new meaning.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
MarkB.Jan 23, 2006
Complaining that the films of Terrence Malick (Days of Heaven, The Thin Red Line) are exquisitely photographed but frustratingly elliptical, oblique, emotionally distant and seem even longer than their running times is like griping that Complaining that the films of Terrence Malick (Days of Heaven, The Thin Red Line) are exquisitely photographed but frustratingly elliptical, oblique, emotionally distant and seem even longer than their running times is like griping that Stanley Kubrick made movies about dehumanization that were themselves obsessively drained of humanity, or that Quentin Tarantino endlessly blends ultraviolence with pop-culture jokiness, or that Uwe Boll makes really crappy horror movies based on video games. You knew all this going in, so if you're not prepared to accept it, go see something else. (Then again, there's Woody Allen, who at the precise moment you've decided you've seen so many lookalike examples of the typical Woody Allen movie that seeing one more would be completely superfluous, blindsides you.) However, Malick's typically beautiful but deliberately not completely accessible meditation on the 17th century Jamestown settlements, their inevitable effects on the lives of the Native Americans (fittingly referred to as "naturals") living there, and John Smith's and John Rolfe's relationships with 14-year-old Pocahontas (not referred to by name until the film's closing credits) doesn't dig as deep as you'd expect Malick to: from the early shot of one of the newly arrived settlers spitting on the new territory as his first act before stepping on land, Malick's observations about White settlers irreversibly altering and destroying an innocent way of life are nothing really new, however vaild they might be. That said, he frequently expresses these truisms in highly imaginative ways (typically of Malick, even the weather is affected by the English arrivals, and if you think women's high-heeled shoes are uncomfortable and pointless on concrete and tile, wait'll you see the Europeanized Pocahontas try to navigate them on mud.) Heavily narrated films often don't work, but Malick's use of multi-character voiceovers in lieu of very much dialogue is logical because this is a film that deals with two peoples who may slowly learn one another's languages, but never fully understand the cultural constants behind them. And Malick stages a ferociously effective battle scene that's every bit the equal of Michael Mann's vivid, visceral work in The Last of the Mohicans; both sequences can stand as among the most gripping and powerful sequences of their kind ever filmed. That said, The New World, largely because there's nothing really new about its theme, is in large part a muddy slog and arguably the weakest of Malick's four films--and why, after being so detailed and deliberate in his pacing of the Jamestown sequences, does Malick seem to rush through Pocahantas' time in England and the circumstances leading to her very early death? The New World is, by far, much less of a butt-number than this season's OTHER coffee-table movie, Rob Marshall's Memoirs of a Geisha, largely because of most of the acting: Christian Bale (The Machinist, Batman Begins) is effectively sensitive and sympathetic as Rolfe, Pocahontas' eventual husband, and Christopher Plummer (The Insider, Syriana) seems biologically incapable of giving a bad performance. Best of all is Q'Orianka Kilcher, the teen chosen to play the pivotal role of Pocahontas: I don't know if she inherently understood all of Malick's nuances or if he had to film dozens of takes a la Kubrick and splice together the best results, but Kilcher seems so instinctive and on the money that I would guess mostly the former. On the other hand, Colin Ferrell, who was quite effective as the Greek military leader in Oliver Stone's much-maligned Alexander, is monotonously sullen as Pocahontas' first and true love, Smith; whether his character is called upon to be angry, rebellious or deeply, rapturously in love, Ferrell comes across in every scene like he's suffering from a perpetual pinched nerve. Plus, he's really, really greasy to boot: the Indians may have introduced corn and tobacco to the European settlers, but couldn't this tribe also have introduced Ferrell to a primitive version of shampoo?… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
BillyS.Jan 23, 2006
Frame to frame, The New World is pure and simple visual poetry, just sit back and let the Art of Film wash over and sweep you away. As they say, Beauty is in the eyes, not ears, of the beholder, and I, for one, am beholden to the genius of Frame to frame, The New World is pure and simple visual poetry, just sit back and let the Art of Film wash over and sweep you away. As they say, Beauty is in the eyes, not ears, of the beholder, and I, for one, am beholden to the genius of Terrence Malick.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
RimaLynJan 23, 2006
Poetic and thought provoking. Beautiful cinematography. Lead actress was terrific for a newcomer
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
EmilyLandJan 24, 2006
I have to give it a 10 because my friend's daughter plays a bit part as Pocohantas' son (garden scene - you never see her face). It was beautifully filmed and the costumes for the "naturals" were wonderful. This film is not for the I have to give it a 10 because my friend's daughter plays a bit part as Pocohantas' son (garden scene - you never see her face). It was beautifully filmed and the costumes for the "naturals" were wonderful. This film is not for the average movie goer, but will be enjoyed for many for what it is and not what it should be.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
TracyB.Jan 24, 2006
From the beginning to the end a beautiful film- excellent and very moving storytelling.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
DavidJan 26, 2006
This movie was was boring, except for q'orianka kilcher who I thought was the bright spot in the whole movie. It was a love story and should not have been called "new world" because it wasn't anything about that.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
KevinP.Jan 28, 2006
The confused and drunken camera man ruined the beautiful story!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
LynnJan 28, 2006
His technique takes you to another place. So finely done and so rich.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
RobertC.Jan 29, 2006
I think the production company was just a bit baffled by this film. They, and most certainly the public, to think that this film was going to be a sparringly commercial epic. However, what we have here is a beautiful, narratively-abstract I think the production company was just a bit baffled by this film. They, and most certainly the public, to think that this film was going to be a sparringly commercial epic. However, what we have here is a beautiful, narratively-abstract prose that is not truly about the New World, or even the "first American love story", but rather a poetic observation of Pocahontas. At times, it is even more vague than that...it seems to be more observative of just love in general, and how it coincided with the true founding of the New America. This is actually a remarkable film with the beauty of nature with the Kubrickian eye...it's a shame that Hollywood was so reluctant to actually release this FILM.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
MaxJan 31, 2006
A masterpiece! I've never "felt" a film as deeply as this one. Simply genius. I think those people who are unable to connect with the flow of this film forgot to check their preconceived expectations of what an American historical epic A masterpiece! I've never "felt" a film as deeply as this one. Simply genius. I think those people who are unable to connect with the flow of this film forgot to check their preconceived expectations of what an American historical epic should be. Often revolutaionary pieces of art are not recognized as such by the general public because the public just isn't ready yet. This film has the narrative and pacing you'll often find in great foreign films, and it's probably too sophisticated to be appreciated by a large scale American audience. Malick didn't allow this film to become hollywoodized, and thus probably alienated half his audience.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
CharlesFeb 13, 2006
A meeting of two peoples; on the one hand, implacable cynics who see only the world that is directly in front of them, on the other, the willingly enchanted who revel in the transcendental. These two cultures will most likely meet whilst A meeting of two peoples; on the one hand, implacable cynics who see only the world that is directly in front of them, on the other, the willingly enchanted who revel in the transcendental. These two cultures will most likely meet whilst watching The New World, and maybe even embark on a popcorn war, if the former faction doesn't storm out in protest at the film's langurous qualities. I too have criticisms of this film; it skims over narrative like an aloof, possibly disinterested bird; one that occasionally sqawks too much (ie: voiceover). Yet despite this, the film is ravishly beautiful, and captures moments of poetic grandeur unrivalled in contemporary cinema. Mallick explores the foundation of America and the clash of cultures in subjective fashion, through the first love, loss of innocence and eventual compromise of a young native girl; his form therfore fits the nature of his enchanting leading, poetic and ephemeral. It is flawed but artfully impressionistic cinema, worthy of your attention.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
GavinM.Mar 31, 2006
Absolutely fantastic from start to finish - there is not one single mis-step. The performances are pitch perfect, the score wonderful, and the storytelling is masterful. Its not your typical hollywood popcorn movie (and if this is what you Absolutely fantastic from start to finish - there is not one single mis-step. The performances are pitch perfect, the score wonderful, and the storytelling is masterful. Its not your typical hollywood popcorn movie (and if this is what you are determined to see then don't go to this movie), but it is still totally accessible. If you allow yourself to slow down to match the rhythm of the movie, you will see one of the greatest examples of the art of film-making in the history of American cinema. Bravo Terrence Mallick!… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
JGMJul 23, 2006
All the criticisms you'll read here are accurate: this movie is overlong, thin on plot, often indecipherable, self-indulgent, and generally artsy-fartsy. And yet, one forgives Malik all of this and more in exchange for the gift of the All the criticisms you'll read here are accurate: this movie is overlong, thin on plot, often indecipherable, self-indulgent, and generally artsy-fartsy. And yet, one forgives Malik all of this and more in exchange for the gift of the incredible visual feast. Watch any 30 minutes of this, then switch to anything else, and you'll be shocked at how pedestrian, how ugly, most of what comes across the screen is. And, it's not about "smarts" but about viewpoint. A film like this has to be approached as you would approach a series of paintings or a symphony, complete with repeating motif and variations on a theme. If you have the temprement to view a 2+ hour work in this way, the visuals will reward. And the art here is all visual: the dialog is sparse and often intentionally muddy. The acting is mostly wooden and beside the point, with the luminous exception of young Ms. Kilcher, who seems to understand and inhabit this character completely.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
ryancarroll88Aug 26, 2010
By shear craft and lyrical visuals, Terrence Malick turns a story that we've all hear before into a movie that is unique, cerebral and most of all, refreshing. That isn't to say it's a film that bothers to accustom to everyone's taste - it'sBy shear craft and lyrical visuals, Terrence Malick turns a story that we've all hear before into a movie that is unique, cerebral and most of all, refreshing. That isn't to say it's a film that bothers to accustom to everyone's taste - it's about equivalent to watching "Fantasia," where much of the joy of watching comes from a culmination of camerawork, acting and the incredible score composed by James Horner (though it could have just as easily been Aaron Copland). Basically, the entertainment isn't served to you on a greasy golden platter - it's meant to be savored as much as it is to be enjoyed.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
MichaelDJul 16, 2011
In my opinion, the movie was quite slow. The scenery of the forest was beautiful but but if your prone to sleeping a lot, you'd sleep during half of this movie.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
0
vibor123Feb 16, 2011
It should have warning on poster: only for snobs and maybe some retarded children..boring, poorly directed and slow, puts you asleep like that...and also very bad acting by that chick
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
prev
Page:
More From This Movie

73 Critic Reviews

6.8 User Reviews

Details & Credits|Trailers

Current Movie Releases
By MetascoreBy User Score
1 81 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple
2 77 Project Hail Mary
3 75 Send Help
4 73 Hoppers
5 72 The Sheep Detectives
SEE ALL
Essential Links
New on Amazon Prime Video
New on Netflix
Coming Soon to DVD/Blu-ray
SEE ALL