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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
6
cabritaDec 23, 2011
Malick's "The New World" try's to be profound and is at times, but it is always held back by it's horrible storytelling, Malick is master of all technical elements in film but he fails to draw in his audience. One can marvel at all his otherMalick's "The New World" try's to be profound and is at times, but it is always held back by it's horrible storytelling, Malick is master of all technical elements in film but he fails to draw in his audience. One can marvel at all his other skills like the cinematography and well written dialogue, but they will always be distant from the story. The begining of the film captivated my mind and pulled me in. However halfway through the film Malick failed to capture the love story and present it in a interesting way. Malick's The New World is a great story but it's extreme length and bad storytelling stop this film from being a masterpiece… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
beingryanjudeSep 1, 2014
A wonderful vision of the founding of Virginia and the life of Pocahontas. Terrence Malick brilliantly presents the story without any Disney-isms and sheds realism upon it.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
SpangleAug 9, 2014
This is pretty much what I expected from this one, so I guess you could say I am oddly satisfied. The acting here is fantastic, led by Q'Orianka Kilcher, Christian Bale, Colin Farrell, and Christopher Plummer. The score and costume design areThis is pretty much what I expected from this one, so I guess you could say I am oddly satisfied. The acting here is fantastic, led by Q'Orianka Kilcher, Christian Bale, Colin Farrell, and Christopher Plummer. The score and costume design are good, as well. However, the star here is the cinematography. As always, Terrence Malick manages to find a gorgeous area to shoot and really maximize that beauty. Every shot is more gorgeous than the last and really capture the region well and feel entirely authentic to the time period. However, all of those positives are ultimately off-set by the major negatives. As with all Malick films, the story is just horrible. It is incoherant, poorly developed, and emotionless. For a romance, it manages to keep you at a distance and not feel any of the passion between the characters. In addition, it skims far too much. For example, Pochahontas gives birth at one point, with them never having shown her being pregnant. What? The baby just comes out of thin air. In addition, the script is not good. The actors all go a great job with this terrible script, but it just does not really do anything for me. Both the story and the script also combine for the final negative: the film is entirely boring. Not once was I overly interested in what was happening on screen, aside from watching some great acting and cinematography, which sadly, could not save this one. Great shots and acting can only do so much for the final product. At the end of the day, you need an interesting story to go with those. I keep giving Malick films a chance and they keep making me feel the same way, that he is a great artist, but not a great filmmaker.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
More From This Movie

73 Critic Reviews

6.8 User Reviews

Details & Credits|Trailers

Current Movie Releases
By MetascoreBy User Score
1 77 Project Hail Mary
2 75 Send Help
3 73 Hoppers
4 71 The Sheep Detectives
5 68 Crime 101
SEE ALL
Essential Links
New on Amazon Prime Video
New on Netflix
Coming Soon to DVD/Blu-ray
SEE ALL