Post by ZapRowsdower on Jan 23, 2006 1:50:43 GMT -5
The New World - a film we have been waiting for since the end of 2004... Rather, a film Terrence Malick fans have been waiting for since 1998. A film that has the fans and the critics alike divided in two categories: "I love it", and "I didn't love it." Where does this reviewer fall?
There's no denying that Terrence Malick has a unique filmmaker's eye, and no one makes a movie like him. In his 35 or so years as a filmmaker, he has only directed 4 films. So it's obvious that this man pours his heart and soul into his movies. The man is an artist. Unfortunately, his artwork wasn't intended to fill up a feature-length film. Some of the things he does in the New World are absolutely beautiful. The narratives and inner monologues are almost poetic, and the words flow through you so smoothly as they complement the action on screen... that is, when there is action on screen.
Truth be told, the movie is about 2 1/2 hours long, give or take, and within this time frame, there's not a lot happening. The screenplay itself couldn't have been very long - the majority of the movie is visual. And while the visuals and direction are absolutely stunning, they were very overdone. A film is more than just visuals, even if they are symbolic. There wasn't enough "movie" in the New World. However, with what he had, if he had decided to do that sparingly and used it to accompany a Dances with Wolves-like epic, this film would have been a masterpiece.
Q'Orianka Kilcher was wonderful. She gave a performance well beyond her years (At most, she had to have been 14 years old while filming), and I believe she deserves an Oscar nomination for it. Colin Farrell and Christian Bale did fine, but Q'Orianka Kilcher stole the movie away from them.
I guess I would have to fall under the "I didn't love it" category, but I also didn't hate it either. I saw in it potential to be a great film. It IS a work of art, not even the biggest naysayer can deny that. But as a film, it fell short of my expectations. Come to think of it, the entire screenplay could have been performed by actors clad in black clothing sitting on stools and reading the lines out of a book.
The Good:
--Q'Orianka Kilcher's astounding performance, and a strong cast to support it.
--Terrence Malick's direction and use of visuals.
--Very artistic and poetic.
Didn't Hurt It, Didn't Help It:
--Great cinematography.
--Great costumes.
--Beautiful score.
The Bad:
--It was more visual than anything else, and the dialogue was lacking.
The Ugly:
--I was constantly looking at my watch. This movie was really quite boring.
Story: 10/10
Acting: 10/10
Writing: 12/20
Direction: 16/20
Overall: 63%
There's no denying that Terrence Malick has a unique filmmaker's eye, and no one makes a movie like him. In his 35 or so years as a filmmaker, he has only directed 4 films. So it's obvious that this man pours his heart and soul into his movies. The man is an artist. Unfortunately, his artwork wasn't intended to fill up a feature-length film. Some of the things he does in the New World are absolutely beautiful. The narratives and inner monologues are almost poetic, and the words flow through you so smoothly as they complement the action on screen... that is, when there is action on screen.
Truth be told, the movie is about 2 1/2 hours long, give or take, and within this time frame, there's not a lot happening. The screenplay itself couldn't have been very long - the majority of the movie is visual. And while the visuals and direction are absolutely stunning, they were very overdone. A film is more than just visuals, even if they are symbolic. There wasn't enough "movie" in the New World. However, with what he had, if he had decided to do that sparingly and used it to accompany a Dances with Wolves-like epic, this film would have been a masterpiece.
Q'Orianka Kilcher was wonderful. She gave a performance well beyond her years (At most, she had to have been 14 years old while filming), and I believe she deserves an Oscar nomination for it. Colin Farrell and Christian Bale did fine, but Q'Orianka Kilcher stole the movie away from them.
I guess I would have to fall under the "I didn't love it" category, but I also didn't hate it either. I saw in it potential to be a great film. It IS a work of art, not even the biggest naysayer can deny that. But as a film, it fell short of my expectations. Come to think of it, the entire screenplay could have been performed by actors clad in black clothing sitting on stools and reading the lines out of a book.
The Good:
--Q'Orianka Kilcher's astounding performance, and a strong cast to support it.
--Terrence Malick's direction and use of visuals.
--Very artistic and poetic.
Didn't Hurt It, Didn't Help It:
--Great cinematography.
--Great costumes.
--Beautiful score.
The Bad:
--It was more visual than anything else, and the dialogue was lacking.
The Ugly:
--I was constantly looking at my watch. This movie was really quite boring.
Story: 10/10
Acting: 10/10
Writing: 12/20
Direction: 16/20
Overall: 63%
