Sergio Leone Web Board

Other/Miscellaneous => Off-Topic Discussion => Topic started by: Juan Miranda on November 20, 2005, 06:27:38 AM

Title: The New World (2005)
Post by: Juan Miranda on November 20, 2005, 06:27:38 AM
Back in the summer, Terrence Malick shot his latest feature film THE NEW WORLD. Malick is, of course, the reclusive genius who in a 32 year career has completed just 3 features, to date.

BADLANDS was a classic of US Indy film making in the seventies, and still makes amazing viewing today. DAYS OF HEAVEN has justly celebrated cinematography, and some memorable sequences, however, it never gells as a whole, and has Richard Gere as it's star, an "actor" I find unwatchable.

His last film was THE THIN RED LINE, which I thought was the finest American film I had seen in years. An absolutely stunning thing.

His latest, still in post-production, is Malick's take on the founding of the Jamestown settlement by the Englsih in 1607, and the subsiquent clash of cultures between them and the tribes already living there. 15 year old Q'Orianka Kilcher (who's name will have many critics making fools of themselves to pronounce) stars as Pocahontas.

Judging from it's trailer, a line spoken by Christopher Plummer provides the key to the film's concernes:

"I beg of you, let not America go wrong in her first hour."

Also going by the trailer, the film looks astonishingly like THE THIN RED LINE, despite the fact that THE NEW WORLD has a different cinematographer. It shows that Malick has a huge amount of controle over the framing and composition of the images, despite the "casual" look which shooting with a steady-cam and hand held cameras can impart.

There's a good web site for the movie here:

http://www.thenewworldmovie.com/
Title: Re: The New World (2005)
Post by: The Smoker on November 20, 2005, 09:41:27 AM
This is gonna be an event.

Malick's output does seem to be picking up. Strange in a film industry climate which doesn't really cater for filmmakers like himself anymore. The late Stanley Kubrick being another culprit of stricked 'no-artistic comprimise' filmaking.

________

Talking of Virginia.. I was listing to a Melvin Bragg Radio programme on BBC Radio 4 about a year ago.  Something about how the English language has changed and come to be in our world through history to today.

He mentioned this one little thing. An antidote.

Very early in the Europeans failed attempts to land at Virginia, through heavy native fighting. One English expedition managed to kidnap a Native American Indian during the fighting, before heading back to England.

He eventually became apart of the British Navy. They taught this man to Speak English, had a English name etc (Which I can't remember off the top of my head -could help with a internet search).  This was nothing new of the time.

But.. Now ten years down the line he managed to escape back to the father land from Portsmouth.
He was taken back into his tribe on the east coast some where.

Now much later the first proper European settlers on landing, where approached by this Native American Indian on the beach.

With the word... W e l c o m e.

And continued to speak to them in fluent English, with a Bristol accent.

How much of a head f&*k would that be?   
I had to laugh.  ;D

P.S. Pocahontas was supposidly parcial to doing cartwheels naked through the Viginian compound. Terrible little attention seeking, exibitionist.
Something the Disney animated film seem to leave out. Can't think why.  ;D
Title: Re: The New World (2005)
Post by: Tim on November 20, 2005, 06:28:12 PM
  Like the Smoker said, this movie is gonna be an event.  This looks like an old-fashioned epic movie.  My only problem with it, judging from the trailer, is Colin Farrell.  For me, he didn't work in Alexander, although some parts were very good concerning his performance.  I just don't know if he can carry a huge epic movie like this.

  On the other hand, Christopher Plummer and Christian Bale were meant for movies like this.  With all this said, I'm really looking forward to this movie.  Its few and far between that costume dramas are released.  Thanks for the link Juan.
Title: Re: The New World (2005)
Post by: dave jenkins on November 20, 2005, 07:58:21 PM

Judging from it's trailer, a line spoken by Christopher Plummer provides the key to the film's concernes:

"I beg of you, let not America go wrong in her first hour."

http://www.thenewworldmovie.com/
He says "America," not "Virginia," eh?  I wonder how many other blatant anachronisms the film contains.

Of course, they aren't going to present Pocahontas as a 10-year old girl, so, as far as any kind of historical accuracy is concerned, this film is gonna be a bust. I look forward to the battle scenes, though.

Oh, and I'm going to be arguing that John Smith should really be known as Sean Smith........LOL.
Title: Re: The New World (2005)
Post by: Juan Miranda on November 21, 2005, 05:13:47 AM
As I said, it's Malick's own take on the story, rather than a painfully exact dramatic reconstruction, although huge lengths seem to have gone into the accurate portrayal of the native tribes (half the film is in Powhatan Algonquian).

A line of dialogue like "I beg of you, let not Virginia go wrong in her first hour." may be more accurate, but it entierly lacks any universal significance.

Casting Pocahontas as a very young girl would be difficult for the following two reasons. The actress has to age convincingly between 1607, the year she saves Smith, and 1614, the year she marries Rolfe. Also, casting an underage performer in a sexual role will always be big trouble when it comes to censorship pressures and general critical reception. As it is, Malick has cast a 15 year old, I'll be curious to see if any "ban this filth" tabloid nonsese bursts out when the film is released.

As for John Smith, everybody knows it's his old mercanary chum Sean, who he betrayed back in the old country who's name he keeps blurting out. (http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/Tarkyhitch/icon_lol1.gif)
Title: Re: The New World (2005)
Post by: dave jenkins on November 21, 2005, 10:14:10 PM

Casting Pocahontas as a very young girl would be difficult for the following two reasons. The actress has to age convincingly between 1607, the year she saves Smith, and 1614, the year she marries Rolfe. Also, casting an underage performer in a sexual role will always be big trouble when it comes to censorship pressures and general critical reception. As it is, Malick has cast a 15 year old, I'll be curious to see if any "ban this filth" tabloid nonsese bursts out when the film is released.


Of course Malick could have cast 2 different actresses for the different ages. That approach was good enough for Sergio....

Looking at the trailer, the actress appears to be one of those 15 year olds who can pass for 25.
Title: Re: The New World (2005)
Post by: Franks Harmonica on November 22, 2005, 12:55:55 AM
This is the most anticipated film for me this year!
In fact I just met the editor for "The New World" last weekend down at the Texas coast.
He told me that they had just screened the film for the Warner execs and that the final cut will be about two and a half hours in length.
I will be attending a film festival in Austin called Buttnumbathon, which is a 24 hour film fest from noon till noon and they always seem to have a few sneak peeks mixed in with classics and avante garde films as well.
Since Terrence Malick resides in Austin and "The New World" is a New Line film, I am hoping that we get this film on December 10th, which is the day of the fest.
Title: Re: The New World (2005)
Post by: Nobody on November 23, 2005, 02:09:23 PM
Sorry guys, but Terrence Malick is my favourite filmmaker. I'd rank him higher than Leone, so yeah, I'm looking forward to this. The trailers look stunning. I downloaded the production notes (can't remember from where), a total of 95 pages. Excellent read.
Title: Re: The New World (2005)
Post by: Juan Miranda on February 23, 2006, 07:56:37 PM
Anybody seen it? It's the most badly released film I can remember. It's UK distributers obviously had no idea what to do with it, coz it's "long" and has subtitles: therefor they did nothing. It opened in about 6 London cinemas, and within a fortnight was playing on just two.

All the gong givers are ignoring it too. Extraordinary, as it's the greatest American film since... well, Malick's last film. If nothing else, the cinematography is magical, and Q'Orianka Kilcher is unforgettable. This film has reduced me to jelly, I could have happily sat through a 5 hour version. It's dialogue free opening sequence was sheer perfection.

As I posted on another board, Pure beauty, magic and heartbreak. Malick is a true visionary, up there with Tarkovsky, Bergman, Kurasawa, Fellini and Leone at their best. Sadly he seems to be the only person around these days making cinema like this, with it's obsession with nature, spirituality and philosophy.

The whole film feels oddly improvised, in a Herzog kinda way, as though Malick has dragged his cast and crew onto the Virginia coast, looking for beauty.... a consequence of the large number of hand held and steadycam shots, I guess.*

It's power was slightly blunted, as Malick had visited this "lost Eden" scenario at the opening of THE THIN RED LINE. Apparenty he has wanted to do the Pocahontas story for 25 years. When he made RED LINE, he may have been working some of those ideas out of his system, in case he never got the chance again. Thank God he has though, as in THE NEW WORLD he really is showing us just that. Something never shown before.

"Why does the Earth have colours?" indeed.


*I have since read that, according to Emmanuel Lubezki, Malick does employ a great deal of improvisation in terms of camera movement/placement and actors dialogue.
Title: Re: The New World (2005)
Post by: dave jenkins on February 23, 2006, 09:09:40 PM
I am waiting for the DVD. I'm not sure what the theatrical release represents, but the DVD is more likely to accord more closely with the director's intentions. A 5 hour version would be nice. The legendary 6-hour version of The Thin Red Line would be nice too.
Title: Re: The New World (2005)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on March 22, 2007, 10:47:57 PM
What do you think of this brilliant film directed by Terrence Malick. It seems like people either LOVE it, respect it, are fascinated by it, or they absolutely HATE it, find it boring, and couldn't finish it. I personally think it's one of the most beautiful, poetic, and engaging movies I have ever seen. This film, like Malick's "The Thin Red Line", show the brilliance and talent he has behind the camera. He's what you call an artist.
Title: Re: The New World (2005)
Post by: Tim on March 22, 2007, 10:54:40 PM
  I'm in the "Love It" camp.  You're right, it's a beautiful movie.  It takes a little while to get going, but once you get sucked in there's no turning back.  The most pleasant surprise in TNW was Colin Farrell who gave a really good performance as John Smith. 

  I think my favorite part may be the end (no, not like that  :)) with all the different shots of nature with the musical score playing.  A very moving picture overall.  I might have to buy this one now, thanks TB!  ;D
Title: Re: The New World (2005)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on March 22, 2007, 10:58:58 PM
  I'm in the "Love It" camp.  You're right, it's a beautiful movie.  It takes a little while to get going, but once you get sucked in there's no turning back.  The most pleasant surprise in TNW was Colin Farrell who gave a really good performance as John Smith. 

  I think my favorite part may be the end (no, not like that  :)) with all the different shots of nature with the musical score playing.  A very moving picture overall.  I might have to buy this one now, thanks TB!  ;D

I'm glad you love it Tyreen! You must really have great taste to appreciate a work of art like this. I can understand why it wouldn't be for someone, but I still wonder why some people don't love it. It's trully one of the most moving films I have ever seen.

That shot at the end that you're reffering to, is indeed a great shot. I love how Malick uses natural lighting, and the sounds of nature for his films. It makes for a more realistic setting. He uses it to his advantage. I hope you go out and buy this asap!
Title: Re: The New World (2005)
Post by: Juan Miranda on March 23, 2007, 06:50:39 AM
It's a bluddy masterpiece. I left my tuppence worth here:

http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/forums/index.php?topic=2628.0

The last time I saw it I had something of a "religious experience". I saw it on a giant screen in a cinema beside the Thames in London, with a perfect sound system. As I staggered out onto the Embankment on a lovely summers evening, the sun was setting on the water, turning it into a blinding mirror, the same river she had travelled on, and sailed down to Gravesend and her death. The vision turned me to mush.
Title: Re: The New World (2005)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on March 23, 2007, 08:03:30 AM
It's a bluddy masterpiece. I left my tuppence worth here:

http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/forums/index.php?topic=2628.0

The last time I saw it I had something of a "religious experience". I saw it on a giant screen in a cinema beside the Thames in London, with a perfect sound system. As I staggered out onto the Embankment on a lovely summers evening, the sun was setting on the water, turning it into a blinding mirror, the same river she had travelled on, and sailed down to Gravesend and her death. The vision turned me to mush.

You're lucky you had the chance to see this on the big screen. I actually refused to at the time because I was told by some friends that it was terrible, so stupid me took their advice and didn't go. When it came out on DVD, I went out and bought it and gave it a try. I sat  down that night and watch it, and I was blown away. I hope someday I get the chance to see it the way it's supposed to be seen, and that's in the theatre.
Title: Re: The New World (2005)
Post by: dave jenkins on March 23, 2007, 04:28:17 PM
Still waiting for the "director's cut" on this one. I refuse to compromise until then.
Title: Re: The New World (2005)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on March 23, 2007, 05:05:50 PM
Still waiting for the "director's cut" on this one. I refuse to compromise until then.

Have you heard any rumors lately about the directors cut?
Title: Re: The New World (2005)
Post by: Juan Miranda on March 23, 2007, 05:26:57 PM
I was under the impression that Malick will not even begin a film without a guarantee of final cut. While I could happily watch more of the footage I've read about on some future DVD special edition, I believe that the theatrical version is exactly what Malick wanted.

A "directors cut" usualy implies some vision the director desperatly battled with a philistine studio to release against their will. This was not the case with THE THIN RED LINE (much to Adrien Brody's continued disgust) and appears to be the same thing with THE NEW WORLD.
Title: Re: The New World (2005)
Post by: dave jenkins on June 23, 2008, 08:24:21 AM
This should make Juan Miranda happy:

Quote
WHV Press Release: The New World Extended Cut

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


“A work of breathtaking imagination...and in every sense a masterpiece."
- Carina Chocano, Los Angeles Times
“Not like any other movie. A masterpiece.”
- Mick LaSalle, San Francisco Chronicle

The New World Extended Cut

Director Terrence Malick’s Epic Starring Colin Farrell,
Christian Bale and Christopher Plummer Features
More than 30 Minutes of Never-Before-Seen Footage!
October 14 from Warner Home Video

Burbank, Calif, June 23, 2008 - The New World, Academy Award® nominated director Terrence Malick’s (The Thin Red Line, Days of Heaven) adventure-filled journey of discovery, will be released October 14 on DVD in a new amped-up Extended Cut. This edition of the critically-acclaimed, Oscar®-nominated epic recreating the turbulent first days of the new America now features more than 30 minutes of never-before-seen footage, heightening the viewing experience with more battles, more intensity and more visual splendor. Also included is a comprehensive, ten-part documentary – Making the New World – which captures the unique creative challenges filmmakers faced. The New World Extended Cut will sell for $19.97 SRP.

Synopsis
Powhatan tribal people stare in wonder as three ships approach shore. It’s a story every schoolchild knows; the story of Capt. John Smith (Colin Farrell) and Pocahontas (Q’orianka Kilcher). Now, as told by filmmaker Terrence Malick (Badlands, Days of Heaven, The Thin Red Line) in this extended version with more than 30 minutes of footage unseen in theaters -- it’s a story you never imagined. Working in part from first-hand histories and adding his extraordinary sense of image and human drama, Malick crafts a visceral, spellbinding tale of the Jamestown settlement, of cultures connecting and of deadly consequences when connections fray. Christian Bale and Christopher Plummer also star.

Special Features
· A comprehensive, ten-part documentary Making the New World capturing the unique challenges of creating this historic epic.

The New World Extended Cut
$19.97 SRP
Feature Running Time: 172 minutes – Unrated
2:35 Letterbox
English 5.1 Surround & English 2.0
English CC, Spanish Subtitles
Title: Re: The New World (2005)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on June 23, 2008, 12:33:16 PM
This should make Juan Miranda happy:


YESSSSSSSSSSS!!!! I cannot wait for this release. This is a film I love so very much.
Title: Re: The New World (2005)
Post by: Whalestoe on June 23, 2008, 12:46:18 PM
Great news! I loved The New World.
Title: Re: The New World (2005)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on June 23, 2008, 01:25:21 PM
Great news! I loved The New World.

You at times have great taste Whalestoe! haha
Title: Re: The New World (2005)
Post by: dave jenkins on July 31, 2008, 06:02:39 PM
Let the excitement continue to build: http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=68114
Title: Re: The New World (2005)
Post by: Tucumcari Bound on July 31, 2008, 10:08:09 PM
Let the excitement continue to build: http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=68114

Boy I cannnot wait! My mouth is watering.
Title: Re: The New World (2005)
Post by: moviesceleton on January 25, 2009, 01:38:01 AM
The New World (2005) - 7/10
Title: Re: The New World (2005)
Post by: dave jenkins on January 25, 2009, 08:35:10 AM
The New World (2005) - 7/10
Which cut?
Title: Re: The New World (2005)
Post by: moviesceleton on January 25, 2009, 08:53:00 AM
Which cut?
Apparently original. Do you know how the extended cut(s) is/are?
Title: Re: The New World (2005)
Post by: dave jenkins on January 25, 2009, 04:06:59 PM
Apparently original. Do you know how the extended cut(s) is/are?
There is no such thing as an "original" cut, cuts of different lengths were prepared for different markets. The general release cut for the US market was the 135 minute cut. In Europe, I gather, most saw the 150 minute cut. The new extended cut, available on the R1 DVD, runs 172 minutes. I do not yet know all the differences between these 3 cuts, or if there is yet a 6 hour ur-version waiting to emerge. Anyway, did you watch a version that was closer to 2 hours long or 3?
Title: Re: The New World (2005)
Post by: dave jenkins on January 26, 2009, 05:54:27 AM
Haven't seen it yet. I've been sitting on the Italian disc, which has both the 135 and 150 minute versions. I was trying to decide which one to watch, but then I got wind of the R1 disc and decided to wait. That's probably the one I want to go with first, but I can't decide.

Moving right along: although I'm a big fan of Hitchcock films generally, Shadow of a Doubt has never done much for me. In fact, I find watching it such a chore, last time I screened it I promised myself "never again."
Title: Re: The New World (2005)
Post by: dave jenkins on May 17, 2009, 04:52:25 PM
Blu-ray for September: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0029O0BK4/ref=nosim?tag=dvdbeaver-20&link_code=as3&creativeASIN=B0029O0BK4&creative=373489&camp=211189
Title: Re: The New World (2005)
Post by: Groggy on May 17, 2009, 04:55:53 PM
I rented this film on DVD today, and hopefully will have time to watch it this coming week.
Title: Re: The New World (2005)
Post by: dave jenkins on May 17, 2009, 04:59:09 PM
Extended cut? Or perhaps I should ask, the extended-Extended cut?
Title: Re: The New World (2005)
Post by: Groggy on May 20, 2009, 06:14:32 AM
I mentioned in the RTLMYS thread that I watched this yesterday. I'm pretty sure it was the theatrical cut (135 minutes), but based on what I saw yesterday I have little interest in tracking a longer version. For the most part, the problems I had were more with what was there rather than what was missing.

The movie is very good up to a point. (Time for Uncknown to start salivating over anticipated typographical errors again...) The first hour and a half or so is very good, perhaps even great, aside from ponderous, pretentious and annoying voice overs and a bit too much Noble Savage pap (granted, life with the Powhatans is probably better than living in the Jamestown fort). The film has a very "If Kubrick did a Western" feel to it, with all the inherent virtues and flaws. The cinematography is absolutely gorgeous, and Mallick's direction is skillful, and in the early sections the film is fascinating and entertaining.

Around the time that Smith departs from the story, however, the movie goes downhill. Christian Bale takes over the lead role from Farrel and surprisingly is by far the less-interesting of the two; he's not really developed as a character at all, merely as someone lusting after Pocahontas. The scenes after his arrival slow the movie to a deadening crawl and the scenes in England are empty, disappointing and go on forever.

The cast as a general rule is very good. Aside from Bale's bland performance as Rolfe, Colin Farrell gives probably a career-best turn as John Smith, Q’orianka Kilcher is quite lovely and very talented as Pocahontas, and Christopher Plummer, David Thewlis and Yorick van Wageningen do nice work in key supporting roles. The Native actors (August Schellenberg and Wes Studi) are rather underused, however.

On the whole, I think I'd give it a 6 or 7/10, somewhere in that vicinity. Not sure if I'd want to see it again, extended cut or no. At the very least it's way better than the Disney version.
Title: Re: The New World (2005)
Post by: Groggy on May 20, 2009, 06:19:26 AM
I was under the impression that Malick will not even begin a film without a guarantee of final cut. While I could happily watch more of the footage I've read about on some future DVD special edition, I believe that the theatrical version is exactly what Malick wanted.

My understanding is that Malick approved the 135 minute cut for general release. His original cut was around 150 minutes, so either of those would be legitimate. I would seriously doubt the 170-ish minute version is a true "director's cut" anymore than Apocalypse Now Redux is, just another release designed to fleece money from pretentious pseudo-film buffs who think longer is automatically better.
Title: Re: The New World (2005)
Post by: moviesceleton on May 20, 2009, 10:27:58 AM
I can agree basically with everything you said, but I'd still be interested to see a longer cut, perhaps even both of them. And I'm sure this would make a greater impression if seen on big screen.
Title: Re: The New World (2005)
Post by: Dust Devil on March 12, 2011, 02:39:01 AM
Hopefully, I'll watch this soon.
Title: Re: The New World (2005)
Post by: Dust Devil on March 14, 2011, 01:09:53 AM
Watched it, was disappointed.

This is what happens when someone talented lets himself go too far. Malick was, as I see it, trying to write a poem. The problem is, poems are not movies, and movies are not poems. Movies are meant to be watched on a big screen, poems read from a small old tattered book near a campfire in the wilderness. It rarely works vice versa. If ever. The movie (135 minutes cut) is too long and unfocused. Although brilliant bits can be found scattered all around, I sincerely doubt many viewers will ever choose to suffer the whole thing (ever) again. It is one of those movies very ungrateful for ratings. As someone already mentioned, the first hour or so is excellent, but after Smith returns to the fort the whole movie collapses, the timeline (historically accurate or not) gets subjected to the love story (and everything around it), hence I had the feeling more than once whatever happened besides that was done just to fill the rest of the screen (time). The plot then just drifts around till the end without a port to lean towards. I think even the viewer knows there isn't gonna happen anything else important. I do not think there is anything worse than this if you're the director. If the viewer detects/realizes this in merely half of the run time - you must have most certainly fucked something up, big time.

The movie is visually ravishing, with that I concur, but that's not enough to overshadow the rest.

Of all the performances I liked good ole Christopher Plummer best. I mean, that's what you call a ''screen presence''. He just puts his drawers on, gets in front of the camera, and gets the job done. The movie's narration fails so miserably you keep begging him to come back from England. Q'orianka Kilcher I liked also, she has way more screen time than needed for the sake of the whole thing, but I guess Malick's to be blamed for that. I usually don't like overexposure of the faces, especially in romantic games. It's easy to let everything go and soon enough, before anybody realizes it, you're being pathetic. Still, Q'orianka is very good, perhaps that's cause she is Pochahontas after all. I don't understand what's everybody's problem with Christian Bale in this, I found him unusually resonate in this. Sure, he has a hard time showing his emotions, as usual, but here he works rather well, especially in contrast to Colin Farrell, who is... the usual self I'd say.

All in all, you can watch this and enjoy certain things, but that's likely gonna be enough for the rest of your life.


(dancing and flirting around a) 6/10
Title: Re: The New World (2005)
Post by: Groggy on March 14, 2011, 08:06:04 AM
 O0
Title: Re: The New World (2005)
Post by: dave jenkins on March 14, 2011, 10:00:35 AM
You've aced it, DD.  O0
Title: Re: The New World (2005)
Post by: PowerRR on June 15, 2012, 10:19:29 PM
I'm fucking pissed, I just wrote a whole bunch about my love of 135 minute version vs. distaste for 170 minute version and the page randomly disappeared. So I'll just ask questions instead.

Anyone here actually like Malick? Like the New World? If so, seen either cut? What do you think?

Not interested in those who dislike the movie in general, already read your thoughts on it.
Title: Re: The New World (2005)
Post by: noodles_leone on June 16, 2012, 08:37:31 AM
I like Malick, didn't really like the short cut (I will give it another shot one of these days but need some courage for this. I have to watch The Thin Red Line again before), I'd love to see the longer version. A friend of mine told me it has nothing to do with deleted scenes, the whole movie is reedited (and an astonishing masterpiece).

So you're saying the theatrical version is the real deal?
Title: Re: The New World (2005)
Post by: PowerRR on June 16, 2012, 09:48:04 PM
I much, much prefer the theatrical version. The newer cut has 40 minutes, but only a few moments that were clearly not in the original. It's segmented into 'title cards' throughout the movie. A majority of whats added is just extra meadow frolicking/nature shots/philosophical whispering that really doesn't add or change anything to the film at all other than time.

I hate when people denounce Malick's movies as nothing but 'great screensavers', but the extended cut for me tends to feel like a formerly great film with 'screensaver' material injected in randomly. With about 40 minutes left to go, I was sick of watching it. In the case of the 135 minute cut, it ends at the perfect time.
Title: Re: The New World (2005)
Post by: noodles_leone on June 17, 2012, 01:46:58 PM
Ok
Do you think the same thing would have happened if you saw the long version first?
Title: Re: The New World (2005)
Post by: stanton on June 17, 2012, 02:46:36 PM
I have seen the theatrical cut, and only once. There was something missing for me. It doesn't work for me, despite some beautiful scenes.
Title: Re: The New World (2005)
Post by: PowerRR on June 17, 2012, 03:07:04 PM
Ok
Do you think the same thing would have happened if you saw the long version first?
I couldn't say. I probably would have just thought that it was a little too long for it's own good. My distaste for the longer cut is probably elevated from being used to the original. Like I said, it doesn't specifically change the movie in any better or worse way other than that it's longer and drags a bit more.
Title: Re: The New World (2005)
Post by: noodles_leone on February 27, 2016, 09:06:56 AM
Quote
Lubezki and Malick have been working with Criterion for more than a year to create a new 4K restoration of Malick’s preferred 172-minute cut of the film, and these brief, never-before-seen examples show the incredible difference between the look of Lubezki’s meticulously exposed camera negative and that of the finished film.

https://www.criterion.com/current/posts/3921-restoring-the-new-world

Stupid comment, really: it's just shows the difference between ANY ungraded material and ANY finished professional feature film.
Title: Re: The New World (2005)
Post by: dave jenkins on February 27, 2016, 09:43:32 AM
Yeah, what we really want to see compared is the previous images of the finished film with the newly graded (or re-graded) images. That's the only meaningful comparison.
Title: Re: The New World (2005)
Post by: PowerRR on February 28, 2016, 08:12:21 AM
Yup ...saw those comparisons, didn't give two shits. The current blu-ray of New World already looks excellent, probably just as good as Criterion's "restoration".... and yeah, there's no meaning to what they're doing unless compared with the current release.

The big issue here is which cuts they're going to include. Currently, the only cut available on Blu-Ray is the extended version - which is definitely my least favorite Malick movie, even far beyond To the Wonder and Knight of Cups. It's incredibly overlong for its story. The theatrical cut is just fine though and I'd love to see a Blu release of it. Time will tell.
Title: Re: The New World (2005)
Post by: dave jenkins on June 25, 2016, 06:46:48 AM
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film5/blu-ray_reviews_72/the_new_world_blu-ray.htm
Title: Re: The New World (2005)
Post by: PowerRR on June 26, 2016, 01:17:28 PM
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film5/blu-ray_reviews_72/the_new_world_blu-ray.htm
Hardly a difference between the last Blu release and Criterion, but i WILL get the Criterion because the only available cut currently on Blu is the extended, which I hate. Theatrical is much better but only on DVD. and I'm curious about the First cut.
Title: Re: The New World (2005)
Post by: dave jenkins on June 26, 2016, 03:14:47 PM
Looks like things are greener on the new transfer, and the greener the better, I say.
Title: Re: The New World (2005)
Post by: noodles_leone on June 27, 2016, 01:38:03 AM
DJ is on a crusade against pink tones. But yes, in this case, most greener stills are better looking than the pinker ones.
Title: Re: The New World (2005)
Post by: dave jenkins on June 27, 2016, 05:37:11 AM
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-New-World-Blu-ray/151484/#Review
Quote
The Extended Cut looks absolutely magnificent in high-definition. Indeed, there are massive improvements in terms of detail and clarity that drastically improve fluidity. As a result, the film now has a much better balanced appearance. In fact, I did numerous comparisons with the other cuts and can confirm that the discrepancies in terms of depth are massive. Indeed, on the first two cuts there are traces of moderate filtering adjustments that routinely flatten the image and cause distracting smearing (see an obvious example in screencapture #25). With a lot of wider panoramic shots where light is captured in unique ways the effects are also prominent and cause entirely different anomalies (see screencapture #35). On the Extended Cut there are no traces of compromising digital work. Furthermore, the Extended Cut comes with a much better range of primary colors and nuances. The overall balance is excellent and very much supportive of the intended atmosphere. There are many cases where the careful grading has even helped previously lost nuances to reemerge (compare screencaptures #17 and 30). Unsurprisingly, on large screens the difference between the Extended Cut and the Theatrical Cut and First Cut of the film is often staggering. Finally, the Extended Cut has an all-around strong organic appearance that really allows one to experience the film in an entirely new way.