The New World (2005)

[Groggy]

I rented this film on DVD today, and hopefully will have time to watch it this coming week.

[dave jenkins]

Extended cut? Or perhaps I should ask, the extended-Extended cut?

[Groggy]

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.

[Groggy]

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.

[moviesceleton]

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.

[Dust Devil]

Hopefully, I'll watch this soon.

[Dust Devil]

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

[Groggy]

 

[dave jenkins]

You've aced it, DD. 

[PowerRR]

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.

[noodles_leone]

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?

[PowerRR]

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.

[noodles_leone]

Ok
Do you think the same thing would have happened if you saw the long version first?

[stanton]

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.

[PowerRR]

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.