comment #1

TulseLuper says ...

It has everything you look for in a Malick film but the first half is a chore to sit through in my opinion. Those who flippantly compared it to a Calvin Klein ad weren't far off. Once Colin Farrell goes away and Christian Bale comes in, the film picks up for me and the rest of it works quite well. Malick's a brilliant filmmaker but this time around I feel like he relied too much on the tone of the film and forgot to write much of a script. Not so in The Thin Red Line where every single moment is captivating.

comment #2

Scott says ...

I never worried too much about The New World's popularity, though it is heartening to think people are coming around on it. It's always been a film way too earnest for the modern, snarky, clever-remarks-equal-critical-thought atmosphere of film criticism (hell, look at a lot of those reviews you pulled, unable to engage with the film on a level other than humor). Basically, ever since Pulp Fiction, we've lived in an age of irony, where any sort of genuine emotion has to be cut down by a joke or a snide remark, and Terrence Malick doesn't fit into that one bit.

For me, though, the Extended Cut is my favorite film of all time.

Oh, and that last third? I've always assumed it was supposed to be a little disappointing, emotionally. Pocahontas doesn't believe, until the very end, that she should be with John Rolfe, and still carries a ton of attachment to John Smith, even when she believes him dead. That trepidation, that holding back we as an audience feel, as compared to the wholly "live-in-the-realm" feeling of the Smith section, is just as she feels.

That said, I do think her death is really shoehorned in, but it feels necessary to the transcendent ending.

comment #3

Jeffrey Wells says ...

One reason I feel awfully damn good about liking the first two-thirds of The New World and am looking very much forward to watching the new Blu-ray is because I strongly suspect that a majority of all those glib Quentino Philistines who are doing somersaults over Inglourious Basterds probably can't stand the meditative forest-primevel aspect of The New World. I mean, I don't know but am presuming that's true for a good number of them. How could anyone cheer Eli Roth with dynamite strapped to his leg and Christoph Waltz smacking his lips over a delicious glass of milk and Colin Farrell silently making his way through tall reeds? They're such different films with such different attitudes about what constitutes fulfillment. The Movie Gods understand that Malick dropped the ball with the final third of The New World, but they'll always embrace what he created with those first two-thirds. Just as the Movie Gods are stumbling around, grief-struck and ashen-faced at what has been happening on earth over the last few days concerning Inglourious Basterds.

comment #4

Scott says ...

Well, I liked Inlgourious Basterds, but I sure as hell wasn't cheering anything involving Eli Roth. I hope against hope this doesn't turn into a Basterds thread, though...haven't we had enough of those?

comment #5

ElstonGunnAICN says ...

Haven't seen the extended cut, but I watched the film again several months ago and all of it holds up. I never understood the backlash, it's not any more or less impressionistic than The Thin Red Line. In fact, the voiceovers are easier to discern. Love Zacharek's tree line, though. I would imagine that most of the restored 22 minutes comes from that last third. I loved one of the end images of her ghost running and playing in the garden.

comment #6

BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey says ...

"I strongly suspect that a majority of all those glib Quentinos who are doing somersaults over Inglourious Basterds probably can't stand the meditative forest-primevel aspect of The New World."

Well, you're wrong, because I love Inglourious Basterds AND The New World. There's absolutely no reason why someone can't appreciate both for their respective merits, in the same way that professing to enjoy a big-budget CGI blockbuster doesn't exclude someone from admiring a Ken Loach film.

This "you're either with me or against me" Movie Gods bullshit is very George W. Bush.

comment #7

BurmaShave says ...

Yeah Tarantino obviously doesn't feel any kinship for Malick or BADLANDS. It's not like he wrote a crime comedy that heavily references it.

comment #8

btwnproductions says ...

Dave Kehr (not a fan) and The House Next Door (enthusiasts) went to war over THE NEW WORLD. Several casualties were reported. The U.N. has declared a ceasefire over TREE OF LIFE.

comment #9

DavidF says ...

Is every thread going to tie back into the IB hate?
I almost long for the days of bashing Peter Jackson for no particular reason...

I'm with Bosh on this whole kick you're going off on...."I went to see a GOOD movie last night. Oh, not the sort of thing any Inglorious Basterds-lovers would like. No, not at all. No Joe Popcorns. No Eloi. Just me, God and some true affi-see-a-nah-dos of film. It was divine."

comment #10

Clear says ...

Sure way to get a Malick thread, which may have topped out at 25 comments, to 50-60: mention Tarantino.

comment #11

the sordid sentinel says ...

I've never seen the extended cut, although I do remember some high praise for it during it's initial release. Nice to see the blu ray getting high marks. I've always thought this film would look spectacular in hi def. Looking forward to this one big time.

comment #12

BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey says ...

My sister and mother ended up watching The New World after I brought back my DVDs from college, on account of the box art and the fact they thought it'd be a nice historical romantic epic. To my surprise they both loved it despite it being worlds away from their expectations. It draws viewers in slowly - it's almost hypnotic. Like when you're channel surfing and a lush BBC nature documentary comes on, you tend to linger on it longer.

But it's more than simply a nature documentary with added plot. Its third act is fine to me. For me some of the most powerful scenes come when Wes Studi is sent to London to observe and report on what he sees. The silent realization that the British empire is far more powerful than the natives ever imagined, and that it's surely only a matter of time before their way of life is destroyed by this behemoth of a nation, is quite well done indeed.

Nothing in the movie is hammered home - the viewer is invited to make their own conclusions, even with the Pocahontas' eventual warming to Rolfe because she realizes he's a decent guy. In some ways you can see it as an antidote to those rom-coms where the girl picks the bad boy over the nice guy.

comment #13

Gogocrank says ...

It's a step down from "The Thin Red Line," which has an utterly entrancing elliptical style that makes it easy to drop right into the movie no matter where you start, but "The New World" is definitely a rich, daring, captivating exploration of at least some similar aspects of that earlier masterpiece. If anything, the generally passed over in favor of "Private Ryan" reaction to the more ambitious "Red Line" is the greater insult. "The New World," as per the subject, is a movie all but designed to be discovered.

What this has to do with Tarantino is a mystery. I haven't seen "IG" yet, but it can't be half the bullshit that "Death Proof" was. And I liked "Death Proof," so ...

comment #14

Jeffrey Wells says ...

It's one thing to feel admiration or kinship for Malick and his films. It's quite another thing when you compare Tarantino's wink-wink theology to Malick's straight-faced naturalist canvas. Both are very exacting auteurs with personal stamps and tonalities that are very identifiable, etc. I respect them both, but there is truly something wrong and perverse with the world when Malick goes begging and has to re-edit The New World so the short-attention-spanners will be less impatient while Inglourious Basterds is cheered and toasted as one of the year's best and looks to be in line to make as much as $100 million You can make fun of the notion of eternal values all you want, but the Movie Gods know the truth of what's happened here.

comment #15

corey3rd says ...

the movie could be improved by dinosaurs

comment #16

lipranzer says ...

Maybe it's a product of being a city or suburb boy all my life, but I've never been a fan of what I'd call "picture postcard" filmmaking - by which I mean films set in "Nature" (an appallingly general term, I admit, but the best I could come up with) that seem more interested in showing how impressive a picture they could get than of integrating the shots into the plot. Something like OUT OF AFRICA. Gorgeous scenery, to be sure, but I kept going, "Okay, that's beautiful, so what?" Malick is one of the few filmmakers who actually, as Jeff says, makes nature seem lived in, and who draws you in, as opposed to just trying to show off. And I've always been a fan of THE NEW WORLD (the 150 minute cut - I've not yet seen the longer version, and the shorter version seems rushed, which doesn't work for someone like Malick) - it's not as good as his other films, but it's still an impressive achievement. And I also always thought Q'Orianka Kilcher got robbed of an Oscar nomination - she gave my favorite performance that year by a lead actress.

comment #17

Clear says ...

Wells, I agree with your larger point, that it's a shame that sensation always sells (though I'm not the biggest Malick fan) but by tipping the scale of this thread to Tarantino, you are giving in to the same sort of sensation. Let a Malick thread be a Malick thread.

I think even your dimmest readers have figured out by now that you don't care for Basterds, and that it rubs you a bit that a few of the smarties aren't with you in that view.

comment #18

Gogocrank says ...

I suppose you could say both directors specialize in "inaction" films, with one preferring lingering shots of nature and the other lengthy stretches of dialogue. If there's anything particularly crass about Tarantino it's his compulsion to offer comedic and/or violent relief, but that no doubt stems from his ingrained love of trashy cinema. With Malick, the violence is no less poetic than the nature shots, which in total amounts to a far more truly theological (in the most literal sense) approach to filmmaking. Malick's movies have especially recently been about man's relationship to God by way of nature (his creation and all that), and how we despoil the balance of nature and therefore insult God (most explicit in "Thin Red Line," though I can't imagine it won't be addressed in "Tree of Life"). Tarantino writes/exists in a Godless realm, which is fine, for what he does, but perhaps accounts for Jeff's moral unease with "IG." When things get bloody in Tarantino-ville, that's usually when things get silly, too.

comment #19

drbob says ...

I am a big fan of early Malick (Days of Heaven, particularly). But, I've never been able to make it all the way through The New World. There's something about Colin Farrell's performance that simply irritates me and distracts from the rest of the film. I did like Farrell in In Bruges, though. He showed some real emotional depth in that film. In The New World, he was simply a blank slate.

comment #20

alynch says ...

Wells, feel free to correct me on this if I'm wrong, but I've always been under the impression that Malick was the one who wanted that shorter cut back in 2005.

comment #21

GKLondon says ...

I find Malick's films indescribably beautiful, but not in a superficial way: it is precisely the depth of that beauty that makes it so impactful

Can not wait for the blu ray. I hope it lives up to Lubezki's work.

comment #22

bdboudreaux says ...

The New World is one of my personally favorite films. I haven't seen the extended cut of it because I was waiting for it on Blu-ray. I own the theatrical cut on dvd and have sworn to not allow myself to be sucked in to double dipping for blu-ray, with a few exceptions. Malick films is such an exception.

When The New World came out my wife and I went see it at one of the 42nd Street Theaters, which was probably a mistake because we ha one of those ever so lovely people that believes movies need MST3K commentary. But even that annoyance didn't rattle me, I was truly captivated. Yes the last third is a tonal shift but a necessary one. With out the John Rolfe story and the "civilizing" of the princess (I love that she is never referred to by a name before she is baptized) the ending wouldn't be as powerful. The return of her love, this time for Rolfe and their child, her return to nature in the yard in England, and ultimately her death to the swell of Wagner moved me nearly to tears. And that was with mr. funnyguy in the back row.

Damn, I love this movie.

comment #23

p.Vice says ...

All this talk of "Movie Gods" has me concerned that Wells has departed his charmingly tainted but nonetheless sober-ish rationality for the same level of thinking used by his low-thread red-state middle-America right-wing Jesus freaks.

Seriously, Jeff. Your tenuous grip is slipping, slipping, slipping.

comment #24

bdboudreaux says ...

Gogocrank - I would actually disagree with you that Tarantino's use of violence or comedy as a break is from trashy cinema, but more from his love of Godard. For all of Tarantino's "I'm influenced by B-movies" posturing I think he's even more influenced by the French New Wave. More than he admits to at least. It's ok QT you can come out of the closet and say that artsy 60s French Films are your true love, we'll still embrace you. Hell some of us more so.

comment #25

ElstonGunnAICN says ...

If you count Kill Bill as one film, it's interesting that Tarantino is releasing his sixth film around the same time Malick is releasing his fifth and possibly sixth (if the rumors of a separate Imax film is sound). Not that quantity is anything.

I hope Tree of Life knocks it out of the park. Would also love to see Lanton Mills one day. Nah, better not. The idea of Malick and Warren Oates can't live up to the expectations.

comment #26

Bilge says ...

"Gaining?" There are plenty of us who've been on Team New World for years now. Come on in, the water's great.

I've seen every single version of THE NEW WORLD at least four times, and I'd actually argue that the 135 minute version works the best, though all three are magnificent in their own right. And yes, it was Malick who insisted on cutting it down to 135 mins.

Also, Jeff, the last thirds of THE NEW WORLD is its BEST part. How anyone who admires DAYS OF HEAVEN can't see that is beyond me.

Also, INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS is great. Deal with it.

comment #27

Scott says ...

Tarantino would lose his whole American persona if he praised Godard instead of, say, the Shaw Brothers. He knows Godard's a huge influence, anyone who's seen both of their work knows. His production company is named after Band of Outsiders for God's sake. If his b-movie posturing helps trick people into seeing something as daring as Inglourious Basterds by making them think it's all Nazi scalping, well, all the better.

comment #28

RSBrown says ...

The way the Wagner plays in this film, alone, makes me feel like I'm on some sort of drug.

comment #29

bdboudreaux says ...

Scott,

I completely agree with you. I haven't had an opportunity to see Inglorious Basterds yet, so I can't comment on it directly, but I'm very curious to watch Truffaut's Last Metro and then see how much that influenced Tarantino. I'm guessing there's something there. But to the point of Taratino using b-movies as a marketing tool, you are a hundred percent right. The fan boys (which by the way fuck the fan boys) would definitely not show up if they thought that his films were closer Made in the U.S.A. then some crappy kung fu flick. One of the things I've always admired about Tarantino is that he seems to be a vivacious film watcher, much like another director I greatly admire, Truffaut.

comment #30

arch451 says ...

The last time I cried like a baby in theaters was watching The New World. It is the most beautiful film, both visually and emotionally. I own both versions on DVD and I slightly prefer the shorter one. The last time I watched it (a couple of months ago) it was actually the third act that really rang true for me. First love is all about passion but marriage is about something much more tender and emotionally sustainable.

comment #31

actionman says ...

I started to cry in the theater when Das Rheingold was playing on the soundtrack in those opening moments; the natives peeking through the trees, those incredible ships sailing up the river, the wind blowing and the birds chirping -- incredibe stuff. The film is one of the most visually arresting things ever created and Horner's score is one of his best of all time. I would love to have seen it in Japan in one of those theaters where they pumped florarl notes throughout the ventiliation system to give off the effect that you were rolling around in the grass with the characters.

I consider The New World to be one of the premier films of the decade. It gets better and better every time I watch it (which is a lot), and count me in as someone who thinks the final third is amazing stuff. As someone mentioned above, when Studi is surveying the English and their abilities, it's quiety powerful in a way that few films ever achieve.

But it's so much more than that one sequence. The final third illustrates life's complexities and the true desires of the heart. Of course we're upset that Pocahontas can't be with John Smith, but that's the way it went down, and the last thing that Malick is interested in doing is coddling the audience or manufacturing some bullshit for people to latch onto.

When Rolfe shows up, of course she's resistant -- she's in love with Smith But as life progresses, she realizes that she needs someone like Rolfe around and even if she doesn't truly love him, she understands the stability that he'll be able to provide.

I know I am rambling here but I have a certain attachment and love for this movie. I read some of the moronically egg-headed reviews of the film and it makes me embarassed as a human being to read such drivel. There are two types of people in this world: those who agree that The New World is a brilliant masterpiece and a movie to treasure, and those who don't.

I consider myself lucky in that I was able to see Malick's original 150 min cut, then went back and saw the 135 min cut two times in the theater. Both versions are immaculate. I've got both of the dvd releases but will have no issues with tripple dipping on the Blu Ray. Lubezeki's images deserve to be seen in that fashion. For completists sake, I wish they'd release that first 150 min cut.

2005 was an amazing year with a truly diverse group of movies. Along with The New World, we also got Syriana, Domino, Munich, Kingdom of Heaven, Grizzly Man, Sin City, Batman Begins, The Constant Gardener, Lord of War, A History of Violence, Brokeback Mountain,and The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada (just off the top of my head), all of which are top-notch pieces of work in one way or another.

Tree of Life can't get here soon enough. The trades keep mentioning that it's coming out in 2009, but no firm release date has been given. One would have to assume that it would go out limited and then expand?

comment #32

LexG says ...

"Jeff Wellz" vs. "Dayvid Poland" in this week's SUPER FILM PALS! Wow, Poland just keeps getting better at these:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7DQdi8uIec

comment #33

Steven Kar says ...

From the NYT review of David Thomson's book, "Have You Seen...?: A Personal Introduction to 1000 Films":
It follows that Thomson is also skeptical of seductive surfaces, of cinema for cinema's sake, whether in recent brain-dead blockbusters or dustier art-house fare. He writes of Malick's DAYS OF HEAVEN: "It is hard to say, finally, what this odd film is meant to mean - for the expressive powers of the visuals are intoxicating yet empty... DAYS OF HEAVEN remains one of the great visual experiences in American film, and a warning that film is more than visual."

comment #34

Gogocrank says ...

Tarantino is of course influenced by the French new wave. In fact, Malick seems like one of the few American movie makers *not* terribly influenced by the French new wave. But seriously, unless you're watching some movies I haven't seen, Tarantino's love of blood specifically has nothing to do with the French new wave.

Tarantino 2.0, however, post-Jackie Brown, has everything to do with kung fu and spaghetti westerns. It's no b-movie posing. That shit's his bread and butter, even if, like any big movie buff, he's something of an cinematic omnivore. I mean, that clip that Jeff posted recently, where Tarantino big ups "There Will Be Blood" as a huge influence on "IG?" Someone who has seen both, can you tell me if there's absolutely anything those two films have in common? Somehow I doubt it, though I don't doubt Tarantino's claim that the former influenced the latter.

Anyway: Malick. Batting 1000%

comment #35

BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey says ...

actionman: "Horner's score is one of his best of all time."

I agree. In amongst all the classical pieces, his score doesn't seem out of place at all. Like the movie it's understated but beautiful.

I think I remember reading that Horner hated the whole experience, as did Zimmer when doing The Thin Red Line, yet it obviously works as both their Malick scores are arguably their best. Certainly in Zimmer's case.

comment #36

Craig Kennedy says ...

Sorry Wells. Basterds philistine here and The New World is one of my all time favorites. The fact you don't get the last third and Pocahontas' young death doesn't mean anything to you tells me YOU'RE the philistine. Didn't the movie godz tell you what she was and what she represented?

You know, you wouldn't be such an insufferable ass if you didn't throw your two-bit opinions around like they were gold tossed to lepers in the street. Your utter misreads of so many movies would be tolerable if you didn't think they were carved in stone and brought down from a mountain.

comment #37

Bilge says ...

actionman, the 150 minute cut is available on Italian DVD, which is where I got it. Well worth it, too.

comment #38

Chase Kahn says ...

"I started to cry in the theater when Das Rheingold was playing on the soundtrack in those opening moments; the natives peeking through the trees, those incredible ships sailing up the river, the wind blowing and the birds chirping -- incredibe stuff."

The opening to that Wagner piece is one of the greatest moments this decade on film. It even surpasses Herzog's use of it in "Nosferatu". I always think of that shot that actionman is describing, with the natives hustling through the woods, the oncoming ships in the distance -- brilliant.

I'm a huge "New World" fan, but my attraction has always been to the lyrical/naturalistic filmmaking -- nothing to do with the romance. I've probably seen the movie 3-4 times and I never fall for it once. It is amazing though that an achievement like this was so underappreciated.

comment #39

Butters says ...

Have to agree with what Bosh said eariler Jeff. This feels right of the George W. playbook of: "If you don't agree with us, you are obviously against us. Look, I know you have your site, you rules etc. But, this is type of thing that really turns people off. If you don't like "The New World" , or you "don't get it" then how dare you call yourself a moive fan. You might as well be Joe Popcorn and part of the Eloi. One of my favorite films latley is "Michael Clayton" and some of my all time favorites are "City Hall" and "L.A. Confindential." However, I am sure these are all too mainsream for you. I guess I will just invite some of my other unwashed, overweight friends over to watch some wrestling.

comment #40

Pynchon8 says ...

The Basterds quip is superfluous bc the Eloi stuff holds in this case. In a country of devout illiterates of course Malick movies tank.

comment #41

Geoff says ...

I saw The New World completely alone in a great theater. I had eaten a hearty breakfast and then stepped in to a noon showing of this film.

After about 10 minutes I felt like someone had slipped me a couple Vicodin pills. I was in heaven.

comment #42

Craig Kennedy says ...

Agree with Chase. The literal romance didn't push any buttons for me, but it was the symbolic value. It was representative of something greater and hard to pin down.

I'll never forget sitting in the Arclight when it played in LA for a week or two in December before getting the re-edit and I just sat there stunned through the closing credits. I haven't had an experience quite like that since...one where a movie just completely grabbed me and absorbed me.

comment #43

arch451 says ...

What I love about Malick as a storyteller is that there are no "good guys" or "bad guys." He makes no value judgment on Europeans colonizing America. He simply shows people with different backgrounds and interests who have to react to the reality of the time. (This is very different from Kevin Costner who had a clear moral agenda in "Dances with Wolves", which makes it a chore to sit through.) Malick simply lets the story happen.

By the way, I highly recommend a documentary called The Unforeseen, produced by Malick, which is about the unforeseen consequences of development in Austin. It is really beautiful and does a nice job of showing people with different values reacting to one another. It is tragic for both sides.

comment #44

LexG says ...

I saw it at the Arclight first week with the long cut... have never gone back to it, because it just seemed to work so well at 2.5 and I think it's bullshit for directors to tweak their work after audiences have seen it.

comment #45

Joe Gillis says ...

"You know, you wouldn't be such an insufferable ass if you didn't throw your two-bit opinions around like they were gold tossed to lepers in the street. Your utter misreads of so many movies would be tolerable if you didn't think they were carved in stone and brought down from a mountain."

Sorry, Craig, but you know not of what you speak. Jeff knows what he knows, dammit, and that ain't hay. IG just didn't have that essential schwing, that loamy, fingers-in-the-dirt-Zen-poem attitude that The New World sensuously aspirates. Tried-and-true, down-with-the-Movie-Gods get that, and if you don't, then Jeff just isn't digging your vibe, values, etc. That's not to say Jeff can't be that other thing if he wants. He's been there and done that and lived there, just as well as any of the Eloi, but he's coming from a far more spiritually nourished place than any of them. You die at your desk, tried and true, honest Injun, and that's the truest thing you'll ever know.

comment #46

Craig Kennedy says ...

Joe, that was the funniest Wells impression I've read in a while and considering the guy is already almost a parody of himself, that's a high compliment.

comment #47

actionman says ...

Butters -- City Hall is very underrated.

comment #48

Gogocrank says ...

One of my favorite moments in "The Thin Red Line" is when the camera pauses on a dead Japanese soldier, half buried in the dirt, and gives him a voiceover from beyond the grave. No, no sides taken there. Dead is dead, and war is hell for everyone. Beautiful moment.

comment #49

Butters says ...

Glad you agree actionman. I know this is a little late but I hope your wedding/honeymoon went well.

comment #50

Chase Kahn says ...

Does anyone know where they filmed "New World" -- I could look it up, but I don't want to.

comment #51

Craig Kennedy says ...

Chickahominy River near where the original colony was located. (Had to look it up)

comment #52

Cde. says ...

The New World is Malick's greatest masterpiece.
I have to second what bilge said. The last third is the best part.

comment #53

Cde. says ...

Actually, it's all brilliant. There is no 'best part'.

comment #54

actionman says ...

Thanks, Butters. It all went fantastic.

comment #55

Baltimore says ...

Has anybody here seen Malick's original cut of Thin Red Line? It was over 5 hours long, with subplots involving Viggo Mortensen, Gary Oldman, Mickey Rourke, Bill Pullman and Lukas Haas... narrated by Billy Bob Thornton.

comment #56

Breedlove says ...

THE NEW WORLD is my favorite movie of the 2000s so far. Every frame is perfection.

comment #57

Butters says ...

Baltimore, I had no idea the ther was an original 5 hour cut. The first and only time I saw The Thin Red Line at the theater I was REALLY hung over. I am sure this is partly why I am not a huge fan of the movie to begin with. I did hear that a lot of stuff got cut. Also, I loved how George Clooney was in this for like 30 seconds at the end. This was enough to get his name on the movie poster? Maybe he is in the longer 5 hour version. Does anyone know?

comment #58

Gogocrank says ...

No one else remembers how "The Thin Red Line" was going to make Adrien Brody a big star, until the movie came out and his roll had been cut down to next to nothing?

Regardless, there is no possible way there was ever a real 5 hour version. I mean, come on. That's almost twice as long, and this movie ain't short.

comment #59

ZayTonday says ...

I saw the 150 minute version in its brief run at the Arclight and haven't seen it since due to the fact that I have sworn off buying SD DVDs. I fucking loved it, it's right up there with Malick's other movies in my opinion.

Reviewers will always shit on Malick's movies when they first come out because of how slow paced they are. When so many people speak of Malick with such reverence his reputation kind of precedes his films makes one expect a certain kind of movie from him and usually ends up disappointing most people. To add to this , when one watches a Malick film it's usually been 4 or 5 years since the last one at the very minimum which kind of fogs a viewer's memory of what his last film or films were actually like. His movies take some time to set in and affect some people.

comment #60

ZayTonday says ...

Holy crap sorry for the messed up sentence structure, I left out some words there.

comment #61

JoannaC says ...

I sort of thought that in general the romances in that movie are meant to be reflective of European/Aboriginal relations that shape the history of this continent. It starts out one way, they try to co-exist and then it gets fucked up and there are lies. Smith loves her as she is, but abandons her. Rolfe loves her, but she assimilates and then dies.

Anyway, the whole film is so beautiful. The scenes with the Wagner that bookends the film...so beautiful. And Farrell does great work here. This and In Bruges are sort of redemptions for him, as far as I'm concerned.

comment #62

Mighty Kornholio says ...

I was on meds at the time and this movie put me to sleep. lol.

comment #63

DeeZee says ...

"It's what happened, yes, but it's not what I wanted to see."

There's always the Disney cartoon...

comment #64

actionman says ...

Farrell's run of performances in Intermission, A Home at the End of the World, Alexander, The New World, Ask the Dust, Miami Vice, Cassandra's Dream, In Bruges, and Pride and Glory is fuckin' incredible.

comment #65

DavidF says ...

I remember that, Gogocrank.

I've probably said this on the boards before but I never loved Thin Red Line. Malick-lovers well tell you people don't "get it" or the ignorant think his films are "slow-paced."

My problems with TRL are simple:
1) The Clooney thing may have just been a cameo but watching the film (as I recall) one can FEEL where the Brody and other scenes got cut. It's just a mess, as far as narrative is concerned.
No doubt there are people who feel Mallick's work transcends narrative, but TRL did have a storyline and it's not there to be seen.
I don't know if there was ever a 5-hour cut (that was probably just an assembly or something) but there was surely a longer, more coherent film.
Not only is Brody lost but all sorts of other big people pop up for 2 minutes and you lose track of them...is it Sean Penn who disappears for the middle hour?
It's not metaphorical - it's BAD EDITING.

2) Jim Caviezel's voice overs don't have anything to do with his character on screen. There is no sense whatsoever his character is having these "deep thoughts" about man's primitive nature etc. I get it - there are alligators thrashing and WE are the aligators!

It's a beautiful looking film and I would advise people to see it. And, yes, it's unfortunate it came out in 1998 and thus people compared "Mallick's WWII film" to "Spielberg's WWII film." I still say it's far too incoherent to be considered any kind of great film.

I admit I haven't seen New World (but, I will!!) but it seems to similarly divide people.

comment #66

Baltimore says ...

One of the reasons Zimmer (and uncredited Powell) were bitter about Malick's TRL was their lost/abused music contributions (similar to Mann's unusual multiple score-dipping for Mohicans). Zimmer alone contributed 4 solid hours of score for TRL, with more from Powell, which Malick subsequently dumped with the missing subplots scenes.

On an unrelated but amusing note of artist peccadilloes, while filming New World, Farrell was provided lodging in one of the most expensive gated communities nearby, where he surprised nightly neighbors as a Peeping Tom = wandering nude and drunk with his liquor bottles as he spied through windows, only to be repeatedly run off by angry husbands.

comment #67

K. Bowen says ...

Of Malick's films, I think The New World is the hardest one to love and the most interesting one to think about. It's also Malick's Rosetta Stone - it decodes his other films and reveals a great deal about him as a person and artist.

comment #68

Bob Violence says ...

actionman, the 150 minute cut is available on Italian DVD, which is where I got it. Well worth it, too.

It's also available as a digital copy on the U.S. DVD of the extended cut -- in other words you get the 172- and 150-minute cuts in the same package, which is what WB should've done for the Blu-ray