|
Showing reviews from 1 to 50 (total: 92)
|
|
 |
It does'nt worth to see that movie at the theatre and even not at home. The problem with this movie is that the story is bad, the acting is bad and it is absolutely too long for nothing. I enjoyed the fact that they tried to convince us that it could happen like that many years ago with the new world but, you need more originality to make a good movie like that. I give a 4, I should maybe give less ;)
4/10
31.7.2006 -
sam4him@ - age: 18-25
| | | | |
This movie was sooo boring I was starting to fall asleep. The animated Phocahontas ones were WAY better. Dont rent it... waste of money!
2/10
6.7.2006 -
aerosmith_smile92@ - age: 13-17
| | | | |
The story was ok, but it felt long winded at times.
4/10
9.6.2006 -
cfh_trendkill@ - age: 18-25
| | | | |
This movie is, simply, one of the most beautiful, better direct and better preformed I have ever seen. Q'Orianka Kilcher has made a SPECTACULAR job. Her performance was so intence that anyone who sees these movie will cry... or at least will feel his heart full of sadness and simpathy for Pocahontas... A must see.
10/10
24.5.2006 -
jonybernas@ - age: 18-25
A beautifully made movie with pretty good acting. It was a bit long, but the overall experience was well worth it.
9/10
22.5.2006 -
sarahsaddy@ - age: 26-35
| | | | |
Probably the worst film editing that I have ever seen. Cuts were disjointed, confusion and unnessary. The editors looked like they tried to fit everyone possible footage shot disregarding the main story line. Director should take most or all of the blame for the poor acting, character development and storyline. Absolutely no chemistry or emotion among the main characters. Sad to say that Disney's cartoon version is much better. Ebert and Roeper gave it two thumbs up but they may have been hanging upside down when people saw their votes.
1/10
21.5.2006 -
izfile@ - age: 36-49
This movie absolutely sucked. It's not worth seeing in theatres or renting. I thought it would be good, because I liked the Disney version of Pochahontis, but it really wasn't. The cartoon version was way better. The movie is very slow. It takes forever for one little thing to happen. The script in that movie, wouldn't be hard to memorize considering they're barely was one! People hardly spoke in that movie, especially Collin Ferrel, but when he did he just mumbled so you cant understand what he's saying. I'll admit the costumes, and the scenery was good, but the acting and the script sucked.
4/10
15.5.2006 -
fallen_angel_524@ - age: 13-17
Ok well the movie had no story line at all u get to see them roll around in the grass, there is no point to the movie it goes no where. I only paid 3 dollars to see this movie and I still feel ripped off. So if you like to waste your time and money this is the show for you. Thats 2 and a half hours of my life I will never get back!
1/10
5.4.2006 -
dirtrider__12@ - age: 18-25
[ATTENTION: This review reveals content of the movie.]
Oh my god... I cannot beleive the girl DIES!!! How did that happen?! I am so absolutely dissapointed... I expected some other end which would have been alot better... oh... go see something else...
5/10
16.3.2006 -
feyerv@ - age: 18-25
| | | | |
I saw the pre-screen version of this movie. I enjoyed the story of Pocca Hontus. I was amazed when I found out the actress was only 16 years old. [...]
8/10
13.3.2006 -
michelelarmet@ - age: 36-49
You'll either love it or hate it. The movie totally impacted me, and I grasped so many symbols, details, ideas that were portrayed. But much of it is suttlel. The cinematography is unbelieveable, those who say otherwise were asleep or blind. The story was acturate to history, acting by pocahontas was fantastic. So much meaning, I got a huge amount of this film, those who didn't completely missed the point of it. Again you'll either love it or hate it, I finished the film a changed person almost stunned in my seat, other people in the theatre laughed their heads off...
10/10
9.3.2006 -
kinze_earn@ - age: 18-25
Too long to say nothing, No action in this "adventure"... I like Epic stories, but this one no even close to an epic story... More of a love movie, even tho its far from that..
2/10
25.2.2006 -
defrost64@ - age: 18-25
Painfully boring, if your having trouble falling asleep these days, then go for it!. if not, don't bother.
1/10
25.2.2006 -
valww@ - age: 18-25
As a history student I was pretty excited to see the New World... I even saw it on my birthday cuz I figured it would be a good night. Boy was I ever wrong; this movie was the biggest waste of money, time and energy I have ever experienced. I say energy because I actually had to fight to stay awake. My friends and I debated leaving several times but opted to stay in the hopes it would improve sadly it only got worse. The plot was literally non existant, the acting was mediocre at best and there was very little dialogue. I found myself not caring about any of the characters... I just wanted the movie to end. Lasted a bit over 2 hours but felt like 4... I want that time back.
1/10
22.2.2006 -
hayley_s_r@ - age: 18-25
A great movie. Not for the young kid who wants to see alot of fighting and action. Seen many immature younger guys laughing and saying it sucked cause they had no real taste for a good movie.
10/10
18.2.2006 -
fightclub@ - age: 26-35
| | | | |
Ok... I waited for this movie since I first saw the trailer in late 2005. Please someone explain to me why they make such amaizing trailers and teazers and then show almost no part of them in the movie!? Where are all those awesome scenes, Indian in full war dress dancing, the guy with the eagle wings as he spreads them and kneels, the MUSIC-the music alone in the trailer is not even close to the deafening sound of the soundtrack-movie could have been a lot better-such gaps of nothingess bewteen the story line and dialgue-I mean to act is to act-but what Colin Farrel does is just stand and stare and yes some dialogue... I would have done the same job for 1/3 of what they paid him. Anyhow-I find it almost a FRAUD to teaze and show a trailer and then show and give a total oppisite 'service; than was offered. In this case it is purely misleading into story-music and expections of what you will see... and it is long for nothing! And this from someone who enjoys long movies, likes Historic in depth films, who is a photographer and the scenery was very boring-but I mean that's fine-if it was what it was then at that time.. Just to say-I was very upset at the end.
6/10
14.2.2006 -
tario@ - age: 26-35
Great production. Outstanding scenery. A great depiction of the relationship between First Nations and their natural world. A refreshing way to let us HEAR what they thought and not bore our minds with useless words! But again too much on romance. Makes you think... I loved it.
8/10
10.2.2006 -
laure,m@ - age: 26-35
I found this movie to be very different than most. It allows you to be there in that setting with the "naturals" and experience what it was like for them to interact with the white colonizers. I found the middle part a little boring & repetitive. The scenery was excellent and I loved the camera angles. Thought provoking!
8/10
9.2.2006 -
mary_van18@ - age: 36-49
THey forgot to write a story. The natives are hopeless. A rather lame love story. The cinematography was average and those wanting such an experience would be better of taking a walk through a nice wooded park. It is based on settling of North America with out a particularly amazing event. Absolute crapola.
1/10
9.2.2006 -
clarke109@ - age: 36-49
| | | | |
I never rate these movies, but had to say my piece. I think I understand what those people are saying who rated this movie highly, but disagree with the implication that it’s some kind of high “art” or “poetry” and you’re somehow more sensitive or intelligent for liking it. Yes, the cinematography is beautiful; okay, it's not pandering to a typical maudlin story line; all right, some of the actors are a talented, well-costumed lot; no, it doesn’t spell everything out for us like we’re morons; and fine, I suppose it’s artfully rendered, if your taste in art runs to PRETENTIOUS LONG-WINDED CRAP WITH NOTHING TO SAY. This film had NO significant plotline or story arc; NO thematic development or tension of any kind; NO depth of character or signs of any of the characters’ inner conflict (hence, their painful and repetitive postures and gesturing); VERY bad dialogue that went in circles… I could go on, but basically I’m saying this film had NONE of the attributes of true art or entertainment, other than its aesthetic beauty. This was a pretty picture, but true art is more than just a pretty picture. Nor was it a “symphony” or “poem”, for these forms have THEMES. Look up “art” in the dictionary; it talks about “human creative skill, as opposed to the work of nature. ” If you want to talk about high art, think Shakespeare, which has all of the elements this film lacked. Anything I got from this film, I really could have got from looking at a tree in the park – except the tree would ultimately have been more beautiful. I found this to be the worst movie I’ve seen in a very long time, whether you’re looking for entertainment or art. And even if it was only the "ignoramus" hockey fans who walked out, I wouldn't sneer at them. The "riffraff" were riveted at the Globe theatre in Shakespeare's day. And no, in case you're wondering, I don’t watch hockey, and prefer good drama to action movies. Finally, as a Native person, I find this movie continues a long Hollywood tradition of reducing our whole existence to the level of props in some white man’s deluded frontier tale. It may be a somewhat sympathetic and well-meaning attempt, but, as with the B movies of the 50’s, it does not even remotely approach an intelligent depiction of the unique genius of our societies, or our complexity as people. My sole sorry comfort was that all the whites in the movie suffered the same shallow fate of character..
1/10
8.2.2006 -
doug@ - age: 36-49
I was really interested in the story at first. Usually the beginning of every movie offers a quick pace flash of scenes to establish the story, then the scenes slow down to develop the story. For some strange reason, I don't think there was one scene in this movie that lasted longer than 15 seconds. I actually started counting I was so bored. The cameraperson also seemed to be nearsighted, and for some reason everybody in the 17th century whispers all the time.
1/10
7.2.2006 -
junkyardsymphony@ - age: 26-35
This is an affront to all cinema! Please look elsewhere for entertainment. No word of a lie, the movie glitter was a pool of cool refreshing water after the long arduaous desert that is the new world. There is no 0 on this rating system therefore I am forced to give a 1. Which is far too much a credit to this festering pusstual than it rightly deserves.
1/10
7.2.2006 -
kdurston@ - age: 26-35
This movie was not what the trailers made it out to be. It was now action packed, it was a movie with footage of beautiful nature shots, and some love scenes in between.
5/10
7.2.2006 -
lorax_4_trees@ - age: 18-25
| | | | |
This movie... SUCKED! Our only regret is that we will never get back those three hours of our lives! From start to finish this movie was terrible, there was no story line and it just went on and on about nothing, there was like no talking and it was just ridiculous. You don't even feel sad when something bad happens! Its like yay! Just end already! We were so close to leaving at least 5 times but kept thinking maybe it'll get better, we shoulda left!
1/10
5.2.2006 -
tricky_tiffy99@ - age: 18-25
The director lacks experience and skills. This looks like a home-made video. Poor script didn't help either. Well the storyline was ok, if they took it to the best director and screen writer, I'm sure they could have done a much better job. You come out of this feeling nothing. Empty, that is the exact adjectif to describe this movie. Perhaps the indian girl they called Pocahontas (because nobody knows her name) wasn't a good actress. Even when she was crying, I didn't feel sad at all. It was so long for nothing, for a movie that had nothing to show or teach you.
3/10
4.2.2006 -
cutyjewel@ - age: 26-35
| | | | |
Brilliant! This movie is a rare epic. Full of beautiful scenes with great actors. I was surprised with the twists in the movie and the unexpected surprises. I think those who rated low are just to simple minded for a unique movie. This movie is worth the time and money invested! I totally recommend this movie to anyone who is into different and interesting, thought provoking movies.
10/10
3.2.2006 -
mahnazcc@ - age: 18-25
| | | | |
The New World demonstrates MalickÂ’s directorial talent. He takes this basic formulaic story and applies his own artistic flair to it in a way that feels invigorating, real and quite brilliant. The simple story remains simple, and Malick fuels it with a childlike wonder the likes of which were seen in his 1973 film, Badlands. He allows the cinematographer to swallow the world around them with the camera, taking many moments to observe the simple beauties of nature. The shot composition in this film, in itself, is a massive triumph. Accompanied by James HornerÂ’s beautiful score, we have movie magic. There is an amazing script (written by Malick) to take into account. The way the characters discuss their views of the world and the events taking place is amazingly poetic and elegant. We are given shots of trickling rivers, sun filtering through forest canopies, flocks of birds fluttering off into the smoky sky. Emmanuel LubezkiÂ’s incredible camerawork brings an unbelievable amount of wonder to these simple natural spectacles. Instead of giving us a love story that is bold, sweeping and epic, Malick gives us one that is quiet and humble. The story sort of drifts its way along instead of laying itself out in a basic structure. Instead of grabbing our attention with its scarce battle sequences, it pulls us in with its visual beauty and thought-provoking screenplay. The characters are given time to reveal their thoughts to the audience in the very effective and fascinating method of multiple narratives. The film is about the English moving into Native American territory and the struggles that develop between the two cultures. Amidst the struggle, there is an Englishman played by Colin Farrell who finds himself falling in love with one of the Native girls, played by QÂ’Orianka Kilcher. Both of these characters are unsatisfied with their cultures and the way they interact with people, and they stumble into each other. Despite a language barrier, the characters seem to sense each otherÂ’s confusion and frustration, and there is an immediate connection between the two. Farrell and Kilcher are flawless in these roles, bringing an unbelievable amount of chemistry to the screen. Malick finds various clever methods of displaying a love story between two characters of different nationalities and cultures. The direction style is the most remarkable part of the movie. The film moves its way through the story at its own pace, flaunting cinematographic beauty and screenwriting perfection. Whether or not it keeps the attention of all viewers is a matter of its own. But it managed to keep this viewer entranced for two and a half hours. It is the kind of movie with such vivid imagery and music that it instills gorgeous memories that last. The love story ends up taking various unexpected directions that move it completely away from the conventional structure and into a method of its own. It is not the story of a film itself that matters, but the way that the story is told. And Terrence Malick told this story in a beautiful, original, entrancing way. The New World is undoubtedly the best film I have seen of 2005..
9/10
2.2.2006 -
prankstaguy@ - age: 13-17
I have read cereal boxes with more engaging storylines. What an absolute waste of time, money, talent and popcorn. The exciting scenes in the trailer are about as much as you see in the movie. Don't waste an evening on this tedious yawnfest.
2/10
2.2.2006 -
karmic_delusion@ - age: 36-49
This movie was a huge disappointment. Hoping for an epic tale of love and cultural differences, I was instead forced to sit through two and a half hours of barely any dialogue, terrible music, and a plot seriously lacking in depth. I know this is supposed to be a beautiful story about love, life, and moving on from grief, but my god, I want that time back.
3/10
2.2.2006 -
efriday3@ - age: 18-25
| | | | |
A New World should really have stayed in the Old World. This movie was HORRIBLE! Do not waste your time seeing it. The only bonus of the movie was looking at Colin Farrell and Christian Bale who are the two reasons I stayed for the entire movie. There is no story, no development, and most importantly no point in wasting your life watching this movie. If you have ever seen the movie "Nell" with Jodie Foster and enjoyed it, there is a slight chance this movie could interest you. DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME!
3/10
2.2.2006 -
douglan@ - age: 18-25
Two words: BORING. Example? I think maybe Malick should have kept only one (not all eight) of the five minute scenes featuring Pocahontas immitating a sparrow in a field of wheat while John Smith follows adoringly.
4/10
1.2.2006 -
gabygray@ - age: 26-35
Breathtakingly awesome filmography despite all the bad comments of others who don't appreciate the movie. I will see it again!!!
10/10
1.2.2006 -
ravigunnoo@ - age: 26-35
This is a haunting, beautiful, artistic movie with it's evocative character and plot developement. Mainstream moviegoers may not appreciate this movie, but if you're looking for something unique, you will find it amazing how the movie reveals itself to the audience like a poem or a painting, and how unlike most films today, image is used in a very powerful way. You will find yourself visually astonished after watching it!
10/10
31.1.2006 -
a_lex_a_harrison@ - age: 26-35
I normally would not write a review, but it upsets me that some people are rating this 10/10? Why? The movie was absolutely horrible... I think the best is when Colin Farrell's character teach's the pocahontas type character english and all of the sudden she is fluent in english? My friends and I walked out on this movie, I defiently would not recommend it to anyone unless you want revenage on someone you don't like.
1/10
30.1.2006 -
dmaffey@ - age: 26-35
Obviously not a movie for everyone. The cinematography was interesting and beautiful at times, utilizing techniques ranging from 8mm handheld home movies, to complicted choregraphed sequences. The time line was often broken, leaving the viewer to interpret what you are witnessing - but if you are willing to use your imagination and not submit yourself to a constant barrage of spoon fed neatly packaged stories, then this could be an interesting and rewarding cinematic diversion.
8/10
30.1.2006 -
twistshandley@ - age: 36-49
I give this movie a 6.5 because it had very good acting however; it was pretty confusing at some points. The setting was beautiful. There isn't enough dialogue (excluding the cheesy narration beginning with, "My mother...")It was much more of a romance story than a historical fiction. A lot of the movie was just of two people starring and then afterwards hugging. (Lots of eyecontact in this movie between the charcters) The ending was pretty good, a more interesting climax, (humm... was there a climax? ) and some parts could have been cut off to decrease the lenght. The acting for one, was excellent. I suggest seeing the movie if your not paying and if your up for a long romance film.
6/10
30.1.2006 -
coolcat1985_222@ - age: 13-17
Good character development and beautiful cinematography coupled with a good story. I enjoyed most of this movie but did feel that it dragged at times. Could have stood to be about 20 minutes shorter - would have increased my enjoyment without hurting the storyline.
7/10
29.1.2006 -
cdn_smegead@ - age: 36-49
People who rate this movie 1 or 2 should seriously go see a doctor. If you don't "get" the movie, it means a lot about you, as human beings. And please, those who write to say "I am open and I love cinema but..." and rate it 1, well, you're liars and ignorants. You don't know anything about cinema or art. This movie is a masterpiece: the use of sound, the music, the imagery, the fact there is no hero or villains, the fact it lets you figure it out for yourself. This movie is intense, it has an enormous emotional impact. This film stays with you. It is why we go to see movies: to feel, to experience, to think. Simply amazing.
10/10
29.1.2006 -
pytournier@ - age: 26-35
Oh my GOD! This movie was crap! This is the first time I HAD to leave the theater before I completely lost all faith in the cinema. I consider myself to be a fair critic and I have watched ALOT of movies so trust me when I say this isnt one worth watching...
1/10
29.1.2006 -
musical_melancholy@ - age: 13-17
From all the advertising for this movie, especially the previews, I expected an action movie more than anything else. It ended up being a cheezy love story, with really small parts of actions. It's the kind of movie that plays on discovery channel. Plus, this movie is pointless! Even when I tried hard searching for a point to this movie, I couldnt find one. After my review, if you still want to see this movie, I suggest strongly you smoke weed before. Maybe then, you will find a point to this movie! I couldn't even stay till the end. About 10 persons, including myself and my boyfriend, left 25 minutes before the end of the movie!! The reason why I give 4/10, is because this movie has great potentiel which wasnt develloped fully. Image, sound, acting was good and thats about it.
3/10
28.1.2006 -
kay_8105@ - age: 18-25
This movie was the slowest, unput together, time wasting, and silent movie I have seen. Its hard to follow the story line and the little talking that occurs doesn't follow sequence with the movie.
1/10
28.1.2006 -
ming_45@ - age: 18-25
The only reason I am writing this is because this is the first time in my life where I left in the middle of the movie. This is movie is an atrocity and I am a big fan of epic movies...
1/10
28.1.2006 -
angel_dz@ - age: 18-25
This was the worst movie I have ever seen. It was boring beyond belief. There was no story. It made no sense whatsoever. Stay away from this movie. I cannot believe this was ever released. I really wonder what was the point? The trailer made it seem like it was going to wonderful. Don't be fooled. A complete waste of time and money.
1/10
28.1.2006 -
dialem@ - age: 36-49
I see a lot of clever movies that use imagery, themes and microcosms to support the film and are very succesful at it. It is generally this types of movies that engage me and offer the kind of respite from horrid action films one needs to keep attending the cinema. I really wish New world had been one of this films. I was actually asking out loud when the dribble would end. To be a clever movie you can not ram your imagery down the audiences throats nor actually repeatedly state the themes of the moie out loud repeatedly through out. 1 is the worst I've ever rated anything but seriously even if a gorgeous girl invited me to her apartment to watch this in neglegy with me I would not see it again.
1/10
27.1.2006 -
adam_fizer@ - age: 18-25
Boring and choppy. Music background was annoying and very hard to understand the actors.
1/10
27.1.2006 -
ldyda@ - age: 50+
Terrence Malick is brilliant. This isn't an "action film". It's not another Disney-fied tale of Pocahontas. Malick lets the audience linger over the land -- appreciating the slow and immense beauty of it all. The characters are real and mortal and flawed and exceptionally portrayed. Q'Orianka Kilcher does a wonderful job. It's a film to be savoured.
10/10
27.1.2006 -
magic_dragon_owner@ - age: 26-35
I loved this film, it haunted me for days afterward. It's true that you must be mildly intelligent to understand and enjoy this film, it's not a no-brainer like a lot of the other films out there. There's no gratuitous violence, no gratuitous sex or swearing. It's a beautifully shot, poetic masterpiece. Kudos to the young actress who plays Pocahontas- what talent! And Christian Bale is always wonderful to see. I highly, highly recommend it.
10/10
27.1.2006 -
call_me_tonks@ - age: 26-35
This was such a beautiful movie! Quite a unique experience. Those who can appreciate a unique artistic film will enjoy this movie. You feel like you are in a dreamworld watching it. I would describe it as a visual story enriched with breathtaking music. I was also quite surprised at how well-acted it was.
10/10
27.1.2006 -
dreamingxdays@ - age: 26-35
I thought this movie was crap. Crappiest movie I ever saw. The depiction of Native people in this movie was offensive. War make up is not worn EVERY DAY. It was like a technicolor silent film. The popcorn was good. People left. High expectations- left utterly disappointed. DON'T GO SEE THIS.
1/10
26.1.2006 -
bennymichaud@ - age: 18-25
The "New World" is a TRUE MASTERPIECE. This is the kind of cinema that one wishes to see more often at the movies. The kind of film that does what art does best. It makes you see the world through the perspective of the artist. Luckily for us we are in good hands. Malick shows us the true beauty of life, nature and love. Q'Orianka Kilcher gives a truly sublime performance. The music is rich in atmosphere and perfectly played over the visual story. The cinematography is breathtaking. The production design is perfect. This film is a must see for any serious film, art or nature lover. An awe inspiring poem that will leave you moved forever... Thank you once again Mr. Malick for sharing with us your magic.
10/10
26.1.2006 -
philippe,leblanc@ - age: 18-25
| 
