06-11-2006, 01:45 PM
Just watched Terrence Malick's The New World and man, did it blow me away. Read some reviews of it online, and looks like it's an either love it or hate it film. Maybe because I'm interested in early America and am generally a patient person, I'm more the target audience, but I can't understand not liking this film. They nailed it, in my opinion. There were many opportunities to overstate the point, but the film constitantly stayed understated, which pays off in a big way at the end.
It guides the audience toward its point without overtly making it, which, in my opinion, is the mark of a great film.
06-11-2006, 03:44 PM
You know I REALLY wanted to see this in cinemas. I heard the cinematography was great, but then read the reviews and most panned it... bah Ive got to stop trusting critics!
06-11-2006, 04:16 PM
Meh. I saw it last night and could've done without it. The pacing was original and everything, but in the end, for me, it didn't work. Was it three hours long, or did it just feel that way?
I guess it had good cinematography... but maybe that's because almost half the movie was shots of a freakin' coastline at sunset. I can see how people might like this, but it wasn't for me, and I have nothing intelligent to say about it. So I'm gonna shut up.. now.
06-11-2006, 05:33 PM
I saw this in Los Angeles at the Cinerama Dome the last night it played in its full, uncut version. I was blown away. The slow pacing put me in - dare I say it without coming off pretentious - an ethereal state. The whole thing just kind of washed over me. I haven't had many experiences in a movie theater like that.
06-13-2006, 02:46 AM
I think it was Oliver Stone that said people have trouble dealing with slow movies these days given the influence of TV, which is a bit of a shame really.
I've not seen the New World but its on my DVD list