User Score
6.8

Generally favorable reviews- based on 193 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 39 out of 193
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. HyZ.
    Jan 21, 2006
    4
    I must have seen a different film. The one I saw worked so hard at creating a sense of awe and awakening that it overshot the mark.The endless montage of nature turns that beauty into a calendar of sunsets backed by powerful symphonic strains that are so continuous they sound like computer sound loops. How many times can you do "grandeur" in one film? Beyond this I wonder how these I must have seen a different film. The one I saw worked so hard at creating a sense of awe and awakening that it overshot the mark.The endless montage of nature turns that beauty into a calendar of sunsets backed by powerful symphonic strains that are so continuous they sound like computer sound loops. How many times can you do "grandeur" in one film? Beyond this I wonder how these characters get to think in such contemporary terms? The obsessive costume design and the detail photography of it were also distracting. But Malicks efforts for authenticity seem to stop at the visual. This film is all dressed up with no place to go. It is a meditation on a dream that doesn't really hold together when its retold. It just repeats the same simplistic view backed by manipulative photography and music. Expand
  2. DoctorP.
    Feb 24, 2006
    2
    Ponderous and ridiculously self-indulgent, this movie evokes the same quiet panic that ensues when a tedious bore runs a never-ending slide show of a recent family reunion in Peoria. The only difference? Virginia is more beautiful than Peoria, but after about 90 minutes, you will be begging for mercy, anyway. Take a pillow or book to this one.
  3. Cables
    Jan 30, 2006
    3
    I just don't get it. I understand it was shot in narrative format, but good lord. The script was terrible, and Colin Farrel? Are you serious? Didn't click for me at all, supremely dissapointed.
  4. AndrewS.
    Jan 22, 2006
    0
    I cannot believe that some of the respondants are saying good things about this film. It is as empty and preposterous as any film released in years. Malick should be ashamed of himself.
  5. SaraL.
    Feb 3, 2006
    1
    Granted- I saw a midnight showing- but this movie was so terrible it was funny. Not to mention, historically, it's garbage. Please do not tell me how beautiful the cinematography is, because it is in fact the same 3 scenes shown 50 times with terrible, terrible monologues in the background. Yes, Pocohantas was a free spirit and she loved to frolic the backwoods in her fitted gucci Granted- I saw a midnight showing- but this movie was so terrible it was funny. Not to mention, historically, it's garbage. Please do not tell me how beautiful the cinematography is, because it is in fact the same 3 scenes shown 50 times with terrible, terrible monologues in the background. Yes, Pocohantas was a free spirit and she loved to frolic the backwoods in her fitted gucci native american attire, I GET IT Expand
  6. JayD
    May 8, 2006
    4
    This movie flows as smoothly as a bunch of jagged rocks! The scenery, music, story line, and the performance by Q'Orianka Kilcher were all thumbs up; however, Terrence Malick was somehow able to turn this film into a newly bought "Rubik's Cube". So, I give thanks to the director for turning what could've been 2 hours of enjoyment into a -sadly- waste of time.
  7. GregA.
    Aug 10, 2006
    0
    There is good art and bad art; good poetry and bad poetry. This was just bad. The film took to extreme the fashion for portraying poetry and sensitivity through long, supposedly meaningful silences and lack of dialogue. It was almost as if the actors were miming their roles. This conspiracy against speech in an attempt to be artistic is not clever or challenging. It is lazy, simplistic There is good art and bad art; good poetry and bad poetry. This was just bad. The film took to extreme the fashion for portraying poetry and sensitivity through long, supposedly meaningful silences and lack of dialogue. It was almost as if the actors were miming their roles. This conspiracy against speech in an attempt to be artistic is not clever or challenging. It is lazy, simplistic and, to my mind, dishonest. In addition, the verbal and linguistic inaccuracy was embarrassing and the scenes of England, London and the court of James I were risible. Expand
  8. PaulP.
    Mar 13, 2007
    3
    A real snoozer. The cinematography was great, but don't watch this if you want to stay awake.
  9. FredO.
    Jan 22, 2006
    0
    You can't hear the narrator, the film has no forward motion, and the director is up to the same tricks he played to much btter effect in The Thin Red Line. The people in this forum that have given this film great reviews really need to get a grip.
  10. SamJ.
    Jan 22, 2006
    0
    A ponderous, vacuous and pointless film...best film of the year??? Next joke....maybe the worst!
  11. DWilly
    Jan 23, 2006
    3
    Oh, I wanted to like this movie, but, just as he did with "Alexander," poor, clueless Collin Farrell kills this endeavor as well. Even with a decent performance from him and the young Native American girl, this would have been more properly a film installation in a museum than a regular movie (the script must have consisted of about twenty pages) I'm affraid the director's reach Oh, I wanted to like this movie, but, just as he did with "Alexander," poor, clueless Collin Farrell kills this endeavor as well. Even with a decent performance from him and the young Native American girl, this would have been more properly a film installation in a museum than a regular movie (the script must have consisted of about twenty pages) I'm affraid the director's reach so far exceeds his grasp that it goes beyond dreamlike and dips well into idiotic. Collapse
  12. LynetteS.
    Jan 27, 2006
    1
    Lots of pretty pictures. Poor storytelling.
  13. JonS.
    Feb 1, 2006
    1
    I went to this movie expecting a lot, so maybe it was just that I expected too much. This is the only movie that I have seriously considered leaving partway through. They only thing that kept me in my seat was that I was so bored that I couldn't bring myself to stand. This is a film that was made to win Oscars. And it probably will. The problem is that the general public isn't a I went to this movie expecting a lot, so maybe it was just that I expected too much. This is the only movie that I have seriously considered leaving partway through. They only thing that kept me in my seat was that I was so bored that I couldn't bring myself to stand. This is a film that was made to win Oscars. And it probably will. The problem is that the general public isn't a bunch of stuffy art-movie lovers. I am usually entertained in even the worst of movies, but I wasn't entertained for even a second. I'm sorry, but pictures of trees and grass just doesn't do it for me. The story was secondary to the artsy camera work, and I was confused at several points in the movie because of the way it skipped time throughout. The only reason I gave it a 1 is because of the amazing performance by the stunning Q'orianka Kilcher. I will make this as clear as possible...I will never see another Malick movie again. Although apparently it takes him decades to come up with this crap anyway. Expand
  14. DougA.
    Feb 8, 2006
    0
    My gut reaction to this film was to think that the emperor has no clothes, but on reflection, that's not the problem at all. In fact, this emperor wears only the finest; problem is, he has no heart. 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 My gut reaction to this film was to think that the emperor has no clothes, but on reflection, that's not the problem at all. In fact, this emperor wears only the finest; problem is, he has no heart. 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 resorting to a maudlin Disney story line; all right, some of the actors are a talented, well-costumed lot; and fine, I suppose it's artfully rendered - if your taste in art runs to pretentious, long-winded tripe with nothing remarkable to say. This film had no significant plotline or story arc; no meaningful thematic development or tension of any kind; no depth of character or engaging signs of inner character conflict (hence the painful and repetitive postures and gesturing)...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 much more than that. 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 satisfying. This was 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 self-important 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 Europeans in the movie suffered the same shallow fate. Expand
  15. Mikeb
    May 13, 2006
    4
    Could have been much better. Hard to follow and lacked smoothness. Q'Orianka Kilcher captured the innocence of youth and Native Americans. The movie just was poorly edited and that is what hurt the film more than anything else
  16. RichardC.
    May 22, 2006
    4
    A beautifully photographed film, well-cast and acted, but largely void of dialogue, and seemingly scored by a person who specialized in funeral music and orchestral warm-up pieces, and edited by a college art student whose hobby is scrap-booking.
  17. Czar
    Jun 15, 2006
    3
    What can I say. It was dreary. The scene cuts were haphazard and I was lost half of the time. Things happened but it was unclear why. The movie is a mess. How could they spend this much money and end up with such a bothed movie? The movie jerked from one scene to the next, there was no continuity and no smoothness to the scenes and dialouge. At 2:15 minutes it was way too long. After an What can I say. It was dreary. The scene cuts were haphazard and I was lost half of the time. Things happened but it was unclear why. The movie is a mess. How could they spend this much money and end up with such a bothed movie? The movie jerked from one scene to the next, there was no continuity and no smoothness to the scenes and dialouge. At 2:15 minutes it was way too long. After an hour I was bored to pieces. Expand
  18. Steve
    Jun 17, 2006
    3
    I fully expect to be told that the movie is "too smart" for me, but it is a poor experiment. It may be laudable art to write a movie where the dialogue is spoken emotion and secret thoughts, but it is painstakingly long and difficult to hear, let alone celebrate. I found myself needing the closed captioning just to discern the mumbled tones. Calling something intelligent is far different I fully expect to be told that the movie is "too smart" for me, but it is a poor experiment. It may be laudable art to write a movie where the dialogue is spoken emotion and secret thoughts, but it is painstakingly long and difficult to hear, let alone celebrate. I found myself needing the closed captioning just to discern the mumbled tones. Calling something intelligent is far different than calling it worthwhile. Expand
  19. KentP.
    Jan 22, 2006
    3
    Even with twenty minutes removed, it is over-long, pretentious, pompous, and indecipherable.
  20. JasonG.
    Jan 22, 2006
    0
    This wins the award as Turkey of the Year!
  21. JamesM.
    Jan 22, 2006
    0
    Incessant mumbling by a narrator that you can hardly hear, and visuals that have no narrative coherence. This film is PRETENTIOUS!
  22. TonyL.
    Jan 22, 2006
    0
    The newer version is no better than the original cut. A total and comprehensive failure.
  23. MariaA.
    Jan 22, 2006
    0
    2005's worst motion picture
  24. ThomasJ.
    Jan 22, 2006
    0
    Metaphysical rambling and ruminative ponderance. A film devoid of any resonance or narrative coherence.
  25. AllanFish
    Jan 22, 2006
    0
    The first time Mr. Malick has failed, and what a failure this one is.
  26. PeterD.
    Jan 22, 2006
    0
    At the half way point of the film, the audience slowly started filing out of the theatre. I can't say I blamed them.
  27. JeffreyM.
    Jan 22, 2006
    0
    I think it would be fair to say that Mr. Malick has crafted one of the all-time biggest movie abominations in the history of the cinema. This one makes Ishtar and Heaven's Gate look like masterpieces.
  28. LouisA.
    Jan 23, 2006
    0
    I think it is a sham that this site allows the same person to "stack the deck." This film has received extreemely mixed reviews nationwide and after seeing it, it gives pretentiousness a new meaning.
  29. KevinP.
    Jan 28, 2006
    0
    The confused and drunken camera man ruined the beautiful story!
  30. Jul 16, 2011
    4
    In my opinion, the movie was quite slow. The scenery of the forest was beautiful but but if your prone to sleeping a lot, you'd sleep during half of this movie.
  31. Feb 16, 2011
    0
    It should have warning on poster: only for snobs and maybe some retarded children..boring, poorly directed and slow, puts you asleep like that...and also very bad acting by that chick
  32. Aug 28, 2014
    4
    The movie surprised me. It was - naturally - nothing like the Disney-animation. Moreover, it was nothing like any movie I had seen. The movie is built on atmospheres rather than those simple qualities we are used to (talk, action). At some moments, the movie was good. Colin Farrell did a good job, being believable with his inner turmoil. Yet the bothering music, the meaningless images, andThe movie surprised me. It was - naturally - nothing like the Disney-animation. Moreover, it was nothing like any movie I had seen. The movie is built on atmospheres rather than those simple qualities we are used to (talk, action). At some moments, the movie was good. Colin Farrell did a good job, being believable with his inner turmoil. Yet the bothering music, the meaningless images, and a loose story-telling ruin most of the good experience. Expand
Metascore
69

Generally favorable reviews - based on 38 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 27 out of 38
  2. Negative: 0 out of 38
  1. Reviewed by: David Ansen
    80
    Malick's magnificent, frustrating epic mixes fact and legend to conjure up a reverie about Pocahontas (Q'orianka Kilcher), her love for Capt. John Smith (Colin Farrell) and her crossing from one culture to another.
  2. This is resolutely a film of the imagination. As with all films in Malick's slim body of work, its imagery, haunting sounds and pastoral mood trump narrative.
  3. Reviewed by: Richard Corliss
    80
    This is no breathless film fantasy; its pulse is stately, contemplative. But anyone who has keen eyes and an open heart will surely go soaring and crashing with the lovers lost in Malick's exotic, erotic new world.