New Line Cinema | Release Date: December 25, 2005
6.8
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 204 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
126
Mixed:
38
Negative:
40
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
2
DoctorP.Feb 24, 2006
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 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. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful
3
CablesJan 30, 2006
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
AndrewS.Jan 22, 2006
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
SaraL.Feb 3, 2006
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
GregA.Aug 10, 2006
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
PaulP.Mar 13, 2007
A real snoozer. The cinematography was great, but don't watch this if you want to stay awake.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
FredO.Jan 22, 2006
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
SamJ.Jan 22, 2006
A ponderous, vacuous and pointless film...best film of the year??? Next joke....maybe the worst!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
DWillyJan 23, 2006
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
LynetteS.Jan 27, 2006
Lots of pretty pictures. Poor storytelling.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
JonS.Feb 1, 2006
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
DougA.Feb 8, 2006
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
CzarJun 15, 2006
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 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. Collapse
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
SteveJun 17, 2006
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
KentP.Jan 22, 2006
Even with twenty minutes removed, it is over-long, pretentious, pompous, and indecipherable.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
JasonG.Jan 22, 2006
This wins the award as Turkey of the Year!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
JamesM.Jan 22, 2006
Incessant mumbling by a narrator that you can hardly hear, and visuals that have no narrative coherence. This film is PRETENTIOUS!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
TonyL.Jan 22, 2006
The newer version is no better than the original cut. A total and comprehensive failure.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
MariaA.Jan 22, 2006
2005's worst motion picture
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
ThomasJ.Jan 22, 2006
Metaphysical rambling and ruminative ponderance. A film devoid of any resonance or narrative coherence.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
AllanFishJan 22, 2006
The first time Mr. Malick has failed, and what a failure this one is.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
PeterD.Jan 22, 2006
At the half way point of the film, the audience slowly started filing out of the theatre. I can't say I blamed them.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
JeffreyM.Jan 22, 2006
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
LouisA.Jan 23, 2006
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
KevinP.Jan 28, 2006
The confused and drunken camera man ruined the beautiful story!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
vibor123Feb 16, 2011
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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews