New Line Cinema | Release Date: December 25, 2005
6.8
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 202 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
124
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 characteres (5000 max)
10
schrodingerNov 30, 2011
Terrence Malick is a genius and a real artist. Exactly... This film is lighter then The Thin Red Line, but The New World is an amazing philosophical orgasm. Long and slow, even so beautiful and never dull. Colin Farrell is a great actor, butTerrence Malick is a genius and a real artist. Exactly... This film is lighter then The Thin Red Line, but The New World is an amazing philosophical orgasm. Long and slow, even so beautiful and never dull. Colin Farrell is a great actor, but the best was Christian Bale. The script is lyrical, the shot is wonderful. Need more? Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
10
aabJan 9, 2006
The best film of the year,
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
RichL.Apr 1, 2006
Transcendent moments of beauty shower The New World with a pure joy, not based on explosive plot jolting, but on purity itself.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
GiovanniJan 10, 2006
Pure Art.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
franktJan 3, 2006
Kudos to master malick for being a distinctive voice in the largely generic choir of american film. i'd rather feel a bit bored for stretches by malick than assaulted by vulgarians like... there are too many to name. the female Kudos to master malick for being a distinctive voice in the largely generic choir of american film. i'd rather feel a bit bored for stretches by malick than assaulted by vulgarians like... there are too many to name. the female character could have been handled in ways that would have been more emotionally engaging, without resorting to sentimentality or the usual manipulations, but she remained too enigmatic for too long. nice recovery in the final minutes, but there was too much fertile ground left fallow. being dislocated from your people, isolated and cast out should result in some drama, not just a change of wardrobe and address. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
MitchM.Feb 1, 2006
An utterly mesmerizing, gripping, tragic, beautiful, hallucinogenic experience sitting through this. The film captures some essential truth about the trainwreck that occured when these two disparate cultures collided, and most of it is visual.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
KenG.Feb 12, 2006
Beautifully told, beautifully shot, and beautifully acted.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
W.GlenFeb 3, 2006
This is a singular work of genius. Brilliantly conceived and executed as only few in the history of movie making have been--it has displaced one from my list of the ten best movies I have ever seen. My full essay critiique would contain only This is a singular work of genius. Brilliantly conceived and executed as only few in the history of movie making have been--it has displaced one from my list of the ten best movies I have ever seen. My full essay critiique would contain only superlatives. The artistry is sublime throughout in all dimensions. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
OLucJun 4, 2006
Despite misleading advertisingsome akward editing, The New World captivates with it's celestial visual style and it's isolated feel.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
MarkW.Jan 1, 2006
Another of Malick's meditations, this time on the birth of a nation and the nature of love. Beautifully scripted, acted, and shot.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
DavidA.Jan 21, 2006
I really liked this movie, the only bad thing is that it goes a little slow, but the rest is nearly perfect.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
DrewF.Jan 21, 2006
Absolutely beautiful film. Not everyone will like it, not everyone will GET it, but.. Isn't that true of all fine art? Malick is so great at getting fantastic performances out of the most unlikely of sources.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
TelyS.Jan 20, 2006
Terrence Malick's use of the medium of film is unconventional and completely unique, and The New World bears the director's unmistakable imprint. As was the case with his past films, The New World kept me breathlessly captivated Terrence Malick's use of the medium of film is unconventional and completely unique, and The New World bears the director's unmistakable imprint. As was the case with his past films, The New World kept me breathlessly captivated from the first frame to the last through his incredible use of image and sound. You either get it or you don Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
StephenZ.Jan 22, 2006
Breathtakingly beautiful, amazing how a film can reimagine history.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
DougJan 23, 2006
Idlers use the word, "pretentious" to criticize art they're unwilling to investigate or interpret. Pretenious, like bourgeois, is now a dead word. Malick has made no claims of genius; he does not put on airs (though he is a graduate of Idlers use the word, "pretentious" to criticize art they're unwilling to investigate or interpret. Pretenious, like bourgeois, is now a dead word. Malick has made no claims of genius; he does not put on airs (though he is a graduate of Harvard and the AFI, a Rhodes Scholar, and a director of four ambitious and interesting movies). In an era of deritative and formulaic films, we should not disregard an intelligent, courageous artist as simply "pretentious." Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
MarkJan 23, 2006
See the movie for what it's actually trying to do-not what you think it's supposed to be doing. The visuals and the sounds do show you everything you need to know-even though they don't spell it out in words.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
ElliottFeb 13, 2006
I can understand how some people would find this film slow, distancing, boring, etc. (though I certainly didn't), but to stamp this film with a '0' review is both inane and ludicrous. Such comments are impossible to take seriously.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
AdamBeachFeb 1, 2006
Quietly enchanting, The New World spoke in images. From the virgin landscape of a remote Virginia coastline, to the towering vegetation of a land untamed
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JansFeb 2, 2006
Cinematography, not predictable exposition or an overwrought soundtrack, make the plot move in this film. Slow, quiet, and beautiful; another fine film by Malick.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JohnV.Feb 7, 2006
Terence Malical comes through again, with a film that transends the conventional film experience to bring to our minds and eyes, a visually stunning peice of reflective and challenging cinema.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
ChrisM.Jun 14, 2006
the best film of the year. Unfortunately, it's too smart for most.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
emmaJun 29, 2006
I didnt understand it as much but, overall it was preety good except for the ending.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
HenryW.Jul 8, 2006
Absolutely astonishing, but I'm a big Malick fan anyway - it's something you either get or you don't. It's a deep, thoughtful, meditative film quite unlike anything that's ever been before (except Malick's Absolutely astonishing, but I'm a big Malick fan anyway - it's something you either get or you don't. It's a deep, thoughtful, meditative film quite unlike anything that's ever been before (except Malick's previous oeuvre), but if you can't stand not seeing a car blow up or someone getting their head kicked in every five seconds it may not be for you. Inspiring, incredible cinema, Malick is the greatest American filmmaker ever. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
AndrewP.Dec 30, 2005
Malick surpasses himself, a visual feat.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
LandonC.Jan 1, 2006
Once again, Terrence Malick uses the setting and plot not as an end but as a means to relate the depth and weight of history and human experience. Devastatingly beautiful. One of the best films I have ever seen.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
WadeJan 21, 2006
Yes it is slow. If you view that as a negative then don't go see this. If you have a passion for cinema, this film is a gift. If you "just like going to the movies", then this film will cure your insomnia. Better to spend your cash on Yes it is slow. If you view that as a negative then don't go see this. If you have a passion for cinema, this film is a gift. If you "just like going to the movies", then this film will cure your insomnia. Better to spend your cash on Last Holiday and let true cinema nerds like me take in this masterpiece. Every. Single. Shot...is a work of art unto itself. I even forgot that I hate Colin Farrell. Thank you Mr. Malick. I look forward to your next masterpiece a decade from now. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
StuQ.Jan 21, 2006
An amzing film. This type of story-telling is very unique, and Malick's artistry and direction create and unforgettable story. Colin Farrell has never been better, and the emotions he conveys, without a word of dialogue---longing, An amzing film. This type of story-telling is very unique, and Malick's artistry and direction create and unforgettable story. Colin Farrell has never been better, and the emotions he conveys, without a word of dialogue---longing, worry, love---show him mastering the craft of acting. This is a movie that must be seen in the theater, no so for the enjoyment of it (like a King Kong), but I believe the big screen is the only way to see this fgilm for what it is. I cannot wait to view it a second time. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JohnM.Jan 20, 2006
Best movie of the year, hands down.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
GozerrulezJan 20, 2006
The LA weekly rereviewed this movie today and I couldn't agree more. It said, it is not only the film of the year, it is one of the greatest films I have ever seen. I must agree. I saw the original cut, and liked it very much and then, The LA weekly rereviewed this movie today and I couldn't agree more. It said, it is not only the film of the year, it is one of the greatest films I have ever seen. I must agree. I saw the original cut, and liked it very much and then, because some friends were going, and I have learned Malicks films get better the more one sees them, this afternoon I watched it again. Strangely enough it was almost a different film. Watching the first one was like watching a magnificent picture, today watching the second cut, it was like being sucked into that painting. This is a film we will talk about for decades to come. the term becomes jaded, but it is a masterpiece. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
KitJan 22, 2006
Tender and beautiful, unique and inspiring.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
BaronJ.Jan 22, 2006
Beautiful, there ain't no other words to describe it
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
KathrynJan 23, 2006
A beautiful, contemplative, textured movie to be absorbed into. From the heart.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
AlexAJan 24, 2006
hey dont really care about the vote... but look at this: «The New World is a sweeping adventure set amidst the first encounter of European and Native American cultures during the founding of the Jamestown Virginia settlement in 1607. hey dont really care about the vote... but look at this: «The New World is a sweeping adventure set amidst the first encounter of European and Native American cultures during the founding of the Jamestown Virginia settlement in 1607. Acclaimed filmmaker Terence Malick brings to life his own » Heard of someone called Christopher Columbus ?!??!?! like 115 years before that... metacritic... u disapoint me, trying to rewrite history Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
ESJan 26, 2006
The best film yet from the only genius operating in American cinema since Kubrick died. But this is better than anything Kubrick has ever offered - perhaps the best thing that American cinema has ever offered. This is a masterpiece on the The best film yet from the only genius operating in American cinema since Kubrick died. But this is better than anything Kubrick has ever offered - perhaps the best thing that American cinema has ever offered. This is a masterpiece on the level of Kurosawa's RAN. Obviously, though, Malick is an aquired taste and not for everyone... but whatever objective critical ability I do possess tells me that this is not a film to be underestimated. The subjective part of me wants to call it the finest piece of cinematic art I've yet encountered. In every aspect this film is a stunner. Essential viewing for all filmgoers who profess to take the artform seriously and definately Best Picture material. See it, absorb it, and tell your friends to do the same! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
V.MartinezJan 27, 2006
This movie was different but in a good way. Most people would think it was slow and it was (2.5 hrs). But I liked how it seemed real, like you were there in 1607. I didn't feel cheated, but it did have some nature scenes that could have This movie was different but in a good way. Most people would think it was slow and it was (2.5 hrs). But I liked how it seemed real, like you were there in 1607. I didn't feel cheated, but it did have some nature scenes that could have been cut. The love story part was excellent. Colin Farrell has like 3 lines in the whole movie. The other actors were great. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
MiraL.Jan 3, 2006
The best American film of 2005. Unforgettable and transcendent.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
TheConundrumFeb 24, 2006
If you are seeking popcorn entertainment, do not go see this film. It is slow, poetic, languid, philisophical -- and enchanting. Most people will be bored (for God's sake don't take kids!), and I wouldn't blame them. But if If you are seeking popcorn entertainment, do not go see this film. It is slow, poetic, languid, philisophical -- and enchanting. Most people will be bored (for God's sake don't take kids!), and I wouldn't blame them. But if you're patient and open to truly artistic film-making, then don't miss this thought-provoking epic. The cinematography is magnificent, as one would expect from Terrence Malick. Be sure to see it on the big screen! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
BenK.Feb 4, 2006
Nobody makes films like Terrence Malick. Unfortunately Malickian or Malickesque do not lend themselves freely to be used as adjectives. Malick's films are slow, deliberate, picturesque, perhaps the cinematic equivalent to a Henry James Nobody makes films like Terrence Malick. Unfortunately Malickian or Malickesque do not lend themselves freely to be used as adjectives. Malick's films are slow, deliberate, picturesque, perhaps the cinematic equivalent to a Henry James novel. A great movie that will only grow in complexity with multiple viewings. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JSS.Mar 7, 2006
An exploration of what it is to have a world, and the plurality of worlds. Brilliant and utterly absorbing.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
StephenMay 4, 2006
If The Thin Red Line was - emphatically
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
DaveJul 10, 2006
Some understand poetry, and some dont. Malick is a poet and one of the greatest living filmaker's, and in an age when everything in film is hammering us over the head, its nice to see som subtlety and meditation.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
MarcelG.Sep 25, 2006
Malick's fertile imagination combines perfectly with his furtive politics; this Pocahontas isn't plucked from her environment. She leads John Smith around by his tail and leaves everybody, audience included, with much to reflect on Malick's fertile imagination combines perfectly with his furtive politics; this Pocahontas isn't plucked from her environment. She leads John Smith around by his tail and leaves everybody, audience included, with much to reflect on in this recreation of an old and no doubt tall tale. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
PatC.Apr 16, 2007
The style in which the story is told lacks continuity and personality development, resulting in a persistent sluggishness. Yet it is lavish audiovisually, does not impose stereotypes, and draws one completely into the world that was the The style in which the story is told lacks continuity and personality development, resulting in a persistent sluggishness. Yet it is lavish audiovisually, does not impose stereotypes, and draws one completely into the world that was the first frontier of our country. Its technique is wanting, but its heart is in the right place. Not necessarily time well spent, but not time wasted either. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
MrnieB.Dec 19, 2005
A trip... stunning.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
pmDec 27, 2005
From the poet Malick, another deep and wise vision of innocence, awe and reverence -- for the sacred human experience that is still possible. Most other films continue to appear superficial and trivial next to his achievements.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
BobbyDec 30, 2005
Malicks new masterpiece is an amazing work of art. Best movie of the year, if not decade. I am still taking it all in...peace son!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
aabDec 31, 2005
The best film of the year,
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
MLNov 25, 2006
Lyrical, beautiful and romantic. One of the year's most underrated films. Like a well-written book, this movie transports its viewers (believably) to another world, another time. Chemistry between Smith and Pocahontas believable and steamy.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
AaronS.Jan 21, 2006
Now this is 'pure cinema'. A Terrence Malick film is something of a rare event now, but as 'The New World' proves, it's worth the wait. I cannot believe some of the negative reactions this film is arousing from some Now this is 'pure cinema'. A Terrence Malick film is something of a rare event now, but as 'The New World' proves, it's worth the wait. I cannot believe some of the negative reactions this film is arousing from some critics and filmgoers. Has our culture become so 'dumbed down' that a brilliant film like Malick's (deliberately paced and making frequent radical use of sight and sound) gets panned because it's 'too slow', or there's 'not enought plot', or 'it has hardly any dialogue'? Like most of Kubrick's work, Malick has once again fashioned a film that seems to be light years ahead of its time. In a perfect world, this is the kind of film that would earn the attention of Oscars. One of the best films of 2005. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
BillyS.Jan 23, 2006
Frame to frame, The New World is pure and simple visual poetry, just sit back and let the Art of Film wash over and sweep you away. As they say, Beauty is in the eyes, not ears, of the beholder, and I, for one, am beholden to the genius of Frame to frame, The New World is pure and simple visual poetry, just sit back and let the Art of Film wash over and sweep you away. As they say, Beauty is in the eyes, not ears, of the beholder, and I, for one, am beholden to the genius of Terrence Malick. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
RimaLynJan 23, 2006
Poetic and thought provoking. Beautiful cinematography. Lead actress was terrific for a newcomer
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
EmilyLandJan 24, 2006
I have to give it a 10 because my friend's daughter plays a bit part as Pocohantas' son (garden scene - you never see her face). It was beautifully filmed and the costumes for the "naturals" were wonderful. This film is not for the I have to give it a 10 because my friend's daughter plays a bit part as Pocohantas' son (garden scene - you never see her face). It was beautifully filmed and the costumes for the "naturals" were wonderful. This film is not for the average movie goer, but will be enjoyed for many for what it is and not what it should be. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
TracyB.Jan 24, 2006
From the beginning to the end a beautiful film- excellent and very moving storytelling.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
LynnJan 28, 2006
His technique takes you to another place. So finely done and so rich.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
RobertC.Jan 29, 2006
I think the production company was just a bit baffled by this film. They, and most certainly the public, to think that this film was going to be a sparringly commercial epic. However, what we have here is a beautiful, narratively-abstract I think the production company was just a bit baffled by this film. They, and most certainly the public, to think that this film was going to be a sparringly commercial epic. However, what we have here is a beautiful, narratively-abstract prose that is not truly about the New World, or even the "first American love story", but rather a poetic observation of Pocahontas. At times, it is even more vague than that...it seems to be more observative of just love in general, and how it coincided with the true founding of the New America. This is actually a remarkable film with the beauty of nature with the Kubrickian eye...it's a shame that Hollywood was so reluctant to actually release this FILM. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
MaxJan 31, 2006
A masterpiece! I've never "felt" a film as deeply as this one. Simply genius. I think those people who are unable to connect with the flow of this film forgot to check their preconceived expectations of what an American historical epic A masterpiece! I've never "felt" a film as deeply as this one. Simply genius. I think those people who are unable to connect with the flow of this film forgot to check their preconceived expectations of what an American historical epic should be. Often revolutaionary pieces of art are not recognized as such by the general public because the public just isn't ready yet. This film has the narrative and pacing you'll often find in great foreign films, and it's probably too sophisticated to be appreciated by a large scale American audience. Malick didn't allow this film to become hollywoodized, and thus probably alienated half his audience. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
CharlesFeb 13, 2006
A meeting of two peoples; on the one hand, implacable cynics who see only the world that is directly in front of them, on the other, the willingly enchanted who revel in the transcendental. These two cultures will most likely meet whilst A meeting of two peoples; on the one hand, implacable cynics who see only the world that is directly in front of them, on the other, the willingly enchanted who revel in the transcendental. These two cultures will most likely meet whilst watching The New World, and maybe even embark on a popcorn war, if the former faction doesn't storm out in protest at the film's langurous qualities. I too have criticisms of this film; it skims over narrative like an aloof, possibly disinterested bird; one that occasionally sqawks too much (ie: voiceover). Yet despite this, the film is ravishly beautiful, and captures moments of poetic grandeur unrivalled in contemporary cinema. Mallick explores the foundation of America and the clash of cultures in subjective fashion, through the first love, loss of innocence and eventual compromise of a young native girl; his form therfore fits the nature of his enchanting leading, poetic and ephemeral. It is flawed but artfully impressionistic cinema, worthy of your attention. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
GavinM.Mar 31, 2006
Absolutely fantastic from start to finish - there is not one single mis-step. The performances are pitch perfect, the score wonderful, and the storytelling is masterful. Its not your typical hollywood popcorn movie (and if this is what you Absolutely fantastic from start to finish - there is not one single mis-step. The performances are pitch perfect, the score wonderful, and the storytelling is masterful. Its not your typical hollywood popcorn movie (and if this is what you are determined to see then don't go to this movie), but it is still totally accessible. If you allow yourself to slow down to match the rhythm of the movie, you will see one of the greatest examples of the art of film-making in the history of American cinema. Bravo Terrence Mallick! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
JGMJul 23, 2006
All the criticisms you'll read here are accurate: this movie is overlong, thin on plot, often indecipherable, self-indulgent, and generally artsy-fartsy. And yet, one forgives Malik all of this and more in exchange for the gift of the All the criticisms you'll read here are accurate: this movie is overlong, thin on plot, often indecipherable, self-indulgent, and generally artsy-fartsy. And yet, one forgives Malik all of this and more in exchange for the gift of the incredible visual feast. Watch any 30 minutes of this, then switch to anything else, and you'll be shocked at how pedestrian, how ugly, most of what comes across the screen is. And, it's not about "smarts" but about viewpoint. A film like this has to be approached as you would approach a series of paintings or a symphony, complete with repeating motif and variations on a theme. If you have the temprement to view a 2+ hour work in this way, the visuals will reward. And the art here is all visual: the dialog is sparse and often intentionally muddy. The acting is mostly wooden and beside the point, with the luminous exception of young Ms. Kilcher, who seems to understand and inhabit this character completely. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
ryancarroll88Aug 26, 2010
By shear craft and lyrical visuals, Terrence Malick turns a story that we've all hear before into a movie that is unique, cerebral and most of all, refreshing. That isn't to say it's a film that bothers to accustom to everyone's taste - it'sBy shear craft and lyrical visuals, Terrence Malick turns a story that we've all hear before into a movie that is unique, cerebral and most of all, refreshing. That isn't to say it's a film that bothers to accustom to everyone's taste - it's about equivalent to watching "Fantasia," where much of the joy of watching comes from a culmination of camerawork, acting and the incredible score composed by James Horner (though it could have just as easily been Aaron Copland). Basically, the entertainment isn't served to you on a greasy golden platter - it's meant to be savored as much as it is to be enjoyed. Collapse
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
gblicharzJul 29, 2011
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Great plot, great performance, awesome pictures - film that makes you thinking. In this film I find out how important in the movie is silence and how unpopular it is. Great performance of Q`orianka Kilcher, Colin Farrell and Christian Bale gives you much more that can be put in words - for me the whole production is worth watching. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
PanteJun 24, 2016
Directing of Terrece Malick + cinematography of Lubezki = Masterpiece of visual narrative. Acting is also top class. But screenplay lacks structure, also, I've seen the 172 minute version of The New World, and I must say, that it's almostDirecting of Terrece Malick + cinematography of Lubezki = Masterpiece of visual narrative. Acting is also top class. But screenplay lacks structure, also, I've seen the 172 minute version of The New World, and I must say, that it's almost impossible to watch this movie in one day, without a break. I'd give 7, but cinematography and visuals are too damn good. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews