Directed and written by Terrence Malick, the talented artist behind The Thin Red Line (1998), great anticipation surrounded the release of The New World. The project was bold and ambitious enough to pique interest, but unfortunately, the film could not deliver on its promise. Entire scenes drift by with nothing in particular being achieved to either advance the plot, the theme, or the premise of the film.
Unfittingly, the soundtrack features blaring snippets of concert music reminiscent of Richard Wagner, which would be great if The New World took place in 19th-century Venice instead of 17th-century America. Much more should be expected from James Horner whose brilliant work has enhanced such films as Field of Dreams, Braveheart, Legends of the Fall, and Titanic. The New World soundtrack is a disaster almost on par with the latter film.
The rest of film isn’t much better. Although it vividly illustrates the limitless possibility of early Jamestown and the majesty of the unspoiled wilderness surrounding it, the visual images are offset by poor dialogue and what seems to be an overly zealous attempt to manufacture a poetic awe-inspiring masterpiece of a film. Nevertheless, The New World does manage to summon images of the first European settlers and the hardship they must have faced. From this standpoint, one can say it has some reflective value for those who appreciate human history.
The New World begins by following the life of Captain John Smith (Colin Farrell). Landing in the New World with a convoy of Englishmen, he happens upon the Native American kingdom of Powhatan (August Schellenberg). Of course, most of the world knows the basic plotline. Smith’s life is spared when his body is covered by Powhatan’s beautiful daughter, Pocahontas (Q’Orianka Kilcher). Kilcher certainly displays the requisite physical beauty to portray the princess, but the script gives her little to work with.
Article comments
1 - Howard Dratch
When we first saw this film recently we (my wife and I) would have agreed that the film was slow and flawed in spite of excellent cinematography.
As the film went on to England and the story became (perhaps because it was more historically accurate) more sure of itself, I began to disagree with you and with my own first impressions. Looking back on it I found that the characters lived up to their places and many of the seemingly slow and non-essential scenes did carry some weight (however, not all).
My biggest disagreement is that "The New World does manage to summon images of the first European settlers and the hardship they must have faced. From this standpoint, one can say it has some reflective value for those who appreciate human history." I thought it was evocative of the suffering of the invading colonists but was even better at showing the mass dislocation of the native people from the cruel excesses of the Europeans. The scenes of wandering, dazed indigenous people was far more telling than the mythos of the American history we are taught where they just sort of conveniently disappeared.
Overall, however, I agree. It was an ambitious attempt that did not quite succeed.
I disagree with your ending: "However, from the standpoint of dialogue, plot, direction, and performance, The New World is an utter flop. Unless you're a history buff, and specifically a Jamestown junkie, avoid the film at all costs." It isn't as successful as it should have been but it is basically entertaining, pretty if overly slow and long, and worth a viewing.