The New World

[Justin Farley]

Has anyone here seen this one? It opened in more theaters today, and I love Malick's The Thin Red Line, so I've been really looking forward to seeing this one. The trailers look fascinating. Unfortunately, the only theater playing it near me is a few towns over, and I don't know when I'll get the chance to check it out.

[William R.]

I almost saw it tonight, but my girlfriend was not in the mood to sit through it and I didn't want to go stag. I might wind up waiting for the full-on monster Malick version they'll put out on dvd. I've heard it's quite good.

[John Gargo]

I saw it. It approaches almost a Herzog-like poetic splendor at times... I was often reminded of various scenes in AGUIRRE, for instance. I enjoyed it, although there were times that I felt there was perhaps too little story for its own good (there were a number of walk-outs at the nearly packed screening I went to). That being said, the scenes of a deteriorating Jamestown are mesmerizing and I wished they lasted longer. Colin Ferrel was good, the girl playing Poccahontas was very good, and Christian Bale was excellent. Historically accurate as well, and I appreciate that attention to detail. The scenes in 17th century Britain were also quite excellent.

[Troy Howarth]

I had very little interest in seeing this until John referenced Aguirre, which is, to my mind, one of the greatest films ever made. I'll definitely check this out.

How does Christopher Plummer fare in this, btw?

[Jeffrey M2]

Troy -- the first few minutes are very Herzogian, and utterly brilliant. Where did I just recently read an interview with Christian Bale and/or Herzog, who tells Bale that Malick is a great guy, great artist, etc. just don't expect to be in the finished film? Something like that.

The last thirty minutes of this film are un-fucking-believeable. I never thought simple shots of gardens and trees could make me cry like a baby, but there it is. Even if you hate the first 90 minutes, stick around for the scenes in England -- it's like a science fiction film, echoes of Roeg, Resnais, etc. I had issues with parts of the film, but the finale completely destroyed me.

[Paul A J Lewis]

I love Malick's movies, and I'm eagerly awaiting the release of THE NEW WORLD in the UK.

[John Gargo]

Interesting too that at least thirty minutes were cut from this... I suspect more was filmed. I read an article that said the DVD cut of this film will last more than 3 hours. I'm glad I saw it in the theater, though, as a film as heavily reliant on visuals such as this one certainly merits the big screen treatment.

[Evan C. Price]

The Herzog comparision is apt. At times it reminds me of both AGUIRRE and FITZCARRALDO -- but then again, so did THE THIN RED LINE, which makes me suspect Malick became a Herzog buff in the 20-year hibernation after DAYS OF HEAVEN. Also, you may have noticed that Malick uses Wagner's "Das Rheingold," (at least 3 times) which Herzog included in NOSFERATU when Harker makes his trek through the mountains to Castle Dracula.

So Troy, I take it you're not a Malick fan? I'm a little surprised.

Jeffrey, for once we're in agreement...the last section of the film, when John Rolfe (Bale) appears, is absolutely incredible. Especially the montage that concludes the film. I couldn't even begin to describe it -- I'll just say that it's profoundly moving. Everyone should see it for the last 40 minutes. The rest of the film isn't as good...it's too long and too repetitious. There are, however, many brilliant moments even in those first 2 acts and almost every single shot is beautiful (this being, after all, a Terrence Malick film), and both Farrell and newcomer Q'Orianka Kilcher are excellent.

John, in reference to the cuts of the film: I was able to see the longer (150 minute) version in NY over New Year's, and caught the shorter one in wide release (135 min.) earlier this week. There are no big differences -- Malick hasn't removed scenes in their entirety, just trimmed them. To tell you the truth, I didn't really notice anything was missing (sensed it, perhaps, but even that was fleeting), and I was surprised when I looked at my watch at the end of the new version and realized that, indeed, it's 15 minutes shorter. In my opinion, it's still too long; Malick could trim another 10 minutes, at least. I can't even imagine a 3-hour version, which is what producer Sarah Green is promising for the DVD.

Troy, Christopher Plummer has some meaty moments in the first 20 minutes and then disappears for a long stretch. He returns near the close of the second act for a good scene with Farrell (basically a monologue) and then he's pretty much out of the movie. Strangely enough, he gets billing over Bale even though Bale has a larger -- and more pivotal -- role. Plummer is terrific, as always, but just don't expect a leading performance as the ads would have you think.

[Troy Howarth]

It's not that I'm *not* a fan, Evan, but that he's always been somebody I've admired without much liking, if that makes sense. I liked Thin Red Line, but the parade of star cameoes was just flat out silly. Thus, while I appreciated the pictorial element very much, it never really connected with me as a drama - I kept being drawn out by inappropriate cameo appearances.

[Evan C. Price]

Originally Posted by Troy Howarth

It's not that I'm *not* a fan, Evan, but that he's always been somebody I've admired without much liking, if that makes sense. I liked Thin Red Line, but the parade of star cameoes was just flat out silly. Thus, while I appreciated the pictorial element very much, it never really connected with me as a drama - I kept being drawn out by inappropriate cameo appearances.

THE THIN RED LINE is emotionally detached and a bit of a mess, but I think for structural and thematic reasons rather than the big-name cast. Sure, Travolta and Clooney make unnecessary appearances. Enough to detract from the film, however? I don't think so. Travolta's scene is brief, and Clooney's on and off so quickly it's almost a blink-and-you'll-miss-him cameo. Between the two of them it's less than 10 minutes of screen time out of 170. Those are the only two big name appearances I have a problem with...and since Clooney had most of his part taken out in the editing room, in Malick's original 6-hour cut -- if we ever see it -- his role presumably carried more weight. I don't think the other stars, like Woody Harrelson and John Cusack, are a distraction at all. Actually, Cusack gives a very credible and intelligent performance (in what is almost a mute role), and he's an actor I often find hard to take.

I do think Malick's output became somewhat unfocused after that two-decade gap. BADLANDS and DAYS OF HEAVEN are tight, beautiful films -- surely two of the best to come out of the 70s, which is saying a lot -- but he lost his way with LINE in trying to fit James Jones' novel to his style, and THE NEW WORLD, again, is bloated. The first two are classics, the next two are interesting misfires.

[Troy Howarth]

Thing is, though, for me they *do* hurt the film. The cameoes are needless and serve only to pull me out of the emotional moment. That's just the way I honestly reacted to it.

On top of that, though, as you say it feels very emotionally detached and uninvolving. I liked it a lot more than Private Ryan, for sure, but it's not a film I'd likely revisit ever again.

Great *looking* movie, however.

[Vincent Pereira]

Originally Posted by Troy Howarth

Thing is, though, for me they *do* hurt the film. The cameoes are needless and serve only to pull me out of the emotional moment. That's just the way I honestly reacted to it.

On top of that, though, as you say it feels very emotionally detached and uninvolving. I liked it a lot more than Private Ryan, for sure, but it's not a film I'd likely revisit ever again.

Great *looking* movie, however.

Maybe you actually *SHOULD* revisit it before you write off the idea of revisiting it so quickly. THE THIN RED LINE is SO much more than merely a "great looking movie"...

And re: the cameos- that must be the curse of the ellusive "star" director. You come out of "hiberantion" after so many years and so many people want to work with you, and so you put them in your film and then get slammed for it. Jeez, no wonder Terry left filmmaking behind for so long, the poor guy just can't win no matter what!

Vincent

[Troy Howarth]

Originally Posted by Vincent Pereira

Maybe you actually *SHOULD* revisit it before you write off the idea of revisiting it so quickly. THE THIN RED LINE is SO much more than merely a "great looking movie"...

And re: the cameos- that must be the curse of the ellusive "star" director. You come out of "hiberantion" after so many years and so many people want to work with you, and so you put them in your film and then get slammed for it. Jeez, no wonder Terry left filmmaking behind for so long, the poor guy just can't win no matter what!

Vincent

Sorry my take on the film doesn't gel with yours, Vincent. What can I say?

[Jeffrey M2]

Originally Posted by Vincent Pereira

And re: the cameos- that must be the curse of the ellusive "star" director. You come out of "hiberantion" after so many years and so many people want to work with you, and so you put them in your film and then get slammed for it. Jeez, no wonder Terry left filmmaking behind for so long, the poor guy just can't win no matter what!

Vincent

Didn't he originally want to cast Travolta in Gere's role for DAYS OF HEAVEN? God, that would've been weird.

As for the cameos in TTRL -- at least they all play dickhead officers, so it's not too bad. And think of all the actors who got completely cut out: Mickey Rourke, Bill Pullman, Gary Oldman, etc.

[Evan C. Price]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey M2

As for the cameos in TTRL -- at least they all play dickhead officers, so it's not too bad. And think of all the actors who got completely cut out: Mickey Rourke, Bill Pullman, Gary Oldman, etc.

I've read that Malick never shot footage with Oldman. Reportedly the actor was cast, and then the night before he was to fly to the Solomon Islands Malick called and said he didn't need him. Viggo Mortensen is thanked in the end credits, but he never appeared either -- he was only present at some of the early script readings.

As for the actors who were cut, Rourke has said in interviews that he appeared in only one scene, as a crazed sniper hiding in a tree, and Pullman had only (as Sgt. MacTae) a brief exchange with Cpl. Fife (Adrien Brody) in the shooting script. Other actors who were cut include Lukas Haas and Donal Logue, and in one version Billy Bob Thornton performed all of the voice-over narration.

Yes, Malick did teach philosophy at MIT, although I'm not sure if this was between BADLANDS or DAYS OF HEAVEN or DAYS OF HEAVEN and THE THIN RED LINE -- or during both periods. I do know that he directed a few stage productions in Japan during his 20-year break, and was also a script doctor. He wrote the first draft of the Jerry Lee Lewis biopic GREAT BALLS OF FIRE! (none of his material was used) and assisted Damon and Affleck with GOOD WILL HUNTING.