there might be a great film in here somewhere, but I just didn't see it as much as others have

Rating: 8/10 (13 February 2006)

Terence Malick's The New World is something that I really did want to find to be the brilliant, breathtaking, mesmerizing visual masterpiece that some have been calling it (apparently though it is one of the most audience divided films of 2005 for those who have seen it). In a couple of ways it is unique- Malick takes on the history of this time and puts his visual look onto the era, and wants to say to the audience through his form of poetry/philosophy 'come, look at all this, the lands, the rivers, the Native people soon to be tainted by the West'.
In a way he tries to treat the period piece much like Kubrick did with some of his films. But the problem then comes, how do you really draw a viewer into the story? Kubrick could do this because there was something intriguing and involving about the characters, with the pace corresponding with the emotional pull. Malick, however, loses sight of the narrative at times, at least to me. If the film is more about the journey than the destination, too often the film finds itself looking for a narrative pull, and as the story does move along, it's done so in a muddled way through narration that either works OK for some parts, and in others is totally unnecessary. It's like the filmmaker has a definite passion for the period, and for these near icon characters of American history, and yet is too wrapped up in visuals to correspond with the dialog.
Colin Farrell's performance in the New World, Terence Malick's fourth film, is one of the better parts of the picture, as well as the performances from Christian Bale and first-timer Q'Orianka Kilcher. At the same time there is a kind of strange quality to their performances, they're also observant, subdued, and trying to get their own grasp of the material, and for the most part it works. Kilcher in particular gives off something here that is both touching and maybe, in a way, off-putting.
I liked a lot how she would not be too over-emotional in scenes that could go terribly wrong with first-time actors, though at the same time she could also be quite aloof in certain scenes, and maybe a little one-tone. But maybe that is what Malick was looking for, more of the 'presence' of these actors in these roles than the actual full-on strengths. It becomes one of the interesting points in this film that acting out such textbook/museum people like John Smith, John Rolfe, and Pocahontas, becomes as much of a challenge to take in as the rest of the picture.
This review, I suppose, may be rather subjective, though in a way that is almost a compliment to Malick. This is a work of a true auteur, who does side-step the possible pit-falls of a mainstream Hollywood director, and makes the film he wants to on his terms. If it was just a silent film, for example, I might be even more fascinated in what occurs. But unlike my favorite work of his, Badlands, there is a distance put between the audience and characters that isn't achieved so well. Maybe I'll respond to it more on a repeat viewing, as some films often need. But one time in the theater was enough for me.