This movie is artistic, experimental, self-indulgent, and just plain boring.

Rating: 1/10 (18 March 2006)

A friend directed me to this place and I read some of the comments. I joined up JUST to post on this thread. I'll start out by saying that "good" or "bad" are subjective concepts, so instead of talking about "how much this movie sucked", I'll talk about "why I did not like the movie."
First I'll start out by addressing some comments posted by other users:
This movie is NOT, as someone said, a movie about the native people. Smoke Signals is a movie about native people. It depicts them in modern-day context. It is a beautiful, artistic movie that is not boring. Dreamkeeper is quite possibly the best movie about natives I have ever seen. It depicts their struggles against society, identity crisis, alcohol addiction, and adds their myths in a "Hercules-Kevin Sorbo" style of cinema. The changes from myth to reality are almost poetic, and by the end you almost want to cry, as the movie touches some kind of internal 'feeling'.
The New World, on the other hand, has a horrible portrayal of natives. The chief looked distinctly Blackfeet, while the rest of the tribes looked Mohican, Navajo, and Cherokee (based on their haircuts, body-paint, and the way they wear their feathers.) Some of them looked like a made up concept from a mad-max movie. "Pocahontas", who is never called Pocahontas, looks distinctly Taino (which is not even a continental U.S. tribe). For some odd reason, this promiscuous breed of native deals in skins, which is something that the Plains Indians were most noticeable for.
Someone else said that the movie is excellent because it depicts the true love between Pocahontas and John Smith. I should mention that the historic community (meaning historians and history professors) are torn in this regard. Many say that Pocahontas was indeed in love, while others state that Pocahontas (age 14 at the time) was raped by John Smith (46), and because of the tribe's beliefs and social construct, she decided to stick with him for better or worse. I'll admit that I know very little of the tribes from the North East, but I know that in many tribes if a woman is raped and the rapist is known, he has to take care of the woman or be killed/exiled.
As for the movie itself, people say it's artistic, maybe poetic, experimental, and new. They say that because of these things, it is a masterpiece. I would like to say that because something is new/experimental/poetic/artistic does not mean it's necessarily good. For those who know of poetry, this movie is the movie industry's "Michael Wigglesworths' Day of Doom". Half the movie is "stare" scenes. Two or more people stand "there" staring at each other silently, emoting, as the camera moves around a bit and makes rough cuts. 1/4th of the movie are nature scenes. Grass grows. A tree. Water. An eagle. More grass. Birds flocking. The same eagle. Sunset. The same eagle. The other 1/4th of the movie were scenes that made no sense whatsoever. Example: While in England, one of the natives (historically he was a king of one of the five north-eastern tribes, but this is changed in the movie)is looking around stunned in a large courtyard. This is not unrelated, as it shows natives being amazed at what other cultures have constructed. However, about 10 stare scenes and 3 eagles afterward, he is shown sitting down on a bench. He stands up and starts running. Another pointless scene is John Smith somewhere in the north. He's there, looking sad, and that's it. Another pointless scene is a whole hour of John and Pocahontas staring at each other or watching the grass grow and not saying a single word to each other.
The musical score was nice, but horrible at the same time. They used the same sad piano song throughout the whole movie. As for the 30 second war scene, the same native is shot 3 times. This is the same native that goes to England afterward.
As for the ending.... After Pocahontas.... um... Rebecca dies, her spirit dances around in the courtyard for 2 minutes. Then Rolfe and baby Rolfahontas board a boat. The boat sets sail. An empty harbor. The sky. Birds fly. The ship sailing. A river. The same eagle. Birds fly. Sunset. Empty harbor. River. A tree. Grass. A tree. The river. A tree. A tree. A tree. A tree. 30 seconds of "a tree". Then uninspiring credits. This movie suffers all the flaws that the awesome movie "Master and Commander" suffers: it tries to be somewhat of a documentary, but it's not. It tries to be a good movie, but it's not. It's so slow, it never really starts.
If you want a really poetic movie, try 13 or PiÃ±ero. Those are poetic dramas that are actually fun.
Many people who pretend to be intellectual will tell me things like "but you don't get it", "this is experimental cinema, it's for the true cinema lover", "who are you to criticize this movie?", and "it's poetry in motion", and "this movie is only for educated people, so a savage from a third world country such as yourself would not understand its beauty." (People have already told me these things.) Well, I am someone who has a Masters degree in ESL education, 30 credits towards a masters degree in literature, 24 undergrad credits in Drama and Theater, and has taken several workshops on cinematography. My third world country has the highest living standard in all of Latin America (mostly thanks to U.S. funding, but nonetheless it's not a third world country.) I love cinema. This does not mean I have to love every self-indulgent movie that comes out.
Terrence Malick owes me 3 hours of my life, and $5.50 for the movie ticket.