Some of the worst story-telling in history.

Rating: 1/10 (24 March 2014)

Movies like this are one reason why I object to one man both writing AND directing a movie. There's insufficient cross-checking of ideas and story-telling clarity and what you wind up with is often the product of one man's idiosyncrasies and shortcomings.
Such is the case with Terrence Malick's "The New World." There are so many holes in this screenplay and it's such lousy story-telling that I quit watching halfway through even though I was extremely interested in the history. I'm not sure whether I was more infuriated at the poor story-telling wasting my time or I was put off by the cinematic technique of divorcing audio from video, which is nothing more than Malick's cinematic attempt at waxing poetic, or I was more irked by having my intelligence insulted by the whole thing.
There are so many holes in the screenplay I don't know where to begin. The viewer is constantly saying, "What happened to this character or that character; what season is it, what's happening with this or that subplot," and on and on and on. There are jumps in time, there are missing establishing shots, etc. There are totally unrelated shots interspersed in the flow of semi-related scenes that make me wonder whether Malick and the editors are schizophrenic.
And I'll tell you this . . . if I were hired to edit this movie, I would have walked out after seeing what footage I had available for use. I would not want my name associated with this movie in any way, shape or form. The editors should hang their heads in shame.
And can we talk about the dialog????? It was so grossly insufficient for plot flow it was ridiculous. During fully 50% of the scenes I was thinking, "SAY something. SAY what you're thinking. ADVANCE the plot you mute moron!" There's so much plot left on the table from the lack of meaningful dialog that it's just criminal. Malick should prohibited BY LAW from ever writing or publishing another screenplay -- it's that bad.
I'm not even a film school grad and I know that cinematic techniques should never draw attention to themselves. The viewer should never be so conspicuously aware of any cinematic techniques that he feels manipulated by the director. Well, that's all one feels when watching this endless parade of disjointed scenes and manipulative schemes. One gets the feeling that director Malick is sitting next to you and staring at you saying, "Watch what happens next. See this cinematic trick? See that stunt? What do you think of THIS? And TAKE THAT! Now here's more of THIS!" (I got a similar feeling (but not as bad) during "Armageddon" because of the excessive and tiring slow-mo that the director over-used.) What people have been saying about special effects for 30 years is also true of artsy techniques: they can be nice, but they are NEVER a substitute for plot, dialogue and coherent, compelling story-telling.
This movie was absolutely insulting to watch. To TRY to watch. I'd like to sit down and watch this movie with Malick so that I could stop it whenever I wanted and explain to him exactly what doesn't work and why. The only problem with that is I'd have to endure watching the rest of it.
Malick's sentence for inflicting this abusive disaster on the public should be one year of incarceration with nothing to eat but bread and water and nothing to do but watch great (and coherent) movies, like "Lawrence Of Arabia" and "To Kill A Mockingbird" and "The Verdict" and "Dead Poet's Society" and "One Hour Photo" everyday, all day.
The actors and crew and music man James Horner are hereby exonerated and found blameless. This colossal failure belongs to one man and one man alone, and that's Terrence Malick.