A huge masterpiece riddled with flaws? Yes, compelling by the end for sure.

Rating: 8/10 (18 February 2013)

The New World (2005)
This is surely some kind of masterpiece of a movie, though also plagued slightly by its length, by a tendency to sentiment, and by moments of wonder (by the characters) that get repetitive. Director Terrence Malick has left his mark here as with, say, "Days of Heaven," creating something large but not quite larger than life. His intention is to make life as large as it really is.
By some miracle I saw the whole thing and didn't know it was the Pocahontas story, which was terrific (though I jokingly said in the middle of it that she's like Pocahontas, having never seen the Disney version). This helped me keep a neutral stance on it all, thinking it was just a typical view of two cultures--European and Native American--coming into extensive, complicated interaction. The way you come to see the main young woman's view of the world, both the new world she live in and her own new world when she goes to England, is stirring. Stirring.
That's what finally made the movie after having at times to be patient with the director's tendency to indulge in the beauty created by his crew, especially the cinematographers. This is an exquisitely luscious film in many ways--some might say excessively, the sunset always sublime and the verdant world green. But it makes for good watching. It's an immersive experience. It puts you there.
The sets and the setting are superbly thought out and legitimate copies of what the first successful English settlers in Virginia would have seen and made. (There were lengthy documentary segments with my rented version of the movie.) The costumes, the thatch and wood structures, the general smoky rainy glimmery twilight moods, all of this was gorgeous.
Most (nearly all) of the shooting was done with a hand held camera, what used to be called a steadicam. Even conventional dialog scenes where the camera shows someone talking reveals a little (gently buffered) camera movement. Other scenes have a constantly moving camera, fluid and jerky both. All of this gives the film from start to finish a living, breathing feeling. It's quite nice as a work for the eyes, no question about that.
The editing is equally remarkable. Malick has lots of footage shot, and one thing this gives him is lots of options for editing, and indeed the mix of points of view is part of the visual energy of the whole. There are many moments where the edit is unexpected, or very sudden, or counterintuitive, which is elegantly sustained from start to finish.
What is weak at times is some of the acting, or some of the choreographed movements, which seem a hair affected, or made to be cinematic rather than true. I suppose that's Malick's choice and a matter of taste. More annoying is the director's tendency to have characters stop and admire the bark on a tree or the light coming from overhead as they crane and look up. Yes, that's what you might do, all of us, but not over and over. And over. In the same way there are sometimes repeating moments that are not quite flashbacks that reprise an earlier mood and in fact it seems (to the slightly bedazzled viewer) that times have changed, that this is not quite where the characters are at any more.
In all of Malick's movies he has a style with actors that often makes them restrained and even lifeless. It strikes me as terrible movie-making on some level (Brad Pitt in "Tree of Life" is hard to swallow), but I try to see it as style. That might be generous. You'll find Colin Farrell restrained, often, and mumbling, too, and what makes clear his lack of usual energy is the documentary videos of the same scenes where he's more himself. It's subtle, I think, but it's cumulative with all the actors over all the film. The one exception might be Pocahontas herself, played by American/Swiss/Quechua Peruvian actress (born in Germany) Q'orianka Kilcher. She's allowed to be utterly lively and a necessary spark amidst all these burly men.
One thing Malick has going for him here is the story is epic and moving. The material is automatically interesting. He takes credit (as he always does) as the writer, but of course the story is not his, it's history. And it's a history brought to life. It's not for everyone, but it will survive even doubters on many levels, including for its ambition. This is a sprawling, unique movie and you should give it a try.