It's an acquired taste, or in Malicks case, style.

Rating: 8/10 (3 February 2006)

I think with Malicks' films, you either connect with it or you don't. I did just that with 'The Thin Red Line' and was curious to see if I would with 'New World'. I guess I did in a different way, although maybe after more viewings(DVD), I may be able to break it down better.
Quite honestly movie studios just don't make movies like this anymore, and if they do it's not with the budget that Malick had. His primary use of letting the images speak for themselves sans dialog is huge here. And with that, his musical scores, this one by James Horner(Braveheart/Titantic), play a integral part with the lack of dialog.
No special effects, no artificial lighting, and I believe shot 80% with a 'steadycam' for full 360's(no track) gives you breathtaking scenery in the most natural sense. A hard edge, realism.
I thought the acting was first rate, again since most was non-speaking. The ability to convey emotion without speaking has got to be the epitome of real 'acting'. Farrell, Kilcher, and Bale played the parts respectively.
I'm not sure what creative license was taken in terms of the story. My wife is a teacher and recognized many things that she believed to be true, but I'm sure certain events were altered. All in all it's a powerful film. But one that requires the viewer to 'let go', and not be swayed by the current Hollywood style of pace and flow that movies today are filmed by.