|
But does a pretty picture on it's own, make for a
good film? That's a question many have bought up when reviewing a Terry
Malick movie, and will no doubt; do so again, with The New World.
Many argue that Malick – whose past films include The Thin Red Line and Days of Heaven
– is more interested in beautiful imagery than plot, what with
the visuals always at the forefront rather than serving as the
backdrop, and they would be right. But I believe his reason in doing
that is so he can have audience do some of the work themselves. Rather
than simply spell out everything you need to know, and revealing where
the film is going from the first five minutes, he only offers hints of
a plan and offers smidgens of sentiment, and expects the audience to
put the pieces together themselves. Some, understandably, hate that
– if only because they’re so not use to that type of film
– but others, especially those with a penchant for the
‘art’ rather than the ‘quick thrill’, tend to
appreciate his audacity.
Having said that, there is a deep-rooted story in The New World,
if only because it rises from documented historical prose. Though
intentionally never called by name, this is the umpteenth yarn on Pocahontas and lover/friend/yankie buddy John Smith – most famously fixed on in the Disney film from a few years ago.
Obviously – it was a kiddies cartoon, for
Christ’s sake! – more historically accurate than the
previous version, The New World
tells of tells the story of Captain John Smith (an aptly cast, but
sometimes hard to understand, Colin Farrell) and the beginnings of the
English presence in the Americas.
When Smith meets Native American Pocahontas
(stunning newcomer Q'Orianka Kilcher), his world is turned upside down
– never to be the same again. Ditto for our native beauty, whose
life isn’t going to be so much changed, as she’ll inherit a
new one.
Again, there have been some liberties taken
– a lot of guess work has gone into the film’s third act,
because there’s no documented evidence on Pochantos's feelings
towards her British transfer and so on, and at times Malick does feel
the pressure to ‘Titanic-ize’
his relationship between the beautiful native and Smith – but on
the most part, they’re logical liberties, merely there to serve
the film. Again though, plot and emotion seem to come anything but
first here – so some are indubitably going to find the pacing a
little lethargic. Hang in there though.
The visuals are the star, needless to say. Shot in
65mm – the first time since Kenneth Branagh’s poorly
received Hamlet, a few
years back – it’s an absolute marvel to look at. If the
locations aren’t beautiful enough, Malick captures their every
essence of beauty, filming from different angles, trying new things
relentlessly and zooming in on something as plainly gorgeous as a bit
of water trickling down a stream, or a blade of grass floating in the
wind. It’s just magic. Nobody knows how to make a more
beautiful-looking film than Malick. They really don’t. This is a
stunning achievement. He just might want to speed the rest of it up
– in fact, the studio took scissors to the first cut released in
the states, much to his disliking, so even they seemingly got bored in
a few spots – because not everyone’s there to see art, but
rather, a movie.
EXTRAS
Extras on the disc – which though I’m sure it’s a film meant for a
theatre screen, still looks good here – include a comprehensive 10-part
making-of that covers everything you’d want to know about the movie.
Conclusion:
Movie 75% Extras: 65%
|
