The Hot Blog

Which is the legend: the movie, or Kilcher?

If you've been wondering where the New World rage has come from, Dave Poland was kind enough to cough it up today.

Enjoy.

(EDITOR'S NOTE: This is NOT an entry from David Poland.)

The love of New World is being thrown in everyone's face. We get it. Thanks. It's just a movie. Now if it doesn't win the Oscar will your lives be valued less?

Native American films make up a huge portion of the film industry. It's called porno.

If New World doesn't win the Oscar, the suicide rate in the Native American community will skyrocket.

You couldn't pay me to sit through even a 10 minute version of this movie again.

No matter how much some people adore "The New World," it has the popularity boundaries of most Terrence Malick movies. It is deliberate. It is languorous at times. The characters are not terribly verbal. And like it or not, there is a significant percentage of Academy voters who really aren't interested in a Native American love story.

Another problem is that supporters of "The New World" are understandably unsure whether "their film" can win the Oscar. And the tone of the discourse about it seems to be getting a wee bit strident. If there is one thing you can be sure of with Academy members, they do not want to be lectured about doing the right thing. Try to avoid telling anyone that a vote against "The New World" is a vote against Native Americans. Love your movie and act accordingly… and respectfully.

(EDITOR'S NOTE: This is NOT an entry from David Poland.)

Actually, "The New World" is part of the Movement. It has stopped being about how good the movie is. It's now about being about a cause or about Native American life. I know that a lot of Native Americans see this movie as a way of reaffirming their lifestyle and choices. The more it does at the BO and the more awards it wins, the better for every Native American out there.

I don't think dating Colin Farrell is a particularly reaffirming lifestyle choice.

Every Native American person will see it. Isn't it a requirement now in the Native American community?

The List goes:
Know every word of "Colors of the Wind."
Geronimo sticker.
Warpaint.
See "The New World."

Kidding! Take a joke!

I should quantify my earlier statement (the one about not watching it again, not the joke about Colin Farrell) by saying that I liked (not loved) Thin Red Line and the only thing I think New World is deserving for awards is for cinematography, James Horner's score and the sound editing/mixing, because those were all top notch. My problems were with the convoluted story, the lack of dialogue and the generally poor acting, and that includes Q'orianka (Is that Native American for "overrated"?) Kilcher.

As far as movies about natives making contact with Americans, I much preffered "End of the Spear" which also opens on Friday. Maybe the writing/directing aren't as impressive, but it's a much more interesting story and in many ways, more believable.

Any word on what version foreign markets will be getting? It would seem that the original version would work in some places like Europe, whereas the newest one would go down better in others.

I'm curious whether the foreign subtitles will be as ugly as the English ones...they used a really big font that actually was distracting from the visuals. I can't imagine them trying to dub this movie into other languages.

joefitz, WE GET IT.

Well, someone stole my name here and posted as me. You make one BBM crack and you get that kind of treatment I guess.

The Native American lobby is out in force on “The New World.” It'll get stronger and more desperate by the day especially before nominations come out. Some are using this movie as a movement and a referendum. You can deny it all you want. But the majority of Native Americans want this film to do well even if they don't like the film, haven't seen the film, or don't even care about film. It's more of a movement than a best picture contender.

I guess I'm a popular guy with people stealing my name and identity. I didn't know my voice mattered that much to people. Sometimes you forget that the net is populated by a lot of immature people who can't have a good debate without resorting to childish and petty crap.

Dave,

Which version was sent out for Oscar consideration?

Still don't care about "The New World" and will never see it. Does nothing for me.

I've been wondering about this movie for a few weeks now. Didn't hear much about it and I thought it was dead in the water. Haven't heard any buzz. Maybe that's going to change.

I saw, I guess, the longer version. I wasn't that impressed with it. Thought it meandered along with almost nowhere to go. I didn't know what was going on by Act 3. But that's Malick for you. He doesn't tell stories like you would expect. He's in love with his camera. I don't know if I can sit thru another telling of this story.

i actually saw thin red line last night for the first time in a while. there are so many good things about the film that it outweighs all i think is wrong with it. i wish he had made it tighter. it could have been a real classic.

The best thing about "Thin Red Line", for me, was Nick Nolte. I thought he gave a great performance and the picture really came to life when he was on screen. I think it really bogged down when it centered on Ben Chaplin(sp?) character. The soldier with the wife at home. Didn't think it moved as much when he was on screen.

Actually I've seen "New World" and thought it was fantastic. If you can let yourself go and you love watching visuals its really great. Now I got to see the new one. It's like those collector edition dvd's here. Getting my dough twice for a few changing scenes. A real scam.

And I still won't see Brokeback Mountain. No matter how much it pisses off you people off that I won't see it.

Malick just has a hard time telling a straight ahead story. He's unlike any other director working today. He's challenging to a viewer. Which doesn't translate into box office success especially without a boatload of awards to advertise.

As much as I don't like some of his stuff as a director, he is one of those talents that you have to see on the big screen. No matter what story is he trying to tell. Even a failure by him is better than mosts successes. I wish he would work more than once every decade.

joefitz84 and LesterFreed, I'm all for talking about Brokeback Mountain 24/7 but FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, you're more obsessed than me.

I want to see the New World but the fact that Colin Farrell stars in it makes me hesitate.

I'm never so bored as when I try and sit thru one of Terrrence Malick's movies. He just bores the living daylights out of me.

You think the story would go somewhere but it doesn't. I love good camera work as much as the next girl but 3 hours of it kinda gets on my nerves.

I'd be glad to never hear or say anything about the movie again but some punk has other ideas on it. Where I'm from you don't play a man like that. Not tolerated. If you're going to try and imitate a man at least be funny when you do it. I appreciate a good bit as much as the next guy.

u got to give malick more than one viewing to fully appreciate his movies. my personal fav is badlands.

Seems I better careful about my jokes and sarcasm involving Brokeback Mountain.

The BBM ites are out for blood. I don't want to end up with my dog dead or anything. I get the message!

Don't hurt any defenseless dog. Makes me so sad to hear that. They're girls best friend too.

I can't give his movies more than one viewing. I was bored enough the first time. That's time I'll never get back.

All that has happened here is that it is now GUARANTEED I won't see this film in the theaters. Why would I, when I can wait four months and get both versions on one DVD? Paying $10+ to see only one of them would seem like a ripoff.

The New World was the best film of 2005, hands down. What irritates me is the apparent lack of patience and chances that paying audiences have demonstrated with this movie, even only after a week in limited run. Some of the comments I've read here and other places concerning this film, are, in my head, moronic and simple-minded. Not only is the film one of staggeting beauty, it tells a sensitive story in a fashion that nobdody tells stories any more in...visual terms. Who cares that there isn't a "plot" and the dialogue is limited...I for one say Good! Not every movie has to be the same, and one of the best aspects of a Malick movie (sure, there's only 4 of them...) is that they are so unique you can't even try to compare them to anything else. MAlick's movies require the viewer to use their brian and to make conclusions for him/herself, something that too few filmmakers are doing these days. I cannot wait to see the new cut, but wish he had never messed with it in the first place. What I saw in the theaters on new years day was a seminal movie-going experience, that only the most jaded of viewers could label as "boring" or bad.

Is it too late in the nomination process for Q'orianka to be in consideration with this new edit?

Well Cullen, I for one can't wait to see the New World. Partly because I am half indian, partly because I do like Terence Malick and I do have alot of patience for his non-trendy dialog. Best Indian movies I have seen to date on injuns have been Smoke Signals & Cabeza de Vaca, so I'd like to see what take the mysterious Texan Terry has on the John Smyth story--there's so much myth and some of it not all bad, but it is an interesting story. And Cullen are you surpised at the "moronic and simple-minded" comments on this blog by people who evaluate movies without seeing them?! Get used to it. It's one thing to decide after a trailer and reading about a flick to determine something isn;t their speed but...such vitriol. Makes me think there are 80% street teamers on this blog.

I actually think COlin Farrell is a decent actor. I think he has a illustrious leading man career to come, if he can keep his personal life under control.

Colin Farrel has talent. But he has been picking some terrible roles. Everytime I see a "Recruit" or "Phone Booth" I remember "Tigerland". Where he was great.

i agree with u cullen but most average filmgoers want to see a plot driven movie. and how many un plot driven movies actually can get made nowadays? it wouldnt get past a reader at a studio or production company. i got a feeling malick hosed them the past 2 times. listen to both pitches "a ww 2 movie with 10 stars and 3 action set pieces" "pocahontas with my camera work and colin farrel'". i'd sign up too.

with malick the cinematography alone is worth the price of admission.

Haven't you ever read "Story" by Robert McKee???

I'll tell you a secret. The last act makes the film. Wow them in the end, and you've got a hit. You can have flaws, problems, but wow them in the end, and you've got a hit. Find an ending, but don't cheat, and don't you dare bring in a deus ex machina. Your characters must change, and the change must come from them. Do that, and you'll be fine.

So how will we ever get to see all these versions? It would be smart to put them all (or some) on a DVD, but if the movie doesn't do well at the box office, how much effort will be put into the DVD release? I love that kind of stuff...where a film gets taken apart before your eyes. Anyone read that Michael Ondaatje (sp?)/Walter Murch book called "The Conversations?" Awesome stuff....really makes you look at sound and editing in new waysa. Murch rocks!

I'm looking forward to NEW WORLD, but I know it'll be slow. I loved DAYS OF HEAVEN and especially BADLANDS, but THIN RED LINE was too much for me. I don't mind slow, but the constant arrival of new A-List actors was distracting. Look! It's John Travolta! It's Woody harrelson! It's Nick Nolte.....I should probably watch it again.

Lota--Smoke Signals is far and away one of the most underrated movies in years...an amazingly well done film that was, with a great script...I am psyched for Adam Beach as he'll be turning up in Clint Eastwoods new WW2 flick(s).
The New World represents a filmmaker so far removed from the rest of the pack...it's incredible that Malick even gets to make his movies.
Colin is terrific in The New World, much better than he was in Alexander, a movie I feel was un-justly maligned. Farrell is best when he's intense and internal and brooding...all things that Malick's movie asks him to be. He was passionate as all hell in Alexander, but that couldn't help the fact that he doesn't register as a "leader", much the way Russell Crowe or Mel Gibson do in the many epics that they've made. I look forward to Farrell's next few pics like Miami Vice and the new cop film with Ed Norton from Gavin O'Connor. And let's not forget about Robert Towne's upcoming Ask the Dust. You gotta say this for Farrell, he's worked with some of the MASTERS--Stone, Malick, Spielberg, Towne, Mann...not too bad for a guy who hasn't even come close to hitting his peak.

Petaluma--watch The Thin Red Line again some time...true, its sort of distracting to see alot of big faces, but that movie is just so damn rich...much the way The New World is...so much going on, epic and intimate...i've watched The Thin Red Line too many times to count and it's one of my favorite movies of all-time. Gets better and better. Malick's movies are just completely rich film experiences...i just wish there were more of them to watch!

Adaptation was a great movie. Kaufman can surely write a great film. Really flips it on its head.

Farrell is still very young for a leading man. It will take him some time to find his bearings and not choose parts for money. I hope he's alright with his health too.

Thin Red Line took that second viewing to click. With Malick you just have to let go. Let the movie work its magic all over you. He IS an artsy farsty guy if there ever was one, and it's really hard to put to words what he's up to (unlike say Kubrick, where discussion is a MUST). They're not made for everyone and that's kind of what makes them so precious. The cinema equavalent of staring out the window on a sunny day or taking a trip to the art gallery. What's stranger is that it's not all just esoteric poetry (where Pauline Kael said "you can hang all the stupid metaphors you want on them"), that Malick's stuff has a power beyond the signifigance you give it. The Huck Finn-esque narration of Days and Badlands... the perfect Hans Zimmer score of Thin Red Line... it gets to you. I'll be there on Friday, hopefully in an empty theater, as the "restless vibes"from the crowd will most certainly distract.

And I liked the Miranda Otto/Ben Chaplin stuff in Thin Red Line. Heartbreaking in context of these men holding on to anything to get through this -- only to have even that taken away.

You're right. Malick is as artsy fartsy as it gets. He's just a tough guy to watch and hes certainly not going to draw crowds to the theatre.

Say what you want about Kubrick but he did have pretty good commercial instincts.

Both are masters with a camera and you can really see something new everytime you watch their films.

I've seen dvd's get the different cut treatment but movies in limited release?

Has this ever happend before in this short a time?

Maybe the new cut will mean that "New World" still has a shot at scoring some Oscar nods. Seems like the old, longer cut was not looked upon favorably.

Q’Orianka Kilcher is real gorgeous girl. In a fairly weak field for Best Actress maybe she can slide in and give Reese and Felicity a run.

"And let's not forget about Robert Towne's upcoming Ask the Dust."

As a Fante fan, I'm worried about this one. Bandini is a sad-sack, a pathetic schlub. As I read, I imagine someone like a young John Cazale in the role.
Farrell strikes me as too cocky and alpha-male. I'm not saying I hope he fails--I'd love it if he pulled it off--but I have strong doubts. If he's good enough, maybe he can make me forget he's Colin Farrell the way Nicholson did in About Schmidt.

I haven't heard too much about that Towne movie either. One thing you can say.

Farrell is getting some plum parts.

well Frankbooth you mentioned one of my favorite actors of all time, John Cazale, may he RIP. He never did a bad movie (didn't live long enough) and the archival footage in GF III doesn't count.

I see what you mean (re Ask the Dust), but maybe Colin can do it. He does have to slow his metabolism down, tho. It is hard to forget his intrusive real life persona too.

Cullen:

glad to hear it about Adam Beach. he has intensity and I would like to see him in more pictures.

Well Terrence Malick pretty much raised his own cash for Badlands, so he gets to do his own movies to a point--as long as they make some money. It really is a pity that he couldn't release it sooner.

Alexander had some good acting and some over the top stuff that was a distraction. I actually like Ollie's stuff alot(he knows how to entertain) even though I am not sure how much Fact is actually factored into his storylines!

Cazale was a great one in his short time. We really lost a great one when he passed.

The Wild Bunch was cut early in its first release. But you do have to go back a ways, I think to see this happening. They pulled Heaven's Gate to recut it after bad reviews. I do think that no one would be doing this if NW had received better reviews. I know it got good reviews, but few critics awards, few spots on top ten lists. Roger Ebert called it a "great, beautiful" film, but then didn't even have it in his top ten. For a film like NW to do well, it can't just get good reviews, it has to get grand-slam great reviews. And it didn't.

I do hope that both versions of NW come out on DVD. Might not. Peter Wier reedited "Picnic at Hanging Rock", hurting it in my opinion, and his original cut has never seen the light of day since.

It is rare to see a movie cut a rereleased a mere 2 weeks after it's release. I can't even think of one off the top of my head.

I'm sure that the current cut will get released on DVD and the longer 'extended edition' will as well, but it looks like the original cut is probably gone forever, since even Malick seems to have been unsatisfied by it.

"The New World" is only going semi-wide on Friday per Box Office Mojo. New Line may have to fight for bookings on this the way "Brokeback Mountain" is going.

Also, is the shorter version of "The New World" the one that opened on the "Oscar Bait" run in NYC/LA? That isn't clear from some of the posts in this thread.

The December qualifying run had the longer cut that Dave P. speaks of as the original cut he saw.

Days of Heaven is one of my all-time faves. It is 90minutes long.

Is it too late to cut Kong down to two hours?

The version I saw was the longer cut. It was thrilling. You just knew you were watching a Malick movie. Slowly unfolding in front of you. I can't believe he would let anyone cut his work after he finished. I'm guessing studio pressure to force him to make cuts.

I'm going to have to see the new shortened version now. They're getting my cash those greedy suits.

I have a hard time with Colin Farrell in this though. I haven't seen it but he doesn't have that presence for me. Is he good in it?

He was fine in it. But he's an actor in a Malick movie. They don't have much to do.

Malick probably is a great photographer. I'm willing to bet he is and has a second career in it.

I would be curious to know what Malick was doing from 1978-1998. I heard teaching, but what and where?
I thought Nick Nolte gave a great performance in Thin Red Line. And anyway, you don't need dialogue to give a great performance.

Takes a great actor to not speak and give a great performance.

Like Tom Hanks in CASTAWAY.

Check out the article linked below to read a very interesting article on film length that talks a lot about The New World

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/13/movies/13shor.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1137502798-tsaZdG05Mqo5XiADcDRAqg

Very interesting, and it appears Terrance Malick decided to cut it himself. Three hour director's cut on DVD though.

Tough to cut a film 2 weeks after its release. He must have really not liked his original version.

I think he felt it was rushed, and also saw that it wasn't getting as good of a reception as he would have hoped.

You don't see many do what he just did. Only Malick.

Actually, Kubrick did it after the initial premiere of 2001. Also Spielberg has made three or four different cuts now of Close Encounters.

In 2 weeks? 2 weeks after it was released?

Not Close Encounters, correct. But 2001 was changed immediately after the premiere. Kubrick had a moviola installed on the ship he took from London so he could keep editing on the voyage.

And anyway, The New World's original cut was released 4 weeks ago, not 2.

There has got to be something majorly wrong if the director has to change thing a month after release. Huge warning signs for me about a movie. And I saw the old version and I loved it. I don't know what he was tinkering with here. He must have felt the cold hand of his moneymen.

In NYC the Loews Lincoln Square had the "Oscar Bait" run of "The New World". The Loews Lincoln Square gets it back tomorrow -- in the edited version.

I don't know whether or not New Line demanded that "The New World" be edited. I did read a (wire service) review that gushed over the picture while avoiding the fact that it was cut for the national release.

Had to be the studio. Just makes sense. Also, helps give it a little buzz. I'll see the new version now.

Or perhaps Malick actually wanted people to SEE his movie and figured that this new version didn't compromise his vision but also made it for viewer-friendly.

And by viewer-friendly I mean the "let's see that new Colin Farrell movie. It has Batman in it!"

Oh man, imagine a period Batman movie, where instead of a Kevlar rock-climbing suit, Christian Bale decks himself out in wicker covered in tar. Wicked!

Elizabethan Batman?

Or how about 'Batman Goes to Moulin Rouge!' where Bruce Wayne starts a romantic and doomed affair with a beautiful but dying courtesan while leading a double life, protecting Paris from the evil Duke who also has his eye on the very same Moulin Rouge courtesan that Bruce is in love with. Musical sequences abound.

(I'm sorta surprised how well that analogy actually worked)

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)