Anyone heard anything about this? I just saw a trailer for it on the *Birth *DVD and was captivated immediately.
I’m not too excited about Colin Farrell playing John Smith but the cinematography looks luscious and I’m a total fanboy for historical dramas so I’m already excited even though this is the first I have even heard of it.
Bump.
[hijack]
Inspired by trailers for the coming TNT (or is it USA?)* miniseries Into the West (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0409572/): What I’d really like to see is a movie about Columbus’ landing from the POV of the Caribbean Indians – i.e., the story starts out among the Indians, filling us in on details of their culture, introducing some Indian characters and setting up some storylines – all of which are abruptly disrupted when these three strange huge boats show up on the horizon. Of course, the Carib culture was so thoroughly shattered by colonization (and enslavement, and plagues, etc.) that almost no Caribbean Indians survive today; so I guess any plot based on their culture would have to be mostly speculation.
[/hijack]
From what I understand, it’s the John Smith/Pocohontas legend. What I really respect about the movie is that they cast an actual 15 year old girl to be Pocohontas. I thought it was a ballsy move.
With cinematography by Emmanuel Lubezki (Sleepy Hollow, Meet Joe Black, Great Expectations, amongst others) it’ll look pretty good I’d wager.
I hope that, unlike Disney’s Pocahontas, they present the historical facts that she married John Rolfe, not John Smith – and that when he took her back to England she soon died of smallpox. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocahontas
Saw the trailer – it gives us no clues to any plot points. Otherwise, it looks promising.
Yeah, the trailer’s pretty plain with only a series of scenes with no dialogue and I admit I’m interested more out of an enthusiasm for historical epics than any knowledge of the plot, which is nil. That’s why I was curious if anyone else had read anything: I’m intrigued, but not enough to wade through the IMDb messageboard devoted to it.
And thanks for the link to the mini-series as well. I’ll have to put that on my Netflix queue when or if it’s released to DVD as I don’t have a TV.
Bump
Saw it this weekend … pretty good but a bit too artsy for me in that the story isn’t made very clear.
Then again, we missed the first few minutes of the movie so for all I know they may have had some type of introduction to help.
Saw it over the weekend as well, and I second that ‘too artsy’ for me statement by What the??.
At times it felt more like a documentary than your standard fare, and at other times I was expecting to hear a voice come in and say “Eternity, by Calvin Klein” what with all the whispered, dubbed in monologues.
Other than that, it was ok. I don’t know much about what we know about Pocahontas but at least the movie depicts what BrainGlutton mentioned faithfully, even if her final moments are a little lost in a jumble of confusing images and some more dubbed in monologue.
My girlfirend liked it more than I did. Probably BECAUSE of all the darn cologne commercial-like dialogue going on 
As someone interested in historical Hoplology, one thing that bugged me was all the rapiers I saw. Everyone seemed to be carrying one, and at one point, John Smith, whom I understood to be a soldier of some type actually carries a rapier and parrying dagger to a dangerous outing into hostile territory (in three quarters plate!!!). No one with military experience would have done this. You take your spear, your polearm, your cut and thrust sword and buckler or falchion, NOT your friggin’ rapier! That bugged me more than it should have, through out the rest of the movie, just ask my girlfriend: “Look, ANOTHER rapier!” “Yes, yes, I know.”
So would I recommend it? It’s hard to, you really have to appreciate this style of film. I liked the customes, the acting, and the scenery, very much. The story was mildly interesting, YMMV.
I haven’t seen the movie but, it was released in a very limited fashion around Christmas. Then the director pulled it, did a few edits and then it returned to the theatre, on the pre-planned expansion date.
It’s my understanding that the New World is not America for the English but England for Pocohantas.
Personally, I’ve never been a fan of director Terrence Malick. Days of Heaven and Badlands just don’t do anything for me.
That’s exactly what the review in the Jan Jose paper said. Siskel and his sidekick* both loved it, though. It’s definitely on my list-- I’m a sucker for these types of films, even if they’re not too good.
*can never remember the new guy’s name…
Siskel? He’s the dead one. Ebert and Mr. Roper are the guys now.
I had no opinion of Malick until I saw The Thin Red Line. I hated that movie with such passion that I wrote an essay about it*, just to get what I hated out of my head. And specifically what I hated was the directing itself, not the acting.
So, not having seen The New World, yes, I agree with you – I do not like Malick’s work.
Sailboat
*some day perhaps, when i am feeling especially vitriolic, I will attempt to rewrite it and might post it here. Be warned.
I think a lot of people are going to go into this moving not understanding that Malick can only be described as an “art film” director. This is only his fourth or fifth movie he’s made in something like a 40-year career.
There was a thread about whether Colin Farrell should be charged with a sex crime just for doing love scenes with a 14-year-old actress . . . Which confuses me. I haven’t seen this movie yet. But if Farrell plays John Smith, he should not be the one getting it on with Pocahontas. Pocahontas did marry an Englishman – John Rolfe, not John Smith. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocahontas I was hoping this film would get that important detail right where the Disney version didn’t.
Not sure about how serious that other thread was but the “sex” was only implied. No sex scenes, no fake sex scenes, no nudity even.
She did marry Rolfe and they had a child. But don’t you think she and Smith fooled around a bit before that?
I haven’t seen the film, but…
I know she doesn’t marry Smith in it. She marry’s someone else-- not sure if it’s Rolfe. BTW, I hear that the “young Indian girl” is never called Pocahontas in the film.
There are no love scenes between the “Princess” (who is never called Pocahantas in the film) and John Smith. There is a lot of walking and eye gazing and arm touching and a couple pf kisses on the cheek but there is nothing which could be characterized as a love scene and the movie does not imply that their relationship was sexual (although it does imply that it was romantic).
The character later marries John Rolfe, which is accurate history, but the relationship with Smith is not. The story about Pokey saving Smith from execution was fabricated by Smith after her death. She would have only been ten years old at the time and there is no evidence that she ever had a romantic relationship (sexual or not).
Some other inaccuracies in the movie:
[spoiler]The film shows the Princess being offered shelter in jamestown after being driven out by her tribe, The reality is that sh was captured and held prisoner ffor a year.
Rolfe’s courtship of Pokey probably was not as innocent as depicted. The reality is that he took a shine to her and offered her freedom from Jamestown on the condition that she marry him.
Pokey’s meeting with John Smith in England was not the affectionate reunion portrayed in the film. In reality, she turned her back on him, called him a liar and refused to speak to him. She did not like him. The reality is that Smith was a pathological liar and self-promoter who told at least two different versions of the “being rescued by a princess story” before he told the one about Pocahantas…a story he never told while she was alive.[/spoiler]
Other than that, I think the film was relatively accurate. Personally, I found it visually intersting at time - Malick does a pretty good job of creating the time and place - but it was also very slow moving and torpid and not very gripping. The incessant shots of the Princess running around being “natural” and “free” while various voice overs droned poetically in the background became old after about 5 minutes.
Agreed. It was very hard for me to sit all the way through a film that is visually pleasing and authentic-looking but plodding as hell.
Haven’t seen it yet, and I’m guessing Cartooniverse hasn’t either.