Well, I saw this on Saturday. I think I am going to go with Bad. Though it might be a Bad+ if that rating existed. I did not think it went anywhere. It was dreadfully boring, to the point that I started looking at my watch wondering how much longer it would be. Having said that, though, it was certainly a pretty movie. The cinematography was very nice. The score was cool, also. But the story was terribly lacking. I thought Q'Orianka Kilcher did very well. I liked the voiceovers and thought they were well incorporated into the story. I just didn't like the long periods of dullness. Long, long periods of dullness. Oh well.
4 comments:
Having seen Days of Heaven (which is included in Roger Ebert's 100 Great Movies) and The Thin Red Line, both of which were directed by Malick (who is from Texas, by the way) I am eager to see The New World, despite the chilling reviews you and Lisa have given it. I wonder if going in expecting something slow--like a tour of an art museum?--I'll get more out of it. Anyway, here's a positive review of the film by Dana Stevens of Slate:
http://www.slate.com/id/2134515/?nav=fo
I haven't been too excited about seing this movie so I expect Steve will go see it without me and tell me about it later.
I rather watch a predictable and formulaic but fun movie than a boring one.
I object to my review having been described as chilling. I think if you go into expecting a tour of an art museum you will probably enjoy it. There was one voiceover in particular that I felt like was completely anachronistic and sounded like someone from the Today show announcing Diana and Charles' wedding. It's a very pretty movie. Colin Farrel is VERY pretty.
Well why didn't you say so the first time? I LOVE the Today show. And Diana and Charles's wedding was one of the highlights of my life.
Post a Comment