 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
207.178.211.68
I know many posted praise for this film. But I found it to be a chore to keep watching after 30 minutes. No story, no dialogue, no acting, no context. It lurches from event to event without continuity. It has caricatures instead of characters. The colonists were just part of the set, like the rustic furniture. Much of Ye Olde English dialogue was unintelligible. The simplistic treatment of the Indians as innocents with little to do but keep their faces painted in amazingly complex patterns was trite.As for its reported cinematic beauty; its on par with an Irish Spring soap commercial but not as interesting. The softness of the Virginia landscape is overdone; some bright sunshine and blue sky might have eased Farrell's ever-pained expression. No offense to Virginians, but its not exactly Yosemite.
Its as if the film with the key scenes was lost and Malick just spliced together all the 2nd Location and background stuff. Even James Horner's music was a disappointment. Usually excellent, here he relied on an unremarkable imitation of the Siegfried Idyll that rose on cue to remind which scenes were "beautiful".
Malick may be good cinematographer, but he shouldn't be a director and his box-office record shows it. Its too bad that the rich potential (C. Farrell excepted) that he had available was squandered.
Follow Ups:
It all looks so darn pretty!clark
PS Horner's last decent work was Glory, very decent indeed!
(nt)
sadf
I am surprised you think that Tin.
Do you not like any of Malick's films?
Not even Badlands, which seems a bit mmm pacier (!!) than the others?
If we put to one side the above (not you) stated arguement that box office takings reflect Malick's lack of talent, then do you find Malick's films... slow? Well they certainly take their time. To me that is one of their great joys, and, I think, The New World suits this even better than the others. Its what I think I called pre-industrial pacing somewhere way down below.
Before factories and well watches I suppose, time moved at a less mechanical pace, and I think this film reflects that.
I didn't think the naturals were shown as being innocent or naive.
They killed the rest of the up-river party, they nearly killed Smith, they considered driving the colonists out to stop them bringing more people and demanding more of everything.
That well might have been their major mistake.. well I guess history shows it was!! But within the film I thought them believable.
If Malick is such a destroyer (the Ono comparison) although of what I am not sure (Hollywood???) then how would you describe those responsible for such stupidifests as Mission Impossible?
B movie, not as interesting as The Onion Field or In Cold Blood. Sheen just didn't strike me as "serious" enough to be a murderer, for one thing. Something about his boyish face that doesn't make for a convincing, cold-blooded murderer. That applies to Apocalypse Now, too. he's a tv actor, nothing more. He has come to rest at his level later in his career.
Malick: Thin Red Line is forgettable. Platoon, Full Metal Jacket, and a few others are far better.
Anyhow, he's pretentious and overrated.
Just my opinion, of course: he could be the equal of Antonioni to you.
Indeed I think he is.
I just like prodding people a bit to see what they think...
;-)
... isn't tat the point?
presumably you would prefer the emphasis to come randomly???
Shame you didn't like its un-rushed pacing.
All I found I had to do was sit back and enjoy it.
But then I never go to see blockbusters so I don't have expectations of explosions every 2 minutes.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]