Has anyone seen a screening of New World?

The Machinist

The Machinist

Respected Member
I've been meaning to go to see it here in the City but haven't had time this week what with the Bowl games every night.

I read it was shot in 65mm? Can anyone name another movie shot on this format? Curious about the picture detail that must be evident on the big screen.
 
The Machinist said:
I've been meaning to go to see it here in the City but haven't had time this week what with the Bowl games every night.

I read it was shot in 65mm? Can anyone name another movie shot on this format? Curious about the picture detail that must be evident on the big screen.
Click to expand...

Are you sure on 65mm? I read 70mm... which plenty of films have been shot in.

Haven't seen New World, though... the thing about Malick's films, in my opinion, is that they are a joy to look at, but DREADFULLY slow to watch. Judging by the fact that he's on his 3rd cut of the movie, this doesn't seem to be shaping up any differently.

David Kuznicki
Production Manager, WGTE-TV30
 
Yea i've heard much the same but i've also heard it's so beautiful to look at it deserves to be seen on a big screen.

And checking IMDB it lists 35mm with some scenes shot in 65mm. However it was given a Panavision Super 70 Cinematographic process. Afraid I'm not familiar with that process so maybe someone can enlighten me.
 
the three hour version is way too long. And even the beautiful scenery became repetitive. disappointed. Thin Red Line is one of my favorite films. :(

my friend said it best after he came out of the theatre: "Why did he make that film?"
 
65mm is the shooting format; 70mm is the projection format (ie, you can't shoot on 70mm and you can't project 65mm).

The only other film I know of (besides any IMAX fare) is "Lawrence of Arabia".
 
It isn't released here until Jan 13th . The trailers look good ....Please tell me it isn't that slow , is it ??..Love the secenery shots .
Ian
 
i saw it back on christmas day. it divided the audience. most loved it, as the theatre erupted into applause as the credits rolled. but there were a few groups around that didn't like it. i overheard comments like "most frustrating movie ever" and "the dialogue? what dialogue?". i wish they could have let go of their expectations for what a film is "supposed" to be and open themselves up to (in this case) a filmmaker's unique way of communicating. they might just find something profoundly meaningful to them that lies beyond plot points and clever dialogue.

personally, i was swept away by its poetry of non-events. a minor critique for the inner monologues that seemed to ask one too many times, "who are you?" and the blocking of characters walking six feet apart, one in front of the other. they appeared so often they started to look like devices (which they are), or clichés unique to terrence malick.

something worth mentioning is that my girlfriend claims she felt a very profound connection to pocahontas/rebecca in this film that she can't sufficiently verbalize. she doesn't know how to explain it, but she feels it. interesting.
 
I loved this movie. As soon as I witnessed the opening shot of the Naturals peering at the ships aproaching the mainland, I knew I was about to experience something special. It never felt like anyone was acting and it never felt preachy. In fact I loved the little dialogue. I also got very emotional throughout the film, knowing what ultimately happens to the indigenous people of our land. It will be a long time before I see a movie again that I loved this much.
 
Fantastic flick. Maybe not everybodies cup o' tea.

If you are interested in this era (17th Century) and the settlers etc...then this film is for you.

There were moments of visual poetry in this film that put modern day directors to shame. I agree that trimming it would have been a choice, but I appreciate the pace Mallick was trying to achieve. Colin was riveting. I don't know why this guy isn't getting more plaudits for his work. Maybe because it's not a flashy role or bio pic.

Also, I love how this film was made. I read a recent article in "American Cinematographer" about how the director and DP wanted to use almost exclusively "available light". No electrical department and huge crew. It amazed and inspired me to see what can be done with passion , talent, and a small 35mm camera.
There aesthetic choices were bold.

It seems my favorite directors aren't afraid to take their time, and draw you into their worlds, allowing room for reflection along the way.

I'm glad Terrence is out there making movies. He reminds me why I got into this in the first place.

Also, see it on the big screen. It deserves it. :beer:

Cheers.
 
I saw this yesterday in Reading, UK. Of course, I might have a biased opinion, cos I absolutely love Mallick. I hate voiceovers, but if anyone is going to do them, it has to be Mallick. This movie is still with me, it was so etheral, beautiful and heart-wrenching that I can't describe the emotion fully yet. There criticisms, Mallick should have concentrated more on the events around John Smith and Pocahantas, he did but not enough(knowing mallick his original cut was probably 6hours). The ending was a bit rushed but nevertheless a topic of debate as to why and how?? All in all, it was an experience. An experience that I'd tell you all to experience. Everything in this movie was acted with eyes, not too much dialogue, the girl playing pocahantas Q'orianka deserves an Oscar, every emotion in her face is a thousand words, and Farrell, he was amazing as well. Look out for cameos i.e. Ben Chaplin and John Savage as mere extras!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top