Hacker Cinema
The New World
2005 · Film · 151 min
Directed by Terrence Malick
A drama about explorer John Smith and the clash between Native Americans and English settlers in the 17th century.
3 positive1 negative2 neutralfrom 6 commenters
Where to watch
No streaming data for this title.
7 comments on Hacker News
I’m a huge Malick fan and agree that The New World is his masterpiece. I still remember seeing it in the cinema 20 years ago and almost levitating out of there. Just a beautiful piece of work. I’m glad there’s just about room for Malick somewhere in the film industry.
I'd suggest Badlands (1973) and The New World (2005 (172 minutes version)) as the other two.
Badlands is his first movie and is very approachable.
The New World is also very approachable but can be long for some people. Personally, it's one of my all time favorite movies.and worth every minute.
Badlands and Days of Heaven are definitely his most conventional films and thus good starting points. Badlands especially is a great film, Days of Heaven is a bit uneven in terms of plot and pacing, but the cinematography is beautiful.
Then you have The Thin Red Line and The New World, which to me feel like a transitional period between the more conventional films and The Tree of Life, which is the first film that is characterized through and through by Malick's extremely divisive style. I personally love The Thin Red Line, but I can see why it's not for everyone. (I would skip The New World.) All later films have a very recognizable style, for which I think The Tree of Life is the best starting point.
Long story short: I'd start with Badlands, then watch The Thin Red Line, then The Tree of Life. If you like the last one, watch any of his later films.
If you haven't seen it, A Hidden Life has the most Tarkovsky feel to it for me. It felt very inspired by Mirror, specifically. I say that as a person who loves both films, too.
I can't believe the author of the article so blithely dismissed To The Wonder, Knight of Cups, and The New World. The New World is probably my favorite of all Malick's films so far.
I have mixed feelings about Tarkovsky. He is certainly profoundly important. His sensuality is unmatched. Whether it's the perfect use of sound (endless dripping water, the ringing of a fallen cup), the incredible imagery or the beautiful stories (I think about the bell story in Andrei Rublev a lot), Tarkovsky is the king of making you feel the movie.
That said, I don't worship at the altar of Tarkovsky. I don't love that his movies have this impenetrable length. I don't love that his movies inevitably have some long philosophical lecture by a male character while the women stay to the sides, often silent. I will sound like a petulant digital native, but I have been bored by a Tarkovsky.
Too often Tarkovsky is used as this unquestionably brilliant artist. To appreciate him is to be a true cinemaphile, while to hate him is to indicate your pedestrian tastes. I don't agree. There should be no shame in being bored by Stalker, in not getting Andrei Rublev, in finding The Sacrifice a little too navel gazing.
If I had to explain Tarkovsky to someone who doesn't watch art movies, I'd say that he's like the Velvet Underground. Unless you have a particular taste, you probably won't enjoy songs like Heroin or Venus in Furs. But you'll definitely enjoy the music made by people who did like Heroin or Venus in Furs. You don't have to enjoy Tarkovsky. But watch some of his movies, and you'll start to have flashes of recognition in movies like Arrival, La Cienaga, The New World, etc.
For anyone else who doesn't like Hollywood here are some recent film recommendations:
New World (South Korea)
Le Capital (France)
The Berlin File (South Korea) (although the end is disappointingly formulaic)
After Fall, Winter
As I recall it was discussed in the DVD extras on The New World. I remember that scene in the movie, but it's been years since I've watched it.