The story of the English exploration of Virginia, and of the changing world and loves of Pocahontas.There are, of course, historical issues with this film. Most scholars agree that there was no romantic relationship between Pocahontas and Smith. She would have been 10 years old in 1608 when they were said to have first met. So the whole premise is flawed. But in other areas, such as the attempt to have a native language spoken, some credit ought to be given.Ultimately, I found the film to be good but somewhat trying. Malick is a strange director. Obviously talented, but he lets his artistic vision go unchecked. And then it starts feeling pretentious. Other directors could be accused of similar issues (David Lynch?), and I suppose it really comes down to artistic preference. My preference does not jibe with Malick, it seems.

Call this film what you want, but I call it boring. There's extremely little dialog. There's very little action. It's a very long film. Add those things up and you get boring. I really couldn't tell what was going on for the first half of the movie, then in the second half I realized that nothing was going on so there was nothing to understand. In place of dialog between characters you get bits of narration from different characters as the viewpoint changes from one person to another. You also get long silent scenes of people thinking or holding each other. Don't wait for some strong story line to emerge that pulls you into the movies or attaches you to the characters because that never happens. The morsels of action are a mystery since there's no clear motivation behind them.On the positive side, I will admit that the sets and costumes were well done. The film does pull together some acting talent, though it seems wasted.

During the 1970s Terrence Malick directed one excellent film, "Badlands", and one masterpiece, "Days of Heaven". After that he seemed to exile himself from the cinema for a long period, and it was twenty years before his third film, "The Thin Red Line", appeared. There then followed another period of silence, this time for seven years, before "The New World" came out in 2005.The film recounts one of the foundation myths of American history, the story of Captain John Smith and the Native American princess Pocahontas. Now although both Smith and Pocahontas were undoubtedly both historical figures, the traditional version of the story, telling how she saved his life and how the two then fell in love, may only be legend. The latter part of the story, however, dealing with her marriage to another English settler, John Rolfe, is based upon historical fact.Even though the romance of the two main figures may only be fiction, albeit a fiction hallowed by long tradition, Malick took great pains over historical details with regard to such matters as costume, weapons, tools and architecture, and shooting took place as close as possible to the site of the original Jamestown settlement in Virginia. He even went so far as to employ a linguist to reconstruct, as far as possible, the now-extinct Powhatan language which would have been spoken by the tribe to which Pocahontas belonged. In other respects, however, the film's accuracy has been faulted, in particular its advocacy of the now- fashionable idea that Native Americans were unselfish, peace-loving noble savages, quite innocent of the vices of the corrupt Old World. (In reality, Pocahontas' father owed his power and exalted position, a position which led the English settlers to regard him as a king rather than a mere chief, to his Powhatan tribe's superiority in warfare over their neighbours).Some changes to the historical record seem to have been made to make the characters more sympathetic. In reality Smith was not commanded by King James I to mount an expedition in search of the North-West Passage, but the scriptwriters must have needed an explanation for his decision to abandon Pocahontas and return to England, leaving word for her that he was dead; in the 17th century a royal command was something you disobeyed at your peril.The film is well acted, with notable performances from Colin Farrell as Smith, Q'orianka Kilcher as Pocahontas and (in a smaller but key role) Christian Bale as Rolfe. (Remarkably, Kilcher was only 14 at the time). The relationship between these three can be described as a sort of love- triangle because, although Pocahontas does not meet Rolfe until after she has been wrongly informed that Smith is dead, she still harbours feelings for her former lover. Both the main characters are torn by inner conflicts, Smith between his love for Pocahontas and his duty towards his king and country, and Pocahontas between her love for Smith and her inability to love her husband, whom she knows to be a good and kind man. Her inner conflict becomes all the greater when she realises that Smith is still alive.As in his first two films, Malick makes effective use of music, with Mozart's Piano Concerto No. 23 taking on the role that was played by Orff's "Gassenhauer" in "Badlands" and Saint-Saëns' "Aquarium" in "Days of Heaven". Although there are some attractive shots, I did not, however, find the film as visually attractive as its predecessors, especially "Days of Heaven" which is notable for its strikingly beautiful photography throughout. In my view, however, the film's main fault is that it is overlong and, in places, too slow-moving. Malick's original 150-minute version was later cut to 135 minutes, but even this seemed too long for a story which could have been told in two hours or less. (I understand that there is also a third, 172-minute version, which has never been shown in cinemas).The film did not do well at the Academy Awards, only receiving one nomination, but several critics hailed it as a masterpiece. Some of these praised the film in quite extravagant terms. Mick LaSalle of the San Francisco Chronicle said that it "contains some of the best film- making imaginable – some of it beyond imagining" and John Patterson of the Guardian confessed to literally weeping "tears of exultation". I know how these critics felt. I felt like that on watching "Days of Heaven", but "The New World" was never able to move me in the same way. 7/10

I have no idea how this movie has attained such a high IMDb rating, it's truly terrible. Great cinematography, a decent cast, but such a stupid implausible story line stretched out way too long. If I had seen it in a cinema I would have walked out for sure. It's not just that it is historically inaccurate, it's just plain silly. If the "naturals" had wanted the British gone they could have easily killed them off in the first 30 mins. At one point there were supposed to be 38 British left, but count the people in the battle scene, they must be multiplying. And where the do the children come from?Don't waste your time.