Future Classics.

David Gordon Green's second film is just about as touching, and heartwrenchingly real portraits of young love you'll ever find on film.

Terrence Malick's fourth film in thirty-two years is 'The New World.' It's based upon the John Smith/Pocahontas tales, but this is no live action Disney production. Malick wrote the script back in the 70's and finally puts it on film here in 2005(6).

Pocahontas is played by newcomer Q'orianka Kilcher, in a wonderful turn as Pochahontas. Colin Farrell, plays John Smith, doing probably his strong work. And of no big surprise, Christian Bale also does some of his best work here playing the future husband of Pocahontas (or Rebbecca as the English rename her). None of the actors here really have a lot of dialog to work with, so Malick has them express and convey their emotions through body language. It works to magnificently. Some people clearly were bored with the movie due to this reason, but this isn't your average film. It reaches out and wants to make you feel like you are really there. And the fact that there is little dialog, outside of Malick's trademark voice overs, makes this possible. You don't have overly talky situations in real life, and often the most meaningful gestures are expressed without words. Nothing is said here for the purpose of filler.

Just like every other Malick film, 'The New World' is chalk full of symbolism. Just as every word spoken on screen is full of meaning, every image Malick inserts in his film means something. Most movies take the easy way out and explain these things for you in the end. Not Malick. He relies on his imagery to tell his hidden philosophical points. Emmanuel Lubezki takes the reins on the camera and does a beautiful job. With each film Malick has used a different cinematographer, but his visual style is always evident. Crew members have often spoke of Malick's almost preternatural understanding of cinematography. The look of his films are his own. He establishes dogmas of cinematography: for The New World, only steadicam or handheld shots were to be used, and the cameraman was encouraged to move on his own to find the rhythm of the shot, among other things.

This movie is not for everyone. Malick's movies, all four of them, move
very slowly. But they do so with all deliberate speed. Malick has a way of lulling you into almost a hypnosis with his flowing camera movements and editing style. It makes you feel closer to the real story, and it does make his movies feel longer than they actually are, in that rarely positive way. They draw you in so that you are there, in that world. If you have it in you to allow yourself to be taken in, the payoff to be found is deeply rewarding.

The plot to 'The New World' is easy enough. Everyone will get the basic
pattern here. Understanding the big picture, however, is a whole other
story. Malick, more-so than many other directors, has a way of getting
under your feet and over your head. This is very frustrating for many people who are expecting a classic narrative style.

For those with the willingness to allow Malick to take you in and let the film run over you, then 'The New World' will be unforgettable.

I first saw Terrence Malick's take on James Jones Novel, The Thin Red Line, the year that it came out. I didn't know what to make of it. Perhaps it was my age, I was younger then, and could not understand it. It wasn't full of battle scenes and gore like Saving Private Ryan. I got bored.

Since then I've seen the film numerous times; what made me go back and give it another shot I do not know. What I do know, is that The Thin Red Line is the film that turned me onto film. Over the years since the films release I've fell into love with it. In my mind, there are few movies of the 90s that match its greatness. The Thin Red line is frankly a modern masterpiece.

Like most masterpieces, it is bound to be misunderstood. I can think of very few other films that are filled with such depth and beauty. Like Malick's other films, what you see isn't necessarily what you get. There is an abundance of underlying messages and meaning in the film, making it very difficult to grasp. Also, the films style is strange, having an almost total lack of narrative, making it, as Martin Scorcese put it, an endless picture. The names and voice overs are difficult to distinguish and often indifferent to what is happening on screen, but it's all done for a reason. War has faces and names dropped on you out of nowhere with recruits and the chaotic nature of it all; often people disappear amid the bullets and the carnage, and new faces replace them.

It has been said that the movie has no main character. This could be true, but there are multiple main characters, similar to the book. Witt, Tall, Welsh, Staros, Bell - all main characters. Perhaps the best way to describe it is to call the whole company, C company, the main character.

The film follows the company through Guadalcanal, dropping into the lives of various characters here and there, all trying to deal with the war in their own way. It is difficult to get into a descriptive plot outline simply because the film is almost plot less. Those who've read the book will recognize the machinations, but the film was more inspired by the novel, rather than a film version of it. It would be virtually impossible to film the book as it is.

War is chaos, and the film clearly displays this, and recognizes that war does not ennoble men, it "turns them into dogs. Poisons the Soul." The film focuses more on how those men that are thrust into it try to cope with the dehumanization, all looking for inner peace. The Thin Red Line is filled with beautiful images and beautiful poetry; starkly contrasting the horror of reality. The film also contains one of the most powerful scenes I have ever seen. The scene involves the company charging through the woods looking to attack a Japanse bivouac. They walk through the fog carpeted forest as you hear only the whiz of bullets passing by from seemingly out of nowhere. When they finally reach the site of the attack, the camera moves frantically, chasing soldiers here and there, from the viewpoint of both American and Japanese soldiers. The music in this scene is quite possibly the key to why it becomes so powerful. Another scene, a death scene, haunts me every time i see it.

The Thin Red Line evokes a sense of tranquility in the middle of chaos, and begs questions that may possibly never be answered, but need to be asked nonetheless. The late Gene Siskel called the film on its release "the finest contemporary war film." The film is still misunderstood years later, but its popularity is growing and its finally becoming regarded as a masterpiece. Martin Scorcese has called this the second best film of the 90s- it should be noted that the film he chose as number 1, was made in the 80s, it just never gained popularity in North America until the 90s.

Unlike films like Saving Private Ryan, who's repeat viewings offer nothing new, you can watch The Thin Red Line time after time after time, and see a different film every time.

This film touched me personally. It showed me that film was more than entertainment - it not only is legitimate are, but the ultimate medium for it.

One of the best movies I've seen this year. Just a fantastic film, a very darkly funny, yet very touching film about disfunction and dedication, and ends the only way it could, or should.