I read a review of this film after watching it. It called it an extended perfume ad, pretty much agree
you are either going to love this or hate it.
loved it and watched it another two times before returning it. It was beautiful and poetic and a very true and remarkable look into Northern American Indian customs.
I can understand why some people didn't get the love connection between the main actors, but the girl playing Pocahontas was 14 years old, so it would have been illegal if Collin Farrell and her got a bit too frisky!
Watch if you love cinematography and a dreamy sequence of story telling...
The movie was okay, but I found it annoying that there wasn't much dialogue between the actors. The story was told by the actors thinking out aloud. Good without being great!
Great movie. Good range of emotions from action, to love.
Pretentious and artsy. Being artsy is not necessarily a bad thing, but in this context it definitely is. I watched as far as when Pocahontas started getting fresh with Bale's character, Presumably Rolfe but who would know? Now I don't have a short attention span and I like nothing better than a good long movie. I have the extended versions of The Lord of The Rings trilogy and love them, all 3 hours of each movie. But this was just dull and boring. It appears as if they turned up each day without any storyboard or script and just sat around waiting for something to occur.... "look a storm cloud, film it." "look a flock of birds, film that". Then after filming birds and clouds, they just said "You two just walk through that grass there for a while" and they filmed that. there was absolutely no character portrayal or affinity. You just don't care what happens to whom. My rating: One out of five injun tomahawks.
White colonisers fall for a Indian beauty who happens to be a princess. Like Malick's previous films this one tries to show how man has become divorced from nature. But the film comes across as too earnest and self-conscious. The occassional scenes where the princess frolics in the fields a hippy are like something out of a bad sixties movie.
This is the most stupid, worst movie ever made - hands down. Thank God Colin Farrell is pretty or I wouldn't have gotten as far through as I did - which was about 49 minutes in when the DVD stuffed up and refused to play any further. Even my DVD player hated this movie...
Yes it was beautiful but very disjointed and the acting patchy at best.
Possibly the worst film I have seen so far from this service. The characters were so stereotyped -- Indian males looking like something out of a 1980s rock band, females like Ursula Andress without boobs, the Westerners as alcohol-soaked, disease-ridden baddies - except, of course, the beautiful aristocrats of Olde England. Who wrote this rubbish?? Should have been kept as a photography exhibition.
Lovers of photography and beautiful images will find much to like in this film as the photography is fantastic. On a big screen it is simply magnificent. But great images on their own do not make a great movie. This film attempts to be too many things at once and fails. The "arty" editing really turned me off. There was very little dialogue at the start of the film and I wasn't even sure what was happening. The story and plot (plot? was there a plot?) just jerked along from one scene to the next and made little sense. Colin Farrelll mumbles his way through most scenes and looks like he was acting in a different movie. I believe if there was one more lover's romp in the long grass scene I would have surely thrown up. Throughout the film the characters thoughts were audible but they often didn't relate to what was on the screen at the time.
Overall a simple story dragged out to over two hours and filled out with some pretty imagery and very boring dialogue is no way to entertain today's movie audiences. I couldn't recommend this to anyone.
Cinematically good but the music lets it down. The music's beautiful but out of character. We're looking at the early 1600's and hearing Wagner and Mozart both from a much later period. It bothered me, I'm a purist. Why does the heroine always have to look like a super model?
I really wanted to see this. But someone's artistic bent got too far in front of their commercial sense. The love story of new world adventurer John Smith and his Indian princess lover (Pocahontus). Beautifully filmed but just painfully slow.
Kept waiting for the characters to jell or the story to become plausible - never happened.
Extraordinary and beautiful. This is what cinema is all about.
A beautifully made film. you may find it slow if you have a short attention span.
Not my kind of movie ...slow n boring I tryed to watch it twice n fell sleep both times
A seriously bad movie that was too long and drawn out, with not much of a story. The only thing that saved it from being pathetic was the beautiful scenery, but then again, you can get that in a 15 minute travelogue. Don't bother wasting your time and money.
Now here's a movie that's totally different. I'm still not sure whether I really enjoyed it or not. Even though it was very drawn out and a bit trippy in parts [very unusual directing] and hard to follow, it kept me intrigued. The confrontation between two entirely different cultures was quite brutal in the end, without either understanding their way of life and to the white man back in the 1600's anything out of the ordinary or slightly unusual had to be witchcraft or demonic. The scenery was breathtaking and worth watching for that very reason. Acting abilities were restricted due to the unusual script and appeared to be unconvincing in their perceived characters, although the ranting religious fanatic did very well - I could feel his spittle through the TV monitor. My curiosity regarding the outcome of the star-crossed lovers and the merging of different cultures kept me interested.