I was very disappointed by this film, it seemed like the director got to Antartica and had to find a movie to make, but he never found it. Sure there was great scenery but we've seen these before on television. The commentary by the narrator was too sarcastic for me. This movie went nowhere.
shareno. you are wrong.
shareObviously you are an impatient person who cannot appreciate simplicity in a film. If you think this movie went nowhere, then that is just sad my friend.
share[deleted]
The problem with many folks here is that they are quite immature and cannot stand the fact that adults can disagree about things.
I am not an impatient person, but I did find this film to be unfocused and a bit disappointing. I am happy for you if you did not, but we don't all have to agree with you any more than you have to agree with me.
Something about this discussion is sad, but it's not the fact that some of us enjoyed the film less than you did. It's the growing up that you obviously have left to do.
i'll fix what i said. because the person who posted after me left just left empty, uncalled-for insults. I completely agree with the reasons why you were disappointed by this film. However, I didn't pick up on a sarcastic tone from Herzog (who I'm pretty sure was the narrator) albeit his references to yoga and march of the penguins. I took his observations as rooted in a deep love for nature and I felt that it came across as very serious and sincere.
This movie was horribly edited (I felt like the movie ended in the middle) and, you are right that it "went nowhere." i loved that, doesn't that parallel a huge message in this movie? that scientists are sure the human race is going to die out... essentially "go nowhere." The pessimism and message of this film is visceral and self-derived from Herzog's jumble of a film about a life experience. If you were expecting a discovery channel documentary or a well-constructed narrative with some catharsis at the end, I'm glad you were disappointed because I don't think that is what this film is meant to be about.
People who missed the point of this film and this director need to rent another Herzog film: "Grizzly Man."
Herzog's editing is purposeful and intentional.
I agree with everything in this post.
share The fact that this post exists and that viewers are arguing about the meaning of the film, is proof that Herzog is not driving the point home. The Delivery of the message needs to be more clear.
My understanding of this film and Grizzly Man, is that Herzog is clearly Counter Enlightenment. This stance is a traditional German stance ever since Goethe and the German Romantics. Lots of people are getting the message that this film is pro-enlightenment.
I feel in many of his films he is clearly making fun of the modern world and the inherit problems with the sciences. Viewers are not in agreement over this, and that is why his films are lacking. It is not the fault of the audience, since even critics are speaking about the beautiful scenery which is counter to the point of the film.
Roman
Personally I think Herzog's ideology is crystal clear, and I wholeheartedly agree with your view that he is anti-enlightenment. Werner Herzog is uncompromising in his pursuit of 'ecstatic truth', and I hope he stays that way.
share"The fact that this post exists and that viewers are arguing about the meaning of the film, is proof that Herzog is not driving the point home. The Delivery of the message needs to be more clear."
No. It's proof that this is not everybody's type of film. By this reasoning, a film should appeal to everybody, and everybody should understand said film, for it to be good...
The fact that this post exists and that viewers are arguing about the meaning of the film, is proof that Herzog is not driving the point home. The Delivery of the message needs to be more clear.
I like the supposed 'rawness' whether intentional or not. It opened up senses in my mind, that I thought wouldn't exist, I mean how many of you thought penguins were just animals and not individuals!!!
however, the human story was what fascinated me the most, the richness of the stories of all the people in one place together. Having said that, I preferred Grizzly Man.
It was a Discovery Channel documentary. They produced it.
share"A Rambling movie without direction in need of editing"?
This is somebody who entirely missed the point of the film. Utterly.
Oh come on, this was not your standard movie with a hoaky plot and car crashes and the love scene and all that, it was a stream of consciousness almost meditation on nature and where it is going ... with or without us.
I thought it was great, and I was glad to see it in the theater. I will see it on DVD as well.
The "narrator" was Werner baby himself.
i agree the film was overlong and rambling; unlike 'Grizzly Man', there was no focus, just a tacked on monologue about how there isn't much left to discover, and how the world is coming to an end. 'Grizzly Man' functioned as both an interesting examination of a bizarre life that was doomed to end in tragedy, and as a cautionary tale about nature, and man's--perhaps overly confident--relationship to it.
i also don't believe the glory and majesty, along with the danger, of this 'place' was constrasted anywhere near as effectively as it could have been, and the music was generally overdone, trying too hard to give the impression of a quasi-religious experience.
i also agree the film had at least 2-3 'natural' endings.
good, but it could have been better.
SHUT THE *beep* UP. No one watching this film expected car crashes. I'm so sick of comments like yours.
shareI was also disappointed. I guess after Ebert's glowing review, I was expecting something else than what I saw.
Some of it was very fascinating for sure, but I just never felt any emotion or connection to any of it.
After hearing about how many collorful characters were at the base, I would have liked to have heard from more than just seven or eight of them.
no direction is not a valid criticism of this film. the doc is about antarctica...a vast location that would not benefit from being simplified down to only one aspect of it. and the film is called "encounters at the end of the world"..."encounters" not an encounter. the friggin' title is telling you that this will be a very episodic film. episodic can rambling or not have a concrete overall direction. you either appreciate that in a film or you don't. i can and do and i guess the original poster doesn't.
shareGood comment. It was a meandering travelogue. It didn't accomplish anything that hasn't already been done before...and done better. It revealed more about the narrator than the subject matter. <yawn>
sharelook I'm so cool I can "yawn" at the end of my sentence proving how intelligent I am and how this film bored me. =P
share>> look I'm so cool I can "yawn" at the end of my sentence proving how intelligent I am and how this film bored me. <<
You think that's cool? LOL!
Apparently, your fragile ego can't handle someone expressing an opinion that differs from yours.
How embarrassing for you.
Great insight, glad you showed up. (inthelittleroom)
Why is that if someone doesn't like a Herzog film they're charged with being too dim to understand it? I love his films, this one simply didn't grab me. Don't give me the intellectual strangling, I understood it. I just simply didn't like it. I felt like he was close to making something really special and he did something he rarely does. He missed.
But that's what I think. You maybe think it's genius. Great, I'm glad you did. But I was bored.
"$1 for eternal happiness? I'd be happier with the dollar."
I could not agree more. My wife fell asleep amongst the repetitious images and sound track. I finally turned it off. It did not quite make it up to mediocre in my opinion.
shareI wonder whether the OP has seen many of Herzog's films. (Yes, I realize at least one other poster who didn't like the film _has_ seen other Herzog films.)
I don't know...I just sort of smiled at the idea that anyone would call a Herzog film "meandering" and "rambling without direction," and not realize how odd a thing that is to say about something Herzog did. It'd be a little like criticizing Spielberg for doing things that he nearly always does and that are present in Spielberg films that are well-liked by his fans.
On the other hand, I'm not saying that a guy's typical way of doing things might not work well in one situation and not in another, or that what is appealing in the right quantity might become unlikable in excess.
I also wonder whether, for those who found the images "repetitious," there might have been a difference between the way the images hit them on the small screen versus how they held interest in the theater.