MovieChat Forums > African Cats (2011) Discussion > Horrible

Horrible

posted 13 years ago by zheffner
20 replies | jump to latest

Went to see this for earth day. love getting stoned and watching animal documentaries. so i thought gee what would be better then to get lit and see one on the big screen. first mistake...disney, horrible choice to make a nature documentary. number two, they put a story to random animalistic events. like it was planned or scripted which just made it seem ridiculous. three i know its called african cats, but there is more then a cheetah and a lion in the Savannah. and the thing that makes usual animal docs interesting is they show the cool events that they had the chance to film and move onto the next cool event. this felt like i was watching a film of my own cat living its life. how boring. last, can we PLEASE all agree that the only people that are qualified to narrate for these things are stern british people. thats why the BBC has the best documentaries anywhere because they sound serious and interesting. but when you make a ridiculous choice of Samuel L. Jackson narrating you get this ridiculous thing, sounded like he wrote it himself. me and my friends chuckled through the whole thing...and it wasn't the pot.

turned back to look at the audience half way through, 2 in 3 people were asleep. take it from a serious nature Doc. lover, forget this movie. save your money and blow your mind to Planet Earth on Animal planet.

[–] Bubbleraft-Roo 13 years ago

I agree.

Images were beautiful. Cheetahs don't move their heads at all when they run which is soooo cool.

But I'd advise people to put their favorite music onto an mp3 player and pop their headphones in when the movie starts. I recommend the Conan the Barbarian Soundtrack.

Everybody likes the Shen.

[–] zheffner 13 years ago

yes i will admit some of it was filmed really well, although i could see the same thing on youtube. plus, idk if it was but me and my friends swear their were some scene that looked CGI.

[–] Bubbleraft-Roo 13 years ago

I wouldn't put it past anyone to do that. Which stuff d'you figure was CGI?

Everybody likes the Shen.

[–] zheffner 13 years ago

it was just 2 scenes of the cheetahs walking. cant remember which exactly. it just seemed to sharp, bright and animated. but then again it could have just been the lighting and frame rate they were filming in. but we it was weird enough that me and my friends all knew what we were talking about. so idk.

[–] QueenFanUSA 13 years ago

I dunno...coulda been the dope.

[–] zheffner 13 years ago

lol, maybe
i doubt it though.

[–] acb132 13 years ago

yeah because a tiny crappy compressed youtube video really matches seeing this wonderful stuff on a giant screen

fantastic cinematography, really brought me back to being there

[–] zheffner 13 years ago

sure the cinematography was good. but ive seen hundreds more with better. and the rest was horrible. not a adequate nature documentary at all.

[–] acb132 13 years ago

wonderful experience on the giant screen

and you are not giving the cinematography enough credit

and i have no clue what you are talking about how some of it looked CGI! are you sure that stuff you lit up wasn't laced with something?

and if you need to light up to enjoy nature shows maybe you shouldn't even be commenting....

they did show a little bit of footage of servals in addition to cheetahs and lions, why not more? the tiny african cats are ridiculously hard to find, some biologists working there have see a small cat once every half decade to decade.

[–] zheffner 13 years ago

just because its on the big screen doesnt make it the god of animal documentaries. the cinemotagraphy was good. some good stuff. but certainly not the best. and yeah a few did look like cgi. never said it actually was, its just what it looked like. and what the hell does lighting up have anything to do with anything. this is not the god of nature documentaries and i like to enjoy myself when i watch documentaries so if you so conceded then you can go hell.

my answer to this is the BBC and planet earth. they make this movie look like it was funded by 5 year olds. i like to watch smart documentaries. not childish crap.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] zheffner 13 years ago

Dont like to see the food chain in action? their is no food chain action in this documentary. you see the side of a dead zebra for 2 seconds. and this should never be missed construed as a circle of life film. lion king taught more of the circle of life then this documentary. it was childish without being directed towards children at all. i mean what kid would enjoy any nature documentary? if i was little when i saw this my attention would have been gone the first ten minutes. plus every kid i saw in the theater couldent keep still because all they want to see is the cats, after that to a child what is the point. this is why i know disney is not cut out for nature docs. the chimpanzee one is going to be just as lame. just turn on animal planet, discovery channel or national geographic channel. way more intelligent, beautiful and realistic. true circle of life moments.

and the oprah ones suck too, why do i want to listen to a woman who couldent handle 5 minutes out in nature talk about it. stick with BBC people, they do it right. have the best cinematography, get the best shots, show the best stuff, leave nothing to the imagination and they have the best narrators who actually are the ones out filming the stuff. not hiding in a sound room.

[–] acb132 13 years ago

what kid would enjoy a nature documentary??? how about MANY? i loved them when I was a little kid and i know plenty of others who did too. just because you handle sitting still without being high at any age for more than ten minutes....

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] anthony-007 12 years ago

Horrible:

Went to see this for earth day. love getting stoned and watching animal documentaries. so i thought gee what would be better then to get lit and see one on the big screen. first mistake...disney, horrible choice to make a nature documentary. number two, they put a story to random animalistic events. like it was planned or scripted which just made it seem ridiculous. three i know its called african cats, but there is more then a cheetah and a lion in the Savannah. and the thing that makes usual animal docs interesting is they show the cool events that they had the chance to film and move onto the next cool event. this felt like i was watching a film of my own cat living its life. how boring. last, can we PLEASE all agree that the only people that are qualified to narrate for these things are stern british people. thats why the BBC has the best documentaries anywhere because they sound serious and interesting. but when you make a ridiculous choice of Samuel L. Jackson narrating you get this ridiculous thing, sounded like he wrote it himself. me and my friends chuckled through the whole thing...and it wasn't the pot.

turned back to look at the audience half way through, 2 in 3 people were asleep. take it from a serious nature Doc. lover, forget this movie. save your money and blow your mind to Planet Earth on Animal planet.

[–] 3sha214 12 years ago

It is not horrible, I love it. This is Disney here and I think they wanted the kids to appreciate it more and they focus more about mother's love (cats) not about how they kill to survive. If you want killing then watch National Geographic. I love this and reminds me of Big Cats Diary which I miss watching by the way.

I watched the bluray with commentaries, the main photographer is Simon King one of the guys in Big Cats Diary also. I cried for Layla and how brave she was. This shows how protective and nurturing Lionesses and Cheetahs are with their cubs.

By the way, that scene with the cheetahs, it is not CGI, watch Big Cats Diary and you'll see. They are so clear that they probably look CGI.

It is hard not to admire big cats like the cheetahs, and the lions. They didn't show others because I don't think the time is really enough. Was this shot for 2 yrs? I admire how everyone directors, photographers and camera men to have the patience to actually just wait and just be a mere spectators.

[–] saramacg09 12 years ago

they put a story to random animalistic events. like it was planned or scripted which just made it seem ridiculous.

What kind of documentaries have you watched? Any good documentary film maker tries to tell a story with their work, otherwise it is just a series of seemingly disjoint video clips. I have yet to see a documentary that doesn't try to take some sort of angle or try to tell some sort of story. In this case, it is the story of two mothers trying to raise their young.

three i know its called african cats, but there is more then a cheetah and a lion in the Savannah.

No kidding. However, this documentary was focusing on one lioness and her cub, and one cheetah and her cubs. It is no different than when a documentary focuses primarily on elephants. What would you have preferred? A documentary entitled "A general overview of all the species that live in Africa"...?

last, can we PLEASE all agree that the only people that are qualified to narrate for these things are stern british people

Absolutely not. Morgan Freeman has the greatest voice for narrations. Also, BBC's documentaries may be visually captivating, but they tend to be rather dry.

[–] Flabulous 10 years ago

David Attenborough is and will always be the untouchable king of the narrator jungle