AJ4F

This film didn't work for me because it's hard to root for willful ignorance in movies. You want characters who give themselves a fighting chance.

I had to start skimming forward after the 3rd or 4th clueless moment, and when the guy said "it was a raccoon" (who ate their food) I'd had enough. They knew something much bigger was in the vicinity from several signs. The guy had already seen a bear track and failed to tell her (lost more respect in that scene).

Before the hike, he also scolded the girlfriend for bringing bear spray, a perfectly reasonable thing to carry. Him not wanting to accept the map offered by the ranger was an early blunder, though when the fishy stranger showed up at camp he seemed to have normal wariness. Not a consistent persona.

Also, when you look up the true story this was "based on," the woman actually died. Apparently that didn't sit right for plot reasons.

This film was made before wind turbines had truly started to metastasize across global scenic regions, and could use a sequel to cover that oft-denied problem, including the noise aspect that irks so many rural people.

Water pollution aside, areas like the Alberta tar sands are trivial to most of the world in terms of scenic disruption, noise and bird & bat deaths. Just study a map of how widespread the latter is compared to a relatively condensed area in Canada's north. See the USGS wind turbine database, and especially future plans for energy sprawl that people willfully ignore.

The Princeton 2050 Net-Zero America Project shows insane acreage being covered with wind and solar (that isn't built on roofs or parking structures).

The film portrays nuclear power as mostly a threat, but in terms of industrial footprints it could be a planet-saver in the electricity sector. It's much more reliable than wind power and far more in line with the "Tread Lightly" ethos environmentalists claim to have. Provided it's done safely, as in France. Old technology like Chernobyl has stained nuclear in too many minds.

This review is not an excuse for burning more oil, just a check-up on environmental hypocrisy over land use.

In theory, I mostly agree with people like Jensen, but found Planet Of The Humans (2019/2020) more convincing with the same basic themes.

Both of the above could have focused more on the land and ocean space wind & solar power occupy, set to grow radically if full schemes are approved. There's already a major assault on what's left of scenic open space. That angle could really get the attention of environmentalists who've swept the sprawl issue under the rug. It's an environmental tragedy as bad as AGW in many ways. Look up the Net-Zero America project's 2050 projections and prepare to be stunned by the scale they seek.

The thing that sticks out (literally) with "renewables" is the extremely large physical footprint of the end product, especially noticeable with industrial wind turbines. The director even implies that landscape damage is relatively "unseen," though they show various panoramas of wind and solar projects. It's just strange that the biggest thing about them isn't highlighted.

Instead, they emphasize mining as the main resource problem, which is only true in the specific context of water pollution, etc. You don't see mines all over the place at long distances. They should have emphasized why low energy-density machines need far more space than fossil fuels, which build and support them anyhow. Mining is a must for many human endeavors, not just energy infrastructure and batteries.

Nuclear power is a critical alternative to sprawling wind & solar but they write it off as more of the same and offer no real options but primitivism. A realistic view would admit we're stuck with large economies that can't simply be dismantled. One segment made the weird claim that electricity is a luxury item, and asked why we even need it! I only skimmed the rest after that scene, having read the book and agreeing with their main points on blind growth.

This film came off as too anarchistic and non-pragmatic to sway anyone on the fence. I'd recommend the book for its more thorough analysis of technical issues. The term "Bright Green Lies" is a memorable slogan, either way.

If he'd stuck with ribbing Biden and Trump it would have been OK, but it deteriorated into race-Marxist propaganda after the George Floyd segment started. The casual treatment of ruined cities, and childish attitude that police are optional, made this film a dud.

We need a documentary that clearly lampoons both sides and doesn't play favorites. To be truly intelligent, you can't side with hooligans from any camp.

I liked the uncool, often mundane dialog vs. Glorified movie lines where people wait to say epic words only. Russell's character had a formal manner that seems to match what we perceive of those days.

The film was a stretch with the precision of every trigger pull, as if nobody moves an inch once hit. Said bullets flying under extreme duress added to the mythical JIT accuracy. But it worked well as a plot device.

The brutality of all the film's villains was almost too much to handle, but this keeps your attention, and the ending wasn't easy to predict.

I found this film well done, with unpredictable plot twists, but was mainly compelled to review it because it's listed as a "Comedy, Drama." Really?

I wouldn't even consider it a dark comedy. Much more in the classic movie vein of one error leads to another, and pick your friends wisely.

I watched this without my usual review-searching, but had an uneasy feeling that it was agenda-based. You get drawn in by what appears to be a science documentary with no mention of religion. Only toward the end did the Intelligent Design angle become clear, and even then they never mentioned a god.

They offered no explanation for how an "intelligence" would physically manifest itself, but claimed it was the only possibility.

I suspect they introduced a bogus math claim about multi-trillion-to-one odds of mutations happening during the Cambrian. When they claimed that DNA has no role in body plans, I knew I was dealing with neo-Creationism.

They misrepresented the Cambrian as the only period where truly new forms occurred, and failed to mention that the Precambrian did have precursor fossils.

The current modern explanation for the Cambrian period is a big increase in Earth's oxygen levels, which this pseudo-documentary never mentions.

I give it 4 stars because it was entertainingly done.

It's a shame this wasn't far more subtle, since problems with industrial wind power have long been excused by the media and profiteers who fancy themselves environmentalists.

I was hoping for something that didn't smack of Trump claiming these space-hogs (directly) cause cancer, giving their supporters an excuse to ignore other health risks. Conflating speculation with legitimate complaints allows defenders to skip context. Infrasound and other noise has been well documented as a problem but this film barely goes into detail.

I suppose the makers assume enough people know of the issues, so they needn't elaborate. But the plot was still excessive. Overall I can't recommend it because it goes too far and explains too little. I gave it a 5 for daring to take on the topic in some way.

High point: It's a shame that the shapely field-lead didn't get luckier.

Related trivia: The 2012 movie, "Promised Land" was originally going to be about wind power, not fracking.

Taste in movies often comes down to atmosphere and this one pulls it off with feelings of isolation and enough effective dialog to keep things moving. It thoroughly holds your attention and the ending is hard to predict; another mark of a good film.

My main nitpick would be that someone didn't fully clean the lens in a few panoramic scenes.

While this story and its characters could have been fleshed out more, that's true of many films in their restricted times. I don't understand the low ratings and suggest watching it for yourself.

I watched this based on a randomly found note about TV Guide ranking it number 98 on its "100 Greatest Episodes of All Time." That made me expect something polished, like Twilight Zone episodes, but instead I saw a clunky drama with crude special effects, becoming laughable when dispatching was needed.

Seeing a young Bruce Dern (didn't check the cast first) was surprising, and the female lead would have worked well in another context. She played into higher drama than this episode was capable of.

I could see it winning awards for its final moral concept, but it needed better production quality. I spent too much time chuckling at technical aspects and jerky scene transitions to really enjoy it. Was it meant to be a semi-comedy?

This could have been a 7 or 8 star movie with realistic dialogue, meaning at least trying to simulate normal conversations. The lack of talking seems contrived to create atmosphere. Forced minimalism, in other words.

One unexplained scene could have been a set accident merged into the plot.

In general, movie speech tends to be more stilted and measured than real life, but it becomes hard to watch when subdued to this degree. Save the silent parts for alone times where they belong.

But it's got nice scenery, as others have noted.

This kept me entertained and was generally well produced. The female detective was overplayed as standoffish, but you knew that meant romance potential at some point. If she could be unfrozen a bit.

The main thing compelling me to review this was the car stakeout scene(s). Shady workers had seen the guy before, and even fought with him, yet he sat in the same car for hours watching them from scarcely 100 feet, with a light shining on him at times! You'd think nefarious people would notice such things as they went about their business. No other cars were evident, making him even more obvious. He really didn't need binoculars at that distance.

Whoever staged those scenes either wasn't thinking, or had to wing it under some location constraint. If you can overlook that part, it's worth watching, but it kind of spoiled the otherwise decent plot.

Hollywood is often accused of being too "pro environment" but this film took the opposite turn, telling major lies about the root causes of drought in overpopulated California, including a scene where someone claims the Delta Smelt is more plentiful (it's actually facing extinction) and they only want a small percentage of the water held back for it.

The bigger picture is that the Smelt is an indicator species for overall delta water health. not just "some fish," and California has long been a semi-desert where crops should not be grown in many places. As the human population gets bigger, things just worsen (basic math). Framing environmental protection for fish as an evil cover for developers is a mindless plot device.

The decent looking lead actress is the main thing worth watching here.

Critics of this film tend to be "green growth" junkies who think they're better than fossil fuel junkies. They're also eco-traitors for wanting to obliterate scenery and wildlife with millions of wind turbines. 3/4ths of the film could have dwelled on that topic. It also should have compared nuclear (SMR and other designs) to the footprint of wind. Too many Greens claim carbon is the only footprint that matters now.

But most points were strongly made. It was good to see candor on growth ideology from a well-known documentarian. Similar films from minor producers will never get the same coverage. Overpopulation was mentioned early on and repeated several times. Vain human nature was also discussed, and I think that's what offends techno-optimists the most.

In the limited time allotted for a film, it managed to cover most of the problems with "clean energy" and the "100% renewable" lie, though it didn't really mention carbon credit trickery. I only wish it had shown the vast scale of wind farms instead of a few cameos from Lowell Mountain construction, and quick shots of built projects.

There's been predictable resistance and it was temporarily pulled by the FFA site, with their own spin on why it's unfair to greentech people. Those who say it lacks "solutions" are assuming there MUST be solutions to overshoot of carrying-capacity. Says who? Look at the actual trends. They reject anything that's not endlessly hopeful, so I can see why Moore made it free online. Critics have a few points about dated material with some interviewees changing their stances, but the fundamental problems remain.

The big revelation for me was the volume of trees counted as "renewable" biomass energy, dwarfing the relatively feeble output of wind and solar. Taking away biomass makes clean energy look paltry. I still like solar when it's done right (keep it off open space).

Gibbs and Moore should do a followup in 5 or 10 years, especially if shale fracking has peaked and there's a major "We told you so!" crisis..

This is no masterwork but it has a unique atmosphere and decent acting. It just wasn't as "fast paced" as many viewers tend to demand. Pity, it asks you to think! The introspective soundtrack also helps with that.

At least one IMDB reviewer seems to have not fully watched the film, claiming there's no action (as if it was mandatory anyhow) and calling PNW wilderness "the jungle" (wrong latitude).

Anything that celebrates mountain country, for better or worse, has my vote. Location info just says the Portland area and I'm wondering which mountains are shown. One certainly looks like Mt. Hood.

The main flaws were some logistically unexplained scenes and other minor details. Definitely worth watching if you like the basic elements.

The initial Val Kilmer tent scene was strong, and I liked the candid "Smoking Man" overpopulation & AGW clips. But the film weakened after the daughter and other visitors arrived in bickering mode with mealy-mouthed dialog and withheld information. Get to the point already!

They seemed poorly cast as educated people in such a remote area, e.g. his daughter having to be told to not do CPR on a clearly contaminated patient. Their general tendency to brush off warning signs like the polar bear "flea" bite was annoying.

I like movies where people use competence, not flakiness, as a plot driver.

This review technically covers volume 1 as well, since it's all the same story.

The first thing I noticed was how bony, mole-covered and unappealing the younger Joe is, and her older counterpart isn't much better (plus less shapely in certain places). Were these actresses chosen to not make it all about "hot babes" and more of a psychological study? That's no small point, since the plot hinges on men wanting to quickly bed these gaunt apparitions, and it didn't ring true.

The men were portrayed as lust robots with no real discretion, doing the male reputation no favors! Lack of any real discussion about VD and protected sex was also odd. I was surprised at the level of nudity without an X-rating, and watched both films on a whim after seeing them on a free streaming site.

But the intellectual narrative of Seligman worked as a good contrast to the women's sleazy deeds and manipulation of men. That's mostly what kept it interesting for me.

I advise reading "The Golden Spruce" for full details and watching this for scenery and atmosphere. You can tell the film didn't fully follow the book but it could have omitted some lingering shots for more background info. Or they could have made it 30 minutes longer.

The Internet was working well enough in 1997 and he could have published something online vs. getting that radical. Then again, physical acts tend to draw the most attention. One wonders what would happen if he managed to live and tried the talk show circuit with the original tensions subdued.

The music was grainy and intense without subtle timing, the actresses' moles were distracting and the plot was often shambolic, but I stuck with this because parts of it were compelling for various reasons. It had quirky charm, as they say. A lot of the acting was stiff but other scenes showed depth.

Parts of it were unintentionally funny, like a phone call that sounded like the "distant" party was talking through a towel. There was nothing subtle about the demons; they should have kept them unseen. The scariest part was when a character who seemed friendly turned out to be the opposite, but it wasn't a shock. They made her look dark and greasy.

But again, I stuck with it to the end and found it entertaining. I'd have given it 3 stars but for the mystery of its appeal.

As someone who can't deal with turning coincidence into conspiracy theory sci-fi, I couldn't stick with this beyond 1/3rd of the way.

Randomly skipping ahead to see where it went, I saw Elon Musk talking about a computer-simulated universe, which I find preposterous. Who built the computers and why would they bother simulating a solid world that enabled them? Endless loop there. It's also an attitude that disrespects nature and makes humans into gods.

Anyhow, for conspiracy nuts this might play well, but if you're into critical thinking and actual science, skip it. There's only hearsay evidence that thousands of people assumed Nelson Mandela had died, and the BerenstAin angle is explained by commonly seeing ....stEin in many words. The premise piles too many assumptions on top of each other to be logical.

The ending is also fairly predictable (hint: see the beginning).

I have to praise the acting and visceral impact of this film, but the theme of the lead female character being "plain" was a case of miscasting. Have you seen photos of Ms. Swank on the beach, etc? She has a bit of a strong jaw but is hardly dull to look at.

I suppose her lack of makeup was part of it, but the men who refused her were not in some league above! The interactions seemed staged in that regard. Another actress with no shape and a truly harsh face would have made it more plausible.

There's also a thread of extreme callousness throughout, but it comes off as realistic for those harsh times, given what we know of human nature.

P.S. I wonder if the film crew had to edit out wind turbines or oil rigs from vista shots? Wide open spaces uncluttered by machines are increasingly rare.

The reviews of this movie share a common mob mentality I've noticed on this and other sites, where several people are bored or have specific expectations of a movie and others tend to chime in.

Yes, this is not an action drama, and there's a lot of sitting, waiting and somber talk, but it held my full interest until the somewhat ambiguous ending. I'd see it for yourself in a setting without distractions and be your own judge.

I'm no fan of Donald Trump, but this golf course saga highlights the hypocrisy of modern environmentalism when it comes to industrial wind turbines vs. natural settings. With over 340,000 on the planet, they've become the biggest form of energy sprawl ever built, and present a growing threat to birds, bats and human well-being.

You'd think that people concerned with preserving sand dunes would also object to towering "clean energy" projects that occupy vast areas of land and ocean, necessitating many new roads for the former, and causing light pollution all night. One of the promos for this film shows Trump standing in front of a wind turbine, as if it's a symbol of environmental progress. He's a gift to those who want to portray desecrated landscapes as "beautiful" merely because they're opposed by someone with otherwise poor eco-credentials.

Do an image search for "Aberdeenshire wind farm Trump" and ask yourself how environmentalism got to this point. Scotland in particular is overrun with wind eyesores to the point that you can see them from 60% of Scottish locations, per the John Muiir Trust. When watching this film, if you claim to be an environmentalist, always keep that in mind.

This was not really an adventure film or mystery, it was a commentary on the utter ruthlessness of people, driven by the need to "keep our jobs" which is why the thylacine originally got shot into extinction. (I don't consider that a spoiler since the history is known to many viewers.)

Be it protecting blessed livestock or cutting down trees, people will just keep on pillaging nature, as long as a certain attitude remains in the gene pool.

I wished it had ended differently but it made sense in the final analysis. I just wish more people would understand this as a microcosm of global environmental destruction, not a stand-alone story.

P.S. It always made more sense to call this marsupial a wolf rather than a tiger, due to its dog-like head. A number of other animals have stripes and aren't called tigers.

As with films like Z.P.G. (1972) and Children of Men (2006), this one follows the usual individual-triumph theme while failing to address bigger taboo issues like carrying capacity and conflicts between ethnic groups that will never end.

It plays better to show the "little man" rebelling against the BIG (ostensibly evil) system without asking serious questions about who's really to blame for what.

This was well done as a film, but those who find denials of environmental and cultural problems annoying won't like it.

I'd give it a 2 for contextual honesty and an 8 for actual film-making. hence the average of 4 stars here.