I've now seen a broad sampling of his work, and find Herzog to be an above average manabout two levels below anything bo
-
mkcbeastie — 17 years ago(October 07, 2008 11:44 AM)
Barely interesting?
Listen, I'm not going to jump down your throat for thinking that Herzog is not a great filmmaker. He's not for everyone. I am a huge fan however and dissagree with about everything in your post, which is finebut to say that the subject matter is barely interesting just confounds me. Your telling me that Dieter Dengler's life story isn't interesting? That hauling a steam ship over a mountain isn't interesting? Wild-boy Kasper Hauser not got your attention fully? Grown man living with wild bears not peaked any interest?
You must lead an amazing life jwegraham to not find much interest in any of these things. You must own a jetpack or something.
Broad sampling indeed. -
jnarimbaud — 15 years ago(March 18, 2011 02:06 PM)
His subject matter is usually human nature, or nature in general, his clarity is in saying there are no easy answers. Or there is not only one truth, or one definitive answer to some questions.
I think your will to prove how different & clever you are has seriously impeded your judgement. -
Maniac_Cock_2 — 15 years ago(March 31, 2011 06:09 PM)
"
I think his philosophy would appeal to the well-read, and probably amaze the simple-minded but would not even barely scratch the surface as visionary
"
I don't think you have any genuine opinion of your own regarding Herzog's films you seem to be reacting against the kind of people that you imagine to yourself that might watch them. Also, are you describing yourself as one of the almost mythical elite that has the rarefied capacity to recognise visionary works of true artistic genius? Amusing.
Usually when I see words like genius directed toward filmmakers I'll put it down to over enthusiastic appreciation and fandom, your comments I'll just put down to aimless and reactionary obnoxiousness with a dose of baseless arrogance thrown in for petty measure. -
tallard — 14 years ago(January 03, 2012 12:10 AM)
When he's good, I'd say he's really really really good, but when he's bad he's horribly bad. This film rates in the horribly bad category. It is the opposite of his film in Antarctica, where we actually go to know the people, and were exposed to some amazing cinematography. But this film reminded me of the Loch Ness film, absolutely no content, but a whining loser, and some buzzed out sidekicks.
Herzog can deliver, and I was really looking forward to a canopy adventure, but instead got nothing.
I've also seen a "broad sampling" of his work, and I do really enjoy most of it.
*So I've seen 4 movies/wk in theatre for a 1/4 century, call me crazy? -
gorgsharpy — 1 month ago(February 06, 2026 12:17 AM)
He always delivers. That place where matter and myth meet. Psychics and physics.
Here it's the face in the stone, the water curtain to Lynch's lodge or whatever he is hiding from us that we have to imagine and make big ourselves.
And of course his hated rooster … the sign of all he resents as being sloth. Take it from there yourself.