Herzog's Cave of Forgotten Dreams

[blondebear]

LA Times Review

I know there are one or two Herzog fans out there...you need to see this movie.

For everyone else, I think if you have a sense of wonder, you will enjoy it despite the director's idiosyncrasies.

Werner went spelunking to one of the most amazing spots in human history and produced a 3D movie worth watching. As you would expect, there are encounters with off-the-wall characters. And of course he comes up with some off-the-wall-questions to ask them. He manages to throw in an off-the-wall reptile tangent as well, with an off-the-wall voiceover that left me scratching my head. Yep, pure Herzog.

But, without a doubt, seeing the cave art is what it's all about. Even if you're not a Herzog fan, seeing those images are worth the price of admission.

[twickster]

Saw it tonight. It was okay. And, yeah, the reptilian ending was pretty freaking bizarre.

It was too long -- the last section in the cave, with the long pans and the woo-woo music could have been cut in half.

I think my sense of wonder is just fine, and the pictures and the story are amazing, but the movie just wasn't that interesting, sorry.

(I saw it in 2-D -- what was it like in 3-D?)

[SweetLucy]

I saw it today. It was beautiful! I agree that the ending, with the crocs, was quite weird- I didn't think it really had anything to do with the rest of the movie.

[Snowboarder Bo]

I am a huge Herzog fan and am disappointed that this isn't showing in Vegas. Hopefully one of our many 3D places will get it before the summer crapfest starts, otherwise I'll have to settle for the Blu-ray in 6 months.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I saw it in the Cities last week, but it was only the 2D. Still a fascinating movie. The fact that some of the paintings were done 5000 years apart is amazing to me.

[Moonchild]

Originally Posted by twickster

Saw it tonight. It was okay. And, yeah, the reptilian ending was pretty freaking bizarre.

It was too long -- the last section in the cave, with the long pans and the woo-woo music could have been cut in half.

I think my sense of wonder is just fine, and the pictures and the story are amazing, but the movie just wasn't that interesting, sorry.

(I saw it in 2-D -- what was it like in 3-D?)

My feelings exactly, except I think you're being too kind calling the reptillian ending bizarre; I thought it was a complete stretch and intellectually amateurish tie-in.

I am very surprised it got 96% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes.

[twickster]

Thinking about it some more -- I think he got the access to film (which, yay, I'm really glad someone did) because he's, yanno, Werner Herzog, and then he had all this footage but didn't really have anything in particular to say about the topic. So this is what happens when a filmmaker, even a very interesting filmmaker, has a lot of amazing footage that he [or she] needs to make a movie out of but doesn't really have any bigger point than "hey, look at this amazing footage."

[blondebear]

The 3D aspect, while still a gimmick, served the movie well because of how the artists incorporated the contours of the cave walls in their depictions. I really got the sense that they purposely positioned the images to achieve a kind of 3D effect themselves. I imagine that 2D viewers still got the idea, but not quite so dramatically.

He probably could have cut 30 minutes, but then it would've been just a History Channel special. Then I wouldn't have had the chance to see it on the big screen in an almost empty theater (with nobody talking!). As to the alligators, I really think that Werner makes movies for himself...he has an obsession with reptiles that he's going to indulge regardless of whatever "WTF?" reactions it might create for the viewer.

[JKilez]

Originally Posted by twickster

Thinking about it some more -- I think he got the access to film (which, yay, I'm really glad someone did) because he's, yanno, Werner Herzog, and then he had all this footage but didn't really have anything in particular to say about the topic. So this is what happens when a filmmaker, even a very interesting filmmaker, has a lot of amazing footage that he [or she] needs to make a movie out of but doesn't really have any bigger point than "hey, look at this amazing footage."

I got that impression as well. He could have made a good 50 minute NOVA episode, but in producing a feature film, he comes up short. This is the only film where I have ever thought: "if you do not see it in 3D, it is not worth seeing at all." He provides minimal insight or information about the caves and the paintings. The only interesting aspect of the whole thing is the 30 minutes or so of seeing the paintings reveal themselves on the walls in 3D.

ETA: This film had an incredible amount of filler to pad its running time. I would be curious to see what actually stayed on the cutting room floor (if anything).

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by JKilez

I got that impression as well. He could have made a good 50 minute NOVA episode, but in producing a feature film, he comes up short. This is the only film where I have ever thought: "if you do not see it in 3D, it is not worth seeing at all." He provides minimal insight or information about the caves and the paintings. The only interesting aspect of the whole thing is the 30 minutes or so of seeing the paintings reveal themselves on the walls in 3D.

Thanks. I had the opportunity to see it in 2-D recently, but figured I'd wait and see it in 3-D. I've never seen a 3-D movie in my life (really, never), but this one seems like it would be worthwhile.

I'm excited. This stuff has been an avocation for me since I wrote my first term paper in 7th grade about human evolution. I even drew a picture for my cover page with a "caveman" painting on a cave wall. I wish I still had that paper, but I think it was thrown away long ago.

[Meurglys]

I really liked it, but never had the opportunity to see the 3-d version here...

[artemis]

I'd love to see this, but it's not showing here (and I doubt it ever will). Endless movie screens for the latest Hollywood 3-D action extravaganza, of, course, but not one screen for something as different as this...

[garygnu]

I just saw this last night. The movie itself is kinda weird (perfume guy and the crocs), but the images of the paintings are incredible.

Originally Posted by twickster

...
It was too long -- the last section in the cave, with the long pans and the woo-woo music could have been cut in half.
...

Of all the things that could have been cut, never should images of the actual paintings be left on the floor. The music was annoying, though.

Better filler would have been pictures of other cave paintings. The stuff with the statuettes was good.

[Marley23]

The footage of the cave was pretty amazing and it was fascinating to think about the impulse that lead those people to create that artwork thousand of years ago. The reptiles really had nothing to do with anything. I did like some of the characters Herzog came across. I would have been happy to spend more screen time with the guy who tried to smell caves or with Wulf Hein, the guy who wore the animal skins and played the bone flute.

[John Mace]

Went to see it today. It was good. Definitely worth seeing, especially if you're not familiar with early European Cave Art. I wasn't able to see it in 3-D, though, so not sure I got the optimal experience. I do agree that it's about on par with a good NOVA show, and the stuff about the alligators at the end was just superfluous-- especially the implication that the albinos were somehow the result of the nuclear reactor.

[Chefguy]

This is an excellent film, for all Herzog's weirdness at times. The stuff at the end was pretty much Herzog going mental. But the material - the discovery of the oldest known cave drawings (32,000 years) - is fascinating. The drawings themselves are incredibly executed, especially when compared to other pictographs found in caves. These look like someone really tried to depict three dimensional figures and figures in action with shading and tension. Great stuff and a very well-protected French national treasure.

Why it is in 3-D is beyond my comprehension, as it adds nothing to the film. It's the first (since the 50s, and hopefully last) 3-D movie I will ever subject myself to. Gave me a fookin' headache.

[Mahaloth]

Yep, we have a thread discussing it already.

Herzog's Cave of Forgotten Dreams

[Marley23]

Merged the threads.

[cuauhtemoc]

I saw it a couple of weeks ago. It was the first 3D movie I've ever seen, and I don't expect I'll ever go to another one. It was annoying and uncomfortable. I get what he was trying to do, but I think it was unnecessary, and would much rather have seen it as a regular movie.

The subject was fascinating, and the images were beautiful. The narration was weird, and I don't even know what to say about the crocodiles thing, which I had forgotten about until this thread because it was so strange.

[Chefguy]

He was on Jon Stewart the other night and rambling on incoherently about the whole phonebook thing.

[Zebra]

Actually he was on Stephen Colbert.

[Chefguy]

Originally Posted by Zebra

Actually he was on Stephen Colbert.

Rightrightright.

[Malthus]

Saw it the other day with my wife - like others, I think it is well worth seeing for the amazing artwork in 3-D. Some of the images could easily have been cartoons by Leonardo da Vinci - particularly the series of horse heads. Just brilliant work by some ancient artist of talent.

I was somewhat dissapointed that the actual narration was so thin and woo-ish, but then, so little is actually known for sure. The reptiles thing at the end had us both laughing.

What really startled me was that the images spanned some 5,000 years, yet were so stylistically similar. Also, in 5,000 years, you'd expect a lot more of them, if making the images was some sort of ritual thing.

[Spoke]

The thing that strikes me about the cave art is that there's no way renderings that beautiful sprung fully-formed from the head of the artist. He had to have practiced somewhere. But where? On wood? On rock? Stick drawings in the dirt?

Makes me wonder what other beautiful art he (they, I guess) may have produced in less enduring media, which didn't survive the passage of time.

As for the movie, well, it started dragging for me. The material was stretched too thin.

[Malthus]

Originally Posted by Spoke

The thing that strikes me about the cave art is that there's no way renderings that beautiful sprung fully-formed from the head of the artist. He had to have practiced somewhere. But where? On wood? On rock? Stick drawings in the dirt?

Makes me wonder what other beautiful art he (they, I guess) may have produced in less enduring media, which didn't survive the passage of time.

As for the movie, well, it started dragging for me. The material was stretched too thin.

I'm wondering if the peoples who made the art lived in skin tents like the native american tepee. The native americans often used the skins as canvass for their artwork, so perhaps did the hunter-gatherers who made these cave paintings (though oddly, the native american artwork appears much more stylized).

I can well understand the skepticism of those who first found this stuff - it is just too technically accomplished, one would think, for "primitive" art. Obviously, one would think wrongly ...

One thing I'd have liked to have known is more about how the artwork was made.

I agree that when viewed as a movie, it was too long - but, perhaps selfishly, I didn't mind having more time to view the art. I could look at that stuff for hours.

[Spoke]

Originally Posted by Malthus

I'm wondering if the peoples who made the art lived in skin tents like the native american tepee. The native americans often used the skins as canvass for their artwork, so perhaps did the hunter-gatherers who made these cave paintings...

That sounds like a reasonable possibility.

[Jamaika a jamaikaiaké]

So I saw this movie with my friend Jim a couple of months ago. We are both huge Herzog fans from way back. After the movie, I told Jim that the crocodiles were just Herzog being his crazy old self, but Jim said it must be more than that. We did agree that it was the height of hilarity and couldn't stop laughing at his final narration in the theater.

About an hour later, he had figured it out:

Throughout the movie, Herzog mentioned that the cave paintings were like a movie. The painters made paintings of animals that we no longer see in Europe and which did not live in caves at the time, but their images have lasted for tens of thousands of years. Herzog is making his own painting (the movie itself), and he has inserted into that same cave (in the sense that the scene is jarringly inserted into a movie about the cave) animals which do not belong there. This is what he means when he says that the crocodiles may someday make it to the cave. He is trying to relate to the original painters as artists.

[Exapno Mapcase]

I'm almost speechless (who, me?) that anyone can say not to see this movie in 3-D. It's like a gigantic 90-minute advertisement for why 3-D is wonderful and why it will eventually take over the world, once the bugs are ironed out. Pay no attention to the naysayers. If you can see the movie in 3-D run to do so. And I mean run, because it sure won't last very long at a movie theater. Remember, the drawings themselves take advantage of the dimensionality of the cave walls. They require true 3-D to appreciate them as they were created. The 3-D effect is essential, as well as wonderful.

Leave as soon as the crocodile sequence comes on. Really. It will hurt your brain.