Grand Canyon Adventure: River at Risk

This was a very good way to appreciate the wonders of the Grand Canyon and the Colorado River without flying out to Arizona. I thought the experience of seeing this on the IMAX screen was a particularly good use of this medium. You really felt as though you were shooting down the Colorado rapids, with the spectacular scenery of the Grand Canyon all around.

Some of the comments on this board disparaging the film must have been due to the overt political grand standing the film makers felt compelled to subject their audience to. While the cinematography was outstanding, the political/environmental commentary less so. The film makers seem to make a big deal out of blaming global warming for the drought in the western US, but that attribution seems like a stretch, especially given what happened to the native Indians thousands of years prior (vanished due to drought, long before the combustion engine, let alone Hoover Dam).

The sanctimonious environmental preaching aside, this was an excellent movie, well worth checking out at your local IMAX theater.

Grand Canyon Adventure: River at Risk (2008)

*** (out of 4)

Robert Redford narrates this "warning" flick that explains that the Colorado River might soon be a thing of the path due to several things including Global Warming. A group of people, including Robert Kennedy, Jr., travel through the Grand Canyon to show off its beauty while we learn why the river is so important. If you're worried about having another film preach at you about Global Warming then you might think twice about renting this film but thankfully the preaching isn't too bad so the visuals make the film worth seeing. I'll start with the preaching because your opinion on Global Warming and if it's real or not will probably throw in some politics that weren't really needed. The film starts off talking about water conservation, which I'm fine with but some of the comments were just a tad bit too doom and gloom for my liking. We're warned that the Colorado River might be gone forever if we don't act now but yet we never really get any evidence to back this up so I'm guessing the producers just wanted us to take their word. Yes, we're given a few photos showing how much the water has gone down over the past couple decades and we learn that Las Vegas takes up way too much water but there are things being done to help keep the water flowing yet these things really aren't mentioned. The main reason to watch this movie is for the scenery and boy do we get some terrific images. The stuff with the river is just downright beautiful and especially the scenes where they're white water rafting. Seeing the Grand Canyon so close really makes you jaw drop to its beauty and this here is reason alone to check out this 44- minute documentary.

I didn't see this in an IMAX theater, but on a 3d HDTV. In searching for material that demonstrates the technology, a shopper can be challenged unless you want four of the "Shrek" movies or horror films that are good for perhaps one viewing.

But this film is educational, beautiful and a spectacular subject for a 3D film. The soundtrack by Dave Matthews keeps any of it from being tiresome. The river rafting sequences are well-placed and the aerial shots inspiring.

The participants, Robert Redford and Robert Kennedy, Jr., add gravitas without being too heavy with the purpose of the film: Conservation of fresh water and the world-wide crisis.

This is a stunning film visually, and the camera spends a great deal of time "in love" with its subject: the American Southwest.

I admit, I was intrigued by this film simply because it is about the Grand Canyon, and I am so intensely interested in it for all that it is. Thus, going into this film, I was simply excited to see the Grand Canyon in visual detail. I came out a happy camper -- excuse the pun -- and don't regret seeing this film.

The film is, by means of its own title, a message about preserving the canyon's waters and a viewer would have to be a fool to think that this is a nature film about the details of the canyon's history, geology, botany, etc. Never in my right mind would I think it to be about any of that, simply because of the title and -- of course -- reading what the movie is about ahead of time. (Duh!)

That being said, I feel there were many positives about the film that I enjoyed. The cinematography was incredible, and the effects were top-notch. I often felt like I was right there in the canyon, itself; particularly during the river rafting sequences. I often waited for water to sprinkle out onto me (though this is no Disney park attraction!) Also, the soundtrack was excellent and very fitting for the amazing scenery.

Sure, there were many elements that I'd have to disagree with. I wouldn't have had so many narrators speak to the audience, and I would have presented more opposing views that counter-argue or give praise to what IS being done to preserve the canyon -- instead of making us all seem like evil-doers who have this centralized plot to overthrow the country's Indian tribes. Yes, I would have to say that a more positive focus should have been placed in the film -- but hey, it's not my thesis.

Thus, I liked the film for what it was and not for what it was SUPPOSED to allegedly promise us the minute we purchased our tickets. I appreciate the breathtaking views that this film provided, in just 45 minutes, that not all people may get to experience in their entire lifetimes. For that, I am thankful.

Save for some very nice white water rafting shots, this movie was a ripoff. Three different narrators preaching in pious and ominous tones saying things that weren't even self-consistent.

I went to this movie because I am going to the Grand Canyon next week and wanted to learn more about the park, the flora, fauna, the river, the geology, the anthropology, etc.. Instead, I got a 50 minutes sermon about nonsense like shower head flow restrictors. There was one convservation point that made sense: those using the water for agriculture should pay a reasonable amount for the water which will justify much more efficient irrigation methods.

I, as some other reviewers have noted, found the changing narrators confusing also.