Microcosmos : Le Peuple de l'herbe

The film shows some amazing pictures, the one thing it is missing is some narration that would help people understand the things they see. At least, naming the insects would be nice. Also without narration many very interesting events portrayed are likely to be either missed or misunderstood (eg a very funny shot of orchid attracting a drone by looking like a young bee queen, and many other things too).

It was undeniably beautiful. Take a meadow in France that appears to consist of nothing but grass, and show us what wonders there are to be seen if you lower your eyes and look at the very very small...

Insects (and arachnids and teensy molluscs) offer a possible advantage over, say, lions; in that with insects, cinematography really comes into its own. If you want to show a lion catching an antelope then you have to point your camera at a likely spot and wait and wait and wait until the event occurs; and when it does, chances are that the lighting is at its worst, the background is less than ideal and you would have got a better view from somewhere else. The world of the tiny gives the fellow with the camera much more control, much more room to manoeuvre. It's much easier to hit upon the perfect angle from which to show the spider eating the grasshopper. I don't know if this is true; but it's one possible explanation for why the shots are so gorgeous, and why we feel we were given the best possible seats.

But if you find yourself asking, "What the hell was going on?" - well, you shouldn't have to ask. You should have been told. One of the reasons (I hope) for watching what is after all a documentary, is to find out WHAT GOES ON in an ordinary meadow; and if the producer thought that a human voice would destroy the sibylline loveliness of it all, that's just too bad - film-making isn't all pretty pictures. If you don't want David Attenborough doing the talking (although frankly, I don't see why you wouldn't), then find someone else or some other style of narration; or, perhaps, take more care to arrange the images so that the images themselves tell the story. I'm sure it could have been done. As it was I got the impression that we were shown ants getting hit by raindrops until they thought we must be tired of ants - and then we were shown something else.

I don't want to carp too much. The makers could well retort that books, rather than films, are ideally suited to explanation, and that they had simply made a film for us to watch AFTER we had read the relevant books. Perhaps they have a point. At any rate, we may remain in the dark, but we have a wonderful view.

The stunning images are not what make it a masterpiece, rather it is its poetry which conveys the sheer beauty of life.

This movie is a religious experience.

Microcosmos is a magnificent journey, an experience to explore a world full of details and wonder. After watching this "documentary" you would never see another insect in the same way as before.

If you read some comments complaining about the little-to-non-existent narration is because they fail to understand this "documentary" is not about getting the facts straight. It is an experience and as such it is to be lived not to be told.

Sit on the grass, observe, and paint the daughter of the dragonfly.

The technology of the human race has finally let us truly see the marvels of what lies beneath our feet every day. I don't know how a documentary on insects could ever succeed with out some guy's deep soothing voice come in to tell us what the heck was going on but this movie proved that it can defiantly be done. Micro Cosmos actually make me feel small for not realizing what happens in the real world of insects. If you thought "A Bugs Life" was cool in terms of the technical aspects, after watching this, you will know where they got they're ideas from. I have no interest in bugs, but if youre ready to be enlightened; this will do it for you.