joelshiver

The best I can figure is the first two commenters must have seen the graphic, read the title, and were very disappointed when neither Rambo nor Chuck Norris showed up. However, I rate this a very credible job of story telling. It held my interest, which is something no Rambo, Chuck Norris, or Jackie Chan movie has ever done. There was certainly a cogent plot, and, the movie being something of a mystery, the details aren't pulled together until the end. I mean, what's a mystery if the first thing you do is reveal the mystery? The acting was entirely credible, the characters well developed, and each was well defined. The shots were interesting - some innovative. The camera work worked well to frame the story-telling style. Was it "Atonement?" No. But it certainly was not a waste of my time, either. Indeed, my favorite movies are those which compel me to replay scenes in my mind long after I've seen the movie to try to figure out every nuance. And I can still recall the feelings I had when watching some of the scenes.

What a life! In 1967, at age 51, or perhaps sometime before, Proenneke decided he'd had enough of the "normal" affairs of men. We can only speculate that he must have felt that he could better fulfill whatever it is that defined what was, for him, a fulfilling life, by spending the rest of it in the wilderness.

Proenneke was a brilliant man who entered the wilderness on his own terms. He survived beautifully (where did he learn how to do all that stuff?), fulfilling his dreams, because he had two fundamental assets: the requisite skills and a remarkable intellect. He chronicled his adventure because of a depth of sensitivity and a well-placed - and warranted - self indulgence. Because this man lived, my life is richer. I beg the family to release an extended version with all of his outtakes.