Technology moves too quick these days. Inevitably if you choose to use technology to show technology it will become outdated very quickly. It ends up as a cliche. And I get tired of the hearing about the future as doomsday anyway.
If you are one of those searching for a story, characters, or even a happy endng or some stuff like that... it will be better if you spend your time watching another movie (It will be really painful to watch, almost impossible).
But, if you are interested in visuals, a deep message behind each scene, and experiences beyond your perception... I guess you will be alright.
Cool as a visual experience, even though the effects are super dated. More interesting soundtrack than Powaqqatsi's, very suited for the more morose pace of this one. It's not as captivating as the previous chapters.
What a cast! Wowzers! Nah. There is no such thing as a cast in a Reggio film. There is cinematography and there is music. That's about it. This film suffers both from being too late and too early. Too late to form a cohesive trilogy with the first two 'Qatsi' films; Fricke's 'Baraka' (1992) does so by showing the burning oil fields of Kuwait. Too early to elaborate on the permanent state of war of the past 15 years.
The laughably archaic visual effects might be intentional. Reggio hates the modern world's obsession with material progress & might have wanted this film to be viewed in retrospect to demonstrate how trivial and frivolous our addiction to novelty is. But this would be too subtle. The effects far too gaudy and superficial to be a real artistic achievement or critical statement. Really terribly atrociously bad.
The star system fails me now because I could really go anywhere between 1 and 5. Does it matter that what the Qatsi films show are not how the world is? No because they offer a conceptualisation of how we might otherwise understand the world; here from the vantage point of the matrix life is binary and all image can be manipulated. The digital is dated and ugly which kind of undermines the point, but adds trippiness
Really interesting visuals. It's flaw is a lack of interesting ideas. It goes for quantity instead of quality, saying a little about almost everything, rather than lots about a few things. Ultimately its reduced to being a cool way of saying things we already know and seeing things we've seen before.