April 03, 2007
Commentary
I've largely fallen out of the habit of listening to DVD commentary tracks, but it's not like I have a firm stance about it. Exceptions happen both for films that I really enjoyed, as well as those on the opposite spectrum--the latter as a form of cinematic rubbernecking.
Incident at Loch Ness has one of the best commentary tracks I've heard, mostly because it's just another added layer of joke onto the film in general. It's possible generic-your enjoyment of it may be tied to how well you know Herzog's work in general, but I think it works regardless--all you really need to know is that Herzog is one of those directors who is really thought highly of by the kind of film buffs who refer to directors as auteurs. (Which shouldn't be a reason against knowing his work, because he's made great flicks regardless--and in a recursive sort of meta-commentary, his involvement in Loch Ness shows why he's not those people.)
That it was directed and penned by Zak Penn, whose every other piece of work would seem to plant him firmly in the shit side of the Hollywood axis (the man wrote the screenplay for "Behind Enemy Lines," which is one of those movies that strong-position atheists would be perfectly justified in citing as evidence for the non-existence of a loving God, or American-flavor evangelical fundamentalists as strong evidence for the existence and active interference in human affairs by Satan, either way) only adds to the funny.
It's also the sort of film that I initially rated highly, than on further reflection days after rate even more highly. That's rare, I usually go the other direction.
posted by Gar @ 12:20 PM
Incident at Loch Ness has one of the best commentary tracks I've heard, mostly because it's just another added layer of joke onto the film in general. It's possible generic-your enjoyment of it may be tied to how well you know Herzog's work in general, but I think it works regardless--all you really need to know is that Herzog is one of those directors who is really thought highly of by the kind of film buffs who refer to directors as auteurs. (Which shouldn't be a reason against knowing his work, because he's made great flicks regardless--and in a recursive sort of meta-commentary, his involvement in Loch Ness shows why he's not those people.)
That it was directed and penned by Zak Penn, whose every other piece of work would seem to plant him firmly in the shit side of the Hollywood axis (the man wrote the screenplay for "Behind Enemy Lines," which is one of those movies that strong-position atheists would be perfectly justified in citing as evidence for the non-existence of a loving God, or American-flavor evangelical fundamentalists as strong evidence for the existence and active interference in human affairs by Satan, either way) only adds to the funny.
It's also the sort of film that I initially rated highly, than on further reflection days after rate even more highly. That's rare, I usually go the other direction.
posted by Gar @ 12:20 PM
<< Home
