Film

Movie theaters, reviews and showtimes in New York, plus articles, trailers and more

Into the Wild (2007)

Director: Sean Penn

Critics' rating

Average user rating

25 reviews

Movie review

From Time Out New York

In the 1996 nonfiction mega-seller that inspired this bombastic blast of Hollywood hokum (or its title, anyway), author Jon Krakauer expressed profound equivocation. He simultaneously related to the book’s doomed antihero, Chris McCandless, for hightailing it into the Alaska backcountry in April 1992 to “live off the land,” and was repelled by the combination of hubris and rotten luck that led to the 24-year-old’s death by starvation just a few months later. There’s no such schism in Sean Penn’s scattershot blockbuster adaptation, which is less a movie version of Krakauer’s tale than a radically divergent interpretation of McCandless’s life. Fair enough, but Penn so succumbs to the lad’s woo-woo nature fetishization that his film practically becomes an act of deification.

Penn (who also wrote the fact-fudging screenplay) establishes his version’s shortcomings from the get-go: A sweeping opening helicopter shot of the Alaskan interior exhibits little feel for the outdoors, while a wailing Eddie Vedder alt ballad shamelessly telegraphs the anticipated emotional response. It’s the people, though, who really get shortchanged here. Inveterate hams like Vince Vaughn and Catherine Keener nosh the terrain in underdirected, sloppily improvisational supporting roles (though, surprisingly, William Hurt downplays McCandless’s nemesis dad nicely), while Hirsch’s valiant turn as Chris—he’s in virtually every scene—is hobbled by lugubrious symbolic baggage. Penn’s entitled to his reading of McCandless’s story, of course, but envisioning it as a Stations of the Cross with a backpack is bizarre and disrespectful.

Author: Mark Holcomb 2007-09-18 20:41:13

Time Out New York Issue 625: September 20–26, 2007

Bookmark

User reviews of this film

Paul - Switzerland said...

Posted on Apr 05 2008 16:36 I found it very difficult to collect my emotions as this film came to an end. I am in my mid-forties and as a military veteran have considerable experience of tragedy and as an outdoors enthusiast of survival in the wilderness. My guess is that one's reaction to this film will be relative to one's experience, insight and perceptiveness. Life is a comedy for those who think, a tragedy for those who feel. As a stand alone (I haven't read the book, nor do I have any knowledge of the background to this film - but does that matter?) this film is the most profound and thought provoking I have seen - ever. Perhaps that is its purpose - I will now read the book and research the background.

Report as inappropriate
scott said...

Posted on Jan 11 2008 10:51 This was the most boring film I've seen in the last twelve months. Long sequence of landscape shots after long sequence of landscape shots, the idolisation of a selfish, foolish guy, the voiceovers, the pretension... geez. I don't know why the people who enjoyed it are so touchy about it being criticised, although it does strike me as a film that it might be considered hip to say you like, even if you don't. It's a pretty pretentious flick.

Report as inappropriate
tarheel66 said...

Posted on Dec 23 2007 07:57 I agree with another post here that the time out reviewer used (mis)used a thesaurus more than their own mind and soul to review this film. Wonderful film, with a character who was both flawed and appealing. The hubris that the character had doesn't make the film itself flawed. And, while the film does indulge in a bit of Christ-like imagery, like all great art, it is open to be approached on different levels.
I personally found that it sticks with me well, and was not unchallenging to the main character, or to the audience who identifiies with him. Catherine Keener's character was wonderfully drawn and acted, and Hal Holbrook should win the supporting actor oscar.
As a 41 year old gen-x-er who shared similar experiences at that time (90-92), I found the film to be available as a powerful ode to the wanderlust, energy and sometimes misguided defiance of one's 20s. and a song for that generation's soul, energy and disappointments.

Report as inappropriate
no need to know said...

Posted on Dec 13 2007 14:50 I LOVED dis film n i cried at da ent i am only 13 bt i was emotionally moved i thought the film would b borin bt it was da best film ever so happy dat i saw it fanks 2 ma dad who dragged i love it an1 who critisices dis are waste

Report as inappropriate
Agathena said...

Posted on Dec 02 2007 14:08 McCandless refuses to take a map into the wild because it's a prop, a human construct. But he takes a gun. I live in a province still blessed with wilderness so the dishonesty in the movie annoyed me. I thought Penn should have consulted with more Alaska Rangers, wilderness experts if this movie was really a search for the truth. There was a hand-crank cable car 6 miles from the bus so that McCandless could have crossed the river and saved his life and the valuable lessons he had learned. But he was too misguided to take a map. AND reviews are comparing him with Bill McKibbon, John Muir and other real heroes. It's very annoying. As a mother, I found it a very annoying film with some beautiful scenery. Too bad the viewers had to spend so much time inside the bus.

Report as inappropriate
adrianc said...

Posted on Nov 30 2007 00:05 i really enjoyed the film, i thought the slow pace enjoyable and I found the disperate characters along the way very engaging. The reviewer is too polarised and narrow minded

Report as inappropriate
kk said...

Posted on Nov 10 2007 17:23 This film sure is heart-felt but unfortunately, it's also brain-dead. It's essentially the story of a spoilt rich American
college graduate who decides to ditch the materialistic life of his dysfunctional parents and go on a quest of self-discovery across the American wilderness. Sadly, he discovers nothing but confirms his banal half-baked prejudices against 'society', the evils of Capitalism, and the beauty of nature (often in meaningful slow motion). What we discover, about half an hour into the film, is that we are stuck in the company of a dull, earnest young man in love with his own adolescent resentments. There is no character development until the last five minutes, when it finally dawns on him that
other human beings matter too. The dialogue is trite beyond endurance ('If you really want something, just go and get it'), the mushy-brained preachiness of the character deeply patronising to the viewer, and I felt really sorry for his parents who were portrayed as grotesque monsters, The sister's supposedly profound voiceover musings on Chris' journey were even more annoying than Chris' own wisdoms, which he generously dished out to everyone he met.
I could feel my brain cells dying by the millions.

Report as inappropriate
Julius said...

Posted on Oct 26 2007 21:46 I know my comment might be kind of late, but I saw this movie which is one more hollywood homage to self-destructiveness. Whoever kills himself with drugs or does something as stupid as what's told in this story, becomes a hero.
What a load of garbage....

Report as inappropriate
Cooper said...

Posted on Oct 26 2007 11:45 I couldn't stand this movie. Never mind the story--it's a great story. But Sean Penn's movie was absolutely boring It iis the kind of film that both spoon-feeds the audience and slams them over the head with base level emotional tricks like Eddie Vedder or elementary level dialog. Technically the movie was flawed from start with inconsistencies and distracting details. But worse, it was repetitive, repetitive, repetitive. If I had to watch one more scene of Chris McCandless standing in some picture postcard setting or walking down the road, I was going to scream. I've never been so bored watching a movie. I'm amazed that this film has received the high praise it has, which makes me think it's time for a clean sweep of our current batch of movie critics. This film would've been better if it had been a one-hour After School Special complete with commercials. At least then there would've been something interesting to watch.

Report as inappropriate
Marty Howley said...

Posted on Oct 25 2007 23:53 How can the perceptions of the average moviegoer and film critic be so divergent. Saw this ponderous, prententious ffilm on a Wednesday as part of an audience of approx 10 people. Three walked out before the half and EVERYONE felt secure enough to take a trip to the refreshments counter to escape the opporessive self-righteousness of this sappy exercise in self-indulgence. And the soundtrack -- good music selected only as a vehicle to manipulate the emotions of the viewer. The book was a marvelous read. The movie was a monstrous distortion of Krakauer's work.

Report as inappropriate
Mick said...

Posted on Oct 18 2007 12:08 On its own, as a work of fiction, the movie is great. The story the movie is based on is not, however, a work of fiction and as such it fails to do justice to John Krakauer's novel which presented Chris McCandless's story in such a way as to not lionize him or make his story seem heroic. I guess in McCandless' eyes the trek was a Homeric endevour, however, so perhaps the movie's perspective is meant to portray that perspective.

Report as inappropriate
mystic said...

Posted on Oct 11 2007 00:24 Time Out has screwed up yet again, It did it with "Moliere", which was a masterpiece but also got one star. Holbrooke WILL be nominated for an Oscar. The film is breathtaking, disturbing, provocative, harrowing, moving and inspiring, and has an exquisite music score to carry you aloft. and soar. The slow pace even allows one to experience the flawed hero's mind. Time out, you have zero credibility and now I read the readers' reviews not the critics. It's time for your medication.

Report as inappropriate
alaskangrl said...

Posted on Oct 04 2007 20:36 This movie is a MUST see!!!! Sprint to the theater... Clearly, the reviewer is smoking crack.

Report as inappropriate
Paul Morgan said...

Posted on Oct 02 2007 16:11 Incredibly great movie. Incredibly bad review. I'm guessing the only thing Mark Holcomb owns, aside from a lack of insight - and a home saturated with mirrors - is a very thick, improperly used thesaurus.

Report as inappropriate
Tylea said...

Posted on Oct 02 2007 01:45 Just saw the movie and thought it was very good. I disagree that Vince and Catherine hammed it up. Actually the supporting roles were very well done and fleshed out Hirsch's characterization of McCandless. In particular, Catherine Keener and Brian Dreiner as hippies were spot on. I live in Berkeley and shudder at half-baked film depictions of old hippies whom I see every day. But Penn captured realistically the sense of community.I didn't see deification of McCandless at all; rather the movie showed how hardheaded, wrongheaded and even, in a sense, how cold he was, especially in the scene where he parted from the old guy. McCandless was driven by an inner demon with a holy ferocity.

Report as inappropriate