The seven "greatest places" creates an interesting concept. However, the number makes it impossible for such a brief film to do justice to any of these great places. Imaxes should dwell on one location, to really maximize its beauty -- as in "Everest" or "Africa: the Serengeti" or "Niagara." Skip it - it loses the thrilling capabilities of the Imax format.
3 Reviews
Not so great, or even good
TheLittleSongbird19 September 2022
This low rating and negative review is being given with a very heavy heart and regret, am somebody who has always aimed to be encouraging and give her thoughts with no intended bias. Absolutely love documentaries, have done so for years, and this subject is something that has always been fascinating to me. Also have seen many IMAX documentary short films and have been impressed by a vast majority of them, with the only really common issue being the too short length.
1998's 'The Greatest Places' just could have been so much better. Of all the IMAX short film documentaries, it is for me down there with the worst with major reservations with the narration (both in delivery and especially writing, length and pace being major issues and even the visuals uncharacteristically varied. Is 'The Greatest Places' irredeemable? Absolutely not. Is it great? Not at all for me, would go as far to say that it isn't even good regrettably.
It does have redeeming merits. The scenery is absolutely breathtaking and it is enhanced by the wonderful photography that is so fluid and colourful.
Loved the animals and plants too, amazing to look at and rich in personality.
However, so much could have been much better. Absolutely agree with the narration being a massive issue to the point that it single handedly reduces 'The Greatest Places' from being potentially good to mixed feelings level on its own. The writing is far too saccharine and corny and while Avery Brooks tries his best the delivery is also too sappy and over dramatic. Beautiful voice but no subtlety in delivery.
What also significantly brings it down is the very choppy editing and less than polished effects, which do cheapen the look. There are though other issues too. 'The Greatest Places' does try to cram in far too much, so there is an over stuffed feel. It also is too short, with 20 minutes longer it would have been a lot less rushed.
Summing up, a disappointment. 3/10.
1998's 'The Greatest Places' just could have been so much better. Of all the IMAX short film documentaries, it is for me down there with the worst with major reservations with the narration (both in delivery and especially writing, length and pace being major issues and even the visuals uncharacteristically varied. Is 'The Greatest Places' irredeemable? Absolutely not. Is it great? Not at all for me, would go as far to say that it isn't even good regrettably.
It does have redeeming merits. The scenery is absolutely breathtaking and it is enhanced by the wonderful photography that is so fluid and colourful.
Loved the animals and plants too, amazing to look at and rich in personality.
However, so much could have been much better. Absolutely agree with the narration being a massive issue to the point that it single handedly reduces 'The Greatest Places' from being potentially good to mixed feelings level on its own. The writing is far too saccharine and corny and while Avery Brooks tries his best the delivery is also too sappy and over dramatic. Beautiful voice but no subtlety in delivery.
What also significantly brings it down is the very choppy editing and less than polished effects, which do cheapen the look. There are though other issues too. 'The Greatest Places' does try to cram in far too much, so there is an over stuffed feel. It also is too short, with 20 minutes longer it would have been a lot less rushed.
Summing up, a disappointment. 3/10.
Hardly a Great IMAX Movie ... Disappointing
thailand22 December 1999
Greatest Places has a syrupy sweet, cloying narrative. (On several occasions I covered my ears in order to endure it.) I give this movie a 2. If Avery Brooks only could have had laryngitis that day, this movie could have earned a 5 instead (without *any* narrative at all). The low grade of the movie isn't Brooks' fault per se, although he does a superlative job of drawing out each sappy line, with his skilled melodic baritone. Afterwards, watching the credits, I cursed the writer.
Moving on to the cinematography: Some of the images were, as your would expect, breathtaking. I was especially enamored of Madagascar and Namib. But the enormous power of IMAX imagery was blown to bits with choppy editing and constant (dozens) of abrupt cuts (every 15 to 20 seconds) from panoramic landscapes to adorably cute animals or close-up flora & fauna.
Uggghh! Very frustrating! Every time the imagery sweeps over you with power and grandeur, it's crudely jerked away and replaced with something to make a 3rd grader go "awww ... isn't that cute". The frequent changes in visual scale -- from viewing 15,000 feet of landscape to face-shots of cute animals -- are enough to give you vertigo, or at least a headache.
The movie had a valid concept. But together with a horrible writer, an outstanding saccharine execution of a juvenile narrative, and "gotta get a little of every shot in here" editing, the entire movie was lost. I wouldn't watch it again if you paid me. (But I would gladly order some 16 x 20 color prints from the movie's imagery.) What a shame.
Moving on to the cinematography: Some of the images were, as your would expect, breathtaking. I was especially enamored of Madagascar and Namib. But the enormous power of IMAX imagery was blown to bits with choppy editing and constant (dozens) of abrupt cuts (every 15 to 20 seconds) from panoramic landscapes to adorably cute animals or close-up flora & fauna.
Uggghh! Very frustrating! Every time the imagery sweeps over you with power and grandeur, it's crudely jerked away and replaced with something to make a 3rd grader go "awww ... isn't that cute". The frequent changes in visual scale -- from viewing 15,000 feet of landscape to face-shots of cute animals -- are enough to give you vertigo, or at least a headache.
The movie had a valid concept. But together with a horrible writer, an outstanding saccharine execution of a juvenile narrative, and "gotta get a little of every shot in here" editing, the entire movie was lost. I wouldn't watch it again if you paid me. (But I would gladly order some 16 x 20 color prints from the movie's imagery.) What a shame.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
