April 14, 2010

Arid Lands

Title: Arid Lands
Year: 2007
Length: 98 minutes
Directors: Grant Aaker & Josh Wallaert
Writer: Josh Wallaert
Music: non-original music (I think?)

My reaction
Synopsis: documentary about the recent ecological and economic history of the Tri-Cities area of Eastern Washington
How I saw it: on video (at a community screening), yesterday
Concept: Terrible. I could not care less about anything in this movie.
Story: Indifferent. The film sort of rambles and doesn't have a clear point or perspective.
Characters: Good.
Dialog: Good.
Pacing: Bad. I was bored out of my mind, but that's partly because I don't care.
Cinematography: Bad.
Special effects/design: Terrible.
Acting: n/a
Music: Indifferent.
Subjective Rating: 3/10 (Bad). If I were originally from the area, the issues the film presents might seem important. But probably not. Incidentally, the Tri-Cities we see in the movie are not the Tri-Cities I've seen. The film presents a dichotomy between lush, green, "reclaimed" land and beautifully scenic scrub steppe. I've only visited the place a couple times, but my impression was more of a giant parking lot.
Objective Rating: 1.4/4 (Bad).


  1. why would you call the concept "terrible" if you admittedly couldn't care less? If you were really keen on the subject and it still disappointed you, that would make sense.

    This post says more about you than the film, which is gorgeous to look at and a good case study about the effects of both nuclear reactors on the surrounding landscape, and flawed US energy policy in general.

  2. The purpose of this blog is to record my personal reactions to movies, so yes, it is going to be about me. I'm not a critic, and I'm not a writer, so my gut reactions to movies are really all I've got to share. That's especially true when it comes to something like judging weather the subject of a documentary is interesting or not; either you think it's interesting or you don't.