CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

PiraBit if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Joanna Mccarty Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

A.N. This film contains mostly unscripted views of a father/son photography team facing adverse weather, glimpsing wildlife and pausing for a brief visit with Richard Proenneke. Not much in the way of intros to what's going on, but there's no actual plot and it works well for what it is. You're just suddenly there in Alaska. Float planes have a big role. Ambient background music sets the mood for the scenery. Swerer was/is himself a musician.Worth noting is that Swerer's voice was confused by many for Proenneke's in the original "Alone in the Wilderness" film. He was reading excerpts from the book "One Man's Wilderness..." and it was unclear that he was speaking for Proenneke in the first person.In this film, you hear Proenneke's actual voice when younger and at age 75, where he's looking worn but still able to walk good distances. He's a very low-key individual, unlike the forthright-sounding Swerer. The voice itself gives insight on why he chose to live like that. It's also mentioned that he nearly lost his eyesight in a work accident, which echoes John Muir's motive to escape civilization.If you saw the first film, be sure to see this one for context. Much is left unspoken but it shows better views of the full landscape and is relaxing to watch.