AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

Titreenp SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?

Livestonth I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

Roy Hart If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

evanston_dad This creaky "docu-drama" is pretty difficult to enjoy from a 21st Century vantage point.It chronicles the efforts of one family in what in 1927 was still Siam to survive in the wilds of the jungle. But the film demonizes the natural world, and particularly the animals who live in it, to the point that the family seems to be winning some sort of moral victory every time they kill a tiger or tame an elephant. It also doesn't help that most of the film is obviously staged, undermining the seriousness of this family's struggle with the jungle. All these years later, with mankind raping and exploiting the natural world out of existence, it's nearly impossible not to find this film distasteful.And I really could have done without the twee storyline (and especially the "comic relief" title cards) involving the family's pet monkey."Chang" was nominated in the one-time only category of Unique and Artistic Picture at the very first Academy Awards, but it lost, thank God, to F.W. Murnau's exquisite "Sunrise." That the two films were even nominated in the same category is hard to believe.Grade: C

Michael_Elliott Chang (1927) *** 1/2 (out of 4)A rather remarkable and at times eye-opening documentary about a family living in the deep jungles of Northern Siam. The film follows their daily lives and shows us how they work, live, play and eventually hunt game. CHANG has been called a documentary but I do wonder how much "story" actually went on and it sure seems that a lot of the footage was probably shot and prepared in such a way that the filmmakers could tell a more dramatic story. That's certainly not a negative thing or a strike against the movie because there's no question this film is rather incredible considering when it was made and some of the footage that they gathered. I'm sure some people might be bothered by some of the animals that are killed but the way I look at it is that the people living in these villages were fighting for their lives so it's understandable that they'd kill the creatures that were trying to kill them. The filmmakers are quite respectful as we never see any of the actual deaths on screen so those sensitive to the material won't find anything graphic. I think the animal footage is some of the most amazing that I've seen. When you think of various animal footage from this era you think of poorly done stock footage but there were several times during the film that I was stumped as to how they got the shots that they did. The tiger hunt sequence is certainly one of the highlights of the film as it appears several times that the camera is right in the path of the beast. Another memorable moment comes at the end when the chang (elephants) stampede. There are countless animals on display from bears to snakes to anteaters to tigers and of course the elephants. Seeing these creatures in their natural homes was quite a bit of fun and it was also a reminder of how dangerous these things could be. The most interesting thing about this film is seeing how certain people lived during this time. Going into these jungles just makes one grateful that they weren't born there and at the same time you have to watch this and wonder if you could have done the things the people in these villages did.

netwallah A loosely strung together series of episodes in the forests of Siam, where most of the time seems to be spent hunting big animals, trapping them, and running from them. Over half a dozen leopards and tigers get killed, and a lot of other animals are trapped, a bear cub and a mongoose and a pangolin and a lizard, and kept in cages, presumably for the wild animal trade. Only the cayman seems to be hunted for food. A baby elephant falls into a pit, and the mother comes and knocks down the house on stilts, and trouble with elephants ensues, until the villagers corral them, and the movie ends with the father of the happy little family (man, woman, boy, girl, and a very attractive long-armed monkey of some sort) live happily ever after with their own trained elephant added to the menagerie. Some of the wild animal photography is very striking, and the monkeys are very cute, but it seems the Thai villagers do a lot of killing, which makes one suspect this was brought on by the presence of the film crew, the big-game hunting craze, and the zoo business. Animal lovers will not like a lot of what goes on.

zetes Previously Merian C. Cooper and Ernest B. Schoedsack made Grass, a very great silent documentary inspired by the success of Nanook of the North (which they hadn't even seen when they were flying off to the Middle East to film the long migration of a group of nomads). Grass was a real documentary, with little staging. Nanook, however, had a lot of staging, and has suffered a ton of criticism since its first release because of it. No matter how clearly Nanook is staged, Cooper's and Schoedsack's Chang is a hundred times more staged. I don't care. It's an amazing film. Call it a fictionalized documentary, or a fudged one. Whatever. Chang is an awesome movie. The story is gripping, the cinematography is great, and the filmmaking in general is wonderful. I'm sitting there wondering how the hell they got these shots of tigers and elephants and stuff. I'm thinking Carl Denham, the risk-taking filmmaker from their own later King Kong. This whole movie seems like a preparation for King Kong. A couple of the scenes are repeated there. This may be preparation, but it is as amazing in its own way. 10/10.