Yash Wade
Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.
Catherina
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.
Scarlet
The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.
Jordan Staub
Excellent documentary. From the beginning of this film, the history and juxtaposition of MAN vs. Nature is present. The cinematography and the use if imagery by the videographer is impeccable and bold. The narration is wonderful and the interviews are actually very well done and humorous. The non-censored and comical yet serious nature of the narration really gives the film the added push, thanks to Ben Knight, director.The film generates awareness and also captures these brilliant yet detrimental accomplishments of man; and goes to show the areas affected by this phenomenon. The takeaway message is: "take away the dams that are not useful". Find me someone that disagree's with this statement and i'll show you an individual that has not seen this film.
tonyloans-tx
I'm a bit of a hybrid Republican. I grew up in California and was a child in the late 1960's and early 70's which gave me a strong appreciation for nature. Later, the business influence of my family and where I ended up career-wise had me understand how business operates. However, it never impacted my love of nature and its wonders. This documentary exposed a lot of critical information we don't normally receive from the mainstream (no pun intended) media. I had no idea we have so many dams in the USA! To see that some were made close to each other along the same waterway was shocking! As I saw the map of their placement all that ran through my mind was, "What where the planners thinking?!" I see this as a business opportunity for more windmills to be placed in desert areas where little life exists and minimal environmental impact is realized. Then, every single dam that does not include flood control and fish passages (https://www.nwcouncil.org/history/FishPassage) in its operations can be on the chopping block for closure and tear down. As a nation, we went way too far. I challenge the documentary team to post a list of dams they find acceptable that maintain human life still function well with nature. From my perception, not all dams are bad but after watching this, I know now that many should have never been built. For those who care about this subject, there are several times when you will get emotional. When you will understand the beauty and ecology of an area that ended up devastated after a dams was built, it can hit you in the gut. You will see native cultures that were damaged by the negative impact on the land which they so passionately love and shared with nature. The emotional loss is like losing a loved one. I'm grateful this documentary was made and showed a passion for sharing information without being pushy about it. If you end up 50% as passionate as the documentary team, you will be able to make a difference.
spanatko
the movie is great in how it's made, and in how it looks, I give you guys credit for that. But there is so much that Ben "your narrator" simply does not know, or does not speak about to his audience. Let me give you an example - showing wind-turbines and promoting these as an alternative to hydro-power might seem like a great idea - but in fact it is not, and it ruins the movie for any educated viewer. Here's why. Energy production is not that simple, you can not simply take one energy source out from the grid, and simply replace it with another one, as these operate in layers and each layer relies on the preceding layer of technology - both historically & because of the physics involved. Energy produced by kinetic energy from flowing water is the basis for all other energy producing technology - it is a crucial technology for all other technologies involved in energy production within the grid. First of all hydro-power provides the fastest energy source in the grid - we are talking about minutes required to start/stop a turbine, produce and deliver hydro-power generated energy anywhere within the grid when required and necessary. And you cannot do this using any other energy source. If there is an outage somewhere in the grid - hydro-power turbines are started and energy is delivered. And this happens a lot, everywhere due to various reasons. Take nuclear, coal, gas, syngas anything - the cycles required for start, generation, and delivery are weeks, in some cases even months. Because hydro-power is the fastest in the grid, it balances all disparities in the grid, and the whole system /other technology/ totally relies on it all the time. Hydro-power is fast and reliable, because you can anticipate, calculate and manage the energy production by altering the water flow. You can not do that with wind, nor solar energy - as you cannot simply control winds, or sunshine. That is the reason why hydro-power is used worldwide as a basis for all green energy - it's because it provides the balance between manageable energy sources, and the one's that are totally adhoc such as wind or solar. Long story short - thanks to hydro-power generation units in the grid, the grid has become flexible enough to being able to welcome unreliable energy producing technology. There would not be any wind or solar energy without hydro-power, as the only technology fast and reliable enough to step in when imbalances occur within the grid - is hydro-power. If hydro-power is taken out of the grid, the other energy sources lose the flexibility to employ wind & solar systems. Factories and businesses around the world are buying & paying for stable & reliable energy - not for unreliable power when the sun is shining or when the wind is blowing. Hydro-power compensates for all grid imbalances worldwide, and this is why I think that Ben needs to do a bit more research. I totally agree with the concept of proposing hydro-electric dams and power-plants with regard to the environment, passageways for fish etc. and this is happening, and I am grateful for that & totally welcome it. But revolting against the big energy producing machine targeting the least harmful technology in use today is preposterous. The next big problem I have with this film is that, however unsettling it might be to see how dams invade the ecosystem, it is still less damaging than nuclear, coal, gas, even solar or any other energy producing technology widely used today. For the interested viewer I strongly advise on studying the physics behind energy production, learning about all the technologies in use today. There is a reason why all areas regarded as ecologic hot-spots of this earth employ and rely solely and fully on hydro-power. I'm sorry for Ben but he is literally trying to bite his only allies in the world of energy production. It almost seems to me as if he is on a payroll of big coal & big nuclear. Question everything right?
karenr
DamNation really surprised me - very fascinating, very compelling, and I didn't go in already converted. An excellent film - hats off to Travis Rummel and Ben Knight and also to Yvon Chouinard. The film is a real eye-opener. It avoids didactic, but makes you feel the power and importance of rivers to America. Who knew we have 70,000 dams in the US, most doing nothing useful at this point? I want everyone to see this film - it is really good, really exciting and really important. It is hard to make fish truly sympathetic, they are cold, scaly and expressionless. But this film has me convinced that anything able to swim 900 miles deserve our support, and the removal of a few dams doing nothing useful at this point.
