I love this movie so much

A different way of telling a story

n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

Richard Attenborough's Grey Owl never received a theatrical release in the United States. The film went straight to video, a monumental flop considering Attenborough's previous successes. All the right elements were in place with wonderful cinematography, beautiful scenery, and a fantastic story to tell. The problem with the film is that ultimately the story just doesn't ring true, and the viewer may be disappointed to find out the romanticized tale Attenborough has fashioned did not exist, for the most part, in real life. Pierce Brosnan was a curious choice to play Grey Owl, but he does well for the most part, despite the limitations of the screenplay. The story is still interesting enough to maintain attention, but the film's revelation (which the screenplay builds up to throughout the film) is a downer to be sure. However, the film still has a message for all of us, despite its inability to sustain the genuineness of its story. There is irony in the film's overemphasis of its ethnic focus in relation to the message touted, received, and then later dismissed by a shortsighted public. Attenborough has a more sympathetic ear for Grey Owl, which explains the incredibly distorted romantic picture the film paints, but he fails to realize the viewer does not necessarily require romanticized window dressing to appreciate the importance of Grey Owl's message. **1/2 of 4 stars.

We really enjoyed Grey Owl: a simple tale well told in classic Attenborough fashion: a little over-romanticized, with archetypes, humor, and a stress of dignity and values.Beautifully shot and told at a nice pace this is the true story of Archie, an Englishman who turned native Indian, and went to live and trap in Canada.Solid performances from all makes this film with a message easy viewing.Two of the stars of the film are without a doubt the cutest we have ever seen - and the message is a good one with its ecoleanings. It must have been great to meet or read Grey Owl in the 1930s, a unique character and this is a fitting film tribute.

James Bond in the wilderness? Well, that's the way it looks: Pierce Brosnan is after all best known as Bond in "Tommorrow Never Dies" (1997) and "Golden Eye" (1995) - both shot prior to this release. Frankly, the film's two leads are both badly miscast, with Brosnan turning in the marginally more convincing performance, and with Annie Galipeau (as Pony, Grey Owl's love interest) having to battle with carelessly-written dialogue.The two aunts, on the other hand are perfect. But the film is not about aunts. It is about the wilds of the Canadian wilderness. And while the photography may be pretty, there is no grit to the harsh reality of living in the wilds. Annie Galipeau, as Pony, just fails to be convincing, unfortunately, because I really wanted to believe in her. She was a relatively inexperienced twenty-year-old on this film, and it could have worked, but Richard Attenborough was maybe just not tough enough on her. He makes her look vulnerable, which of course she is.. but in the wrong sort of way.But one thing for sure, she appears picture-perfect throughout. But mascara and eyebrow thickener in the wilderness? It just doesn't fit, especially as she only ever seems to walk forest trials with Bond (sorry, Grey Owl), and use photo-ops for kissing close-ups.I've lived with forest people in the Pacific North West, and they simply don't look this pretty and stay so sweet while fighting for survival. Which brings me to another point: the film fails to evoke the period in which it is set: the 1930s. I put the blame here largely on a lack-lustre script that is keen on preaching at the expense of dramatic arc, plot points and those small details that can evoke period through action.William Nicholson wrote the screenplay, and his latest offering, "Elizabeth, the Golden Age" opened three days ago, so I do hope there is an improvement.Yes, I've read the comments others have posted, but I'm not convinced. A lot of potential, but mishandled and even maybe ill-conceived. If it had had a religious film, it would have been panned, but because it preaches environmentalism, the film remains somewhat above criticism, since it is "politically correct." Sorry, for all that, I don't buy it. Amen.

Okay, I'll admit the casting in the film is REALLY strange--part of this is due to the plot, but I still had a bit of trouble believing Pierce Brosnan playing this lead (though he really did a pretty good job).It's based on a true story of an Englishman who went to live with the Canadian Indians in the early 20th century. He claimed to be a mixed blood Indian. He was, in fact, so successful and well thought of that people came from all over to hear his lectures and be taken on his wilderness treks--even though he was not a mixed blood Indian and all his knowledge was from books or faked! The movie centers on this and what occurred when the hoax was uncovered.The acting and settings were great and I really liked the film (once I suspended disbelief about Brosnan). It didn't get widespread distribution--probably because it was pretty cerebral--not a Bond film nor a romance--just a really odd film about a remarkable man.