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?

dhash77 I was really surprised that I enjoyed this documentary so much. The information about our nation's abundance of damns, and the negative environmental impact they have had on the landscape and the indigenous wildlife was shocking to hear and see. Perhaps in the world of environmentalists this is common knowledge, but for a person not entrenched in the cause, like me, it was a compelling argument to learn more about the subject and to get more involved. The cinematography is a highlight of the film, and the information is delivered in a manner that kept me interested the whole time. This is definitely a film worth checking out.

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.

JustCuriosity Damnation was very well-received in its world premiere at Austin's SXSW Film Festival. The film is a thoughtful, well-supported argument to significantly reduce the thousands of damns in the U.S. This issue has been almost invisible as part of the wider environmental debate and certainly deserves more discussion. I was surprised that this movement has begun to have some success despite being quite low-profile in much of the media. Some parts of the film seemed a little overly idealistic in terms of the argument that preservation of salmon runs and fish species could justify the elimination valuable hydroelectric resources. The overall argument about preserving natural beauty also seemed a little unrealistic in terms of adaptation to modernity. Still the filmmakers made a solid case that some damns had outlived their usefulness. The historical part of the film was very interesting since it is an economic transformation that is rarely discussed. The interviews and the photography were really well-done and they managed to throw in some interesting characters and some humor. The film had far more depth than the other film about river preservation, Yakona, which also ran at SXSW. While similar politically, the two films were dramatically different in terms of style. Yakona was a wordless meditation without any real substance. . Damnation was well-filmed very informative and detailed and, in the end, makes a rational case rather than emotional one for its point-of-view. I hope the film gets some distribution, because it is an issue that deserves more serious political discussion.