Michael Fargo I didn't see this in an IMAX theater, but on a 3d HDTV. In searching for material that demonstrates the technology, a shopper can be challenged unless you want four of the "Shrek" movies or horror films that are good for perhaps one viewing.But this film is educational, beautiful and a spectacular subject for a 3D film. The soundtrack by Dave Matthews keeps any of it from being tiresome. The river rafting sequences are well-placed and the aerial shots inspiring.The participants, Robert Redford and Robert Kennedy, Jr., add gravitas without being too heavy with the purpose of the film: Conservation of fresh water and the world-wide crisis.This is a stunning film visually, and the camera spends a great deal of time "in love" with its subject: the American Southwest.

drystyx This should have been a great experience, even if it was a bit preachy.However, some moron used the noise of one of the least talented people ever in the music business, Dave Matthews, for almost the entire audio. His nerve racking chalkboard on fingernails not only ruins any possible enjoyment, but distracts from whatever else is shown or said.The visuals were working well. Most of us got this tape to see the video, and learn more about the area. True, Redford and gang made this into more of a propaganda film, but the propaganda is based on what I believe to be good Science, simply because it is Science without an agenda. No one gets rich by exposing global warming. Instead, the only corporate interests are in drowning out talk of global warming.But this really shouldn't be about preaching politics. That is a bad format, and politics in a spectacle should be much more subtle. That said, the formula for the film probably could have been more informative than political.The ideas were well founded, and structured in a decent way. This narrative could have been watchable, except for one thing. The grinding of Matthews and his band. It is IMPOSSIBLE for any one not on severe drugs to listen to this more than a few minutes, and we want to hear the narration. Matthews must really hate Redford to ruin his narration with this garbage.This should be remade, with a better band. Of course there is always the chance that the narration will be equally ruined by some of the other no talent big name bands out there.

J_Trex This was a very good way to appreciate the wonders of the Grand Canyon and the Colorado River without flying out to Arizona. I thought the experience of seeing this on the IMAX screen was a particularly good use of this medium. You really felt as though you were shooting down the Colorado rapids, with the spectacular scenery of the Grand Canyon all around.Some of the comments on this board disparaging the film must have been due to the overt political grand standing the film makers felt compelled to subject their audience to. While the cinematography was outstanding, the political/environmental commentary less so. The film makers seem to make a big deal out of blaming global warming for the drought in the western US, but that attribution seems like a stretch, especially given what happened to the native Indians thousands of years prior (vanished due to drought, long before the combustion engine, let alone Hoover Dam).The sanctimonious environmental preaching aside, this was an excellent movie, well worth checking out at your local IMAX theater.

patrick I admit, I was intrigued by this film simply because it is about the Grand Canyon, and I am so intensely interested in it for all that it is. Thus, going into this film, I was simply excited to see the Grand Canyon in visual detail. I came out a happy camper -- excuse the pun -- and don't regret seeing this film.The film is, by means of its own title, a message about preserving the canyon's waters and a viewer would have to be a fool to think that this is a nature film about the details of the canyon's history, geology, botany, etc. Never in my right mind would I think it to be about any of that, simply because of the title and -- of course -- reading what the movie is about ahead of time. (Duh!) That being said, I feel there were many positives about the film that I enjoyed. The cinematography was incredible, and the effects were top-notch. I often felt like I was right there in the canyon, itself; particularly during the river rafting sequences. I often waited for water to sprinkle out onto me (though this is no Disney park attraction!) Also, the soundtrack was excellent and very fitting for the amazing scenery.Sure, there were many elements that I'd have to disagree with. I wouldn't have had so many narrators speak to the audience, and I would have presented more opposing views that counter-argue or give praise to what IS being done to preserve the canyon -- instead of making us all seem like evil-doers who have this centralized plot to overthrow the country's Indian tribes. Yes, I would have to say that a more positive focus should have been placed in the film -- but hey, it's not my thesis.Thus, I liked the film for what it was and not for what it was SUPPOSED to allegedly promise us the minute we purchased our tickets. I appreciate the breathtaking views that this film provided, in just 45 minutes, that not all people may get to experience in their entire lifetimes. For that, I am thankful.