The movie consists of random video -- very long boring, mostly slow motion, shots of people, buildings, waves, random numbers, maps, equations, all completely without meaning or significance. Then various visual filters and distortion effects are applied. The result might be a training demo video for the features of some video editor. The DVD might best be enjoyed by turning off the video and just letting the Glass minimalism wash over you.Why did they make this movie? Because the technology make it easy to do. Was someone just being too arty and obscure? Perhaps the makers felt no need to tell any sort of story, just to show a series of images that were supposed to be interesting in themselves, but were not. Visual distortion effects are not very interesting in themselves any more. This movie would have made more sense if it came out in 1968 along with 2001.

NAQOYQATSI is entirely devoid of any semblance of aesthetic sense. This motley mass of transformed and spliced-together images is at best anti-aesthetic. But that would be to give too much credit to Reggio, who appears to think that his use of garish color, fuzzy images, kitsch pans of wax figures, and all manner of other random and often objectively ugly nonsense is somehow artistic. I actually found this somewhat embarrassing to watch.It makes me sad when sequels are such miserable flops, as tends to happen when the first in the series is truly brilliant and the creators are showered with gobs of money by greedy film execs who market the "imminent masterpiece" like mad in the hopes that the early turn-out will suffice to pay back the debt and more. Look at THE MATRIX and what artistic failures the two follow-ups were. And then there's always GODFATHER 3, which absolutely should not exist and verges on an aesthetic crime.Here, with NAQOYQATSI, what is especially sad is that it has by now become abundantly clear that the genius of KOYAANISQATSI inhered entirely in the contributions to the work made by Ron Fricke. Without Fricke, but with another collaborator, Powaqqatsi was just clumsy, droningly repetitive, and mediocre. But the third in the series, directed and written by Reggio with no help from his friends (aside from the pile of brightly colored capsules an image of which is presented to the viewer at about minute 38!), shows how truly impoverished is his aesthetic vision. This is just very sad, a big hodge-podge of nothingness. Could it have been so difficult to impart the tiniest bit of aesthetic coherence to this mess? I guess that's the problem. If Reggio actually thought that this was a good film when he pronounced it finished, then there's nothing more to be said.I give the film 2 stars only for the score, which was somewhat better than the muzak that accompanied (albeit appropriately) the "save the third world" infomercial that was Powaqqatsi. Mr. Reggio, with all due respect, you made a huge mistake. You should have let yourself be a one-hit wonder, instead of revealing to everyone the truth: that the magnificence of your first film derived from a source altogether distinct from you. Oh, and one last thing: I hate to break the news to you, but we all got the part about binary code in about thirty seconds. All the rest was serious overkill. This "film" is a prime example of the Emperor's New Clothes: there's really nothing there at all!

Dear reader, Watch out! This movie is not really a movie, though its creators have the impertinence to call it so. If you have not been warned about its content, here it goes: the film is simply a sequence of imagines which flow continually and are trying to transmit a certain feeling, concept. They could be called, therefore, symbols. The images are accompanied by a soundtrack, it's purpose being to create atmosphere as well. However, the images the director has chosen can only transmit feelings to an American audience, because they are, in an overwhelming number, American icons. Though the film is intended to express the idea of "civilized warfare", it fails to do so not only because of the general chaos, but also because it is far too long and tiresome, and I strongly felt that a lot of the scenes have not to do with "war", in whichever conception. To conclude, I was greatly disappointed by a documentary which is not a documentary, a movie which is not a movie, a "something" whose only strong point is the extraordinary use of technology in image processing.

What a let down. Koyaanisqatsi was brilliant, Powaqatsi was quite good, Naqoyqatsi is the same thing all over again, without the beauty and profundity.It's not that I don't sympathise with the meaning behind the film, but bombarding me with images of dollar signs and corporate logos is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The majority of those who view this movie do not need to be chaperoned around these issues.The film feels structureless and jumps back and forth from one point to the next and then back again. I suppose you could argue that this reflects the chaotic nature of the films subject matter, but to me, that's just making excuses for a poorly conceived narrative.The computer graphics don't work well at all. They often feel like an excuse to show of a few fancy special effects and already look dated (Max Headroom came to mind on several oc...oc...oc...occasions.). They just don't have the beauty of a 'real' image.To add insult to injury, the film has been stretched out from a 4:3 aspect ratio to 16:9 so all of the people appear distorted. This is because the stock footage used was 4:3 and they couldn't be bothered editing it to fit into a widescreen presentation. They just stretched the lot, and when you watch the DVD it is very noticeable. It's claimed that this was a deliberate move and not a decision based on technical difficulties, but I'm not sure.Overall - I'd say watch koyaanisqatsi again - it's the only film out of the three worth repeated viewings.