Unpredictable, but on the money

Rating: 8/10 (6 June 2008)

When I spotted an advertisement for this film in a British newspaper, complete with rave reviews, my interest was piqued enough that I looked it up on IMDb, saw the 8+/10 rating and read a couple of the bits of trivia and thought "Fantastic." and pretty much ran down to the video library.
The initial comment I made to the friends with whom I watched the film was: "Hmm. That was a little different to what I was expecting." - and therein, I fear, lies the rub. The problem with having expectations built up about a slightly unusual sort of film is that they are, almost inevitably, confounded. I would point to the example of Napoleon Dynamite; a totally different sort of film that can be hugely enjoyable if one watches it with no expectations of any kind (as I did); or lame nonsense if the film has been raved about by your friends (as happened for one of my friends who disliked ND).
However I was curious as to what most of the negative reviews of this film said - almost without exception, they seem to have come from people who have little to no idea about how to critique a film of this kind, and while I am no professional critic I would point out the following.
The production values of this film are outstanding. There are any number of light touches of camera-work and editing that quietly assert the thought and effort that have gone into this film; so that to rate it anywhere below 7/10 is shameful. I need not go to any lengths to heap further praise on the soundtrack. Penn's casting and directing skills, likewise, cannot be questioned. The film felt so authentic that it was frequently more akin to watching a documentary than a screenplay; most of the bit-part characters (ie. the lesser roles; not the parts played by Hurt, Harden, Keener, Holbrook and Vaughn) felt so real that I wondered if they were professional actors at all - thinking that if so, they were outstanding. The decision to film exclusively on location, while perhaps obvious by film-making standards, is a brave one considering that filming in Canada, for example, would have sacrificed comparatively little in return for the financial savings.
The biggest problem in terms of reception, it seems, is in Penn's dialogue - the screenplay itself. Not having read Krakauer's book, I feel it is not something I can criticise fairly. A number of the adverse comments about the film posted on IMDb seem to rage against holding McCandless up as some kind of role model - sorry folks, you've missed the point. The art of cinema is one of STORY-TELLING. Penn is telling a story of a young man who lived by his ideals. Does anyone have the right to question the beliefs of another? Or to criticise an artistic portrayal of such a tale based on fact on the grounds of plot? Expect an engaging story, well-told, and enjoy Penn's direction and Hirsch's performance.