Redundant and unnecessary.

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

How exactly would this thing be any different if it was just a collection of random stock footage edited to run on loop? This is meant to be a rhetoric question, but let me answer anyway: in no way whatsoever. Koyaanisqatsi is a pretentious film that has nothing to say. It's aimed for people who overanalyze everything and use their own imagination to find some hidden meanings that are not there. Was the cellar door truly red because the color red symbolizes "anger"? Or was it red because the person who happened to paint it 50 years ago had some extra paint left from another project that they just wanted to use to save some money? Perhaps this film manages to rise some thoughts in some people who "want" this film to be something special and deep, but those who are ready to take it for what it objectively is: I'd rather recommend going to youtube and let it generate a playlist based to the words "old army stuff" and "suffering nature" and you are very likely to get hits that have more to say than this specific piece of film.

Humanity, nature and cycle. The director succeeds in presenting the audience in detail without dialogue in three parts. In this documentary you can question life, wars, people's anger, contempt, inequality and everything. You see a philosophy accompanied by awesome images. I think many people can get bored, but you have to be patient and watch. I want to open a separate parenthesis to the music of the documentary. The audiences are almost sticking to the seat. Do people pollute every environment? Where does humanity come from and where does it go?

This is my favourite movie of all times, and the reason that this beautiful piece of cinematography could help anyone (and by anyone, I mena anyone, even aliens) understand planet earth and our interaction with it as a civilisation.No words, just music and great images that describe in a beautiful way what planet earth is about.

As soon as you hear that a film like Koyanisqatsi (or any of the 'Qatsi' movies, it's technically a trilogy) is no dialog, no 'story' in the fictional-character sense, and is driven by a marriage of landscapes (in the realms of deserts and mountains, and the modern urban sprawl) matched to Phillip Glass music, you'll know whether this sounds like something to watch. Some will not want to go anywhere near it. And yet this is one of those rare films, like many silent-era motion pictures, and Disney's Fantasia, that can be shown in any culture, anywhere in the world, and people don't have that element of communication keeping people apart or at a distance, or in need of translation. What is shown in Godfrey Reggio/Ron Fricke's Koyaanisqatsi (aka "Life Out of Balance") can be generally understood, at least if one follows the progression of one image to another - which, to not be snobbish, is kind of what filmmaking is essentially about - in giving the impression of what happens when one moves from the barren-natural world of mountains and deserted, rocky land, and that built upon by humans in cities.And what is there in cities but technology; we need energy to survive, and cities have to provide energy, and, for myself this is one of the main thrusts of the film, people in cities feed off of that energy. Reggio and cinematographer/writer/Fricke (the latter would go on to make films in a similar, visually-aural-driven range with Baraka and Samsara) are all about charting how things are breaking down, and yet constantly moving. They accomplish much of this visually by showing things in slow motion and fast motion; what you see sometimes today on YouTube or Vimeo of cameras being tested at the high-frame rates and the low F-stops - for camera people, think of getting a camera to 3 frames per second, and conversely at 3,000 frames per second, or something extreme like that - and you get the idea of the visual ambition here.It took years to make this film, and yet it was all driven by what is essentially in the documentary form - showing the world as it is. A documentary will be 'scripted' after the film has been sought out and shot. But the experiment here, what sets this film apart so much from other films in the world, documentary or otherwise, is how the filmmakers have to give any messages through the flow of visuals - and the music. Interestingly, Phillip Glass scored the film in twelve sections, and then the director heard this music and re-cut the film to fit the music. So it's like one has to fit with the other, and it goes without saying this is music as intense as you'll hear in a movie. It will sometimes go to a slow crawl, with the organ playing smoothly, and then other times, as the montages ramp up and people move about in the masses and through places and in cars and on the streets, the music is not so much setting the mood of the players as keeping in exact lock-step with what's on the screen. It's a rush.At first, I didn't know about the technological-focused scope of the film, and it opens with the shots of the mountains and deserted plains and so on, and I thought this would be it for the film - not bad in the slightest, but... is that it? But the transition into the sections on the cities, with it first seeing the urban decay and poverty in cities (I think it's New York, it's hard to mistake it at that period of the time in the late 70's and early 80's as anything else). Then, buildings come crashing down in demolition, which continues the notion, I think, of building things up only to have to crumble them down again when they're no longer good. And then, in the main chunks (and certainly what people will probably remember most from Koyaanisqatsi), the many, many people walking, driving, going through transit, playing video games (seeing Ms Pac-Man in fast-speed is a highlight), and also how things get moved along in factories like hot-dogs and jeans.The great thing about the film, if one meets it all halfway, is that it doesn't really hold your hand about anything. One person may take this as being a condemnation of how modern society operates in cities - and this is 35 years ago, one wonders how Reggio and Fricke see this all today, with people now not even looking forward as they walk or move but at their phones and laptops - or, on the other hand, a person may take this as an ode-to-joy, a symphony of technological breakthroughs and how people co-exist with one another (aside from the building collapses, there's no real violence depicted... well, aside from the MEGA violence that comes with nuclear blasts, which are I assume stock footage in part). There's no one interpretation with a film like this, or others like it like Baraka.For myself, I think it's a grand provocation of the human spirit and what we're capable of, about if we are taking things for granted. There's all this technology, and it's so easy to get around in cars and (in America, relatively) easy to navigate around from place to place. Yet there is in parts great poverty in areas people may not care always to look, especially when skylines go up high and people are successful. And the film ends on an aching, poetic note of a part of a rocket (or is it a spaceship) coming down in slow-motion, to that one Glass organ. I hope to return to this again and again.