You won't be disappointed!

This is an astonishing documentary that will wring your heart while it bends your mind

This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

While not a travelogue, it nonetheless contains many stunningly beautiful images. And Buzz-kill from Atlanta, put away your thesaurus. We are not impressed. I guess all us hicks that didn't go to Harvard, (funny how everyone who went there or to Yale never fail to mention it within a couple of paragraphs as though that gives their opinions extra credibility), just don't know what to enjoy without being told. Fact is those of us who have visited several of our national treasures can appreciate them for what they are, just that, and glad that the people responsible had the foresight to set them aside before it was too late. As far as I'm concerned, this was a well made documentary and inspires me to visit some of the parks I never thought of prior to watching it. Maybe Buzz-kill should get outside more often.

I am watching this series and am currently viewing part 5. I have been transfixed by the film. I am not a new immigrant, having come here back in 1964, but I have only visited two Parks in all that time I am disgusted to report. I have seen the Redwoods and Crater Lake, but now I want to see much more before it is too late. I just have not paid any attention to the Parks in my backyard it seems. Now I will.I would quibble about the frequent references to religion but I understand it because most of the US was religious to some sort of degree. For instance, I did not feel the presence of some supernatural being standing among the redwoods or gazing at Crater Lake. I was impressed for sure but not awed.I am mindful of the constant struggle to maintain the Parks and think schools should show major portions of this series in their classrooms. Young people need to be aware of what a valuable and irreplaceable resource we all share. I am sure, given the history of the Park system, that greedy people will continue to try to eat away at it. Vigilance is needed for now and forever. Once this country becomes so crowded it will be most difficult to maintain these Parks. As in the Hetch Hetchy dam the question will always be: What is more important, some scenery or the rights of multitudes who need the resources contained within the Parks? I fear the answer will be the needs of people. I appreciate being able to see these videos and have my eyes opened, and tearing at times, many times. Thanks to Ken Burns for making this series.

I want to like Ken Burns' films. I really, really want to like Ken Burns's films. And yet—overall, National Parks: America's Best Idea showcases some of the best things about Burns—but alas more of the bad things.Let's start with the good. The park photography is splendid. Burns is as ever a master of the use of panned still images—a technique he pioneered, and which now appears to be in the visual vocabulary of every documentary director. There is quite a lot of interesting information scattered over the 12 hours of this documentary.But: Burns' most consistently interesting work—Empire of the Air, Horatio's Drive, The Shakers—has been in shorter films. The multi-episode long form brings out stretches of tedium and long and pointless digressions. To name several in National Parks—the Marion Anderson and Martin Luther King segments (justified by the happenstance that the Park Service manages the Lincoln Memorial); the segment about the couple who visited many different parks; and a great many of the "witnesses" or talking heads.There is however a much deeper problem than discursiveness or peripheral topics. When I was at Harvard Business School in the early 1980s, one of my good friends was a post-doctoral student in earth sciences across the river. One evening, he told me "You are not going to believe this. The other day, I was at a faculty cocktail party—and overheard one faculty member say 'Don't you think that we have lost so much in going beyond the hunter-gatherer phase?'" In a nutshell, that is a splendid indicator of the mentality of Burns' core audience—a varying mix of snobbishness, neo-primitivism, nature worship, and general left-wing politics. Left-wing politics, you say? The enviro-version--"corporate greed". If that weren't a worn out theme--particularly to anyone with a shred of economic understanding.The intellectual underpinning of Natural Parks fits with much of this complex of ideas. The presiding genius, the core thinker behind the film is John Muir, the naturalist who was largely responsible for the creation of Yosemite Natural Park. One becomes terribly tired of Muir. From Thoreau, he inherits the philosophic error—one might say curse—of solipsism. He couples that with a kind of Transcendental nature worship—for Muir, to say that Yosemite was a cathedral was not a metaphor, it was a statement of fact. Burns takes that point of view and never questions its validity.We do have discussions of the two points of view around which national park policy revolves—on the one hand, accessibility and use by the American public, and, on the other, the wilderness, don't touch it at all, Thoreau-Muir-Sierra Club-Wilderness Society philosophy. There ought to be a healthy tension between the two—and yet Burns unquestioningly gravitate towards the latter. There is something deeply anti-democratic about this position—only the chosen few willing to abase themselves may be permitted a view of the wonders of these areas.In fact, National Parks very neatly shows that a religious point of view has nothing to do with organized religion. In the film, a nature-worship reverence is posited as the "real" experience of the parks—or what should be the experience of the parts. Speaking personally, I have visited some 16 major parks and national monuments, and had a variety of reactions—aesthetic delight, scientific curiosity, scientific insight—but never nature worship reverence. And I daresay that I am not alone. And I daresay that my reaction is not invalid.In a very real sense, National Parks is a polemic for the nature worship that begins with Thoreau and Muir—neither of them first rate philosophers, and neither of them first rate scientists beyond the descriptive and observational. This, perhaps, is what I dislike the most about this film. (Disclaimer: I was trained as a physicist.) A few other cavils—was it really necessary for virtually all of the male talking heads to wear flannel shirts and be bearded up to the eyebrows—a la Muir? And who are these "historians" and "writers"? You could have sliced out a good deal of the commentary and had a much better 8 hours film.If you like this sort of a thing—well, that is the sort of thing you like. But I grow increasingly weary of literal pieties wrapped in pretty pictures—which seems to be Burns' inevitable direction. National Parks is a beautiful slide show with a tenth rate narration.

I absolutely love it! Extraordinary human stories behind the extraordinary beauty. Couldn't help watching it twice every night this week, thanks to WCMU, who broadcast each episode twice. Think I might catch it the third time in this weekend's marathon rerun!What more can I add? I would love to hear Garrison Keillor's voice as he would be the best narrator for our national treasures (of which he is one himself).Indeed, our National Parks are a place of love, as one commentator said so movingly in the film.The history of our National Parks has enriched my appreciation of great nature with humanity... Enough talking, let's go to our National Parks now.