User Reviews

Warning: this is not a popcorn movie! A lot of people like to talk about how The Matrix is about philosophical ideas. It is, but of the "beginners" variety. If you want more depth and breadth to your ideas, you must see this film. It does take a while to get going and there is no way to understand the whole thing in one viewing (over three hours long!). For some this will be a liability, but if you like films that reveal their pleasures over multiple viewings then this is one for you. There is a lot going on; a trip up the Danube river, interviews with archeologists, engineers and ecologists along the river, festivals, ruins, marches, and that's just the simple stuff. A narration sits on top of all of this, provided by three philosophers and a white-haired German filmmaker I had not heard of at the end. They discuss technology, politics and ethics, and it's all woven together in a way that means that you always feel like you are heading somewhere important. Where you end up, well, I found it quite moving. There a lot of layers to this film and if you make an effort to dig you'll be rewarded. NB I saw this at the ICA Cinemas in London last year.

It was a very interesting movie for those who are interested in the subjects it talks about and somewhat knowledgeable about its subject matter, but it is certainly not for all audiences. It was well made, and there were (intentionally) humorous moments, lots of memorable scenery, beautiful music, and a good bit of variety. Not all of it was French intellectuals talking about Heidegger. But a lot of it was quite serious, even heavy. My companion remarked that there were a lot of words for only a few insights, but that's often what one must put up with, and most movies offer no insights at all. I must admit, though, to having a vision, at the end, of Alvy Singer taking Annie Hall to see "The Ister" a second time, her resisting, and the audience cheering for her. Still, I plan to buy the DVDs if they're not too expensive.

A journey-a selective journey- up the Danube, inspired by Heidegger's commentary on Hölderlin's poem, with commentary by three French philosophers on Heidegger's works and his relationship with the Nazis, with excursions to other people- an archaeologist, a bridge-building engineer, a botanist, the film-maker Syderberg- showing examples of or exemplifying Heidegger's ideas- taking three hours in all. A kindly critic would say it was interesting; A truthful critic would say that it was interesting as an example of how to do all the wrong things to make a film. Heidegger is not a simply-understood philosopher and we are assumed to know enough about his ideas to understand the complex discourses (eccentrically subtitled) of three French philosophers, chosen, perhaps, for their cinematic effect, which takes up most of the film. What they say- and the subtitles- distracts from the often interesting and beautiful pictures, and the pictures distract from what they say, you are left struggling to find out what is happening, but above all, there is the difficulty of film compared with a book; you cannot stop and work out what someone means, you cannot look up something in a dictionary or encyclopaedia. You could argue that is reflects Heidegger's own view of history and memory and their interaction, which would explain the selective history (which, if one of his commentators is correct, might reflect Heidegger's own selective view of history, one which excluded the influence of the Jews on European thought), but again it's impossible to give a context in a film. Against that is the fact that every moment of the film is interesting; it's just that they are interesting in an uncinematic way- you want to examine what is said, think about it, check the accuracy of the claims- do all the things that a film, which consists of one thing after another- just won't let you do. It's not a professional film-makers' film and it has none of the virtues of a professional film-makers' film but, to be fair, it also has none of the faults- the simplicity that becomes simple-mindedness, the brisk sweeping away of complexity- of a professional film-makers' film so, finally, yes, it is interesting in a good- or, at least, an interesting- way too.

This heady, intellectual documentary is mostly fascinating, but occasionally does become pretentious or dull.

Four modern philosophers debate the meanings of a series of lectures given by the philosopher Heidegger near the start of WWII, which many see as an apologia for the Nazis.

This procession of talking heads is intercut with a very visual journey hundreds of miles up the Danube river (called "the Ister" in Germany) to its source, visiting everything from archaeological sites to the ruins of concentration camps.

Together the words and images give us a look into Germany's history and self-perception as a nation.

Basically this is an illustrated university level philosophy class, but it was far more engaging and educational (and followable) than I feared, especially given its 3 hour running time.

If not quite as moving or illuminating as I hoped, it was still enjoyable, insightful, and certainly unique.

Unwatchable. This is one of the most pretentious time wasters I've ever had the misfortune of enduring. Essentially The Ister is an overly earnest, impossibly obscure philosophical treatise that could only appeal to academics with an interest in Heidegger scholarship. What were the filmmakers trying to achieve in turning such turgid material into a movie? After more than three hours (!) of cinematic torture I am none the wiser.

I have been told that the film makers are themselves academics, and believe me, it shows. They take everything that is worst about academia and translate it into film. Quite an achievement, I suppose, but one that I hope is never repeated.

Seeing a movie in a film festival environment I always know I'm taking a chance. That's what festivals are about. But programmers also have an obligation to their audience, and they ought to protect us from rubbish like this. As it is, I feel that three hours of my life have been taken from me, and I want them back!

various french philosophers provide background commentary regarding the German philosopher Heidegger and Holderlein's poem "The Ister", which has something to do with the ancient Greek name for a portion of the Danube river. While the philosophers are commenting, we see images of the various portions of the river (in Romania, ex-Yugoslavia, Austria, etc), and images of the countries that it passes through. If my description sounds vague, it's because, as an average lay person, i found this movie very hard to understand, i could not follow 3 hours of philosophical expounding, in French no less. At least half the audience walked out of the film, probably feeling the same as me. I stuck it out, and enjoyed some of the imagery, and even some of the philosophy, but, the dialogue became so esoteric at points, that i found myself asking "is this for real?"!

Even among the Continental Philosophers, he's seldom ranked "most influential," and among the Analytic Philosophers, he's not even mentioned. Why? Call it an example of the ad hominem fallacy, or call it justifiable neglect: it's his embrace of Nazism, and for what?--tenure, really--that makes suspect his bona fides. What right-thinking thinker would go that route? Certainly no one in the tradition of Socrates. But as for the film: it's not bad but it's not very good, either, except for some lovely imagery. It's certainly unique; it has that going for it. It's worth a watch if you're a film lover who prizes the unique in film in and of itself, and you owe it to yourself if you're a lover of the type of phenomenology that Heidegger represents. Yet you can love Holderlin and never see this film and be none the poorer. "The Ister" is a kind of cri de coeur for the intellectual identify of Europe post- WWII. It will appeal less to American intellectuals than to Europeans. It will not reclaim Heidegger's intellectual integrity or moral authority, for he has none of the latter and of the former, as I said, he's suspect. One could do worse than to see this film, but one could save some precious time and just avoid it. There's nothing new here, except the format.