Be wary and skeptical towards reviews that put too much focus on "The Hellstrom Chronicles" being fictional and a pseudo-documentary. Although most people acknowledge how great and visually stunning it is, they seem to think the "fake" aspects are much more important to write about.
What's so fake about it, I ask? Okay, the narrating scientist - Swedish Ph. D. Nils Hellstrom - doesn't exist, and thus didn't do all the entomologic research he so convincingly proclaims he did. Other entomologists did, though, because all these staggering insights and dazzling particularities we learn about the insect world are factual and captured in the tiniest detail. Lawrence Pressman is an actor, so "The Hellstrom Chronicle is fake. So if, say, David Attenborough or James Earl Jones had done the voiceover instead, it would have been okay?
Before watching the film (on a big cinema screen, which was awesome!) and based on its reputation, I was led to believe "The Hellstrom Chronicle" would spawn grotesque theories around conspiring against all other life-forms, human in particular, or gradually metamorphosing into indestructible monsters. It does nothing of that sort. Hellstrom merely demonstrates, meticulously, that insects are much better equipped and emotionally immune enough to survive and quickly repopulate after whatever type of potential apocalypse overcomes the world. This is not only correct, but also plausible and even probably. And the documentary doesn't even biblically state this will happen tomorrow or in a hundred years, just in the even of. Quite obviously, the tone of the narration and some of the footage is heavily dramatized, but can you honestly blame the producers for inserting a bit of sensationalism? After all, the early 70s was the era of flamboyant ecological horror and dystopian Sci-Fi cinema.
In 1972, "The Hellstrom Chronicle" won the Academy Award in the category of best documentary. I, for one, think this is more than deserved! Apart from the fascinating subject matter, it's also a supreme work of craftmanship. The film is more than half a century old now, but the cinematography and the editorial/technical knowhow have barely aged. I don't watch many documentaries, but this one can still easily compete with all the widely acclaimed stuff National Geographic and the BBC are producing these days. The voiceover monologues are almost like poetry or advanced literature to listen to; - full of superlatives and a wide range of synonyms. And, last but not least, even as a diehard horror fanatic, I occasionally squirmed in my seat when beholding close-up footage of - for example - the Black Widow destroying her mating partner, or a massive colony of legionary ants devouring an adult Komodo lizard!
In short - and apologies for the lengthy review - "The Hellstrom Chronicle" is an absolute must-see!
What's so fake about it, I ask? Okay, the narrating scientist - Swedish Ph. D. Nils Hellstrom - doesn't exist, and thus didn't do all the entomologic research he so convincingly proclaims he did. Other entomologists did, though, because all these staggering insights and dazzling particularities we learn about the insect world are factual and captured in the tiniest detail. Lawrence Pressman is an actor, so "The Hellstrom Chronicle is fake. So if, say, David Attenborough or James Earl Jones had done the voiceover instead, it would have been okay?
Before watching the film (on a big cinema screen, which was awesome!) and based on its reputation, I was led to believe "The Hellstrom Chronicle" would spawn grotesque theories around conspiring against all other life-forms, human in particular, or gradually metamorphosing into indestructible monsters. It does nothing of that sort. Hellstrom merely demonstrates, meticulously, that insects are much better equipped and emotionally immune enough to survive and quickly repopulate after whatever type of potential apocalypse overcomes the world. This is not only correct, but also plausible and even probably. And the documentary doesn't even biblically state this will happen tomorrow or in a hundred years, just in the even of. Quite obviously, the tone of the narration and some of the footage is heavily dramatized, but can you honestly blame the producers for inserting a bit of sensationalism? After all, the early 70s was the era of flamboyant ecological horror and dystopian Sci-Fi cinema.
In 1972, "The Hellstrom Chronicle" won the Academy Award in the category of best documentary. I, for one, think this is more than deserved! Apart from the fascinating subject matter, it's also a supreme work of craftmanship. The film is more than half a century old now, but the cinematography and the editorial/technical knowhow have barely aged. I don't watch many documentaries, but this one can still easily compete with all the widely acclaimed stuff National Geographic and the BBC are producing these days. The voiceover monologues are almost like poetry or advanced literature to listen to; - full of superlatives and a wide range of synonyms. And, last but not least, even as a diehard horror fanatic, I occasionally squirmed in my seat when beholding close-up footage of - for example - the Black Widow destroying her mating partner, or a massive colony of legionary ants devouring an adult Komodo lizard!
In short - and apologies for the lengthy review - "The Hellstrom Chronicle" is an absolute must-see!