Incident at Loch Ness

Who knew that Werner Herzog – the director of "Aguirre: the Wrath of God", "Fitzcarraldo", and other weighty dramas -- could do comedy? Herzog proves it here in Zak Penn's terrific send-up of "the making of the movie" documentary.

"Incident at Loch" purports to document a film Herzog sets out to make in Scotland about the Loch Ness monster. Overseeing the production is Penn, a successful screenwriter. Along for the ride are a famous cinematographer, an Academy award winning sound man, a Playboy model, and a radio controlled six-foot "Nessie."

Penn puts it all together in a clever, inventive way. The result is one of the most original – and funniest – movies of the year.

I knew nothing walking into this film and was treated to a delightful and funny experience. A documentary following a crew on it's hunt for Nessie. Besides the fun in the quest of the premise, the crew is entertaining in itself. Werner Herzog is such an interesting person and filled with so many interesting insights into film-making.

By the end, I laughed, I was scared and I didn't want the film to end. I highly recommend this film and I plan to see it again as I laughed through a few parts of the movie. Go see it!

The acting is so self-conscious and terrible (especially the bald guy), Werner Herzog is completely annoying (he reminded me of the equally annoying Wim Wenders), and the story is just stupid; however, all of this wouldn't have mattered if it had been FUNNY. Even the outtakes on the DVD are UNFUNNY! Herzog's "WOYZEK" has more laughs than this (I hope I got the point across about how unfunny this film is...) I grudgingly admit that Herzog was actually the best actor in the film. Despite how irritating he was, he did seem very natural (so I guess he's just naturally that annoying--but not as annoying as that bald guy!) If you like unfunny comedies, then this is the perfect film for you.

The previous user who compared this film to the 'Fishing With John' series has it down fabulously. However, I have to disagree that you need to know anything about Herzog to enjoy the film. All you need to know is supplied in the very deftly-handled exposition.

I'd also compare it to LOST IN LA MANCHA... except, well. And it's kinda like WAITING FOR GUFFMAN, but... but mostly, it's very like THE BL-... well, I should shut up.

All I can say is that the film is proof that there is *something* to this latest onslaught of documentaries. There is great value in the language they use to convey a story and the self-reflexive possibilities are now endless, thanks to Zak Penn.

See this film.

This has many things I seek: A faux documentary after the manner of "Lost Silver." Werner Herzog, who is sort of a touchstone for those interested in merged stylization and the documentary-like magic of discovered behavior.

It is a film about a film about a film about a film. It is an examination of truth and fiction merged. Sounds perfect, right?

Some elements are deft. Herzog really is great. I already saw him in a similar real-fiction role in a Harmony Korrine project (similar in spirit to this one). So he really wasn't a surprise. But one gets the impression that he really can live in merged real and fictional worlds. I suppose all great artists can do that.

But the whole thing falls flat, largely I think because the writer went the whole distance with himself. He is the writer/director and he plays that as well. But he doesn't have the oscillating realities that Herzog projects and that is required here. Let's call it the Woody Allen effect: a great idea that the writer had that the same person ruins in the form of an actor.

I have maintained for long that actors cannot understand movies. The interests of filmmakers and actors conflict. But it is also true that asking a filmmaker like Penn to be an actor is just as hard. And just as disappointing.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.