Based on a true story. After graduating from Emory University, Christopher McCandless abandoned his possessions, gave his entire savings account to charity, and hitchhiked to Alaska to live in the wilderness. Along the way, Christopher encounters a series of characters who shape his life.

Also Known As: O Lado Selvagem, Wszystko za życie, В диких условиях, Atgal i gamtą, Út a vadonba, Hacia rutas salvajes, Сред дивата природа, Into the Wild - Nelle terre selvagge, Enmig de la natura, Into the Wild - Die Geschichte eines Aussteigers, Camino salvaje, U divljini, Ταξίδι στην άγρια φύση, V divjino, In Salbaticie, Taxidi stin agria fysi, Тепер я йду в дику далечiнь, Na Natureza Selvagem, Özgürlük Yolu, Útěk do divočiny Czech, Ind i vildmarken, Vers l'inconnu, Erämaan armoille, Into the Wild

Leave a Reply


  • damien-d
    Damien D

    Ight pull up

  • damien-d
    Damien D

    Does anyone want to meet up for sex reply for yes!!

  • damien-d
    Damien D

    Does anyone want to meet up for sex

  • pilar-de-pi
    pilar de pi

    I cannot understand the praise for this stinker. If I was a Republican, I’d tell my kids and my teenage gay lover (they all have one) that this will happen to you if you’re a hippie.Don’t get me wrong. I’m a tree hugger. A lot of positive and good ideas and concepts in this film. But it’s obvious that this guy was bat-poop nuts. The character was played as sane, but there is no chance he was in real life. Nevermind that he was critically selfish for what he did to his family and sister, regardless of the situation. If he wanted to contribute, there were a lot more sane ways to do it.It really took the life out of any anti-society argument.But to focus on the film I was shocked that Sean Penn couldn’t do a better job with this kid’s acting. Generally it was passable but then there were some very bad scenes, like he was reading off cue cards for the first time. Some nice camera work but nothing really remarkable about the rest of the direction. And it was WAY TOO LONG. Very self-serving of Senor Penn.(Also, anybody know that there was a rope bridge 1/4 mile down from this bus? Most locals apparently thought this kid was a fool.) For all the kids that would like to go on a similar journey of self-discovery: DON’T! There is something worse than a winter in that bus: watching this movie.

  • alfred-browning
    alfred browning

    Sean Penn’s “Into The Wild” is perhaps best viewed as being part of a recent wave of eco-themed films (“Wall-E”, “Avatar”, “The Happening”, “An Inconvenient Truth”, “Grizzly Man”, “Dreamland”, “Day The Earth Stood Still”, “Antichrist”, “Day After Tomorrow”, “Happy Feet” etc). Most of these films urge their audiences to “return to nature”, “retreat to some pastoral existence” or “save the planet” (without looking at the systemic or economic forces which completely undermine or neutralise such wants).Interestingly, aside from “Antichrist”, “Grizzly Man” and “Into The Wild”, nature in these films is always portrayed as being some kind of mystical, “balanced” system. While mega-studios, quite ironically, advise us to harmonize with nature, “smaller” directors (Penn, Herzog, Von Trier) seem to instead posit worlds in which nature is vile and base. Nature is still portrayed as being majestic and splendid, but is then associated with asphyxiation and choking, death and rot. The only harmony – as Werner Herzog once famously said – is that of overwhelming and collective murder. Murder, then, is the central theme of both “Grizzly Man” and “Into The Wild”. Like Sydney Pollack’s “Jerremiah Johnson”, both films are about young men (Christopher McCandless in Penn’s film, Timothy Treadwell in Herzog’s) who cut themselves off from civilisation and venture off into the wilderness. Of course both Herzog and Penn initially romanticise their central characters’ flights. They see beauty in this journey and a kind of crazy inner strength (McCandless rejects vapid materialism, 9 to 5 routines and sees the modern word as being a hindrance which atrophies humanity and conscience ). But both artists are also careful to counter this idealism with nature at its most violent. And so both films find their heroes “leaving civilisation”, but only because they’ve first suffered a total, psychological collapse. They now disbelieve in their Master Signifiers, in their Symbolic Orders, and see civilisation itself as being representative of that which is arbitrary and chaotic. Both films then end with the deaths of their central characters, McCandless killed by a lowly poisonous berry, Treadwell killed by a mighty grizzly bear. This is not romanticism: the impetus for our adventures is something sad and pathetic, even if they’re absolutely right. Their problem is that they’ve diagnosed civilisation but idealised Nature, a fatal failing; mankind’s history is a history of battling the wild outdoors. Respect Nature. Approach with caution.And so both Treadwell and McCandless are portrayed as being disenchanted idealists who cut themselves off from a world they no longer feel apart of, no longer trust, no longer believe in. But while Penn romanticises Christopher’s idealistic dream of “entering the wilderness”, he is careful to counter this with nature at its most violent. Christopher hunts for food but recoils from maggots, Christopher attempts to cross a river, but nature’s violent highways prove too powerful, Christopher forages for berries, but eats only poisonous weeds which ultimately kill him.The result is that Penn celebrates disenchantment and urges one to disconnect (mental breakdown, oft the precursor to wisdom), even as he warns that drifting too far is itself a form of suicide or self-destruction. Chris wants to cut himself off from mankind (the film opens with a quote from the Romantic Movement which advocates “ostracizing oneself from humanity”), but also learns that “Happiness Is Real Only When Shared” (the last dreams he has is of hugging his parents). And that’s Penn’s irony: it is the connections that Christopher makes with other people as he continues along on his journey which allowed him to survive in the wilderness for as long as he did. When towards the end of the film Christopher turns down an offer to live with an elderly man, he effectively gave up entirely on humanity. This total disconnection, this suicidal action, is ultimately what the film warns of.The kind of balance that the film longs for is thus similar to the teachings of Thoreau, who advocated finding a middle ground between rejecting and fully embracing the wilderness. The people Chris meets (and rejects) along his journey are thus in possession of the life he longs for.Elsewhere the film is about the enchantment of text and the romance of words. Krakauer wrote about Chris not only because Chris’ journey was inspired by idealistic books (Chris takes literature rather than food with him) but because Chris was himself a writer and left behind numerous documents. What the film thus does is sets up a war between the word (fantasy) and the image (world). As each level of text is one step removed from reality, image eventually wins, the image of a berry and the failure to correctly read it being what ultimately kills Chris.Audiences typically view Chris as either a “hero” or a “jerk”, but he’s more a lost, fragile child. Having learnt that everything he knew about his parents and his own history was a lie, Chris began to distrust everything. Suddenly all truths were shattered. The only way for Christopher’s mind to cope with this subjective destitution was to then enter a little fantasy world in which he’s a “noble adventurer”. As he loves meta-acting, Penn thus has actor Emile Hirsch play Christopher as a wounded guy playing the role of the very romantic hero he reads about in books.Elsewhere, like Kirk Douglas’ “Lonely Are The Brave”, Penn contrast modern technology with primitivism. He stresses the artificiality of the caravans and abandoned buses which Christopher relies on to survive, and counterpoints Christopher’s physical death with a near spiritual shot of a modern passenger jet. The film does not condemn modern technology, it recognises it as a necessity. The film then ends with Christopher’s body seemingly “transcending” into heaven. The film then rewinds, his body sucked into the ground, Penn’s camera pulling back such that Christopher’s corpse seems to be asphyxiated by Nature. 8.5/10 – Worth two viewings.

  • paula-rivera-badia
    paula rivera badia

    Sean Penn’s ‘Into the Wild’ is a passionate and faithful evocation of Jon Krakauer’s book about Chris McCandless. It’s the troubling and complex story of a young idealist and seeker who was also a rebellious child and beloved brother who gave away his $24,000 savings to Oxfam after college, went off in an old Datsun and left his family behind, and disappeared for two years wandering the country, only to be found by hunters dead of poisoning and starvation in an abandoned bus in the wilds of Alaska.It’s been said as a criticism of Penn’s movie that it isn’t as neutral about McCandless as Krakauers’s book. It is true that Emile Hirsch as Chris, who called himself Alexander Supertramp on the road, is such a joyous and appealing character it’s hard to focus on the arbitrariness and foolhardiness of the young man. Hirsch gives his all. He has shown his knack for playing bad good boys—particularly in ‘Dangerous Lives of Altar Boys’ and ‘Lords of Dogtown’—and for playing wild misfits—in the little seen ‘The Mudge Boy.’ This is the first great role he’s had, and he deserves it. His work is a wonderful melding of “negative capability” and generosity. It comes naturally to him to embody exuberance, boldness, and joy. If there was something off-putting or stern in the real-life McCandless, it’s not very noticeable in Hirsch. But Hirsch’s enthusiasm makes sense of the great adventure and self-discovery this story recounts. (Sadly, McCandless never seemed more ready to embrace life, and to overcome all his doubts about people and family, than right near his end.) All the faults McCandless had and mistakes he made made are there in the story as Penn tells it; if he has altered facts (and necessarily left some out), he hasn’t done so to make the young man’s plans seem clearer or his choices wiser, and the movie is replete with specific detail.’Into the Wild,’ true, is itself a little on the wild and loud side, with its occasionally obtrusive Eddie Vedder soundtrack, it’s insanely vivid characters—like the young Danish couple on the banks of the Colorado, Vince Vaughan’s intense, grinning grain farmer, Hal Holbrook’s fabulously sad, shut-down old widower. There is another kind of overload in the occasional use of split screens. But it all unfolds very much as Jon Krakauer’s book does, with interludes at the “magic bus” where Chris met his doom constantly intercut with episodes from his travels earlier during his two wander-years. And incredible episodes they are: roaming with a warm hippie couple; illegally and hair-raisingly running the Colorado rapids in a kayak; working in the big grain elevator and loving it; riding the rails and loving that too, till he’s caught and beaten; escaping a flophouse in L.A.; staying with old Mr. Franz (Holbrook), learning from him how to engrave leather belts and persuading him to climb a mountain; and then off into the hostile snow country with a big back pack and sheer will. Many voiceovers from Chris’s sister add more about the sibling relationship than was in the book; the family “fearlessly” cooperated in the film-making. McCandless’s stern NASA honcho dad (William Hurt) and uptight mother (Marcia Gay Harden) are as unappealing as he saw them, but are not overdrawn—or underrepresented. Among other things Sean Penn’s film is a remarkable balancing act.It’s obvious this story had to be made into a movie, and it’s hard to imagine how anyone could have done it better than Penn and his fine cast. All Penn’s directorial efforts have been heartfelt and earnest, but this of his films thus far is his greatest artistic success and has the widest appeal. Into the Wild is a good balance of the emotionally wrenching and the thought-provoking. It contains so many themes and poses so many questions—about youth, about time, about responsibility. Chris isn’t to be confused with Herzog’s ‘Grizzly Man’. He’s aware of the danger of nature. It’s just that he has the hubris of daring to approach it with too little knowledge and experience, knowing the risk, and taking it. And indeed he might have made it and gotten back out, but for two or three terrible mistakes. Nature is unforgiving.Chris McCandless was unforgiving too. But if he read the romantic Bible of his own life lived in those intense two years and lived to tell of them, the film suggests, he would have learned to love and forgive. He was bright, talented, passionate about life, a seeker or rare moral fervor who read and thought and recorded all that happened in those last days. His death was sadly premature. But there are signs—they’re clear in Krakauer’s book—that he made an impact on the world he inhabited and the people he met. Vince Vaughan’s character shouts, “You’re one hell of a young man. You’re one hell of a young man!” He died terribly alone. But maybe the tree that falls in the forest is heard after all. “Quant’e’ bella giovanezza,” goes an Italian renaissance verse, “Che si fugge tuttavia.” How beautiful is youth, which flees straightaway. McCandless’ story embodies those lines.’Into the Wild’ seems more moving and thought-provoking than any other recent film, and may be destined to become some kind of classic—an ‘Easy Rider’, some have said, for our times. It’s about society and nature, about family, about idealism and aloneness; most of all it’s about the dangerous, heartbreakingly brief and beautiful romanticism of youth. In those two years, Chris McCandless lived a whole, remarkable, life. And Sean Penn has captured those two years for us.

  • sarha-abeshyan
    sarha abeshyan

    Please spare yourself and avoid this film, it is utterly boring and undeserving of a high rating. This should not be in the top 250. Although the cinematography was of high quality, it does not make up for the two and a half hours of pretentious tedium I had to sit through. The main character is portrayed as a sophisticated critic of modern life, but in reality is just self involved and is seemingly oblivious to the pain and suffering he pointlessly inflicts on the people closest too him. At around the 40 minute mark we all considered (4 of us) ejecting the DVD, and I regret we didn’t. Usually I do not bother to comment on films, but in this case I feel it is my duty to save others the pain.

    • derry

      Hello there

  • sabettin-safak
    sabettin safak

    A 3 hour Pearl Jam Video chronicling a spoiled kid’s quest to get back at his parents for an unpleasant childhood.I just felt like it was so totally pretentious. It seemed like I was being preached to by someone who’s most notable achievement in life was running away from home and freeloading off of hippies.Add a generous portion of man crying, soap box philosophy, and slow-mo shower scenes, all built on this rickety premise that somehow this quest for revenge was a philosophical journey, and I was hardly able to sit through this one.Pardon me if I’m venting, but I didn’t want to say anything bad about it to my girlfriend because I never like the movies she makes me see, and she’s typically very nice about the movies I make her watch. After all the positive reviews I just had to say my mind.If he hadn’t died at the end, and if it had turned out that he’d spent the rest of his life writing books about his experiences than this would be one of the most hypocritical and pretentious movies of all time.In stead, it is the story of those who’ve survived him desperately trying to weave meaning into what could only be described as the trite and meaningless life of Christopher McCandless

  • amber-rodriguez
    amber rodriguez

    This film is a 1…at best. I will never, not ever, get the time back that I wasted watching this dreadful film. I am completely perplexed as to how this movie scored an 8?! I can only assume that no one else saw the film that I saw. Coming from Sean Penn, I should have known it would be filled with left-wing, anti-government bulls#!t. To be frank, the film is nothing more than the bastard love-child of Dead Poets Society and Grizzly Adams…except suckier. Christoper McCandless was not only a misguided, self-absorbed, self-indulgent youth, he IS the ultimate idiot. There isn’t a single quality to admire about him, with the exception of his generous donation to charity. An action, I would suspect this misanthrope made with the sole purpose of pi$$ing his parents off. Simply put, this film is the “whoa as me” tale of a rich, spoiled, young man who was TOO determined to prove that the apple sometimes does fall far from the tree. He is completely undeserving of the accolades or screen time he managed to eek out of Hollywood. His “quest” for the ultimate human experience cost him his life…and to gain what? I mean, seriously, what it the point of this movie?? It really only leaves questions, for which there are no answers. Most notably, how can anyone…especially someone as educated as he was…thrust himself into the Alaskan wilderness (one of the most remote places on the planet) without doing a little research?? Congratulations Emory, you taught the boy well!! Seriously, all of you who gave this movie higher than a 3, would you really put yourself in the position that he put himself? Would you not have spent some time in Alaska, maybe worked a job to acclimate yourself to the land? Would you not have gotten a little advice, perhaps taken a guided tour and survival courses? Would you not have learned about weather patterns and considered that after crossing a river before the summer thaw meant that you wouldn’t be able to cross it when the snow began to melt?? No, this yahoo simply asks someone to drive him to the end of the road and drop him off on a trail. Smart buddy! The countdown on your life just began. In truth, Chris McCandless committed suicide and Hollywood pathetically glorified it. Yeah, yeah, I realize he had “books” to help him out. Yet, we find out in the end what good they did him. I guess Tolstoy doesn’t offer much in the way of how to preserve a moose. Any rational person would have realized they were in trouble months before this guy. “Hmm…I keep taking notches up on my belt. I am eating every day…nothing but lean protein..but still, I am eating. Yet, I have managed to lose 60 pounds. Gosh, I wonder if something is wrong??” The only redeeming quality of this film is that it does manage to remind us that Mother Nature will always be there to strike you down when you begin to get a little too righteous for her taste. Or, in this case, she will leave you to die, alone, in the shell of an old school bus, surrounded by the philosophical b.s. that put you there in the first place, wasted away in a pool of your own feces.

  • spela-zalokar
    spela zalokar

    What is wrong with you people? This is a Walt Disneyesque revision of a spoiled kid’s misadventure into self-indulgence. It’s a shame he died for being righteous and stupid…and that’s about it. It’s a shame. But not a particularly interesting story, and a ridiculous one for a film filled with swirling helicopter shots and endless musical montages that are supposed to make you think the smirking Mccandless is some kind of modern Siddhartha.Sean Penn clearly identifies with his subject enough to direct his film with a similar self-indulgence. This should have been a very straight-forward account of one young idealist’s cowardice: too afraid to help the society he thought was sick, too afraid too deal with his family with compassion, and ultimately too afraid to kill himself outright: instead he just put himself into a situation that he couldn’t survive without rescue…and nobody rescued him.I wonder about the people who rave about this movie. I’ll bet I could make the same kind of film about John Walker Lindh, and they’d eat it up…provided I could get Vedder for the soundtrack.

  • mr-eric-hill
    mr eric hill

    I watched this movie on the aeroplane after searching through the movie list and not finding anything else interesting to watch. I didn’t even know what the film was called until the ending credits. However, what I saw was amazing – the acting and scenery was excellent and the plot was thought provoking. More people should watch this to appreciate the message to us all. I was also surprised to see it was was actually a true story which made it even more interesting (I love films that are based on true stories). It is one of the best movies i’ve seen that portrays the contrast between a materialistic world vs the natural world that is at the core of the universe. This is a film that can easily be overlooked but not forgotten.

  • lorenzo-joaquin-vallejo-carreon
    lorenzo joaquin vallejo carreon

    As a parent who’s reasonably liberal and open-minded I was nevertheless repulsed by the incredibly self-serving main character and director Sean Penn’s unsubtle and cloying anti-government/anti-commercialist bent. McCandless may have been a straight-a student but he didn’t learn a bloody thing in college. The writings of Byron, London, Tolstoy, Thoreau i.e. are taught as a jumping off point toward self-determination and adulthood. They are not meant to be literally emulated as lifestyles.And the ridiculous conceit of a 24 year old lecturing an elderly man to open up and go live his life underscores the primary issue with this movie, a misanthropic and deluded main character. Acting was decent enough but I could not for a moment get into the story or the performance due to my disconnect. In scene after scene, I was constantly reminded of the agony McCandless put his poor parents and sister through. Sure they made some mistakes in bringing him up but who’s perfect in this world? It would have cost him nothing to simply let them know he was still alive and on ‘walk-about’ or whatever he thought his pointless odyssey signified. Or at least given them the chance to say good-bye.Ultimately, I found “Into the Wild” irresponsible because McCandless is presented as the rebellious anti-hero rather than a fool who caused his own senseless death and the deepest sorrow of his loved ones. Sean Penn is a talented somehow but choosing the right sorts of role models to present on film is not one of his skills. Oh and I will definitely not be sending my kids to Emory College if this is the sort of minds they produce…

  • atalante-bakouphtse
    atalante bakouphtse

    For the most part I liked the plot, and I chose it because it was based on a book by Jon Krakauer.However, I was turned off by how spoiled and inconsiderate he was. His parents fought when he was young, okay, whose didn’t? Now they want to buy him a car and put him through law school – this is what he needs to escape from? We should all have such problems! It was also unforgivable of him to take off without a word to anyone, and to burn money just because he was above that sort of thing after enjoying a comfortable upbringing. I’m sure that money could have fed or clothed someone.And his life savings? Sounds noble, but would he have had it if his parents hadn’t paid to put him through a top school? I like to think that he would have learned something from the experience if he had survived it though, given the chance. Although the attention probably would have made him even more self-centered.It’s the kind of experience we all dream of having, but very few actually do. Hopefully, the few who do are better prepared for it than this guy.

  • ivy-stamrood-lafleur
    ivy stamrood lafleur

    This really stupid glorification tribute film financed by the extremely wealthy McCandless whose son died a futile death from poisoning , starvation and overexposure in the Alaskan wilderness. Having graduated from Emory University the super spoiled typical rich kid rebels against what is expected of him by his parents. Like most of his type knowing full well he can always fall back on his parents wealth when it suits them to do so he then sets out on squandering his allowance after reportedly having donating his allowance to charity. The character playing his sister provides a narrative throughout the film providing a rational that his parents premarital experiences as well as their highly strained marriage as the reason for his escape into irresponsible living.This mainly fantasized account of Chris McCandless’s last stage of life includes all these encounters that paint him as a much loved eccentric character idolized by young women, a grain farmer, welfare workers, burnt out hippies and an old man who wants to adopt him. He breaks ecological laws by rafting down the Colorado river without a permit to Mexico where he sweet talks his way back into the USA without ID papers. McCandless then finishes his little road trip adventure with a hunting trip to the Alaskan wilderness. Despite being fully equipped and armed the idiot McCandless manages to die of a combination of starvation, poisoning and over exposure. Sean Penn directs this silly film which will no doubt find fans amongst superficial young women and other well to do hippie types. I suspect these types of films inspire young people to take foolish paths in life that only the rich can afford to take and have seen this happen to friends of mine with similar disastrous consequences. I’m giving it one star because maybe it will inspire other idiots to perish in the wilderness. I was not keen on the wasteful shooting of Alaskan wildlife for McCandless’s camping experiment. Great comedy material.

  • nathaniel-johnson
    nathaniel johnson

    Who Is Chris McCandless? A true supertramp? An obsessive, emotionally damaged egomaniac? Suicidal thrill-seeker? A Kerouac-like drifter addicted to the search for an ever-evasive truth? A high-functioning schizophrenic? The 21st century youth culture reincarnation of John Gault? Or just a kid going through a difficult time and looking for some distance to sort it all out? Sean Penn’s pop-philosophical examination of this young man’s voyage across America, to Alaska, and to the depths of his young soul will give you an interpretation at least. While it is not clear exactly whose interpretation we are seeing, it is very clear that Penn respects his subject and gave this film about as much thought and power as he could inject it with. And the film did remind me of something very true about the self-righteous naiveté of youth.I am not concerned at all with the accuracy of the film, and, while it is tempting to compare this film to Werner Herzog’s excellent but less fictionalized “Grizzly Man”, the subjects are really too widely disparate; Herzog and Penn’s perspective on humanity is too different to produce a meaningful comparison. The targets of this comparison, too big and too easy. But I will make one comment about the two films – Penn’s film is much more or a tribute to its protagonist than Herzog’s.I found Into the Wild to be a gripping, thoughtful film. The script was good, but sometimes a bit pretentious – occasionally crossing the line between character development and character worship. Penn’s direction and cinematography are masterful. The acting – every member of the cast included – is absolutely excellent.Recommended – but not for light cheerful entertainment.

  • raymond-le-merle
    raymond le merle

    This is the true story of Christopher McCandless, a college graduate who becomes a bum and eventually bites off more than he can chew by taking on the Alaskan frontier.Early on in the movie, I sort of liked the main character, and the premise behind his motives, but as time goes by, I came to regard him as selfish, silly and maybe a bit insane.He leaves his mother, father and sister distraught for over 2 years, not knowing where he is or if he is even alive. The portrayal of his ‘traumatizing’ upbringing was laughable (omg, his parents actually argued loudly and threatened to divorce each other a few times!). So what? As these facts came up, you come to dislike Chris (Alexander Supertramp), more and more. It becomes obvious he is just another spoiled suburban kid running from adult responsibilities, refusing to grow up, yet in the end meeting his match by taking on the Alaskan wilderness, which by the way, doesn’t give two figs about how well meaning you are in your quest for ‘answers’. Nature has no pity for the dumb.Why did they make a movie about this idiot in the first place??

  • made-vitols
    made vitols

    I live in Alaska and have for over 20 years and I have hiked, fished and hunted all over this state for most all of it. I lived here when the events of this movie happened. Christopher McCandless was not a hero or anything of the sort and to portray him in this way in this movie and to gloss over the insanely irresponsible actions he took that led to his completely unnecessary death and only invites other misguided “wilderness advocates” to do the same.Just as in the case of the Timothy Treadwell, who died along with his girlfriend due to his own lack of respect and understanding for the Alaskan Brown bears he claimed to have a “relationship” with, and had a movie made about him (Grizzley Man , 2005) McCandless was just another in a long list of “outsiders” who read a few books or even less and feel they have the necessary tools to survive in the bush here.It serves no one to have this movie completely stylize and glamorize the events that are only someone’s sanitized version of what happened. In truth McCandless likely died a horrible and lonely death in a completely unnecessary manner and in a completely irresponsible way. If only the movie were stronger to make this point then the it would have served an important role. Instead it only will likely lead to more misguided outsiders, unprepared and irresponsibly doing the same or worse.

  • arild-alexander-myklebust
    arild alexander myklebust

    Honestly let me just say this 1st Sean Pean made this story come to life, true life in every moment in the film. This movie has nothing wrong with it, it is perfect in every way shape and form. He did something that brought me to something I never could understand of what either i have to do or what i need to do in my life. If you want a movie from the heart this is it, if you want a movie of love this is it, if you want a movie with real life emotions well this is all of them. Its long but you’ll probably want more when you don’t want to leave your seat and just live in the moment of they story. So from my heart to yours this movie will speak to you know matter what.

  • sig-giuliano-fiore
    sig giuliano fiore

    Besides the cinematography and music I completely hated Into The Wild. The following is a list that expresses this hatred toward the glorification of Chris Mccandless, a mentally unstable kid who runs away from home. Spoilers. 1. Chris teaches us that when you have problems at home, just run away. 2. Apparently he and his sister are the only kids to ever have to deal with fighting parents. 3. How could he just leave his sister? He obviously loved her and took care of her. But no, he leaves her there with his psycho parents. Never writes her or anything. 4. He was too scared to stand up to his father. He just ran and hid when his dad hit his mother. 5. He turned down a brand new car from his parents to keep a piece of crap. 6. “I don’t need money.” Umm lets see he needed money for a kayak. He worked for Vince Vaughn and Burger King for money so he could make it to Alaska. Just a little hypocritical there. 7. Apparently being a free-spirit makes you an expert kayaker. 8. Everyone he meets is the absolutely nicest person you could ever meet. 9. The male hippie’s lines are laughably bad. 10. Male hippie tells Chris that he and female hippie are not doing good. Chris talks to male hippie for about 20 seconds and then goes swimming with female hippie. Male and female hippie go back to being completely in love. 11. The amount of times the word “Alaska” is uttered is just annoying. 12. Without the abandoned school bus he would have made it about a week. 13. Living in an abandoned school bus is not exactly living off the land, forgetting society. He slept on a friggin cot, had a place for a fire, and had sufficient shelter. 14. Man. Sitting there by yourself in an abandoned bus in the freezing cold. That’s living man. Wow. 15. He thought he could make it in the Alaskan wilderness with no map. 16. His story is basically now a tale of what not to do with your life. 17. The only real thing he learned from his adventure is that “Happiness is only real when shared.” Umm ya think? There’s probably other ridiculous stuff from this movie that I forgot about. This movie makes this kid into some kind of hero when the only thing he accomplished was committing suicide.

  • feline-kamper-van-eck
    feline kamper van eck

    One of the best movies I’ve ever seen. Beautiful, deep, true, adventurous, sad, occasionally funny, real, at times very touching. Based on a real-life novel, it is written and directed by Sean Penn. I have always loved the movie work of Sean Penn. Congratulations and thank you to Mr. Penn on giving me a few hours of though-provoking delight. Can you say Oscar? This movie says it loud and clear! The story; Christopher McCandless, just graduated from college in the early 1990s, goes off on an adventure. He is smitten with books he reads—Thoreau, London, Byron. He wants no money, so he gives his to needy causes or burns it. Chris is cocky, driven, industrious. He is traumatized by his parents’ bad marriage. He tries to work through his anguish. He seems determined to destroy himself just to prove that he has different values than his parents. He is inconsiderate of his family and keeps them worried about his whereabouts and safety, as if a single reassuring phone call would ruin his rebellion. He fancies himself a philosopher, but acts the petulant child. It is a great credit to the film that we see these character flaws in our hero. Off on the road, he makes a number of foolish choices – and suffers from some of them. Other foolish choices, such as daring to kayak a rapid river, bring him joy. He meets a lot of people and almost all are kind to him. His interactions with people are intense, the kind you have when you are planning to run off and disappear while you are still a mysterious entity. He avoids getting too close to anyone.The movie is gorgeous. Mountains, plains, sky, rivers, animals. The acting is fantastic, totally believable. The actors are incredible and perfectly cast – Catherine Keener as an aging hippie vagabond, Vince Vaughn as a wacky farmer growing who knows what, William Hurt as Chris’ potbellied suburbanite dad, Marcia Gay Harden as the type of mom who breeds children who wants to run off to the wilderness to escape from her. Emile Hirsch plays Chris, and does a great job of it. When an actual photo of the real Chris McCandless comes on screen, we see that Hirsch resembles him. Original songs by Eddie Vedder give the right feel – that of a well-to-do young white man heading out on a chosen adventure, getting gritty by choice. His goal is to get to Alaska, but on the way there, he hits many other states and Mexico, too.Chris is a clueless kid from the warm South. He plans to go to Alaska, yet only arrives with any needed equipment because kind folks force it upon him – a machete, warm clothes, rubber boots. He’s highly educated and gets good grades, yet, early on his trip, ignores a big sign that warns of flash floods. That prepares us that we are going to wince many times at his low level of common sense, while at the same time reveling in his physical strength and willingness to press on. At one point, Chris passes through Los Angeles. He is dirty, hungry, tired, and goes to a downtown mission shelter. The other men there are also dirty, hungry, and tired, but not of their own choosing. It is not their adventure, it is their life. He realizes fast that he does not want to feel categorized with men who are in dire straits due to misfortune and not due to following their own adventure. The movie shows Chris as an honorable young man. I do not want to give away any of the plot, so I’ll just say – the young man has principles and so does the movie.A few parts of the movie confused me. After Chris’s college graduation, he meets h is parents at a restaurant. He brings with him a lovely young woman, obviously his date. Weirdly, it turns out that she is his sister! There is more confusion when Chris picks up work on a farm run by Wayne, the Vince Vaughn character. What are they growing or doing? What’s up? There is an unintentionally funny scene where an old man tells Chris that he does not have time for adventures because he is too busy with leather. I thought the old guy was confessing being into whips and chaps. But no, he has a workshop where he tools leather. There were a couple spots where the editing distracted from the movie. I saw a preview; maybe it was a rough cut. There’s a scene on the farm where a triple screen is used – like a cheesy commercial. Another scene, where Chris is eating an apple, is a series of jump cuts, which I really liked. It seemed an homage to French auteur filmmakers. But it ends with Chris mugging at the camera. With it, Sean Penn breaks the believability and acknowledges that yes, this is just us making a movie. There is another part where Chris is in a car with the older man who is dropping him off. As they pull up, there is an inexplicable cutaway shot of what looks to be the head of a cannon. Much of the movie is like a travel montage or music video involving mountains and sky. The scenes are so beautiful. I know people that have elements of Chris in them. And I think I’ve met all the characters he runs into out on the road.

  • ingela-nystrom
    ingela nystrom

    I read the book in 1996. Like others, it moved me profoundly. I created a series of prints of my interpretation of Chris. I haven’t read the book since.This film transported me right back to the spirit that Krakauer brought to life in the book. I spent a few years traveling alone from 1994-1996. This film reminded my why I left and why I returned. Ten years later, all grown up with all the crap, I’m haunted again by Chris. What a well done job.Thank you Sean & John. You did it right.By the way, try to catch Holly Figueroa’s song “Dream in Red” inspired by Into The Wild.

  • arild-eliassen-antonsen
    arild eliassen antonsen

    Christopher McCandless lived a silly life and died a silly death. Here was a guy who gave his savings to Oxfam, left home without uttering a word to his family and who thought salvation lay in the wilderness. Too bad, then, that he ate the wrong type of plant and carked it.All the time we’re told what complete bastards McCandless’ parents are. They drove Christopher into the wild. But what was their crime? Apparently they argued some, even lied a little and their children were born out of wedlock. Okay, they’re not the best parents in the world, but do they deserve the harsh treatment that their son dishes out – no letters, no postcards, no phone calls? Well, if you’re a massive jerk and you’re somehow unable to comprehend that human relationships are more complicated than a simple ‘they’re good’ or ‘they’re bad’, then you may be able to build a case for young Christopher, but if you have any depth of feeling in your soul, you may well think that McCandless punished his parents beyond anything that is reasonable. And also remember that he never contacted his beloved sister. She got the silent treatment as well. However, we have a scene where Christopher goes to call her, but instead he gives his quarter to an old man who is running out of change. What a great guy, we’re asked to think. See how he lends a helping hand to strangers. But what about his poor sister, the person who loves him most in the world? This apparently is his one feeble attempt to reach out and tell her that he’s okay.But no, Christopher is determined to live alone in the wilderness – to find himself. He wants to escape from a sick society where people treat each other poorly. Hell, his parents even have the nerve to offer to buy him a new car and pay for a Harvard education. Those phonies. Those shallow fakers who give him a home to live in and money to spend. How disgusting they are.Okay, so fair enough, the parents that we’re presented with here are stiff, middle class dweebs who are more interested in appearances than anything of any substance, but what had me shaking my head was the assertion that Christopher’s disappearance made them better people. Suddenly they’re thoughtful and united and in tune with one another. Yes, that’s what every strained marriage needs – their children to put them through a couple of years of hell.But what I find most objectionable is the romanticising of the wilderness. Is this the only way that anyone can find themselves, by opening their arms and standing on the edge of a mountain and by kayaking down a river? Isn’t there any other way? Apparently not. We even get a scene where Christopher, briefly stranded in LA, looks into a restaurant populated by smarmy bastards and sees a yuppie version of himself. You see what he’d become if he stayed in the city? Hunting moose and talking to hippies is the only way to become a rounded individual.But the disaffection with society in this film is incredibly adolescent. In one scene, Christopher and a buddy of his just start impotently shouting ‘society!’ Yeah, society sucks and the wilderness is great. The wilderness never starved anyone, ate anyone or froze their balls off. In the eyes of every bear and moose is truth and beauty, and on the cold streets of civilisation is a steady flow of lies and deceit.However, at the end, Christopher maybe finally begins to understand that his quest is full of crap. He writes something along the lines that happiness is meaningless if you don’t have someone to share it with. It took you all that time to figure that out? That human connections are what make life bearable? You could have found that out back home, sitting on your couch in your underpants, stuffing Cheetos down your throat.But of course, it’s the journey that matters, isn’t it? And what a tedious journey it is. Christopher meets hippies and quirky foreigners (who are good) and men with badges (who are bad). He helps people like a shaggy-haired Littlest Hobo and enjoys the milk of human kindness. Well, he enjoys the milk of human kindness as long as the people are poor. Everyone who has no money in this film is an insightful, kind-hearted, itinerant poet. Plus none of the hippies he meets are smelly, ugly, incoherent bastards who drown in their own drug-fuelled nonsense. No, they’re inspiring people, who plaster their vehicles with outdated sentiments like ‘freedom’, ‘peace’ and ‘love’.But it’s notable that there’s a moment when even a bear won’t eat Christopher. Supposedly the bear turns his nose up at him because the kid stays calm or perhaps because he’s so sick he doesn’t smell that good. But I’d like to think that the bear turns his nose up because it’s BS he can smell, and lots of it.However, as we all know from Timothy Treadwell, bears don’t mind a bit of BS, but alas the film can’t even come close to the genius of Grizzly Man, a film that shows you’re no closer to finding reality in the wilderness than you are on the city streets. The problem here is that Penn is celebrating McCandless’ folly instead of investigating it. Not for one moment are we asked to consider that this kid is perhaps a bit of an idiot. We’re meant to find his journey inspiring and his plight tragic. But instead it’s neither of those things. And at the end his death is elevated to grandiose status (it’s shot like he’s ascending to heaven, that he’s communing with god). But in reality his death is what happens when a deluded moron tries to live in the wilderness without a map or enough food.

  • susan-james
    susan james

    INTO THE WILD definitely works as a film – I had read the book so I certainly knew the tragic story of this young man’s life but I was blown away by the performances. In fact, to have this young talent Emile Hirsch working with the old, legendary Hal Holbrook makes the film a must see – in fact, their scene near the end in the truck is one of the best pieces of acting I have ever seen on film – Holbrook is amazing there. He deserves a Best Supporting Actor nomination (but probably won’t get it). The film is by no means perfect – there are pacing problems but Penn does use the flashbacks incredibly well and the film builds power as it goes along. Hirsch is so real – I remember noticing how talented he was in the indie flick Dangerous Life Of Altar Boys and I also thought he was very good in the so-so Alpha Dog film. But Penn gets a terrific performance out of him as well as Catherine Keener, Vince Vaughn, Wm. Hurt, Kirsten Stewart, jena Malone and everyone else for that matter. I can see how this film might not be for every one, but I was very moved by it and days later – certain images and moments stayed with me. Penn is getting better as a filmmaker with each movie he makes.

  • mare-partel
    mare partel

    For a movie to be even better than a good book is no small feat. Yet, that’s how I felt after watching this film. It really impressed me. One of the reasons is the fantastic cinematography. Man, this is a beautifully filmed and, at 142 minutes, there are a lot of great scenes to admire.Sean Penn directed and Eddie Gautier was the Director Of Photography. I can’t stand Penn as a person but fair-is-fair and I think he’s great as a director, having seen his work in “The Pledge” and “The Crossing Guard.” The main actor, Emile Hirsch, who plays “Chris McCandless” (a.k.a. “Alexander Supertramp” reminded me of Leonardo DiCaprio with his looks, build and voice inflection. He is very credible as the young guy who wants nothing to do with materialistic society and dreams of living in the wilds of Alaska. The problem was that he was unprepared and underestimated what he was up against.Two people who fascinated me the most in here were two extremes, age-wise – Hal Holbrook and Kristen Stewart. It was really great to see the veteran Holbrook (“Ron France”) again. He was about 82 when he made this film and hadn’t acted in a film in a few years. He was terrific, too. He had some of the most memorable scenes in the story. Meanwhile, teenager Stewart was captivating as “Tracy Tatro,” who had a crush on “Alex.” This young woman is on her way to stardom.Brian Dierker and Catherine Keener also were really, really interesting as the aging hippie couple, “Rainey” and “Jan.” I kept thinking, I know this guy when listening to Dierker’s voice, finally guessing it was Jeff Bridges underneath all the beard….but it Dierker, a guy who rarely acts in films.Knowing the book, the only part of the film that caught be off-guard was the young Swedish couple. I don’t remember them in the book but I’ll never forget this in this film!! One could debate the pros and cons of Chris McCandless for hours, so no sense going into that here. I thought the film was pretty kind to him. You read more in the book about how he hurt a lot of people with his silence. Either way, it’s a a fascinating story and a beautiful film.

  • meri-guliashvili
    meri guliashvili

    The sensitivity with which Krakauer captured the essence of McCandless and his adventure is extended aptly to the movie format by Sean Penn. Even if one might not be able to appreciate the purpose for Alex’s journey, I don’t think anyone would be able to deny that Into the Wild is a sensitive and poignant cinematic experience. There are scenes in this movie that one will never be able to forget, particularly the ending sequence. This movie will easily pull its audience into a philosophical debate for the truth about who was right and wrong isn’t easy to distinguish. Sean Penn certainly doesn’t try to answer those questions, questions that McCandless’ life left for his family and the rest of us. Penn does well to tread a delicate objective but not indifferent line. Certainly the best movie of this year and one of the best ever made. The story, the story itself is great.

  • ida-gieron
    ida gieron

    Sean Penn’s new movie Into the Wild arrives on the wave of a well-regarded novel about a college graduate who decides that the anger and violence in civilized society is too much to handle and commences a journey through nature in order to truly live life as it was meant to be. This film is a wonderful glimpse into the life of a kid, wise beyond his years, and the bonds that he creates with people along the way. A victim of excess in wealth and a shortage of love, Christopher McCandless hid inside his mind behind knowledge and philosophy, building up his intellectual strength, as well as the physical, in order to complete his trek, ultimately leading him to Alaska. Penn never falls into the trap of showing too much heartbreak on the side of McCandless’s parents, because he doesn’t want the audience to second-guess the decision he made. There is no debate to be had here, our protagonist has no alternative but to get out and live off the land. Only being completely self-sufficient can he grasp a meaning for his life and one day perhaps go back with that knowledge fully learned.Emile Hirsch is absolutely brilliant with his good-natured attitude and affable charm. His character believes that human contact is not necessary for happiness and never seeks out relationships. However, his character is so likable that they find him and latch on, not to change his mind, but to experience his level of being and hopefully learn something from him and help enlarge his vocabulary on life. The people he meets help him to fully grasp the decision of life in the wild and be able to survive it. Never coming off condescendingly to those he crosses paths with, Hirsch always holds a smile on his face. One scene, where he meets up with a couple of people from Europe, proves how contagious a clear outlook on life without the troubles of societal restraints can be. These three kids have a blast, if only for a few minutes—with Hirsch being chased by the police for rafting with no license—and it makes one wonder if maybe we all should take a journey into nature and feel the freedom and full warmth of heart that a lack of stress to succeed in the business world can give.All the supporting players are magnificent at helping show the side to McCandless that Penn needs on display to succeed. Hal Holbrook, Brian Dierker, and Catherine Keener are by far the best of these side characters with Vince Vaughn and Kirsten Stewart adding some charm too. Dierker, Keener, and Stewart play hippie, flower-child type roles and allow Hirsch to show off how modest and unselfish he is. This is the family he deserved to have from birth and he is the son they wished their lives had earned them. At their best, all four together give some of the most emotionally charged moments in the film. Holbrook, on-the-other-hand, helps give insight into the philosophy that Hirsch needs to live with in order to survive the loneliness, looking him in the face, to come in Alaska. It is truly fascinating to see how every person adds something to his overall experience and to the tools he needs.Hirsch deserves a lot of credit because he truly outshines the film itself with his dedication and sacrifice to the role. The length of time needed to allow him the ability to lose the weight necessary for a main plot point in the movie is crazy. If the time wasn’t that long and Hirsch did it all rapidly, I’m even more impressed. With all that, there are many instances free of dialogue that he needs to carry with body language and actions alone. True, much of this is enhanced by a wonderful soundtrack from Eddie Vedder, but evenso it is a remarkable performance. Kudos to Sean Penn for a gorgeous filming job also. He captures the countryside with grace, while infusing many moments of visual style by slow-motioning glimpses, knowing when to show the family left behind, utilizing informative and essential voice-over, and even breaking the fourth wall. When Hirsch first looks into the camera, at the audience, it does not seem unnatural in the slightest, but instead an amazing link for the viewers to take a look into his soul like those that crossed his path have. McCandless is so pure that it almost feels like glimpsing the calm protectiveness of God.

  • lorraine-charpentier-mendes
    lorraine charpentier mendes

    I’ve never posted a comment regarding a movie but feel compelled to after attending a screening of Into The Wild at the Toronto Film Festival last night. I won’t speak to story here as it’s covered in the other comments.This is a movie of real beauty. It made me cry. I felt moved in a way that happens very rarely. It was an inspiration.The feelings it evoked were all based on the power of the acting and the writing. The words were real and human. The relationships seemed real and human. This may not seem like a great feat – but I consider it a true rarity. It didn’t feel calculated and artificial, like so many movies (read: Crash – but I’m not here to bash that…). It was very organic, natural and (I can’t say it enough) just beautiful. Cripes, it’s making me sound like a hippie, for heaven’s sake. This for me was Penn’s best work since Indian Runner.What it reminded me of…Terence Malik – Herzog? – in a strange way Cassavettes? – Hal Ashby (more Coming Home than Harold & Maude…) – even a bit of Ken LoachRuby in Paradise – Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore – Five Easy Pieces – Easy Rider… but when I list those it’s not because of plot similarities (though there are some) or style (although I think you can definitely see the influence of some great films) – it’s again because of the heart of it. I heard a few people at the screening comment that the film was “too long” but I don’t agree. I think exploring a journey of this magnitude required visiting all of the people he touched and taking the time to see the land.Hal Holbrook was just perfect, as was the cast as a whole, and I think Emile Hirsch is really going places – he was fantastic and he owned the role. Eddie Vedder’s music worked perfectly as well – not distracting or quirky – just a part of the whole.The film received a standing ovation and quite a few tears were shed. Magic.

  • maggie-gomez
    maggie gomez

    I’m finding it hard to see why this film has taken such a tongue lashing (or keyboard lashing) by some people…mostly it is said that the main character is selfish and self indulgent, and that this film builds him up to be some kind of hero..but I think that’s missing the point…through-out I was thinking about how, on one hand it was admirable that he wanted to break from the materialistic, money grabbing oppressive shackles placed on us by modern society, but on the other, how he had gone about it in such an irresponsible, hurtful and self-righteous way…the way he abandoned his parents and loving sister without a phone call note or explanation, and from the people he met along the way, like the kind old man and young romance, especially compounded this…and ultimately he realised this at the end by scribbling into a book, “happiness only real when shared” surely that is the lesson here! that his selfish, hurtful adolescent behaviour was wrong, and he ultimately paid a terrible cost.So ignore that haters…they are looking at this story the wrong way! Very much worth an open minded viewing!

    • katey

      Thank you, I feel the same about this film