John Ruffle James Bond in the wilderness? Well, that's the way it looks: Pierce Brosnan is after all best known as Bond in "Tommorrow Never Dies" (1997) and "Golden Eye" (1995) - both shot prior to this release. Frankly, the film's two leads are both badly miscast, with Brosnan turning in the marginally more convincing performance, and with Annie Galipeau (as Pony, Grey Owl's love interest) having to battle with carelessly-written dialogue.The two aunts, on the other hand are perfect. But the film is not about aunts. It is about the wilds of the Canadian wilderness. And while the photography may be pretty, there is no grit to the harsh reality of living in the wilds. Annie Galipeau, as Pony, just fails to be convincing, unfortunately, because I really wanted to believe in her. She was a relatively inexperienced twenty-year-old on this film, and it could have worked, but Richard Attenborough was maybe just not tough enough on her. He makes her look vulnerable, which of course she is.. but in the wrong sort of way.But one thing for sure, she appears picture-perfect throughout. But mascara and eyebrow thickener in the wilderness? It just doesn't fit, especially as she only ever seems to walk forest trials with Bond (sorry, Grey Owl), and use photo-ops for kissing close-ups.I've lived with forest people in the Pacific North West, and they simply don't look this pretty and stay so sweet while fighting for survival. Which brings me to another point: the film fails to evoke the period in which it is set: the 1930s. I put the blame here largely on a lack-lustre script that is keen on preaching at the expense of dramatic arc, plot points and those small details that can evoke period through action.William Nicholson wrote the screenplay, and his latest offering, "Elizabeth, the Golden Age" opened three days ago, so I do hope there is an improvement.Yes, I've read the comments others have posted, but I'm not convinced. A lot of potential, but mishandled and even maybe ill-conceived. If it had had a religious film, it would have been panned, but because it preaches environmentalism, the film remains somewhat above criticism, since it is "politically correct." Sorry, for all that, I don't buy it. Amen.

vchimpanzee I was bored a lot of the time at first, but once Archie/Grey Owl discovered his new career the movie improved a lot. The speeches by Grey Owl were the best part of the movie, but it was clear he didn't like being put on display like a sideshow freak. Still, Grey Owl played the part, showing the Indian that people expected. I liked the scenes where Archie reunited with those who raised him.Although animals were shown being hurt or killed, much was left to the imagination. There was nothing graphic, although some people might be upset by the scenes. A deer falls after a gunshot, but of course we all know it was trained to do so. Other violence is just assumed. Grey Owl saw a fox or wolf in distress, swung a weapon of some kind, and in the next scene carried a dead animal. Beyond this, there is nothing offensive. Not unless you want political correctness, which wasn't to be found in the 1930s.Pierce Brosnan did an outstanding job, and so did many of the actors playing "Red Indians", as the movie called them numerous times. Actually, I could say "Native American" because the name was first given to the two continents, of which Canada is a part. Annie Galipeau was good for the most part, but she didn't do anger very well, in my opinion. And she seemed kind of stiff so much of the time. In other scenes, she was adorable.There was plenty of great scenery, and lots of good wildlife shots. There wasn't a lot of what sounded like Native American influence in the background music.This is a good movie for anyone wanting to learn more about Native American culture (including what I assume were authentic dances), and for anyone interested in preserving nature.

bob the moo Archie Grey Owl had a Scottish mother but he had an Indian father and was raised as such. As an adult in the 1930's he continues to live as his people did – something that draws the interest of Pony, a woman who is looking for her roots having been brought up in the city. She joins him to experience this for herself and gradually finds herself falling in love with him. She convinces him to give up trapping and gets him on the side of conversation and preservation. Gradually his writing and speaking brings him to a world audience and threatens to reveal secrets he himself has denied for years.When this film came out in the cinema it looked a bit dull and I, like many others, decided not to bother with it. On television I gave it a try and, despite having just about enough going for it to watch, I must admit that my initial impressions were spot on because this is a film that takes its time to really go nowhere. The story is basically that a man raised the importance of conservation to an international level but he was not an Indian as he claimed – and that's pretty much it. Given that we already known the man is not an Indian (not a spoiler – it is a true story and he is played by Bond!) then it is more a matter of waiting for the characters to find out and see what happens. Meanwhile we have lots of gorgeous landscapes and lots of messages about conservation. When the secrets come out, they come out slowly and without fanfare – continuing to make the film feel a little dull and empty.Brosnan tries hard with a person that the script doesn't really get to the heart of and he does manage to give a good performance even if his dialogue is occasionally a bit too preachy and obvious for my liking. Galipeau is a real problem because she is as wooden as the forests around her and she barely has any chemistry with Brosnan. The support cast are OK but really the film is about Brosnan and it is to his credit that he kept me watching considering how little he had to work with. The direction is as slow and deliberate as the story but this seems to suit the tone of the script and certainly works well with the cinematography and landscapes.Overall though the film is simply too empty and plodding to really hit the spot. No fuss is made about the secret life – surprisingly considering this seemed to be its main thrust; instead the film looks at Archie himself and is frustrated by how guarded he is (both in reality and the film), again making it drag a bit. In the end large sections just looked good and had a vague conservationist "to thine own self be true" message but not a great deal else. Watchable but requires patience.

hokeybutt GREY OWL (2+ outta 5 stars)Interesting but much-too-earnest movie about a white man (Pierce Brosnan), obsessed since childhood with Indian culture, who convinced the world that he was an actual half-breed Indian... lecturing and touring the world. Entranced by his writings and the pride he takes in his "heritage", a young Indian falls in love with him and joins him in his wilderness home... but even she does not know the truth. Eventually, the guilt overwhelms him and he finds he can no longer preach about conservation while living his life as a fraud. I kinda liked the movie... Pierce's performance was alright... but Annie Galipeau steals the movie as his full native love interest. I think the only problem with the movie is that it takes itself a little too seriously... treating the character of Grey Owl as more of a saintly crusader than the "crazy white man" he probably was in reality.