best movie i've ever seen.

It's complicated... I really like the directing, acting and writing but, there are issues with the way it's shot that I just can't deny. As much as I love the storytelling and the fantastic performance but, there are also certain scenes that didn't need to exist.

It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

Positives: Seeing & hearing about her early life s a teen and younger was interesting especially as it related to her naturalist motivations. Seeing how she observed and interacted with the African landscape also interesting. A taste of her observational methodologies that she felt comfortable developing including the interactions with the chimps interesting as well although some criticize as not scientifically rigorous. Negatives: The major negative, and which Nat Geo should be ashamed, is the lack of subtitling to help some viewers as well as to compensate for at times poor audio. Yes, Nat Geo, dialogue is important. Minor, almost neutral, is the Glass background music which may be excessive to some viewers, and a lot of footage for ambience such as caterpillars crawling on a branch. Would have liked a bit more on her later life, and what research is currently finding at her chimp center.

It's well worth watching and I highly recommend it. I've known about Jane Goodall's work for many years. What I didn't realize all this time was that Jane wasn't a researcher or even a student when she went to live in Gombe in 1957 to study the chimpanzees, she was a 26-year-old secretary with a love of animals. That's all. She is a perfect example of how the seemingly most unqualified person can actually be the best one for a job. It took five months for her to even get close to the chimpanzees. Someone else might not have or given up. She compiled tons of data. Someone else might not have been as thorough. Tragedies happened and her personal life threatened her commitment, but she never gave up, always went back, and this ground-breaking research is still in progress over 60 years later. That's dedication. Well done, Dr. Goodall!

Jane is a 'assembled' movie that rightly shows her place in understanding the chimps in Africa and leading to new conclusions about their species. However, there were far to many "Jane looking through binoculars" shots and Jane washing her hair. In a great faux science experiment, she brings in outside bananas to the chimps and they go well, bananas in coveting the goods and wrecking the support site. There are observational animal studies which means you do not interact with the animals and make them part of your 'western 'family' getting them to become dependent on you. Missing parts of the film > why did the chimp colonies fight each other to death. Was it the bananas? Jane simply gloss overs this terrible tragedy. Lot is really missing from a study of this type and inserting herself into the colony was not a good idea. Music by Glass was of course great. And there are lots of other worth while studies providing necessary insight into animal colonies.

Relying heavily upon previously unseen footage from the film vaults of National Geographic, this release will be of interest to people who have followed Dr. Goodall's groundbreaking work. To the same audience, however, much of the narrative will already be familiar. To my mind, it is best seen as an appendix to the fine work that has already been done in documenting the now legendary story of Jane Goodall rather than as a definitive synopsis of her career. Given that much of the visuals are over half a century old, younger audiences especially might have difficulty reconciling the production values of mid-twentieth century field location footage with the high expectations engendered by the modern cinema experience. Where this film shines, and the reason I would encourage people to see this film in a cinema, is the sound. The score (by the inimitable and immediately recognizable Phillip Glass) is itself compelling, and appropriately mirrors the emotional cadence of the visual narrative. The sound design and editing, apart from the music, however, is truly brilliant. The theater erupts in a chorus of chimpanzee cries, among other jungle soundscapes, in many parts of the movie, and I almost felt the need to turn around to see what might be behind me at some points. Glass also cleverly weaves chimp calls into the score in a syncopated "cat's cradle" of rhythm at one point, which brought a smile on my face by mere virtue of its compositional ingenuity; this film is "ear candy." That being said, despite the many out of focus and grainy shots, there are some truly breathtaking visuals in the movie provided by Hugo van Lawick, Dr. Goodall's original videographer and eventual (ex)husband. The most breathtaking stuff comes from the Serengeti, and is therefore ancillary to Dr. Goodall's work the Gombe Reserve, but is still important in the personal narrative of her life. You will not see a more intimate portrayal of Dr. Goodall's journey elsewhere however, despite the miles of celluloid devoted to her. Anyone who reads her books will already be familiar with the story disclosed in the story line itself, including the incalculable value of the influence of Dr. Goodall's mother, but the footage of "Mum" in camp at Gombe will be a treat for those who have hitherto only known her as a character mentioned in prose, passing dialogue in a previous documentary, or mention in one of Dr. Goodall's innumerous public appearances. While much of the visual media of this film is novel, and the narrative itself mostly familiar, the presentation is likely to entertain, if not inform, almost any viewer. Modern audiences are cautioned to understand that this is not a film that relies upon computer- generated special effects, explosions, and a vast post-production budget beyond restoring and improving half- century old celluloid reels. It will very likely succeed in evoking an emotional response, which is, after all, the aim of any artistic work. That Dr. Goodall's entire career succeeds in the same vein is a powerful argument for the assertion that her life itself must be viewed as a contribution to art as much as to science.