CheerupSilver Very Cool!!!

FirstWitch A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Derry Herrera Not sure how, but this is easily one of the best movies all summer. Multiple levels of funny, never takes itself seriously, super colorful, and creative.

Ginger Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

thinbeach Nanook of the North was outdated before it was even made. By the time of filming in 1920, the Inuk people of the Canadian Arctic had already been influenced by Europeans - with western clothing, and the use of guns for hunting, an established part of their new culture. However wanting to capture their lifestyle before these influences, Flaherty cast a small group of locals to live and hunt in the old fashion, which was not so far removed from their lifestyle that they were able to do it.I've seen many critical of the film for apparently smudging details like this, or for at times staging parts of the action. But firstly I ask, what documentary does not stage re-enactments? They all do, and of course if you are making a historic documentary (ie. of past events) it is unavoidable. And secondly, to quote Roger Ebert, "If you stage a walrus hunt, it still involves hunting a walrus, and the walrus hasn't seen the script."Instead of quibbling over trivia like this, I am far more impressed that a film of this nature and daring even managed to be captured in the first place. They had no lights, were located in sub freezing temperatures a long way from civilization, and had already experienced years of failure - the film of Flaherty's first attempt years earlier catching fire and being destroyed. Despite the difficulties, we get an incredible story from a place on Earth so few ever set foot in, and even fewer could possibly live and survive in. More than that, it is effortless to follow, and contains a warmth of human spirit that completely belies the location. The beauty is that they were able to stage a film such as this in narrative fashion (be it live, or re- enactments), which proves a far more immersive approach than any modern talking heads documentary.It is a sobering hard life the characters lead. Often on the brink of starvation as they trek the white landscapes for food - fish, seals, walrus - no place for vegans - with but a pack of semi-wild dogs to sled them along, holing up in igloos when wild snow storms swirl around outside them. Despite this, the Inuk are rarely seen without a broad smile on their face, and there are playful moments as the kids slide down the icy slopes. The landscapes are endlessly fascinating, alien surfaces of stark white disappearing to the horizon, with only the ocean, and towers of ice boulders strewn about, to break the monotony. It is a complete removal from civilization, and offers a great contrast to our industry and technology filled lives. A film of survival and man's adaptation to his environment, with human existence in its purest form.

MartinHafer "Nanook of the North" is a film that shows the life of Nanook and his family back in 1920 in the frozen North of Canada. Most of the film shows Nanook hunting and fishing--most other activities are not seen.I'll be honest about this one--"Nanook of the North" is NOT a film for everyone. It's a semi-documentary with very limited appeal. I am not surprised that it was released as part of the ultra-artsy Criterion Collection. After all, how many people want to see a film about the life of the Inuit in Northern Canada?! However, for fans of documentaries, it's well worth seeing, as it's one of the very early ones. But you might have noticed that I called it a 'semi-documentary'--a term that should be used more often. That's because a true documentary shows what is--not a fictional account of what is. And, while what you see is typical in some ways about the Inuit, it was NOT typical of the Inuit in 1920. These folks no longer hunted and lived like they did in this film due to their contact with the outside world. And so, what you see is more like the Inuit BEFORE they made contact with the modern world. Apparently, in 1920, these folks were using guns and other modern bits of technology that are not shown in the film. Additionally, the filmmaker staged much of the film. For example, Nannok's wife in the film really isn't his wife! But with all these problems, is the film worthless? Certainly not!! It's fascinating from start to finish and is more like a recreation of ancient Inuit life--and in this sense, it's an invaluable record--but one most people probably don't care much about today--mostly it's a film for academicians and film historians.

Motherspot This is one of the highlights in touching cinema IMO. Flaherty showed the world a harsh environment in a time when Cinema , radio and other ways of spreading the news was hardly available. he shows us a pure way of living , just touching the modern wonders of industrial civilization.Nannook , and his happy-go-lucky family manage barely to stay alive in their harsh conditions.still enjoying all things human.they laugh when having fun , they depend on each other , they make the best of live... Unbelievable how they can survive in an environment , without wood , metal , wool or whatever. they totally depend on animal harvest. in the DVD i saw there was a part in which Flaherty's wife explained the impact this film had in the 20-ies when it hit the world cinema's.... she also tells us that in the end Nannok did not survive nature....he died of hunger some time after the film was released , and when news of his death reached civilization , from Tokyo the Paris , people where grieving the death of this 'fellow-human being that so warmly touched the hearts of men.

barhound78 Directed by Robert J. Flaherty, this moving feature about the hardships faced by an Inuit family is one of the seminal films of the silent era and brought about his reputation as "the father of the documentary". Although only having spent a few weeks out in the icy wilderness, Flaherty presents us with a series of beautiful vignettes that capture the absolute essence of the daily struggles for survival that Nanook and his people face. The audiences follows them on their long treks in the constant search for food; picking their way over floes and towers of ice in order to catch a fish or hunt seal and walrus. Yet amongst the hardships and privations, Flaherty also allows glimpses of the tenderness and love within the family. The joy of a meal, the warmth of a shelter, the fascinating communal construction of an igloo. The humanity of the Inuits is rendered with heartwarming affection. However, often setting his subjects against the bleak yet stunning vistas of unending snow, Flaherty leaves the audience in no doubt that the environment is as much the star. Some critics argue that Nanook is not a true documentary as Flaherty staged some scenes and directed his subjects. However, these critics are wildly missing the point. Nanook Of the North is as much about the barren landscape that Nanook and his clan wander. At its centre, this film is the age old tale of the battle between man and nature. This is none more evident of the films wonderful final scenes. Caught in a blizzard, the family are forced to find refuge in an abandoned igloo. A happy respite together from the wild storm outside. This scene has been given extra poignancy with the tragic knowledge that Nanook and his family perished in such a blizzard a few months after the film was released. It's a sad footnote to a tremendous film. A masterpiece of film making that inspires and enthrals and, most importantly, celebrates nature, life and humanity.