The version I saw was 161 minutes.
My review is also a charge of low expectations against those who awarded this film things like "Best Editing" and "Best Picture". This is political correctness run amok.
Let's not mistake an important film for a good one. Being the first, and perhaps still the only film in Inuktitut, this is an important film. It's also important for bringing to the world an ancient story most of us would never have heard of otherwise.
Let's also not mistake a hard-to-make film for a good one. 1995's Waterworld was hard to make too, and about as entertaining as this one.
However, a film is supposed to do a few things.
1. Tell a Story.
Halfway through this film, I was lost. Now, for that to happen in such a slow-paced film is saying something. Then, when I read a plot synopsis, it appears that not only was I lost, but the parts of the film that I thought I knew, I apparently didn't know at all. For a film to be good, it shouldn't require prior knowledge of an obscure culture, or a secondary source to follow along with.
2. Entertain.
The editing of this film was such that the story tension and character detail were both sacrificed to the priority of documenting a past Inuit way of life. This is the same mistake that science fiction and fantasy films make when they try to dazzle you with their special effects, as if a CG dinosaur is impressive just because it is on screen for the first time (Jurassic Park). It's not. The past and current Inuit way of life is well worth documenting in film. But it belongs in a documentary, not a drama. If cut in half, it could be a better film.
3. Yes, Entertain.
While there were some truly beautiful shots, much of the cinematography was little better than you'd expect from any schoolboy with a hand-held camera. I found myself imagining what the same on-screen action would have looked like if a competent team had been permitted to film it. It could have been given the weight that a story that is this important to its people deserves, and could have drawn in other viewers to this story. That didn't happen.
Some final random thoughts: I have never seen so much urination in a movie that was not pornographic. Also, it was not good to be a dog in the old Arctic. It was even worse to be any other non-human animal. Last, apparently the word translated as "forgive" doesn't mean forgive, at least as most people understand the concept. Forgiveness doesn't include punishment.
My review is also a charge of low expectations against those who awarded this film things like "Best Editing" and "Best Picture". This is political correctness run amok.
Let's not mistake an important film for a good one. Being the first, and perhaps still the only film in Inuktitut, this is an important film. It's also important for bringing to the world an ancient story most of us would never have heard of otherwise.
Let's also not mistake a hard-to-make film for a good one. 1995's Waterworld was hard to make too, and about as entertaining as this one.
However, a film is supposed to do a few things.
1. Tell a Story.
Halfway through this film, I was lost. Now, for that to happen in such a slow-paced film is saying something. Then, when I read a plot synopsis, it appears that not only was I lost, but the parts of the film that I thought I knew, I apparently didn't know at all. For a film to be good, it shouldn't require prior knowledge of an obscure culture, or a secondary source to follow along with.
2. Entertain.
The editing of this film was such that the story tension and character detail were both sacrificed to the priority of documenting a past Inuit way of life. This is the same mistake that science fiction and fantasy films make when they try to dazzle you with their special effects, as if a CG dinosaur is impressive just because it is on screen for the first time (Jurassic Park). It's not. The past and current Inuit way of life is well worth documenting in film. But it belongs in a documentary, not a drama. If cut in half, it could be a better film.
3. Yes, Entertain.
While there were some truly beautiful shots, much of the cinematography was little better than you'd expect from any schoolboy with a hand-held camera. I found myself imagining what the same on-screen action would have looked like if a competent team had been permitted to film it. It could have been given the weight that a story that is this important to its people deserves, and could have drawn in other viewers to this story. That didn't happen.
Some final random thoughts: I have never seen so much urination in a movie that was not pornographic. Also, it was not good to be a dog in the old Arctic. It was even worse to be any other non-human animal. Last, apparently the word translated as "forgive" doesn't mean forgive, at least as most people understand the concept. Forgiveness doesn't include punishment.