MovieChat Forums > Atanarjuat (2002) Discussion > Opinion on Film Quality

Opinion on Film Quality

posted 13 years ago by veryhornyfox
5 replies | jump to latest

I thought it was a 4 or 5 out of 10. It was boring in parts (such as the beginning) and simplistic (the plot was very unintellectually challenging) but at the same time managed to be hard to follow (at least in the beginning). The acting ranged from poor to half decent. I imagine they used locals to the villages who had limited acting experience. In some cases, it showed.

I enjoyed the landscape but even that wasn't made quite as much of as it could have been (some high shots from the air (OK, maybe they had no budget for that) or at least some more expansive shots might have been good).

The film scores high marks on originality but so what if it isn't fundamentally any good.

I do think some credit is deserved is deserved for having this in the original language.

I thought the chase scene was decent but I can't think of a single really excellent scene in the film.

Can anyone who thought this was a 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 come out in support of this film. What's so good about it. It seemed overrated to me.

[–] snowleopard 12 years ago

I saw it in the theater after reading very positive reviews. I almost fell asleep (even though I also had a hard time following it) after about 45 minutes. Around then a couple sitting nearby walked out. And that's too bad, as the film started to pick up then, and I enjoyed it the rest of the way, and in my rating here I gave it a 6. What did I like about it?

I had never seen anything like it. It was very original. I also liked the realism of it, without it looking like reality TV or the way Hollywood tries to shoot something "real".

Another thing to keep in mind is that this film was made by the Inuit, pretty much for the Inuit. It had a low budget, and was shot on video (as in old, TV video). The Inuit weren't expecting the film to be a big sensation. If they had, I would think they would have not only edited it tighter, but written the script to be more informative for the lay. They also likely would have raised more money and increased the production value.

[–] henrimaine 11 years ago

I believe the film deserves some extra points for being non-mainstream, non-western, shot in an aboriginal community in an aboriginal language. Sure, the story and the general idea was nothing very special, but that could be said about most films. The important thing about this film is the setting and the way it was made.

[–] activista 10 years ago

Non-western? It's a Canadian film, so of course it's Western--duh!

[–] kernwilson 10 years ago

Uhhh, "Western"in this context does not refer to a region but to a school of thought and a level of culture. "Industrialized" would be a close synonym, though it doesn't carry quite the connotation of "Western." With respect to this movie, "Non-western" is a very applicable descriptor.

[–] activista 8 years ago

Oh, okay. I see where you're coming from with the thought and culture aspect of it, but since it was made here in the West, it's still Western,as far as I'm concerned. No biggie----just a different opinion I have.