Karry Best movie of this year hands down!

Redwarmin This movie is the proof that the world is becoming a sick and dumb place

Crwthod A lot more amusing than I thought it would be.

Hayden Kane There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

thinbeach Nanook of the North was outdated before it was even made.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.

kijii As I began to watch this SILENT film, I had the impression of watching a black-and-white home movie--with title cards. However, my first impression was soon dispelled as I became riveted by the documentary—the first documentary ever made for screening in public theaters.This fact, alone, makes Robert J. Flaherty a filmmaking pioneer. But, Flaherty--as revealed by his wife in a short interview, on the same Criterion DVD--was an explorer first and only became a filmmaker long after. While working along the East Coast of Hudson Bay in 1910 for the English explorer, Sir William MacKenzie, Flaherty fell in love with the Eskimos that lived on the barren lands of the unexplored southern coast of Baffin Land. Flaherty wanted to film them to show the world a bit of their lifestyle and culture. His first attempt was a failure in that the film could not be developed on the spot, and when it was taken back to Toronto for development, much was lost and most of what was not lost was burned in a fire. His second attempt resulted in this film, Nanook of the North (1922), developed on the spot and done with better equipment.Flaherty let the Eskimos become involved with the film so this was no 'hidden camera deal.' In fact, some scenes—like the building of the Igloo and the seal hunt--were staged. But then, don't most people know that they are being filmed when documentaries are made of them? One soon falls in love with Nanook, his wife and children, and his extended family as they work, play, hunt, and eat. Unlike civilized society--where almost everything is done for you--these Eskimos, at that time, spent a great deal of their time and activities for survival. Roles were both defined and integrated into their society: good parenting seems totally enjoyable but has its long-range goal too. Children wanted to imitate their parents, and the parents encouraged it. Their dogs were their pets, but they were also totally necessary for their for survival too. Almost all of the Eskimos' food, goods, clothes, homes furnishings, fun, and hunting supplies came out of what they were able to make, find, or hunt in their desolate environment. But, even there, they did trade at the white man's trading post. Flaherty's film went on to become world-famous and probably gave us much of the information--such as building igloos, kissing by rubbing noses, etc--that we have adopted about the Eskimos of that time. Why? Because unlike popular articles written in magazines like 'The National Geographic,' the film brought the people and culture to life for us to see it in action. I also appreciated Flaherty's film making per se. His photography and framing are very good for the time, with both effective long shots and close ups. It is hard to imagine such good work under such limited lighting and environmental conditions. My only criticism of the film is length of the title cards. Since I am a slow reader, I was often forced to set the DVD player on the pause button in order to read the description of each upcoming scene. Nankook of the North is No. 41 on The Top 100 Silent Era Films.

Eric Stevenson I see reviews for almost nothing but fiction all the time, or at least scripted movies. I generally don't watch that many documentaries, but I will make an exception if the documentary is truly significant in some way. I have decided to review this because it was the first feature length documentary ever made. Very few documentaries are box office successes so they're forgotten by most movie goers. Movies based on true stories are not documentaries as they are still scripted, but yes, they should be taken more seriously than those not based on facts. Documentaries are the most important of them all, at least in terms of making a difference in our everyday lives. I have done research and found that some of the stuff is in fact staged.The director changed some names, but honestly that's not a big deal at all. The film depicts the Eskimos hunting with spears, even though they used guns. Perhaps the film's most memorable sequence, the building of the igloo was from people who knew what a house was. Of course, I'm not sure if they exactly lived in one. Whereas most documentaries want to cause change in some way, this was not one of them. Almost all the films that don't do this are nature documentaries. I have in fact seen a lot of those. Wild animals are in fact featured in this, albeit being hunted. I guess I have a certain fondness for walruses.The camera work in this film is superb and it truly is a unique experience. What's great about documentaries is that they are about so many different topics as they truly illustrate how amazing the real world is. It was weird to see a silent documentary film. There isn't much color in these places, so I'm not complaining about it being in black and white. I will always appreciate how it still took a lot of work to make this and the results were very entertaining. It's probably this film that gives us most depictions of Eskimos. I mean, the people being filmed certainly seem like they're having fun and it is a movie that film buffs must check out, even those who ignore non-fiction. ***1/2 out of ****.

blitzebill for its day, "Nanook..." was well done, despite the liberties taken by Flaherty, the director.it can be argued that there is no such thing as a "true" documentary.that the director cannot be wholly objective.however, what Flaherty achieved here in this film is remarkable and significant for film-making.I saw this film tonight on TCM as part of a special monthly series on Native Americans.it was specifically mentioned that Allakariallak, who played Nanook, did not die from starvation, as several reviews here on IMDb.com have stated.He died from tuberculosis.