rgcustomer 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.

Cosmoeticadotcom The film is so bad on so many scores I can only surmise that a PC need to be kind to the culture of Eskimos is behind the lavishment of praise. This Canadian film won all its country's honors? Let's not forget that Canada does not call its aboriginal peoples American (Canadian) Indians or Native Americans (Canadians), rather the PC numbingly (& ultimately meaningless) First Nations. Accordingly, the Eskimo culture has been re-termed Inuit, after 1 of several languages spoken in the Canadian Arctic- a bit of Inuit cultural imperialism, eh? I'll call an Eskimo an Eskimo- a term derived from yet another Native lingo. Do I say I live in the EU (Estados Unidos) because a Spaniard would associate that acronym with the USA, rather than the European Union? Did we call the USSR the CCCP? Of course not!…. The characters are utterly clueless of any depth to life, the director has no sense of narrative nor editing skills, nor any ability to transcend stereotypes (just compare this dreck to the delightful Native American comedy of a few years back- Smoke Signals- with a strong script & well-developed characters by Sherman Alexie), the visuals are poorly constructed & dull, & the score is predictably laced with mind-numbingly obvious chants & gutturals. While not the worst film I've ever seen, given its indie-artsy buildup (generally more credible than flat-out Hollywood Oscar buzz), I have to term Atanarjuat: The Fast Runner the most disappointing film in a very long time. About the only positive thing about Eskimo culture that can be discerned from this film is that they will not have to be subjected to it- at least not for a few more centuries!

lelia-agostinho Atanarjuat is a beautiful film. To capture images in the ice, with so much light reflecting all over can be complicated, but Atanarjuat is a movie where this becomes an art. Against the white bright snow landscape people become really significant. It's amazing how we people can live in such a place. Atanarjuat came to the little village (3,500 inhabitants) where I live, in Alentejo, Portugal, about 3 years ago, but I'll never forget it. This film expanded my perception on how we can be human in so many different ways and in so many different places. The cold, the white, the snow and the light make a wonderful dream. The most incredible for me is how the people who made the movie were able to show the amazing diversity of beauty in what could be said a rather monotonous landscape. The story is so rooted in it and so universally human, at the same time, that this film is for all of us.

freimarck16 This is a beautiful example of passionate film-making, and mesmerizes from the beginning. As an American, I was COMPLETELY ignorant of the Inuit, and decided to rent this film mostly due to word of mouth. Stick it out through the first half hour: getting past the difficult names does take some effort. But it's awesomely rewarded by the next two hours. The landscape will take your breath away, and the story will hold you captive. Underneath the sheer artistry, closely examine the fight against "evil-spirits:" it's even relevant to today's struggle against the so-called powerful. What struck me particularly was how naturally the characters understood the razor-thin balance between life and starvation.Simply put, I was breathless after seeing this film.I could recommend this film on the cinematography alone. Adding in the screen writing, acting, and the simply groundbreaking aspect of Inuit film-making, you cannot put off seeing this film.