secondtake
Northern Pursuit (1943)A solid, serious film that shouts its political message too loudly, but is so unusual, and potentially scary it remains interesting for anyone into WWII films. Truly fascinating is the setting—the north woods of Canada in winter—and the involvement of Native Americans, who side with the Nazis for the simple reason that that means siding against Canada. (This is addressed in some brutal killings partway through.) The key plot idea is that a group of expert Nazis might actually sneak into remote areas of the country to perform acts of sabotage.The movie audience here is mostly in the United States, to be sure (Canada's population is so small it is always a secondary concern from the studio's point of view). And the leading actor, Errol Flynn, takes on the larger issues well. That is: devotion to good, personal sacrifice to defeat the enemy, and providing an example of moral uncertainty resolving itself as the circumstances become clear. The issues he faces (in Canada) applied to the U.S. equally.Canada, to be sure, entered the war officially with Great Britain in 1939. But by 1943 the U.S. was also officially fighting. Cooperation between the two neighbors was a given, overall, but they had different national priorities to smooth out. Flynn was so famous at the time, despite (or because of) some personal scandal, he carried the movie. But it's cobbled together stuff, quasi-propaganda. None of it was shot in Canada, though it's convincing enough. The romance is really almost superfluous, but it gives of course the audience that extra layer to swoon about, briefly. Most viewers will find a lot of this formulaic and rough sledding, but it isn't terrible, and the themes have lasting power.
Laakbaar
This movie from the Second World War will be enjoyed by those who are willing to watch old movies for their historical value. This one may interest those who are particularly interested in seeing how old Hollywood delivered wartime propaganda and treated Canadian themes. The rest may find this movie difficult to sit through. It's simply too dated. I'm giving it as lower score for that reason.Raoul Walsh and the writers must have gone to some trouble to portray northern Manitoba in the 1940s realistically, but it is difficult to take a few of the scenes seriously (eg the downhill skiing). Those scenes are now laughable.The depiction of the Cree of northern Manitoba is disturbing, in hindsight. They deserved better from Hollywood. If you'd like to better understand the complex situation of the Cree people in wartime and the loyalty and fighting prowess of the Cree soldiers (albeit during the First World War), read "Three Day Road" by Joseph Boyden.
MartinHafer
I was a bit surprised by this film. Despite being a quality production from Warner Brothers with a top director and a top star, the film was seemingly written by chipmunks--and dumb ones at that. Perhaps the reason they filmed such a bad plot is because it was WWII and they wanted a good propaganda piece for the audiences--but still, it should have been a lot better. Instead of bolstering the war effort, this film probably just elicited a few laughs.Why did I dislike the script so much? Well, the biggest problem is how ludicrous the plot was. Sometimes you need to suspend disbelief to enjoy a film--here you need to turn off you brain completely! You are expected to believe that the Germans would send soldiers all the way to the most inhospitable wasteland of Canada. Then, you need to accept that they plan to bomb the St. Lawrence Seaway---and had planted planes in the wild years before the war in order to do this!! And, the Germans who concocted such a complicated plot had to be dumb enough to have this ridiculous plot foiled by a double-agent (Flynn). Now this is not the only obvious problem with the script. It also is, from time to time, a bit dull and could have either used a trimming or some more excitement along the journey. Much of it simply shows the group slogging through the snow in the sound stage--and a little of this goes a long way.It's really a shame about the script, as the acting was quite good. Even though Errol Flynn had little to do in most of the movie, as usual his performance appears effortless as he was a very good actor. Gene Lockhart plays a heartless and spineless guy very well. And, relatively unknown Helmut Dantine is fine as a cold and snarling Nazi. These actors simply deserved better and the main reason I still give a reasonably high score was their acting--and it must have been hard giving good performances when they knew the script was a turkey.
edwagreen
The eyes of Helmut Dantine and Errol Flynn tell the entire story in this 1943 thriller. Both men know they can't trust each other and the former is quite diabolical in his attempt to bomb an area in Canada where supplies can be shipped to England.Flynn takes the role of a Canadian, of German birth origin, who denounces Canada and is immediately removed from the police force there. Nazis take advantage of the situation and soon recruit him to go with them to the uppermost northern portion of the country to complete their evil plot. Gene Lockhart gives a fine supporting performance as a Canadian spy, a true patriot to the Third Reich, who learns what happens when you have completed your assignment and can now pose a hindrance.Flynn gives a strong performance here as a scorned Canadian working in counter-intelligence for them.This is certainly A World War 11 interesting film.
AD
