Arctic Void

Excellent slow buildup, very believable. Second half all got a bit dull and the ending sadly didn't live up to the early promise of the film. Splendid scenery, but the CGI polar bear left a bit to be desired.

A movie should fulfill it's promise. The script, acting, direction, lighting, and photography are better than most foreign films, and even the sound holds together. Americans (myself included) prefer more closure than the ending provides. And I'm still unsure whether or not I understand the ending. But the truth is that for a Saturday afternoon on a cold winter day, it was beautiful to look at, held attention, better crafted, and far, far, better edited than much higher budget productions. The credits state that it was filmed with 16 people in 16 days and there are some interesting names in the 'Special Thanks' credits that are encouraging, and might explain that success. So IMO the movie fulfills its promise even if the crew didn't carry the story to a comforting end.

Two men who produce a nature TV series hire a cameraman and head to a remote Norwegian village to shoot an episode. While on a passenger vessel with a colorful cast of bystanders and crew, an unknown event causes all but the 2 friends and their cameraman to go missing without a trace. What happened and what will happen to our protagonists?

The premise of the movie is quite good, however the script is lacking in plot movement and development. The dialogue is also quite bad. The most disappointing thing was the low effort put towards writing good reasons for plot points to occur. This kind of movie also really shows how difficult it must be to write believable and natural-sounding dialogue, because these people do not speak to each other like normal humans would speak to each other. Events happen because they have to happen, not because any character has a realistic reason to make something happen. The amount of time spent "walking around looking befuddlingly puzzled" is WAY too long. They truly did not have to spend so much movie time watching each of the 3 characters walk around not knowing what is going on.

Having said that, none of the shortcomings take this movie down to a 1 or 2 star level. It looks absolutely gorgeous, and every shot adds to the general atmosphere of the serene setting. The basic idea is also pretty good. Without spoiling anything about the ending, it's not quite fair to say that "nothing happens" or that the ending is a non-ending. I would have preferred if less time was spent during the "we don't know what's going on" phase of the story, and the movie spent maybe 20 minutes at the end exploring what they are introducing as the explanation for the event. Again, no spoilers, but while I think they were going for a purposeful cliffhanger ending, I think it comes across more like a "lazy, no time to write plausible, real answers" type of ending.

I won't watch it again because it was too boring throughout without enough of a satisfying ending for the viewer. However, I wouldn't stop a friend from watching it if it came on TV.

There are a couple decent actors here, the scenery is spectacular, and the concept has real potential. Unfortunately, the direction is film student amateur, one of the lead actors has a non-existent range of emotion, and the writer lost the plot after setting it up. The net result is a dry slog through an abandoned mining town while no one, either on screen or audience, knows or cares what is going on.

Three stars for the acting of two of the three survivors, for the plot setup, and for the engaging setting. No stars for what happens after the 'mystery' is introduced. You can turn the movie off at any point once they reach the island and you won't miss a thing.

This movie wasn't as bad as some people say. A little bit slow but still interesting and entertaining for the most part, at least the first 3 quarters of the movie. But the ending was very disappointing even though one could easily guess it at some point in the movie.

Would I recommend it? Yes but don't expect too much.