Arctic Fury

"Arctic Fury" is a sad excuse for a movie, as it is essentially made up of old extent footage tossed together. And, to make it more comprehensible, annoying and ever-present narration is used. As a result, it's a movie that mostly stinks...though some of the old footage is nice on its own.

The story begins with dull narration about how the Eskimos respond to plagues. How much of this is true is anyone's guess. Soon, a doctor volunteers to head to the town to help these people with the outbreak. However, along the way, his plane crashes and the doctor is forced to trek through the wilderness to the eskimo village.

Essentially, the film uses footage from "Tundra" (1936)...and that film used footage from "SOS Iceberg" (1933) and I am pretty sure the airplane scenes are from that earlier American-German co-production. To fill in the gaps, there is the annoying narration as well as a bit of new footage. The overall results are less than thrilling and really show you how cynical the folks at RKO were about passing this off as a new movie. How bored and annoyed audiences must have been when they watched this. The only reason I give this one a 2 is that some of the footage looks nice...1930s nice!



By the way, the annoying narrator says that the muskoxen are the most dangerous and aggressive of the mammals in the great white north. Well, this simply isn't true. I am NOT recommending you go hug one...it will most likely kill you. But the risk from them is far less than polar bears or any other bear of the region, such as Brown or Black bears. Heck, wolves are probably more dangerous as well! So please don't take what the film says as gospel!

According to the opening, this is based on a true story. It is the north shore of Alaska beyond the Arctic Circle. Dr. Thomas Barlow (Alfred Delcambre) is one of the few doctors operating that far north. A native band is struggling with a western disease. Barlow is alerted and sets off to find the tribe.

The story is pretty basic. I do question that he doesn't keep his coat. I do not like the light tone and having two Disney cubs join him. I would rather stress the deadly dangers surrounding him. I question a lot of this story. I do love the animals and the wilderness. I even like the cute cubs no matter how far-fetched. I like the stock footages and it is entertaining enough to watch all the way to the end.

This is a weak movie and the actor's ripped shirt looks silly. Watch it for the animals. Lots of animal action. The bear cubs are cute.

This film is exactly what is it supposed to be. Footage taking from other films and spliced together with a human story attached to it. It's not a lousy film yet it's not a swell film. It's what it is meant to be. Something to watch.

The viewer can get past critiquing by simply watching it. If a viewer is looking for something spectacular try a ten star film.

I was actually pretty damn shocked to discover that Arctic Fury is a Frankenfilm! Cobbled together with footage from 2 previous 1930s films. I didn't notice this. Using footage from previous films, & cobbling it together, with some newly shot footage & passing it off as a "new film", was a common tactic, or should I say trick, commonly used as a cost cutting measure, prior to the 1970s. However, this tactic was usually practiced by either indie films or poverty row studio films. They certainly weren't usually done by any big studios, like RKO, in this instance. Still, there was enough of an interesting story & breathtaking wildlife footage, that I was able to enjoy this particular, Frankenfilm. The narrator was annoying, but not enough to make me turn it off. 6 out of 10