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.

Way too harsh on the criticism. Totally enjoyed the awesome wildlife footage, staged model airplane footage & the baby bear cub co-stars. Yes its contrived & implausible, but lots of fun on an early Saturday morning.

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.

Robert Flaherty's masterpiece, "Nanook" (1922), awakened people to the harsh reality of the struggle for survival in the Alaskan wilderness. And Nanook became a household name. "Arctic Fury" revisits that world, by reworking an earlier film about the same subject, "Tundra" (1936), with a new edit and new footage. Norman Dawn directed Alfred Delcambre in both. The nature footage and animals are wonderful and the story of a dedicated and courageous doctor, risking his life, to bring medicine to native people in a remote location, is suspenseful and involving. Quibbles about narration and music cannot diminish this achievement.