Viking

Director is unfolding the plot before us with specific pacing, which is hard to describe. At specific moments story is dragging, and on another feels... just correct.

There definitely was an idea behind this project (as after the movie I had an amazing opportunity to listen to small Q&A session with actress Larissa Corriveau, which graced that evening's screening). Something around decade of thought put into this piece of art. For such a commitment to project I can respect mr. Stéphane. Also, I'd like to congratulate the actors and actressess which all of them did an amazing job.

The thing is - as I definitely keep with regard that this movie is clearly a work of passion, it just didnt resonated with me.

Pacing problems, too vague screenplay at times, some kind of inconsistency between humour, absurdity and drama have not synced with me and haven't managed to reach my sensivity. I found movie so uneven at times, that even my suspension of disbelief was scratching its head.

Anyway, my friend who was with me at the screening, very liked the movie, found it moving and important and we discussed it for hours after; so I guess everyone has to check it for him/herself.

Watched at Warsaw Film Festival 2022.

I so wanted to love. However, I appreciate art-house films, but first the "author" must have something to say to the people who will watch his film; something other than a "flash" on two old newspaper headlines. This film is technically well done, despite some questionable choices, but the screenplay has catastrophic weaknesses. The actors do wonderfully with the material that was put in their hands, mainly Stéphane Laplante, Larissa Corriveau, Denis Houle and Marie-Laurence Moreau. Almost perfect score for the soundtrack (and sound recording). Bad choice of filming location: a little more research would have been beneficial. It's rather long, bland (despite two or three good bits of humor) and generally tasteless. The room was half empty during the viewing I attended.

First, the gorilla in the room: this movie was never distributed properly. I had to vpn to canada to buy and watch it on vimeo.

But it's brilliant, and well worth the effort. It's rather ironic that this movie was ignored because it echoes exactly the sense of purposelessness evoked in the movie.

Why film if you're not going to show it? Why dream of a movie if you're not going to preview it? Why follow your dreams? At which cost?

Anyone who ever dreamt of 'living it all behind' will love this. This is a movie that makes you think about the frailty of the human imagination, and the fragility of dreams in the face of an uncaring world.

The budget is rock bottom, but the produciton value match the 'cynicism' of the film. The viking lander is litterally a bin with 'viking' written on it. It's a powerful metaphor for the sillyness of it all, and the aspiration of a man who could dream big and was let down by a company that uses people for their own purposes.

I can't quite frame it, and I'll be sure to think about this movie many times in the future when i'm faced between opting for 1 or 2 surgars in my coffee.

Wonderful. If you loved i-origins, or primer, or similar low-budget scif-fi, you'll enjoy this a lot.

This was great and deserves a lot more praise than it has received - and that may be in part that it hasn't been available in many places online. I think Stéphane Lafleur said a lot with this in regards to human ambition, the mundaneness of that pursuit, and the humour amidst it all.

More than anything, it caught me by my humanness and made me feel a lot of different things: the annoyances that the crew dealt with, the desire for their young female crew member. But it was all contrived! The organizing members of the Viking mission (and possibly other missions...) were quite hilarious in how manipulative their approach to having the fake crew members replicate the actions of the real crew members were.

I would love to see more of this kind of unique take at sci-fi, the subverting of the all-too-serious expectations of the high budget genre. The only reason I didn't give it 10 stars was because of the predictive nature of the two sugars. It was obvious that by the end, the main character was going to at some point have his redemption of coffee with two sugars. I still enjoyed it, but I think the film could've done with less instances of showing David lingering around the sugar cubes.

The echoes of "Solaris" (the 1972 original Tarkovsky, not the remake) are hardly coincidental. The crew's moodiness, the claustrophobic interiors, and the "low-budget" effects here match those of the Russian masterpiece. That same year saw the cult classic "Silent Running" by the ingenious Trumbull, the guy who created the effects for "2001: A Space Odyssey". The notion of parallel worlds is a regular obsession in sci-fi and no less here, something Duncan Jones's "Moon" (2009) delved into with startling insights. For people who dislike unanswered questions and loopholes, this movie is not for you. It's part parable, part puzzle, part piss-take. Seriously unserious and vice-versa.