raypaquin

The action takes place in Northern Québec. The Innu (Indians of the north shore of the Bay of St. Lawrence) are in constant competition against the Inuit (Eskimos of the far north) and against a harsh nature, before the arrival of the first Europeans. The landscapes are absolutely breathtaking and the splendid photography does them justice. I won't reveal the nature of the action, which is touching and yet suspenseful but I will say that the author of the original novel must have been quite familiar with the mores and habits of both groups. Kudos to the director. The actors, most of whom are amateurs, are also quite competent. I have rarely been so captivated by a film, an absolutely riveting 'must-see'. You won't regret watching it and you will at least understand why the first Frenchmen to come here, Jacques Cartier in 1534 and Samuel De Champlain in 1608, decided to stay instead of going further down south.

'Seeking a Friend For the End of the World' is an important film. It presents a situation well-suited, like no other, to a serious concentration of the mind. Briefly put, planet earth will be completely destroyed in three weeks along with all life on it. Now what would ***YOU*** do? Would you pay a visit to your estranged mother or father? If they are divorced, which one you you pay a visit to, assuming that there is not enough time to visit both? One element is strangely almost completely absent from this movie, namely religion. I suspect that this is the main reason, albeit probably an unconscious one, why so many reviewers have been irritated by it. In spite of its absence, the religious undertones that permeate this film haunted me. The fact is, such a catastrophe, should one happen some day, would settle once and for all an old debate. Does God exist or not? And if He does, would He act to save the planet? During the 18th century, a huge earthquake flattened Lisbon in Portugal on a Sunday morning during High Mass, killing tens of thousands of its inhabitants and, perhaps more to the point, the few thousand who were at mass in the cathedral, because its roof collapsed and killed everyone. A few days later, the philosopher/playwright Voltaire, who believed in God and did not question HIs existence, wrote the shortest pamphlet in his career. In it, he wrote "Either God can't, or He can but won't." and nothing else. If He can but won't, or if he can't, then who needs a God like that? 'Nuff said...

Someday in about one century, some historians are going to write scholarly books explaining how and why our Western 'civilization' met with its downfall, which began, very gradually at first, in about 1970. If some of them are 'lucky' enough to view this film, assuming it hasn't already been thrown in a municipal dump a long time ago, the excruciating 'pleasure' provided by this experience will provide them with a large part of part of the needed answers. How can a society where 20% of the adult population is functionally illiterate, where 30% of the population has no health-care, where 42% of the adult population, when shown a map of North-America, cannot locate Canada on it, a country that shares a 3,500 mile long border with the United States (according to a survey done in 1980), where 55% of the adults can name the Three Stooges but where only 20% can identify the three arms of government, where the best educational system THAT MONEY CAN BUY is found, etc... afford to produce such expensive junk? This film provides evidence for a very advanced degree of technical proficiency, but for little else. I forced myself to watch it all, and I didn't even smile once. It is stupid, pointless, and mind-numbing, filled with smart-Aleck dialogue that has become the norm in the last twenty years, but it commits THE worst cardinal sin of all for this type of movie: it is NOT funny AT ALL. 'Nuff said...