Whale Rider was easily amongst my top ten favorite movies of 2003.

North Country is another grrrl power movie by the same director, Niki Caro, that unfortunately doesn't come close to the power of her last outing. For those who complain that it is anti-male, I can only say: Ask older women in your own family if anything like this went on in our proud history... it is an all true story of gender roles in the recent past. It is certainly not every story, but it is surely many women's story in many places in many times. That's not this movie's problem. The main failure of this movie is that the story is all too obvious - you can clearly see the emotional gears turning, whereas they should remain behind the curtain. I also felt that Charlize Theron was somewhat miscast (as much as I have enjoyed her many performances). Even Frances McDormand, another actress I really dig, was pretty much prostituted in her role here. Nonetheless, I still hold out great hope for future greatness from Ms. Caro in the future...

2 out of 5.

Man. It sure does suck having movies you're so looking forward to turn out to be...disappointing. This movie has what I'd consider some of the best trailers of the year, and a month ago I was fairly convinced it was top five Oscar material. Slowly that slipped away, but I was still looking forward to it. I finally saw it and...well, it's just not very good. I wonder...am I the only one who thinks this is the one of the worst edited films of the year? Honestly, I kinda read over the reviews thus far and didn't see it, but to me it stuck out more than anything. It threw off the pacing of the film, and often visual logic. That is...the film would cut to something that made no sense, and caused confusion. Yknow? Its not logical to cut from the TOP of the conveyer belt #4 (whatever its called) to the mound BELOW. Whats the point. She runs UP, you wanna see her perspective DOWN. Am I wrong? The film was littered with little mistakes like this, that just made it seem kinda...scattered, and messy. The trial itself should have been saved for the end...let it play out the way it's natural to do. Don't flash FORWARD in the middle of some pretty powerful stuff, only to flash BACK to her childhood. It just didn't fit. I think I might be rambling a bit, but basically, I just felt the whole film could have used a much better editor..make it flow better.

The acting is fine. Charlize was definitely strongest, but that's to be expected. I didn't have any problems with the accents, because quite frankly, they all sounded the same to me, and none were very consistent with what I expect from Fargo...since I dun really know what they're supposed to sound like, I just assumed they were pretty accurate. I did have some problems with certain segments of the movie...why show the son about to smoke something, when his mom comes in. He hides it, but then its never re-explored. Little things like that.

C-

Color me significantly unimpressed.

And how cringingly awful was the courtroom finale?

yeah, that one scene were the lawyer breaks down the witness > always hate those scenes, are they even close to being allowed in a court room.

some other comments.

- Charlize was great in this - whatever to those who even bring Monster - different movie - different role. and anyway, in this she still was attactive.

- Loved the Sean Bean character - just seemed like a nice decent man

- the girl who played the 16 year old Charlize was sexy / pretty as all hell.

- How did the lawyer miss so many shots into the net when he was skating - don't care if he was mad - alot more should have gone in.

- don't think the men were too exagerrated in this - taking about 20 / 30 years ago and all these small towns had mostly high school grads who also were taught by their fathers, grandfathers and thought most of the taunting was a joke, a chance that they could lose jobs as more woman came in or just felt it should be a mens club.

just some thoughts off the top of my head - maybe some more later.

Here is a full review I wrote.

Perfect for Lifetime television

This is the time of year when studios will begin their push to try and get their films recognized for the Golden Globes and the Oscars. Last October we saw the release of Sideways. In 2003 it was Mystic River. Both pictures went on to get Oscar nominations for Best Picture. Both films ended up losing to other films (Million Dollar Baby and The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King, respectively). Will North Country be dealt the same fate, and earn an Oscar nomination for Best Picture? I hope not. This is Oscar fluff without any substance. The film tries too hard to be good, and instead of heart-wrenching drama, we get annoying melodrama.

Told mostly through flashback sequences, North Country tells the story of Josey Aimes and her groundbreaking lawsuit against a Minnesota mining company for discrimination. The male miners treat their fellow female miners like dirt, while the head hanchos turn their cheek on the entire situation. I cannot go into much detail here since the film delves into some pretty disgusting acts, but think of the most inhumane thing to do to a person without actually killing them, and you pretty much get the idea. Aimes decides that she has had enough of this and decides to sue the company. However, none of her fellow miners will come forward to speak on their behalf, because they are afraid if they say anything, they'll be abused even more. This makes Aimes the lone warrior, and some see her as just wanting to get attention.

We've seen this story on a couple of occasions before and you can pretty much get a good idea on where the story is going from here. However, there are a couple of other elements involved, so to the film's credit, it's not one hundred percent by the numbers. There are some issues with her father, who also works at the mine. A former boyfriend who happens to work there as well. A subplot involving one of her friends, who also works at the mine, but has Leukemia. And an unnecessary plot element involving her high school Gym teacher. All three of these plot elements end up unfolding and colliding during the inevitable trial sequence. That's the only reason why they are mentioned at all in the film, that and to give the Aimes character an emotional background so we feel sorry for her thus making the ending more powerful. It works on one hand, but on the other we are thinking, enough already.

Now here is where I draw the line. Women's rights are obviously a very important issue that we are still trying to deal with in today's work environment. In real life, the lawsuit involving Lori Jenson (On which the film is based on) was a groundbreaking lawsuit since it had never been done before. However, because the film makers want Oscar gold and nothing else, they have turned a seemingly interesting story into a corny melodrama. The only quality this film has comes from the Actors.

The actors Charlize Theron, Richard Jenkins, Frances McDormand and Woody Harrelson do a fantastic job on making their characters into real life human beings. They're three-dimensional. They all have problems. Theron's (Aimes) is the bad treatment and the lawsuit. Jenkins (Aimes' father) has to deal with his fellow miners since his daughter is working there, his daughter and all of her problems, and his wife who begins to betray him because of the way he is handling everything. McDormand's (Aimes' friend) has to deal with the abuse at the mines, and then later has a bout Leukemia. And finally Harrelson's character is a down and out hockey player, who ends up being Aimes' attorney. All have interesting stories, yet are turned into melodrama. However, just because I didn't like them, doesn't mean the Academy won't. You can expect Theron to be nominated for Best Actress, Jenkins for Best Supporting Actor, and McDormand for Best Supporting Actress. As for Harrelson, I think he will be left out in the cold, and I thought he was the best out of all of them.

Is the film worth seeing just based on the performances though? If you are paying more than $20 on tickets alone (Not including snacks) the answer is no. You would be better off waiting for the film to come out on DVD so you can rent it. Actually, here is something better you can do. Go out and rent either Erin Brockovich or Norma Rae. Those are much better films that delve into the same subject matter. North Country wants to be as good as though two films, but it falls well short. It's more along the lines of being a carbon copy, than anything else.

Final Grade: C

(Which you all know since it's on the first page)

I have to agree with the lower grades here. I don't think the male behaviour was exaggerated at all but the film is very manipulative and Caro includes many unnecessary scenes and subplots.

Out of all the performances, Moghnahan (sp?) and Sissy Spacek were the strongest. Especially Spacek, and shes only in the film for about 3 minutes.

B-

I will check it out on Friday, but my expectations are really at zero.

Good, because I think I am the only person on the internet who likes this film. Be prepared to hate it like the rest, hehe.

PEACE, Mike.

After seeing North Country I began to understand why some people have such disdain for CRASH for being manipulative. But i disagree a D-grade is appropriate (ahem Dolce), as the film is still strong.

I liked it too.

Me three.

B-


Well, well, well...I did not hate it. So much I can say. I was far from being impressed by it, though. A lot of things that people have been saying about it are true. It is manipulative quite often, it is preachy and it is simply one-sided most of the time. Most men, with a few exceptions, are portrayed as the bad-to-the-core guys here. The movie is predictable (not just because it's a true story) and has plenty of really dull moments. The movie is a feminist's wet dream, I suppose, a film made by a woman for women..there was not much for me there to enjoy.

It did have some upsides too, though. Charlize Theron's acting, for one, was great. I think she is fully deserving of the Oscar nomination she got and I am frankly happy that she was nominated over Zhang Ziyi. She deserved it more. I haven't seen Monster yet, but now I can imagine how great she must have been in it. Richard Jenkins who is playing her father in the movie, delivers an understated, but very fine performance as well that was generally underrated. Frances McDormand, however, while decent, is definitely not Oscar-worthy and her dying in the film is probably the only reason she was considered. Michelle Monaghan truly proves that she is one of last year's biggest newcomers.

I thought the movie contained a couple of really brilliant and powerful scenes. The best of them that stands out is the first time when Josey's father speaks for her in front of his collegaues. It is a finely crafted moment.

Other than the points I have mentioned, I still think it is a rather dull movie and I am not surprised at all that it did not find much success at theatres.

I'm glad that you personally got some good out of it Lecter, and that it wasn't a total waste.

Now that you've seen North Country, I am going to make it a point that I have to go rent Downfall. I may do it tomorrow.

PEACE, Mike.

I am looking forward to your thoughts.

North Country is actually B/B-. I'll decide later. There strong scenes that really stood out, as I said. Especially the one with the father finally taking her side and most scenes with Woody Harrelsson towards the end of the film. Now if it wasn't so preachy and one-sided, it could have really been much better in my book.

Yes NC is about women standing up for themselves, I didn't get the pro-feminism speech that you got Lecter. I don't see how the actual ending is really pro-feminist either.

This movie really got me thinking as to how systematic sexism is in society. I really don't think the movie is biased against men, but just portrays the lynch mentality that can manifest itself among large groups. Maybe the movie did go over the top, maybe it didn't (fact can be stranger than fiction), but the film had to get its point across in 2 hours, so I think it did a fine job. Great performances by Charlize Theron and Frances McDormand.

B+

It's definitely a one-sided film that I guess is not targetted at men, but it's good.

I think some of the male behavior was exaggerated, but it wasn't too bad. The film definitely is extremely strong at points, but also dull at other times. And almost every single performance in this film is superb; especially Charlize Theron.

Overall, not bad. It's pretty much what I expected.

B-

You actually liked it more than I expected you to, Zing. : )

I'm actually surprised this one wasn't torn to pieces by critics.

I think it has a terrible screenplay.

The first half of the film is fine, but it's in its second half that we get stuff like a barrage of unnecessary flashbacks, a proverbial I-am-Spartacus scene, awful hockey metaphors in speeches, and even a slow clap scene.

And I wouldn't even be willing to give Charlize Theron much credit here. She's good, but unlike what many have said, I don't think she ever elevates the material. (And the same goes for McDormand.)

It's dull, predictable, and worst of all, not affecting in the least.

C-

Meh.

I thought Charlize Theron was good. Nominated over, say... Gwyneth Paltrow? Very undeserved. I didn't even think Frances McDormand was all that great, either.

Overall, a bit of a mess. Its not that bad of a film, though.

C/C+.

I thought I had posted my grade a while ago, but I guess not. I think I have it something like a B, but that was only due to Charlize's performance, which I thought was excellent. France's, however, was nothing big. I'm very surrised she was nominated over Maria Bello. Overall, a good movie that could have been a whole lot better.

B

McDormand's and Keener's nominations over the likes of Diane Keaton and Maria Bello are shameful.

Yes, that's another nominee that was undeserving. Add in Scarlett Johansson, Shirley MacLaine, and Gong Li, who were all more deserving, and it's quite sad.