Northfork (2003) User Reviews

a little weird

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 18 June 2015]

In 1955, a dam is soon going to flood the town of Northfork. Walter O'Brien (James Woods) and his son Willis O'Brien (Mark Polish) are two of people brought in to push the last hold-outs to evacuate the town. They have convince a religious family unwilling to leave. Father Harlan (Nick Nolte) is staying behind to take care of sickly orphan Irwin who shows signs of being an angel.

The whole movie is stuck in an unmoving dream state. It's hard to follow the kid's narrative because it's all so surreal. Daryl Hannah is fascinating but WTF is she? It lacks tension because it's obviously something unreal. The evacuation crew is a little easier to invest in and the God discussion is oddly fascinating. I've certainly heard that story before which makes the awkward telling rather memorable. I wouldn't recommend this for the casual movie goer. It's a little weird.

Reminds me of West Paterson - Northfork

[arthur_tafero · 6/10 · 11 July 2019]

In this film, a small town dies and a power source is created. So what is the big deal? The big deal is that for the people who grew up and lived in that small town. Now, it will be gone forever, as if it never existed. I can completely relate to the plot of this film. I was raised in a small town just like this one, but in the suburbs of New Jersey. Now called Woodland Park, by the swells from the Westmount Country Club, who owned all the valuable property in the area near Garrett Mountain. They had the political pull and money to get the town name changed from West Paterson to Woodland Park, a much nicer name that yuppies could be proud of, instead of the working class neighborhood that West Paterson, Great Notch Gardens, and other places close by used to be. Now, West Paterson, and all the histories of all the working class families who lived in that area are gone forever; including my family. The Pedottis, the Hullahs, the Lamberts, the Taferos, the Vitans, the Van Winkles, the Klems, the Dachinos, the Kings, the Sheas, the Zambinos, the Prices, the Gallaghers, the McKernans, the Banniers, the Ruanes, the Furlongs, the Schoenfishes, the Barkers, and several more families whose names have now become a dim memory. All of us were displaced by these yuppies who came ten years after we opened up this territory for settling. Our fathers started little leagues, and playgrounds, and boys clubs. Our mothers had big family picnics at Saint Bons Church, were Cub scout leaders, and swam at the Ressy (the local watering hole that served as our drinking water as well). I never had water as good as I drank in West Paterson. And now its Woodland Park. Shame on you for destroying the memories of a great little town in North Jersey.

PS The film is pretty offbeat and different. Nick Nolte as a priest is quite a stretch, but he pulls it off. A very esoteric film.

all style, no regard for the poor audience

[passyge83 · 6/10 · 21 October 2003]

If I could review this movie based purely on style, I would give it a perfect 10. Yes, the cinematography is quite amazing. There are details that I imagine would jump out at you the more times you watched the film. There seems to be two ways of looking at this movie: a work of art, or a work desperately needing to be art.

I fall into the latter way of thinking. Every scene in this movie cried out desperately to be recognized as a work of art. I found myself laughing at scenes I knew were meant to be dramatic, and frowning at the so-called humour. Maybe I didn't get it. I doubt the writers/director want you to get it.

But I have to admit, I can't stop trying to understand what it was I didn't pick up on...

an acquired taste

[Buddy-51 · 24 January 2004]

Like the Polish Brothers' previous films (`Twin Falls Idaho' and `Jackpot'), `Northfork' divides audiences even as it baffles and bewilders them. Many will surely find this film to be slow moving, arty, pretentious and boring, while others will be intrigued by its originality and visionary quality. Either way you slice it, however, `Northfork' is an acquired taste.

It's 1955 and Northfork, a small town on the plains of Montana, is about to be wiped off the face of the earth by a gigantic flood. Only this time the destruction won't be the result of the angry hand of Providence but rather of a dam building project developed and conceived by the government in the name of `progress.' Out of this simple premise, Mark and Michael Polish have crafted an elegy to the past, a tone poem that reflects the deep sadness that comes with change, abandonment and loss. To achieve their effect, the writers have incorporated large doses of Magic Realism (with heavy religious and Biblical overtones) into their narrative. While we observe the harsh realities of people being driven from their homesteads, we are also introduced to a quartet of angels who are searching for one of their number who went missing a number of years earlier. Legend has it that the town of Northfork was originally looked out for by a group of guardian angels and it is from this rather twisted and bent angle that the Polish Brothers have chosen to approach their subject.

`Northfork' is far more about mood, imagery and tone than it is about plot and character development. In fact, the characters themselves – the angels, a caring priest, a dying boy, and a father and son whose job it is to make sure no people are left behind when the land is inundated – are as subdued in tone as the film is as a whole. None of the characters ever speaks above a whisper and each comes across as moody, introspective and stolid. It is in the visuals and in the unhurried, subtle pacing of the narrative that the film achieves its power. The dry barren plains, the weather beaten houses, the violated cemeteries, and the isolated figures of men and buildings placed in stark relief against an imposing horizon – these are the images that seep inexorably into the viewer's subconscious and which make the film a stunning study in melancholy. Let it be noted, however, that there is also a modicum of hope and optimism in the story to help mitigate the sadness.

A number of big name stars have leant their talents to the project, including Nick Nolte, James Woods and Daryl Hannah. Woods, with his straight-faced, deadpan delivery, provides some much needed touches of black humor throughout the otherwise deadly serious work.

`Northfork' definitely requires that you be in a certain mood to appreciate and enjoy it. Hopefully, you'll hit it at just the right moment.

A Pretentious Muddle

[mpofarrell · 6/10 · 18 August 2003]

Classic Americana and a coherent storyline meet an impasse on the road to NORTHFORK, the Polish Brothers' strikingly photographed but pretentious new movie. Time: 1955. A huge, Federally funded hydroelectric dam is about to engulf and bury forever a small Montana town under water. Ominous looking government agents, dressed funereally in long black coats and fedoras show up in a last ditch effort to evacuate the remaining inhabitants. These townsfolk are a diverse and peculiar lot : a sickly little boy abandoned by his parents and under the care of a slovenly priest ; a religious zealot who refuses to leave his Noah's Ark-like house; and four "Angels", seemingly ghosts from the last century who dwell in a dust laden Victorian mansion and offer hospitality to the little boy. All these characters live in a indescribably haunting setting conjured up by Mark and Michael Polish as an elegy to the past and the dearly departed. Death hangs like a drape cloth in nearly every frame of this movie, giving the eerily beautiful Montana landscape and buildings a dried bone skeletal look. Think Georgia O'Keefe without the flowers.

Unfortunately this magnificent tableaux is wasted on an esoteric screenplay that will infuriate many viewers. NORTHFORK is an incomprehensible mess, filled with enigmatic sentences, unclear character motivations and off-putting, flippant remarks. Director Michael Polish has a gifted camera eye but he needs to learn how to speak more clearly to his audience. Eloquent imagery isn't enough.

Northfork: 8/10

[movieguy1021 · 8/10 · 25 October 2003]

When Northfork debuted at the Cannes Film Festival, many people didn't like it because they felt it was boring and too slow. While I agree that it was slow (one of the slowest movies of the year), in no way was it boring. As Roger Ebert said, `there has never been a movie like Northfork.' I usually don't agree with Ebert, but for once he speaks the truth. Although John Sayles' Sunshine State may have some of the same immediate themes, nothing that I have ever seen or known of can even compare to the striking originality of the Polish Brothers' Northfork.

Northfork is a perfect example of how many times it's better to trek an extra few minutes to go to an art-house film instead of the latest Jack Black movie. The plot isn't some hackneyed, cookie-cutter plot; it's just so strikingly original. A small town in Montana named Northfork has a dam nearby that is about to be taken down. Therefore, the entire town must be evacuated. Some people, however, just don't want to leave. In a side plot, a young orphan (Duel Farnes) is very sick and bedridden; he's being taken care of by Father Harlan (Nick Nolte). The boy imagines himself as a fallen angel, so to speak, who help him out through his time of sickness.

Although much of the movie is straightforward, some of it could give David Lynch a run for his money. There's odd weather patterns, a weird, wooden, huge dog thing, and symbolism that would make Fellini proud. It's not as overall confusing as a Lynch film, but it's still quite odd. That's what makes Northfork so great: it's so out of the ordinary and yet so simple and plausible.

Northfork has a magical feel to it: it's almost like you're watching something you're not quite sure what it is but you feel entranced by it. As I said earlier, I agreed with Ebert on how this movie is unlike any other. However, I disagree when he says that it is `not entertaining'. He goes on to say it's just `enthralling.' Perhaps he just thought he should give it good reviews because everyone else is, but in lieu of how slow it was, I still thought it was very entertaining, something many dramas now can't do.

Northfork may not be the quickest movie or the most popular movie, but if you can get to and through it, you'll be extremely surprised, as I was.

My rating: 8/10

Rated PG-13 for brief sexuality.

One lime

[strike-1995 · 7/10 · 16 June 2019]

An incredibly profound film that is hard to follow but easy to understand.

A pretentious crock!

[YorkvilleGirl · 1/10 · 14 October 2005]

The frustrating thing about a movie like this, with a true potential for greatness, is that it almost enjoys being heavy-handed. We speak of allegory, of metaphor...but the truth is, there's no getting around the fact that there is absolutely no plot or real character.

At a certain point, we most know who the people are...even if we never understand where they are going. The sheer pretentiousness wore me down every time I tried to grasp a truth in this film.

Call it beautiful, great and awesome...I just call it "cheating." All style and no substance. Sure, it's a matter of taste...but I would never take a confusing modernist pastiche of symbols and splashes over the spiritual clarity of Jean Cocteau or Renoir. But if it works for you, I'm all for it. Art is a personal thing, I guess.

A Mournful Masterwork

[machineart · 10/10 · 22 June 2004]

The Polish brothers are unique film artists, and they've really pushed the envelope here. A fantasy that has points in common with "Wings of Desire," "Northfork" tells the story of a '50s era small town in the middle of nowhere that is two days shy of being inundated and submerged thanks to the U.S. government's desire to make a reservoir on the place where the town stands. It's a wry parable about loss and remembrance, featuring angels, dreams, premonitions, and the most hilarious government reclamation functionaries since "Repo Man." The performances are all outstanding, especially Nolte and Woods. I've noticed in reading down some of the comments that there are people who were offended simply by the fact that the Polish twins use elliptical storytelling tactics, and I want to say, that's one of the things that makes this film so great: its willingness to embrace the mysterious as an aspect of everyday life. David Mullen's cinematography is stunning. Highly recommended; if you've suffered a meaningful personal loss, such as the death of a parent, I would even call this film necessary viewing. - Ray

A baffling and pretentious but ultimately enchanting movie

[jay4stein79-1 · 7/10 · 16 April 2006]

Sometimes, I fall in love with movies as a result of the films they remind me of and not because of any inherent brilliance in the movie at hand. Take Northfork for instance, which calls to mind (for me) Wings of Desire, the Straight Story, moments of Bunuel, and Godardian dialogue. In other words, the film reminds me of moments (or entire films) that have great meaning for me.

The imagery is certainly derived from Dali and Bunuel and the characters have a Lynchian appeal. The angels are straight Wenders, sort of, and "What you talking about Willis?" reminds me the advice in Pierrot to "Put a tiger in your tank," though referring to Diff'rent Strokes seems an ironic (and none to subtle jab) in the audience's side and not the satiric barb Godard meant by quoting an Exxon commercial.

The story involves G-men sent straight from American International Pictures lot of the 1940s to a Montana wasteland to evacuate stragglers in the soon-to-be submerged town of Northfork. It's intercut with the possible fever-dreams of a terminally ill child that play host to a series of adventures involving despondent angels. The plot is elliptical and symbolic and full of esoteric turns of phrase. It's pretentious and reminds me of a movie I wrote during my freshman year of college influenced, as I was, by European existentialism and Beckett. It's not a terrible thing and is, in fact, refreshing in a way, but it is an obvious attempt at artistry that wears its influences like badges. With some more time and maturity, the Polish brothers, who wrote and directed this film, will create something of startling originality I am sure.

Anyway, but back to my first point: I loved this film the first time I watched it, as it is gorgeous to look at (nice staging and wonderful cinematography), and I was reminded of some of my favorite movies. However, the second time around, I found it annoying. Here was this gorgeous looking movie fraught with some real emotion (the abandoned, dying child) and brimming with sublime performances (neither Nolte nor Woods have had parts this great in years), and the Polish brothers had to go and mar it all with their irony and quirkiness. It reminded me, in a way, of a Lynch film infused with the whimsy and winking of a Wes Anderson film. It left a bad taste in my mouth, in other words.

Does this review sound overly negative? It shouldn't; there is a lot to admire about this film and a lot to despise. It's not a masterpiece but it shows some talent and points to the fact that these Polish boys might make something of themselves one day. It is pretentious and confusing (in the worst way possibly--its confounding nature apparently lacks a point), but it is immensely enchanting. The lyrical beauty of the cinematography and the languid style of storytelling lull you into a hypnotized state from which you don't arise until the film's end. That's quite an accomplishment. Now, if only the Polishes could move beyond sophomoric attempts at humor (really, the Diff'rent Strokes reference is just silly and not particularly witty).

A piece of TRASH

[lrobiner · 1/10 · 29 July 2003]

Words cannot describe how BAD this movie is. I love independent and art movies. I even liked Twin Falls, Idaho (a little). I went to see this movie on the strength of a Roger Ebert glowing 4-star review (I usually agree with him). I will never trust his judgment again.

The premise, the plot, the acting, the dialog....one worse than the next.

Best line: "We're all in the same boat." That's how I felt in the theater with the rest of the audience.

"Depends on how you look at it ...halfway to heaven or halfway to hell"

[JuguAbraham · 8/10 · 14 August 2006]

"It all depends on how you look at it –we are either halfway to heaven or halfway to hell," says the priest Rev. Harlan in "Northfork." The Polish brothers' film is an ambitious one that will make any intelligent viewer to sit up, provided he or she has patience and basic knowledge of Christianity. The layers of entertainment the film provide takes a viewer beyond the surreal and absurd imagery that is obvious to a less obvious socio-political and theological commentary that ought to provoke a laid-back American to reflect on current social values. The film's adoption of the surreal (coffins that emerge from the depths of man-made lakes to float and disturb the living, homesteaders who nearly "crucify" their feet to wooden floor of their homes, angels who need multiple glasses to read, etc.) and absurd images (of half animals, half toys that are alive, of door bells that make most delicate of musical outputs of a harp, a blind angel who keeps writing unreadable tracts, etc.) could make a viewer unfamiliar with the surreal and absurdist traditions in literature and the arts to wonder what the movie is un-spooling as entertainment. Though European cinema has better credentials in this field, Hollywood has indeed made such films in the past —in "Cat Ballou", Lee Marvin and his horse leaned against the wall to take a nap, several decades ago. "Northfork," in one scene of the citizens leaving the town in cars, seemed to pay homage to the row of cars in "Citizen Kane" taking Kane and his wife out of Xanadu for a picnic.

The film is difficult for the uninitiated or the impatient film-goer—the most interesting epilogue (one of the finest I can recall) can be heard as a voice over towards the end of the credits. The directors seem to leave the finest moments to those who can stay with film to the end. If you have the patience you will savor the layers of the film—if you gulp or swallow what the Polish bothers dish out, you will miss out on its many flavors.

What is the film all about? At the most obvious layer, a town is being vacated to make way for a dam and hydroelectric-project. Even cemeteries are being dug up so that the mortal remains of the dead can be moved to higher burial grounds. Real estate promoters are hawking the lakeside properties to 6 people who can evict the townsfolk. Of the 6, only one seems to have a conscience and therefore is able to order chicken broth soup, while others cannot get anything served to them.

At the next layer, you have Christianity and its interaction on the townsfolk. Most are devout Christians, but in many lurk the instinct to survive at the expense of true Christian principles, exemplified in the priest. Many want to adopt children without accepting the responsibilities associated with such actions.

At the next layer, you have the world of angels interacting with near angelic humans and with each other. You realize that the world of the unknown angel who keeps a comic book on Hercules and dreams of a mother, finds one in an androgynous angel called "Flower Hercules." While the filmmaker does give clues that Flower is an extension of the young angel's delirious imagination, subsequent actions of Flower belie this option. You are indeed in the world of angels--not gods but the pure in spirit—and therefore not in the world of the living. The softer focus of the camera is in evidence in these shots.

At another layer the toy plane of Irwin becomes a real plane carrying him and his angels to heaven 1000 miles away from Norfolk.

The final layer is the social commentary—"The country is divided into two types of people. Fords people and Chevy people." Is there a difference? They think they are different but both are consumerist.

To the religious, the film says "Pray and you shall receive" (words of Fr Harlan, quoted by Angel Flower Hercules). To the consumerist, the film says "its what we do with our wings that separate us" (each of the 6 evictors also have wings-one duck/goose feather tucked into their hat bands but their actions are different often far from angelic as suggested by the different reactions to a scratch on a car).

The film is certainly not the finest American film but it is definitely a notable path-breaking work--superb visuals, striking performances (especially Nick Nolte), and a loaded script offering several levels of entertainment for mature audiences.

Surreal

[alohahome · 7/10 · 12 August 2010]

A gem to be savored. Tenderly atmospheric. An indie movie that is wordlessly beautiful. Surrealism echos throughout. Few films have the power to unlock a dimension that is beyond our grasp but this movie touches a realm that resides in us all. Change is a most profound thing. Death mirrors life in its own inevitable way. Don't be baffled or bewildered, angels are among us, just not quite where you might imagine. Some are orphans, stranded here through no fault of their own, who yearn for a place called home. There are 31 flavors of symbolism hidden here, and they are all to be found in frostbitten Montana in the year 1955. Quote from the movie: "Depends on how you look at it ...halfway to heaven or halfway to hell." Esoteric, offbeat, meditative. A movie that invites repeated viewings which offers many revelations.

Painfully meandering

[paulcreeden · 1/10 · 12 January 2005]

Well, what can I say? There are films that just leave me wondering, "What were they thinking?" The cast is remarkable. The photography is interesting. The setting is marvelous. Oops, they forgot the plot. The painful meander through the dark world, written by the Polish brothers, lacks suspense and any reference to common human emotion. It resembles a 'living dead' movie without the gore. The retro props served to make it even more remote. This film does answer one question I have wondered about since I saw "Twin Falls Idaho": Is Mark Polish trying to act like he can't? I'll leave it to you to discover the answer by watching this film. It is a good study in how an idea, interesting enough to get funding, might not transfer to film.

But its so simple..

[psychdiva1 · 18 November 2004]

Northfork is not an inscrutable mess. Whether you wish to view the more fanciful scenes as literal or the product of a dying boy's imagination, one strong theme connects all the stories. Change happens. Each sub-story revolves around a profound change. The little boy is dying. The town is being evacuated. The movie illustrates how we get dragged along by changes we are powerless to stop. We should ideally make the best of them and accept whatever heartache they cause. Some look forward towards a new freedom (the little boy) and some obstinately refuse to accept them (the ark family). And Walter has to learn the lesson that there are some changes we think are over and done with that must be relived (reburying his wife). Just because we think we've buried a chapter in life under the ground doesn't make it so. This is shown so clearly by the conversations between Walter and his son Willis. I say that if you really want to know what the movie is about watch the scene that begins in the outhouse. And pay special attention to the Willis's speech about caring for his car. Its a beautiful movie that gains meaning for me every time I watch it.

Imagery Immersion

[parsond · 7/10 · 20 August 2003]

Imagery controls this film. The characters, although interesting, ultimately take a back seat. The first scene I remember is a framed black and white shot of the ocean, that then opens to full screen and color. The bubbling of the water gives way to a small coffin that breaks the surface. The theme of the movie here, being that death can be accepted and brought into the realm of the living.

Water as an ultimate consciousness, as a tool of God, is used to here to force people to get their "houses" in order (Judgment Day). The dead have to be accounted for and lifted to a better place. Whatever one has left unresolved or unsettled, will be washed away. There's no clinging on to the past, to a buried memory of what was.

This movie has been compared to O, Brother Where Art Thou, and the threat of water and its use as a cleansing force is similar to that film. What's different in this movie is that the coming of the water is knowable and so, again, the emphasis is on what needs to be done with the here and now.

I agree that the some of the scenes are reminiscent of a David Lynch work. Take, for example, the dinner segment with the deep-voiced and androgynous waitress. One gets the same surreal feel from the setting and odd character as one does with the backwards talker in the scene from Fire Starter. The difference is that Lynch attacks us with the image to express the psychological processes of a troubled character, whereas this film seems to use surreal elements to create a moral message. The men in black suits can't have anything they want-they must be patient and accept what is available.

Refreshing

[robertllr · 9/10 · 11 January 2004]

It's a shame this movie is rated PG 13--it is really quite suitable for anyone--though young kids might not follow it too well.

It belongs to that wonderful genre of serio-comic ghost/angel stories that would have to include everything from Capra's "It's A Wonderful Life" to Wenders's "Wings of Desire."

The photography is stunning, the acting first rate, and--wonder of wonders--the tone is uplifting.

My only criticism is that there is not much ambiguity in the film. The two interwoven stories seem intriguingly mysterious at first; but they resolve themselves a little too nicely for my taste. As the director points out in his commentary on the DVD, all the ingredients of Irwin's story are on his bedside table. The symbolism is just a trifle too pat for me.

But what a lark! My favorite scene has to be when the relocation team tries to get breakfast at a diner. This is practically theatrical in its magic--a tour de force of witty acting--subtle, playful, and positively rhythmic--coupled with striking cinematography and an acute eye for the grotesque.

"Northfork" is funny, touching, gorgeous to look at, magical (with the above reservations) and has not one single car-chase.

An easy nine stars.

interesting, beautiful, but too many loose ends

[sailor-35 · 7/10 · 30 October 2005]

i happen to be surfing through on a Sunday morning and got in just as the movie was starting. it grabbed me immediately, it was one of those scenes where the mountains of Montana background let you know right away this is not a "ninja, action feature" movie we have been inundated with over the last 3 years.

The back & forth between the groups was engaging and kept my mind focused. the little clues/hints also kept me on edge. all of the actors played their roles really well. all were believable. all were giving to their roles. from the farmer that nailed himself to his front porch, to Irwin, to nolte the priest, i really respected the acting.

yet, the movie never came together? there were too many loose ends left lying on the floor. i appreciate a movie that keeps the audience thinking and probing, but isn't it the writer & directors role to give their audience some closure? were the polish brothers trying to do a 2001 on us? if so, even 2001 gave us much more closure at the end than this film.

i will look forward to their next film. they are on the right track. this was a movie we need more of. i am sick & tired of boobs & bombs and hyped up acting presented as a blockbuster.

northfork is a good effort and i agree with others, how was this movie left off the cinematography list of the year's best?

Well made but too bleak

[rosscinema · 4/10 · 26 July 2003]

This is a very well photographed film but the overall tone and pace make this one of the most demanding films to watch. Story is set in 1955 Montana and a whole city called Northfork is suppose to be evacuated because it will soon be underwater from the dam. A small boy named Irwin (Duel Farnes) is brought back to an empty orphanage because he is sick and Father Harlan (Nick Nolte) takes care of him the best he can but it appears that Irwins days are numbered. While lying in his bed Irwin fantasizes that he is an angel and wants four other angels that are staying in an abandoned house to take him with them. The angels are Cup of Tea (Robin Sachs), Cod (Ben Foster), Happy (Anthony Edwards) and Flower Hercules (Daryl Hannah). In another part of the film we see Evacuators that are sent two at a time to evacuate any stubborn remaining home owners. The Evacuators are all promised a certain amount of land for doing their job and one team consists of a father and son (James Woods and Mark Polish) and the father decides to find the grave of his wife and dig her up and bury her someplace else. He doesn't want her coffin to rise to the surface when the area becomes flooded. This film is directed by Michael Polish and co-written by his brother Mark. Together they paint a landscape so bleak that the characters in this film appear totally hopeless. The cinematography is stunning to watch with the endless Montana landscape. The sky is continuously gray and cloudy and the open fields that surround this story make the characters seem secondary. Hannah and Woods have a few fleeting moments with their performances but for the most part the actors come across emotionally distant and cold. The pace of the film is extremely slow and for some viewers it may be impossible for them to view. If your familiar with the films of the Polish brothers then your a step ahead of everyone else but for the others this may be too ponderous and bleak to appreciate. Film is demanding of your patience and the overall story leaves you at a distance which for me means that I could not fully appreciate what the Polish brothers have made. Impressive looking but extremely slow and bleak.

Hauntingly Beautiful Art Film

[WriterDave · 9/10 · 10 June 2004]

The stark, cold landscape of Big Sky Country, with its majestic snow-capped mountains juxtaposed to barren plains, is put to poetic use here in this Lynchian fable/slide picture show about death and melancholy from the young and talented Polish Brothers (who previously treated indie movie fans to the bizarre and fascinating "Twin Falls Idaho"--a film about a young woman falling in love with two brothers who happen to be Siamese twins). A little orphan boy is dying, and a town is about to flooded in the name of progress (in the form a damn and hydroelectric power plant). With its eerily pleasing music score, minimalist dialogue and character development, and uncanny fantasy sequences involving some very unique angels, the Polish brothers put their focus on what every good film artist knows a film should be about, the moving pictures...the images, the scenes...paintings of deep beauty captured on celluloid. This is best to be viewed late at night so that the haunting imagery can linger in your mind and wash over you as you drift off into sleep. The fact that all of this was done on a shoe-string budget of less than two million dollars puts Hollywood with their bloated film costs and hollow movies to shame and indicates something grand to come from the Polish brothers in the future.

Wonderful attempt that misses the mark with many

[stever-28 · 7/10 · 8 May 2005]

I found this film slow and depressing, but still intriguing. Watching it on cable, I took a break after about 1/2 hour and came here to see what people were saying about it. Then I went back and watched the rest. I am glad I did. I found the message oddly uplifting. It reminded me of the old Twilight Zone episode where Robert Redford plays the warm and friendly angel of death.

I think that the film is flawed, simply because so many people here failed to get the message. Many will give up on it. That is too bad, because the message is really wonderful.

I am amazed at the number of reviews that simply report on the six men in black as government agents. Did no one see the wings on their lapels or the feathers in their hats? These guys are angels, charged with escorting (evacuating) souls to the next life. They are doing penance. Their reward is an acre and a half on the shores of the lake - a place in heaven. They return to escort the stubborn people who refuse to move on - the guy who nails his feet to the floor, the man and his wives who is waiting in his ark for a sign from God. Notice that they run into the minister in town, but never pay him a visit when he is with the boy. The minister is doing the same thing as the men in black - assisting with the transition. James Woods character makes a statement that their job is not to change anyone's beliefs, just to help with their evacuation.

This entire movie takes place in the world between life and death. Too bad it is so slow and depressing.

All this talent wasted

[wjfickling · 3/10 · 8 January 2005]

There is nothing I hate more in a movie than pretentiousness, and this is one of the most pretentious films ever made. It's self-consciousness is obvious in every frame: "see what a profound, sophisticated film we are making," the director and screenwriters seem to be saying to us, and to themselves they say, "lets's see how we can bore and confuse the audience even more." I would rather watch the worst film by Ed Wood or Edgar G. Ulmer than something like this. At least they were giving us honest trash, and at least their films, in their own atrocious way, were entertaining. This film is about as entertaining as a root canal without anesthesia, and thus is tantamount to torture.

Have these screenwriters ever heard the word 'story?' It doesn't appear so. They have a concept, they are able to create an atmosphere, and they were able to assemble an excellent cast and elicit good performances from them. And for what? To bore us for an hour and 45 minutes? Nothing really happens in this film. The only exciting part, and this lasts only about two minutes, occurs when one of the soon-to-be-evicted homeowners starts shooting at the state employees who come to tell him he has to leave. But nothing comes of it. Too bad he didn't keep shooting until he hit the screenwriters. The only redeeming features of this film are the acting and some beautifully photographed scenery toward the end. 3/10

Northfork, Montana (1776-1955)

[Galina_movie_fan · 10/10 · 4 February 2006]

A dreamy, stunningly atmospheric film takes place in a small town of Northfork, Montana in 1955. The government officials arrive to evacuate the town about to be inundated by a new hydroelctrical dam. There are the other visitors in the town, the angels from another time but they only seen by a dying boy Irvin. A local priest (Nick Nolte in a quiet heartbreaking performance) takes care of the boy. Irvin pleads with the angels to leave the place with them...

There is some unearthly quality in the film, some dignified mourning and sublime sadness when you suddenly realize the inevitable finality of everything - humans and their relationships, cities, countries, civilizations, the whole world as we know it. Death and birth have something in common - we go through them in the ultimate loneliness.

I cannot recall the film that affected me in the same way and as deeply as "Northfork" did, the film so beautiful and so tender, so quiet and so powerful, so heartbreaking and so moving. Even now, after several weeks since I saw it, tears come to my eyes when I only think of it.

After I saw it, I had to talk to somebody about it. I sent a PM to one of my friends and I asked, "Please tell me what I just saw?" And my friend replied with the words, "You just saw one of the greatest films of modern times. One of these days others will see the light."

Yin without Yang = nothing...and visa-

[=G= · 6/10 · 31 December 2003]

An cheap way to create interest in a film is to take a story, chop it up into pieces, and dole them out randomly to build audience curiosity. The result is an audience which is intrigued, not by the story but, by the sham which begs the question: What is this flick about? And so begins "Northfork", a fable about the dialectic of progress and the inevitability of death. In their quest to be different in their own weird way, the Polish brothers went too far in the direction of the bleak, the starkly austere, and the minimalistic in "Northfork". The stoicism of their previous hit indie "Twin Falls Idaho" only worked because it was offset by a human story which provided the substance for empathetic entertainment. In "Northfork" the human story is surreal, beyond believability, and unsatisfying with actors looking more like actors than characters. Without a satisfying human story, "Northfork" is just so much weirdness which must be relegated to the art house and an existence as a peculiarity among films. Only for artie lovers and those into films which are different for the sake of being different. (B-)

it tries hard to be an art house film, tries too hard.....

[mtomm · 3/10 · 2 February 2007]

this film could have been great. it's visually stunning and very well-casted, but it screams of wanting into the polanski / lynch / cronenberg camp. it's kind of like watching a kid jump up and down yelling "i'm cool too!".

the story has great potential, but is poorly told. i found the timing very troublesome and a few more hours with a storyboard could have helped immensely.

i found a lot of the kind of obtuse allusion that can result in overkill; especially the dog.

some very successful imagery, though. i found the scenes towards the beginning of the film concentrating on the excavated graves very moving. all in all, a film with a lot of potential that is poorly realized.