i must have seen a different film!!

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

Meryl Streep narrates this environmental IMAX nature film. Paul McCartney provides the songs. There is a warning about global warming projecting declining ice-coverage to the year 2050. This follows a mother polar bear and her two cubs. There are also other life such as the herd of caribou, underwater life, and the people of the north. There is one particularly intense scene as the polar bear family is chased by a large male. Otherwise, the animal photography is functional without being exceptional. There are some beautiful grand sweeping vistas. I would have liked more underwater filming of the tiny creatures. As a nature film, this is good enough. The environmentalism can be grating. Sometimes, it's not necessary to preach so much.

I checked this DVD out from my local public library thinking it would be a great documentary on the Arctic. Well, there are some great images, but the overall production/direction is almost too distracting. Paul McCartney added some music for the score, and much of the time, it distracts the viewer rather than adds to the experience. And instead of presenting the content and allowing the viewer to draw their own conclusions, in my opinion the film goes too far in trying to emotionally manipulate regarding climate change and its effect on the animals of the Arctic. Argh...

The flick begins by mentioning that polar bears resulted from brown bears (grizzly bears) migrating to the Arctic and adapting to that environment, a theory that comports with accepted thinking. Unfortunately, the idea that polar bears might migrate south and re-adapt to a different climate totally escapes the biased story-line developer. Never have I heard such misguided and erroneous information about anthropogenic global warming and the plight of a subspecies. That said, the photography was exceptionally good in part. While providing a glimpse into the life of polar bears, the focus on their supposed plight became tedious and boring. Minor and limited photography of other wildlife and sea creatures was of interest if you can forget the overall bias. I have to wonder how the story-line might be altered if presented from the point of view of the seal - a primary source of food for the bear as presented by the flick. I also continue to ask myself the question, "Does Ms. Streep have the slightest clue why Greenland is so named when 80% is covered in ice today?". I certainly enjoyed much of the photography, though the film dragged at times and the bias caused attention to drag.

The last time I went to an OMNI-MAX was back in 2006 with the release of "Beavers." It has always been a treat to see a movie on such a large screen. "To The Arctic" does not let down on its sweeping shots of landscapes and emphasis of SFX and sound. Meryl Streep as the narrator is a nice break from the typical voice-overs, such as Morgan Freeman and Peter Coyote. Unfortunately, this documentary is a disappointment on two crucial parts. First is the material that is covered. The movie presents itself as exploring the Arctic Circle. It covers seals, walruses, the land, brief blips of filmmakers, and polar bears. This is all fine, but the problem is that the narrative wonders. It starts with one subject, then changes to another without giving the viewer enough information, much less time to digest it. I did not learn anything nature-wise due to this.The bigger issue is the underlying message. In documentaries like these, it is common to add personification to the animals as a means to gain some emotional attachments. What I did not anticipate was that this G-rated, family-oriented documentary has an agenda. It is not to give us a nature lesson, rather, it states that we are responsible for the destruction of the arctic and the wildlife within it. The movie goes on, claiming that the greenhouse effect is a cause for this. I half expected Al Gore to make a cameo. I don't necessarily oppose this message, but I do find it wrong to disguise it in a film that is supposed to be about nature. The fact that the filmmakers use cute polar bears that are struggling to survive as an excuse for this message is borderline appalling. "To The Arctic" has good visuals that are suitable for the OMNI-MAX, but watch out for its more than biased message.