FeistyUpper If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

Steineded How sad is this?

Siflutter It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

Jonah Abbott There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

Michael_Elliott Men of the North (1930) * 1/2 (out of 4) Hal Roach directed this "action/adventure" set in Canada. Louis La Bey (Gilbert Roland) is accused of stealing some gold but in the meantime he has a couple women wanting him. I'm sorry if that plot description is bad or just doesn't due the film justice but I'll gladly admit that the story mad very little to no sense to me. This entire picture is a must see because of how bad the thing is and there's never a single second that makes any sense. I'd love to hear some backstory on this thing because what I do know is that Roach brought his huge library of stars to MGM and somehow he was allowed to direct this film. Was this picture offered up in some sort of deal? Did MGM just wish he'd shut up and they allowed him to make a movie? I'm really not sure but it says quite a bit that the studio didn't turn over any of their "A" stars or even any of their "B" stars. Roland, a major Latin lover symbol in the silent era, is quite frankly, awful here. He's suppose to be playing a French guy yet he has an incredibly think Mexican accent that he never tries to cover up. There are a few supporting players who do the same thing and it just really makes the entire film odd to say the least. I'm really not sure why they didn't try to write something around the accents or at least change something about his character but seeing a French guy with a Mexican accent just makes for some laughs. The cinematography is quite ugly throughout the picture and the story is just so thin and all over the place that I'm not sure what's going on. Roach's direction isn't much better because he obviously can't tell a story and really doesn't have any business doing a film of this genre. MEN OF THE NORTH is one of the strangest films of the decade so fans of the bad will probably want to check it out but all others should stay clear.

calvinnme Yes folks this is not an April fool's joke. Some background: in 1930 MGM was profiting by their relationship to Hal Roach Studios by distributing Roach's two reel comedies. Roach Studios could do what MGM could not seem to do - produce funny comedy shorts and supply loan outs of great comedy talents to MGM such as Thelma Todd and, of course, Laurel and Hardy. So in 1930 MGM reciprocated and let Hal Roach stretch his wings and direct an action adventure at their studio. Instead Mr. Roach should have stayed in his own comedy nest.The film is a bit of a mess, and the whole thing is just so poorly directed. It's obvious MGM just treated this as a throwaway in their budget as a goodwill gesture towards Mr. Roach. None of their A or even B list stars appear in this, and most of the players vanished from sight not long after the transition to sound. The exception - Gilbert Roland as likable Louis Le LeBey, who is suspected of robbing shipments of gold, is hiding gold in his cabin, has a very confused love life, and seems to be on the wrong side of the border - nobody has bothered to coach him to sound French Canadian - as he retains his Spanish accent. Gilbert Roland's performance is the only three dimensional one in the lot as the rest are pure cardboard. I've seen the other players in this film give good performances elsewhere so, once again, this just seems to be a case of bad direction coupled with all of the other problems of early sound film.Barbara Leonard stars as Nedra, a girl who takes a shine to Louis in spite of the fact her father is one of the robbery victims. Robert Eliot plays a Mountie who seems more like a tough New York policemen dressed up like a Mountie for Halloween. Nina Quartero gives the most bizarre performance of all as she seems to have aspirations to be Louis' girl, yet she both pants over him and spies on him. Then when she's talking to the mounties she tries to hang all over them too.Watch this one for the "so bad it's good" fun of it all and to see Gilbert Roland develop as a sound actor in spite of the impediments thrown at him here.

SamHardy I can only think of one reason to watch this. I had a ball watching Gilbert Roland in the role of a Frenchman. Roland was one of the silent screen's most well known Latin lovers. He does not even TRY to sound like a French speaking character. His strong accent is pure south of the border. Pretty funny stuff. Otherwise embarrassing to all concerned. Moves at a snails pace and once it gets there it just sort of lays down and dies. Directed by Laurel and Hardy's boss Hal Roach for MGM.Early sound effort that just keeps on talking and talking and talking. The dialog is astoundingly stupid, even for it's day. Good luck with this one.

GUENOT PHILIPPE This little Hal Roach film made during the early talkies is a very good time waster. Filmed on locations in Canada or Alaska, the sets are exquisite for this beautiful story - I won't repeat after the summary lines above. The young Gilbert Roland is surprising here, as the very lead. He was rather known as supporting characters in most of his films. Of course, this flick is not Andrew Marton's WILD COUNTRY or William Wellman's CALL OF THE WILD. An effective B picture, I guess no one thinks about now. It has been aired on TCM US. That's how I could take it. It's not unforgettable but worth although.The avalanche sequence is breath taking for this period.