User reviews

Rating 9/10 The October Crisis tells the tale of a tumultuous time in the history of Canada, a populist uprising in Montreal, tensions worn thin against a new radical but legitimate political party that threatens to secede and a small but dangerous group of young "visionaries" take the stage in what is a well crafted and thoughtful retelling of the events that took place in the days of October of 1970. The impressive collection of first hand footage, and detailed analysis of the events as they happened,along with commentary from survivors and involved persons exemplifies great journalism and is complimented by an equal class of cinematography. The little known tale of Canada's experience with terrorism and civil strife. The impressive design of the film is the expanding view of events, starting with the tensions and political happenings then expanding to the reactions of Canadians, and French Canadians. The story is balanced giving both sides a reasonable explanation. It is historically accurate and does not serve as a dramatization or inflation of any events, it tells and shows with footage where available all of the events, their locations and aftermath. The story is told such that it attracts and holds onto one attention and keeps it for most of the film. I do find it shocking at the end, the kidnappers are allowed easy passage to Cuba in only short negotiations and there has been no attempt to pursue them, at least in the time scale of the films production. The interviews and recordings from interviewed Politicians, police and other involved in the crisis added a human element to the story and further improved its marks. Some issues with the film were the dry voice overs were somewhat hard to listen to after a time. They discussion was valuable but eh audio quality was lacking in some parts.

Okay so this was a very informative movie/documentary. It had a very old feeling to it, but it is a little older so that's to be expected. I'm in this history of Canada course and going with stereotypical Canadian beliefs; I assumed Canadians were always just calm and collected but this proved me 100% wrong! Quebec was not only like the major role player but it (depending on how you look at it) was also the only problem. Those in Quebec wanted to just save their tradition of having French apart of their daily lives but the English was slowly taking over and with my mindset I thought those who were opposed would be peaceful. Ummm no, those separatists were blowing stuff up, angry because of change and when the queen shows up, game over. The thing that caught me off guard was how a politician can just up and say, "Canada is going through a major crisis!" How can you just know that? I mean sure there's a REALLY big issue going on and he was right, but to call it that early? I'm a bit suspicious. Regardless of that, if Trudeau was being labeled as a traitor for wanting new and bringing in English ways why not take a more..political approach and not a toddler approach? Kidnapping people? Starting riots? Killing police officers? I was appalled at how the police were beating the opposers like it's the 50's in America. This was a very opinion-changing event for me, seeing the ACTUAL footage of this happening. I understand the Queboicois wanting to withstand by their views but going to the extremes that they did was uncalled for. With that said I would recommend this for anyone wanting to get some deep insight into the rather history of Canada we don't really see, nor does Canada really broadcast. I now know that Canada is just as American as I assumed, they were, things don't go your way? Push forward and ask questions later.

Even at my most generous rating, I am only able to give this film a four out of ten. I understand that it is a documentary produced in the mid 1970s; however, the entire film is abysmal. It takes nearly an hour and a half to convey information that could be given in (probably) twenty minutes. The narrator is unbearably monotonous and boring. I ended up needing to play the film at 1.5 speed just so I could feel like the film was actually progressing. There were several moments in which I had to rewind the film as I found myself zoning out despite trying my hardest to pay attention. I feel like my disinterest is largely to do with the manner in which the film is edited; I think the October Crisis is an important event in Canadian history and showcases the effects of a terrorist group in Quebec- surely something quite rare for Canada. However, it was rare that I felt the images and videos in the film were actually related to what the narrator was saying. (There was also one transition near the end of the film that actually caught my attention and held it, only because it felt so out of place from the rest of the film. The narrator was talking about Pierre Laporte and James Cross while images of the two were being shown on screen; it transitioned by zooming in on one's hand, switching photos, and zooming out from the other's hand.) I watched the film on 1.5 speed because of the narrator's slow voice, but it did very little to help with the other voices in the film (interviews, news stories, etc.). They were just as slow and nearly as monotonous as the narrator. I had the distinct feeling that no one in the film actually cared about the October Crisis, though I know that is certainly untrue. I think the information in the film was important to know, which is the only reason I have been able to rate it at all, as it was so poorly produced.

This film provided a wealth of interesting footage from the historical events leading up to and during the October crisis. It was really neat to be able to see the strike breakers come to blows with strikers. I was also surprised to see just how much footage there was of police officers exhibiting some questionable treatment towards the Quebecois protestors. The film also provided a great deal of speeches from the crisis including those of Trudeau, Bourassa and the full broadcast of the FLQ manifesto. I found the footage of the manifesto to be the most interesting part of the film and the October crisis in general. The idea of reading a terror group's work on national television is an event that would signal the end of days to many if it happened in the United States and yet is it presented here as a simply fact, and a relatively small one compared to the other events going on at the time. René Lévesque's comments on Laporte's death were also quite interesting, it was strange to see the contrast of how he acted before and during his press interview, he really exhibited a side of politicians rarely seen. I did feel that the film had a tendency to let a few scenes run unnecessarily long and that the narration could have been greatly improved. The music used had little impact, especially compared to the primary audio of speeches and protests. The editing also seems like it could be improved as there were a few transitions that were so abrupt I though I accidently skipped ahead. I liked that the film went into some of the details of the opposition to the War Measures Act, I felt like this was not discussed enough in the text. Overall the film provided an interesting look at the October crisis filled with great historical footage. Some of the technical aspects could be improved and some scenes could be cut down. I'd give this film a 6/10.

The beginning is very confusing. The first, about, 15 minutes was a lot of riot footage from different riots, and it was rather difficult to follow the transitions as the whole timeline was laid out with the necessary background information on the actual event. It was about a half hour into the movie that I finally understood what the Crisis in question was, although I question it being called the October crisis as the one kidnapping victim was missing for about 2 months and the other acts of terrorism went on for months before that. So perhaps I still missed that detail. For the most part the video made sense and could be followed, but there were some transitions - especially at the beginning - that I had to stop and go back and was maybe still a little confused about the timeline. Overall, I gathered that this video was covering a very messy time in Quebec and Canadian history, so it is not surprising that there was a lot to cover and not a great way to go about it. I get also get the sense that it would be more impactful if you could at least read, if not speak, French as well as English. That is likely true for most stories or anything with Quebec though. This video is entirely worth watching if you have any interest in Quebec or all of Canadian History. I have said a couple times that it was a little hard to follow, but I am confident I understood the majority of it, and the main points are shocking to someone with, mostly, only a stereotype understanding of Canada. It is saddening, but also humbling in a way. In a way I feel that it offered an unfortunately relatable view of Canadian politics. Like the idea that Canada could have such acts of pure terrorism inflicted on them by their own citizens makes it seem like Canada has more in common with the rest of the world. Which is unfortunate since in some ways I viewed them as a better than that before, but a country is made up of individuals who always come in a spectrum.

This is an interesting video about the FLQ Crisis in Quebec. I liked the depth of the whole video, starting from the real beginning of the crisis, because it really set the stage for what the Crisis was about. In some ways, I think what happened in Quebec was inevitable, since the loss of the region by the French to the British. The first British rulers of the region tried to accommodate the French with laws such as the Quebec Act, but in the end, the French-Canadiens would never truly belong to the expanding British Empire. This would result in under-representation in the government, which in turn would reduce awareness for the complaints that the French in Quebec would raise against the government in the 1960s. The FLQ was a militant offshoot of these protesters with reasonable demands or representation and equality. I liked how the video included the full reading of the FLQ manifesto on Canadian news, because it helped really show what the views of the organization were. I found it interesting how the video mentions that after the manifesto was read on the news, many people sympathized with the goal of the FLQ, even though they didn't necessarily agree with their methods.

My biggest complaint about the video is the narrator. I don't know if he was talking that way to increase suspense, or if that was just how he did the narration, but it was extremely dry and boring. I'm not sure if it was just the audio quality from footage that was recorded over 50 years ago, but there some parts where the sound design seems fake. There are a few parts where it seems like someone in a sound studio dubbed over the video from the time-period with sound effects like whistles or car crashes.

Overall I would rate this video a 6.5/10 (7/10 if the sound design isn't faked in some places).

Action: The October Crisis of 1970 succeeded in some things, but failed in others. Overall, the film was incredibly informative and well written. The overall structure of the documentary suited the topic. When discussing the historical events surrounding the terror attacks in 1970, they carefully explain the details leading up to the government cracking down on radical groups. While this is tedious at times, it gets most of the ideas across regarding the severity of the terror attacks and the political upheaval happening in Canada in 1970. While the documentary does an incredible job at relaying the details of these historical events, most of the time is spent with a monotone, drawl narration. This narration, while informative, is incredibly hard to listen to. If the narration had been slightly more enthusiastic or engaged, the information would be much easier to process. The closest thing the narration could be related to is a college lecture of 300 students with a bland professor; while the content might be interesting, a wide audience will not be intrigued by what is being presented. Overall, when looking at this documentary for information, it should receive a 10 out of 10. When factoring in the narration and droning nature that it has, the documentary should get a 6 out of 10. Yes, the documentary is good, but it becomes incredibly boring after the first 10 minutes simply because of the narration.

The October Crisis of 1970 I would rate this film a 6 out of 10 stars. I would give it less, however I tried to consider that the film was produced in 1974 and thus had it's limitations. The October crisis of 1970 is a documentary that tries to tell the story of the FLQ, a Canadian terrorist group in Quebec. It follows the group from it's early forming through the kidnapping of two prominent politicians. It tells of a time when the charter of rights in Canada was suspended citing the need for security around the nation. The Documentary was overall hard to follow. It took quite a bit of rewinding to get exactly what was being said. This could be because the event in history was confusing and scary for the people experiencing it, but I personally would not have taken a creative move like that. The narration didn't help matters much. It was very lack luster. Everything was said with the same tone and speed. It would have been much better if the narration had shown some of the emotion that was running through the film. There were no clear section breaks or transitions to help the viewer comprehend what they were watching. The speed of the film was a bit shaky, starting of slow and then gaining speed like a snowball as it got farther along. Slowing down the film, adding more subtitles, and section breaks would make the film a bit easier to understand. The film did have a few good notes. It offered perspective from multiple different views of the incident. It also makes good use of the existing video and audio of the event. The series of events that make the October crisis were important events that needed to be written about. If the video were updated and remade today, I think that it would be more effective as a teaching tool.

Just want to start off that this movie is a documentary but spoken by a very boring sounding narrator. Also, it seemed that the narrator had a very strange accent that made it hard for the average American to understand. To help understand the video if you payed close attention to the events you could usually figure out what the narrator is talking about. If you can get past that the documentary was very informative and showed a different side of Canada. This filmed showed the events that the Canadian terrorist group in Quebec did. From what I gathered there was a lot of tension that Quebec would loss its French culture to the British. So the French-Canadians showed their emotions by kidnapping Politian's, and blowing up buildings, starting riots, pretty much anything that made a huge impact the French-Canadians did. This was a very big issue for Canada but in the movie the narrators voice hardly changed so, me the viewer, did not get the intense feeling that I should have got. Even in the News interview they seemed calm but knew that this was a very big issue that they needed to overcome. I get that the French-Canadians of Quebec were angry and wanted to keep their French heritage in there Providence but they went about this the wrong way. This video would be a great way to show of what not to do when you want something a curtain way. I now understand why this was not a huge part in my History of Canada course because it was a bad/ almost embarrassing time for Canada. Overall, I would give this documentary a 5 out of 10 because it did have some very interesting events and had actual footage of the events, but the way the video was constructed was terrible and made it hard to watch.

After watching this film, I would rate it a five out of ten. It was rather drawn out in my opinion and the film itself was very hard to watch in my opinion. While this is an informative film and discussed a very important topic in Canadian history that is not very well known, it could have been produced in a better way that is easier to watch. The narrator of the film had a very boring voice which made it hard to pay attention to the movie. There are clips of interviews that are included in the movie that are very informative and necessary in relation to the events and history covered, however they seemed a bit long to me. Before watching this movie, I was not aware of this event in Canadian history and had the impression most people have of Canada which is that they are a peaceful country that is not very violent. This film changed my opinion on Canada just being a peaceful country due to the violence that happened during this time. The film is about the events that took place in Quebec during 1970. During this time the English were slowly taking over and the people of Quebec, who are mainly French, did not like this and wanted to continue to keep French culture a part of their lives. Instead of going about this peacefully, the separatists and terrorist group, FLQ, rioted, blew things up, kidnapped, and killed police officers. The film includes actual footage of the riots which was a nice addition because it adds some perspective on how angry the people really were. With all this being said, this is a very informative film but is just hard to pay attention to in my opinion. I would recommend this to anyone who has a serious interest in Canadian history since this is not something that I would choose to just sit down and watch.