Reviews written by registered user
|21 reviews in total|
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Are we supposed to believe that a foreign documentary crew just started
to follow this girl and her family around before there was anything at
all remarkable about her, and that by luck they stumbled upon the one
girl who would become an eagle huntress? Or that her father, upon
realising that his daughter was going to break new ground in the
hunting-with-eagles culture, got in touch with a foreign filmmaker to
propose that as a subject for a documentary film?
The explanation that makes the most sense for the existence of this film is that the documentarist learned about the girl AFTER she had already become a huntress and then decided to make a film about her, recreating for the screen her past experiences. So everything that we see is probably fake. If it is fake, how do I know that I can believe any of it? Did she (an inexperienced 13-year old with a young eagle) really get first place in that tournament against older and far more experienced men and birds?
Was that a real eagle nest that she found with her father? Did she really go down to the nest to capture her eaglet? There is footage that can only come from a GoPro camera attached to her head, but in the long shots we don't see such a camera. Again, it must have been staged, so how do I believe it?
The script of the first Astérix movie combined elements from a few
different books and it wasn't very successful. Then came the second,
which was based in a single book. This was by far the best Astérix
movie. The third one was based on one of the books but had a lot of
extra stuff thrown in there, and it resulted in a resounding failure.
What conclusion can be drawn from this? That you should just trust
Goscinny, who was a great writer, and keep your film as close as
possible to his material. With this "Lucky Luke" film they picked
characters and plot elements from a dozen different books, and the
resulting screenplay was a huge mess.
I still enjoyed it, but I think it could have been much better.
Comedy series about the Bougon family, which are the perfect model
if your way of life consists of drinking beer all day, cheating on welfare
and on your landlord, having a prostitute as a daughter and otherwise
up with various schemes to make money as long as it doesn't involve an
honest paycheck, that is.
The first few episodes of this new (Jan 2004) Radio-Canada TV series have been extremely funny and successful. Its politically incorrect biting satire pokes fun at everything and everyone. The series is quickly becoming a Québec cultural icon
A Belgian photographer living in Montreal loses his wife and child in an
accident. He is only able to overcome his ensuing suicidal mood when he
meets his lonely single mother neighbour.
I thought this was a pretty interesting movie. It's not a heavy depressing drama (my plot outline notwithstanding) - it does have many funny moments - but it's far from a fluffy romantic movie with glamorous people either. It's not a very polished film, like something that would come out of a Hollywood studio, but for a low-budget local production I thought it was OK. Pretty much the whole film was set in the Montreal winter and looked accordingly bleak, which was an interesting unusual touch.
A literary critic with the meanest pen in town is sentenced for drunk
driving to community service over the Christmas holidays at the "Nez
service, which provides lifts to people who have had too much to drink. He
is partnered with an aspiring writer who hates him for having utterly
destroyed her first work years earlier. Naturally he falls in love with
then they fight, then she realizes she loves him too.
As far as romantic comedies go (a genre that Québec cinema doesn't explore much), this one was pretty good. If follows the conventions and the general plot structure of the genre quite faithfully (if I hadn't liked the film I would have just said "it's full of clichés"), but I thoroughly enjoyed it, had many good laughs and left with a smile in my face. Sometimes that's enough.
A famous middle-aged author overcomes his writer's block by befriending a
young prostitute and using her shocking life story as an inspiration for
new book. Their relationship grows deeper, eventually affecting his
professional commitments and his marriage. There is something keeping her
from returning his feelings, though.
It's an OK movie, by no means great but better than average. It does have strong sexual content, so those who are easily shocked should stay away. It's a simple story, but the journey of the main character and his relation with the prostitute are very well developed. At the end when we see the whole picture it becomes quite interesting.
On the negative side I was conscious of the acting on a few occasions. Nothing overly distracting though.
An unemployed man married to a wealthy realtor has an affair with a young
woman, who, assuming he is the rich half of the couple, is planning to
blackmail him. Her plans change when he asks for her help in killing his
This is not a bad movie but it doesn't quite reach its goals. The plot is interesting enough, but many situations feel forced and the humour doesn't always work. One more thing, the digital photography looks pretty bad on the big screen at some points.
Jack Carter is the best private detective in Montreal. He is a former
officer, divorced from the city's forensic pathologist and father of a
girl. He is helped in his cases by his best friend, a former cop and
restaurant owner, and by an ex-colleague still in the police force. A
cop hates him and is a constant source of trouble. Like James Bond, he
fails to go to bed with the attractive females that cross his
The first year of the show had only four stories, each one developed over two episodes - eight episodes in total. The cases were:
- The disappearance of a businessman, possibly linked to a woman's body found half buried in cement.
- A tiger is stolen from the zoo.
- A body is stolen from the cemetery.
- A scientist is chased by mysterious men that are after his secret formula.
The show is not quite like any other TV detective show I have seen. It manages quite well a balance between the serious and the funny. It doesn't take itself too seriously. Good production values for a Canadian series, stylish direction, likable cast, all contribute to make it a very watchable show. I hope it comes back for a second year.
I saw this film at the Montreal World Film Festival some years ago. The
synopsis seemed interesting - a couple moves to a small village to escape
trouble, but then they are investigated for the death of the woman's
whose body is found in their backyard. You would have to be a far more
intelligent person than I am to be able to see this story in the movie,
though. All I was able to see were seemingly disconnected scenes of the
three protagonists (the wife, the husband and the police inspector)
about God knows what and doing all kinds of surreal things. Particularly
puzzling were some scenes where the three play and sing like children,
around in circles and throwing a ball to one another.
Summing it up, now I can laugh about it, but at the time it was the nearest thing to torture I ever had to endure. But then again, perhaps it is my own fault and had I been brighter and more cultured I would have been able to understand and appreciate the writer/director's vision.
Piera's story is that of a young girl whose sexual awakening is not only tolerated but actively encouraged by her parents, with whom she seems to have some kind of an incestuous relationship. The disturbing subject matter is not what is wrong with this film, though. This is a film with loose scenes, no discernible plot, secondary characters that appear and disappear at random, nonsensical dialogue... Hey, if you want to challenge our morals by showing mother and daughter kissing naked on the beach that's fine, but try to do it in a way that is watchable. I will never forgive myself for not following my impulse of leaving after 15 minutes.
|Page 1 of 3:||  |