CQ
|
List Price: Our Price: $1.99 You Save: $1.99 (50%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $0.84 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Canada
Movie Reviews of CQ
Movie Review: Dragonfly: The Movie
Summary: 4 Stars
I give this film 4 stars because I strongly feel that this should have been a full feature film about Dragonfly.Movie Review: Modest debut for Francis Ford Coppola's son Roman
Summary: 3 Stars
There are two films within a film in this campy debut from Roman Coppola. There is the introspective black and white, experimental, "student" sort of film that the young director Paul (Jeremy Davies) is making in his Paris apartment, and there is "Dragonfly," a kind of Barbarella (1968) sci-fi space shoot 'em up that he ends up directing. These might be seen as the twin realities of the young film maker: on the one hand there are those short films you made at USC or UCLA film school to get your degree; on the other, there are those mindless commercial entertainments that Hollywood needs to crank out for the masses. These represent the bookends of the young director's reality.
The third film, the film that exists over and above these two, is the film that Roman/Paul would like to make, a film about what it is like to be a young film maker amid the crass commercialism of the producers, the seductive lure of the glamor that is the film maker's world, and the daily often tedious work of the actual film making. In other words, Roman Coppola is self-exploring in public. He is the novelist as a film maker.
"Dragonfly" itself is indeed Barbarella without the benefit of Terry Southern's contributions to the script or the services of Jane Fonda. It is unconsciously campy and a satire on such films. Model Angela Lindvall, five feet ten and three-quarters inches tall, anorexically thin, and sporting some very serious hair, plays Dragonfly with a kind of Barbie doll intensity. It is immediately obvious that she has the muscle tone of the languid and the athletic ability of a preteen. Yet her character is a "for hire" secret agent skilled in the martial arts and the use of weapons. Playing opposite her is Billy Zane as "Mr. E" a kind of Che Guevara revolutionary who is absurdly stationed on the far side of the moon where he is training revolutionaries.
In the introspective black and white film, Paul sits on the commode and talks to the camera much to the disdain of his live-in girlfriend Marlene (French actress Elodie Bouchez, best known for her work in the outstanding The Dreamlife of Angels (1998)) who would like him to pay more attention to her.
This might be compared (distantly) with Francois Truffaut's La Nuit Américaine (Day for Night) from 1973 in which the great French director plays himself making a film--in other words a film within a film. Jeremy Davies reminds me somewhat of the sensitive, boyish actor Jean-Pierre Leaud, who played in that film after gaining prominence in Truffaut's Les Quatre cents coup (1959). It is easy to see Truffaut's influence on Roman Coppola, as indeed Truffaut has influenced many directors.
I don't think CQ ("Seek You") was entirely successful mainly because I don't think Roman made the transition from the self-indulgence and showiness characteristic of the very films he is satirizing to the mature project that addresses itself more directly to the needs of the audience. There is some fancy camera work with mirrors and characters seen from interesting angles, and some beautifully constructed sets, and some witty dialogue amid some telling satire of filmland people and their world (especially producer Enzo played by Giancarlo Giannini and Dragonfly's idiot second director), but we are never made to care about what happens to any of the characters, this despite the fact that Davies is a very sympathetic actor.
Some of the jokes in the film include the three-day five o'clock shadows on the faces of the young actors. (That style is almost contemporary--not sixties-ish.) The hairstyles of the women with the beehives and such hinted of 1969, the year of the main film, but the eye makeup again was more contemporary than sixties-ish since it lacked the very heavy black eyelashes and eye liner that one recalls. To get it right, Roman should have reviewed, e.g., Blow-Up (1966) or Elvira Madigan (1967), films I am sure he has seen. Another is the view of Paris in the year 2001 as seen from 1970. It is futuristic in a silly way, and recalls some science fiction that exaggerated the technological changes that would take place. Orwell's 1984 (from 1948) has not yet arrived, nor has the overpopulated, polluted world from Blade Runner (1982).
Appearing in small roles are Dean Stockwell as Paul's father, and veteran French film star Gerard Depardieu as Dragonfly's original director.
Bottom line: worth seeing if only because it is the first film of the son of Francis Ford Coppola who may yet do something to rival the great works of his father. By the way, this might also be compared to The Virgin Suicides (2000), his sister Sofia Coppola's first film, just to see who is more likely to best please Dad. I'm taking no bets.
Movie Review: "CQ" trips over its own potential.
Summary: 3 Stars
One of the taglines from Roman Coppola's "CQ" is "every picture tells a story." Indeed. Unfortunately, the writer/director (son of Francis) also believes that every story is worth telling. This is where "CQ" falls short. It's three movies all rolled into one. Well, sort of. Actually, it's really only one movie--about the making of two movies. Still with me?Its 1969 and the revolution that swept through French cinema is all but at an end in Paris. Most of the visionary and radical techniques developed during La Nouvelle Vague have been absorbed into mainstream movie-making. So much the better. Those who once critiqued film, invaded the movie-making process. Renouncing the steady gloss and glow of Hollywood counterparts, their trademarks included dominant hand-held camera motion, natural light instead of manufactured, follow-spot tracking and convention-breaking editing styles that presented stories which favored the inner human struggle over exterior conflicts. Long, uncut takes, open-ended endings and improvised dialogue from mostly unknown actors were not uncommon elements for these directors who sought out the appeal of a younger, more influencing audience.
We meet filmmaker Andrzej (Gérard Depardieu), a veteran of this revolution hired by a main-stream producer to direct a main-stream "sci-spy" sexploitation film, "Dragonfly" (think "Barbarella"). Only he's not delivering on the goods. The bombastic producer (played with relish by Giancarlo Giannini) wants gloss, glitter and an explosive ending to top all endings. Andrzej would rather punch a hole through a wall than compromise his art. In fact, he does.
Enter Paul, the young American film editor, a meek, bleak character that Jeremy Davies plays so well. Paul is lost. He's searching for personal truth. Truth in love, truth in art, truth in life. He edits "Dragonfly" by day but uses his free time to produce a personal documentary, filming himself, his girlfriend and his sourroundings--an exercise he hopes will reveal the truth in his life.
But what happens when Andrzej is fired from "Dragonfly" and Paul is promoted? That's the strength of "CQ." Truth in art is put to the test as Paul finds himself in the director's seat. Truth in love is challenged when he falls for Dragonfly herself. Will he find his personal truth when all is said and done, or is personal truth something you make up as you go? What a wonderful theme to explore! Does Paul evolve from a boring, lifeless sap into a caring, feeling, hopeful individual? Here's a guy looking for the truth in his life yet he can't see the forest for the trees. Will he ever?
Coppola doesn't care to answer. Instead, the film trips over its own potential. It uses all three films ("Dragonfly," Paul's documentary, and itself) to tell the story. One moment we're watching Paul film "Dragonfly," and then we're actually watching "Dragonfly." This is a gimmick that has worked brilliantly in such films as "Living in Oblivion" and "The Big Picture." But it fails here. Why? Because it doesn't serve the movie. And why should it? It plays rather nicely on its own. Coppola knows his story and characters are barely above the line of interest and could never survive a straight telling of the tale. They need the gimmick. It's a diversion. It diverts.
Hows that for personal truth?
Movie Review: A film with potential, but fails to have a point
Summary: 3 Stars
On the surface, CQ seems to hold promise as an off-beat look at the art of filmmaking. The story of an editor turned director struggling his way through a cheesy sci-fi film of the late 60's sounds very intriguing. I had high hopes for this film, directed by the son of Francis Ford Coppola.Indeed, the directing style shows some promise, and I hope this Coppola refines his story-telling methods, because there is some promise here. But for the most part, what he delivers here is a scattered, schizophrenic film that seems to have a lot of ideas, yet never makes any one of them clear. It's like the director had so much to say, he couldn't decide what was important, so he threw everything in the mix. Perhaps the film is supposed to emulate Jeremy Davis's director role in the film: trying to say something in his movie but not knowing what that something is.
What somewhat saves this film is the quirky sci-fi film the characters are making and the excellent cast. Jeremy Davis is great as the editor-come-director, and Gerard Depardieu and Jason Schwartzman as the directors that came before him play their roles perfectly, especially Schwartzman.
But in the end, the film just seems to fail making a single point. Worth a rental to check out the cast, but that's it.
Movie Review: Roman Coppola's film "CQ", 2001. DVD.
Summary: 3 Stars
Inspired by both Goddard (French New Wave) and British 60's Spy films, this film is a film within a film. At times, kind of like Austin Powers, without the humor. Interesting to view, but lacking in emotional content.