jcrnfr Reviews

Comme tout le monde (2006)

Reality TV Gets *Really* Unreal!

[6/10 · 26 November 2008]

This is at least the fourth take on "Reality TV" (following "The Truman Show", "EdTV" and the original, "Louis 19 Roi des Ondes"). As in Truman, the subject is unaware of being on camera. The angle here (shown from the start) is that a marketing/opinion research/advertising organization --not a broadcaster-- is the culprit. But the extent of the firm's involvement and "research" techniques are wildly unrealistic, which clashes with an intended romantic comedy.

In other words, "Truman" was clearly science fiction, "EdTV" was an uncommon but credible real-life situation, but apparently "Comme tout le monde" tries to be both, which IMHO doesn't work.

Khalid Maadour and Caroline Dhavernas excel as the main protagonists, as does Thierry Lhermite in his highly far-fetched incidental role as the country's President showing up unannounced --along with his First Lady and cohort of aides and bodyguards-- to conduct one-man focus groups personally!

The production values are fairly slick, but the excessive and intrusive computer graphics often make the end result feel more like a videoclip than a feature film.

The Hudsucker Proxy (1994)

Who the heck is Mona Lisa? And who cares?

[10/10 · 16 November 2007]

If you can look at the Mona Lisa and think (or ohmigosh say out loud) "Who cares how this picture was painted, I mean what's the story here? Who's this woman? Are those ruins in the background? Is there a war going on? And if so why the heck is she smiling? This is a stupid painting, I just don't get it!" then you'll hate Hudsucker.

Yes indeed, the storyline is outrageous, and suspension of disbelief is one thing but this is ridiculous. Especially the ending.

But you have to accept that a movie is not the evening news. A good picture doesn't HAVE to make sense, in fact the best ones don't. I mean they don't have to put in a yellow brick road for you to know fantasy when you see it, right? The 300-foot (or so it seems) Board Room table, and Mussburger's cathedral/office do as well, right?

So Hudsucker is to be viewed as a tall tale. Or a satire, whatever. But I prefer to call it a masterpiece of acting, lighting, set design, musical score and of course direction. IMHO, Hudsucker is the cinematic equivalent of Mona Lisa. Don't ask questions, just relax, and take in those awesome moving pictures.

Marie-Antoinette (2006 TV Movie)

A technical breakthrough

[6/10 · 24 December 2006]

This is NOT Sofia Coppola's movie, but a different made-for-TV docudrama. It covers Marie-Antoinette's entire lifespan in France, from age 15 to her death, describing also how people reacted to her (collectively as well as individually) and why. It feels cold and objective like a newsreport, and dramatic intensity is set aside for all but the last few minutes.

Technically, this movie was produced on a shoestring. It is one of the first full-length features, if not *the* first, to be shot entirely in limbo ("green screen" as for the weather forecasts on TV).

The actors were filmed in a Montreal studio with whatever props were needed, while the backdrops were photographed (or when necessary, filmed) in the real Versailles Palace, and electronically (and faultlessly) added in later.

This was necessary as the French authorities would not have allowed the Palace to be turned over (once more?) to film crews for over a month, and probably damaged in the process; but it also whittled the budget down to a minimum.

The Director was Yves Simoneau, a very experienced Quebec filmmaker who now works out of Hollywood, and yet he saw the need for a co-director due to the complexity of the job.

The end result is excellent. I haven't detected a single flaw such as jitters, problems with angles, perspective or lighting, or panning incoherences between the players and the backdrop. I would not in a million years have guessed that the movie had not been shot on location.

Students of the cinema should study this historic production very carefully as (in combination with advances in computer imagery) it probably foreshadows the end of hugely expensive studio sets.

As for the content - I found it similar to an illustrated lecture in history - mildly interesting but nothing to write home (or IMDb) about.

Jesus of Montreal (1989)

An awesome historical and religious "WhatIf"

[25 June 2004]

What if Jesus had been born in the year 1970 instead of year 1, and as unheralded now as He was then- how would our society have dealt with Him?

And if people can get possessed by the Devil, can a regular guy -- not a nut or a fraud -- become gradually and genuinely possessed by Jesus?

Denys Arcand answers both questions in clever and entertaining fashion. With actual events, people, words and thoughts from Jesus' life being transposed to our modern times. Of course a movie like this is aimed at people who don't turn both their brain cells off as they enter the movie house, and won't be happy with 90 minutes of gunshots, car chases, or Jesus being whipped.

And yet this highly hypothetical parable still comes off as a plausible dramatic tale, with the usual Arcand mix of tragedy and comedy. You could have never heard of Jesus and still enjoy this movie.

The cinematography is gorgeous and the main actors are uniformly excellent. Some of the minor characters bother me intensely, which they are meant to do -- they're just too darn good at it.

The script and direction are nicely conventional - in the sense that at no time does the viewer wonder who that guy is or what the heck is going on. Jarring "artsy" cuts, unannounced flashbacks and weird camera angles are many critics' cup of tea but not mine, and thankfully, not Arcand's either.

There is quite a bit of tension-relieving slapstick in this story; some viewers may like it- it *is* funny, but it makes me uncomfortable at times. And the ending is a bit of an anticlimax, although at the second viewing I think I began to see the light.

I originally rated this movie 8/10, but after seeing it again I got more in tune with it and also noticed a few very clever details, so I'm upping it to 9/10. Maybe 10/10 when I see it next.