Six was generous. It's a 6 simply because it was a hugely ambitious project from a country, my country, that usually considers a movie investment to be flying in Americans.
Paul Gross has always struck me as somewhat of a walking contradiction. I recall an interview with him once discussing why he left Hollywood, because he hated the way things were done there. Instead, he works in his home country where he seems--from the outside at least--to operate as if he were the Hollywood studio. Does he have an ego problem? I'm not sure because I don't know him. BUT, most everything he's touched seems to reek of ego. This film takes it to the extreme. Instead of creating a film about a historic event, a battle that Canada won against odds, he created an extremely cliché love story. He made a movie about how his character fell in love and eventually won a battle--not how the army won, but how his character kept his cool and stayed the voice of reason. The plot is driven by a protagonist who is so two dimensional you can practically hear him say "I don't like you, because otherwise there wouldn't be a plot." As for my Hollywood reference, it's painted over this film. It's the epic war story with the epic love in between. Only, they forgot the war was the story. In turn, what they wound up with was Pearl Harbor--the film, not the event. As for his ego, everything about the project displays one--real or not. The ambition behind it (not that I'd complain about that), the writing (predictable plot points, obvious motivation) the lead character, a man who's only visible, overt sign of having a flaw, of ever making a bad decision, came when he killed an enemy two minutes into the film (given the context, wrong as it truly would have been, I'd hardly call it a flaw), and to top it off, this is the kicker, the film ends with Paul Gross as Jesus. I don't want to throw in spoilers here, in case you decide to suffer through this, but really, his self love, or inability to flaw his own characters, got so big that it really and truly ends with his character portraying a scene that FEELS like it came straight out of the bible, complete with sunlight beaming down through the once rainy clouds.
If you are Canadian, and you are interested in film, this is no worse than Hollywood garbage--again, Pearl Harbor--and it probably won't kill you to watch. And as such, it may even be worth while to witness Canada's first attempt at grandiose cinema. But, while I HATE when the media and critics attack these kinds of projects due to their nature (Canada's first big film = let's rip it to shreds) I'm actually upset that they didn't actually do it with this one. Not that they should have done it unfairly, but most critics seemed to have given it far too much credit.
Show ambition again Canada, but give it to Cronenberg, Egoyan, or anyone else with a track record for interpreting and projecting a good story.
Paul Gross has always struck me as somewhat of a walking contradiction. I recall an interview with him once discussing why he left Hollywood, because he hated the way things were done there. Instead, he works in his home country where he seems--from the outside at least--to operate as if he were the Hollywood studio. Does he have an ego problem? I'm not sure because I don't know him. BUT, most everything he's touched seems to reek of ego. This film takes it to the extreme. Instead of creating a film about a historic event, a battle that Canada won against odds, he created an extremely cliché love story. He made a movie about how his character fell in love and eventually won a battle--not how the army won, but how his character kept his cool and stayed the voice of reason. The plot is driven by a protagonist who is so two dimensional you can practically hear him say "I don't like you, because otherwise there wouldn't be a plot." As for my Hollywood reference, it's painted over this film. It's the epic war story with the epic love in between. Only, they forgot the war was the story. In turn, what they wound up with was Pearl Harbor--the film, not the event. As for his ego, everything about the project displays one--real or not. The ambition behind it (not that I'd complain about that), the writing (predictable plot points, obvious motivation) the lead character, a man who's only visible, overt sign of having a flaw, of ever making a bad decision, came when he killed an enemy two minutes into the film (given the context, wrong as it truly would have been, I'd hardly call it a flaw), and to top it off, this is the kicker, the film ends with Paul Gross as Jesus. I don't want to throw in spoilers here, in case you decide to suffer through this, but really, his self love, or inability to flaw his own characters, got so big that it really and truly ends with his character portraying a scene that FEELS like it came straight out of the bible, complete with sunlight beaming down through the once rainy clouds.
If you are Canadian, and you are interested in film, this is no worse than Hollywood garbage--again, Pearl Harbor--and it probably won't kill you to watch. And as such, it may even be worth while to witness Canada's first attempt at grandiose cinema. But, while I HATE when the media and critics attack these kinds of projects due to their nature (Canada's first big film = let's rip it to shreds) I'm actually upset that they didn't actually do it with this one. Not that they should have done it unfairly, but most critics seemed to have given it far too much credit.
Show ambition again Canada, but give it to Cronenberg, Egoyan, or anyone else with a track record for interpreting and projecting a good story.