CQ (2001) User Reviews

good student film

[tritisan · 6/10 · 7 July 2004]

Folks, I really, really wanted to like this film. Alas, I found myself looking at the DVD's timer, wondering when the thing would end. So many elements are likable: groovy sixties design, groovy music, groovy chicks, groovy references to (truly) groovy sixties flicks with chicks. But it doesn't hold together. It doesn't flow. It doesn't involve you.

The self-referential dialog and editing had the cloying and self-conscious feel of a student film. (And I had to sit through plenty of those in college, including my own ;-)

Overall, I think Roman has promise, but he has a lot of catching up to do with his sister.

Modest debut for Francis Ford Coppola's son Roman

[DennisLittrell · 6/10 · 17 March 2006]

(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon.)

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.

A big-budget student film that works on some levels. (Minor spoilers)

[Nishiki · 6/10 · 12 October 2002]

CQ is an exercise in self-indulgent filmmaking that nevertheless has its charms. Taking the film-within-a-film concept an extra step, it tells the story of Paul, a young filmmaker in 1969 Paris who is working on both a sci-fi schlockfest (director Roman Coppola's homage to Mario Bava's Danger Diabolik) and a personal art film. As he tries to "make something honest" with his art film, he simultaneously tries to figure out an ending for the SF movie.

CQ is rather episodic, moving freely between events in Paul's reality and scenes within his two in-progress films. I can't help but think of a line from the movie, wherein Paul is told to "connect things, so that the audience feels something". Beyond a simplistic theme of doubles (a comment by Paul's father leads to an ending for the SF film), there is nothing deeply connecting the scenes presented to the audience. The director's commentary track failed to provide any insight here, mentioning things like "this is my Fellini homage scene" and "my friend's grandmother told him this story about Dragonflies, and I thought it was neat so I put it in". Coppola is treating us to his personal relationship with film, without really giving us anything to think about. (Another example from the commentary comes from a scene where Paul opens a letter to reveal a French driver's license, which is not clearly visible, at least on a 31" TV screen. Although the license is implied by an otherwise unconnected sideplot from much earlier in the movie, I didn't realize what it was. Coppola's comment on this is along the lines of "People told me that nobody would know it's a driver's license, but I thought it was pretty obvious, so I left it". This pretty much sums up his attitude towards the audience.)

All that said, there is entertainment to be had watching CQ. Billy Zane nearly steals the show with his small role, and Jason Schwartzman is good for a few laughs as well. The acting is generally very good, including model Angela Lindvahl as Valentine, the star of the sci-fi movie. Jeremy Davies manages to convey Paul's narcissism without making him unlikeable (at least to viewers who understand the relationship of the artistically driven to their work), which is a fine tightrope to walk.

In the end, Roman Coppola has given us an entertaining film, but one which is less thoughtful from the audience's viewpoint than he likely intended. He's certainly a competent filmmaker, and I wouldn't be surprised to see him make a much better film in the future.

3 stars out of 5.

The Third Way

[tedg · 11 October 2003]

Spoilers herein.

There are three ways to make a film. You can find a mood, embed it in a style and just carry the audience into the taste. You can engage in the fluids of life, the humanity of events and desires. Or you can concern yourself with the art of what it means to make a film and essentially produce an imaginative essay on creation.

Coppola senior is the second type of filmmaker. Sofia Coppola is the first.

In all three, the story plays a role, but never the central role any more than what you eat has to do with why you are alive. Each of us as watchers have a similar choice to make, a choice that determines our lives in film.

Our man Roman has decided to take the third way. If he was starting when his father did, the `third way' filmmakers would be the French New Wave guys, plus the early Fellini. Except for the genius Kubrick, who in 1968 made a film set in and called `2001' that was itself a third way film, and which concerned the battle among the three ways.

Kubrick's three `ways` are three completely independent cosmologies who tussle for control over the film: the humans, the machines, and some undefined supernatural consciousnesses. It is a masterpiece of self-reference.

Now along comes Roman and makes a film in 2001, set in 1968 about a science fiction film. It deals with the same three agents, this time as discrete films: the human diary of Paul, the scifi film and the wrapper film.

That scifi film stands for the style piece. It starts life as a New Wave film, with a French director who is obsessed with the revolution. It features a Cronenberg-inspired `gun' (reference eXistenZ about the same three levels) that represents the camera: it freezes things. That director (played by the most recognizable French film icon alive) ensures that the camera is returned to the revolutionary.

The film is then turned over to the `mood' director, here a parody of Roger Corman. And then Paul, who takes the third way under the nose of the Italian boss, his dad.

It is an amazingly clever construction, much deeper and richer than `Adaptation' for instance because it actually wears what it sews, and integrates the three layers. It absolutely sets him apart from Sophia and Francis. I'll take one of these over one of those any day, even if the product is as dreary as `the Auteur Theory.'

Others have rattled off many of the references to other films, mostly new wave, but I didn't see this one: the bit at about the stolen film references the chase in `Give my Regards to Broad Street,' which had very similar aspirations. Instead of relying on Kubrick, who had worked out some of the outstanding problems of the construction, it more ambitiously leveraged Alfred Jarry. But alas, it was tedious. This isn't.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

Dazzling? Yes! Brilliant? Maybe...

[EmperorNortonII · 7/10 · 26 June 2002]

"CQ" is the directorial debut of Roman Coppola, the latest product of the great Coppola dynasty. This movie contains two other movies; one is "Codename Dragonfly," the schlocky science fiction spoof of "Barbarella," and the black and white personal piece by the main character. Anyway, I found "CQ" interesting. I enjoyed the chic 1960's European look. And the "Dragonfly" segments were also fun to watch. The rest, however, was probably trying too hard to be clever. The most memorable performance belongs to Gerard Depardieu, as "Dragonfly"'s first director. Although he doesn't have much screen time, he manages to make the most of what he has. If nothing else, "CQ" makes for nice eye candy.

Which side are you on?

[Aoi_kdr · 6/10 · 7 September 2019]

The protagnist worked as a film editor at first, but he ended up to be responsible for the film direction. But the pressure and suppression by the environment made him confused as he lost the difference between the real and the dream. Although he tried to achieve his ambition at first, he was chased from his ambition and something to do. I reminded me my days, so I was a bit awful. I felt like it was in a similar genre to "Barton Fink." "Dragonfly," the film he was creating looked charming, but also looked very boring. I recommend to watch it with "8 1/2" from Federico Fellini.

Anyway, I laughted a little in some sad scenes because the protagnist was unique. He was introverted character exquisitely. Why couldn't he guess what would happen when he treated his girlfriend carelessly?

Quirky Good

[tabuno · 7/10 · 22 January 2019]

20 August 2006. This little quirky movie has some nice odd elements to it, an almost romantic fantasy. It's difficult to sort out whether the movie is intentionally bad or is actually good or bad, like a modern dance - it's difficult sometimes to find a mis-step. Nevertheless, unlike many such movie attempts and parodies, this movie like Barbarella (1968) it has a sort of strange disorienting charm and has at least a decent movie within a movie sequence. There are attempted cinematic experiments going on with this movie, many work, but overall, it does fail to maintain a solid, consistent Clockwork Orange (1971) quality. Seven out of Ten Stars.

I have seen many movies that irritate me. This is one of them.

[barnes-183 · 4/10 · 10 April 2013]

First off, I LOVE Italian genre pictures from the 60s and 70s. I love the look, the plot, the acting, the music, the sets, the fashions. The entire thing.

This movie had so much promise, but flushed it all down the toilet. For me the fatal flaw was the main character, Paul. He was not likable. In the least. I could see no reason that he should have any friends, or a girlfriend, or a job. He is a self-absorbed schmuck. In every scene, he has the ability to make his life better (or at least push the plot in a direction that would be mildly interesting). He COULD say or do something to improve his relationship with his girlfriend. He COULD say or do something to make the woman he is attracted to like him. He COULD say or do something to make his boss excited about his potential. Alas. Paul does almost nothing, and what little he does is irritating and/or cringe-inducing. He squints. He furrows his eyebrows. He stares. A lot. He utters the minimum amount of dialogue necessary to interact with the other characters. His utterances are all awkward and and painful to experience. Note that this appears to be the goal of the writer, director and actor. I give them credit in that they achieved their goal. I simply do not appreciate what they have achieved.

Paul is not the only fictional character to be a man of inaction. Alvy in Annie Hall. Or Hamlet. However, Paul is certainly no Hamlet and he isn't even an Alvy. Hamlet frustrates us with his inaction and digressions. However, our frustration with Hamlet is ultimately relieved. We are left with a sense of satisfaction once Hamlet finally becomes a man of action. Also, let us not forget that Hamlet is a victim. So even when he frustrates us, he has our sympathy. Paul's life is pretty crappy because he is a man of inaction, not because of some external forces operating on him. His failure to say or do anything meaningful is the cause of his crappy life, not the result of a crappy life.

A movie homage to Italo genre films should have some zip, some pizazz. This has none. The movie does have great music, great fashion, great shots. But it is all for naught because at the core of this rotten apple, is an unlikable character who is too lazy to irritate us by his actions. The best he can do is irritate us with his lack of action.

A Likable Love Letter to 1960s Eurocinema with Marvy Mellow Music

[dtb · 8/10 · 16 March 2004]

Paul Ballard (Jeremy Davies), a young film editor living in Paris in 1969, gets his big directorial break when DRAGONFLY, the sexy futuristic (it's set in 2001!) spy flick he's editing, loses not one but two directors. It should be noted that Paul's been filching black-and-white film from the DRAGONFLY production company to make his own rather self-indulgent cinema verite film at home. Once he's at the helm of the big-budget SF schlockfest, Paul has a hard time distinguishing between real life and reel life as he falls in love with the bewitching Valentine (Angela Lindvall), an activist-turned-actress making her film debut as "Agent Code Name: Dragonfly." Think of this comedy-drama as a sort of 8½ or DAY FOR NIGHT for the baby boomer generation. It's clear that writer/director Coppola (Francis Ford Coppola's son, big shock :-) has great affection for the art of filmmaking in general and for kooky, cheesy 1960s Eurocinema romps such as BARBARELLA and DANGER: DIABOLIK in particular (neat in-joke: the leading man of those films, John Philip Law, appears in CQ as Dragonfly's spymaster). The score by the appropriately-named Mellow captures the mod mood music of the era delightfully. At times Paul's self-absorption became as grating to me as it did to his long-suffering girlfriend Marlene (Elodie Bouchez), but the spoofery of filmmaking and the 1960s won me over. The excellent cast helps a lot, particularly Dean Stockwell's touching turn as Paul's father, the ever-smooth Billy Zane as Dragonfly's revolutionary adversary/lover "Mr. E," and the hilarious performances of Giancarlo Giannini as a Dino deLaurentiis/Carlo Ponti-esque producer and Jason Schwartzman as the wild 'n' crazy replacement director who gets replaced himself after he breaks his leg in a sports car accident. Don't blink or you'll miss Roman and Jason's Oscar-winning kin Sofia Coppola cameoing as Giannini's mistress. I was also utterly charmed by model Angela Lindvall in her movie debut (art imitating life -- ain't it grand? :-). It's great fun to watch Lindvall switch from throaty-voiced siren Dragonfly onscreen to sweet, endearing animal lover Valentine offscreen, plus she's got the most expressive eyebrows since Eunice Gayson in DR. NO and FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE. (My hubby would like me to point out that Leonard Nimoy and The Rock are tops in Expressive Eyebrows, Male Division! :-) Do rent the DVD version of CQ so you can also watch the entire film-within-the-film DRAGONFLY, which is to the CQ DVD what MANT! is to the MATINEE laserdisc (is MANT! on the MATINEE DVD, too? If not, it oughta be!) -- with enjoyable commentary by Lindvall, yet!

Charming homage to two faces of a cinematic era

[Installation_At_Orsk · 7/10 · 24 October 2022]

Paris, 1969: young American film editor Paul is working on troubled French-Italian sci-fi thriller Codename: Dragonfly, while at the same time 'borrowing' film and equipment to make his own personal piece of cinema verite. But when a clash between the producer and director over the ending gets the latter fired, and the flamboyant replacement director promptly breaks a leg in a car accident, Paul is thrown in at the deep end with the task of finishing the shoot and coming up with an ending - in just two days. On top of that, he's falling in love with the lead actress... or is it the character she plays?

CQ is an homage to a distinctive period in European cinema; the most obvious references are the kitschy, OTT likes of Dino de Laurentis' Barbarella and Danger: Diabolik, with actor John Phillip Law in all three movies. But it's also influenced by the French New Wave and the other films it inspired like the 1967 mockumentary David Holzman's Diary - the actor who played Holzman appears here as one of a Greek chorus of imaginary critics offering commentary on Paul's creative efforts. (Other clear links are Paul secretly filming his girlfriend Marlene in the nude as Holzman did, and her blunt response when he tells her he wants his movie to reflect the truth of his life: "What if it's boring?")

Paul is pretentious, self-absorbed and passive, all of which lead to the end of his relationship with Marlene. But despite that he's not unsympathetic; he's also insecure and uncertain, desperately wanting to tell a story without yet knowing what, or even how. Ultimately the film lets him tell two: its events enable him to devise an ending to Dragonfly that satisfies its producer's desire for action but also surprise, which in turn gives him the confidence and the industry foothold he needs to complete and release his personal art film.

The ultimate irony of CQ is how Paul is always overshadowed by another director, Jason Schwartzman's scene-stealing and Austin Powers-ish Felix DeMarco. Felix is Paul's diametric opposite - extrovert, loud, flashy, impulsive and ignorant of the technical aspects of moviemaking in favour of brash, cheap spectacle, but also successful - and as such earns his begrudging admiration and low-key loathing simultaneously. When Felix's own foolish actions take him off the picture, Paul finally gets his chance to prove himself as a filmmaker, first on Dragonfly and then his magnum opus, 69-70. But even then, he can't escape comparisons to his rival, in a moment of deadpan, crushing humour.

The film as a whole isn't biting enough to be a satire, funny enough to be a comedy or serious enough to be a drama. But when viewed as a love letter to a distinctive period of cinema, filled with detail and affection, it succeeds. You don't need to have seen Danger: Diabolik or know the background of the New Wave to appreciate the recreation of the era. CQ is ultimately as gently enjoyable and mellow as its soundtrack - appropriately enough, by a band called Mellow!

One of the worst films I've ever seen.

[kdmagnusson · 1/10 · 5 February 2004]

CQ could have been good, campy fun. But it commits the only unforgivable sin: it is b-o-r-i-n-g! The pace is deadly slow and the plot is fairly confused and so artificial that it's next to impossible to care where it's going. The story would have been acceptable in a creative writing class from a thoughtful and sensitive eighth grader but this video should have carried a warning label: "CAUTION: Student film. Fit for viewing only by relatives of the film maker."

I Liked It!

[kld068 · 10/10 · 22 May 2003]

I rented this movie knowing almost nothing about it. I found the movie very enjoyable, particularly the kitsch 60's style of the movie within the movie (actually there are two of those). Some of the previous reviewers indicated that they didn't like the "film student" look to the film. I believe that that was intentional direction and editing which added nicely to the film. Without giving anything away, I felt that the ending tied the two movies together as well as the reluctant director's life much like a good Tom Robbins novel comes together. I would whole heartedly recommend this movie to anyone looking for something a little offbeat and certainly not "Hollywood". 9 out of 10 here.

Spoiler Mode: for the folks that don't know Morse Code the bit at the end of the movie says "[D]edicated to my father".

I hate the framing movie give me the 60s SciFi

[KylieRempel · 6/10 · 19 March 2020]

The framing device is boring and pretentious. I hate everyone and I don't care about their problems.

The film within a film, "Dragonfly" is a ridiculous piece of 60s nonsense and I love every silly minute of it.

Very pretentious nonsense

[muaddib-20 · 2/10 · 12 July 2007]

This is a movie about making a movie. Such movies may be entertaining, but they need some substance, to do so. It did not happen here, I am afraid. Mr Coppola did not inherit his father's skills, unfortunately (neither did his sister, who can however make movies which one might watch).

I do wonder how this movie came to get such rave reviews.

Let's see: the lead male actor, supposedly a director, is as expressive as a frozen squid and his voice has the same pitch whatever he says, the lead female actress has an expression on her face that never changes, the plot is totally segmented in bits with perhaps one single connecting element, the movie within the movie idea must be more stale than paleolithic rocks... Would that be enough?

I regretted every single moment I watched this movie. A walk with the dog is far superior entertainment to this unbelievably lame movie. It's as if a François Truffaut plot were directed by Dick Cheney...

Brazil, some other classic SF movies? You must be really joking...

CQ on Reel 13

[eplromeo8 · 18 October 2011]

Despite the pedigree of being made by the latest Coppola clan member to enter the feature film directorial ranks, CQ came and went from theaters when it was released a few years go. Seeing it for the first time on Reel 13 on Saturday, I'm a little stunned as to why. Roman Coppola proves to be a promising, thoughtful filmmaker and as adept a student of cinema history as his Uncle Francis. CQ is an engaging, if loosely structured movie, managing to be simultaneously inventive and derivative, borrowing from and paying homage to everything from La Dolce Vita to the Marx Brothers.

Its primary source of influence is, of course, 1968's Barbarella, here thinly veiled as the fictional "Dragonfly", as the film within the film. CQ is about how Paul, a young editor (Jeremy Davies), working on said "Dragonfly" deals with balancing his career and his relationship as he works on both the big-budget sci-fi epic and directing his own personal documentary film. This set-up provides Coppola with three different planes of action going on – real life, the black and white documentary and the colorful, sexy, futuristic world of "Dragonfly". The fun really begins when Coppola deftly uses these formats to blur the lines of fantasy and reality when Paul, in his search for himself, begins to lose sight of where the boundaries for each of these worlds lie – or if they even exist.

In addition to Coppola's stellar usage of mixed media, the other key to CQ's success is Jeremy Davies, an extremely talented and severely underused young actor who quite possibly should have won an Oscar for his work in Saving Private Ryan and at least should have been nominated for last year's Rescue Dawn. I think there are less roles for him because he seems to insist on making quirky, out-of-the-box choices. However, when a director with vision is willing to roll the dice on him, he almost always delivers an inspired performance. CQ is no exception as Davies brings a believable, uncomfortable edge to Paul. He is a character who is lost and confused, but most actors would play him with a modicum of swagger. Davies makes him neurotic without being nebbish – as if still a boy in the body a man who isn't quite sure that he wants to grow up. At the heart of Davies' performance, however, still is that extra element of quirkiness that is all his own. It's that extra layer of thought he puts in to his performance and those unusual choices he makes that allows the character to feel fresh – different than what we're used to while at the same time, wholly plausible.

After all is said and done, with all its layers of meaning and different milieus represented within it, CQ ultimately becomes a dissertation on film and the nature of filmmaking as an artform. It depicts the tendency of the artist to lose himself in his work and how said artist can learn to manipulate the art to find his way again (it's no wonder I liked it so much). In that sense, it's a beautifully realized film and another highly auspicious debut from an almost unfairly talented family.

not bad

[kyle_furr · 7/10 · 20 February 2004]

It wasn't as bad as i was expecting, after reading all those negative reviews. It reminded me somewhat of Woody Allen's Stardust Memories which came out in 1980, but this is nowhere as good as that movie. This movie stars Jeremy Davies as a film editor who is promoted to director after the first two directors are fired. In one scene you can see Sophia Coppola, who must be related to the director. I've liked everything I've seen Jeremy Davies in and Billy Zane is good as a gay leading man. You can also see Dean Stockwell in a cameo as Jeremy Davies father.

Strange but Good

[iwatcheverything · 6/10 · 10 October 2003]

This film is not for your average film watcher. You need to have an open mind and a good imagination. I thought this film was okay and interesting. The actress playing Dragonfly was beautiful even without the makeup. The end was great. The woman that played his wife seemed a bit harsh. The movie was good and I would not mind watching it again to make sure I caught everything.

CQ (Roman Coppola, 2001) **1/2

[Bunuel1976 · 6/10 · 17 June 2006]

To cannibalize my own reference to it in the review I wrote for Mario Bava's DANGER: DIABOLIK (1968), this is "a homage to the European style of film-making circa 1970": while pretty interesting in itself (particularly its behind-the-scenes look at a lowbrow sci-fi picture), the film unwisely also tries to recapture the feel of an art-house flick by having its wannabe film-maker editor shoot an autobiographical film in cine-verite' style; however, this section is pretentious and fairly boring - as opposed to the charm and sheer nostalgia of the sci-fi/espionage ambiance!

The film has two sequences lifted directly from DANGER: DIABOLIK: the shower scene and the one where the leading lady is covered in bank notes; however, there's another obvious link to that film in the presence of its star John Phillip Law! That said, the sci-fi heroine (called Dragonfly and played by the stunning Angela Lindvall) here actually recalls the Jane Fonda of BARBARELLA (1968)!

It also boasts a number of larger-than-life characters (in fact, several established or up-and-coming stars of European cinema are featured) with a background of cinema, which at times is a bit much - as this threatens to turn the whole into a Felliniesque extravaganza! Still, it does have a major asset in Dean Tavoularis' stylish production design (particularly that for the invented sci-fi scenario).

The worst film I saw this year.

[RunPepe · 2/10 · 27 December 2002]

CQ was the worst film I saw this year. Nearly every film I choose to see in the theater is at least entertaining or has something to say. This film looked like like it was directed by a film student for his Intro. to Filmmaking class. His father makes great films. His sister made a good one. But brother Roman? NO! One critic had the audacity to compare this film to Godard's Le Mépris (Contempt). While Coppola, Jr. did take the same idea, a film about film, he tried too hard to make himself seem European, artsy, and witty, when it's all really just kitsch. The lead actor carries the same expression through the whole film, like he's either in awe or in shock of this film being made around him. Schwartzman somehow manages to pull off his role as a flamboyant director. Depardieu is alright. The one scene that has any real film spoof humor at all is, surprisingly, not the B-movie scenes, but rather one which takes place in Italy; a montage of shots of several various characters inside a very small car, driving around picking up and dropping off random people. This was the only thing that reminded me of the cinema I am guessing he was trying to spoof. Or rip-off. Or both. The documentary with the lead talking into the camera and filming various objects has been played out, the ending was tagged on for the sake of a "twist" or artistic value... I suppose the funniest thing about this film was the film itself, and not in the way it intended. No wonder this film was sent back after a festival screening to be re-edited or re-shot or whatever, which makes me curious as to just how bad it was before. I can't believe it could have been worse than this. If you want to see a good parody of film check out the Austin Powers films. Any of them. The opening to the third is more entertaining and more genius than this entire film. Lil' Romy, for the sake of cinema, PLEASE go back to directing your cousin's music videos. Leave The Godfathers to daddy.

pretty good

[allar100 · 8/10 · 14 March 2003]

This film was pretty good. As a lover of campy 60's sci fi I think that I was a little more excited about then others. This is not a laugh out lout kind of movie, but it is comedic through the situations that arise in the film. The actors act out there roles very well, the directing is spot on, and the pacing of the film is well done. The story is fun and the technical way that they made this film (they only used technology that was avilable in the by 69) gives me a little more respect for this movie. While i recognise that this is not for everyone, it is a good film, and deserves a look none the less. The talent of the coppala family never ceases to impress me. 8/10

An artistic piece of experimentation

[darkdaedra · 7/10 · 27 May 2002]

Roman Coppola shows extreme directing and writing talent in this ambitious and powerful cinematic piece. Although the acting is superb by the main character Paul(Jeremy Davies), the interesting plot overshadows anything of the actual acting. Within the first few minutes, the viewer discovers the existence of three movies being made: the main character is the editor of a movie being made by Andrezej(Gérard Depardieu), he is making home movies as a method of personal discovery, and he is also in the film CQ that the viewer is watching. The way each of the story lines intertwines gives a unique and interesting perspective to the movie. Writer and director Roman Coppola has managed to incorporate enough humor and drama into his artistic expression that the movie will be enjoyed by almost all who see it. I give this movie ***(1/2) out of ****.

Stoopid!

[=G= · 3/10 · 13 September 2002]

From the nepotism capitol of the world comes another junk flick in a fancy wrapper. "CQ" tells a lame, disjointed mess of a story which is little more than a bunch of silly caricatures, a babe, and straight man Davies running around trying to make a stupid sci-fi flick. I can't think of any reason anyone would want to spend time with this ridiculous attempt at film making. (D)

Film about love and the love of films

[aswerve · 8/10 · 21 March 2007]

Part David Halsmanns Diary, part Alphaville and part Contempt, Roman Coppola's debut feature is a light, caring homage to the cinema of the 1960's.

Everything from the sets, costumes, music, even the detail gone into the film within a film "Dragonfly" captured the era perfectly. Performances by the entire cast were spot on. Giancarlo Giannini as the old school producer who can never decide how many films he has made to Gérard Depardieu's as the director whose films have to have soul and not sell out.

Biggest credit must go to Roman for choosing Jeremy Davies to play the lead, as I was constantly intrigued how a creative character like his would finish his journey in this film. Giancarlo Giannini's as the producer even mentioned "The most important part of a film is the ending, this is the last thing the audience will remember when they leave the cinema!"

An important statement as Jeremy Davies goes on to finish his major film as Gérard Depardieu intended and he also got to finish his personnel film, where he discovered a lot about himself through the truth of cinema.

The most enjoyable film from all the brood of Francis Ford Coppola.

Art vs. entertainment

[otis von zipper · 7/10 · 6 May 2002]

Roman Coppola's CQ is not a satire of campy 60's sci-fi, it is an homage, and it's also a very thoughtful film on the balance between art and entertainment. The movie stars Jeremy Davies (Saving Private Ryan and Spanking the Monkey) as Paul, an American filmmaker working in Paris on the B picture Codename: Dragonfly and his own personal project about his life in Paris with his French girlfriend Marlene (Elodie Bouchez).

The film within the film, Codename: Dragonfly, is a hoot. It's a Barbarella style film taking place in the exciting future of the year 2001 about a sexy secret agent (Dragonfly) who has been asked to infiltrate a group of rebels camped out on the moon. Coppola gets the look and style down perfectly, from the bad mattes all the way to the groovy music. I loved the fact that he includes a scene where it's snowing on the moon. The cast working on the film is a great collection of showbiz vets and some newcomers. Gerard Depardieu plays the temperamental director who is kicked off the project. Giancarlo Giannini plays the producer who wants nothing more than to finish the picture, and decides to hire Felix DeMarco, a young hotshot director. DeMarco is played by Jason Shwartzman and he really brings the screen to life every second he's on. Also working on the film is Billy Zane playing the Che Guevara-like rebel leader, John Phillip Law as the Corporation Chairman, and Angela Lindvall as Dragonfly. Lindvall does an amazing job with her role. As the actress Valentine, she displays a sweetness that is effortless. As the character of sex-kitten secret agent Dragonfly she exhibits great comic timing and understatement.

Where CQ didn't work as well for me were the sequences where Paul is struggling to come to terms with his personal film. Marlene asks him why he wants to make a film about himself, and he states that it's because he wants to make something honest. She responds, `But what if it's boring?' I found myself feeling the same way towards parts of CQ. But my guess is that Coppola is exploring the question of art vs. entertainment not only through the story but through the film itself. Copploa is like Paul, trying to create something honest and possibly boring while also trying to create an entertaining story. Where Paul and Coppola succeed in bringing art and entertainment together is through a very nice scene between Paul and his father (the wonderful and underused Dean Stockwell). Through their conversation Paul gets the germ for his idea on how to end Codename: Dragonfly. The notion here is that even in the silliest of pop entertainment it is possible to inject a personal vision. After all, despite its campiness, Barbarella is a great reflection of the era in which it was produced. In essence, it is art. I would recommend seeing CQ for the Codename: Dragonfly scenes alone, but Coppola's debut feature is a solid film with solid performances throughout.

Interesting but forgettable

[rps-2 · 4/10 · 18 October 2004]

Okay, the film festival crowd probably loved it. But your average, popcorn munching movie goer who has scraped to-gether the ten or fifteen bucks it costs to see a movie these days will probably wonder why he or she made this choice. If it's stamped "Copolla" it's automatically great stuff, right? Wrong! It's a neat spoof of filmdom's pretensions. But it's terribly "in." I worry when film makers are more concerned about entertaining themselves rather than the public. It's interesting as a cinematic curio and it does have a chuckle or two in it. But once it's run its course in the movies and on TV, the dust will grow thick on the film cans and tape boxes holding it. Hardly either epochal or an epic!