raypaquin Reviews

Maïna (2013)

A surprise indeed !

[8/10 · 22 October 2014]

The action takes place in Northern Québec. The Innu (Indians of the north shore of the Bay of St. Lawrence) are in constant competition against the Inuit (Eskimos of the far north) and against a harsh nature, before the arrival of the first Europeans. The landscapes are absolutely breathtaking and the splendid photography does them justice. I won't reveal the nature of the action, which is touching and yet suspenseful but I will say that the author of the original novel must have been quite familiar with the mores and habits of both groups. Kudos to the director. The actors, most of whom are amateurs, are also quite competent. I have rarely been so captivated by a film, an absolutely riveting 'must-see'. You won't regret watching it and you will at least understand why the first Frenchmen to come here, Jacques Cartier in 1534 and Samuel De Champlain in 1608, decided to stay instead of going further down south.

Seeking a Friend for the End of the World (2012)

The ONLY question that counts.

[8/10 · 23 February 2013]

'Seeking a Friend For the End of the World' is an important film. It presents a situation well-suited, like no other, to a serious concentration of the mind. Briefly put, planet earth will be completely destroyed in three weeks along with all life on it. Now what would ***YOU*** do? Would you pay a visit to your estranged mother or father? If they are divorced, which one you you pay a visit to, assuming that there is not enough time to visit both? One element is strangely almost completely absent from this movie, namely religion. I suspect that this is the main reason, albeit probably an unconscious one, why so many reviewers have been irritated by it. In spite of its absence, the religious undertones that permeate this film haunted me. The fact is, such a catastrophe, should one happen some day, would settle once and for all an old debate. Does God exist or not? And if He does, would He act to save the planet? During the 18th century, a huge earthquake flattened Lisbon in Portugal on a Sunday morning during High Mass, killing tens of thousands of its inhabitants and, perhaps more to the point, the few thousand who were at mass in the cathedral, because its roof collapsed and killed everyone. A few days later, the philosopher/playwright Voltaire, who believed in God and did not question HIs existence, wrote the shortest pamphlet in his career. In it, he wrote "Either God can't, or He can but won't." and nothing else. If He can but won't, or if he can't, then who needs a God like that? 'Nuff said...

Hop (2011)

What a waste!

[1/10 · 2 September 2012]

Someday in about one century, some historians are going to write scholarly books explaining how and why our Western 'civilization' met with its downfall, which began, very gradually at first, in about 1970. If some of them are 'lucky' enough to view this film, assuming it hasn't already been thrown in a municipal dump a long time ago, the excruciating 'pleasure' provided by this experience will provide them with a large part of part of the needed answers. How can a society where 20% of the adult population is functionally illiterate, where 30% of the population has no health-care, where 42% of the adult population, when shown a map of North-America, cannot locate Canada on it, a country that shares a 3,500 mile long border with the United States (according to a survey done in 1980), where 55% of the adults can name the Three Stooges but where only 20% can identify the three arms of government, where the best educational system THAT MONEY CAN BUY is found, etc... afford to produce such expensive junk? This film provides evidence for a very advanced degree of technical proficiency, but for little else. I forced myself to watch it all, and I didn't even smile once. It is stupid, pointless, and mind-numbing, filled with smart-Aleck dialogue that has become the norm in the last twenty years, but it commits THE worst cardinal sin of all for this type of movie: it is NOT funny AT ALL. 'Nuff said...

Chasing Madoff (2010)

The cure for simplistic ideology.

[9/10 · 14 August 2012]

Read the other reviews. There, you will find two schools of thought; those who rate this documentary ***very*** highly and those who rate is ***very*** poorly. What's going on ? This is, I believe, a microcosm of the United States today where simplistic ideology rules Washington. On one hand, you will find those who argue that more regulation is needed and, on the other hand, those who argue that less regulation is the cure because the bureaucrats in Washington are unable to regulate competently. The facts are that if your local firemen are incompetent, the solution is NOT to eliminate fire-fighters, as some right-wingers argue, but to insure that they are competent. The solution is also NOT to increase the number of firemen, as some left-wingers argue. Essentially, this documentary argues not from the viewpoint of Bernie Madoff's evil, but from the viewpoint of the incompetence of Washington bureaucrats. THAT is the truth.

The Charge of the Light Brigade (1936)

How most people 'learn' from 'history'.

[3/10 · 20 June 2012]

Let me be clear from the outset. This movie is very well made and very entertaining. As a work of fiction, it DOES deserve a rating of 7 or even 8. The problem, on one hand, is that it is full of historical inaccuracies, not to say outright lies and, on the other hand, that, in 1936 (and even today), most people learned their 'History' through such movies. This had consequences when WWII was declared and pressure was put on the Americans to support the British against the Nazis. I won't even try to make an inventory of the lies contained in this film; this would require about four pages of text. The REAL Charge of the Light Brigade was one of the most stupid military manoeuvres in all of History. This movie presents it as a gallant and brave decision. This fits well with the typical Anglo-Saxon way of depicting 'patriotism'. As General Patton would later put it, patriotism does NOT mean sacrificing your own life for your country, but in insuring that the fellows on the other side do so for their country. 'Nuff said...

Home of the Brave (2006)

Something mysterious is going on.

[8/10 · 20 June 2008]

I write the following as a Canadian on June 20 2008. Looking at the voting statistics as an ex-professor of Statistics, I noticed a strange phenomenon. 1-) The voting is spread out between '0' (worst) at 12.1% and '10'(best) at 12.9%, the average being 5.6 This is already an indication that something is wrong. 2-) The strangest discrepancy occurs in the way women voted. There seems to bee a double generational gap here. Women under 18 gave the highest average rating of all categories at 7.6, women aged 45 or more gave the second highest average rating of all at 7.4. But it is the women aged between 30 and 44 who gave the lowest average rating of all, at 4.6. What gives? Is *this* the 'ME' generation? The fact that the women aged 30-44 are the most likely to be rearing children is, to me, *very* worrying. Clearly, there are still unresolved social problems within American society, but I am not an sociologist and hesitate to propose an explanation for this. It does seem, however, that the discrepancy has something to do with the race problem AND with the war in Irag AND that there seems to be an interplay between these two problems. I gave the film a rating of '8'. That is perhaps a bit high, from a strictly cinematic viewpoint. What I liked to most is that the film reminded me of one of my favorite dictums, namely that,

"Gratitude is something one gets for services not rendered YET." Take care.

Dreamer (2005)

I am disgusted

[6/10 · 12 November 2007]

What's wrong with the movie industry? Just how many films has it made where a poor (of course) horse-trainer gets a lame (of course) horse from a 'big bad'(of course) dishonest capitalist, brings it altruistically (of course) back to health, races it against the rich man's horse (of course), starts the race dead last (of course), slowly overtakes all the horse one by one (of course), ends up in a virtual dead-heat with the rich man's horse (of course) and eventually wins (OF COURSE), all to the accompaniment of Star War-like melodramatic 'heroic' music? It's not that this movie is bad: it is actually quite competently made and very watchable. I watched it with my grandchildren, who were quite fascinated. But there never was a single moment where I couldn't predict what was going to happen in the next scene with virtual certainty. Just how many such films has Hollywood made, ever since Mickey Rooney? 10, 20 30 ? Is it me getting old, or what?

Kardia (2006)

Mystical story about mysticism

[3/10 · 2 October 2007]

Just as one should never be sentimental about making a sentimental film, so one should not make a mystical film mystically. In both cases, there should be a firm underlying storyline. Here, there isn't. Unless I missed something, a man gives blood to a baby girl suffering from a defective heart in an experimental operation done during the mid 1950s. He dies on the operation table. Then he is shown raising her years later. Thinking that I *must* have missed something, I went through the excruciating experience of watching the film second time, but to no avail. I think the film-makers ran out of money before the full story could be told.

The Lost Tomb of Jesus (2007 TV Movie)

Very good documentary.

[8/10 · 24 March 2007]

Simcha Jacobovici, the reporter of 'The Naked Archaeologist' fame, has produced an excellent documentary here. However, I agree with the gist of the two previous comments that it is in dire need of a sequel and of more scholarly comments. That said, it says all that can be said in a 103 minute long documentary (not counting the publicity breaks). I disagree with one of the previous two comments about the time that has allegedly been 'wasted' showing us the difficulties of archaeological research in Israel today, an activity that has become heavily politicized. In my opinion, Jacobovici has come closer than anyone else that I know of to the truth of the matter. In fact, in this documentary, he has come achingly close to it. What he, his detractors and everyone else have missed is one central truth that I think I have discovered and that I intend to publish shortly after more than twenty years of research. The truth is amazingly simple and it explains the many so-called contradictions found in the Bible. The truth and Jacobovici's documentary are mutually-compatible but that truth, had it been known to Jacobovici, would have changed some of the documentary's implied conclusions, but not the raw facts that it contains. Highly recommended. I recommend that the readers watch the documentary and try to guess what that missed truth is.

Red Scorpion (1988)

Spoilers ahead.

[1/10 · 4 October 2006]

Spoilers ahead. Do you wish to know why this is one of the worst movies ever produced? Look at who wrote the story and produced the film. No, your eyes are not tricking you. It's the same self-righteous hypocritical right-wing 'fundie' who was recently condemned to jail for corruption. Look at the name of the studio. Look at the name of one of the countries where it was produced, in 1989, before Apartheid was abolished.

I am a conservative, in the REAL sense of the word. But this right-wing propaganda is so dismally moronic that I wonder if the kind of talent required to write such trash is also the talent that will make you wildly successful in Washington.

Do *NOT* avoid this film. All schoolchildren in America should be forced to watch it in civics classes. It will immunize them for all time against a certain type of propaganda.

The Path to 9/11 (2006)

Here & now

[10 September 2006]

I have just finished watching the first three hours of this five hour miniseries. It is extremely well done and acted. Having said this, I must say that it will help spectators to understand HOW 9/11 occurred, but not WHY. This movie is rooted in the here & now. There is little sense of the deep historical causes of 9/11. For the benefit of those who read this, I will give you those causes.

When President Franklin D. Roosevelt, one of the most cynical politicians in all of history, met with King Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia on the USS Quincy in the Suez Canal on February 14th 1945, right after the Teheran Conference, he tried to convince him that the surviving Jews of Europe should be compensated. The King agreed that the Jews had been grievously wronged and that they should be given land on which to build their own country. When Roosevelt told him that the 'West', meaning the United States of America and not Great Britain, France or Russia, was thinking about giving them *Muslim* Palestine, the King asked him who had won the war, and who had lost it, and then added something to the following effect: 'Why not give the already European Jews a part of Germany ? Why punish the obviously innocent Palestinians ?' The history I've read does not record Roosevelt's answer to this most reasonable suggestion. Roosevelt's amoral decision is just another instance of short-sighted policies, based on expediency and on 'Might is Right', that have had long-lasting and serious consequences for the whole world.

Read and learn.

Good Night, and Good Luck. (2005)

Not enough raw information

[9/10 · 22 August 2006]

Fantastic docudrama. It must have taken a lot of courage to do it. As a Canadian, however, I would like to point out that most foreign and/or young viewers will be left out in the dark about the nature of the battle with Senator Joe McCarthy. This movie is just too short. I am old enough to know how excruciatingly close the Americans then came to loosing it, 'it' being their freedoms and rights. Dictatorships don't happen when 'big bad' people plot against the citizens at 3 AM in dark bars, but when ordinary citizens worry about their own little freedoms and rights, but not about those of others. This movie has been extraordinarily well-timed, at a moment when the Bush-league politicians are more worried about their re-election than about doing what's right for America (and for the rest of the free world, I might add), and when 'journalists' are more preoccupied with their ratings than with the Truth.

The Bridge of San Luis Rey (2004)

A horse designed by a committee.

[5/10 · 14 May 2006]

A profound story and an extraordinary cast. But never have I been so disappointed. With actors like Abraham, Bates, Byrne, Chaplin, De Niro and Keitel, one would have expected a masterpiece, but the scenario writer and director seem to be amateurs (actually, it is the same person). The result is a very confusing storyline which does little justice to Thornton Wilder's masterpiece. If I had not read the book years ago, I would be very confused. However, I suspect that the reason for this film's disorganization is not the director, but the number, fourteen (14 !!!), of the people acting as producers in some capacity, all coming from three countries that have been at war against each other for the better part of four of the last five centuries. Avoid, unless you have just run out of pills for insomnia.

Welcome to Mooseport (2004)

Impossible to write a spoiler for such a film.

[2/10 · 9 February 2006]

The idea had possibilities. An ex US President retires to Mooseport, Maine or Vermont, I forget. He gets tangled into running for mayor. With as great an actor as Gene Hackman, this film could have been very funny indeed. But some Hollywood 'artistic' executive (read bean counter) decided to give it to a team of uninspired hacks. If I gave a cinema-appreciation course, I would force my students to sit through this film in order to learn everything that is wrong with Hollywood today. Clichés, political-correctness, the predictability and the suspense of watching mushroom grow, all of the above run amok in this movie, which is *technically* perfect, as are most Hollywood productions. But it suffers from a deadly flaw: it is excruciatingly dull and unremittingly boring, although through no fault of Gene Hackman's or of any of the other main actors, with one exception, Ray Romano, who should abandon any idea of ever acting in any kind of comedy again. Will someone please tell me *who* decides to make such films?

Million Dollar Baby (2004)

Thank God for Clint Eastwood.

[10/10 · 28 August 2005]

Thank God for Clint Eastwood. Every time I am tempted to despair of the American cinema industry, along comes Clint with one of his masterpieces. In this film, he starred, directed and produced. He even composed the music ! Clint Eastwood has a gift for avoiding the typical Hollywood clichés and superficialities without sounding pompous and yet manages to reach the true depth of any given situation. His films avoids any distraction which would not help the story along. This film is long - over 130 minutes - but it seemed short to me. The very tragic ending of this film could easily have been mishandled, but Clint keeps it simple, concentrating on the essentials. For the first time in years, I admit that I cried. Eastwood also made me doubt for the first time about my moral positions on euthanasia. I am still against it, but readily admit that reality has a way of creating situations which are more complex than what a philosopher would imagine. The main actors, Clint Eastwood along with Hilary Swank and Morgan Freeman, are all simply superb. Now we expect that from veterans like Eastwood and Freeman, but Hilary Swank was an agreeable surprise, at least for me. She is a stunning actress and I hope she will be given other opportunities to star in quality films. Won't Hollywood ever learn ? Don't 'they' ever watch films made by Clint Eastwood ?

Don't Look Now... We're Being Shot At! (1966)

Why is this movie so funny?

[10/10 · 25 December 2004]

Why is this movie so funny? And why is it universally judged to be so by people who don't understand French culture? I have asked myself this question while watching it for the Nth time and while asking myself why most Hollywood 'comedies' made today are not funny at all. I believe that the answer is that the basis of all comedy is to make fun of someone. Here, fun is made of sexual stereotypes, of the British, of the French and, most of all, of the Germans, Nazis in this case. Hollywood has become so politically-correct that it now only dares make fun of a WASP male in a business suit, and of no one else. Take the case of 'The Birdcage', a remake of the French comedy 'La cage aux folles' made some 20 years earlier. Being bilingual, I can testify that the original version is immensely more funny than the Hollywood remake. That is because the Hollywood bean-counters, who like to pass themselves off as artistic decision-makers, toned down most of the fun that had been made of homosexuals in the original movie. Ask Shakespeare or Moliere: the play or movie will be funny only if it pokes cruel fun at someone, provided it is not at you. Sorry for the politically-incorrect opinion.

The Lords of Discipline (1983)

Abu Ghraib.

[15 August 2004]

Do you wish to understand the root causes of the Abu Ghraib scandal ? Then watch the hollow military 'honor', the fake manhood, the very real macho 'Ooohah !', the false piety and the pervasive hypocrisy displayed in this extraordinary movie, one of my all-time favorites. This movie is more about cultural ethics and values than about military life per se. Here, the military milieu is a microcosm of American society in general. Anybody who wishes to understand the deep causes of My Lai and of Abu Ghraib should watch this movie carefully. The actors are almost all excellent, especially Keith David, Robert J. Prosky and Mark Breland (whatever happened to him, as an actor ?) I have not read the book, so I cannot compare the movie to it. Strictly as a movie, though, it ranks among the top 5 % in my book. I don't understand why it was filmed in England. Are there not equivalent military academies in the United States ?

Diary of a Country Priest (1951)

How to do a religious film without mentioning God.

[10/10 · 12 July 2004]

How does one write about religion without hardly even mentioning God? This masterpiece shows better than any other film that religion is not about God, but about us. Religion is a box into which we try to put God. As Voltaire said or wrote, "God has created us into His image , but we have returned the compliment." I am a deeply religious man, yet I have not set foot in a church for the past 30 years or so, except for marriages, baptisms, funerals and the like. In that sense, this is a deeply religious film. However, it is about religiosity, not strictly about religion. It is about the wife who will speak about the sins of her husband for an hour during confession, and where the priest has to interrupt her and tell her "Now that I have heard the confession of your husband, may I hear your own?" How such a movie could have been made by an avowed atheist is beyond me. In that sense, I feel a deep kinship with Robert Bresson and with the writer, Georges Bernanos. In short, this is a blue-blood MASTERPIECE !!! Buy it, steal it, rent it, lie for it, but see it, please !

The Blood of a Poet (1932)

A truly unique masterpiece.

[10/10 · 18 April 2004]

This is a truly unique masterpiece. It is almost impossible to interpret and apparently impossible to connect to any sort of reality *unless* you are one of the very few who know the *true* story of the *very* early Christian Church. Those who have read the Pistis Sophia and some of the manuscripts that have been discovered at Nag Hamadi in upper Nile in Egypt, will know what I mean. The Nag Hamadi codices were discovered in 1945 and yet this film was made in 1930. One wonders whence Jean Cocteau got his ideas. The Vicomte de Noailles, who produced and financed this film, was a pretender to the mysterious Sangraal (Sang Royal) dynasty in France, dating from the Merovingian kings. A persistent rumour connects this royal line to Mary Magdalene, who is said to have founded a church near Marseille in France after the crucifixion of Jesus.

Beloved (1998)

SPOILERS

[1 March 2003]

This is one of the worst movies of all time, because it utterly lacks any kind of discipline whatsoever. If I were teaching a course on Cinema Appreciation, I would use this film as an illustration of what I mean. Good intentions do *not* count! Great authors or composers have *discipline*. One cannot be sentimental while expressing sentimentality. Beethoven and all the other great ones knew that. On the other hand, if you like to wallow *sentimentally* in sentimentality, you will still be disappointed, precisely because of what I have just explained. The movie 'Color Purple', on the other hand, was done by Steven Spielberg with some of the same actors and with great discipline and rationality, and it shows! My recommendation: If you have *nothing* else to watch, then watch this as an illustration of what I mean. PS: you will *not* need any hankies.

Solitude (I) (2001)

The quest for religious 'truth'

[5/10 · 10 November 2002]

This is one of the most boring 'deep' films I've ever seen. A young well-educated friar searches for 'truth' in a Catholic monastery. Meanwhile, the monastery hosts pilgrims of either sex who are also, presumably, searching for that same truth. We are acquainted with the young friar's doubts and the only 'resolution' is 'love', predictably with one of the monastery's female hosts. Very unsatisfying. Please insure that you are not too tired before watching this film. It is guaranteed to put just about anyone to zzzz... (oops !)... sleep.

Iris (I) (2001)

What is mind ?

[28 August 2002]

Is mind the result of complex *physical* interactions between cells? Can cells have consciousness of 'them'selves? Or is mind the result of a spiritual entity imprisoned in matter? How does one explain that 'mind' disappears with a hard blow from a hammer? How does one explain that 'mind' knows that it knows? This film asks all the right questions and give only one answer: in the end, only 'love' matters. But what is love? This a hugely important film. The actors are all superb. I have long ago despaired from seeing this kind of film coming from Hollywood, but who knows? Perhaps Sept.11 will make some people mature a bit.

Good Sam (1948)

Most people never understood that movie.

[7 August 2002]

This movie is a satire on the 'Capraesque' genre. It is a satire on Altruism, in the spirit of 'if you don't like the fruit, take a good look at the tree'. Most politically-correct people feel like strangling the hero people he reminds them of themselves. The ending is spoiled, however, by a desire by the Hollywood politically-correct bosses to attenuate the logical consequences to be drawn from the script. In the end, all the hero's "good deeds" are rewarded. There is much evidence that Gary Cooper intended this film to be a satire; his making of 'The Fountainhead' the following year, an extreme right-wing ideological film that was spoiled by king Vidor's misunderstanding of its philosophical contents and his testimonies at the McCarthy enquiry at around that time. Try to see that film with new eyes, at it were.

Amadeus (1984)

Only God can be unfair.

[10/10 · 12 April 2002]

I have seen this film many times and it is still a pleasure to watch. Most of the people with whom I have discussed it have, it seems to me, missed the point of this film. The most important role, that of Salieri, is played magnificently by F. Murray Abraham, who manages to convey a way of understanding the world that has lost currency today, namely the belief that God controls every little event. This man of great faith, Salieri, looses his faith because he cannot understand the fundamental unfairness of life and, thereby, of God. I will stop here but I will add that the readers should watch it with new eyes.

This is the greatest film of the last half of the 20th century.

Death Sentence (1974 TV Movie)

Good actors,awful scenario.

[3/10 · 12 January 2002]

Seeing the name 'Nick Nolte' prominently displayed on the DVD jacket made me buy this film. I am sorry I did. Nolte has no more than a few lines to say. The other actors are *all* great. The problem is the scenario, which is full of holes. This, in a judicial suspense drama, is fatal. I suspect that my DVD only has a shortened version (74 minutes) of a longer film (90 minutes according to your database) that might explain the glaring holes. On my DVD, the picture quality is *worse* that what you would expect from a standard-resolution TV picture. The scenario-writer is billed as 'John Nuefield' instead of 'John Neufeld'. Is this a spelling mistake ? The year in the copyright notice at the ending credits states '1972' instead of '1974'. In any case, it is certainly a Spelling mistake as Aaron Spelling produced this El-Cheapo picture. Avoid.