Change Your Image
Nishiki
Reviews
CQ (2001)
A big-budget student film that works on some levels. (Minor spoilers)
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.
Zero Woman: Keishichô 0-ka no onna (1995)
Delivers what Troma films promise
The heroine of this flick is naked or topless for half the film, and killing or maiming people in gruesome ways for half of it. These halves are not mutually exclusive, either- there's a bit of overlap. It ain't a work of cinematic art, but it is a work of trashy cinematic art.
I didn't expect anything much more than nudity and violence, and that's what I got. That said, this is a pretty fun film and better than most of this type.
Return to Paradise (1998)
Intelligent treatment of an interesting premise gets destroyed by a ridiculous love interest
This movie started out very promisingly- the central moral dilemma is interesting, and the acting and directing were quite good. (Although people have been saying that Joaquin Phoenix "steals the movie", and he was very good, keep in mind he's only onscreen for 10-15 minutes or so out of the entire movie.)
However, as the flick goes on, it seems to forget where it's going and presents the viewer with what is probably the most ridiculous and unbelievable tossed-in Hollywood romance I've ever seen. (And this has nothing to do with Anne Heche's real-life orientation- her acting is just fine in this.) I was stunned at what this movie expected me to buy. And at the end, the romance completely takes over the story, as though Phoenix's character was a side plot all along. I was nauseated by the last scene in the movie, where Heche's character goes completely off the deep end of credibility.
Not to mention Vince Vaughn's character- (is he typecast as "the self-centered jerk" or what? I guess depending on your opinion of Norman Bates. . .) he tries his best, but I found myself asking "why" after practically every line his character spoke. What were his motivations? What causes his journey from who he is at the beginning to who he is at the end of the movie (besides the desire to bang Anne Heche)? That said, the movie probably could have survived the questionable development of this character aside from the relationship which develops with Anne Heche.
Usually thrown-in extraneous romances are just distracting. This one actively works to destroy an otherwise good movie. Yes, it's *that bad*. 20 minutes of truly absurd material ruin the other 90.