1984-1

Being a fan of Ricardo Trogi's work (Quebec-Montreal, Smash), and having heard rave reviews about his upcoming film, I rushed to the multiplex to see his new film. I came out disappointed. I still enjoyed parts of it because I like movies that mock relationships, however, I cannot believe that three (not one, but three) writers who spent a couple of years preparing this project would come up with something so shallow. One thing that really bothered me is that the female characters are just accessories. And considering that women are more complex than men, it would have been interesting to explore their point of view (why they want babies so much, how they handle being a mother, etc.). But I guess Trogi & co. don't understand women very well since the female characters were so sketchy.

Why didn't Sophie Lorain's scenes end up on the editing room floor? Her screaming rants showed no acting talent: no nuance, no subtlety, no cleverness, no intelligence. Every scene (which, thankfully, were few, was a replica of her previous scene: loud. What I am supposed to describe as funny, was instead, an embarrassment to her profession... one dimensional acting. But of course, she is a known actor, so she MUST be good! (Why bother wasting money using casting companies when the same actors will always be used for professional endeavours?)

Bravo to Marie-Josée Croze in a stellar performance. (Although, in her interviews she says that all the right people were cast...doesn't she mean all the right KNOWN people? And why would it be believable that the actor Pierre Curzi would carry on a relationship with Mitsou Gélinas?)

What was the point of Macha Grenon's appearance in the storyline? Another plug...?

One major distracting shooting location flaw: Why was the empty hospital room which was to be repainted and furnished (where Rémy Girard was to move in), was subsequently shown in the film as 3 times smaller?

Too many references to history which left us confused about what the point was supposed to be.

In a more positive light... This film works well as a sequel to the previous film, The Decline of the American Empire. There were some really tender moments such as when Isabelle Blais (the daughter of Rémy Girard) speaks to him via the computer. I am so glad that Denys Arcand shamed all the politicians in showing the real state of the hospital crisis.

Despite all negative criticisms, this movie is definetly worth seeing! The overall impact is that it is a good, entertaining, and moving story.

Bravo to Denys Arcand!

When I went to see Danny in the Sky, I was all by myself in the theatre and I understood why after seeing the worst movie made in Quebec over the past 5 years. The acting is amateur, the story is boring and the whole thing is very pretentious. They should have hired real actors instead of professional models. I went to see the film because I had read that the director was extremely proud of his film and that his casting had been done very meticulously. Well, talk about overestimating yourself ! What I don't understand is that the director actually got a grant from the government to shoot his film (because this is how it works in Canada, every movie is subsidized by the government since no entrepreneur has enough guts to risk his own money in moviemaking). How can they waste taxpayers' money on that film when a great little film like "Stephanie, Nathalie, Caroline and Vincent" (made in Quebec in 2001) could not get a penny from the government and had to be financed entirely by its producer?