March 24, 2004

Montreal - Quebec - what's the difference??

I saw "Taking Lives" last night. I actually really liked it although there were many implausible elements. I'm not enough of an analytical forensic thinker to tell you WHAT exactly was implausible, but my "bullshit, red flag" buzzer went off with regularity. However, you don't go see a thriller like that for complete plausibility. I went because I love the acting of Angelina Jolie - I think she would be interesting reading a telephone book. Also, I love the acting of Ethan Hawke. Both were wonderful - their work was subtle, and most of it had to do with the camera watching them THINKING. The best part of movie acting. Just put the camera on someone and watch them think.

Also, my favorite actress - Gena Rowlands - has a small part in it. It makes me happy whenever I see her working. That deep tough-dame voice, smoked with cigarettes and scotch ... Damn. She's amazing.

But here's the deal:

They make this HUGE thing about it being set in Montreal. The title cards tell us, blatantly: "MONTREAL".

Then, there is a sweeping shot of the city which CLEARLY is not Montreal. It is CLEARLY Quebec. A huge helicopter shot of the fortress on the cliff... which, I don't know, maybe I'm insane - but I see that building and I immediately know where I am. It's recognizable. It would be like having a lingering shot of the Empire State Building, as the title cards read: "ST. LOUIS".

There were some scenes obviously shot in Old Montreal, and there was a big chase scene through a jazz festival in this huge open-campus area - where I cavorted myself when a film I was in played in the Montreal Film Festival. That was easily recognizable as Montreal.

I mean, I think that Quebec is way more cinematically spectacular than Montreal - the cliffs, the hill, the buildings ... but ... er ... then set the damn thing in Quebec. We don't care!!

Also, it's pretty funny, but the film makes the cops in Montreal look like absolute boneheads. They need the American FBI agent to come in and help.

And one last thing: OLIVIER MARTINEZ CANNOT SPEAK ENGLISH SO THAT I CAN UNDERSTAND HIM. He is cute and all, but his English is incomprehensible. It's like Penelope Cruz. Can't understand a word that girl says.

Work on your damn speech, people. Half of Martinez's important dialogue was lost. It took me 5 minutes to figure out that he had been talking about "DNA samples". I heard the words and thought: "What the hell is he saying?"

One last thing: The audience was made up of entire rowdy families, with small children, on outings. Small children? Not infants, but 4 year olds, 5 year olds. This is a very violent movie.

People are idiots.

Posted by sheila
Comments

Well, I haven't seen it, but yeah, so hamfistedly conflating the two cities is insulting to the intelligence of anyone who's spent time in either. A sweeping shot of the Citadel and the Chateau Frontenac with a caption reading anywhere other than Quebec City simply doesn't pass the laugh test: your parallel to the NYC skyline was actually pulled off deliberately for laughs in the Kung Fu movie parody part of Kentucky Fried Movie, where a wide shot of the harbor, complete with the Statue of Liberty, got captioned, in the cheesy faux Chinese font, "HONG KONG."

Posted by: Dave J at March 24, 2004 10:37 AM

My favorite glaring gaffe of that kind was the Jackie Chan film "Rumble in the Bronx," in which it's supposed to be the Bronx, but the mountains of Vancouver are clearly visible in the background.

Posted by: Stephen Silver at March 24, 2004 10:39 AM

Dave J:

That Hong Kong bit is hysterical. HA!!

Actually, because I don't trust my judgment, in general, I went and checked out Ebert's review - and here is what he says: (he cracks me up):

Although she's American, she's in Canada, where she has been summoned because she has special skills needed by the Montreal police. Before you find it odd that the Canadian cops lack a single law enforcement person with her expertise, reflect on this: They don't even know they're not in Montreal. At almost the very moment we hear "Montreal" on the soundtrack, there is a beautiful shot of the Chateau Frontenac in Quebec City. This is a little like Chicago cops not noticing they are standing beneath Mount Rushmore.

Me and Ebert are in sync.

However, he gave it 3 stars. It is a gripping film - and if I hadn't been to both Quebec and Montreal, perhaps I wouldn't have noticed the geographical problems.

Posted by: red at March 24, 2004 10:46 AM