Rating: 
Summary: Slow
Review: I found this movie to be rather slow and therefore disappointing. Although it's filled with some great ideas and references to other movies that might have made it fun to watch, it just seems to drag along without really getting to a point soon enough.
Rating: 
Summary: CQ, and why being a coppola can get you anywhere in h.wood
Review: I really enjoyed this movie. CQ was well made, the acting was fine, the writting was good and most of all it was an enjoyable movie. I would definately see it again.
Rating: 
Summary: Great
Review: I thought CQ a great film, and I'm writing this because I'm annoyed how much attention Sofia Coppola's new film LOST IN TRANSLATION is getting. That is a terribly underwritten film, and Roman has ten times the talent of his kid sister, but CQ got 1/10 the attention. I thought CQ was one of the best film directorial debuts I've ever seen. I even wrote a letter to PREMIERE MAGAZINE praising the film, that they published.
Rating:
Summary: I'd have clapped long and hard in the theaters...
Review: if I had known of this films existence before today. What a great movie. All around entertaining. Everything that could have made this movie great was in there. On the spot acting! Jeremy Davies is awesome. Angela Lindvall shows an incredible performance for a newcomer. And beyond any earthly explanation, no matter how small his role, anything Billy Zane has been in somehow becomes one of my favorite movies. This film is no exception. Roman, I hope to see your name attached to a lot more writer/director credits in the future. If you were a band I'd buy your t-shirt and put you in heavy rotation on my iPod. (now I just need an iPod...)
Don't think, just buy it. - Scott
Rating:
Summary: Finally a Watchable film from 2002
Review: OK maybe this film isn't the best thing since sliced bread and maybe some of the melodrama is unbelieveable, but this is a darn good debut from a promising new director. In fact, many of the camera angles and artifices Roman Coppola used in the film were very reminiscent of his fathers golden years (Pre-"Jack") more so then say.....The Virgin Suicides? And although it isn't going to change the history of cinema in any way, I give this one five guilty pleasure stars. Fun to watch without taking you for an idiot, a very rare combination in Hollywood today.
Rating:
Summary: A film with potential, but fails to have a point
Review: On the surface, CQ seems to hold promise as an off-beat look at the art of filmmaking. The story of an editor turned director struggling his way through a cheesy sci-fi film of the late 60's sounds very intriguing. I had high hopes for this film, directed by the son of Francis Ford Coppola. Indeed, the directing style shows some promise, and I hope this Coppola refines his story-telling methods, because there is some promise here. But for the most part, what he delivers here is a scattered, schizophrenic film that seems to have a lot of ideas, yet never makes any one of them clear. It's like the director had so much to say, he couldn't decide what was important, so he threw everything in the mix. Perhaps the film is supposed to emulate Jeremy Davis's director role in the film: trying to say something in his movie but not knowing what that something is. What somewhat saves this film is the quirky sci-fi film the characters are making and the excellent cast. Jeremy Davis is great as the editor-come-director, and Gerard Depardieu and Jason Schwartzman as the directors that came before him play their roles perfectly, especially Schwartzman. But in the end, the film just seems to fail making a single point. Worth a rental to check out the cast, but that's it.
Rating:
Summary: "CQ" trips over its own potential.
Review: One of the taglines from Roman Coppola's "CQ" is "every picture tells a story." Indeed. Unfortunately, the writer/director (son of Francis) also believes that every story is worth telling. This is where "CQ" falls short. It's three movies all rolled into one. Well, sort of. Actually, it's really only one movie--about the making of two movies. Still with me? Its 1969 and the revolution that swept through French cinema is all but at an end in Paris. Most of the visionary and radical techniques developed during La Nouvelle Vague have been absorbed into mainstream movie-making. So much the better. Those who once critiqued film, invaded the movie-making process. Renouncing the steady gloss and glow of Hollywood counterparts, their trademarks included dominant hand-held camera motion, natural light instead of manufactured, follow-spot tracking and convention-breaking editing styles that presented stories which favored the inner human struggle over exterior conflicts. Long, uncut takes, open-ended endings and improvised dialogue from mostly unknown actors were not uncommon elements for these directors who sought out the appeal of a younger, more influencing audience. We meet filmmaker Andrzej (Gérard Depardieu), a veteran of this revolution hired by a main-stream producer to direct a main-stream "sci-spy" sexploitation film, "Dragonfly" (think "Barbarella"). Only he's not delivering on the goods. The bombastic producer (played with relish by Giancarlo Giannini) wants gloss, glitter and an explosive ending to top all endings. Andrzej would rather punch a hole through a wall than compromise his art. In fact, he does. Enter Paul, the young American film editor, a meek, bleak character that Jeremy Davies plays so well. Paul is lost. He's searching for personal truth. Truth in love, truth in art, truth in life. He edits "Dragonfly" by day but uses his free time to produce a personal documentary, filming himself, his girlfriend and his sourroundings--an exercise he hopes will reveal the truth in his life. But what happens when Andrzej is fired from "Dragonfly" and Paul is promoted? That's the strength of "CQ." Truth in art is put to the test as Paul finds himself in the director's seat. Truth in love is challenged when he falls for Dragonfly herself. Will he find his personal truth when all is said and done, or is personal truth something you make up as you go? What a wonderful theme to explore! Does Paul evolve from a boring, lifeless sap into a caring, feeling, hopeful individual? Here's a guy looking for the truth in his life yet he can't see the forest for the trees. Will he ever? Coppola doesn't care to answer. Instead, the film trips over its own potential. It uses all three films ("Dragonfly," Paul's documentary, and itself) to tell the story. One moment we're watching Paul film "Dragonfly," and then we're actually watching "Dragonfly." This is a gimmick that has worked brilliantly in such films as "Living in Oblivion" and "The Big Picture." But it fails here. Why? Because it doesn't serve the movie. And why should it? It plays rather nicely on its own. Coppola knows his story and characters are barely above the line of interest and could never survive a straight telling of the tale. They need the gimmick. It's a diversion. It diverts. Hows that for personal truth?
Rating:
Summary: If you love Barbarella...
Review: Roman Coppola officially joins his family's business with his directorial debut, CQ. For anyone out there who loves BARBARELLA it's a must-see. CQ is a valentine to Roger Vadim's fabulous sci-fi/soft-core flick as well as the French New Wave movement. Jeremy Davies stars as Paul Ballard, an aspiring American filmmaker living in Paris with his French girlfriend, Marlene, an Air France stewardess. Paul is working as an editor on a cheesy sci-fi flick called "Dragonfly" a collaborative French and Italian production starring a leggy young woman in progressively scantier outfits (sounds familiar?). In his spare time, Paul makes a documentary about himself and his life with Marlene. The film is about seeing -- how we perceive ourselves and how limited we can be in our vision, even those who are supposed to be masters of a visual medium -- and seeking out love. (The title CQ refers to Morse Code shorthand for "seek you".) The action cuts smoothly between the narrative action in color, Paul's black-and-white footage and "Dragonfly" footage also in color. The costumes and particularly the soundtrack are both fantastic, helping to set the mood and establish the time period. The strong supporting cast includes Gerard Depardieu as "Dragonfly"'s director, Coppola's cousin Jason Schwartzman as a buffoonish Eurotrash wunderkind director, Billy Zane as a "space-age" Che Guevara figure in green satin fatigues living with his rebels the moon, and model Angela Lindvall as Dragonfly. An added bonus is John Philip Law as The Chairman of the organization that hires Dragonfly for her mission; Law played the angel Pygar in BARBARELLA. The sum is not quite equal to its parts, and it is not as strong a debut as sister Sofia's THE VIRGIN SUICIDES but it remains interesting throughout
Rating:
Summary: Great
Review: The creative process should boggle anyone's mind. I mean if you took one look at the time and energy exerted on one motion picture you'd probably scream. Sure some movies deserve the time spent on them. Nobody is going to begrudge the creative team behind 2001: A SPACE ODYESSY or CITIZEN KANE. But what about the creative team behind HOWARD THE DUCK. Did not talented people put just as much time and energy into that film? CG is a film about the creative process thru the director working on a film just a stupid and banal as HOWARD THE DUCK. It tells the story of a young and talented film editor named Paul (Jeremey Davies, Spanking the Monkey) and his short stint as director on a B grade science fiction film in 1969. The film about a secret agent named Dragonfly (Anglea Lindvall, New York Stories). It's Moonraker meets Charles Angels. This film is directed by a creative visionary named Andrezej (Gérard Depardieu, The Closet). After months of editing the end still needs to be reworked, and Andrezej has been thrown off the picture because his producer (Giancarlo Giannini, Hannibal) he taking for to long to finish. Andrezej is replaced by a snotty kid named Felix DeMarco (Jason Schwartzman, Rushmore), he's the kind of guy who doesn't deserve to be where he is and everybody knows it. When tragedy strikes the new director. Paul is called in to finish the picture. First time director Roman Coppola, has crafted a disjointed but still overly satisfying film. Making movies is a game of luck and CQ (The Morse Code phrase for Seek You) has some real moments of brilliance. It's about the lengths money men will go to make a picture, it's about compromise, and it's also about the creative quest to make an audience happy all while keeping yourself from going crazy. Jeremy Davies is one of the most underused actor's in Hollywood. He does so well with each and every performance, even if the films suck (See Million Dollar Hotel, for example). His Paul is both nervous and yet calculated. He hides in the shadows only to jump out and surprise you. Like any number of craftsman and artisans he's the real talent and he props up those around him. I loved how Coppola, counterpoints the silly B movie with Paul's other black and white art film. Paul is making this drippy and disjointed film at his house. It's this surreal black and white film that features disjointed takes, and exists for arts sake more than anything else. Of course it's silly and pretentious, but in the end it's all about creating your own film, and moving on with your life. Plus it's really an excuse to piss off his live in lover Marlene (Elodie Bouchez, Dreams of Trespas). Marlene is a good counterpoint to Dragonfly or Valentine whom is the lead in the movie. She's the woman Paul truly lusts after. Each women stars in one of his movies and you can tell which on he thinks is a hero and which is a villain. This gives Paul a flawed dimension and these women bring out the two faces of this talented man. Overall CQ is a tad vague. I liked it that way; something tells me if I knew what Coppola was truly trying to say it would be quite a letdown. Thankfully I will take my interpretation and leave it at that. I also loved the B-picture itself. It was campy and silly. Like Austin Powers without the laughs, and tons more style. Lindvall was the perfect choice for Dragonfly because she looks like a Model in the Sixties. Like a Breck girl from the 60's.Plus, Billy Zane's (Titanic) small roll as Mr. E, is so goofy and yet so suave you can't help but be pulled in. CQ is not for everyone and a nominal understanding of the creative process of film will enhance it. But if you're looking for something a little different, a little out of the ordinary, and a little weird, give CQ a try. **** out of 5
Rating:
Summary: The Creative Process of Howard The Duck
Review: The creative process should boggle anyone's mind. I mean if you took one look at the time and energy exerted on one motion picture you'd probably scream. Sure some movies deserve the time spent on them. Nobody is going to begrudge the creative team behind 2001: A SPACE ODYESSY or CITIZEN KANE. But what about the creative team behind HOWARD THE DUCK. Did not talented people put just as much time and energy into that film? CG is a film about the creative process thru the director working on a film just a stupid and banal as HOWARD THE DUCK. It tells the story of a young and talented film editor named Paul (Jeremey Davies, Spanking the Monkey) and his short stint as director on a B grade science fiction film in 1969. The film about a secret agent named Dragonfly (Anglea Lindvall, New York Stories). It's Moonraker meets Charles Angels. This film is directed by a creative visionary named Andrezej (Gérard Depardieu, The Closet). After months of editing the end still needs to be reworked, and Andrezej has been thrown off the picture because his producer (Giancarlo Giannini, Hannibal) he taking for to long to finish. Andrezej is replaced by a snotty kid named Felix DeMarco (Jason Schwartzman, Rushmore), he's the kind of guy who doesn't deserve to be where he is and everybody knows it. When tragedy strikes the new director. Paul is called in to finish the picture. First time director Roman Coppola, has crafted a disjointed but still overly satisfying film. Making movies is a game of luck and CQ (The Morse Code phrase for Seek You) has some real moments of brilliance. It's about the lengths money men will go to make a picture, it's about compromise, and it's also about the creative quest to make an audience happy all while keeping yourself from going crazy. Jeremy Davies is one of the most underused actor's in Hollywood. He does so well with each and every performance, even if the films suck (See Million Dollar Hotel, for example). His Paul is both nervous and yet calculated. He hides in the shadows only to jump out and surprise you. Like any number of craftsman and artisans he's the real talent and he props up those around him. I loved how Coppola, counterpoints the silly B movie with Paul's other black and white art film. Paul is making this drippy and disjointed film at his house. It's this surreal black and white film that features disjointed takes, and exists for arts sake more than anything else. Of course it's silly and pretentious, but in the end it's all about creating your own film, and moving on with your life. Plus it's really an excuse to piss off his live in lover Marlene (Elodie Bouchez, Dreams of Trespas). Marlene is a good counterpoint to Dragonfly or Valentine whom is the lead in the movie. She's the woman Paul truly lusts after. Each women stars in one of his movies and you can tell which on he thinks is a hero and which is a villain. This gives Paul a flawed dimension and these women bring out the two faces of this talented man. Overall CQ is a tad vague. I liked it that way; something tells me if I knew what Coppola was truly trying to say it would be quite a letdown. Thankfully I will take my interpretation and leave it at that. I also loved the B-picture itself. It was campy and silly. Like Austin Powers without the laughs, and tons more style. Lindvall was the perfect choice for Dragonfly because she looks like a Model in the Sixties. Like a Breck girl from the 60's.Plus, Billy Zane's (Titanic) small roll as Mr. E, is so goofy and yet so suave you can't help but be pulled in. CQ is not for everyone and a nominal understanding of the creative process of film will enhance it. But if you're looking for something a little different, a little out of the ordinary, and a little weird, give CQ a try. **** out of 5
| 
