Greenes Please don't spend money on this.

Spidersecu Don't Believe the Hype

Chirphymium It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

tritisan Folks, I really, really wanted to like this film. Alas, I found myself looking at the DVD's timer, wondering when the thing would end. So many elements are likable: groovy sixties design, groovy music, groovy chicks, groovy references to (truly) groovy sixties flicks with chicks. But it doesn't hold together. It doesn't flow. It doesn't involve you.The self-referential dialog and editing had the cloying and self-conscious feel of a student film. (And I had to sit through plenty of those in college, including my own ;-) Overall, I think Roman has promise, but he has a lot of catching up to do with his sister.

Dorian Tenore-Bartilucci (dtb) Paul Ballard (Jeremy Davies), a young film editor living in Paris in 1969, gets his big directorial break when DRAGONFLY, the sexy futuristic (it's set in 2001!) spy flick he's editing, loses not one but two directors. It should be noted that Paul's been filching black-and-white film from the DRAGONFLY production company to make his own rather self-indulgent cinema verite film at home. Once he's at the helm of the big-budget SF schlockfest, Paul has a hard time distinguishing between real life and reel life as he falls in love with the bewitching Valentine (Angela Lindvall), an activist-turned-actress making her film debut as "Agent Code Name: Dragonfly." Think of this comedy-drama as a sort of 8½ or DAY FOR NIGHT for the baby boomer generation. It's clear that writer/director Coppola (Francis Ford Coppola's son, big shock :-) has great affection for the art of filmmaking in general and for kooky, cheesy 1960s Eurocinema romps such as BARBARELLA and DANGER: DIABOLIK in particular (neat in-joke: the leading man of those films, John Philip Law, appears in CQ as Dragonfly's spymaster). The score by the appropriately-named Mellow captures the mod mood music of the era delightfully. At times Paul's self-absorption became as grating to me as it did to his long-suffering girlfriend Marlene (Elodie Bouchez), but the spoofery of filmmaking and the 1960s won me over. The excellent cast helps a lot, particularly Dean Stockwell's touching turn as Paul's father, the ever-smooth Billy Zane as Dragonfly's revolutionary adversary/lover "Mr. E," and the hilarious performances of Giancarlo Giannini as a Dino deLaurentiis/Carlo Ponti-esque producer and Jason Schwartzman as the wild 'n' crazy replacement director who gets replaced himself after he breaks his leg in a sports car accident. Don't blink or you'll miss Roman and Jason's Oscar-winning kin Sofia Coppola cameoing as Giannini's mistress. I was also utterly charmed by model Angela Lindvall in her movie debut (art imitating life -- ain't it grand? :-). It's great fun to watch Lindvall switch from throaty-voiced siren Dragonfly onscreen to sweet, endearing animal lover Valentine offscreen, plus she's got the most expressive eyebrows since Eunice Gayson in DR. NO and FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE. (My hubby would like me to point out that Leonard Nimoy and The Rock are tops in Expressive Eyebrows, Male Division! :-) Do rent the DVD version of CQ so you can also watch the entire film-within-the-film DRAGONFLY, which is to the CQ DVD what MANT! is to the MATINEE laserdisc (is MANT! on the MATINEE DVD, too? If not, it oughta be!) -- with enjoyable commentary by Lindvall, yet!

tedg Spoilers herein.There are three ways to make a film. You can find a mood, embed it in a style and just carry the audience into the taste. You can engage in the fluids of life, the humanity of events and desires. Or you can concern yourself with the art of what it means to make a film and essentially produce an imaginative essay on creation.Coppola senior is the second type of filmmaker. Sofia Coppola is the first. In all three, the story plays a role, but never the central role any more than what you eat has to do with why you are alive. Each of us as watchers have a similar choice to make, a choice that determines our lives in film.Our man Roman has decided to take the third way. If he was starting when his father did, the `third way' filmmakers would be the French New Wave guys, plus the early Fellini. Except for the genius Kubrick, who in 1968 made a film set in and called `2001' that was itself a third way film, and which concerned the battle among the three ways.Kubrick's three `ways` are three completely independent cosmologies who tussle for control over the film: the humans, the machines, and some undefined supernatural consciousnesses. It is a masterpiece of self-reference.Now along comes Roman and makes a film in 2001, set in 1968 about a science fiction film. It deals with the same three agents, this time as discrete films: the human diary of Paul, the scifi film and the wrapper film.That scifi film stands for the style piece. It starts life as a New Wave film, with a French director who is obsessed with the revolution. It features a Cronenberg-inspired `gun' (reference eXistenZ about the same three levels) that represents the camera: it freezes things. That director (played by the most recognizable French film icon alive) ensures that the camera is returned to the revolutionary.The film is then turned over to the `mood' director, here a parody of Roger Corman. And then Paul, who takes the third way under the nose of the Italian boss, his dad.It is an amazingly clever construction, much deeper and richer than `Adaptation' for instance because it actually wears what it sews, and integrates the three layers. It absolutely sets him apart from Sophia and Francis. I'll take one of these over one of those any day, even if the product is as dreary as `the Auteur Theory.'Others have rattled off many of the references to other films, mostly new wave, but I didn't see this one: the bit at about the stolen film references the chase in `Give my Regards to Broad Street,' which had very similar aspirations. Instead of relying on Kubrick, who had worked out some of the outstanding problems of the construction, it more ambitiously leveraged Alfred Jarry. But alas, it was tedious. This isn't.Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

David A Dein 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 p*ss 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