H2O

I watched this mini-series because I had seen Paul Gross in Due South and Slings and Arrows. I don't have to be a "spoiler" to say that this was a truly inane mini-series. The issue of Canada withholding water from the USA was an interesting one that was quickly and completely drowned. There was good acting but only in scenes meant to show off good acting rather than to move the plot in any understandable direction (watch the interminable "mother of the prime minister" scenes). Dissecting this misconceived film is hardly worthwhile. Canada has a fine talent in Mr. Gross, but that talent doesn't extent to script writing. H20 does not hold water.

I have never been a fan of "made for TV movies" or "mini series", but lately I've found myself looking more Canadian shows to watch. This movie certainly was that. If you don't know much about the Canadian (or British) Parliamentary democracy then you might be a little lost.

I'm not a movie "critic" by any means, but I found this show kept my interest over two nights and four hours. Well written, acted, and never predictable.

I would recommend this movie to any Canadian interested in Canadian/American politics, and even to anyone else curious about our political system. Maybe PBS will show it some day.

"H20" is a mini-series that keeps you on the edge of your seat. What Paul Gross and John Krizanc have written is a masterful addition to the political thriller genre, where the viewer never knows who is the villain and who is the good guy. Add to that a superb cast of actors (including Gross, Martha Henry, Peter MacNeill) and the cinematic eye of director Charles Biname, and you have a satisfying and intelligent piece of work. I recommend this highly: how often do you get an exciting drama that makes you think about our political system and how dependent we are on the benevolence of our neighbours to the south? Ten out of ten.

Paul Gross learned many things while playing a Mountie on US TV, I will grant him that. That is all, however, that I will grant him. This 2-part mini-series looks slick, but that is as deep as it goes. The attempts to portray a kind of unrequited affair with the female lead were pathetic. The portrayal that either the First Nations or Quebec would present a serious threat with actual violence (as seen in this film) is laughable; sorry, but Paul Gross is too much a pretty-boy to be taken seriously in this role. Bottom line: the premise is flawed (you cannot possibly be elected in a by-election, then become Prime Minister within the time-frame presented); and the enactment of such a thing as the War Meaures Act could not possibly occur within the context of this movie. Given what went on within Quebec the last time it was used (I was there), an enactment of it under the circumstances presented in this movie is an incomprehensible thing to anyone who lived there at that time. You want to create the situation for a referendum on sovereignty? That would be it, and sovereignty would win, with my vote helping! Second bottom line:way too slick overall to be taken seriously as any kind of drama/commentary on the world we live in in reality! 2 thumbs DOWN! Not even worth a re-watch.

This movie is 3 hours long. It has a cast of tens of thousands (at least it feels that way.) I think Sebastian Spence was about the only Canadian actor _not_ in it. I exaggerate a tad. Much of it appears to have been filmed in the Canadian parliament buildings in Ottawa, 24 Sussex Drive (the PM's residence), military bases and other places that would have required endless bureaucratic pandering to get permission to film. The movie overuses some of this footage. "It cost us a bundle, and you are damn well going to appreciate it."

It deals in more substantial way than you would expect with Canadian political themes: separatism, water, bullying by the USA, fear of terrorists, NAFTA, political union with the USA.

The dialogue is quite wooden. I think it was all written by one person. It needs to be re-written to be more idiosyncratic for each character. The mother with her drinking is a little too one-dimensional. But I think that was partly deliberate. Everyone LIES, especially to the public. Because they are not good liars, they are unconvincing every time they open their mouths. It is thus quite a cynical look at political intrigue and under the table deals. Every public speech says the exact opposite of what the character said in private earlier.

One of the strangest things about the movie, there are no clear good guys and bad guys. Your loyalties shift back and forth. Some people you just can't decide. Others you know are bad, but can't figure out who they are working for or what they are attempting to accomplish with their mayhem.

The relationships and true motivations are MURKY, worthy of the machinations in an English murder mystery.

I am pretty sure I will watch it again, hoping with foresight to figure more of the movie out.

I also wondered just what facts form the framework of this story. It feels like a historical reconstruction (though it takes place in a fictitious 2004). The smug, power-crazy, plump, young Prime Minister played by Paul Gross bears a strong resemblance to the actual P.M. Stephen Harper. He even has the same articulate reverence for lying.