Il pleuvait des oiseaux

Dark but at the same time. Living in the wild, far away from stress and every day life can be beneficial to acertain extent! Great movie

This is an adaptation of the Jocelyne Saucier novel, itself a wonderful, very short book that I'd recommend reading before you see the film. They are in many ways quite different and appear to want to accomplish different, equally valid things.

The film is a meditation on being old, not growing old, and the choices that one (young or old) can make. Three men have taken to living in the woods of northern Quebec (northern Ontario in the book), deliberately, for personal reasons, and one dies (at the very opening of the film). They are soon visited by Steve, a local innkeeper who delivers goods to the men, and his aunt Gertrude, who lives (until she visits Steve and family) in a psychiatric institution. Steve convinces the two men to look after her.

Concurrent with this storyline is that of Raf, a photographer (called simply The Photographer in the book), who wants to interview the third, now-deceased man, who survived the Great Fire in the early 1900s. (There actually was a great fire in Northern Ontario in 1916, at Matheson.) She imposes herself on the lives of the two old men and is somewhat of a romantic foil for Steve.

Marie des Neiges (as Gertrude now calls herself) becomes amorously involved with Charlie, and it is their relationship that is at the centre of the movie. They explain their life choices -- or lack therof, in Marie's case -- and how they think of themselves now. There is a scene where they make love, which is unlike anything I have ever witnessed on screen: it is tender, slow, meandering, and purposefully anti-climactic (pun intended). The north looks beautiful, as do these two together, and it isn't at all sentimental.

Yes, the film is slow, but I think that it is a deliberate choice. The director isn't seeking to deliver a propulsive narrative full of suspense and action. We are outside the city in a rural place that has its own rhythms, which the film reflects. At one point, the character Tom sings an entire Leonard Cohen song in a bar, and you have to wonder why it's there (beyond its allusion to birds and that it might stand in for a description of Tom's life). You have two choices: wish the film would hurry up or, as I decided I must, sit back and watch it all unfold. Glad I did.

A few thigs that didn't quite work: a major decision of one of the characters is handled, I thought, rather poorly. (It was done much better in the novel, where the decision is not a decision but a surprise.). Raf is presently as a rather aggressive reporter, and is really irritating, who is by no means, as Tom says, "a beautiful woman." Steve's storyline fades -- what happened? The book is more clear.

One final thing: the book's backstory about the fire has been largely edited out of the film, which was a wise choice, I think. It would have been far too distracting.

The story revolves around four elderly people, three men and a woman, joined by two secondary characters. One of the men dies at the very beginning of the film, but his spiritual presence is nonetheless felt. Each main character is surviving a difficult past and takes refuge in an individual cabin in the woods, near a lake. Friendships and amorous relationships are formed in idyllic settings, during a beautiful summer without rain and mosquitoes. In the meantime, a forest fire is approaching. What is the meaning of existence for each of the main characters? What will be their future?

These premises are interesting, but unfortunately the film lacks rhythm and lags. One feels that for some scenes, the film director refused to leave images on the floor of the editing room, notably with regards to an erotic scene that brings nothing to the story and whose object was probably aesthetic. 10-20 minutes of film should have been cut to accelerate the pace and generate more curiosity than waiting time. As for the acting, while Gilbert Sicotte and the extras are very good, most others have difficulty adopting the right tone, thus making them less convincing, which I would fault on insufficient actor direction. Finally, the action takes place in a sanitized version of nature; no mosquitoes, no black flies, no dirt, no rain and no preparation for the coming winter. You buy this if you live in the city; you don't otherwise.

But this is the director's third full length film, after Familia (2005) and Gabrielle (2013), the latter being much more engaging and convincing. She is learning the hard way, but she is promising.

I had not been in a movie theater for a long, long time, watching the odd movie at home on my TV screen and choosing them from YouTube when possible. By doing so I can just stop whatever I am watching by a click and not waste my time but in a theater all one can do is get up and get out. Which I did after about one hour. That's all I could take of this rather boring film full of clichés and insipid dialogue. Some of the scenes were so ridiculous that it became embarrassing watching them. You don't have to believe me so just try and watch this needlessly long movie yourself. Good luck.

Halftone film. One of those rare films where the actresses and actors are all wonderful, where the camera is used very very well, where the photography is sometimes brilliant, where the soundtrack is adequate, where old age is filmed in a simple, respectful way and without scruples, but where the recipe does not work. Finally, it ends up taking hold in the last minutes with an ending that we don't see coming and which falls on us like a ton of bricks; ouch! This outcome and the excellence of the acting save a scenario which lacks depth and which is rather a rather banal collage of dull dialogues.