torontofred

The title of this movie in ROKU was Winter War. The title I needed to use to find it in IMDB was The Frozen Front. The title used in this review's window is Winter War. Then when it was published, The Frozen Front. Go figure.

I immediately recognized the format of this movie. It was French. French cinematography relies heavily on this monolog philosophical rant about the topic at hand. Each character will have their time in expressing their position on the topic, and usually its noir. It isn't something I like personally, but the French (France) love it. The Italians to a lesser degree.

And there are times when the plot justifies it for my enjoyment. There aren't too many American films that do this. However, one that come close to mind is Taxi Driver. To a much lesser degree, Mike Hammer detective stories.

What rubbed me the wrong way was the script's attempt to paint the harsh and deadly reality of war this French unit had to endure. It gave the impression that they were the only ones, and this was the ultimate hell on earth. To an individual in any theatre of war, it is true, however, the script spent way too much time on it, and it was too simplistic riddled with American cliches. Those of us who have knowledge of harsher conditions, we may begin to feel annoyed as the dialog carries on. One military unit that dealt successfully with hardships and death and were quite successful in WWII was the First Special Service Force. A combination of American and Canadian commandos.

Which leads me to think that maybe it was the translation form French to English. Often, a cliche in one language has no direct corresponding cliché in the other. I notice this quite often in Italian cinematography. When dealing with light humour, this isn't a big deal. When dealing with a serous plot/dialog, this may become torture. A cliche will summarize the emotions and ideas in few words for that language and culture. That is its strength and popularity. Another similar cliche in another language will not convey the same qualities, hence, the script dialog is broken, and the thought process limps and struggles resulting in very negative reviews from Anglophones and positive reviews for Francophones.

As an Anglophone and Italophone, I'm torn between a low rating or higher. I decided to give it three because it was presented in English and the more care should have been given in the English dubbing. But given that the script relied enormously on the style mentioned above, I can't see how it could have been done.

In closing.... it's a war movie focussed on the hardships a small group of men had to endure, both psychologically and physically, in the last days of WWII.

Has the reader ever been to Italy? Besides the tourist traps, has the reader actually lived life in Italy? My wife and I are Italian, living in Canada and the United States. Between the two of us, we have thousands of relatives in Italia. We found Canadians more sophisticated in their movie tastes than Americans. Especially Quebec where we live part of the time. We were not surprised when we read "confusing" in the critiques, and we actually expected it.

Europeans find Americans emotionally dull. And I'm afraid that the movie reviews testify to that. Italian/European cinematography often explores the human experience from many focal points inviting the viewer to experience the emotions it evokes, even if it is uncomfortable. In American cinematography, Americans are spoon-fed.

After the movie, my wife and I shared our experiences with the film. Who we thought was better suited for the other and why. What-ifs were asked. We commented on the scenarios throughout the film, and often, we changed our minds. We understood the film's format within the first thirty minutes and were very excited at the prospects. And because we are so familiar with life in Italy, little needed to be explained. From the start of the film, we know the doctor had an interest in Chiara, and somehow, it would weave itself into the plot. We laughed at the pizza ingredients when Giulia was announcing her pregnancy. And relished the continued change from Giulia and Chiara when the bride exited the wedding limo at the church to marry Matteo.... who was the soul mate?

Who should we marry in real life? Who is the perfect mate for you? However, few ask if you are the ideal mate for them. Why? You are afraid of the answer. And in this film.... how much truth will you share with your mate as you both view it? What if?

A brilliant film. It should be viewed with friends. Vorrei scusarmi se ho messo a disagio qualcuno con le mie critiche al cinema americano. Tuttavia, è la verità.

This is a good feel-good Hallmark movie. Hallmark movies are feel-good movies with low drama, sometimes spiritual, happy ending movies. If you need drama, action (world coming to an end), mystery, sexy love scenes, Hallmark movies are not for you. This is a sugary warm apple fritter with coffee in a good ole Canadian coffee shop feel good, picker upper movie.

The location is Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. The maze is located in a small town just minutes away from Winnipeg in the upper northeast area. That maze is real. It really happens. The main street shots with the beautiful buildings and bridge over a river thing are Winnipeg. And there's much more to the city. Skyscrapers, anyone?

Jessy Schram did an amazing thing; she had very little makeup on. Did you notice? She's one of those, hmm, not-so-knockout beauty at first site kind of girl. Without the aid of makeup, her beauty slowly penetrates your mind, and before you know it, she hooks you. Suddenly, you find yourself looking forward to close-ups... and for myself, I wished I was thirty years younger.

The chemistry between Julia Miller and Nate Perry was not over the top; you've got mail, impossible to find in real-life connections. The chemistry was simply natural. And that makes it easy for you, the viewer, to put yourself in their snowshoes. Typically, Hallmark has a tough time with chemistry, but this was acceptable.

Julia Miller and Nate Perry's acting was natural. In movies, one person completes a sentence and then the other starts theirs. One sentence here.... and another there.... and another. But in real life, we often start a sentence in the middle of someone's sentence. It's like, we get the gist, now for the next point. In several scenes, this movie did just that. And that's unusual. And refreshing. Once again, it's real enough that the viewer can imagine being there.

One thing I like, as a born Canadian naturalized American, is the phrases that popped up here and there by the Canadian cast. Nate Perry, in one scene, used the phrase, "Hometime." That's a phrase I grew up within Toronto and haven't heard since my move to the States (Chicago, Boston, Orlando). That's not surprising. One of the writers was from Montreal. So, for Canadians viewing, it comes off as a bit of a kick. While we're on the subject, Jessy Schram has a Chicago accent. Most of the cast have a Canadian accent. See if you can hear it.

The supporting cast was superb. Came across as natural and unforced. And they did what was needed, support the main characters without trying to steal the show.

Often, especially with Hallmark, you expect the shoe to drop two-thirds in. In this movie, it didn't happen. What did happen was character development. Julia Miller slowly fell in love with Nate, overcoming fear, and Nate's character developed to overcome rejection. The crescendo was typical Hallmark.

Which reminds me... I suddenly have a craving for an apple fritter and coffee... in a Canadian coffee shop.