MovieChat Forums > One Week (2009) Discussion > I BEG TO DIFFER - Review by a Canadian F...

I BEG TO DIFFER - Review by a Canadian Filmmaker

posted 15 years ago by memphisreigns
6 replies | jump to latest

I politely beg to differ

I don't know that lacing the film with Canadianisms is a bad thing. Typically "Canadian Film" is a red flag but here I thought the film was well put together and well acted. As for being simple, I feel you would simplify things under those circumstances. Would you not try to bang someone in the woods with little time to live? I sure would. Back to the Canada references; these little components play prominently in our lives why would they not in his? Tim Hortons, like it our not is our McDonalds there is a culture and understanding that comes with these images.

I agree the Stanley Cup moment was poorly presented but I assume that was due to budget. While it would be more convincing to have it a part of some parade or something likely the budget only allowed for his "Walking through a random arena and looking left" approach. Other than that I felt the little interludes were realistic. I can relate easily to the Worlds Biggest Tee Pee part as I said exactly the same thing to my friend as we drove from the West Coast to Manitoba and stopped there. The family moments were short and a little over the top simply due to the fact that played them low key for the rest of the film. The family barely factored into the overall narrative so what moments they had needed to be fairly concentrated. Other films would have dwelled on the worried mother and father, this one chose to back burner them.

The scene with "don't think about the future" needs to be treated properly as its coming from someone who does enjoy the woods and is obviously a free spirit. I can easily see a person like this or even stoner Canadian type philosophizing in such a manner. As for not showing Canada, having traveled much of the same road I felt they captured it fairly. Perhaps not with a Michael Mann panache but that wasn't the tone of the film.

"Canadian films are innately better than Hollywood films" No one has ever said that and such a group doesn't exist. The Pauly Shore quote was amazing though. Cheers. Im tempted to create my own such as "The Film was on par with Steven Seagal and Ice Cube in My Dinner with Andre 2"

[–] onecutebyrd 15 years ago

Very well said.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] wreeah 15 years ago

I finally saw the film today, and to be honest, I actually really liked it.
It wasn't a GREAT film by any means, but it wasn't a 'bad' film either.
I was actually hoping for a little more visually along his journey across Canada. I know we were given quite a lot, but I would have rather seen more Canada, and less to do with his fiance and family.

I don't want to say too much, but I thought the whole scene in Banff was unnecessary. The film is really about his journey through Canada (and his internal journey of course), and the whole 'experience' in the woods just felt like filler.

Otherwise, I found myself enjoying the scenery, the music, I thought even the acting was on par.
I probably won't see it in the theater again, but I'd watch it on DVD again for sure!

[–] Movie-Jay 15 years ago

I think this movie falls flat. It wants to be an "everything" movie: the road trip movie/the relationship drama movie/the disease-of-the-week movie. It tries so hard to be "everything" without being any good at one particular thing.

The scene with the woman in the forest rings false.

The lonely cowgirl I liked, but what are we supposed to do about that scene?

Just because something happened to you, it doesn't make it art, and it doesn't make it a good movie.

I love movies that contain wisdom over a "message" or a "lesson". "Into the Wild" contained wisdom on that journey, and insight into the human psyche and behavior. When that guy doesn't make love to the girl, it rings true. The point of the Vince Vaughn character? Well, the kid needed a job, but more importantly, people can have distinctly different public to private faces. There was a well of emotion with the hippy couple that kid met.

But in "One Week", I didn't get that. It was mostly feeling sorry for itself, which is ridiculous since we can guess the ending a mile away. The characters he meets on the road offer nothing for us to chew on. They're mostly good, salt-of-the-earth types, but it's been done before to much better effect.

The constant narration and music cues got tiresome for me, too. The movie kept begging for us to love it every two seconds, and for me, I prefer movies that treat me like an adult, rather than ones that constantly are humping my leg for affection like a little puppy.

"Into the Wild" and "Straight Story" are richer journeys, and "Wit" with Emma Thompson is one of the best movies featuring an illness ever made.

This one just doesn't stack up.

[–] probitionate 15 years ago

After seeing the film today, this is what I wrote to a friend who had worked on it:

Just got back from 'One Week'.
Oh.
Um...
No.
There was a review on IMDb that I found harsh...but it turns out that it wasn't, actually.
This screenplay...because that's where it all starts...was misguided.
I wonder about this sometimes when I write. You get focused, but the story elements just aren't there. Still, you continue.
Honestly, I'm surprised this got made.
There's no resonance at all.
A road trip is the most fundamental of stories... the hero's quest...and yet this one is...flat.
I didn't care about his terminal state.
I didn't think he learned anything.
There was no complexity, there were no opportunities for growth...
It was, if I had to use just one word, 'pedestrian'.
It wasn't tv-ish, because even there, there's a (albeit predictable) cadence you can move to.
This film, this screenplay, this story...didn't move at all.
And maybe the biggest aspect of 'misguided'ness was the whole 'This is Canada' thing. Wow. Nothing deep, nothing intimate... I mean, really; you have a chance to showcase a country, and THIS is the best you can do? I'd hate to compare this effort with something similarly done in the UK, Ireland, France...

It was a huge disappointment.
: (

...

P.S. The most truthful -and therefore moving- scene was at the very end, when they're in bed talking to each other. But it was too little, too late. Oh, and the campfire scene with Emm Gryner was a truely sad waste. What on earth was ANYONE thinking?!? Except that, ironically, it summed up the entire film: throwaway.

[–] probitionate 15 years ago

Oh, and this about the use of narration:

A movie is the telling of a story.

Narration is the telling of a telling of a story.

Narration -more often than not- places something between the viewer and the story, rather than the expected result of bringing them closer. (Most screenwriters, filmmakers do not understand this notion.)

It's like placing an industrial-grade sheet of polyethylene between two people making love. An entire-body condom. What do you suppose the intimacy created with *that* would be like?

Exactly.

Narration in this movie was a cheat. And sadly, it didn't have a corresponding level of visual and dialogue intimacy to make it work.

*blergh*