I felt like the characters in this movie could feel the happiness and difficulties that they faced in real life.

Stylish and interesting at first, but it only carries things so far. Why this was in the sci-fi section, I have no idea... ONDEMAND's categorizations are kind of a mess.

Jeremie Davies, Giancarlo Gianinni, Jason Schwartzman, Angela Lindvall, Billy Zane, and Gerard Depardieu It's the year 1969 and a passionate filmmaker is making a movie about the future His actress is the Jane Fonda of Hollywood playing a secret agent named Dragonfly But he faces trouble getting it off the ground Shot in 1.33 full frame format and in black and white director Roman Coppola amazingly captures the 1960s aesthetic of moviemaking He has an authenticity from the costumes to the music to the dust spots to the effects to the sex appeal as well as the free love vibe of the era Paul however gets lost on the line between his fantasy life and reality becomes blurred, and he too finds himself seduced by the charms of Dragonfly Can he make the most of his documentary being truly honest or fall prey to this actress' charms? After all he still needs to work on the ending to the film I definitely got a lot of Barbarella vibes off this which adds to its likability Coppola you can tell loves this 1960s aesthetic style as he gets a lot of techniques working to his advantage This filmmaker wants to get across how he feels to the audience but it is a tough road This serves as a great homage to the old campy flicks of the decade as well as observational and satirical skills

There's no doubt that director, Roman Coppola, knows how to shoot. The look and feel - and the music - was good. But the point of a film is to tell a story. And if your film is going to be about a bland editor/director (Jeremy Davies) who has nothing to say... then, you've basically got a 89-minute insider's joke. And for me, that was a waste of time. [I don't know if Jeremy was directed to be lifeless and boring -- or if that's his acting style - but having him on screen was like watching paint dry.] There's nothing new or insightful in this story. It's trying to be something like "Contempt" meets "Barbarella" but does little to make the story engaging or memorable. In the end, it's derivative trash that probably would have never been made without the support of Papa, Francis.

Absolute perfection--Lindvall and Coppola. Go watch this movie now, do not pass go for $200--go directly to viewing...

CQ is a brilliant story about a young man who is working on a 60s sci-fi movie, and also a personal autobiographical film at the same time. There are strange parallels between the two and occasionally real life crosses over into the sci-fi world and vice versa. Ordinarily I would balk at this kind of surreal intermingling of reality and fiction, but I thought it worked so well in CQ. It has been days since I watched this movie and I cannot get it out of my head. It does an amazing job of building drama as the film progresses, better than any other movie I’ve seen that is about making movies. There’s this mystery set up where we are left to wonder how the film within the film will end, and I was holding my breath waiting for that reveal to see what the protagonist would do. Jeremy Davies does some amazing work in the movie as this young director who can’t seem to balance all the things he is trying to accomplish. But the film comes alive because of Angela Lindvall. She is gorgeous, charming, and captures the feeling of an actress in an old B-movie. I was so delighted by CQ that I found myself wishing that Codename: Dragonfly was a real movie they made so I could watch what came out of the events in this film. There are some puzzling elements in CQ, because of the way they intertwine one story with another, but I think it all works when you just focus in on the themes and let go of the need to explain everything (which is a weird thing for me to say, but the magic of this movie is that it allowed me to let go and just enjoy the magic of it all.) I definitely recommend CQ as a unique take on the things that happen in the making of a movie.

Jeremy Davies stars as a young filmmaker in 1960's Paris who is editing a euro sci-fi spy flick "Dragonfly" while filming everything in his life to make a more personal film. When the director of "Dragonfly" (Gerard Depardieu) clashes with it's producer (Giancarlo Giannini) over the film's end, he is fired and Davies is given the opportunity to finish the film. He finds himself obsessed with the film's beautiful star (Angela Lindvall). Roman Coppola clearly loves European genre cinema of the mid-60's and this film is stuffed with visual references to everything from "Barbarella" and "Danger: Diabolik" to "Contempt" and "David Holzman's Diary". The problem is that he seems to have no clear idea what to do with this film beyond the layers of reference. He sets up a situation where Davies is mired in self-doubt, mistreating his girlfriend, making a vapid self-indulgent film and lusting after another woman, and just pulls a happy ending out of his ass, undoing what little the film had been about. That said, if you share his obsessions, there's a lot to enjoy here from John Philip Law's appearance in the film within the film to Giannini's performance as a stand-in for Dino de Laurentiis.

2001's "CQ" is two movies for the price of one, but only one of them is actually worth the ticket. It's split between two camps, one an homage to 1960s mod movies, the other faithful to certifiable quarter life crisis theatrics. Since I'm sure that I, along with most casual viewers, prefer movies with a tongue in the their cheek over projects that take themselves much too seriously, "CQ" is better when it's on the side of swinging réclame. When it's not, it's a bore. Set in 1969, it is mostly dedicated to detailing the fictional production of "Codename: Dragonfly," a low-budget, science fiction adventure caper with much in common with "Barbarella" and "Danger: Diabolik." Everything about it looks beautiful: its leading lady, American newcomer Valentine (Angela Lindvall), is a honey and an ace at mastering the characterizational tone of her debut, and the set design is '60s chic with a touch of winning gaudiness. But ignore its handsomeness and you'll notice that most of the set is plagued by trouble. In a short period of time, the film loses grasp of two separate directors (Gérard Depardieu, Jason Schwartzman). Production is taking slightly longer than expected. The script isn't even finished -- those involved are still deciding what the best climactic payoff would be for a film so kooky. So when burgeoning filmmaker Paul (Jeremy Davies), who's participated in the editing process throughout filming, is thrust into the director's chair just as everything appears to be headed in a direction of doom, his potential for success is just as decent as the potential for his current relationship to make way for destruction. Since he's falling in love with his heroine and because he's so involved with finding the perfection within this bad little movie, a new chapter might be unfolding, though it might be one that begins with a notable sense of loss. I've perhaps made "CQ" sound more serious than it is -- really, it is much more proud of its sending up of the aforementioned "Barbarella" and "Danger: Diabolik," using an apparently substantial plot as a way to give its flourishes of self-pleasingness some sort of weight. But because its ways of tribute are distinctly more dulcet than its central plotline (which is too weirdly angsty for my taste), we come to resent "CQ" when it attempts to mean something. This is a movie that's meant to work as an exercise in chintzy nostalgia, not observational, real-life woes. Its moments of commendation are fantastic -- Lindvall is a hoot -- so it's a shame about the faux deep domestic struggles Paul faces. We'd rather not think about everyday mundanities when a sizzling superspy lusts after adventure right in front of us. Written and directed by Roman Coppola, the brother of Sofia and the son of Francis Ford, "CQ" obviously has a swagger that can only be associated with the celluloid savvy family. It's a forgettable bender, sure, but I'm more than willing to spend eighty-seven minutes in the presence of laudable style. Good thing I happen to love "Danger: Diabolik" and love to hate "Barbarella.

Yes, it might drag at times, but this is one very interesting and well done film. It has great ideas about ennui and about finding a purpose that fits you the most. It's many things from silly to cruel, to warm and insightful. Roman Coppola produced his most inspired work to date.

Encantadora película que recoge homenajes a una era del cine hoy ya perdida: homenajes a lo más alto de la nouvelle vague, a Truffaut; a Antonioni, a Fellini; así como a lo más "popular" de entonces, hoy de culto: el Hollywood de Barbarella, de Diabolik, etc. Recomendable.

CQ tells the story of a young film editor who gets bumped up in the ranks to director after the previous directors either quit or are fired. He falls in love with the film's lead actress, despite having a troubled relationship with his girlfriend, and goes through a series of self realizations about himself and life in general. To call this film pretentious would almost do it a disservice, but it does feel pretentious. It's fragmented storytelling style seems to have little to no bearing on the story it's trying to tell. It's more interested in themes and paying homages to the British spy movies of the 1960's more than anything else. The film stars Jeremy Davies and the beautiful Angela Lindvall, as well as supporting parts by Gerard Depardieu, Giancarlo Giannini, Jason Schwartzman, and Billy Zane. The film was directed by Roman Coppola and despite featuring some nice music and great visuals, it ultimately feels hollow and lifeless overall.

This is clearly the work of a talented cinephile, but CQ is stuffed with so many references to other films, other directors, & other eras that the end result feels like a very glamorous& very expensive student film project

I can see an interesting idea here. A filmaker is making a film, while at the same time doing a documentary around the troubles surrounding the process. An interesting concept, but I just didn't care. The film within the film wasn't that interesting and neither was the actual film. I didn't really care about any of the characters. A wasted potential in my eyes.

Could have been interesting, but boring. Characters were too one dimensional.

Roman Coppola showcases some talent for visual filmmaking, but unlike his father during his peak, he lacks any kind of skills in either storytelling or making well rounded believable characters. Nothing really happens...its boring, aside from the homage stuff to things like "Barbarella", which can be fun...but not really present enough to make the whole thing worthwhile. It is a shame, because visually the film hits the right notes, both with the sci-fi film within a film, and the look of the main characters' cinema verite style home movies, which look fairly close to the kind of things made in the late 60s.

Uneven, jumpy and vague.

"CQ" Reviewed by Paul K. Bisson One of the taglines from Roman Coppola's "CQ" is "every picture tells a story." Indeed. Unfortunately, the writer/director (son of Francis) also believes that every story is worth telling. This is where "CQ" falls short. It's three movies all rolled into one. Well, sort of. Actually, it's really only one movie--about the making of two movies. Still with me? Its 1969 and the revolution that swept through French cinema is all but at an end in Paris. Most of the visionary and radical techniques developed during La Nouvelle Vague have been absorbed into mainstream movie-making. So much the better. Those who once critiqued film, invaded the movie-making process. Renouncing the steady gloss and glow of Hollywood counterparts, their trademarks included dominant hand-held camera motion, natural light instead of manufactured, follow-spot tracking and convention-breaking editing styles that presented stories which favored the inner human struggle over exterior conflicts. Long, uncut takes, open-ended endings and improvised dialogue from mostly unknown actors were not uncommon elements for these directors who sought out the appeal of a younger, more influencing audience. We meet filmmaker Andrzej (Gérard Depardieu), a veteran of this revolution hired by a main-stream producer to direct a main-stream "sci-spy" sexploitation film, "Dragonfly" (think "Barbarella"). Only he's not delivering on the goods. The bombastic producer (played with relish by Giancarlo Giannini) wants gloss, glitter and an explosive ending to top all endings. Andrzej would rather punch a hole through a wall than compromise his art. In fact, he does. Enter Paul, the young American film editor, a meek, bleak character that Jeremy Davies plays so well. Paul is lost. He's searching for personal truth. Truth in love, truth in art, truth in life. He edits "Dragonfly" by day but uses his free time to produce a personal documentary, filming himself, his girlfriend and his sourroundings--an exercise he hopes will reveal the truth in his life. But what happens when Andrzej is fired from "Dragonfly" and Paul is promoted? That's the strength of "CQ." Truth in art is put to the test as Paul finds himself in the director's seat. Truth in love is challenged when he falls for Dragonfly herself. Will he find his personal truth when all is said and done, or is personal truth something you make up as you go? What a wonderful theme to explore! Does Paul evolve from a boring, lifeless sap into a caring, feeling, hopeful individual? Here's a guy looking for the truth in his life yet he can't see the forest for the trees. Will he ever? Coppola doesn't care to answer. Instead, the film trips over its own potential. It uses all three films ("Dragonfly," Paul's documentary, and itself) to tell the story. One moment we're watching Paul film "Dragonfly," and then we're actually watching "Dragonfly." This is a gimmick that has worked brilliantly in such films as "Living in Oblivion" and "The Big Picture." But it fails here. Why? Because it doesn't serve the movie. And why should it? It plays rather nicely on its own. Coppola knows his story and characters are barely above the line of interest and could never survive a straight telling of the tale. They need the gimmick. It's a diversion. It diverts. What does that say about personal truth?

Roman Coppola´s debut är berömvärd för sitt uppslag men kämpar med att vara intressant.

I like Jeremy Davies

<i>"What is Real? What is Art? What is...the End?"</i> A young filmmaker in 1960s Paris juggles directing a cheesy sci-fi debacle, directing his own personal art film, coping with his crumbling relationship with his girlfriend, and a new-found infatuation with the sci-fi film's starlet. <center><font size=+2 face="Century Schoolbook"><b><u>REVIEW</u></b></font></center> Filmmaker Roman Coppola proves to be a chip off the old block (his dad is Francis Ford, duh!) with this sweetly dark comic valentine to foreign films of France and Italy focusing on a struggling film editor/auteur wannabe (Davies in all his squirmy, milquetoasty glory) assigned to a disastrous sci-fi B flick where he winds up being a replacement director and falls deeply in love with his gorgeous starlet (Lindvall, the epitome of sex echoing the leonine good looks of Catherine Deneuve at her start) in the process. Coppola has a keen technical sense incorporating set and production design, costumes, camerawork, editing and low-key acting to make a picture perfect ode to the hurly-burly world of filmmaking then and now. If there is a criticism it is that it is a bit slight in its theme (filmmaker's navel gazing fails to see the big picture: love is all around) yet there's a nice homage to Coppola's relationship with his famous father in the interplay between Davies and his onscreen father Stockwell, an absent-minded businessman, echoing nicely. The title is a play on Seek You = CQ.