I haven't heard a review, but it's the period piece about a potentially murderous unfaithful husband with Pierce Brosnan as the friend that he confides in. Looked well-made from the trailer I saw.

Has anybody heard anything about Married Life?

I read a decent review about it at E Weekly. Rachel McAdams plays a young WWII widow Cooper falls in love with or some such.

The only French Quebecois film director other than Arcand I can think of is Francois Girard (who did Red Violin and the film about Glenn Gould, both of them in English incidentally.) And I think I watched a Lauzon film back then (err, probably Leolo -- the one about the kid with the overactive imagination.) And there is that guy who made that wonderful film about a marriage of convenience with Genevieve Bujold (which is like a much less spastic and lower-key -- and vastly superior -- version of Green Card) called Les Noces de Papier... err, Michel Brault, according to IMDb. Not exactly a household name, even talking as someone who had lived in Montreal for several years.

OMG, I forgot Claude Jutra.

Mimes are France French. The Quebecois would not put up with any of that striped shirt mime crap.

Corwood, you've got a lot to learn about the two solitudes. Unfortunately, it's taken up a fair amount of air time Canadian politics.

I finished watching Eastern Promises. I don't see what the big deal is. The plot twist was so cliche I laughed out loud. OK yeah naked Viggo Mortenson but other than that it seemed like a run-of-the-mill crime drama to me.

Someone was talking up Eastern Promises to me tonight. Mostly on the grounds of naked Viggo and tattoos. Though possibly that's just all I retained.

Tattoos take up a lot of the story and the naked fight is a turning point in the film. If you have or ever had a thang for Viggo this is a must see. If you're squicky about graphic bloody violence stay away.

Better and better.

If you're squicky about graphic bloody violence stay away.

We saw a preview the other night for Funny Games, and even the preview was enough to make me damn sure that I'd rather have root canal surgery than see that movie, due to all the violence (much of which actually occurs off-screen, and yes, I'm aware that the violence is the POINT of the movie, as it's a self-indulgent masturbatory move on the director's part to send a message to American audiences about their love for violent torture-porn movies).

I actually agree about Funny Games, which was a deeply unpleasant experience in the original, but I hope it doesn't turn you off Haneke completely. Cache, for instance, was just utterly brilliant, an exercise in Hitchcockian paranoia and existential dread.

I actually agree about Funny Games, which was a deeply unpleasant experience in the original, but I hope it doesn't turn you off Haneke completely. Cache, for instance, was just utterly brilliant, an exercise in Hitchcockian paranoia and existential dread.

I suspect Hitchcock would have appreciated FUNNY GAMES a lot, since in its deeply unpleasant way it is brilliantly directed. What you don't see is far far worse than if you had seen it, I think. I admire the movie a lot, but only from a completely academic point of view. It has zero value as entertainment. That said, I hope the new version draws in some of the folks who are making the HOSTELs and SAWs such big box office (though from what I've read the most recent sequels haven't done as well) because it's an unpleasure they deserve. I may have to see it simply for comparison reasons.

And honestly, as unpleasant as it was, it was nowhere near as unpleasant as IRREVERSIBLE or TROUBLE EVERY DAY.

I really need to see CACHE' and TIME OF THE WOLF.