a_baron This film might be described as a psychological thriller, if there were any thrills in it. How best then to describe it? Confusing, disjointed, pointless?Set in the middle of the Canadian winter, it begins with a man driving a snow plough, hitting a man who is walking in the middle of the road, and killing him. At worst this would be causing death by dangerous driving, most probably a tragic accident, but for one caveat, well, two actually, or maybe three, depending how much of this rubbish you decide to watch.The first is that he is drinking alcohol. The second as we learn later is that he has been banned from driving after a bizarre incident involving a snow plough crash which has left him unable to work, perhaps not simply because he has lost his driving licence. The third is that he knows the man in question, who had actually been crashing at his place on account of his being up to his ears in debt, through gambling, and not having the courage to go home and face his wife.This man had also been caught stealing from our non-hero, and had fled into the night on that account. There is no doubt his death was an accident, but understandably the authorities might be more than a little skeptical. Which leaves us where? Well, it leaves him carrying out a series of acts pointless and bizarre in equal measure, not to mention incriminating, and no, that does not mean simply driving his car.

stripesnd Why are all these reviews tip toeing around the fact that this is a bad movie? Anyone who has lived even one season in the winter here would know about several fallacies of winter existence. I just kept praying that Darwinian justice would take out this man. Who falls asleep in a blizzard, outside, and wakes up the next day with nothing more than a little cough? Who hides out in a small detached garage, with no heat, instead of just waiting on the porch for the family to come home? For that matter, what fool would store glass bottles of beer in an unheated garage for a whole season? What character would attempt suicide, in front of a store, by running a hose from the exhaust to the inside of a car? That was blatantly stupid for three reasons; 1.) Newer model cars just don't poison like they used to. Look it up. Oh, that's right, apparently there are no fact checkers anywhere near this script. 2.) What suicidal person would park themselves in front of a supermarket, and choose this rather obvious method to kill themselves? 3.) The easiest, and least painful way to kill yourself in winter is...in the freaking snow. Hypothermia is then your friend. (This is also a problem with the main character's brilliant idea to torch himself later on in the movie...it just doesn't jibe with the location. Let's face it, self immolation is a pretty grand suicidal gesture, usually done in front of people, to bring commentary on the cause they're trying to promote!) The main character also doesn't have a fundamental grasp of basic survival skills in the beginning of the movie (like... how to build a lean to when trapped outside, or, how to use ice and snow to your advantage by sliding bulky items - like three large gas cans, along behind you as opposed to throwing them in front of you, or, how hiding out in your house is probably a better idea than tramping through the snow. So, he goes from being this idiot one day to building himself a snow cave the next, (man height, with only a snow shoe to dig with. Yeah right, he's going to be able to dig down four feet in the dead of winter, with a snow shoe, when he doesn't even have the sense God gave a goat) the next. Even when he is a "1000 miles away from the nearest human" he manages a walk to the café to store up on two burgers, brew, and gas. Finally, driving away in the murder victim's car, when he knows he's a suspect after reading a newspaper article about it? This movie just really doesn't work. You can make excuses all you want (oh, it's really just a black comedy, or, it's an existentialist movie, whatever). Really, it's just what it looks like; a bad movie, based on bad "facts".

oowawa "It's the cursèd cold, and it's got right hold till I'm chilled clean through to the bone" and yet, like the main character in "The Cremation of Sam McGee," the protagonist of "Whitewash" plods on, putting one foot in front of the other, stumbling from misadventure to misadventure, somehow managing to sustain the dim glow of life that really has no basis to exist in the midst of all this freezing indifference: (again from 'Sam McGee'): "The trail was bad, and I felt half mad, but I swore I would not give in." The human spirit strives on, perhaps pointlessly. As Hamlet asks, "What should such fellows as I do crawling between heaven and earth?" In "Whitewash," the meaningless response is: freeze our butts off, that's what. Or, a fellow can build an igloo and sit in the middle of it and talk to himself, explaining his guilt and victimization to the uncaring frost vapor in front of his face. The only way "out" is death, but perhaps that's a "cop-out," a betrayal of the spirit. After "saving" him from suicide, Bruce later "helps" the dishonorable Paul find that "out," and Paul's smiling corpse attests to the macabre victory of his release: "I could swear to God he was smiling," which is reminiscent of Sam McGee: "And he wore a smile you could see a mile . . . " This is one of those movies that starts out with a bizarre incident and then, by means of a series of flashbacks interspersed through the narrative, explains how that critical mishap came-to-pass. This always confuses me at first, until I realize what's going on. In this case, the narrative tapestry develops into a solid work of art. The threads in this tapestry are grounded by a brilliant and unusual soundtrack, much of it original to the film, credited to Serge Nakauchi Pelletier. Indeed, it is so unique that it at times seems to be defining its own genre: "arctic ambient." The "whitewash" cinematography is so cold and relentless that the mood gradually permeates the bones. Brrrrrrrrrrrr! And what pitch-perfect understated acting! Thomas Haden Church's lonely monotone soliloquies keep himself meager company throughout the film, and his deadpan delivery is perfect for the role.I cannot find any fault in this film. It's lean and mean and doesn't waste any strokes. It stands by itself in its essential cinematic niche. It's "classic," in a word. Hooray for director Emanuel Hoss-Desmarais and everyone involved.

MartinHafer Whitewash is the first full-length film from Emanuel Hoss-Desmarais. Because he is not that experienced with writing and directing, I feel I should be gentle with this review, as I do not want to discourage Emanuel—he shows some definite promise with this film. Whitewash has many qualities that show he's on the right track with his career and he should definitely keep working at improving his craft. The problem, however, is that the movie has very, very, very limited appeal and I cannot see it being a commercial success.The film stars the familiar actor, Thomas Hayden Church and it was quite the coup getting him for this project. You'll probably know him from such TV shows as Ned and Stacy and Wings but he also has been in quite a few films—including the critically acclaimed Sideways.The story is set in Canada and most everyone, other than Church's character, speaks French. It begins with him driving his snow plow down the road during a bad storm and running over a guy who is standing in the road! Inexplicably, instead of contacting the police, since it appears to be just an accident, he buries the body in the wilderness. Soon after this, he wrecks his plow and is stuck—and it might just be because he's drunk…though you really aren't sure. Why he doesn't just go for help is difficult to fathom initially and slowly during the course of the film you realize that there's more to the story. This film is told through a very familiar method in recent years—telling the story out of sequence. It seems like the story was chopped up and pieces of the beginning middle and end are all mixed together. I have liked this style in some films, though I must say that perhaps this style is a bit overused and it makes the film a bit confusing. This is not the only reason that I think that the film is for a very select audience. I say this also because Church is pretty much THE star of the film and he is in all the scenes in the film. Much of the time, he's all alone and talks to himself while hiding out in the woods—and this sort of film is certainly not one to appeal to anyone wanting action or traditional story telling. Additionally, he's not a particularly sympathetic character in the film—further lessening the film's appeal. Now none of this is to say it's a bad film—it isn't. It is unique and may appeal to some people who feel like they've seen it all and want something different. As for me, I respect the project—but I also didn't particularly enjoy it nor could I see myself recommending it to friends. Instead, I say let's see what else Emanuel Hoss-Desmarais can do in the future, as his directing style seems solid—I just think the story was one that doesn't have widespread appeal. A very curious film, that's for sure and I can easily say that I've never seen anything like it. Considering that I've written over 16,000 reviews (mostly on IMDb), this is saying a lot.