TheLurkingFox This is not a film for you if you like explosions, bombs, car pursuits, guns and drug. However, if you like quiet analyzes on everyday lives, carefully done portraits and human beings, then this could be your film. The lives of the characters are well portrayed, without obscene voyeurism. They're just your everyday people: The stressed real estate agent, the quiet divorced Policeman, the nice chap sign painter etc... But they're all unique in their own way, and this is why the film never falls into caricature. The "scandal" that threatens to be unleashed is finally more the town's blind conservatism, the film denounces. All told with a moving music and a delicate irony, this story of crossing destinies is a must-see. Especially the love story between Duck and Dan: It is a way more realistic view on gay life in a small town than Brokeback Mountain ever was...

MartinHafer WILBY WONDERFUL is an enjoyable and quirky film--the sort Independent film lovers will love and most others will find not particularly compelling. That's because the traditional style of film making is definitely NOT what you see here and the film is extremely hard to characterize. This doesn't bother me, as I see it as a nice "slice of life" film but some may balk because it really isn't a comedy, romance or drama--though it definitely has elements of all three genres.Wilby Island is a small resort town near Nova Scotia. The film concerns just a few residents and their struggles. While all these characters are seriously flawed, you tend to like most of them as beneath all their crazy baggage, there are shreds of decency. Some of the struggles involve a work-a-holic woman and her forgotten husband, a gay man struggling with self hatred and a trampy single mother whose daughter is struggling with either continuing or breaking the cycle of early pregnancy and desperation.I think all these story elements work well due to the gentleness of the film. The stories unfold slowly and with a touch of humor--helping to pull the viewer into a story that isn't filled with great excitement or action. As a result, the acting, writing and direction all are given a chance to stand out and be noticed! The only failing, and this may not bother everyone, is the music. The opening song is catchy but the voice is seriously grating. Also, several times during the film, they have little music video montages. A few films have done this in recent years and I suppose it is "hip" but to me it just looks sloppy and distracting. It really disrupted the flow and seemed like filler. Still, this isn't a big problem and the film's many positives greatly outweigh this--making this a film worth seeing if you are looking for some sort of alternative entertainment and not the typical Hollywood fare.

gweatherford Maybe it is just that I am a Californian and not a Canadian, but as an outsider, I have often loved Canadian Film. This is a prime example of what many Canadians seem to do that most US directors do not: take time to tell a story, not be afraid to show the dark side of characters, and trust actors to so what they do best.I saw this film at OUTFEST, and was moved by a gay film that puts homosexuality in context: all the main characters of this film seek love and validation. All do it in different ways. All feel that they have been untrue to themselves, somehow, in this search for love. All seem to feel somehow thwarted by their past (or maybe, in the case of Sandra Oh's character, the most recent past), as well, in this hunt. The struggle of gay people to receive respect AND the love they deserve has been placed squarely into a larger context (we all have this same struggle for identity and validation); and I love this aspect of the film.The film revolves around a few main characters: the man who comically tries to kill himself over and over, only to be interrupted at the most (in)opportune times; the painter who stalks him throughout the film, but who may also be his only chance at love; the real estate agent and her cop husband whose ideals have somehow drifted apart; and a hometown girl who has recently returned to town with her adolescent (and sexually coveted daughter, perhaps returning because of her sexual antics everywhere else they have lived. While each of these characters is certainly a "type," and has their moment of stereotypical comic relief, I was impressed at how director Daniel MacIvor showed the roots in reality for each stereotype, and allowed each Jungian type to have depth and a moment that ran against expectation.The cast, as well, was fabulous. Sandra Oh is amazing at playing a together woman with another side. Rebecca Jenkins showed real sorrow beneath smuttiness. Even the actors playing the gay characters had moments of real transcendence, even though the suffering man in the closet and the lonely man chasing him theme has been played out before.People walked out of this screening, so the film is obviously not for everyone. For me, however, it was a true tribute to the underlying humanity that brings messed up people together for the highest good.

Richard I saw this film at the 2004 Toronto International Film Festival.Wilby Wonderful is the latest film from director, writer, playwright, and actor Daniel MacIvor. Set in a small island town, the film follows a cast of characters (played by a veritable who's who of Canadian cinema) over the course of a single day.There is the woman who grew up in Wilby, moved away, and returned with her teenaged daughter to reopen a cafe (Rebecca Jenkins and Ellen Page, who previously worked together on the MacIvor-penned Marion Bridge). There is one of the town's police officers (Paul Gross), and his businesswoman wife (Sandra Oh), who find themselves in a marriage that has drifted apart. There is the town mayor, played by Maury Chaykin, and a dyslexic painter, played by Callum Keith Rennie. And finally, there is a video store owner (James Allodi), who spends much of the movie making ineffectual attempts to commit suicide. Lurking under it all is a scandal that will affect them all.The film takes a look at the connections between the people in a small town, their hopes and dreams (both realized and not), and their prejudices. It shows people trying to both discover new, and recapture lost, feelings. As Paul Gross' character puts it while standing on the shore, looking at the mainland: seeing where you came from lets you remember what you wanted for the future.I really enjoyed this movie, my one Canadian pick for the festival this year. The cast acquits themselves well, and despite the relatively large number of characters, I didn't feel like I was distracted by too many story lines, or that any one character received more attention than the others. And despite the limited timeframe of the movie, a single day, the story did not feel rushed or hurried. I thought the resolutions found or not found by the characters followed from what was seen and felt on screen, and didn't come out of the blue.Daniel MacIvor, along with pretty much the entire cast, attended the screening. MacIvor gave quite an entertaining introduction before the film and stayed afterwards for a Q&A session:MacIvor calls the film a "Canadian commercial film", and wanted it to be familiar, but with a twist to wake everyone up.The story took about three years to make it to the screen, starting from around New Year's Eve 2001 at a party of Canadian director Jeremy Podeswa.MacIvor wanted to write a "guy with a heart story" rather than his usual fare.The movie was originally to be called Honey, but then the Jessica Alba movie of the same name came out, which necessitated a change. This lead to the current title, which affected part of the story.MacIvor said the theater (and the movie) contained pretty much every famous Canadian actor, assuming Don McKellar and Sarah Polley were in the room (not sure about Polley, but I did see McKellar talking with the cast outside the theatre prior to the showing). He found it weirdly easy to get the cast he wanted, helped by being able to tell people that he wrote specific parts for them.MacIvor was asked if writing for a wide range of characters was harder than writing for a few. His response was that he wanted to learn how, and figured there was no better way than to try. He was worried that the audience might attach themselves to a specific storyline and spend much of the movie waiting to get back to their favoured plot, but those fears were dispelled by the excellent acting of the cast.Because the film is set during the course of a single day, editing and continuity is harder.MacIvor was asked if he is now favouring films over plays or vice-versa. He said he isn't favouring either, and is currently working on both a new play and a new screenplay. Asked about the difference between the two , he said that what he doesn't like about films (vs. writing plays) is that once a film is complete, he can't change it.When starting to write, things for the stage tend to start out post-modern; but for a movie, it is usually an idea about watching somebody.About the differences between film and theatre, he likes to use the quote, "it's not apples and oranges or cats and dogs, it's apples and dogs", they're completely different. He likes to think from the theatre background he's able to bring a collaborative, inclusive feeling to the set. Art in theatre is live in front of the audience, whereas in film it is light projected on a flat surface and the art has happened previously.As a writer, he finds that sometimes for film he writes too much.Asked about writing specifically Canadian stories, he said that while he has made a commitment to stay in Canada and more specifically, in Nova Scotia, he likes to keep stories open so that people do not focus on watching a story about a specific group (islanders, easterners, Canadians, etc).