The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

It's a movie as timely as it is provocative and amazingly, for much of its running time, it is weirdly funny.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

"That Beautiful Somewhere" is a Canadian film from 2006, shot in North Bay and Temagami, Ontario. It's part mystery and part love story. I don't mean "mystery" in the conventional sense, but in the sense that the film has a mysterious ambiance and there's a mysterious death, albeit from the distant past. The plot revolves around some remains found in a marsh with supposed healing powers, the archaeologist and cop assigned to the case, and some Native Americans.The reason I bought the DVD is because the cover makes it look like a film I'd like. I do like it, but not enough to give it anything more than a 6/10 rating. The locations, cinematography, acting and overall atmosphere of the film are top-rate, but certain factors in the story pull down my rating. The biggest being the ending and its sudden surprise; it destroys what was building up to that point.I guess if you reflect on it, though, it all makes sense and there's some spiritual typology.What I like most is the film's mysterious and beautiful aura. There's a palpable reverence. Plus I enjoy seeing this remote part of Canada. But the story -- while okay -- isn't all that compelling and the ending does it in.Still, it's not bad. It's worthwhile if you like this type of fare.GRADE: C+ or B-

I'm still giving it an above average score because the two lead actors were watchable (if not always comprehensible) and the location film-making was good. Roy Dupuis told CTV he took the role because the script was well-written. There I would have to disagree: the basic idea that a police detective would stick around after his "murder" victim turned out to date from 200 years ago is too silly for grown-ups. The director evidently had to dub in someone saying off-screen "It's still a murder investigation", presumably as a result of complaints in post-production. Even Dupuis as the detective looked confused and out of place when he heard the news from his lady archaeologist (McGregor). He was obviously thinking: why aren't I driving back to HQ and getting on with the next case like a real cop? Trouble is, this is not a conventional detective movie: the archaeologist is taking over and she is leading them both on a very queer investigation into ancient "healing" techniques which apparently are not even authentic. That's just as well, because if anyone ever attempted to use the method described here they would probably spend many years in prison. It's more appropriate in the hands of CIA torturers, called "waterboarding". I'd like to see Jane McGregor in a less neurasthenic role, and I'd like Dupuis to avoid phony roles like this in future, because he seems like a really good guy and deserves a lot better for turning down the big US dollars and staying in his beloved Canada. I'd like to send this note to the screenwriter/director Robert Budreau: try not to use flashbacks in your pictures. Try very hard, because they are extremely hard to handle, breaking the narrative pace and interrupting the character development. They are nearly always an ego-trip imposed by the screenwriter/director --- and who is that? It's you, Mr Budreau! Just one more thing: why doesn't Ms. McGregor hire a publicity agent? It's impossible to find a biography of her on the internet. For an actor, that's just perverse!

This is a film that could have been great.It has an interesting premise and theoretically complicated characters; however, in execution it gets almost everything wrong.The script is terrible. Character development is introduced with a heavy hand and a total lack of imagination, and dialog is clunky at best.The acting is sub-par. The male lead is competent, and though the leading lady is quite pretty, she's only adept at acting sick and vomiting endlessly. Very little chemistry exists between the two.The only redeeming factor of the film is its cinematography, which is absolutely breathtaking. It's as if the director found his setting first and decided it was so breathtakingly gorgeous he should track down a story that he could fit to it.Probably the only reason to check this out is to see some really beautiful landscape shots, and even then, after the first fifteen minutes they seem few and far between.

The Beautiful Somewhere raises interesting questions about sacrifice and redemption, especially in regards to Conk's actions which leave the viewer wondering about the purity of his motives. The cinematography of the North is beautiful but seems like mere delicious icing on a fairly well baked cake. Unlike Terrence Malick's engagement with nature, where it becomes a character within the film, in The Beautiful Somewhere it remains merely beautiful. I was glad that the film didn't detour into hokey naturalistic transcendentalism leaving us with the tired nature good, civilization (esp. Catholicism) bad dichotomy. My only other complaint about the film was that the relationship between Conk and Catherine needed to develop further. A cold relationship warmed too easily and too quickly. I wasn't looking for answers but for more complexity.