From the files of

CHRISTIAN SAUVÉ

Don't say we didn't warn you

• Home
• About
• Writings
• Reviews
• Links
• Search
• Contract
• Français

MOVIE REVIEWS

2007

2007-2008, Christian Sauvé

The Internet Movie Database says: (As of May 2008)

And I say (In alphabetical order):

1408 (2007, Horror): To borrow from THE PRESTIGE, all horror films have three phases: The setup, filled with unspoken horrors and the promise of upcoming chills; the turn, in which the supernatural becomes apparent and characters are confronted with mounting madness; and the prestige, in which an explanation is offered and a resolution is attained. 1408 does its setup exceptionally well, gets sillier during its turn and falls apart during its prestige. None of this is the fault of anchor John Cusack, present in almost all scenes as a writer who's forced to confront his past while trapped in a homicidal hotel room. The beginning of the film is a small gem of foreboding, as the nature of room 1408 is explained by an ice-cold Samuel L. Jackson. Cusack himself is pudgier than ever, but looks comfortably back in the charming screen persona he exemplified in the mid to late nineties. But as the hotel room starts to spin its evil tricks, our minds start grasping at an overarching explanation that never quite gels. The phenomenons in the room are chilling but don't add up to a coherent set of powers and capabilities: just a series of jolts and impossible events. To be entirely fair, though, 1408 is quite good in its minute-by-minute execution: the direction is slick, the pacing is satisfying and the quality of the images couldn't be better. Even the script does a fine job at stringing one thing after another, including a cute moment near the end that will make savvier film-goers mutter "I really hope it doesn't end like that". The true ending is a bit pat, but at least serves the primary purpose of any conclusion. It's a shame that the pieces don't all fit together (something that may be blamed on the adaptation of Stephen King's thin short story) and that we're left with a curious sentiment of dissatisfaction: as it plays, 1408 is one of the best horror films in recent memory... and it does so within the creative constraints of a PG-13 rating. (In theaters, June 2007)

28 WEEKS LATER (2007, Horror/Action): Faster, bigger and more headache-inducing than the first tome, 28 WEEKS LATER struggles from the onset with a wholly unnecessary premise. Though the aspect of repopulating a devastated London (28 weeks after the rage outbreak of the first film) has its original appeal, it's no big plot twist when the plague starts again, lending a profoundly depressing atmosphere to the entire film. The rest is strictly routine in zombie-movie terms: The outbreak takes over everyone, our cast of characters slowly dwindles down, and the only interest comes from the various ways they're picked off. The bleaker-than-bleak conclusion tops the film with an extra dose of futility. Looking more closely at the film's mechanics, it's a bit sad to see that the rage-cam is back, speeding up and getting less coherent at every action scene. The individual gags work well (I defy anyone not to be awed at the firebombing of London), but it add up to a profoundly grim experience. As a fun-house mirror held up to our own anxieties (something zombie movies have traditionally been very, very good at doing), it reflects back our horrors of a never-ending struggle, of pandemics run wild, of complete depersonalization against uncontrollable forces. Whew. You might as well bash yourself on the head with a TV tuned to CNN and save yourself the $10. (In theaters, May 2007)

300 (2007, War/Action): Prepare to be overwhelmed by manufactured cool! This fantasy action film is a rarity in how it glorifies war and aggression by making it look neater than it's ever been. Even splatters of blood are used as design elements in a film that's more a series of violent tableaux than a sustained narrative. (The credit sequence alone is wonderful.) The images, almost all post-processed digitally, show how it's now possible to film even a wide-screen war epic in a warehouse. The effect is a bit claustrophobic, but the film won't let you realize that until far too late: the rest of the time, you'll be pummelled into submission by the loud soundtrack, macho sound bites, constant special effects and almost unbearable self-importance. There's certainly something here for all the boys and the girls: naked torsos, dripping violence and simple subplots will do much to compensate for the quasi-constant decapitations, shaky-cam cinematography and dumb anachronistic details (such as, ahem, a pre-Roman mention of the month of "August"). It's all very loud and big and impressive, but I can't help but reflect that 300 is now a watershed of sorts in my evolution as a moviegoer: For the first time, I'm feeling left behind by a marketing effort addressed to the younger ones. I was never cool, but this film drives the point that I'm forever leaving that particular demographic behind. I'm not sure I'm sad about it if the alternative is movies like 300. (In theaters, March 2007)

A MIGHTY HEART (2007, Bio/Drama): The worst thing about this film is the knowledge that things won't end well. The tragic story of Daniel Pearl is well-known to the public most likely to see this film, and so it unfolds like a tragedy in the making: despite the efforts toward a happy ending, we just know that it's not going to happen, and this sadness permeates any reading of the film from beginning to end. This lends instant respectability to the film, but it also makes it easy to dismiss as Oscar-driven pap. For instance, Angelina Jolie does well with a role that merely requires her to look stunning and speak with a French accent. But even hot Oscar-baiting grandstanding can't completely drive away the true continuing appeal of the film, which eventually plays like a rough and merciless police procedural in the darkness of the Islamic third-world. The most fascinating character of the piece becomes a Pakistani counter-terrorism captain trying to solve the mystery even as his efforts are stymied by the very environment he lives in. The sights and feel of Karachi are oppressive in their claustrophobia: here the setting makes the action seem that much more fantastic, suggesting intriguing possibilities for future fictional thrills. Even the casual use of high technology seems all that more exotic and uncomfortable in an environment where data cables are loosely tied to outdoor pipes and where even laptops look like intrusions from a Science-Fictional world. Alas, those thrills are quickly tempered by the known futility of the efforts, and the anticipated roar of the heroine's grief. Remarkably apolitical yet immediately recognizable as a film shaped by today's world, A MIGHT HEART may not be guilt-free fun, but it's far more fascinating than you would expect from the documented premise. (In theaters, June 2007)

BREACH (2007, Thriller): Espionage films tend to go, James-Bond like, for big explosions and tense gun-play as a way to show off spy trade-craft. Reality, of course, is entirely different, and BREACH at least tries to remain grounded in some sort of verisimilitude as it tells the true story of Robert Hanssen, an FBI agent who kept selling secrets to "the other side" for nearly two decades before his arrest in 2001. As we discover through the eyes of our protagonist, a young agent tasked to his office, Hanssen is a study in contradictions: an overly pious career agent who dabbles in amateur pornography and gun worship, Hanssen thinks of himself as superior to his colleagues and sees in his spying just another way to get back at a system that ignores his talents. Chris Cooper is fascinating in a role that's plays a fine line between assurance and arrogance, and Ryan Phillippe at least keeps up with him throughout the entire film. Though there are a few odd contrivances designed to pump up the drama, BREACH remains restrained in its depiction of a real-life story --indeed, even playing down juicy aspects of the true story such as the amateur pornography and the link to Opus Dei. It all amount to a film that is more intellectually thrilling than the average spy film, even though there's nary an explosion in sight. (In theaters, February 2007)

DIE HARD 4.0 (aka LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD, 2007, Action): The good news are that the fourth instalment of the DIE HARD series is a very enjoyable return to the roots of the good old action film: explosions, dastardly villains, a wisecracking hero, spectacular action set-pieces and things we haven't yet seen. The not-so-good news are that it falls short of being a good DIE HARD film. Over the long run, I suspect that it won't matter: the two previous DIE HARD sequels initially disappointed moviegoers who then grew fonder of them as time went by. At the very least, an older "John McClane" is back, fighting terrorists who are really robbers and trying his damnedest to save family members from consequent harm. The story is a pack of silliness (Hackers! National infrastructure! Turning all traffic lights to green!) with more logical howlers than you can imagine (including a convenient absence of traffic when needed), but at least it gives Bruce Willis something to do and plenty of opportunities to look good with an increasing number of cuts and bruises. Though the villains are a bit wasted (Timothy Oliphant's villain never projects too much menace, while Maggie Q is wasted as a sidekick who can't help but go "yah!" as she's kung-fu fighting) and the direction is too scattered to be truly inspiring, there are a number of really good action sequences here and there. There's a bit of parkour, a wall-smashing gunfight, at least one flying car, some hot jet-on-truck action and a crumbling symbol of American power. Good stuff, though I'd like a cleaner look for the action than the fashionable CGI-boosted shakycam stuff. More globally, it's fascinating to see a mainstream American action thriller take on a plot-line that would have been pure science fiction (in concept and execution) barely twenty years ago: our heroes use cell phones, shrug over memories of 9/11, do some social engineering via OnStar and stare intently at webcams even as McClane is derided as "a Timex in a digital world". It's too bad that this is a different McClane than the one who starred in the first DIE HARD, but I won't complain: Fast-paced action movies are rare enough that I'll take what I can get. (In theaters, June 2007)

DISTURBIA (2007, Thriller): I expected nothing from this teen REAR WINDOW wannabe, so imagine my surprise at a well-done and reasonably entertaining teen thriller. Shia Lebouef emerges as a compelling lead in this film, and he's ideally suited to the mixture of drama, comedy, romance and thriller that develops as DISTURBIA unfolds. There are some modern twists to the story, but the bare bones of a voyeur thriller are there, with an adolescent dash of mischief. It's hardly perfect, what with the cheap plot twists, incompetent voyeuristic skills of the characters and manipulated dramatic twists... But it holds up to casual viewing, and ends up being much better than the cheap "REAR WINDOW remake for teens" label might suggest. (In theaters, April 2007)

EPIC MOVIE (2007, Comedy): Every time I think I'm a good and forgiving reviewer, a stinker like EPIC MOVIE comes along and sets me straight. I normally like comedies and I've got a big soft spot for parodies: I think I may have been one of the few non-teens to give a passing grade to SCARY MOVIE 4, for instance. But the current crop of parodies is a long way away from the classic days of TOP SECRET: Rather than honest good jokes, we get re-creations of familiar big-budget films with violent slapstick and hip-hop references. There is little intent to subvert the original films, point out their flaws, or use the material as a stepping stone to a more original story. EPIC MOVIE is among the laziest of this wave of parodies (and, one hopes against dollars, one of the last). A mish-mash of NARNIA, CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY and many others, EPIC MOVIE just seems happy to wallow in recent pop-culture references. Alas, none of them play off each other, the laughs are few and the cumulative effect is irritation. (There's a moderately witty use of the CLICK remote control late in the film, but it comes far too late to save anything.) Heck, even the normally amusing Kal Penn is wasted in this film. Perhaps the only thing EPIC MOVIE is good for is showing off the cuteness of Faune Chambers (who's really playing the role of Regina Hall in the SCARY MOVIEs), but if the price to pay to be in her fan-club is to see this film, it may be worth waiting for her next role. Lazy, dull and dumbly reaching for the lowest common denominator, EPIC MOVIE seems determined to prove how little laughs can be included in a "comedy" without having the audience ask for refunds. (In theaters, February 2007)

FANTASTIC FOUR: RISE OF THE SILVER SURFER (2007, Action/SF): To say that this is a better movie than the first one does no one any favour: It's like praising a casual acquaintance by saying that s/he's probably better than Jack the Ripper. Chances are that everyone will feel slighted by the pointless comparison. It's perhaps more useful to say that if this sequel isn't as exasperating as its predecessor, it's still pretty dumb and still not much fun. Fortunately, it does have a certain basic interest: the painful original story being a thing of the first film, the Fantastic Four are here presented at the height of their powers, with consequent public attention --though still flying coach. There is, simply put, more joy here than in the first film. They're also faced with a decent problem in the form of an all-reflective Silver Surfer that goes and pokes holes around the Earth. Some power-switching shtick makes for passable comedy, though the script also misstep badly with an embarrassing "bachelor party" sequence and a pretty complete lack of any chemistry between the too-be-wed couple. Bad dialogue completes the whole, especially when it surrounds snippets of passable writing. (I liked the "triumphant nrrrd" speech, for instance, but it feels clumsily pasted in the middle of a contrived scene.) At least guys will have something to look at, in between the action scenes, Kerry Washington and a bespectacled plastic replica of Jessica Alba. Heck, the film even allows itself an anti-torture PSA when it points out that excessive torture will tarnish the finish of even the best silver surfers. Now that's quality film-making with a moral centre! Otherwise, well, this sequel spares no effort to raise itself to the level of mere competency with a side-order of silliness. It'll do for the younger members of the audience, especially given the bloodless nature of the action. (In theaters, June 2007)

FIDO (2007, Comedy/Horror): With time, I'm learning that everything is possible, including seeing my tax dollars finance a zombie comedy. A good one, even: Like the best zombie films, FIDO understands the satirical social relevance of zombies, and starts off strongly with a critique of suburban America mixed with a metaphor for slavery and/or racism. The alternate-history nature of FIDO is clever and amusing, and so is the first act of the film, which plays off zombie archetypes against a brightly-coloured suburban background, with a plot that seems inspired by Douglas Sirk . At times subversive and amusing, gruesome and wholesome, FIDO is a great deal better than you'd expect from a B-movie. Sadly, the imagination of its creators seems to run out at the same time than their budget, leading to a flat conclusion that is visibly hampered by shoestring film-making: the climax is a muddle, with no great thematic denouement and hesitant staging that can often feel more ridiculous than suspenseful. But three-quarter of a good film is better than none, and so FIDO earns a marginal recommendation on the strength of being better than expected. That Carrie-Anne Moss has a leading role certainly doesn't hurt. (In theaters, March 2007)

FRACTURE (2007, Thriller): At a time where out-of-left-field plot twists are becoming the norm in the thriller genre, it's a refreshing change to see a competent howhedidit rather than a ludicrous whodunit. Here, there's little doubt that Anthony Hopkins' character shot his wife: the only question is how he was able to do it and yet do his best to escape every effort to convict him for the crime. Despite at least one huge whopper of a coincidence and a very convenient suicide, FRACTURE nonetheless moves along at a pleasant pace, in no small part due to Hopkins' self-aware acting, and a decent turn by Ryan Gosling as a young cocky lawyer who learns better. Pay attention, and you will even hear a heartening bit of public service boosterism. Otherwise, well, Los Angeles is convincingly portrayed, the direction is efficient, and there's a guilty thrill in looking at the brilliant antagonist as everyone plays according to his plan. While not flawless, or even truly memorable, this film will do as rainy afternoon entertainment. (In theaters, April 2007)

GHOST RIDER (2007, Fantasy): Let's name names, shall we? Writer/director Mark Steven Johnson, you are the one responsible for the insipid waste of time that is GHOST RIDER. The failure isn't all that surprising after the barely-better DAREDEVIL: the only thing worth pondering is how Johnson was able to get another studio directing job after that train-wreck. Like its predecessor, GHOST RIDER wastes every promising element it has, and compresses handily in a moderately interesting trailer that pretty much says everything worth knowing about the film. (The film itself is worse than anything you could imagine from the trailer.) Even the combined talents of Nicholas Cage and the curvaceous Eva Mendes can't rescue this turkey as it loses itself in a deeply predictable morass of clichés. The special effects are sub-standard, but it's really the dull story that fails to engage. Save yourself the trouble: re-watch the trailer again and let this one go. (In theaters, April 2007)

GRINDHOUSE (2007, Horror/Thriller): For a movie industry that is renowned for not taking risks and always presenting the same thing, American cinema can still be surprising from time to time. Case in point: the wonderful cinematic experience that is GRINDHOUSE, complete with two full-length movies, fake trailers, fake film damage, "missing reels" and intermission cards. (Canadian theatres even got the bonus trailer HOBO WITH A SHOTGUN). It's long, it's self-indulgent, it's hyper-violent... but it's a trip and one of the best prepackaged movie-going experience I ever had in a multiplex. The movies themselves aren't all that special, but it's the whole experience that makes the show. Robert Rodriguez's PLANET TERROR is by far the most entertaining film of the duo: A self-aware parody of zombie films, it's crunchy-delicious in its avowed awfulness, and never misses an outlandish beat when it sees one. In comparison, Quentin Tarantino's subversive DEATH PROOF is far less even: it dawdles along on Tarantino's usual verbal pyrotechnics, then delivers a jolt of exploitation adrenaline. But then the movie resets to another format, turning the cards and screwing around with audience expectations. It's a ride and a half, perhaps too conceptually clever for its own sake. Still, the entire package that is GRINDHOUSE is a success and a great big gift to movie geeks. Whatever you do, don't miss DON'T! (In theaters, April 2007)

HANNIBAL RISING (2007, Crime/Drama): It's a law of commercial exploitation that every compelling character will be over-exploited until only an easy caricature will be left. In this case, this fourth (or fifth, if you count MANHUNTER) Hannibal Lecter film achieves the dubious distinction of de-fanging the character until all that's left is a tiresome standard-issue serial killer movie. This prequel (always a sign of creative desperation) doesn't teach us much about Lecter (especially if you've read the silly Hannibal) , and what little it does is more ridiculous than interesting. After that, it fades into a pretty standard revenge story in which the protagonist likes to eat his victims. The little suspense in the film is quickly overwhelmed by its ridiculousness, and the competent art direction does little to overwhelm the boredom that eventually creeps over the film. I'm already tired of the "serial killer as a hero" theme; such a limp take on the concept does nothing to endear me again to the concept. HANNIBAL RISING is the kind of film that justifies the existence of reviewers: For goodness' sake, leave this one on the video store shelves. (In theaters, February 2007)

HOT FUZZ (2007, Comedy/Crime): The boys of SHAUN OF THE DEAD are back with another genre comedy, and this time it's both the quaint English countryside character comedy and the big old Hollywood action movie who successively come under fire. Simon Pegg is exceptional as the super-agent "Nick Frost" transferred from London (where he makes the rest of the force look bad) to a small village where nothing happens. Nothing? Well, OK, not nothing: maybe a continuous series of suspicious incidents... It's all fun and surprisingly gory jokes until the two-third mark, at which point the film changes gears and truly tackles action movie clichés with a delirious energy. The solid all-star cast does little to distract from the fun. So far, this is the comedy to beat this year... (In theaters, April 2007)

MEET THE ROBINSONS (2007, Kids/Comedy/Science Fiction): This second Disney CGI effort after the uneven CHICKEN LITTLE is a good step up for the new animation house: Not only is it a solid kid's film, it espouses a number of worthwhile values and even presents a mission statement of sort of Disney itself. Not bad for a film dealing with a genius twin being carried away in the future. The pacing is brisk, the characters are surprisingly well-defined, the animation is fine and little of it is saccharine or maudlin. Better yet: the film often allows itself little forays in bizarre territory, such as when a dozen characters are introduced in ninety seconds, or when a family dinner turns into a cheaply dubbed martial arts sequence. Not exactly the kind of thing you'd expect from the fairly standard trailer. Perhaps the best thing about this film from a purely geek perspective is how it embraces the notion of technological progress as an extension of human values; that's a nice SF attitude right there, and it does much to make me fond of the movie. (Heck, I even went back two weeks later to see it as a 3-D feature and still enjoyed it.) (In theaters, April 2007)

MR. BROOKS (2007, Crime): Wait long enough and you'll see everything. In this case, MR. BROOKS takes the current trend of glorifying serial killers and turns it into a feel-good film about such a protagonist. It's meant as a black comedy, but the execution often isn't too sure of the intended effect: The presence of a cackling John Hurt as the imaginary anti-conscience of Kevin Costner's Mr. Brooks makes for some amusing sequences, but the bloody suspense of the piece doesn't play nice with the cynical grins. It doesn't help that the script never knows when to quit: Starting from a mildly intriguing premise about a serial murderer troubled by his conscience, MR. BROOKS spins up more and more subplots until we're left with almost a half-dozen killers (including potential ones) running around at cross-purposes. It quickly gets ridiculous. Other signs suggests that the script was either badly constructed from the start or damaged in editing: a hideous coincidence during the third act hint at a plot point that is never brought up again. When the false-trick ending comes up, it doesn't feel as cheap as it could have: why that point in the movie, we're just wondering how ludicrous this is going to become. At least it remains interesting: for all of its faults, there are enough promising things about MR. BROOKS to keep our interest until the bitter disappointment of its ending. If this film is remembered at all, it will be as a sort of apogee for post-modern serial killer plotting. (In theaters, June 2007)

NEXT (2007, Science-Fiction): Adaptations of Philip K. Dick stories are either SF classics or B-grade pap, and NEXT goes straight in the second category as a limp action film that never uses its premise to its fullest extent. Oh, Nicholas Cage is entertaining enough as a Las Vegas magician with a few special powers, but there's little of note in the tedious film that surround him. The action scenes are by the numbers (all the best images are in the trailer), the special effects look substandard, and the ending takes back the entire third act. Boo! Though not quite egregiously offencive or awful, NEXT nonetheless leaves no lasting impression and will soon go languish in bargain bins all around the world, right next to PAYCHECK. Isn't that just a waste? (In theaters, April 2007)

OCEAN'S THIRTEEN (2007, Crime/Comedy): After the self-indulgent disaster that was OCEAN'S TWELVE, expectations were low for this third modern Danny Ocean adventure. Fortunately, director Soderbergh is back to his audience-friendly persona this time around, and if the result may not be terrific, it's good enough to warrant another look at the crew. This time, the plot goes back to Vegas and the action gets more diffuse: rather than rob something, our bunch of criminal protagonists avenges a friend by cracking open a casino for all takers. The multiplicity of schemes doesn't make for a focused caper plot, but it provides enough choice for everyone: if a particular subplot is dull or vaguely uncomfortable (such as the hotel-from-hell contamination), just wait thirty seconds and something more interesting will come along. This buffet approach makes for an audience-friendly vibe that is reflected elsewhere in the film: the characters are at easy with each other and if the dialogues are still elliptical, they're quite enjoyable. Even the walk-on roles get their chance to shine: Eddie Izzard gets a particularly good five minutes as an expert who demands exposition. It all amounts to a sweet caper film. While the emotional charge of the film is thin and the speaking female characters can be counted on one hand, OCEAN'S THIRTEEN is a decent way for the trilogy to end --we don't really need a fourth one. (In theaters, June 2007)

PATHFINDER (2007, Adventure/War): There are bad dull movies and there are compulsively watchable bad movies. PATHFINDER falls squarely in the first category. A war movie in which Vikings go against Native Americans in the year 1000, PATHFINDER thuds in theatres and can't be bothered to be interesting. Bad direction, ugly dark-and-blue cinematography, faint characters, major continuity mistakes (What's that about walking to the Rockies from the eastern coast?) and a total lack of interest are the distinguishing characteristics of this sorry excuse for entertainment. At every moment, we're reminded that APOCALYPTO did the whole "ancient war movie" so much better. Even by the low standards of action cinema, PATHFINDER has little going for it. Go ahead; rent it despite the warnings of this review and feel sorry for yourself. (In theaters, April 2007)

PERFECT STRANGER (2007, Thriller): There are bad dull movies and there are compulsively watchable bad movies. PERFECT STRANGER falls squarely in the latter category. A mish-mash of ludicrous plot twists, unlikable protagonists (I like looking at Halle Berry, but her acting is like nails on a blackboard), bad technical details, dull eroticism and clumsy direction, PERFECT STRANGER is nonetheless captivating: the plot mechanics are unaccountably fascinating, and that's without adding the attraction of watching a cinematic train wreck and wondering how bad this is going to turn out. The final few minutes are a masterpiece of the "let's screw with the audience" school of thriller plotting. A chaste thrill-free "erotic thriller", PERFECT STRANGER still has a magnetism of its own. It's a bad movie, but I guarantee you won't be bored. (In theaters, April 2007)

PIRATES OF THE CARRIBEAN 3: AT WORLD'S END (2007, Action/Fantasy): Oh no: Cast and Crew of the series have finally convinced themselves of their utter importance to world cinema. That's the only way to explain this flaccid and pretentious third entry in what had begun as a perfectly balanced blend of action, horror, comedy and characterization. Oh, there's still a solid 90 minutes of blockbuster cinema in here. Unfortunately, it's drowned in another hour of superfluous material that advances nothing. The first act of the film is particularly annoying as the pace grinds to a halt and everything seems so important. The normally sympathetic characters seem bored, and so are we. Fortunately, things pick up longly thereafter, once past a death-world sequence that has escaped from a particularly pointless art film. Still, Johnny Depp is fun, Naomi Harris is hot, Geoffrey Rush is cool and the third act is a little masterpiece of special effects. There's a lot of pieces in play (even if they don't all fit together), and keeping track of them almost demands the drawn-out endings that begin to rival the end of the third LORD OF THE RINGS movie. I wonder if someone will ever have the guts to re-edit this self-indulgent mess properly. (In theaters, May 2007)

SHOOTER (2007, Action/Thriller): There isn't much more here than a good little conspiracy thriller, but don't let that be a problem: Director Antoine Fuqua is back in shape after a trio of underwhelming films, and the result is competent enough to satisfy. Updated from Point of Impact, an original novel by film critic (!) Stephen Hunter, SHOOTER amps up the conspiracy angle of the book to include an entire machinery of government and industry (riffing off the waning power of truth and decency during the Bush administration), yet can't resist a vigilante-like conclusion. Don't worry: The protagonist will escape his pursuers, find the real story, prove it to the right people and get the girl. It's the way in which it's done that's worth the ticket, and here SHOOTER does everything well. Cool supporting characters (including an old man with a historically significant shovel), nice action set-pieces, big explosions and a little bit of courtroom showdown are all we need. The updated references immediately make the film fit in the twenty-first century and mark SHOOTER as a solid thriller with a bit of a wider vision than is usual in movies of its type. (In theaters, March 2007)

SHREK 3 (2007, Comedy/Kids): If this film has any distinctive feature at all, it's the way it may mark the transition of the SHREK movies into a succession of episodes starring an ever-larger cast of characters. Despite the impressive progress in computer-generated animation and the lessening importance of pop-culture gags, Shrek and the gang are becoming blander and more beholden to the necessities of shareholder interests. While the film is generally harmless, the comic highlights are becoming less memorable. Stretching my memory, I can dimly recall a union of villains and a fairly good life-flashback gag involving Pinocchio, but that's about it: the rest just blurs into a series of generally pleasant scenes without much bite. Who wants to bet that there will be a Shrek 4, 5, 6...? (In theaters, May 2007)

SICKO (2007, Documentary): Progressive rabble-rouser Michael Moore is back with a film that delivers exactly what fans and foes are expecting from him. This time, he takes on the shameful American health care problem, which doesn't make for much of a challenge: the system is so broken that it hardly seems sporting to criticize it. The film is a series of heart-breaking anecdotes showing by example the plight of ordinary citizens in a country where everyone has convinced themselves that universal health care is a luxury that no one can afford. Canada, the UK, France and Cuba are trotted as counter-examples –even with the understanding that Moore cherry-picks his examples. But subtlety isn't the name of the game here, and even the most jaded cynics will find it hard not to emphasize with the victims. Ironically, this is perhaps the film where Moore does the least grandstanding: save for an obviously dumb stunt near the end of the film, SICKO is the most emotional, least annoying Moore documentary yet. It does lack the panache that made BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE and FAHRENHEIT 9/11 such memorable pieces, but it's just as effective in raising everyone's hackles. This time around, the lines aren't as partisan as in previous films: While recent Republicans come under fire by sheer dint of incumbency, both Nixon and Hillary Clinton get their share of harsh words... and down in the street, people bankrupted by health insurance don't exactly wear their partisanship on their forehead. Fans of Moore's work will recognize the threads of Moore's meta-narrative being pieced together: Moore's over-arching thesis is that manufactured fear, poverty and desperation are the things keeping Americans from achieving their true potential, and that explicitly gets stated in the film. As usual, I find myself hoping that one day, Moore will piece it together and deliver the film that will blow open everyone's minds. In the meantime, SICKO is a step in the right direction: hopefully, it will find some political traction and play in the 2008 election. Seeing the history of American activism, though, I'm not particularly optimistic. Let me hug my Canadian Passport once more. (In theaters, June 2007)

SMOKIN' ACES (2007, Crime/Drama): The little hyper-caffeinated action film has become a staples of winter movie-going and in these matters, you could do worse than Joe Carnahan's long-awaited return to the screen after 2002's NARC. This effort hims him juggling dozens of characters in an action film that owes as much to comic-book plotting than to straight-up criminal mayhem. Loosely stated, SMOKIN ACES is about dozens of paid killers converging on a hotel where a would-be prosecution witness is staying. With that many characters, it doesn't take a long time before they clash together and start taking themselves down. The cheerfully chaotic nature of the plotting starts early and ends up past the point of ridiculousness (with a nod to Carnahan's “Ticker” short film), but it's a fun ride. Alicia Keys is particularly enjoyable as an assassin on the cusp of big decisions, and so is Ryan Reynolds as one of the few characters firmly committed to justice. The film's best scene comes along with a hail of big-calibre bullets: It'll thrill you just as it will make you deaf. While the build-up is better than the end result (a statement that also goes for the trailer versus the film), the film itself leaves a good impression, as long as all expectations are in check, and as long as you expect the right type of film. (In theaters, January 2007)

SPIDER-MAN 3 (2007, Action/Fantasy): I won't try to pretend that I disliked the first two SPIDER-MAN films, but it's fair to say that I haven't been as impressed with them as most other people have been. Partly, I mourn the Sam Raimi of the EVIL DEAD trilogy; partly, I can't stand the lowest-common-denominator approach that has ensured the series' success. So when SPIDER-MAN 3 comes out and ends up annoying everyone, I'm left muttering "Well, what did you expect?" This being said, there's no doubt that this third instalment is weaker than the first two ones for obvious reasons: too long, too scattered, too coincidental. Obviously, storytelling standards have fallen when, of all the possible places on Earth, a meteorite carrying an evil symbiont just happens to fall next to Peter Parker as he's making out in the park. I happen to like the Venom plot thread, but it seems superfluous in a third tome of a trilogy chiefly concerned about the Parker/Harris/Osborne relationship. That it blows up the duration of the film well past its optimal time is just another knock against it. Without Venom, we might have been given a few more scenes fleshing out the Sandman character... although if the alternative is yet another coma-inducing speech by Aunt May, I'll pass. No, SPIDER-MAN 3 has obviously succumbed to the increasingly common self-importance syndrome of third-parters: the producers' belief that it can do no wrong and audiences will lap it up any way. They may be right... but that won't be of much comfort in a few years when hardly anyone will recall such movies with affection. (In theaters, May 2007)

STOMP THE YARD (2007, Romance/Musical): If ever you've wondered what would happen if you blended hip-hop music with Jackie Chan movie-making, don't look any further: STOMP THE YARD is this year's 8 MILE in how it present a troubled youth's redemption through suddenly-hot performing arts. For Eminem, it was poetry slams; this time around, it's dance-stepping. But whereas 8 MILE was grim and dreary, this one's all-out light and fun. The dance and song sequences have an irresistible energy, and they lift the film far above its terrible plot and dialogue. The protagonist isn't unsympathetic despite his almost tiresome aggression, but that character trait feels like a dramatic shortcut in a film that can't be bothered by subtlety. Elsewhere in the script, hideous coincidences and convenient back-stories make up the rest of what could laughably be called "plotting". But just like a Jackie Chan film, the story is just an excuse to move from sequence to sequence. In this case, it's easy to be forgiving as soon as the foot-stomping dance sequences start: The film suddenly becomes alive, bubbling with good fun and terrific camera work. (It could have used longer coverage shots, but that's a common-enough complaint.) As far as teen movies go, this is surprisingly enjoyable. (In theaters, February 2007)

SURF'S UP (2007, Kids/Comedy): If you think you've seen enough movies about penguins, make room for one more: SURF'S UP may not be much more than a fun film, but it's well worth a look. The most obvious difference of the film is how it presents itself as a mockumentary, and sustains the form for the entire duration --even though the illusions gets less transparent during the last half. The story isn't complicated and you'll see the twists comes up well in advance, but it's handled with a competent touch, and it features a bunch of good characters. (Even the chicken gets a few laughs.) As a CGI film, it shows that water effects are pretty much a solved problem: the film seldom hesitates to go into the surf, showing off iridescent green waves in such a way to make us regret that this isn't a real film. The irony, of course, is that despite the cartoons and the script made for the younger ones, SURF'S UP manages to explain the Tao of surfing a lot better than more realistic movies about the subject: You just have to see the penguin protagonists touch the back of a tubular wave to understand how much fun surfing can be. It all adds up to a pretty satisfying time at the movies, and one that quickly dissociates itself from either HAPPY FEET or MARCH OF THE PENGUINS. (In theaters, June 2007)

THE LAST MIMSY (2007, Science-Fiction): Never mind Lewis Padgett's much-beloved original short story: THE LAST MIMZY is the perfect example of how an adaptation can misunderstand the story's fundamental theme and jam it into a generic template. From an original beginning, the film inevitably converges with the plot of just about half of the SF/fantasy films out there. Thematically, the original story was all about superhuman intelligence as a goal in itself and how it doesn't allow you to come back to normality. The adaptation turns super-intelligence into a minor affliction that makes the afflicted kids help other people and soon goes away to let them go back to normal. But that's nothing compared to the woo-woo subplot about the crazy Tibetan prophecies, or the way it suddenly turns into a Homeland Security thriller, or the way the conclusion is another one of those "don't fall in the CGI vortex" cheap stunt. There are, however, still a number of things to like about this film, from the likable kid actors to some of the special effects, to the way that is all comes together acceptably well. It's certainly not a classic, but it ought to please to most of the family, and that's already not too bad. (In theaters, March 2007)

ZODIAC (2007, Crime/Drama): The tag-line of this film says it all: "There's more than one way to lose your life to a killer". That's both the film's thematic statement and the reason why ZODIAC feels fresh after a spate of other serial killer movies. For one thing, it's well-handled by David Fincher, whose welcome return is a breath of cinematic talent after so many incompetent directors. Fincher know what he's going, and his mastery of cinematic technique is only exceeded by the skill with which he understands the delicate balance between suspense and cheap thrills. ZODIAC sticks close to reality, with all of its ambiguities and doubts, and in doing so attains a higher level of meaning. Meanwhile, we watch the lead character practically drive himself crazy with the unsolved mysteries of the case, obsessing over something he simply could have ignored from the beginning. The period detail is convincing, the special effects are used judiciously and the film has the detail-oriented heft of a good book. While some scenes can drag and there's a manipulative element to the way the film suggests a solution to a mystery that's still officially unsolved, ZODIAC makes a confident entry as one of the first good films of 2007. (In theaters, March 2007)