Month: June 2017

A Walk in the Woods (2015)

A Walk in the Woods (2015)

ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

(On Cable TV, June 2017) Adapting a novel to the big screen is tough enough, but adapting a non-fiction book as a movie seems even tougher—it’s about jettisoning the informative material and building up the story, even if it means adding more to it. Bill Bryson’s A Walk in the Wood (which I read between seeing the movie and writing this capsule review) is a compulsively readable account of a forty-something man’s attempt to walk the Appalachian Trail, occasionally alongside an old friend who’s even less in shape than he is. In doing so, Bryson gets to talk about the state of American natural preserves, the environmental collapse of some tree species, the nature of the Appalachian trail, what kind of person voluntarily hikes 3000 miles in a few months, and assorted topics that come to mind while walking a few miles every day for weeks on end. The film elides the details, although a surprising amount of top-level information still finds its way in the dramatization. As a movie, A Walk in the Woods wisely focuses on the difficult relationship between the two hikers, and the various incidents that can take place along the trail. Much of the film’s first half sticks impressively close to the book—but both diverge later on as the book itself becomes less storyable and the film feels the need to build everything to a dramatic conclusion. Robert Redford is very likable as Bryson, given his weathered features and sympathetic persona. Playing opposite him, Jeff Bridges makes for a capable foil as “Stephen Katz”, an out-of-shape screw-up who tags along for the hike. A few name actors pop up in amusing small roles (Emma Thompson as an understanding wife, Kirsten Shaal as an intolerable hiker, Nick Offerman as a hiking gear salesman) but the focus here is on Redford, Bridges and the trail itself. The dramatic climax doesn’t quite work (it feels shot in a studio, far too engineered to feel natural, and on-the-nose as to what the characters learn from it) but the rest of the film has a warm feel to it—kind of an extraordinary adventure achievable by ordinary people. Some of the scenery is spectacular enough to kindle a diffuse desire to walk the trail, but in this case please do read the book—better than vicarious adventure, it’s detailed enough to make anyone reconsider ever walking the Appalachian Trail.

The Blue Lagoon (1980)

The Blue Lagoon (1980)

ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

(Second viewing, On TV, June 2017) I’ve been revisiting many movies from my childhood lately, and I’m often amazed at how I misremembered some of them. The Blue Lagoon is in a category of its own, because for years, I had taken bits and pieces of the movie and reconstructed it in my mind as something of a horror film. From “two kids shipwrecked on an island; having a baby; baby having trouble feeding; skeleton on the beach”, I had confabulated memories of a stomach-churning drama in which a brother and a sister end up shipwrecked, and grow up to have a baby that then dies of malnutrition. You can imagine my horrified expression when I heard about the film as “the most innocent movie ever!” Checking it out again, I realized my confabulation … but also how, in being so innocent, the film can feel transgressive as well. So, the basics of The Blue Lagoon are, indeed, “two kids shipwrecked”, except that they’re cousins, and a crusty old sailor lives with them for a few years before dying of a drunken mishap (hence the skeleton on the beach later on). They do grow up and have a baby in the middle of a tropical paradise, except that they do figure out how to feed it and escape from the Island more or less accidentally. The finale is halfway ambiguous … unless, apparently, if you see the cruel first few minutes of the sequel. Brooke Shields and Christopher Atkins supposedly star, but their acting is terrible and they’re constantly upstaged by the footage of the island and the tropical creatures. Seriously: The Blue Lagoon is far more palatable as nature footage loosely surrounded by a plot than anything else. The curious tone of the film is indeed one of innocence, to the point that it becomes uncomfortable to modern audiences—I suspect that any reaction to The Blue Lagoon is strongly dependent on the social context of the time. Circa-2017 North America isn’t built for innocent earnestness, a sexualized teenager (Shields was, famously, 14 years old when shooting the film), cousins having kids or the kind of Victorian melodrama that this film adaptation of a 1908 novel encapsulates. It’s so innocent that it feels perverse, in a way. And while the movie isn’t the horror-show that I remembered, I’m arguably more off-put by the film as an adult than as a kid.

Kagemusha (1980)

Kagemusha (1980)

ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

(In French, On TV, June 2017) I tried. I really tried. I’m not a Cahiers du Cinema subscriber, but that doesn’t mean I’m unwilling to take a look at classics and see what they’re about. But Kagemusha has defeated me. It shouldn’t be a struggle to watch the film: it’s got intrigue, historical detail, colourful costumes and the legendary director Akira Kurosawa at the helm. And yet, despite everything, I was bored stiff by the movie, and it happened from the very first moments, which features a five-minute static shot of three characters speaking. My interest in the movie kept wandering despite my best attempts at staying focused. No success: I bounced hard off the historical context, found the direction uninspiring compared to what it tries to portray, and the pacing to be worse than glacial. I know I dozed off at some point, but I can’t say for how long. It may have been forever, because the rest of the film certainly felt like forever. Ending on a downer note doesn’t really help either. It’s a good thing I’m not a member of any serious movie critic’s organization, because I’m pretty such I’d have to resign if ever it became known that I couldn’t stay interested in a Kurosawa film.

Stripes (1981)

Stripes (1981)

ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

(On DVD, June 2017) I don’t yet have enough points of reference to make a definitive statement, but in-between movies such as Caddyshack, Meatballs, Police Academy, many others and now Stripes, there’s a very specific strain of early-eighties underdog comedy in which the institutions of American life (golf, summer camp, police, the military) are brought down to size by unrepentant slackers. Bill Murray leads Stripes with his early brand of nonchalant anarchism, taking a stand against the madness by defeating it with a complete lack of care. Stripes’ curiously ambiguous attitude toward military training is interesting: While its most ridiculous aspects are lampooned, it is a film made with the co-operation of the Army, and it does suggest that the end result can be incredibly rewarding for the right people. By the end, the slackers are defeating the Reds and rescuing their own. In-between, we do have a remarkable rah-rah-RAH sequence in which audiences are reminded that they are American and thus exceptional, and a weird-yet-expected shift from aimless sketch training comedy to more focused last-act suspense. The DNA match with Caddyshack is obvious with Murray and Harold Ramis sharing top billing, and Ivan Reitman handling directing duties. Stripes is messy by modern standards, but it’s not without its own charm.

The LEGO Batman Movie (2017)

The LEGO Batman Movie (2017)

ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

(On Blu-ray, June 2017) In the Hollywood game of commercially viable mad-libs, combining Lego with Batman gets a primal squeal from everyone’s inner eight-year-old boy. I’m no exception. The LEGO Movie having become an unexpected modern classic, it’s no surprise if the follow-up LEGO Batman Movie ends up being a bit more ordinary … but still far more entertaining than most other movies of the year. Best described as a Batman movie made with Lego bricks, this comic take on an archetypical character finds insightful things to say. The emerging “Lego house style” of storytelling is heavy on humour and knowing references to its own nature, and The LEGO Batman Movie certainly follows in that vein, all the way to daring to deliver a heartwarming family-oriented comedy featuring one of the darkest superheroes out there. It does work, although it should be noted that the high-energy comedy of the first few minutes does give way to a more measured pace for most of the film. Batman fans should prepare themselves for a tornado of references to past films and comic book series, from obscure characters to quick-cut homages to previous movies, alongside other pop-culture references. The jokes are certainly rapid-fire: at times, like its predecessor, this is a film that calls for the freeze-frame button and repeat viewings in order to appreciate the complexity of the backdrop, the layered jokes, the mind-boggling animation and the overall sweep of the cinematography. Far more visually ambitious than its predecessor, The LEGO Batman Movie uses a bold colour palette, numerous atmospheric effects and a far more permissive animation style (including bending mini-figures to impossible poses) to give a pleasant blockbuster-movie sheen to the results. The voice talent is up to the film’s humour: Will Arnett’s voice is perfect as Batman, while notables such as Michael Cera, Zach Galifianakis, Rosario Dawson and Ralph Fiennes also contribute their distinctive tones to the results. Overall, it’s a successful film, and one that is, court-jester-like, far more revealing in moving past Batman’s arrested development than in other more serious takes on the character. Those wondering if the Blu-ray is worth purchasing should be reassured: Not only is the film worth watching in freeze-frame high resolution, it comes with a small but entertaining basket of special features, including the unexpectedly hilarious “Dark Hoser” paean to Batman’s Canadian roots.

Uncle Buck (1989)

Uncle Buck (1989)

ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

(On TV, June 2017) Wikipedia tells me that Uncle Buck has, in the years since its release, become something of a cult movie. As usual, this kind of statement either resonates or is met by a blank face. In my case, imagine the blank face: While it’s not a bad movie, Uncle Buck doesn’t always know what it wants to be. The title character is alternately goofy, dangerous, serious and incompetent in short succession. The film has a solid arc, but the sketches that fill out the progression of this arc are inconsistent and seem to vary according to the whims of writer/director John Hughes more than any organic progression. To be fair, Uncle Buck does coasts a long time on the charm of John Candy and many of Hughes’s leitmotifs, starting with the sullen teenager in need of guidance (here Jean Louisa Kelly). It’s also easy to see how Home Alone sprang from Uncle Buck with the “mail slot” scene featuring Mackauley Caulkin. Some of the set-pieces are, indeed, quite good (such as the noir-spoof visit to the school director) … but it’s their disconnectedness that stops the film from feeling more satisfying. In the meantime, what we have is another piece in Hughes’s solid filmography, uneven but still entertaining on its own.

Absolutely Anything (2015)

Absolutely Anything (2015)

ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

(On Cable TV, June 2017) You’d think that a comedy movie bringing together the members of Monty Python, Simon Pegg, Kate Beckinsale (still an assured sex symbol at a respectable age) and a high-concept comic premise would lead to a minimal amount of laughter. But if you think that, then you haven’t yet seen Absolutely Anything, which is recognizably trying to be funny without actually being funny. The big premise has aliens assigning omnipotence to a human and seeing what choices he makes with it, with the fate of the human race in the balance. As an idea, it’s limitless … which explains the disappointment. It takes a while for the film to come up with things to do within that premise, and whatever throwaway gags are put on the screen seem almost too restrained compared to the possibilities. (The film also cheats by presenting a “start over again!” mechanism and using it at least three times) Simon Pegg does what he can with a classic underachiever character, but there is a limit to what he can do given the relentless mediocrity of the script. Good performances by supporting actors can’t help, and some of the alien material featuring the voices of Monty Python members often feel like undercooked inside jokes. Absolutely Anything makes the fatal mistake of feeling dull, which is just about the one unforgivable thing that a comedy in which anything is possible can make.

Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987)

Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987)

ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

(Second viewing, On DVD, June 2017) I remembered very little of Superman IV (basically: Luthor getting ahold of Superman’s hair, and him throwing nuclear weapons in the sun, both of whom happen early in the film), and so spent much of the first half-hour wondering why the film had such a bad reputation. Sure, it wasn’t up to the standards of the first film, and yes the credit sequence was obviously done on the cheap … but getting back to the Superman universe (even if perceptibly updated to the late eighties) isn’t bad, the “day in the life” Superman episodes are enjoyable, Margot Kidder’s Lois Lane and Gene Hackman’s Lex Luthor are back, Christophe Reeves is still a capable Clark Kent/Superman and the whole “getting rid of nuclear weapons” subplot feels far less egregious now than during the cold war. Then the atrocities began. If the first half-hour of Superman IV is tolerable, the film very quickly sinks to newer and newer lows as it tilts in its second half. Despite some good images here and there (most notably in the street-level fight that begins near the Daily Planet offices), the film devolves in a series of increasingly ridiculous set-pieces. The chase sequence over Manhattan with Lady Liberty is just … wow. The lunar fistfight is also … wow. Superman going full-shmuck and using Lois Lane for his own gratification before wiping her memory (as he probably did many times before) … yuck. The rest is either dull or ridiculous, and that’s not even getting into the limits of the film’s budget. I’ve used the analogy before with the Jaws series, but the same also goes for the Superman quartet: The first one is at the upper half of good movies; the second one at the lower end of good movies, the third one at the upper end of bad movies and the fourth one at the lower end of bad movies. Thankfully, they stopped right there.

Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk (2016)

Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk (2016)

ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

(On Cable TV, June 2017) Much of the online chatter about Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk had to do with its 3D 120 fps 4K UHD presentation in a handful of high-end theatres, but that’s completely irrelevant to the experience of seeing it on regular HD cable TV. Stripped from its technological innovations, the film becomes something far more ordinary: Yet another drama about veterans coming back home and having trouble coping with the nature of American society. It’s not a bad subject, but it has been overplayed lately, and Ang Lee’s latest film doesn’t do much to bring something narratively new to the table. Oh, it’s skillfully made: Setting much of the story at a Dallas football game, arguably the purest essence of basic Americana, is good for a few uncomfortable parallels with what soldiers are being asked to do abroad. Weaving in motifs of Hollywood dramatization, religion-obsessed cheerleaders, excessive eating and overblown fireworks all serve to heighten the unreality of “coming back home”. Still, there aren’t that many surprises in store. It’s nearly a given that whatever heroic sacrifice performed by the soldiers will prove to be far more gruesome in the flashbacks. There’s a blip of interest at the very end, when a decision made by the lead character is portrayed as continuing the horror rather than further serving the country. But otherwise, Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk is thin gruel. Well-made gruel, though: Ang Lee remains a veteran director, and perhaps the most interesting thing about the result is how he’s able to coax good performances out of Kristen Stewart (in her best damaged-by-life mode), Steve Martin (as a loathsome millionaire) and Chris Tucker (looking much older now). Still, the lack of impact of the movie as shown at home is enough to make anyone ponder the worth of technological innovations if they can’t be as effective under all viewing conditions.

Nanny McPhee (2005)

Nanny McPhee (2005)

ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

(On TV, June 2017) Often, the most difficult movies to review are the average ones. Nanny McPhee is, in many ways, a thoroughly average children’s film: It features a strong titular character, a group of kids in need of some guidance, gross-out gags, a food fight, an intensely schematic structure, plot developments seen well in advance, and a colourful imagination on display. But what makes Nanny McPhee good for kids are also what makes it dull for adult audiences: besides some performances (including Emma Thompson as the writer/star of the movie, and the ever-dependable Colin Firth as an overwhelmed dad) and production design, there really isn’t much here to grab interest. At least it works well enough for its intended audience. Otherwise, is there anything more to say?

Escape from L.A. (1996)

Escape from L.A. (1996)

ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

(On Cable TV, June 2017) I’m normally a forgiving viewer when it comes to over-the-top comic action movies like Escape from L.A. Throw in an enjoyable action set-piece and I will normally forgive most of the nonsense required to get there. For the first half-hour of the movie, I was certainly willing to play along: It was almost a relief to see Kurt Russell back in character as Snake Plissken, all attitude and tough-guy moves. Even the dodgy CGI work required to do justice to the script on a relatively modest budget didn’t bother me too much. But even as the good cameos unfolded (Bruce Campbell as a plasticized surgeon, Pam Grier as a transsexual, Peter Fonda as a surfer!), the film lost its flavour and became bitter. At some point, the adolescent thrills of relentless post-apocalyptic nihilism became tiresome. Plissken’s posturing became hollow, and a reminder that there’s only so far to go when fuelled by cynicism and anti-heroic amorality. When the anarchic ending came, I was more annoyed at the wanton destruction than overjoyed at seeing authoritarianism being kicked over along with much of civilization. I guess I’m not a brooding sixteen-year-old anymore. While writer/director John Carpenter clearly had fun poking at Los Angeles’s pretensions with Escape from L.A., the result is curiously dark and meaningless … and I’m the one not having fun with the result.

Superman III (1983)

Superman III (1983)

ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

(Third viewing, On Cable TV, June 2017) Aw, yes, Superman III. I know what the reviewers say, and yet you will never be able to convince me that it’s a movie that I should not enjoy. Keep in mind that I didn’t have cable TV when I was a kid … but one of my aunts did, and I was amazed, while visiting back in 1984, to see Superman III show up on a TV screen years before it would be broadcast on network channels. Also keep in mind that Superman III spends a lot of time talking about computers, something that fascinated me then and still interests me now. Never mind that it’s a comedy with seriously dumb ideas about technology: it’s still a lovely time capsule about how people saw computing as magic back then. Then there are the sequences: Superman turning evil and going full-shmuck! Superman fighting himself in a junk yard, wow! Superman going against a supercomputer with a vat of acid! Nine-year-old me was amazed back then, and forty-one-year old me is still charmed right now by the whole thing. I’ll acknowledge that the film is deeply flawed. Putting Richard Pryor in the movie is good for an atypical hacker character, but the various attempts to force comedy out of the film (the ski jump scene and the videogame being the worst) often seem jarringly out of place. The Superman-versus-Superman stuff is still quite good, though, the return-to-Smallville subplot works well, and I enjoyed the funhouse depiction of magical computers far more than I thought. While Gene Hackman’s Lex Luthor is sorely missed, I did not mind at all Lois Lane’s amusing cameo—and rather liked Annette O’Toole as Lana Lang. Christopher Reeves, as usual, is near-perfect as both Clark Kent and Superman. Heck, I even liked the opening slapstick credit sequence. In other words, you may argue forever that Superman III is a bad movie and I won’t dispute the point much. But it’s a bad movie that I like a lot, and there’s no disputing that either.

The Family Fang (2015)

The Family Fang (2015)

ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

(On Cable TV, June 2017) I watched The Family Fang based on the cast (Jason Bateman, Nicole Kidman, Christopher Walken, Kathryn Hahn, directed by Bateman) having not heard of the film before seeing it show up on the cable TV line-up. As it turns out … there’s a reason why I haven’t heard of it until now—it’s surprisingly boring. For a film revolving around a family of performance artists putting up elaborate hoaxes (and what happens to their kids once they’re grown up), The Family Fang seems singularly irksome. It’s certainly uncomfortable, plays around with the reality of what the characters know but ultimately becomes unsympathetic and needlessly contrived. Maybe the source novel is better … but the film itself gets barely more than a shrug. Bateman, Kidman, Walken and Hahn are fine enough—they’re roughly playing their screen persona, after all. But the film’s rhythm is slack, the subject matter is meant to be off-putting and the performance-art aspect of the story seems to belong better in the YouTube generation than back in the eighties. The Family Fang should have been a delight, but it ends up a chore to watch. Comparisons with Bad Words suggest that Bateman-as-director is interested in deliberately obnoxious subject matter … we’ll see how that plays out for him.

Morgan (2016)

Morgan (2016)

ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

(On Cable TV, June 2017) It’s unfair to review a film and lament that it’s not another film, but here’s the thing: It’s impossible to watch Morgan without feeling that it’s a dull rethread of material far better explored in Ex Machina. The somewhat similar first act really doesn’t help, even if it’s the best thing about the film: As a “risk-management consultant” travels to an isolated location to evaluate the potential of a synthetic life-form named Morgan, we’re plunged in a similar, yet intriguing scenario: What is human, and what if humanity is defined by its worst traits? After a quick introduction to the rather large cast of characters, the film pivots off a crucial (yet moronic) scene in which Morgan is taunted to the point of violent aggression. After that, pack up the ideas, because Morgan becomes nothing more than another generic psycho-killer horror movie, the number of victims climbing to include almost the entire cast by the time the credits roll. Perhaps worse yet is the final twist, which isn’t a twist as much as a belated confirmation of what nearly every viewer will have guessed ten minutes in the movie. What’s too bad is that Morgan, besides an effective first act, can boast of a talented cast: While I’m not sold on Kate Mara’s deliberately affectless performance, there’s a solid roster with Leslie Rose, Toby Jones, Michelle Yeoh and Paul Giamatti (in a short but strong role) having their moments to shine. Too bad about the delayed “twist”. Too bad about the cookie-cutter second half. Some of director Luke Scott’s work is fine, but the script isn’t particularly good. Forget about Morgan and watch Ex Machina another time—you’ll have a far better experience.

For Love of the Game (1999)

For Love of the Game (1999)

ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

(On TV, June 2017) As discussed elsewhere, I’m not particularly taken by the links that a number of artists make between baseball and grander themes. I get that it’s an effective chord to strike for average Americans, but as it turns out, I’m Canadian—I’ll let you know when I see the Great Hockey Film. In the meantime, there’s For Love of the Game, which uses a pitcher’s last game as a structural element on which to tell us all about that pitcher’s life, loves and setbacks. Thanks to director Sam Raimi (here signing what looks like an atypical film), the device is somewhat effective. Not all the flashbacks are equally compelling, and the romantic story developed by the film suffers from a few serious cases of idiot plotting, but the overall concept is intriguing enough. Kevin Costner is his own usual stoic self as a pitcher about to throw his last few balls, with Kelly Preston and John C. Reilly providing support in different roles. Unfortunately, for all of the interest of the film’s structure, the plot it develops is generic to the point of being dull—for all of the subplots, the film doesn’t quite manage to deliver something that rises to the level of its premise. The result is still watchable enough, but For Love of the Game stops well short of fulfillment.