Author: Christian Sauvé

  • Aurora, Kim Stanley Robinson

    Orbit, 2015, 480 pages, C$29.00 hc, ISBN 978-0316098106

    (This review contains spoilers, because spoilers are the point of this review)

    As I write this, Science Fiction fandom is experiencing another one of its crises that come to redefine it. Reactionary forces are trying to take over the genre’s top award, spinning furious theories of vote rigging and pernicious influence from social justice whatevers. The issue claims to be about ethics in SF journalism whether Science Fiction’s overall aesthetics have been moved too far away from its core audience and if it was about that topic then we’d have a serious argument. (I may be progressive in my politics, but I’m quite old-fashioned in the kind of SF I like.)  As it turns out, however, the current debate about ethics in SF awards nominations is an acute symptom of a larger neo-reactionary movement. Last year it was videogames; this year is about SF awards; next year will almost certainly be a metastasizing of the tendency into American national politics given the presidential election.

    In this context, the vigorous debate surrounding Kim Stanley Robinson’s Aurora is almost predictable given the nature of what Robinson tries to do with his novel: question some of the core assumptions of classical Science Fiction. For SF has always taken at face value that humanity is meant to conquer the universe. Thousands of years in the future, humanity will, of course, have colonized other star systems, an expansion that can only be stopped by the heat death of the universe—and we’ll work on that at some point.

    For a while, Robinson seems to follow into familiar paths. The story begins aboard a generation ship sent to colonize a nearby star. It’s a clever ship, with dozens of ecosystems contained in large separate compartments. Our hero is a young girl who defies social more to travel across the entire ship, trying to follow in the footsteps of her formidable mother. For a while, all the way up to the descent on the new planet, Aurora seems almost depressingly familiar—an old-hat SF story told using the latest technological vocabulary.

    But then Something Happens. Something that doesn’t usually happens in SF stories. People fall sick. The planet rejects humanity. Survivors are asked to contemplate the unthinkable: Head back home.

    Some do. Some don’t. Our heroine is among those who choose to come back, knowing that she probably won’t live to the arrival back to Earth. And as the story follows her, we never hear again about those who chose to try again on the new planet.

    Aurora gets weirder after that. The return home is simplified by the convenient development of cryogenic technology that can be used by the returning colonists. Much of the book’s second half is a thrilling game of celestial pinball in which Robinson shows, calculations included, how to slow down from a trip at a significant fraction of light speed. Then the novel’s final section deals with the non-enthusiastic reception that the failed colonists get upon returning to their so-called “home”. Ultimately, our protagonist finds some measure of self-peace by getting closer to nature, earth and the everlasting ocean.

    Some of this is very familiar to Robinson fans. The almost existentialist need to commune with nature has been an integral part of Robinson’s fiction since, well, forever (see elements of his Three California Trilogy, especially the utopian Pacific’s Edge; see elements of his Mars trilogy, seeking to make Mars more Earth-like; see his Climate change trilogy, stating how unwise it is to disturb the natural equilibrium; see the mysterious illness that affects those who don’t take sabbaticals on Earth in 2312, which is semi-linked to Aurora). His willingness to question the assumptions of SF have never been too far from his fiction, even when he writes from within the genre’s core.

    At the same time, it almost feels audacious to star poking at one of the core tenets of SF. What if, indeed, stock humans were simply unsuitable to space colonization? Wouldn’t it make sense for us to be so closely part of Earth’s ecosystem to being unable to function anywhere else? For a genre that prides itself on asking the tough questions, SF needs a good shake once in a while. And if this upsets some of the reactionary readers, well … what are you doing reading the stuff?

    This isn’t to say that I’m completely satisfied with Aurora. It wouldn’t be a Robinson SF novel without at least one or two big blunders, and even casually reading the book raised a few questions that were never answered. There’s the curious survival of a guy stuck in a separate compartment that mystifies me as the rest of the group starves in a much larger compartment. I’m not convinced that biomes with wilderness are sustainable in a starship. I hope that the Oberth Maneuver calculations in the second half of the book are exact, but I remain skeptical. Elsewhere on the web, this overview of Aurora’s science problems is interesting.

    But technical details aside, I really do admire Robinson for seriously tacking one of the sacred cows of Science Fiction, and doing it in a way that’s not dismissive. (It would have been easy to make a similar point in a short story, but an entire novel—that takes dedication.)  I quite enjoyed the usual games that Robinson plays with the prose—in this case, blending the story with the ship’s internal narrative. Aurora is quite a book, frustrating and exhilarating and mind-expanding at once. Opponents take note: It is not the description of a certain future, nor an attack on your identity as a SF reader … it is a thought experiment taken far along, and a supplemental opinion to integrate in your view of the world. There’s no need to get angry about it. If I was still in the habit of making Hugo nominations, I’d put it on my ballot.

  • Saw IV (2007)

    Saw IV (2007)

    (Netflix Streaming, November 2015) I had previously seen bits and pieces of Saw IV, but watching it from beginning to end so soon after seeing Saw III only highlighted what I’d gathered from my cursory first look, albeit with a stronger caveat.  First, the good: The integration of Saw III and IV is clever, misleading viewers just well enough to be interesting.  The grimy industrial atmosphere of the series is finely upheld (if that’s your kind of thing –I’ve found that a little of it is enough to last me a long time) and so are the usual ticks and tricks: the music that blares the moment something is happening, the camera that goes wild as if to mask the gaping logical gaps of the story… and so on.  As I’ve said: One Saw film per year or two is enough to satisfy: more than that, and the holes start to show.  It doesn’t help that this fourth volume is less satisfying than the previous ones: The mean-spiritedness of the series (via its elaborate traps, casual disregard for human dignity and flashy gore) is far less tempered by any kind of redemption.  This is partially addressed in the story (original villain Jigsaw’s legacy is being repurposed by other, more nihilistic imitators) but let’s not fool ourselves: At the fourth volume, this is also the series creators reacting to what the series fans are asking for: sadistic blood-soaked deaths, meat puppets being torn apart and rusty warehouse decadence.  As for me, it feels as if I had seen enough by the previous installments: This one seems more than redundant.

  • Coach Carter (2005)

    Coach Carter (2005)

    (Netflix Streaming, November 2015) As much as I don’t respond eagerly to sports movies, and as much as I don’t feel immediately compelled by tales of black teenagers working themselves out of the ghetto, I have to admit that the savvy blend of sport underdog drama and troubled-youth theatrics in Coach Carter seems made for success.  As a bonus, Samuel L. Jackson gets one of his most Samuel L. Jackson-esque role here as the titular coach, using harsh methods to teach disaffected teenagers some work ethics and life skills.  Mechanically put together and almost entirely unburdened by surprises, Coach Carter does offer a few highlights even if it takes almost forever in the film for Carter to become an actual protagonist with obstacles to overcome.  Much of the sub-plots surrounding the core story are familiar and make the film longer than it should be, although Ashanti turns in a fine performance and Channing Tatum can be seen in an early role.  Still, it’s Jackson who elevates the material, providing a credible figurehead through which the tough-love message of the film can echo.  While kids may like the film because of the unlikely victories, parents will love the sugar-coated message about the value of work and discipline.  As with most other sports movies, this is an aspiration story of moral values played on a field –designed for maximum appeal. 

  • Wolf Creek (2005)

    Wolf Creek (2005)

    (Netflix Streaming, November 2015) I should just stop trying to watch psycho-killer horror movies.  They annoy me more than anything else, and I loathe them so much that I can’t even appreciate the so-called strengths of the genre.  Australian escapee Wolf Creek, for instance, may not be a terrible film as far as psycho-killer horror movies are concerned: it features a truly detestable antagonist, stark realistic cinematography, harrowing sequences and stripped-down plotting.  Unfortunately, that’s all in service of things I don’t want to see.  I don’t want to see two women horribly pursued and killed (while the male victim escapes)   I’m not interested in endless shots of the Australian desert while fifteen minutes’ worth of plot is stretched over more than an hour.  I’ve had my fill of psycho-killers murdering young people for the thrill of it.  I’m even less looking forward to yet another by-the-number bloodbath with no clear theme, meaning or shred of humanity.  The PG-rating of these reviews forces me to reach for the much-diluted “Darn this movie, darn it all to hell” in labelling Wolf Creek, but be assured that I think much worse of it.  If nothing else, it cuts short this review, so that I can stop thinking about the film.

  • Nightcrawler (2014)

    Nightcrawler (2014)

    (Netflix Streaming, November 2015) The concept of the anti-hero is retooled with vigour in Nightcrawler, thanks to a terrific collaboration between writer/director Dan Gilroy and another exceptional performance by Jake Gyllenhaal.  Taking place in modern Los Angeles (now illuminated at night by bright-white LED streetlamps) where competing news stations are literally out for blood, Nightcrawler is first and foremost the character study of a modern sociopath, one whose ambition is fueled by personal-growth Internet sites, a complete lack of morals and a world that gleefully applauds the result of his efforts.  Gyllenhaal is phenomenal in the lead hustler role, portraying a deeply wrong character with almost-complete detachment: the film’s best scene is a “simple” dinner date in which a human relationships is dissected to its most self-interested axioms.  Otherwise, much of the film is spent in the streets of Los Angeles at night, chasing accidents and selling video footage to the highest bidder.  It’s a nightmarish but well-executed film, Gilroy showing talent at his first directorial effort –and showcasing his wife Rene Russo in one of the best roles she’s had in years.  There’s quite a bit of depth in the way Nightcrawler also engages with issues of degenerate capitalism, social voyeurism and media fearmongering.  It’s quite a film, but also quite an experience in how it refuses to see things from outside its lead character’s perspective.  Don’t be surprised if you want to shower after watching it.

  • My Name is Bruce (2007)

    My Name is Bruce (2007)

    (On Cable TV, November 2015) Is it still a dumb B-movie if it knows and celebrates that it’s a dumb B-movie?  My Name is Bruce offers an easy answer to that question (“YES!”) but doesn’t necessarily dismiss the follow-up question: Are we wasting our lives watching dumb B-movies?  Much of the answer that that question, in the case of this film, will hinge on whether you like Bruce Campbell in his full self-aware auto-referential glory.  Here, a Bruce Campbell caricature (obviously played by Bruce Campbell, who also directs and co-produces) is asked for help by a small town terrified of a monster it unleashed.  But Campbell-the-character is an incorrigible lecherous coward who’s going to have to grow up quickly if he’s to defeat the menace and escape with his life.  The formula here couldn’t be more familiar, and even the film’s winking self-awareness doesn’t exactly make it anything but a low-budget dumb B-movie.  Campbell does have quite a bit of self-deprecating charm, but it may not be sufficient to convince those in the audience who have previously come to the conclusion that shlock is shlock, no matter how often it acknowledges that it’s shlock.  (If it didn’t want to be shlock, then it should feel free to be something else.)  My Name is Bruce can be amusing, but it can also be exasperating in the way it recycles most of the clichés in the book, wallows in low-budget production techniques and can’t be bothered to go beyond the most obvious jokes.  There’s clearly a financial calculation here (as is; how cheaply can the movie be made and still bring in a profit or intangible fan love for Campbell?) that doesn’t help My Name is Bruce distinguish itself from the very type of movie it’s trying to skewer.  Campbell is, bluntly speaking, much better than this.  But he has accurately figured out that this is his bread-and-butter, and that fans of those movies are the ones most likely to flock to a movie directed by Campbell.  It’s perilously close to a vanity project, but at least Campbell fans will get exactly what they say they want from him. 

  • Big Eyes (2014)

    Big Eyes (2014)

    (On Cable TV, November 2015) At first, it may be curious to see director Tim Burton, best known for visually inventive film, tackle a “simple” biographical film about an artist.  But that assessment ignores two things: first, how Burton is a dedicated real-life fan of Margaret Keane (to the point of having commissioned at least one painting from her); but also how the story of Keane, long denied credits for paintings due to her husband claiming that he was the true artist, would resonate so deeply with fellow visual-artist Burton.  So it is that despite the low-spectacle visuals of a realistic biography (albeit featuring an unexpected use of visual effects in a short oneiric scene), you can feel Burton engage with his subject and, in doing so, deliver one of his best films in years.  This being said, this isn’t necessarily a masterpiece: De-glammed Amy Adams is very good as Keane, but Christopher Waltz’s manic interpretation of her monstrously egomaniac husband often veers too close to cheap caricature thanks to a narrative firmly beholden to Margaret Keane’s point of view.  Despite the rightfulness of this viewpoint, the film seems to make too many cheap jabs and dilute its own effectiveness in doing so.  Still, the story works and so does the film in general.  The change of pace does Burton good, even though it may mean that Big Eyes doesn’t get half the attention that his other more genre-driven films do. 

  • Horns (2013)

    Horns (2013)

    (On Cable TV, November 2015) Tone control is a tricky thing, and few films show this as well as Horns.  Adapting Joe Hill’s novel is not an easy proposition, considering how the book veers between comedy and horror and heartfelt redemption story.  Novelists can usually control tone better than directors: prose works differently, and what shows up on-screen often suffers from excessive literalism.  So it is that while Horns’ screenplay considerably simplifies and strengthens the book’s story (to the point where reading a synopsis of the book can feel like a comedy of overstuffed plotlines), this big-screen version can’t quite manage its transition from comedy to horror.  The film is best in its first half, as our protagonist discovers that he’s been cursed with invisible horns, the power of persuasion and a gift for allowing strangers to tell them their deepest secrets.  This leads to a number of very funny sequences, but those laughs get fewer and fewer as his newfound powers lead him to understand what happened on the night of his girlfriend’s murder –a murder for which he’s the prime suspect.  Chaos engulfs his small town, friends turn to enemies, parents can’t be trusted and the secrets he discover may not be the ones he wants to hear about.  Daniel Radcliffe is quite good in the lead role, with Juno Temple being as angelic as she can be as the (idealized?) dead girlfriend.  Despite Horns’ problems, this is Alexandre Aja’s least repulsive film yet and one that suggests that he may have a future beyond genre-horror shlock.   

  • Kill Me Three Times (2014)

    Kill Me Three Times (2014)

    (On Cable TV, November 2015) Chronologically-challenged crime comedies have been a sub-genre for almost two decades since Pulp Fiction popularized the form, and even the best examples of the genre still seem to labour under the shadow of Tarantino.  But as with every sub-genre, it does have its specific pleasures to offer to fans.  Australian effort Kill Me Three Times doesn’t re-invent anything, but it does play the game competently enough, and offers as a bonus Simon Pegg in an unusually villainous role.  Much of the story is your genre-standard mix of vengeance, corrupt cops, murderous couples, coveted bags of money and characters left for dead.  The story reboots three times, and the result doesn’t aim much higher than being a competent genre exercise.  As such, your evaluation of Kill Me Three Times will hinge on your overall tolerance for such crime comedies and improbable plot twists.  Fans will appreciate the result, what with its unusual Australian scenery and go-for-broke forward narrative rhythm: Director Kriv Stenders keeps things moving even when he’s rewinding to tells his story from another point of view.  Simon Pegg clearly has fun playing the black-clad imperturbable assassin, while Alice Braga makes for a sympathetic damsel-in-distress.  Otherwise, Kill Me Three Times fills up an unassuming evening of sunny Australian noir comedy.  It could have been much, much worse.

  • Violet & Daisy (2011)

    Violet & Daisy (2011)

    (On Cable TV, November 2015) Alas, Violet & Daisy has more potential than actual success.  Taking place in a world with a clearly-defined criminal ecosystem that includes rates assassins, this is a film about two bubble-gum-popping teenagers working as killers, making money to splurge on the latest celebrity fashion.  Their lives, however, are put in question when they take on a contract on a man (James Gandolfini, sympathetic enough in one of his last roles) who seems curiously amenable to their deadly plans, going as far as making things as easy and comfortable for them as possible.  Writer/director/producer Geoffrey S. Fletcher clearly has quirkiness in mind in executing his film, but the result seems curiously tame and unbelievable at the same time, not taking enough chances to be interesting.  (Comparisons with John Wick, which also indulged in a comic-book universe of codified contract killers, are instructive.) It speaks volumes that, mere weeks after seeing the film, I can’t remember much of the conclusion or even anything beyond the first thirty minutes: It doesn’t help that after a machine-gun opening, the film settles down in an apartment and that even the subsequent gunfights can’t do much to go beyond the talky theater piece that the film becomes.  Reflecting the hit-and-miss script, Saoirse Ronan and Alexis Bledel don’t get to show much depth as the talkative teenagers seemingly wrestling with questions of morality and life goals.  While Violet & Daisy is amiable enough to be worth an unassuming look, there’s a tangible feeling that something is missing from the result –more exploitation, more depth, more craziness or more realism, but definitely something to take it out of its untenable middle-ground.

  • American Sniper (2014)

    American Sniper (2014)

    (On Cable TV, November 2015) In many mays, American Sniper was a genuine phenomenon in contemporary American cinema.  It’s one of the very, very few purely-realistic film to have been a box-office hit, without being a sequel or part of a franchise or incorporating speculative elements.  It’s also, even more remarkably, a box-office hit that made most of its money in the United States, reversing the usual domestic/foreign box-office ratio for blockbusters.  The reasons for both of those oddities quickly becomes obvious when watching the film, which is a conflicted paean to a fallen warrior.  An exchange about sheep, wolves and sheepdogs early on clearly establishes that this is a film aimed at the sheepdogs (or, more cynically, at the sheep thinking they’re sheepdogs), and as such does seem to align with typically conservative values in the culture war that currently dominates American discourse.  American Sniper, directed by old-school legend Clint Eastwood, was one of the few mainstream films to comfort conservatives in their values without necessarily annoying liberals who could appreciate the film’s portrayal of a veteran having trouble coping with the aftermath of his tours.  That the film is reasonably good helps in ensuring its success.  There are certainly plenty of issues with the result, though: Eastwood directs action sequences competently but not exceptionally; protagonist Chris Kyle is portrayed without many of the less-pleasant rough spots that more independent profiles of the man have outlined; the film seems to shy away from the last moments (and drama) of Kyle’s life.  But American Sniper worst reasonably well, provides Bradley Cooper with a terrific role, brings together a lot of issues that have preoccupied Americans for the past decade, and provides a fascinating glimpse into the self-righteous militaristic streak of American culture.  Any irresistible intention to argue about the film’s merit are part of its added appeal.

  • Mercury Rising (1998)

    Mercury Rising (1998)

    (On Cable TV, November 2015) I’ve been watching and enjoying so many late-nineties thrillers lately that I had begun to worry that I was losing my critical impartiality regarding the sub-genre.  Fortunately, here is Mercury Rising to remind me of what a bad movie of the form could be.  From a rather pedestrian premise (autistic kid solves problem that means that he’s cracked a top-secret encryption scheme; rogue elements of the government try to kill him; disgraced policeman steps in to protect him), Mercury Rising is primarily a failure of execution.  Bruce Willis shows little energy in his role (echoing a lack of interest in most of the movies he’s taken on since 2010), while Alec Baldwin cackles as the villain.  The plot is borderline nonsensical, the action scenes are rote and whatever emotional resonance the film tries to wring out of its elements rings false.  The ending sequence is particularly bad, unconvincingly built from disparate soundstage elements.  Mercury Rising is formula-built, which wouldn’t so bad if it was competently executed.  But it isn’t, and despite Baldwin’s enjoyable turn as the antagonist, there isn’t much here to stay entertained. 

  • Mr. Bean’s Holiday (2007)

    Mr. Bean’s Holiday (2007)

    (On Cable TV, November 2015) I’ve never been a big fan of Mr. Bean (Rowan Atkinson in Blackadder, sure, but not Mr. Bean) and the first film didn’t do much to mollify me.  But there’s a strong streak of cleverness underneath the dumb physical humor and Mr. Bean’s Holidays clearly highlights the wit behind the pratfalls.  There are, to be sure, pratfalls a plenty as Bean makes his way south, through France in order to attend the Cannes film festival.  For what it’s worth, the film does bet better as it goes on: the first half-hour is pure Bean, but the last one gets satiric about cinema itself.  Willem Dafoe shows up as an intensely pretentious actor/director, and that leads us to a very funny Cannes preview of an insufferable arthouse films.  At another time, Bean shows up at the right time to screw up the shooting of a big WW2-themed commercial.  Those gets laughs that aren’t usually the kind associated with the Mr. Bean character.  The rest of the film is generally tolerable, with Atkinson’s mugging for the camera being supported by real comedy.  Mr. Bean’s Holidays does seem to be a bit better than the first film, which lost itself in trying to package Bean for an American audience –this time, he looks to be more in his element, in a film tailored to the character’s strengths.  Much of it starts to grate early, but there are a few gems in the film’s second half –enough to justify seeing the film even if your reaction to Bean is lukewarm at best.

  • The Babadook (2014)

    The Babadook (2014)

    (On Cable TV, November 2015) I’m not a big genre-horror fan (don’t like the gore, can’t stand the torture), but films like The Babadook are the kind of horror films that bring me back to the genre and defend it against knee-jerk condemnation.  What makes The Babadook different from other average examples of the genre is part conception and part execution.  Thanks to a clear vision by writer/director Jennifer Kent, this is a horror film with substance and it exist primarily to talk about things that go deeper that simple horror.  Beyond monsters and possession, it’s about grief and parental exhaustion as a mother must deal with a dead husband and an unruly son.  The Babadook backs up its intentions with crafty execution: there are a few very strong sequences here, and it takes a while to realize that despite this being a hard-core horror movie with genuine frightening material and somber subject matter, no humans actually die during the film.  The ending even manages to be more unsettling than the typical “evil is defeated… or is it?” that defines so much of the genre.  Essie Davis is exceptionally good in the lead role, and so is young Noah Wiseman in a turn deliberately designed to infuriate viewers into wishing the worst to the character.  (They should be careful what they ask for, though, because the film flips the endangerment later on, to unsettling results.)  One word of caution applies for maximum enjoyment: While The Babadook is strong in metaphors, viewers should be warned that it is about a real monster –trying to pretend that the film is a psychological thriller with no supernatural elements ends up diminishing the film’s ultimate impact.  This being said, The Babadook is a strong entry in a genre that’s seeing some pretty good years lately.  Bundle it with The Conjuring and It Follows for a trio of recent horror films that go beyond the usual genre conventions.

  • The Skeleton Key (2005)

    The Skeleton Key (2005)

    (On TV, November 2015) Sometimes, all that’s needed to save a film from pointlessness is a good ending.  The Skeleton Key is not, to be fair, an entire bad film.  It’s just that, for all of the magnificent bayou atmosphere of a story that largely takes place on an old plantation, it feels intensely formulaic for most of its duration.  So a young nurse (Kate Hudson, more unremarkable than sympathetic) moves in and discovers a pattern of abuse.  So she finds out about ancient hoodoo legends and digs deeper.  So she earns the enmity of the house’s matriarch.  It all points to a well-worn kind of ending… but then that’s not what happens.  What happens is, actually, kind of interesting.  Mean, but far more interesting than what one would expect from the rest of the film.  It doesn’t necessarily catapult The Skeleton Key into a magically better kind of film but it does rescue it from instant forgetfulness.  It’s nothing much, but at least it’s a little bit more than expected.