Author: Christian Sauvé

  • Dragon Eyes (2012)

    Dragon Eyes (2012)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, April 2013) Following a familiar formula isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but incompetently following a familiar formula seems even more inexcusable than in trying something new.  So it is that cheap direct-to-video Dragon Eyes manages to botch a dirt-simple “stranger comes to clean up town” plot template.  It’s not even particularly subtle in its presentation, as a sturdy asian protagonist walks in the middle of a black/latino gang-infested Louisiana neighborhood and starts picking fights with the local criminal element.  We eventually learn the back-story, but what initially seems like directorial stylishness eventually reveals itself to be pure incoherence.  Simply put, Dragon Eyes goes through the motions so automatically that crucial plot developments are forgotten and simply aren’t shown on-screen: the result is a story that is carried forward on pure assumed plotting knowledge: The viewers have to fill out missing scenes in their heads, since what is shown on-screen seeks to skip ahead (or back) without delivering the basic narrative building blocks.  From time to time, various visual flourishes keep our interest: Some action scenes (including a few lengthy fighting shots) are directed with some ambition, the opening credits are fine, some stylish freeze-frames introduce the characters (alas, without much final impact) and a few of the actors are clearly too good for the material given to them: Cung Le manages to remain intriguing as the dull protagonist, but Jean-Claude Van Damme steals the film as a grizzled mentor, while Peter Weller has a bit of fun as a criminal kingpin, and Crystal Mantecón is beautiful enough to make an impression despite a woefully underwritten love-interest role.  Dragon Eyes quickly becomes an irritant, a film that doesn’t quite know how to tell a basic story despite limiting itself to the barest bones of a narrative.  It begins in confusion, advances in incoherence and finishes without a satisfying wrap-up.  It ultimately doesn’t distinguish itself from countless other basic low-budget action films except for the fact that it doesn’t even deliver minimal viewing satisfaction.

  • Retreat (2011)

    Retreat (2011)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, April 2013) As far as intimate thrillers go, it’s hard to be purer in intent than Retreat: It features a mere handful of characters, and setting whose isolation becomes a crucial portion of the plot.  It begins when a married couple seek an escape from their troubles by spending a week on a deserted island, alone on an empty estate.  They are surprised by a solider claiming that a plague has swept through the globe in their absence, and that they must protect themselves against a possible intrusion.  Things get more complicated afterward, but no less tense as the married couple seems woefully unprepared to deal with their dangerous new companion.  Thandie Newton and Cillian Murphy headline the small cast: much of the film’s tension relies on the interactions between three characters.  The spatial restraint is such that one could easily imagine this story done as a theater piece.  The cold and damp setting works to the film’s claustrophobic advantage, and the script is occasionally ingenious in how it gradually ratchets up the tension without necessarily taking the obvious path.  (There’s a notable absence of sexual tension once that question is quickly defused, for instance) The conclusion may be a bit too nihilistic, but it does feature a nice reversal of expectations.  While Retreat may not be a likable film in the most conventional sense of the word, it is an interesting exercise in suspense, perhaps most effective as an antidote to a steady diet of higher-budgeted overblown thrillers.

  • ParaNorman (2012)

    ParaNorman (2012)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, April 2013)  I’ll be honest: there is little in the first half-hour of the film that I found pleasing or interesting.  Taking inspiration from the same goth-grotesque vein often tapped by early-era Tim Burton, ParaNorman first shows up with a deliberately ugly aesthetics sense, standard loner-protagonist tropes and cookie-cutter screenwriting.  It’s not badly made, but it’s not immediately compelling.  Fortunately, things do improve once the required pieces are put in place and before knowing it, the aesthetics of the film aren’t a problem, the character relationships take a life of their own and the film moves toward acquired emotional strengths.  Heck; by the end of the film, I found myself unexpectedly moved by the resolution of the antagonist’s plotline, and cheering along the plucky band of heroes as they faced against an intolerant mob.  Initial doubts aside, ParaNorman is an impressive piece of work, fully exploiting digital innovation in order to deliver top-quality stop-motion animation.  The heart of the script is at the right place despite the sometimes-grotesque imagery, and the result is the kind of young-teen kids’ film that any parent should be glad to put on the family playlist. 

  • Hope Springs (2012)

    Hope Springs (2012)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, April 2013) Obvious aimed at older audiences, this gently-paced comedy is about an older couple seeking to re-connect after decades of increasing neglect and disaffection.  Meryl Streep and Tommy Lee Jones (as the estranged couple) alongside Steve Carrell (as their therapist) lend star-power to a premise that could have gone just as naturally in a straight-to-TV film.  As a comedy, it’s low-laughs, high-heart stuff, as the couple repeatedly stumbles while trying to reconnect.  The look at mature relationships is unusual enough to be interesting (consider the film as a companion piece to This is 40) but this is in no way a wacky-hijinks comedy, and in fact it may be funny only because it ends on a happy note –much of the film could go either way.  There are few surprises in the script, which means that much of the film’s appeal rests squarely on Streep and Jones’ shoulders.  Fortunately, they’re veteran actors for a reason, and their sweetly vulnerable portrayal of an old couple is almost worth the time it takes to watch the film if you’re a fan of either actor.  Both end up playing far lesser-powered versions of their usual screen personas, and the result has a hum-drum domesticity that is almost surprising.  Jones’ character is so broadly defined as to court caricature at times, but he still makes it work; meanwhile, Streep conclusively demonstrates the potential sex-appeal of a sixty-something woman.  Many younger viewers won’t have the patience, interest span or life-experiences required to sit comfortably through the film, and that’s fine: Hope Springs may work best as a film targeted to older audiences.  It may not be an overly memorable film, but it’s not bad, and it has a few welcome reminders that romance can be rekindled.

  • Journey 2: The Mysterious Island (2012)

    Journey 2: The Mysterious Island (2012)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, April 2013) One of the most damaging assumptions in film reviewing is the idea that kids’ movies are allowed to be dumber than films aimed at adults.  Never mind the long list of great kids’ movies that can be used as counter-arguments: the “dumb is OK for kids” mentality encourages an acceptance of bad screenwriting that should not be allowed to go unchecked.  So it is that much of Journey 2: The Mysterious Island stands amongst the shoddiest, most poorly-justified pieces of screenwriting I have seen recently.  It doesn’t matter if the original film didn’t cry out for a sequel: this one stands alone and should have been put down until a better script came along.  Parts of it are as insulting to common sense as to defy explanation.  Could I ever manage to convey the inanity of the “three maps” superposition?  The bees segment?  The submarine thing?  The list of gross offenses against elementary logic grows long, but not as long as the unconvincing character dynamics and dumb dialogue.  But here’s the thing: Even if Journey 2 makes little sense from a narrative perspective, it’s pretty good in bits and pieces, as the special effects, set-pieces, charismatic actors and sense of adventure occasionally manage to paper over the dumb parts of the script.  Dwayne Johnson is preposterously charismatic as a lead: the “pecs pop” sequence would have been intolerable with any other actor, but he manages to anchor the film into a grander-than-life reality.  Josh Hutcherson (returning from the previous film) is a dud as a protagonist, but Luis Guzmán is amusing enough as the comic relief, Vanessa Hudgens is cute as the love interest and Michael Caine doesn’t embarrass himself too much despite the sub-par material given to him.  Fortunately, the special effects are there to take the slack and provide some interest in-between the preposterous writing.  Still, a few pretty sequences aren’t much to compensate for a dangerously stupid script.  The usual “kids’ movies are dumb” argument usually ends with a variation on “it’s fine for kids, but adults may want to do something else”.  Well, never mind that: adults should be able to watch films with their kids.  If even you find yourself bored or insulted by Journey 2, stop watching it immediately, and watch something better instead.

  • The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

    The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (Video on-demand, April 2013) Recasting J.R.R. Tolkien’s relatively slight The Hobbit into a massive action/adventure fantasy epic trilogy mold means that it’s best to forget about any meaningful book-to-screen comparisons.  It’s best to judge it as a follow-up to the Lord of the Rings movie trilogy, and assume that it’s going to be cast in the same mold.  In this light, first film An Unexpected Journey hits most of the expected notes by leisurely introducing the characters, sending them off on a quest and indulging into plenty of action-packed adventures.  None of it is presented economically, meaning that fans get a lot for their money and non-fans can find the whole thing overdrawn.  Still, much of what made The Lord of the Rings so successful is still visible here: the attention to detail, lavish set-pieces, depth of immersion in Middle-Earth… and the care with which Peter Jackson handles his directing duties.  It’s presented with a quasi-reverential respect for Tolkien’s mythology, and a great deal of excess in the way its action sequences are conceived and presented.  It fits rather well with the previous trilogy (something that the drawn-out prologues make sure to accomplish), ensuring that whoever expected a follow-up to Lord of the Rings is fully satisfied.  It’s not quite as good, but the most accurate comparison is to the countless imitators that have tried to recapture the success of Jackson’s trilogy: An Unexpected Journey is a markedly better work than most of the fantasy adventures that have popped up on-screen in the near-decade since Return of the King, and that’s a significant achievement in itself.  This newest trilogy won’t conclude for another two years, but no matter: it’s a safe bet to say that more of the same is in store.

  • Lawless (2012)

    Lawless (2012)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, April 2013) As far as period crime-dramas go, Lawless offers a quasi-charming throwback to Prohibition-era booze bootleggers.  Adapted from a docu-fictive novel written by descendants of the bootleggers (Matt Bondurant’s The Wettest Country in the World) Lawless obviously takes the side of the hero bootleggers as they face off against the real criminals and the corrupt self-righteous representatives of the law.  This is a romanced view of criminal activity, and while Lawless attempts something more than the usual crime drama, it doesn’t have the heft or scope required to produce a memorable result.  Still, what’s on-screen isn’t too bad, especially when Lawless takes a few moments to indulge in its rural-Virginia setting.  It helps that the cast is so impressive: between brother-outlaws played by Tom Hardy and Shia Labeouf, an extended cameo by Gary Oldman, an evil turn from Guy Pearce and a love interest played by Jessica Chastain, Lawless has enough star-power to keep anyone interested.  (Hardy’s portrayal of an almost-comically-gruff character is a standout, as is Pearce’s repellent antagonist.) Still, the film’s biggest asset is in its somewhat-sympathetic portrait of moonshine production.  Our outlaw heroes aren’t sadistic or repellant: they use the minimal possible amount of violence as a tool to keep things tidy in the pursuit of an extra buck.  Occasional moments of significant violence are almost expected for the genre, while lengthier lulls in the pacing sap away some of the film’s energy on the way to attempt a more ambitious kind of film. Lawless ends up falling between two chairs, never completely happy to stick to an entertaining crime drama, while never having quite what it takes to become a criminal epic for the ages.  Lawless will have to settle for a good-enough film, probably more disposable than the filmmakers intended (what film isn’t?) but still reasonably entertaining in its own right.

  • Dredd (2012)

    Dredd (2012)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (Video on Demand, April 2013) One thing is for sure: As a take on the British comic-book character Judge Dredd, this is quite a bit better than the 1995 Sylvester Stallone film.  Dredd dispenses with its protagonist’s origin story, overt character development and even heroically refuses to show his entire face: the result is quite a bit closer to the intention of the original comic book material.  It helps that producer Alex Garland has been able to put together a day-in-the-life action film that stands alone absent any connections to the wider Dredd mythology: Pete Travis’ direction shows occasional flourishes, and the action cleverly focuses on a single megaskyscraper taken over by criminals.  It falls to Judge Dredd (Thanklessly played by Karl Urban, who never removes his eye-obscuring helmet) and trainee Cassandra Anderson (adorably chimpmunk-faced Olivia Thirlby) to clean up the mess, even as they go against a powerful drug lord (Lena Headley, faaaar from her Game of Thrones role) and entire floors of hardened criminals.  Other than the dystopian setting, the film’s biggest SF device is a “Slo-Mo” drug that slows down perception to 1% of current time –visually presented with sparkly ultra-so-motion.  The action set-pieces are numerous and decently handled, even often beautiful despite the substantial gore that they portray.  If nothing else, Dredd is a fine action film, not flawless (the early scenes outside the apartment building betray a small budget) but stylish enough at a time when there are so many cookie-cutter films of the sort.  Fans of the over-the-top comic book series may be disappointed to see that the film doesn’t have the resources to indulge in the universe’s wilder facets, nor the audience familiarity to be as cuttingly sarcastic about its own premise.  But Dredd ought to please a wider audience than just the comic book fans, and that’s an honorable result given what happens to most comic-book-inspired films.

  • Moonrise Kingdom (2012)

    Moonrise Kingdom (2012)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, April 2013) I had trouble enjoying writer/director Wes Anderson’s earliest films, but with 2007’s Fantastic Mr. Fox and now Moonrise Kingdom, things may be turning around. I’m not the same person who saw Anderson’s first films as they appeared in theaters, obviously, and Moonrise Kingdom is a lot like Fantastic Mr. Fox in that it takes Anderson’s fascination for the twee presentation of flawed characters and puts them in a more broadly accessible context than, say, The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou. Simply put, here we get kids acting like adults rather than adults acting like kids and that makes a huge difference: As Moonrise Kingdom follows the repercussions of two 12-year-olds eloping together, the film feels charming, comic and affectionate at once. A strong cast of eccentric adult characters (Bruce Willis as a policeman, a pitch-perfect Edward Norton as scoutmaster, hangdog Bill Murray, Tilda Swinton as a social services meddler) acts as a good foil for teenage protagonists Jared Gilman and Kara Hayward. Moonrise Kingdom’s whimsical tone seems perfectly controlled, and it’s hard to watch the film without looking forward to the next trick to come out of Anderson’s fertile imagination. It’s an odd film, with comparisons to be found mainly in Anderson’s cinematography (well, maybe that of Jared Hess as well), but it works better than it should. I’m calling Moonrise Kingdom a pleasant surprise, especially given that I expected practically nothing from it.  I may, however, expect more from Anderson in the future.

  • The Fugitive (1993)

    The Fugitive (1993)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On TV, April 2013) The true mark of a film isn’t to be found in its premise as much as its execution, and twenty years after its theatrical release, The Fugitive remains as slick and tightly-paced as ever was.  The cars are starting to look dated, the Internet isn’t there to speed up the information-gathering but no matter: it’s a well-made film, with a few good suspense sequences and compelling writing.  The protagonist is smart, the antagonist equally so, and the plot is able to wring a lot of excitement out of a series of near-misses. Vintage-era Harrison Ford is pretty good as the titular fugitive, while Tommy Lee Jones solidified his onscreen personae with his dogged portrayal of a determined federal marshal. (Elsewhere in the film, keep your eyes open for a short role for pre-fame Julianne Moore)  The cinematography is crisp, the city of Chicago is used to good effect and the pacing seldom lets go. All elements combine to make a familiar premise feel fresh and exciting: Twenty years later, thrillers still don’t get much better than The Fugitive.

  • The Chronicles of Riddick: Dark Fury (2004)

    The Chronicles of Riddick: Dark Fury (2004)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, April 2013) Even setting the bar low for a direct-to-video animated feature meant to bridge between two movies in a series (Pitch Black and The Chronicles of Riddick), there really isn’t much to say about Dark Fury: Narration-wise, it’s almost completely useless as a bridge between the two films, and doesn’t do much considered by itself: it’s a standard “hero kills a few more things in-between bigger adventures” plot, stretched over 35 minutes. Visually, I’m not a fan of Peter Chung’s anime-inspired aesthetics -extended limbs and all- and the blending of 2D with 3D elements feels amateurish at time. Dark Fury just lies there, inert, as a sop for fans of the character and the hope of delivering a pre-manufactured franchise to the masses.

  • Anna Karenina (2012)

    Anna Karenina (2012)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (Video On-demand, March 2013) Director Joe Wright has always shown tendencies toward stylistic show-boating, and the first half-hour of Anna Karenina is crammed with directorial flourishes as the film moves in-between interior sets and a larger theatrical stage. As a way to freshly present an oft-told story (Tolstoy’s novel has been adapted to the big screen at least 12 times until now), it’s not a bad choice –except that there seems to be little rhyme or reason to the device, and it seems to be half-abandoned as the film progresses.  While viewers who like a bit of cinematic flourish may be pleased by the way Wright plays along with conventions, it does obscure the story and turns the film into something it’s not meant to be. It also obscures the good work done by the actors, including Keira Knightley in the titular role and Jude Law as her despairing husband. (Meanwhile, Aaron Taylor-Johnson’s mustache steals the show for none-so-positive reasons.)  The costumes are sumptuous and the visuals occasionally evoke a nicely idealized view of 19th century Russian aristocracy, but the self-conscious artificiality of the film’s presentation work at undercutting the impact of those.  As a take on familiar material, this 2012 version of Anna Karenina isn’t ugly to look at… but it’s quite a bit abstract when it starts messing with the way movies are presented, and that may not necessarily work at a romantic drama’s advantage.

  • Lincoln (2012)

    Lincoln (2012)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (Video On-demand, March 2013) In the stream of critical adulation for Lincoln, mark me down as undecided: Maybe it’s because I’m not American, but this presidential biography feels flat, dark and dull compared to the material’s potential. I am not objecting to the film’s initial refusal to bow to the mythology of the character: some of Lincoln’s best moments come in presenting the president as a canny politician rather than a heroic folk-figure. Unfortunately, Lincoln gets more self-important as it advances, yet still feels unnecessarily dull throughout. The dark cinematography doesn’t help things, and while the film is not bad at building a political thriller about the passing of a bill rather than a fully satisfying portrait of a historical figure, it still feels overblown for what it tries to do. At least Daniel Day-Lewis is exceptional as Lincoln, presenting a solid portrayal that manages to combine both Lincoln’s historical importance with a sense of the man behind the myth.  (The supporting cast is also very strong, with special mention to Tommy Lee Jones’ Thaddeus Stevens)  Still, Lincoln fails to fully satisfying: Perhaps too long, perhaps too leisurely, perhaps too ordinary for a film signed by Steven Spielberg.

  • The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

    The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, March 2013) Here is the key to this film’s seemingly-pointless existence: A long time ago, before it took ownership of its characters’ movies rights (a process that eventually led to The Avengers), Marvel sold the rights to the Spider-Man character to Fox studios, with a clause saying that movies about the character had to be produced every few years, otherwise the rights would revert to Marvel.  Combine that with the fact that the original cast members of the Spider-Man trilogy have all gone out of contract and into a much higher income profile and you get a perfect excuse for a reboot, whether you like the idea or not.  Ten years is a long time when it comes to the teenage audiences at which the Spider-Man films are aimed.  So it is that The Amazing Spider-Man is nearly a plot-beat-per-plot-beat rethread of 2002’s Spider-Man.  You’d think that modern audiences, familiarized with superheroes through fifteen years’ worth of such films, could be spared another origins story… but no.  Still, a reboot may be a disappointment, but it’s not necessarily a substantial knock against the finished film: it’s all about the execution, and a deft take on familiar ideas can outshine plodding originality most of the time.  Sadly, the biggest problem with The Amazing Spider-Man is that it can’t be trusted to present a satisfying version of the Spider-Man mythology.  It doesn’t do much with the expected elements of the Spider-Man origins story, and by strongly suggesting that non-nerdy Peter Parker is meant to become Spider-Man, it seriously undermines one of the charms of the everyman character.  This, added to evidence of late tampering with the script (as in: the trailers show more than what’s in the finished film) and the obvious non-resolution of enough plot-lines to point the way to a film trilogy, make The Amazing Spider-Man such a disappointing experience.  Oh, it’s not as if the film is worthless: The two lead actors are better than the previous trilogy’s lead actors even when they’re not given equally-good material (poor Emma Stone doesn’t have much to do than show off her knees), director Marc Webb has a good eye and the wall-to-wall special effects show how much the industry has improved in ten years.  This Spider-Man has better quips (one of the characteristics that establish him as a distinct alter-ego from Peter Parker), Rhys Ifans is intriguing as the mad-scientist villain and the film is slickly-made.  Still, from a storytelling standpoint, it seems as if all the worst choices were made in the service of a mechanically-conceived piece of pop-culture merchandizing.  It’s entertaining enough, but it could have been so much better…

  • Men in Black 3 (2012)

    Men in Black 3 (2012)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, March 2013) Nobody was asking for a third Men in Black installment after the disaster that was 2002’s second film, but here we are: Will Smith wants another box-office hit, and this is the best franchise he’s got.  To be fair, the Men in Black concept is still strong: it’s a great framework through which to combine humor, gadgets, action, special effects and the occasional bit of awe at the strangeness of the universe.  When it clicks, Men in Black 3 is able to touch upon all of those strengths.  Alas, it doesn’t always do so, and whatever strong points it has often seem accidental thanks to the ego of a few of the people involved.  Let’s start with elements of the premise, which sees both lead characters reprise the same character dynamics despite a ten-year gap: Will Smith is still playing his character (heck, his entire screen persona) as a mid-twenties smart-ass, which wears increasingly thin for someone in his mid-forties.  Does it make sense that his character (still single) should still have the same relationship with his job partner a decade later?  Who knows: at least it sets up a laborious series of scenes all reminding us that Tommy Lee Jones’ character is emotionless.  After a surprisingly gory opening sequence and some obnoxious flaying around, Men in Black 3 finally hits its stride when it sends its protagonist back in time: Milking the era for a few Mad-Men-in-Black jokes, it also has fun reconceptualising the MIB agency in an earlier time.  Josh Brolin makes for a droll younger Tommy Lee Jones, while some of the considerations surrounding the improbability of even the most mundane events are good for a bit of sci-fi pop-philosophy.  The time-traveling elements are used in a manner that is both ingenious and nonsensical (don’t be surprised if your suspension of disbelief snaps at a crucial junction, because it really doesn’t make sense even with a neuralizer.)  It doesn’t help that Barry Sonnenfeld is at his usual inconsistent best: While he can handle comic set-pieces and great visuals with a deft touch, he’s all-too-often likely to include head-scratching diversions and meaningless details good only for making us wonder why.  Tallying the pluses against the minuses, we end up with a film that’s generally better than its predecessor, with enough high points (and an absence of truly bad points) to make it worth a look.  It’s not a complete success, but it’s quite a bit better than anyone was expecting given the film’s troubled production history and decade-distant awful predecessor.  See it as a buffet, and take only the parts that you like.