Author: Christian Sauvé

(In theaters, January 2004) This is a film that, yes, revolves around a murder investigation. Cops discover the body, accumulate clues, interrogate suspects and eventually catch the killer. But where Mystic River leaves more conventional crime thrillers behind is in how it doesn’t limit itself to just a genre story: By focusing on the victim and the impact of her death on friends and family, writer Brian Helgeland gives all the necessary material to director Clint Eastwood to craft a film with more ambitious goals. The result may not be perfect (the pacing is a bit too slow, and the ending is intentionally frustrating) but it’s still a good film. The cast is impressive (it’s hard to pick a favourite performance when you’ve got Sean Penn, Kevin Bacon, Tim Robbins and Lawrence Fishburne to choose from) and the investigation moves at a delicious pace. What’s not so compelling is the drama side of the equation, which beats up viewers over the head over and over again with the same points, symbolism and torpid pacing. Ironically enough, much of the same story could have been told without the childhood abuse tale that frames the film. The ending takes a quick turn toward tragedy as not all the guilty are punished and not all the innocents are given justice. But it’s a film with a lot of content, and some of it is bound to hit even as some manages to miss the target. Not bad.

(In theaters, January 2004) You don’t have to be a screenwriter to appreciate the achievement that is Love Actually, but it helps: It’s hard enough to juggle one or two plotlines that anyone with the guts to try to keep seven or eight such stories going at the same time must be congratulated for the effort. Not all subplots are as equally effective, but it doesn’t matter very much when they’re all wrapped in layers of such sugary holiday sweetness. Writer/Directory Richard Curtis succeeds more than he fails in producing a superior romantic comedy, one that is as funny as it is uplifting. He’s helped with a cast of stars (Hugh Grant, Liam Neeson and Colin Firth are as good as always), judicious pacing and a hip sensibility: I’m surely not the only one to find it very interesting that standing up to an “American bully” president would come across as a plot point worth cheering for. Rarely has there been such an effective holiday romantic comedy. One one level, Love Actually is pure manipulation; on the other, it’s truly effective. Bring the whole family or snuggle with your loved one, enjoy the minimalist elegance of the script or indulge in the unabashed sentimentality of it all.

(In theaters, January 2004) It happens once in a whileit once in a while: a low-budget film, helmed by someone somehow known to critics, featuring a veteran actor doing something different. Add to that some “naturalistic” cinematography, almost accidental directing, a paucity of dialogue and an unconventional bittersweet conclusion and you get an instant favourite amongst real critics. Meanwhile, general audiences and wannabe critics like myself are likely to remain unimpressed. There is, to be fair, a lot to like about Lost In Translation: Bill Murray’s hangdog melancholy is well-exploited, Scarlett Johansson is huggable and the various difficulties they having in coming to term with Japanese culture are a lot of fun to witness. (Heck, the culture shock alone is almost worth a viewing by itself, despite my own reservations about the rest of the film) But as the movie drags on to its conclusion, it’s hard to avoid thinking that two hours are a long time in which to tell something that doesn’t happen. Many scenes just drag on and on, not exactly helped by the overindulgent editing and Sofia Coppola’s approximate directing. The cinematography lacks crispness and the dialogues are in need of some further deliberation, but the languid pacing is by far the film’s worst characteristic. Halfway though the film, I had a mini-epiphany about realism versus polish in filmmaking, and the reasons why my vote was firmly on the unnatural side, but it didn’t seem as convincing once the credits rolled. Maybe I’ll revisit it one day, but one thing is for sure: There’s not much of a reason to watch this film again. It’s OK, and it’s likely to appeal far more to older viewers. Oh, and Academy voters. Go figure.

(On DVD, January 2004) If nothing else, martial arts fans should watch this film for the incredible pre-opening credit action sequence, a deeply impressive duel involving spears and burning logs waved around like sticks. Great stuff, especially given that it combines the film’s two biggest strengths: a crew that knows what it’s doing when it comes to kung-fu and fantastic images that makes this such a beautiful film to watch. Many of the subsequent scenes are quite good, but few of them attain the impact of the crazy opening sequence. It’s not such a beautiful film when it comes to the dialogue, though: As with many Asian films, the emotional registers of the film keep switching abruptly, the acting is a lot less subtle than Western movies and the dialogue is often of the on-the-nose variety with scarce place for nuances. Jet Li’s performance is dubbed in a fashion that brings to mind the worst William Shatner imper!son!nations!, though it’s unclear as to whether the flaw lies in the performance or the dub. Alas, the bare-bones DVD only features an English dub, not the original audio track. Very disappointing, even though the rest of the transfer is flawless. Of interest to martial arts fans, mostly.

(On DVD, January 2004) While I rather enjoyed this film, I’m not as enthusiastic about it than some of my esteemed fellow critics specializing in SF/Fantasy films. The main reason being that for all of its science-fictional trappings, Donnie Darko remains a work of fantasy, not speculative science fiction. The deliberately weird ending makes sort of a superficial sense, but doesn’t actually end up completing the causal loop suggested by the film’s fascination with time-travel. Still, even with that sour taste in mouth, there’s a lot to recommend here, from the tortured performance of Jake Gyllenhaal as the eponymous protagonist to the delightfully twisted visuals (have you ever seen an uglier rabbit?), darkly funny passages and acerbic dialogues. (Heck, even Drew Barrymore looks positively attractive in her goth intellectual role) It’s almost constantly interesting, even though the interest stems from the mystery and the mystery is simply sidelined at the end to make place for a weepy finale that is supposed to make everything seems all that much more significant. Eh. At least the rest of the film works well. The DVD contains a bunch of extras that were simply too numerous to review before it was time to return it. Don’t you hate it when that happens?

(In theaters, January 2004) Mix in a tragic love story, scenes of war and destruction, plenty of cameos from recognizable actors, lush landscapes, a quirky performance from an established star (Renée Zellweger, playing a character that squints less than usual) and plenty of historical period detail. What do you have? Why, a sign that it’s Oscar-bait season again. Granted, Cold Mountain is more entertaining than what you may imagine for a Civil War love story: There’s a lot more gunplay and nudity than I expected. There are some remarkable visuals (including a nightmarish, but historically accurate “crater of doom”), one big explosion, good performances and an interesting look at civilian life in the Deep South during that period. Jude Law is credible in a role in which every woman he meets wants him in their bed and Nicole Kidman has a good turn as a blonde Southern belle left to her own devices. Story-wise, though, this is a film with significant problems: huge coincidences are shamelessly used as plot drivers and the overall thrust of the story is quite predictable. As if that wasn’t enough, the episodic nature of the screenplay is a disappointment: whole sections could be cut out without any impact on the rest of the film. (Why yes, I’m thinking about the Natalie Portman “Sara” segment) It’s certainly not bad at all, but neither is it a masterpiece. Oscar-bait, like other type of films, can also be overrated.

(In theaters, January 2004) Tim Burton is known for the exuberant quality of his visual imagination, and if Big Fish is more sedate than usual in terms of eye-candy, it’s still certainly not a run-of-the-mill film. Alternating between realistic segments in which a young man faces his dying father and more lurid moments in which fantasies are presented on-screen, Big Fish inevitably comes to fuse both threads together in a moving finale. It’s the complete movie experience: You’ll laugh, you’ll cry, you’ll want to throw up (but only if you already have a splitting headache coming into the film). Albert Finney is effective as the narrator of his own life and Ewan MacGregor is a renewed delight as the hero of the tall tales being told. (And yet Helena Bonham Carter steals the show as a reclusive woman who may or may not be a witch) It’s not Burton’s best film: Often plodding along, sometimes not visually effective enough, it can disappoint as much as it pleases. But by being a celebration of the necessity of fantastic stories, Big Fish ends up forming a central part of Burton’s cinematic oeuvre. It will certainly play better to older and less jaded audiences, but it’s certainly hard to dismiss casually. Bits and pieces of it are likely to resonate a long time in viewers’ heads, much like for Burton’s other films.

(On DVD, January 2004) Much like Equilibrium, this rather good film received a confidential distribution in the United States, was never shown in Canada and quickly went to video as if it was unworthy of a wide release. Don’t believe the lack of marketing: Below is the kind of little B-movie gem that deserved a much, much bigger audience. A canny blend of WW2 submarine thriller and supernatural horror, Below is another one of director David Twohy’s unassuming but excellent films (see Timescape, The Arrival, Pitch Black, etc.). While you’re unlikely to recognize any of the names in the cast, don’t worry: The film is a slick piece of entertainment, a great crowd-pleaser with a few twists and plenty of extra chills. (Yay for the Lovecraft-reading sailor!) It slowly builds to a pretty intense situation, with just about every single submarine mishap in the way. Some darkly humorous situations (bong-bong-bong went the depth charge) are a highlight. Despite the relatively low budget, the film looks fantastic, with beautiful cinematography and nearly-perfect set design. A treat for anyone looking for those overlooked B-grade gems. Don’t miss it. The DVD contains an ordinary making-of featurette which doesn’t do to much to compensate for the sparse and jokey audio commentary: Director Twohy and the cast members present at the track’s recording don’t take the film very seriously and seem more intent on being sarcastic than informative.

(On DVD, January 2004) Surprisingly enjoyable “black comedy” that will actually end up speaking volumes to just about everyone. The quasi-theatrical nature of the film is undermined by some silly sequences outside the barbershop itself, but the real strength of the film is in its delicious dialogue and the snappy interplay between the characters in the shop. Outrageous discussions spring freely between barbers and clients, resulting in a warm and likable film that works much better than anyone could expect. Ice Cube and Cedric the Entertainer both do excellent jobs in their roles, with particular props to the latter for a performance in which his natural persona is nearly unrecognizable. Eve also does quite well in a first acting role. The special edition DVD contains a wealth of material, including a bunch of truly interesting featurettes on not just the usual film-making process (including the difficulties in matching location shooting in freezing Chicago with interior footage in a Los Angeles studio), but also a few thoughts on costume design (Yay for Devon Patterson!) and a fun documentary on the recent evolution of male hairstyles. Truly a film worth seeing if you haven’t already done so.

(In theaters, January 2004) Tired of the cloying psychological manipulation so pervasive during the holidays? Counter-program it with the meanest Christmas film since Le Pere Noel Est Une Ordure. Here, Billy Bob Thornton plays a foul-mouthed, unkempt thief whose annual modus operandi involves playing along as a mall Santa while he and his diminutive accomplice scout the location for security weaknesses. So far so good, but it’s the utter disregard for any holiday sweetness that makes this film so enjoyable. “Rated R for pervasive language, strong sexual content and some violence”, indeed. Thornton’s performance is admirably foul, with Tony Cox and Bernie Mac all ably supporting (Meanwhile, Lauren Graham is adorable as a bartender with a Santa fetish). Heck, even the kid (Brett Kelly) is more creepy than he’s sympathetic, and that takes some guts nowadays. Suffice to say that for the longest time, the film refuses to bow to any kind of sentimental softening, faltering only at the end, at a point where even the most misanthropic viewer may be tempted to say that it’s about time. It is, in other words, a Christmas movie for those who are sick and tired of Christmas. Good fun, good jokes, a few uncomfortable moments redeemed by a few great lines and an overall sense of delightful nastiness. Strongly recommended for everyone likely to end up on Santa’s naughty list.