Movie Review

  • The Story of Three Loves (1953)

    The Story of Three Loves (1953)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, March 2021) As much as we can admire classic Hollywood’s greatest hits, talk fondly about its actors and follow the filmography of its directors, not every film of the era leaves a mark, even when it does feature great directors and a cast of known names. That’s the case with The Story of Three Loves given its severe structural issues: an anthology film composed of three segments, it suffers from the usual afflictions of such movies. The actors are only there for a third of the time, the tone shifts all over the place, the segments aren’t equally interesting, and there’s less time to attach ourselves to the characters, which is particularly bad in discussing character-based romance. Accordingly, perhaps, each segment has its own gimmick — from ballet dancing to body-switching to trapeze. Alas, the three segments also feel like short takes on topics that would be best approached in better full-length movies such as The Red Shoes, Big and Trapeze, respectively. Sure, there’s Kirk Douglas tearing up the screen, Leslie Caron speaking French and James Mason’s distinctive vocal cadence. But they’re not there for the entire film — in fact, they’re in three different segments. Vincente Minnelli directs one segment but not the others. Perhaps inevitably, The Story of Three Loves doesn’t leave much of an impression, nor much to chew upon. It is an eloquent example of what early-1950s MGM could bring to bear on a project, but it’s not, by itself, something particularly striking.

  • Days of Wine and Roses (1962)

    Days of Wine and Roses (1962)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, March 2021) Considering the gallons of alcohol apparently drunk on-screen during the Hollywood movies of the 1960s and the industry’s tolerance of the habit, it’s almost refreshing to see a film of the era squarely tackle the problems of alcoholism in a non-glamorous, often unsettling way. It all begins as our protagonist (Jack Lemmon, quite unlike other roles in his filmography) argues about the ethics of alcohol-fuelled schmoozing events with a likable secretary (Lee Remick, often quite good). One thing leads to another, and soon they’re not only married with a daughter, but chugging back heroic quantities of booze under the pretence of social drinking. He loses his job; she sets a fire to their apartment that almost kills her and their daughter. He realizes that he’s got no choice than to go sober — but she doesn’t see it that way. The initial breezy romantic comedy of the first few minutes eventually gives way to dramatic thunder-and-lightning dramatic scenes, glasshouse trashing and a runaway wife. This isn’t meant to be a comedy, and the haunting final shot suggests that the troubles are never going away. Lemmon is particularly interesting here, as his gift for comedy is used to get our sympathy, and then turn it inside out as his dramatic outbursts end up being even more striking because they feel out of character. Still, despite slightly misogynist notes in the screenplay, I think that Remick gets the best role as the teetotaller with addictive tendencies who gets overwhelmed by the overwhelming appeal of alcoholism — she goes from picture-perfect secretary to a wild-haired floozy in less than 90 minutes. (Both of them got Oscar nominations out of the film.) There’s some irony in seeing that the film is an early entry in director Blake Edwards’s filmography — alcohol fuels much of the comedy of his later films, but he himself became sober a year after wrapping up production on Days of Wine and Roses (there was apparently a lot of drinking going on during filming for him and Lemmon, who also went sober years later). While the film can’t resist exploitation and melodrama, it is unflinching about the cumulative damage of heavy drinking. The result is something that still has quite a bit of resonance today, and a welcome demonstration of what Lemmon and Remick could do with the right material.

  • Countryman (1982)

    Countryman (1982)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, February 2021) Some movies are more about atmosphere than plot, and that certainly applies to Countryman, a rather ordinary early-1980s action/adventure film that distinguishes itself by sole virtue of being made and set in Jamaica. Reggae music prominently features on the soundtrack, as a Jamaican action hero rescues an American woman and manages to overturn a plot by a dangerous colonel. Much of the film is a standard succession of low-octane chases and shootouts, but it’s proudly set in Jamaica with Rastafarian lingo (subtitles are suggested) and attitudes to match. The hero is unusually humanist by action movie standards, eschewing violence in an attempt to reinforce Bob Marley’s message of peace, love and understanding. It’s quite an unusual mixture, and I wouldn’t be opposed to seeing a modernized update and the same attitude toward action films. The technical production values are very, very rough, but the soundtrack is amazing and the attitude is almost unlike anything else. Writer-director Dickie Jobson’s Countryman may be a curio, but it’s an interesting curio.

  • The Swing of Things (2020)

    The Swing of Things (2020)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, February 2021) American sex comedies tend to be a hit-or-miss kind of genre, with far many more of them falling toward the “miss” end of the spectrum: Part of it is the very weird relationship that American society has with sexuality, torn between basic desire and puritan embarrassment. This often leads to sex comedies using humiliation as a primary comic device, just to make sure that no one enjoys themselves too much. When coupled with the ludicrous nature of the MPAA ratings system when it comes to sexuality, which either classifies things as pornographic or not, there’s a wide chasm between what films may want to talk about and what can be seen on-screen. Then there’s the third factor, which is terminal laziness whenever salacious topics are brought up: American sex comedies think it’s enough to use coarse language, bare skin and call it a day — after all, aren’t viewers going to be satisfied with just that? I’ll stop the analytical enumeration right here before it turns into a Ted Talk, but suffice to say that The Swing of Things ends up at the intersection of all three issues, with the laziness factor being the dominant reason for the film’s overall muted impact. The premise is contrived but simple enough, as two families heading south for a destination wedding somehow end up as a swinger’s resort to celebrate the nuptials. Things then predictably fall apart, as the wedding couple is tested by temptations. Interestingly enough, the conclusion is quite a bit gentler than you’d expect, as the characters learn to live with their desires. (Much of the comedy also goes under the “old people having sex” trope, which is another thing that American society is weirded out about — but I promised that the Ted Talk was over, right?)  Still, The Swing of Thing is more interesting to analyze than to watch. Lazy bottom-basement filmmaking makes even the splendid Jamaican backdrops feel boring, and there’s never a spark of comic competence in the way director Matt Shapira handles the underwhelming script. Flat staging and actors left to their own devices can’t really help the result. While the script could have ben retooled to greater impact, this would have meant getting away from its juvenile attitude and fondness for humiliation. Nudity can’t save the film, and only highlights the need for creating the kind of acceptable social middle ground between comedy and pornography in which there can be honest (even comic) discussion about sexuality, desire, jealousy and the notion of infidelity. But really — I’m lending The Swing of Things far too much gravitas in associating it with those issues. It’s really just a silly sex comedy, and it’s probably best appreciated (or not) as such.

  • Brand New-U aka Identicals (2015)

    Brand New-U aka Identicals (2015)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, February 2021) My attitude toward Science Fiction movies is informed by decades of appreciation for the genre (especially in its written form), so I can be both a sympathetic audience and a merciless critic. Every time, I hope for the best… but often, I am scornfully disappointed. My optimism often translates in the hope that even a shaky opening will be redeemed later on, but this approach does not work with Brand New-U: whatever haziness there is about the premise, plotting, characters or tone during the opening moments either remains the same or gets worse as the film unfolds. As best as I can make sense of it, the narrative has something to do with a company offering cloning and replacing someone similar to you in their much-better lives. Even in so few words, the premise doesn’t make any sense — why would a company cater to the lower-class in offering to replace someone better and richer? Past takes on similar topics (think Seconds or Self/Less) have always explored the super-rich trade for obvious reasons. But such narrative haziness is among Brand New-U’s many failings, as I defy anyone to make sense of the characters in their multiple permutations, the meaningless finale, the torpid pacing of the film, the neon visuals or the irritating droning that make up most of the film’s soundtrack. Brand New-U wants to be more than just a cheap SF film, but it achieves even worse results — calling it incomprehensible may be pushing it too far when you can just say that it’s so unpleasant that no one wants to make sense of it. By the end, as nothing is wrapped up, I felt the hollow disappointment made so familiar by countless bad Science Fiction movies that can’t be bothered to master even the most basic elements of a good film. It’s a miserable experience and a stain on writer/director Simon Pummell’s filmography. Even as an optimistic ever-hopeful kind of SF fan, I’d rather not have Science Fiction movies if the alternative is something as terrible as Brand New-U.

  • Maximum Impact (2017)

    Maximum Impact (2017)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, February 2021) Coming from a parallel universe where humour is very different and plotting is pure melodramatic silliness, Maximum Impact is… no, wait: It comes from Russia, which explains everything. With apologies to any Russian readers, this is a film that revels in low-budget contrivances to produce something that barely satisfies the requirements for a feature film aimed at the basic direct-to-streaming market segment. Featuring a blend of Russian actors/bodybuilders and American actors often best known for their low-budget film appearances, Maximum Impact can’t quite figure out its own plot — it starts with a secret summit between American and Russian diplomats, then shifts gear to focus on the kidnapping of the American representative, even when the antagonist (a former TV martial arts star turned international terrorist?!) can’t quite decide what kind of mayhem he wants to create. To be fair, the film is meant to be funny —although the meaning of comedy here is intensely subjective and can’t always be distinguished from an awkward lack of competence. The American cast is just interesting enough to nudge viewers toward a casual watch — Tom Arnold, Danny Trejo, Kelly Hu, Eric Roberts (hilariously cast as an upper-echelon diplomat) and Bai Ling are a motley crew of B-movie goodness, and director Andrzej Bartkowiak is not an unknown quantity, even despite the eight years since his previous film. Unfortunately, even forgiving viewers will have a hard time liking the result in its funhouse conception of an action thriller. Sure, it’s fun to see Bai Ling act as a nymphomaniac intelligence official — but the film simply can’t create the kind of reality in which this is not awkward. Kelly Hu is likable, but she’s paired with the impassible Alexander Nevsky, creating a difficult mix. I strongly suspect that clashing cultural sensibilities may be to blame for much of the film’s execution problems, although a bad script is probably at the root of it all. I mean — Tom Arnold can be funny, but being saddled with a one-joke character (“I have to go to the bathroom! Again!”) is not the way to use him effectively. Despite the many problems of the film, what saves Maximum Impact from the worst is a rough idea of its own goofiness: even with the cross-cultural issues, the actors clearly aren’t playing seriously. Alas, the director can’t quite get a handle on its own material, so everything is stuck in a halfway state of restrained humour, low-budget action and awkward acting. Too bad: Maximum Impact is not worth a recommendation, but it’s not the worst movie I’ve seen today.

  • No One Lives (2012)

    No One Lives (2012)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, February 2021) Some movies seem custom-made to irritate me, and No One Lives threads perilously close to the point where I’d condemn the film entirely. It’s a horror film that plays rough: The violence is frequent and brutal, with pieces of people casually flying, spilling, exploding or flowing. It makes a protagonist out of an amoral serial killer that takes pride in the flamboyance of his evil and tries to get another character to follow in his footsteps. It’s largely shot at night in grimy environments. The plot doesn’t make sense if you think even slightly about it, depending on a paranoid vision of the world that only exists in horror movies. The line-by-line dialogue is frequently terrible, indulging in exasperating clichés. Perhaps worst of all, it’s far more interested in the detail of its gore than using horror to discuss larger topics. In other words, it has nearly everything that I truly hate about the dumbest variants of the horror genre — it’s the find of film that just makes me sad about humanity in general. Don’t watch No One Lives — it’s a nihilistic gore-fest that will only make your day worse. But even with that assessment, it does have one or two things to save it from worthlessness. The premise is mildly amusing, what with psychopath killers going after what they think is an easy mark in the form of a well-to-do travelling couple, only to realize that they’ve stumbled onto something much worse than they are. Then there is the above-average execution: director Ryuhei Kitamura is stuck with a terrible project, but his execution is dynamic and interesting even despite the gory interludes. Furthermore, Luke Evans is not badly cast as an utter psychopath. In other words, if you’re the kind of person who likes those movies, then this is a well-made movie in that genre. Too bad I’m not part of that group.

  • Irresistible (2020)

    Irresistible (2020)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, February 2021) I like political movies, but most of them are best appreciated years later, once the immediate political meaning gets less urgent and we’re left to appreciate the result without partisan passion. It doesn’t help that most political films tend to scrupulously avoid “taking a side” and that right now, my sympathies do not reside with an avoidance of current issues. Everyone welcomed Jon Stewart when he announced his intention to writer and direct political comedy Irresistible — Stewart knows his politics and makes no secret of his political allegiances, so anyone could expect the result to be more interesting than average. And it is, even though you have to be indulgent and tolerate some weird tonal shifts. The film begins as an insider Democratic consultant (Steve Carrel, quite good) travels to a small Wisconsin town to help elect a candidate on the strengths of a viral video. Soon enough, the Republicans respond in kind by sending one of their top operatives (Rose Byrne, perfect in a too-small nemesis role) and the media circus is on, with both parties sinking prodigious amounts of money in a local campaign, with the media circus that this implies. Unusually enough, there is A Twist to the entire thing that does give a surprising amount of rewatchability to the film and bolsters its comic credentials. The result is quite good, even though the comic shots fly in all directions and the comedy tone of the film fluctuates quite a bit. At times, the film indulges in some basic urban-dweller-in-a-small-town comedy of discomfort, while at others it goes for near-absurdity. (There’s not one, but two full-fledged ending credit fake-outs — fortunately, the most appropriate conclusion is eventually revealed.)  A decent-enough cast does well, with Chris Cooper rounding out the lead characters. Production values are good enough for a small-town atmosphere, while the direction is clear enough for a comedy. The pox-on-both-houses element of the conclusion is a wimp-out, but I strongly suspect that the film will age gracefully once (if!) we move away from the hyper-partisanship of the current political environment. Still, I enjoyed most of my time with Irresistible (bad, bad title), and look forward to Stewart’s next project.

  • And Now a Word from Our Sponsor (2013)

    And Now a Word from Our Sponsor (2013)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On TV, February 2021) The lineage going from Being There to And Now a Word from Our Sponsor is obvious. Both films feature central characters speaking in gnomic utterances that allow the other characters to pick and choose the meaning they want. While Being There’s character was a certifiable simple-minded innocent speaking in the familiar language of gardening, the protagonist of the later film is a brain-damaged ad executive who wakes up from a cerebrovascular incident, only able to speak in ad slogans. No, it’s not meant to make sense: this is a comedy, and I suppose that the larger point being made has something to do with how advertising takes over our brains and shapes our language. (I’m looking, or rather not looking forward to the movie in which the characters only speaking in memes and media quotes, but that could be too asinine to tolerate.)  In execution, the film often feels like a showy exercise in screenwriting and acting. I’m sure that writer Michael Hamilton-Wright must have high-fived himself in the mirror upon coming up with some of that stuff, but at times the film is obviously contrived to lead up to some punchlines. Fortunately, there’s Bruce Greenwood to convincingly deliver the material — and since the words don’t always manage to convey what he thinks, it’s all up to his body language to fill in the rest. Heck, you could even argue that this is close to a silent performance given how the content of the dialogue is so irrelevant. (The film’s end-credit sequence features an alternate take of the film’s single most impressive one-shot in which Greenwood sings his lengthy dialogue.)  Once you learn to accept the conceit, And Now a Word from Our Sponsor works in fits and spurts —the material between mom and daughter works well, even as the corporate takeover shenanigans are less convincing. (Although it does lead to a slogan-to-slogan verbal joust.)  Parker Posey looks wonderful in glasses and long hair, bolstering a role that does give her some good dramatic material to chew on. Still, director Zack Bernbaum’s work is more akin to a performance piece rather than something to authentically enjoy — there’s a feature-length air of “watch what I’m about to do!” that does entertain, but also reinforces the artifice of the story. The conclusion is what reinforces the parallels between this film and its more illustrious 1970s predecessor — like Chance Gardner, the last scene featuring our protagonist hops into magical realism to offer you a variety of possible interpretations. My own take is that in hearing a slogan repeated back to him, he has finally become one with the all-consuming noosphere—but I’ll let you figure out your own meaning.

  • Sonic the Hedgehog (2020)

    Sonic the Hedgehog (2020)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (Amazon Streaming, February 2021) The usual level of quality for videogame movies is so low that you can still wow people simply by sticking to a basic formula and executing it with some competence. At least that’s how I feel about Sonic the Hedgehog, a film that clearly leans on a buddy-comedy plot template assorted with some road-movie shenanigans and a spirited antagonist performance. It works rather well, but it does show that the way to adapt videogames is to focus on the character rather than spend too much time trying to replicate gameplay mechanics. James Marsden is a good choice as the lead human protagonist playing against the Sonic character — his ability to do comedy is well-known, and he’s got the leading-man look to make it credible. Opposite him and Sonic is Jim Carrey in one of his most exuberant roles in years as the ultra-smart, ultra-arrogant Dr. Robotnik, wild moustache included. Of course, this is a special effects film, and it’s simply remarkable that Sonic the Hedgehog was able to redo its character within months, based on negative audience feedback to the trailer. The film’s best moments are in a few action/comedy scenes showcasing Sonic’s ultra-fast reflexes (à la X-Men’s Quicksilver), either to arrange a bar fight or running away from missiles in mid-air. The film is clearly aimed at kids, but the family-friendly execution will ensure that the adults aren’t bored by the results. Sonic the Hedgehog’s success is not entirely due to a relief at what could have been — there are some honestly amusing sequences here, whether it’s Carrey hamming it up in a dance montage, or a car chase that gets increasingly ludicrous as it goes on. All told, I’m really not annoyed that it ends on a note promising a sequel — it’s good enough to deserve one.

  • Giulietta degli spiriti [Juliet of the Spirits] (1965)

    Giulietta degli spiriti [Juliet of the Spirits] (1965)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, February 2021) One of the hidden superpowers of being a movie reviewer is the ability to switch gears in appreciating a film when chunks of it don’t work. Writer-director Frederico Fellini’s Juliet of the Spirits is a typical Fellini: stylish and oneiric but not concerned about narrative values. It’s about a homely middle-aged housewife (Giulietta Masina, she of previous Fellini films such as La Strada and Nights of Cabiria) who discovers her husband’s infidelity and, though vivid reveries, musters up the courage to do something about it. Notable for being Fellini’s first colour film, Juliet of the Spirits shows the filmmaker fully indulging in the rich possibilities of colour for visual impact; paradoxically, it’s also a film deeply influenced by black-and-white cinematography, as many scenes—including the opening—are set in deep shadows. (This doesn’t always work to the film’s advantage, as the nighttime shots are grainy even as the daytime sequences are far more detailed.)  Considering the film’s frequent recourse to daydreams, it’s not a surprise if the narrative fabric of the film is thin and almost inconsequent: both the lead character and the film become alive when steeped into fantasy. At some point, I frankly stopped caring about the characters or the story and started focusing on the filmmaking technique used in the film. Fortunately, this is Fellini we’re talking about: there’s always something to see — including an amazing shot in which the camera looks at a mirror, sees the main character, pans to the character, then pans back to the mirror showing something else in a visually seamless but technically complex ballet. I didn’t feel much connection to the characters or the actors: while there’s some narratively effective material in the film’s last quarter, much of the film is primarily designed for visual impact. The female characters are, with the exception of the lead character, dressed and made-up in gaudy unattractive caricatures, heightening the lack of reality of the proceedings. But to be fair, I prefer seeing a meaningless visual fest over gritty cinema-verité, so I still got something out of Juliet of the Spirits despite not liking it a lot. Of course, I know what to expect with Fellini — I’m not sure I would have been so lenient had this been my first film of his, nor if it had been executed as neorealism.

  • Tijuana Jackson: Purpose Over Prison (2018)

    Tijuana Jackson: Purpose Over Prison (2018)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, February 2021) I’m perplexed by Tijuana Jackson: Purpose Over Prison, but I suspect that I’m missing a huge chunk of the context that would make the film as funny as it’s intended to be. Nominally the story of an ex-con trying his best to become a life coach, the film seems to be relying on something else as its entry point to the character — there’s apparently a whole series of sketches about the character that I haven’t seen, so that may explain it. But there’s also a social component to the film that I can’t grasp — the film’s portrayal of an ex-con’s attempt to go straight leads to a number of jokes that escaped me, or simply weren’t all that funny in the first place. I wasn’t particularly fond of the found-footage conceit either — it feels old and dated without offering much in terms of payoff, even though Shannon Dang is not bad as the student whose short film becomes more complex by the day. Romany Malco is likable enough in the title role, while Regina Hall does her usual good job as his ex-girlfriend/current parole officer. After a while, the film becomes significantly better — the early throat-clearing is completed, and the film can be free to explore its themes of rehabilitation and life-coach satire, and develop its lived-in atmosphere of how many Americans live near the poverty line with the odds stacked against them. Fortunately, this is a comedy and the ending does wrap things up well enough. Still, I can’t say what I enjoyed Tijuana Jackson a lot — it ends up being watchable, but the nagging feeling of missing about half the context remains annoying throughout.

  • The Three Caballeros (1944)

    The Three Caballeros (1944)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (Disney Streaming, February 2021) Considering the difficulties that World War II created for Disney Animation, it’s a near-miracle that a production as polished as The Three Caballeros would emerge from the company’s war years. Conceived as a homage to South America, the film loosely arranges its musical sketches (each one focused on a region of South America) around a loose conceit of having Donald Duck unwrap presents and become friends with other birds. I must have seen this film during childhood or (most likely) read hand-me-down books based on it, because parts of a few sketches felt very familiar — most notably the opening segment with “The Cold-Blooded Penguin.”  White the animation is quite good, perhaps the most noteworthy technical aspect of the production are the numerous and lengthy segments integrating live action with the animation, including Aurora “Sister of Carmen” Miranda signing up a storm with the animated birds. What must have been a fun opening of the cultural frontier to American audiences back in 1942 is now preceded by a cultural sensitivity warning on the Disney streaming service, warning us about the stereotypes to come. It doesn’t feel that bad or offensive, but then again, I’m not in the audience best placed to judge. You can still see in The Three Callaberos the legacy of Disney’s early “Silly Symphonies” shorts blending music and animation — while the result is not among the top tier (maybe not even the second tier) of Disney’s animated movies, it’s still fun enough to watch and even better to listen to.

  • Friday Foster (1975)

    Friday Foster (1975)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, February 2021) Pam Grier is worth a watch even in the most terrible of movies, but Friday Foster greatly exceeded my expectations. A proud product of the blaxploitation era, this is a film that doesn’t even try to hide what it’s built for — Pam Grier in a shower, showing ample side nudity before being attacked by a knife-wielding hitman? Check. A random fashion show showcasing beautiful black women? Check. An activist plot dealing with the en masse assassination of black politicians by white agitators? Check. Friday Foster knows what it’s about, and it’s not afraid to show it. The steady forward pacing feels suitably modern, even as the mid-1970s atmosphere can’t be denied, and the great cast (Yaphet Kotto, Carl Weathers, Scatman Crothers, even Eartha Kitt in a too-small role) is a lot of fun. Still, the film’s single best asset is Grier in a role almost tailored to her strengths as an action heroine. For all of her reputation as an icon, Grier didn’t star in that many movies during the 1970s and Friday Foster was the last of the “classics” she did for American Picture International. It’s also a role that gives her a little bit more to do than running and shooting: she gets to play mom, photographer, investigator, seducer and sex symbol. It’s not exactly what we’d consider a well-rounded leading role these days, but it was still a noticeable step up for black female actors establishing a viable popular cinema for black audiences. What’s more, the thematic concerns of the film run a bit deeper than many of its contemporaries, notably in postulating a deliberate attack against black political leadership. I’m not going to pretend that Friday Foster is a great movie, but as a late-blaxploitation film, it’s fun and almost impossible to stop watching once it gets going. Grier still gets most of the credit, but the rest of the film almost meets her at level.

  • The Island (1980)

    The Island (1980)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In French, On Cable TV, February 2021) Michael Caine’s career is so long and varied that his filmography has anything and everything in it, from the best to the worst. Fortunately, he’s usually charismatic enough to make even the terrible films somewhat watchable, and it’s that spirit that does sustain The Island through its dodgier moments. Caine here plays a journalist who, while investigating the Bermuda Triangle (remember that?), discovers a long-lost colony of pirates cut off from the world but with a steady job of hijacking ships. The ludicrousness of the concept can’t readily be assigned to the usual studio meddling — the screenplay is by novelist Peter Benchley adapting his own novel. But if the result is too contrived to be believable, the entire thing has its rewards — notably a climactic sequence in which a teeth-clenching Caine machine-guns an entire crew of pirates. It’s not much, but it’s an anthology moment for his fans. Otherwise, director Michael Ritchie’s The Island is forgettable early-1980s fluff, not entirely sure of its tone (horror or thriller?) and too far-fetched to be taken seriously.