Movie Review

  • Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (2004)

    Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (2004)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On DVD, May 2011) Will Ferrell’s usual kind of comedy leaves me cold, but various people kept telling me that Anchorman wasn’t just “any other Will Ferrell movie.”  They’re right, but not by much: While Anchorman does indeed feel like a more fully-featured comedy than “any other Will Ferrell movie”, in large part due to the comic intent to revisit the TV news universe of the seventies, it doesn’t stray too far away from the arrested adolescence, casual misogyny and profane nonsense that seems to characterise his career.  While Anchorman seemingly wants to be making some kind of statement about dumb patriarchy facing the rise of professional women, it does seem to enjoy making sexist jokes quite a bit and for the entire duration of the film.  What it does have running for it, however, is a large streak of absurdist comedy, a fair number of catchphrases (“Stay classy, San Diego”), the sense that there are a few attempts at characterization (Ferrell’s “Ron Burgundy” goes beyond being Ferrell to an actual comic character) and an all-out brawl that serves a better purpose as an on-screen reunion of several film comedians from Ben Stiller to Vince Vaughn to Tim Robbins.  Christina Applegate also holds her own against the boys of the picture, which isn’t a small achievement given how often she’s the butt of the jokes.  It’s not exactly a bad film, but it’s largely a useless one, and trying to listen to the DVD commentary only highlights that point.  The irony is that there’s a good film to be made about the golden time of “Action TV News” in the seventies… but Anchorman isn’t really interested in more than low comedy.

  • Due Date (2010)

    Due Date (2010)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On DVD, May 2011) The mismatched-traveling-companion thing has been a comedy staple for years, so it’s no real surprise if Due Date immediately feels familiar, and if its strengths lie elsewhere than originality.  Here, the premise seems custom-tailored for exploiting the comic personas of its two lead actors: Robert Downey Jr. as a high-strung professional prone to bursts of pure anger; and Zach Galifianakis as yet another supposedly-lovable loser.  The plot takes them on a transcontinental journey from Atlanta to Los Angeles, but that’s really an excuse to set up one comic situation after another as two men who can’t stand each other eventually learn to –well, no big surprise there.  Whether the film works hinges on how much you like those characters and the situation they get into: While Downey’s physical aggressiveness can be amusing, Galifianakis’s comic persona is more annoying than anything else, whereas the film’s constant drug-related jokes is enough to remind audiences that the current flavour for R-rated comedies seems to be frat-boy arrested development (Significantly, Due Date is billed as being from “the director of Old School and The Hangover”).  The film doesn’t have plot-holes as much as it has rigidly predetermined sequences in mind: There’s enough plot-fairy dust in there to choke anyone wondering why these two characters would keep staying together, or how long it takes to “detour” by the Mexican border.  There are, to be fair, a number of good sequences here and there: Jamie Foxx makes an entertaining cameo, and there is some impressive car stunt work for what is, after all, supposed to be just a regular comedy.  As a “regular comedy”, though, it falters in reaching for deeper emotional meaning: Attempts to raise tears don’t really work when the rest of Due Date feels so childish, and particularly fade when compared to Planes, Trains and Automobiles which is still the most relevant reference in the traveling-horrors comedy genre.

  • Fast Five aka The Fast and the Furious 5: Rio Heist (2011)

    Fast Five aka The Fast and the Furious 5: Rio Heist (2011)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In theaters, April 2011) My unexplainable love for The Fast and the Furious series suddenly gets a lot more explainable with this surprising fifth segment: Reaching well beyond the street-racing antics of the previous volumes and deeper into the criminal action/thriller mode, Fast Five manages to satisfyingly weave together plot threads and a dozen characters from the four previous films, while delivering inventive action sequences.  The prologue effectively sets the tone and the film’s lack of regard for physics: thus reassured, we can enjoy the rest of the film, the over-the-top action sequences, the reunion of the series regulars and the colourful Rio de Janeiro locale.  This has to be one of the best pure-action movies of the past few years: It’s snappy, it’s competent, it doesn’t take itself seriously and when it clicks, it really works.  Vin Diesel growls as well as he can, and he’s joined by Dwayne Johnson for a head-on collision between two of the most credible action heroes of the moment.  While the script isn’t perfect (a few lulls; a few nonsensical plot development; little refinement by way of dialogue), it’s pretty good at giving a few moments to everyone in the cast, at setting up the interesting action sequences, and even at winking at the audience: There are a number of inside jokes for series fans here, perhaps the biggest being a cut that skips over the film’s usual street-racing sequence.  The cars may not be as nice at the previous films, but the action sequences are quite a bit more striking.  I wish, however, that director Justin Lin would open up his action sequences a bit more, lay off the crazy editing and let the long-shots speak for themselves.  (Fortunately, he’s already much better now than in the previous two films.)  Don’t leave during the credits: there’s a short scene that will please series fans while setting up a promising sixth instalment.

    (Second viewing, Streaming, December 2025) Very few long-running movie franchise reinvented themselves so decisively nor so successfully than the Fast and the Furious franchise did in Fast Five. From four disconnected movies about street racers, this installment pulled plot threads and reinvented itself as a deliriously bombastic action franchise, constantly pushing back the limits of its stunts and thrills. At his third time in the director’s chair, Justin Lin is comfortable complementing big action spectacle with smaller character moments, and if the rest of the film is no slouch when it comes to action sequences, the big finale in which two car tow a safe and wreak havoc through Rio de Janeiro is an anthology piece. It was a joy to watch back in 2011 and it’s still an adrenaline jolt more than a decade later — and in retrospect it’s a gamble than handsomely paid off with at least two more follow-ups reaching the same heights before the series reached diminishing returns.

  • Legends of Flight (2010)

    Legends of Flight (2010)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In IMAX theaters, April 2011) I don’t see enough IMAX-3D films on the really-really big screen to be jaded, but not even the glorious 3D picture could manage to overwhelm my growing reservations about the Legends of Flight.  A thinly disguised promotional piece for the Boeing 787 Dreamliner as seen from the designer’s point of view, this documentary suffers from a number of annoyances that distract from its better moments.  On the plus side, there’s footage of the 787 in flight and a Harrier take-off; technical details about the evolution of aviation; and some stunning shots of a Boeing plant.  Alas, the rest of the film features photo-realistic CGI planes superposed over real-life landscapes, painfully cartoonish birds and bees, as well as some dizzying cinematography made worse by the 3D (Legends of Flight has a number of computer-generated transitions moments where the eye tries to focus on objects not meant to be focused on, and the effect can be a bit painful.)  Anyone hoping for a journalistic look at the 787’s conception will be disappointed, as everything is filtered through the Boeing marketing department: the Airbus 380 is dismissed, the 787’s problems are minimized and the entire thing is pompously titled Legends of Flight.  I still had a good time (that’s what not being jaded to IMAX-3D gets ya), but I’ve seen far, far better, starting with director Stephen Low’s own Fighter Pilot – Operation Red Flag.

  • Your Highness (2011)

    Your Highness (2011)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In theaters, April 2011) I was pretty sure I would loathe this film: After all, I really didn’t care for Pineapple Express, and this follow-up seemed to be heading for the same coarse stoner humour.  But I had forgotten that I dislike bad self-important heroic fantasy even more than I don’t care for stoner fantasy.  So that’s how I end up feeling relatively warm regarding Your Highness, which seems happy stuffing drugs, profanity and coarseness into a bog-standard fantasy premise.  It works better than anyone would expect, in no small part because the framework of the film itself works fine, and it features decent set-pieces (a coach pursuit action sequence more than holds its own when stripped of comic elements).  Otherwise, we get a deeply reluctant hero, a perverted mage, pervasive swearing, nudity, crudity and far too much gore for what’s supposed to be a light-hearted film. (As with Pineapple Express, there’s a feeling that a film as juvenile as Your Highness doesn’t actually deserve the level of gore that it features.) As a comedy operating at the edge of good taste, You Highness often over steps into material that goes beyond humour and into bad taste, hitting sexism, homophobia, immaturity and lameness along the way.  Danny McBride bears the brunt of the film’s humour as the foul-mouthed cowardly protagonist while James Franco is fine as the always-smiling hero, whereas neither Natalie Portman nor Zooey Deschanel embarrass themselves through their performance –although, mind you, Portman is playing the straight-woman, while Deschanel doesn’t have much to do except being the classic damsel-in-distress.  Otherwise, it’s not much of a film for the ages (I suspect that seeing it at the legendary Alamo Drafthouse helped a bit in assessing the film above its true value), but it’s certainly an interesting oddity in the movie landscape: Given the cost of fantasy films in general and their inconsistent level of commercial success, it’s almost mind-boggling that anyone took enough chances on the concept to see the film through to completion.  I suspect that Your Highness will appeal mainly to those who can’t take another ponderous high-fantasy film.  It’s not much as itself, but as an antidote to worse films, it’s almost refreshing.

  • Middle Men (2009)

    Middle Men (2009)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On DVD, April 2010) Some worthwhile films fall through the cracks, and this is one of them: A slick mixture of laughs and thrills set against the turn-of-the-century internet porn rush, Middle Men features slick editing, a snappy soundtrack, plenty of nudity, some good screenwriting, a surprising number of recognizable actors and slick cinematography to deliver a fairly enjoyable film.  The voice-over narration wraps up a film that pleasantly jumps back and forth in time (sometimes for mere seconds), explains the way pornography has been a significant factor in the internet’s popularization and reaffirms why doing business with the Russian mob is always a bad idea.  (The unrated DVD also has a bravura long-shot set at an orgy that actually manages to make a narrative point.)  Luke Wilson is the film’s likable protagonist, a businessman who accidentally becomes a porn mogul.  Surrounding him are such notables as James Caan as a crooked lawyer, Kelsey Grammer in a memorable one-scene sketch, Kevin Pollak as a sympathetic FBI agent and a near-unrecognizable Giovanni Ribisi as a paranoid inventor.  Taken on its own terms, Middle Men is a fast-paced film that feels considerably bigger than its small budget, with enough good narrative moments to leave a good impression.  It has a few flaws, like a few unnecessary emotional flashbacks, a too-innocent hero and a script that could have been tightened, but nothing major.  But the film isn’t the whole story: the behind-the-scenes drama is almost as interesting as the end result.  Some digging quickly reveals that Middle Men is not only based on a true story, but that the businessman whose story it is actually financed the production of the film itself… and lost most of its money when the movie failed at the box-office.  The post-film real story features accusations of fraud, broken bones and other unpleasantness… enough to set up a sequel or two.

  • Planet of the Apes (2001)

    Planet of the Apes (2001)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On DVD, April 2011) It’s not as if I deliberately waited ten years to see the Planet of the Apes remake, but considering that there was no reason for this “re-imagining” to exist and how savaged the film was upon its release, it’s not as if there was any reason to see it sooner.  No reason except filling up a spot on Tim Burton’s filmography, maybe: For all of his duds, Burton can usually be relied upon to present an original vision on-screen.  Alas, what ends up on the screen in Planet of the Apes feels like a cheap and dumb cardboard fantasy rather than a fully-developed universe.  The script itself has a number of problems, from a lack of complexity to ideas that were best abandoned in fifties Science-Fiction.  But it’s in the presentation of the apes that the film stumbles into the uncanny valley, with characters that sometimes look fine, sometimes look wrong and so never completely convince.  (I still don’t know what it means that I could recognize Paul Giamatti in full ape makeup)  The ape social system (and attendant human slavery) feels like a fable rather than a convincing concept, and the by-the-numbers nature of the film’s plotting is both convenient (apes can talk but they never learned how to swim!  What luck!) and numbing.  As if that wasn’t enough, Planet of the Apes ends with an epilogue that means to evoke chills in the Twilight Zone tradition, but only ends up sealing the film’s nonsensical lack of appeal.  Ten years later, well, there’s not much left in the remake: It may have been the tenth-grossing film of 2001, but the original still remains the cultural reference.  Anyone who hasn’t yet seen this one shouldn’t be in any hurry to do so.

  • Rio (2011)

    Rio (2011)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In theatres, April 2011) The possibilities of computer animation are in full bloom in this high-spirited, fizzy, highly enjoyable adventure starring talking songbirds.  The story has chases and romantic comedy plot points that we’ve seen dozens of times before, but they’re executed in such light-hearted fashion that it’s hard to be overly critical.  (Although there are two spitting gags that don’t really fit.)  From the spectacular opening musical number to the closing credits, Rio does honour to its namesake by being as vibrant and colourful as Brazil often feels.  And yet, for a film aimed at kids, it still manages to slip in a few socially-relevant mentions of animal smuggling and poverty in the favelas.  Still, the emphasis is on the animals, and that’s where the vocal performances matter.  Jesse Eisenberg is good as the socially-mystified hero, but his voice is, by now, so closely identified to an nebbish archetype that it can be distracting.  Meanwhile, wil.i.am and Jamie Foxx have the chance to sing a bit, while Anne Hathaway is generally unobjectionable as the other main character.  While Rio gains to points for audacity, it does the now-familiar animated-feature characteristics well: A few fast-paced action sequences, cute anthropomorphic characters, a humorous tone, some singing and dancing and a finale that wraps everything up.  It may not push the envelope like many of Pixar’s films, but it’s good enough to be pleasant and satisfying both to kids and adults.

  • Sucker Punch (2011)

    Sucker Punch (2011)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In theatres, April 2011) Zack Snyder’s first fully-original film after four successive adaptations of existing material isn’t a disaster as long as you have a short attention span.  Sucker Punch is, like 300, quite a bit of fun to look at: Nearly the entire film seems post-processed to a smooth deliberate gloss, hopping between two levels of reality and four fantasies in an attempt to say something about female empowerment in-between scantily-clad women.  At times, it works: The first few minutes shows a great example of wordless storytelling, blunt but effective in telling us how a young woman lands in an insane asylum, headed for lobotomy.  After that, Sucker Punch periodically presents us with elaborate visual fantasies in which our heroines take on Japanese samurais, World-War-One Germans, dragons and robots.  (That last sequence ambitiously attempts to combine a continuous series of action into a continuous-but-blurry shot.)  Taken by themselves, snippets of the film show to which extent movie reality can be altered for storytelling purposes and, at the very least, can be enough to recommend the film on a purely visual level.  It’s when those elements are meant to be combined together that Sucker Punch becomes less impressive than the sum of its parts: While the film wants to be a female empowerment statement, it still does so at a rudimentary level where the heroines are infantilized (“Baby Doll”, “Sweet Pea”), sexualized, armed and asked to show a lot of skin.  The film is also annoying, on a structural level, in how it sets itself up in a series of levels that have to be endured before anything dramatically interesting happens.  (Attempts to avoid referring to video games in discussing the film usually end in failure.)  Rumours of fifteen minutes of deleted scenes may explain the gradual incoherence of the ending, but they’re unlikely to address the gulf between the empowerment fantasies we’re asked to enjoy, and the horror at the center of the plot.  While Sucker Punch really wants to be like Brazil, it doesn’t have the maturity to pull off the dramatic ironies necessary to an owl-creeking, nor the discipline to make use of its levels of reality.  See the film for the pretty pictures if you must, but don’t expect anything particularly interesting –the most remarkable thing about Sucker Punch being how dull it can feel after a while.

  • Hanna (2011)

    Hanna (2011)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In theaters, April 2011) Strange things happen when dramatic directors take on genre filmmaking, not the least being unique takes on genre conventions.  Joe Wright is best known for Oscar-baiting dramas such as Atonement and Pride and Prejudice, so to see him take on the tale of a teenage assassin facing down rogue CIA operatives is a bit of a stretch.  The end result is definitely unconventional, as Wright tries to reconcile mainstream dramatic techniques with the demands of a genre thriller.  Some of the result works well: Wright wisely eschews frantic editing, and one of the film’s highlight is a continuous shot that brilliantly depicts a fight between a character and four antagonists.  The film makes effective use of a creepy abandoned park for its climax, and Saoirse Ronan is very good in the title role.  Unfortunately, viewers will have to be patient in-between the film’s rewards: Hanna’s pacing is lethargic, deadened by failed attempts at comic relief (never mind Hanna’s “fish out of water” subplot: I kept hoping for the irritating family of tourists to be terminated with extreme prejudice) and sunk by its own self-importance: The plot is slight, simple and inconsequential enough to be silly, except that Wright seems convinced that he’s telling An Important Story.  The film splats when it should zip along, and seems to call attention to its own cleverness: not bad as an experiment, but not much of a success as a stand-alone thriller.  Much like The Chemical Brother’s unusual score, Hanna is different and sometimes intriguing for what it brings to the standard thriller formula, but it never feels as compelling as straight-up genre entertainment.

  • I Am Number Four (2011)

    I Am Number Four (2011)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (Hotel pay-per-view, April 2011) Most movies are at least as much commerce than art, but for some films, the balance is so obviously tilted toward making money that it becomes difficult to see it as anything but a cynical cash-grab.  It’s impossible to watch I Am Number Four without being reminded that studios are still trying to mine popular teen/children’s series for a Twilight/Harry-Potter-like franchise.  (Count the failures that have not been followed by sequels: Eragon, Spiderwick Chronicles, Golden Compass, Lemony Snickett, Percy Jackson, etc…)  This case is even worse given how the film comes from a first volume in a book series cynically designed by James Frey’s “Full Fathom Five” creative factory as a deliberate attempt to cash in on the young-adult market.  It’s easy to see how the franchising mindset affects the product: The sub-literate SF premise of the series is soft fantasy executed through aliens, the writers going through ridiculous lengths to contain their stories within an American high school.  Everything is set up to lead to the next instalment, the usual teen-fiction narrative buttons pushed without subtlety along the way.  Perhaps the only saving grace of the finished product is that it’s reasonably well-made.  Director D.J. Caruso has done some good work before, and if this kind of for-hire work is a step down from clever thrillers like Disturbia and Eagle Eye, he’s able to give enough energy to the film to carry it past the laborious setup and the most predictable plot turns.  Only the CGI looks particularly overdone, without physicality or subtlety of movement.  As blatantly manipulative as it can be, I Am Number Four has a few good moments, and an antagonist that seems to be played with some self-aware irony –quite a change from the po-faced human characters all trying to be as blandly serious as possible.  While I Am Number Four is not particularly good, it’s not terrible either, and if you can ignore the blatant “first in a series” annoyances, it’s an average entry in the teen-fantasy genre.  Odds aren’t high that it’ll lead to a franchise, though.

  • Hobo with a Shotgun (2011)

    Hobo with a Shotgun (2011)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In theatres, April 2011) Second full feature to emerge from the Grindhouse trailers, Hobo with a Shotgun proudly embraces its exploitation raison d’être and delivers an old-fashioned schlocky action B-movie.  Shot in Nova Scotia (and partially financed with Canadian tax dollars), this conscious attempt to re-create violent movies from the eighties straddles a fine line between ironic comedy and earnest mayhem.  The title is the plot of the film, set in a city that recalls the worst paranoid fantasies about New York at its lowest point of urban decay: It’s useless to discuss narrative coherence in a film that’s not meant to have much of it.  Fortunately, the exploitation-movie tone is well-captured: While the film is extremely gory, the violence feels more absurdly ridiculous than disgusting –and considering that an element of the climax is a lead character stabbing a villain with the exposed bones of a maimed arm, that’s saying something.  In-between the overdone synth-heavy score, spitting melodrama, garish colors, buckets of blood, grainy pictures and ham-fisted sequences of gratuitous evil, it goes without saying that this film will appeal to a certain viewership: It takes a special kind of cinematographic literacy to enjoy the retro-VHS atmosphere that make up this film’s peculiar charm.  Rutger Hauer growls his way expertly in the title role, while the villains make faces at the camera and Molly Dunsworth does her job just looking cute.  The end could have used an epilogue, there are a few underwhelming sequences in the mix and it would have been nice if, like Machette, the film could have included some deeper social relevance, but otherwise, it’s hard to think of a recent film that achieves its aim as surely as Hobo with a Shotgun… even if those aims are far, far below those of respectable cinema.

  • Limitless (2011)

    Limitless (2011)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In theatres, April 2011) Newsflash : Smart movie about a smart man getting smarter pleases movie reviewer who think he’s smart.  Pro-intelligence biases made obvious, here’s what works in Limitless: a clever script that has way too much fun exploring the wish-fulfillment potential of artificially-enhanced intelligence; Neil Burger’s compelling direction; Bradley Cooper’s increasing stature as an actor who can do both charm and intelligence; an ending that’s considerably more upbeat than Alan Glynn’s source novel; and an overall attitude that, yes, more intelligence can actually be beneficial.  Even in indulging in such traditional faux-pas as voiceover narration and a flash-forward prologue, the script is witty, darkly amusing and ends on a high note.  Visually, Limitless deliberately flourishes along with its characters: the opening credits zoom-in alone is a thing of wonder.  There’s no doubt that Limitless could have been better: neither Abbie Cornish nor Robert de Niro have much to do; the main character isn’t as compelling as he should be; the ending is a bit rough (albeit kind of cool); some third-act revelations aren’t surprising and there are at least two really dumb plot holes that even moderately-smart viewers will be able to spot (ie: Always pay off your psychotic bookie first and Always secure your supply chain.)  Still, Limitless remains fun to watch and, significantly, marks the second of three decent SF film consecutively shown in theatres as of early April 2001 alongside The Adjustment Bureau and Source Code.  Who could complain?

  • Source Code (2011)

    Source Code (2011)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In theaters, April 2011) I wasn’t as fond of Duncan Jones’ Moon as a lot of people were, but I was really interested in seeing his follow-up effort, and Source Code does not disappoint.  The theme of the deceived protagonist is still there, the setting is just as constrained and the scientific premises is just as wobbly (not to mention a nonsensical title), but Jones here has a bigger budget, a bigger concept, bigger stars and a faster pace.  Ben Ripley’s disaster-movie premise script is ingenious, but it’s paired with other well-paced revelations and the interweaving of both plotlines is effectively achieved.  Jake Gyllenhaal is hitting his stride as a heroic protagonist, with good supporting work from Michelle Monaghan, Vera Farmiga and a halting Jeffrey Wright.  Still, the real star here is writer/director Jones, who delivers a fast, clever and entertaining film with some depth and artful gloss.  The ending manages to be elegiac and optimistic at once, and provides a surprising amount of thematic depth for what could have easily been a straight-up genre exercise.  We don’t get quite enough SF movies like Source Code, but given the boost it will give to Jones’ career, chances are that we will get a few more.

  • Son of Rambow (2007)

    Son of Rambow (2007)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On DVD, April 2011) I was probably expecting a bit too much of this one.  Son of Rambow got great reviews and good word of mouth, but ultimately remains a kind of film that doesn’t really do much for me: a coming-of-age adventure in filmmaking featuring an irritating pair of characters and a love of making movies that feels more self-centered than infectious.  When a flamboyant minor character takes over the film to a degree that feels as if the movie should revolve around him, it’s a sign that the main attraction isn’t working.  Son of Rambow feels unpolished, scattered and even unpleasant at times: the gags play on nostalgia for the early eighties and a particular affection for the first Rambo film, neither of which I have in abundant quantities.  What remains is a tepid comedy, sometimes enlivened by welcome cinematic flights of fancy.  I suspect that Son of Rambow will strike a deeper chord with other viewers, but as far as I’m concerned, it’s a bit of a snoozer.  The DVD supplements, including a making-of and an audio commentary track in which everyone and everything is brilliant or excellent, don’t do anything to make the film feel any better.