Bill Paxton

  • Innocent (2011)

    Innocent (2011)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On TV, May 2020) The main claim to fame for TV movie Innocent is being a belated sequel to the 1990 potboiler thriller Presumed Innocent (itself adapted from the bestselling 1987 Scott Turow novel). Well, that and an interesting cast, as Bill Paxton steps into Harrison Ford’s role, Marcia Gay Harden for Bonnie Bedelia and Alfred Molina for Raúl Juliá. Once again based on Turow’s own sequel, the premise is slightly ridiculous, as the protagonist is once again accused, twenty years later, of killing someone close to him—this time his wife rather than his mistress (although viewers of the first film will remember how it was the wife who killed the mistress, which would work in favour of suspecting him—except that the sequel doesn’t even seem to acknowledge that). It’s once again a complex legal thriller with murder, affairs and judicial shenanigans. It’s not uninteresting despite the contrivances, but still closer to a sequel cash-in than something that expands upon the themes and characters of the original—despite the better-than-usual production values, it’s still very much a TV movie. The twist at the end is rather pleasant, but it fulfills the expectation of a banger mic drop considering the example left by the first film.

  • 2 Guns (2013)

    2 Guns (2013)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (Video on Demand, January 2014) Sometimes, subtlety or originality be damned, simple and straightforward is the way to do it. So it is that 2 Guns doesn’t need much more than a premise re-using familiar genre elements (in this case, two undercover agents teaming up against drug cartels after accidentally stealing far more than they expected and discovering that the other is not a hardened criminal) and two solid actors doing what they know best. Mark Wahlberg is up to his usual average-blue-collar-guy persona as a Navy agent caught hanging in the breeze, while Denzel Washington is all effortless charm as a DEA agent close to going rogue. Both actors work differently, but here they get a good chance to play off each other, and the result feels more than entertaining. They really don’t stretch their persona, but 2 Guns is a breezy film that doesn’t requires brave performances. (Case in point: Paula Patton looking good and Bill Paxton acting bad, stretching a bit but not too much.) Director Baltasar Kormákur ably follows-up on his previous Contraband by delivering an average but competent criminal action thriller with clean set-pieces and straightforward narrative rhythm. It’s hard to say much more about 2 Guns: Who needs a new classic when the same-old can be done so well?

  • The Colony (2013)

    The Colony (2013)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, January 2014) “It starts snowing… and never stops” is a particularly Canadian nightmare, so it’s no surprise if low-budget Canadian SF/horror film The Colony starts with that premise as an excuse to justify its post-apocalyptic premise. There is some intriguing world-building in depicting self-sufficient underground bunkers, and some of the underlying universe surrounding the Colonies would have been fascinating to explore. Unfortunately, The Colony eventually degenerates into nothing more than a zombie cannibal schlock-fest: couldn’t anything been more interesting than yet another one of those? And yet, The Colony isn’t to be dismissed entirely, mostly for the way it stretches its budget and for the chilling atmosphere it sustains from beginning to middle. Laurence Fishburne and Bill Paxton are the featured actors and do fine work, although their screen presence is more limited than you’d think. Otherwise, there isn’t anything particularly noteworthy here: the meagre plot is dull, derivative and barely manages to be stretched over to nearly 90 minutes. The thrills are familiar, and the conclusion could have used a ray of sunshine. Direct-to-VOD fodder it is.

  • Weird Science (1985)

    Weird Science (1985)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (Second Viewing: On DVD, July 2011) At this point, I shouldn’t be surprised if movies I dimly remembered as being hilarious end up just on the amusing side of funny.  Unfortunately, Weird Science goes to join the ranks of eighties comedies that just aren’t as good as they should have been.  The central idea in seeing two nerds create “the perfect woman” thanks to some modern hocus-pocus is still potent (albeit maybe a bit less amusing nowadays given the age difference between the actors) and the film does have a few good scenes.  But the connective tissue between those scenes… and the mismatch between the possibilities of the premise and what’s up on the screen is just annoying.  Part of the problem, especially for viewers schooled in fantasy fiction, is the film’s very loose adherence to a coherent imaginative framework: everything seems possible in the film, and while this carries its own reward (let’s face it: the Pershing missile thing is still one of the film’s finest moments), it also unmoors the film and sends it in fantasyland where the stakes are low because everything’s possible –it’s far, far better to file Weird Science under “teen comedy”  rather than “fantasy” or “science-fiction”.  Both the plot and the characters are underdeveloped, and don’t go much beyond “two good kids learn a lesson”.  The overacting in the film is a bit surprising twenty-five years later.  Weird Science, seen from 2011, doesn’t quite hold together, and definitely seems like a minor John Hughes teen comedy when compared to the rest of his eighties filmography.  Still, the film still warrants a look today for a couple of reasons: It has aged reasonably well, turning itself into an unabashed time capsule of the mid-eighties in their weird Reganian splendour.  (Mid-riff shirts?  Why???) It also remains one of Kelly LeBrock’s defining performances: being asked to play “the perfect woman” to two horny teenagers is a tough order, but she manages to make it look easy.  The film also features early roles for Bill Paxton and Robert Downey Jr., and a catchy theme song that eighties kids probably still remember.  Weird Science certainly isn’t perfect, but in the right mood it’s a charming throwback to another time –a perfect movie for a quiet evening.

  • Twister (1996)

    Twister (1996)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (Second viewing, On VHS, January 1999) I loved that movie when I saw it in theatres. It was fun, fast, exceedingly well-done and incredibly exciting. Those who complained about the lack of character development, plot or thematic relevance were, I felt, missing the point of the film. Twister existed solely to make us see things we hadn’t seen on the silver screen before, and it delivered the goods. I was concerned, however, that the video version wouldn’t pack the same audiovisual punch than the movie, and up to a certain point, it’s true: this is a movie to be enjoyed on the biggest, loudest home theatre system you can find. But no matter; even diluted down to my monaural 20” TV setup, Twister is still a fun ride. Well-directed and competently acted within the confines of the action movie genre, this movie doesn’t loses itself in philosophical meandering and endless digression: Everything is to the point and we’re carried along for the ride. Enjoy it again.

    (Third Viewing, On Blu-Ray, July 2024) For years, Twister was my answer to “what if you won a contest and could organize a private theatrical showing for family and friends?” The unexpected release of a sequel had me second-guessing myself — would the film hold up after twenty five years of CGI?  While the verdict is not unqualified, I’m happy to report that Twister generally holds up. Not so much for the special effects — some of them still quite good, others not so much: the opening credits sequence is rough but a lot of the practical effects are pretty good.  What’s perhaps missing most from director Jan de Bont’s visuals is the kind of CGI-fueled large-scale shots that help ground everything in-between quick cuts and tight shots.  But here’s the really surprising newsflash: Twister nowadays isn’t as remarkable for its visuals than for the absolute sheer fun of the characters.  For a film that regularly gets dinged on the quality of its script, there’s a really convincing atmosphere of camaraderie between the storm-chasers at the middle of the narrative. Co-written by Michael Crichton, the script is not subtle but it knows what it’s doing. The characters may be stock figures, but they’re played by actors who understand the assignment (none more than Bill Paxton, Helen Hunt and pre-stardom Philip Seymour Hoffman in a small role — “We crave sustenance!”) and effortlessly create attachment to the characters.  The story is simple, and that’s part of the beauty of the film’s maximalist execution. While I’m not so sure that Twister would still be my top choice for a private theatrical showing (more out of increased competition), it’s still a lot of fun to watch.

  • Monolith (1993)

    Monolith (1993)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On TV, April 1997) Bad and stupid SF thriller, starring then-unknown Bill Paxton and Lindsay Cromwell (“Who?” “The blonde psychologist in Op-Center!” “Ah!”). The setup is intriguing (a female Russian scientist shoots a young boy) but the script quickly dissolves in a series of routine “alien cover-up” scenes. So routine that the plot seems to have been forgotten in the writer’s head. Remarkable mostly for the total absence of monoliths in the movie, despite the title. The conclusion is brain-damagingly stupid. Avoid.