Charlie Hunnam

  • Triple Frontier (2019)

    Triple Frontier (2019)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (Netflix Streaming, December 2020) Perhaps the best thing about Triple Frontier is how it embraces a kind of adventure film rarely seen these days: a tale of men in a foreign country, fighting against various obstacles in order to get to achieve their objectives. It’s not too heavy on the action scenes, allows several well-known actors (Oscar Isaac, Ben Affleck, Charlie Hunnam and Pedro Pascal) a chance to shine in dramatic roles, and seems inspired by no less than The Treasure of the Sierra Madres. Despite all of this, why does it feel like such a chore to watch? Part of the answer is that there’s nothing noble here – here we have bored ex-military characters turning to the mercenary lifestyle in the search for money, and all eventually being consumed by greed. The money may come from narco-traficantes, but the people they end up fighting against turn out to be civilians, teenagers and villagers. No wonder if Triple Frontier, despite some interesting material, becomes such a slog. Writer JC Chandor should be credited for once again attempting a film much unlike anything else in his filmography (although the sense of adventure does echo All is Lost) and wrangling an impressive cast along the way. But the characters fade against the adventures, the film fails to distinguish itself when it comes to execution and the thrills really aren’t all that thrilling once the journey is over for the survivors. (Plot issues of the “anyone could think a better plan than the one they’re following” variety also harm the result.) Triple Frontier does have some heft and chooses to be downbeat in its development, and that ultimately weighs against the result rather than enhance it.

  • The Gentlemen (2019)

    The Gentlemen (2019)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (Netflix Streaming, December 2020) Every few years, writer-director Guy Richie uses the box-office clout of his for-hire projects in order to go back to his criminal comedy roots. The Gentlemen is the latest entry in his stronger filmography subset, and it feels like the best thing he’s done since Rocknrolla. As with Richie at his finest, the film is a dizzying blend of criminal capers, strong characters, delicious dialogue and fast-paced editing, making good use of a non-chronological, unreliably narrated story. The fun begins as a journalist (Hugh Grant in one of his strongest and slimiest characters) breaks into the house of a criminal fixer (Charlie Hunnam, surprisingly good) to tell him about the troubles for his employer, an American expat (Matthew McConaughey) looking to diversify his cannabis empire now that decriminalization is coming fast. The multi-stranded, exuberant plot is simultaneously integral to the experience of the film and somewhat of a second thought as it showcases other things. Richie fans will be happy to see him deliver on male fashion exemplars and a great working-level look at London. But the centrepiece here is the dialogue: inventive, profane and elaborate – it comes out of the characters like soliloquies, as they delight in the power of words. (Significantly enough, the most reprehensive characters are also the least florid.) Its willingness to go hard for provocative content does mean that The Gentlemen is all too willing to go for racist and sexist content – but it feels like a price to pay for a film with dialogue this good and a suitably convoluted story. By the end, The Gentlemen even indulges in metafictional irony and side-glances at the unrealized sequels to previous Richie movies. It’s mesmerizing viewing, bolstered by uniformly great performances from actors drawn out of their personas by Richie’s script. (Just wait until you see Colin Farrell’s character – he’s been terrific as a character actor for the past decade, but he gets a really good supporting turn here.) The Gentlemen, needless to say, will not be for everyone: it’s violent, crass, a bit self-satisfied and definitely aimed at a specific audience. But it’s great to have Richie go slumming again in criminal London after working for Disney.

  • Papillon (2017)

    Papillon (2017)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, May 2019) I’m not a fan of remakes and I’m not a fan of Charlie Hunnam, so the chances were really good that I would dislike this remake of the classic escape drama Papillon. But to my surprise, it’s not that bad a take. It doesn’t measure up to the original, and Hunnam is certainly no Steve McQueen, but the more assured visual aspect of the film, combined with a mercifully short running time, do lend a few additional qualities not necessarily found in the earlier film. The high concept remains the same, though, as an intellectual Parisian safecracker (Hunnam) is condemned to life in perpetuity in a tropical French Guyana penal colony renowned for its cruelty. On his way over there, he meets a frail counterfeiter (Rami Malek) and create an alliance out of desperation, each of them realizing they need help in order to simply survive. Over the next few years, their enduring friendship and harsh living conditions lead them to plan escapes. A series of escapes, considering how often they’re caught and brought back. As an adventure story, this Papillon holds up rather well on its own—the problems begin once you start comparing it to the first film, which may admittedly not be a problem for the younger audiences targeted by the remake. Perhaps what stick most in my craw about the remake is that by virtue of having been shot in Europe, its landscapes are no match for the lush tropical surroundings of French Guiana and that’s like removing an integral character from the remake. I can accept that Hunnam is boring and that the remake is useless, but not accurately portraying the environment is harder to forgive. At least the rest of the film isn’t all that bad.

  • The Lost City of Z (2016)

    The Lost City of Z (2016)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, April 2019) Considering that I really liked David Grann’s non-fiction book The Lost City of Z when I read it shortly after its release in 2009, I was certainly looking forward to its movie adaptation. Alas, for reasons that I can’t quite figure out, the film itself simply fails to launch. There’s a faux-philosophical leadenness to it all that didn’t move me, a ponderous rhythm that doesn’t even come close to capturing the danger and adventure of deep-jungle expeditions. The film does itself no favour with a deliberately super-processed colour grading that actually takes away from the beauty of the natural wonders discovered by the explorers. The film lacks a clear buildup, going from one expedition to another, then off to war. Director James Gray is ambitious, but the result of his efforts doesn’t take off. Another underwhelming factor is Charlie Hunnam in the lead role—time after time, Hunnam proves himself to be one of the most uninvolving leads of the last few years and while I believe he could be fine as a character actor, he seems determined to somehow overwhelm audiences through sheer ubiquity. As with other cases where a film simply “didn’t do it for me” absent obvious issues, I can chalk my reaction to an unreceptive mood … but I don’t think it’s that simple. At nearly two and a half hours, The Lost City of Z is a serious sit, and one I’m not eager to repeat. I’d rather re-read the book.

  • King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (2017)

    King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (2017)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (Video On-Demand, September 2017) The reviews for King Arthur: Legend of the Sword were harsh enough that I didn’t expect to enjoy the film, but it doesn’t turn out to be quite as bad as anticipated. As an attempt to take the Arthurian legend and fuse it with modern fantasy filmmaking, it’s actually rather good. It helps that director Guy Richie’s style is in full display here: while some sequences are almost incomprehensible (sometimes due to information being undisclosed until much later), other moments have almost genius-level editing blending cause and effect, narration and irony in one energetic package. There are a lot of special effects along the way, Jude Law effectively mugging for the camera as a villain (which he should do more often), and an honest attempt at revitalizing Arthurian myth. It’s certainly not all good. Charlie Hunnam remains a strikingly ineffective lead despite being better here than in many other movies. There are a few dull moments. The anachronisms are blatant despite taking place in an avowed fantasy film. And yet, and yet… King Arthur: Legend of the Sword does have its share of strong moments, and it’s almost regrettable that its commercial failure film means that none of its planned sequels will even be brought to screen. As an origin story, it would have promised much for later exploits of the Knights of the Round Table. As it is, though, it’s a better-than-average fantasy film, with almost-stirring echoes of British myth-making for us colonials. I very much prefer this maximalist approach to the Arthurian legend than 2004’s gritty yet completely dull King Arthur, which made the legend so realistic that it completely lost interest.

  • Hooligans aka Green Street Hooligans (2005)

    Hooligans aka Green Street Hooligans (2005)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On DVD, December 2015) Fans of subcultural anthropology by way of mainstream movies will love Hooligans for its accessible look at the inner workings and meaning of English gangs.  Anchored by Elijah Wood as a disgraced American journalism student who gets caught in football hooliganism while visiting London, this is a film that’s part gang drama and part action violence.  In some ways, it’s not terribly different from other stories in which an innocent is seduced by criminal activities and then pulls back after as climaxing trauma (usually the death of a good friend) – but setting and execution makes Hooligans feel somewhat fresher than another update about Los Angeles gangs.  It’s also a bit more interesting for the way it dissects football hooliganism as stemming from territoriality, boredom, unemployment, class status and good-old rivalry.  As far as performers go, Wood is his usual doe-eyed self, which works in his advantage in portraying how an average guy can get sucked into the violence.  Charlie Hunnam is a bit of a revelation here: After seeing him in a very dull performance in latter big Hollywood movie Pacific Rim, here he seems animated and almost charismatic.  Director Lexi Alexander keeps things moving and the action scenes feel a bit better than they ought to be in a film of this caliber.  While Hooligans won’t make it near to top of any top-ten list, it’s an interesting look at a particular subculture, it’s seldom dull to watch, and it has a few good scenes.  Not too bad for a film that barely made it to North America.  

  • Pacific Rim (2013)

    Pacific Rim (2013)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (Video on Demand, October 2013) For many people of the geeky disposition, Pacific Rim reads like a dream project: Fan-favourite writer/director Guillermo del Toro, perhaps one of the most imaginative filmmakers around, taking on both the entire tradition of Japanese kaiju films, and blending it with the mecha subgenre… with a decent budget for once.  What’s not to like?  And, for much of its duration, Pacific Rim does deliver on its premise.  It’s a big blockbuster spectacular, made by someone who loves the genre(s), knows how to make a crowd-pleasing film and approaches the premise with a welcome blend of optimism and determination.  The first ten minutes, if it wasn’t for the flat narration, are almost a model for delivering a ton of exposition without undue strain.  Pacific Rim requires a significant suspension of disbelief to set up its premise (extra-dimensional monsters are one thing, but giant robots controlled by two mentally-linked people are a tougher sell when nuclear-tipped cruise missiles seem so much more appropriate) but the way it sells a fully-realized world affected by years of kaiju incursion is a good way to ease in even the most nitpicky viewers.  Where the film loses points, curiously enough, is in its depiction of monsters-versus-robots combat: For all of ILM’s eye-popping work in setting massive fights in complex environments, it’s not hard to look at the Hong Kong sequence and wish for longer, wider shots and the opportunity to fully take in a sequence rather than the visual confusion made by the neon lights, rain and quick cuts.  (This may be an unavoidable issue when hundred of special effects technicians slave for months on the same sequence: the temptation to add more, more, more visual detail may be irresistible, but it works at the viewers’ disfavour when it results in an overdesigned sequence.) In terms of sheer spectacle, the film also peaks at the three-quarter mark.  Even though nominal star Charlie Hunnam couldn’t be blander (about a dozen other actors could have done the same, or better), del Toro gets good performances out of his other actors, with a bit of special praise going to Rinko Kikuchi as the emotional center of the film, Charlie Day in a surprisingly compelling comic performance and Ron Perlman for being, well, Ron Perlman.  Pacific Rim is a good film, albeit one that I wish could have been great.  Del Toro has done terrific work here, but a little bit more oomph could have carried this even further.