Michael Peña

  • Jexi (2019)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, March 2022) There are two movies going on in Jexi—a comedy in which an ordinary guy fights with his far-too-smartphone for control of his life, and a very safe romantic comedy in which said ordinary guy somehow gets the attention and devotion of a much more attractive woman. The first film has some mishandled bite to it; the second is utterly safe and boring. Alas, the second constantly gets into the first’s way. Another in a rapidly growing list of comedies in which modern technology goes haywire, Jexi is never better than when a rogue AI, impeccably voiced by Rose Byrne, cusses out the protagonist, shows how easily he’s controlled by technology and develops a possessive crush on him. (A scene redefines “phone sex” for modern audiences.)  The tone of the humour occasionally slips into vulgarity, but much of it is suitably absurd. At times, Jexi flirts with more interesting material than “Oh no, how can I escape an all-powerful AI?” as the relationship between the two deepens—too bad that the resolution is hardly convincing. Some good performances by known scene-stealers such as Michael Pena and Wanda Sykes also help that half of the film. Then there’s the human romantic comedy angle. After seeing Jexi and tick, tick… BOOM! within the span of a week, I’m adding Alexandra Shipp to my list of movie crushes—but her role here is as basic as it gets, looking great but being puppeteered through a bare-bones narrative that has her fall for an everyday schlub played by Adam Levine for no other reason than he’s the protagonist. It’s the featurelessness and convenient nature of that romantic subplot that’s Lexi’s biggest handicap—there’s almost nothing here worthy of note, and it only works as a counterpart to the wilder stalkerish main plot. The overall saving grace of the film is that it’s amiable enough to be watched even as it misses some strong opportunities to do better. Levine gets his laughs, Shipp looks terrific and Byrne can deliver profanity better than Siri. But there was a potential here for a much better film, and that may explain why, despite a pulse-of-the-moment premise, Jexi has struggled to find much of an audience.

  • Fantasy Island (2020)

    Fantasy Island (2020)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (Amazon Streaming, November 2021) Considering the list-driven approach I have used to make my way through the popular films of the past few years, I don’t always pay a lot of attention to reviews. But the harshness of the commentary toward Fantasy Island was striking enough to make an impression — what could possibly make the film so reviled? I didn’t get it, nor did I get it during the film’s opening moments. My childhood memories of the original show’s reruns were faded (Tattoo’s “Da plane!” and Ricardo Montalban’s immaculate white tuxedos are just about what remains), but the overall idea of an island making its visitors’ wishes come true seems like something difficult to screw up. Fantasy Island’s first few minutes did seem to set things up nicely — a few visitors, quickly (if bluntly) sketched, a mysterious owner played by reliable scene-stealer Michael Peña, a rather cute assistant, great lush tropical scenery: how could this go wrong? Well, I had no idea the film would soon take a nosedive, and then keep going lower. Warning signs start to show when it quickly becomes clear that the film only has horror on its mind, as the various fantasies of the guests all converge. This is obviously not a TV show, so the palette of emotional goals that could vary from one episode to another is here compressed to fit the commercial imperatives of a movie aimed at younger audiences and that means horror. But it’s the way it gets there that’s strange: Even fantasies that don’t need to go to horror eventually get there in jarring ways. There’s also the inconsistent accumulation of supernatural events that comes to ruin the story. Not necessarily by sole dint of being supernatural (that could be smoothed over, and the original show had some of it as well) but the ways the film’s justifications don’t necessarily make sense when they’re all put together, with so many tropes (Time travel! Mysterious liquid! Demonic deals!) competing for attention, it all degenerates into a big ball of incoherent nonsense. There are twists that bore, different stories clashing with others in ways that leave us cold, and the sense that a lot of effort (especially from Peña, who’s still good even in a dumb role) is expended trying to make us believe in something misshapen in the first place. The ultimate problem is in trying to tie everything up into one single explanation, which seems ludicrously specific, contrary to the potential of the premise and unbelievable in the first place. (“No way, we’re all from Chicago?”)  I’m not completely disappointed at the result (Any film with Maggie Q or Michael Peña is worth a look, and I’m adding Parisa Fitz-Henley to my watch list) but I now very much understand the critical lashing that the film got — enjoy those opening moments, viewers, because it’s all downhill from there.

  • Tom & Jerry (2021)

    Tom & Jerry (2021)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, August 2021) With the wonders of modern digital animation, there are many, many ways to do live-action movies of classic cartoon creations — but not all of them feel equally natural. Constrained by tradition and IP requirements, some choices are weirder than others, and the bet that Tom & Jerry makes in incarnating all of the film’s animals in a flat cell-like fashion set against live-action actors and backdrops isn’t necessarily the most harmonious to look at. Of, sure, they do look like classic Tom and Jerry: that’s the point. Even the menagerie of supporting characters is familiar, although I’m really not all that up-to-date in my Tom and Jerry mythology. Looks aside, the setting for the film is designed to allow both animal leads to create a maximum amount of mayhem: A posh hotel in central New York City, with an entire menagerie and an impending high-society wedding converging. Chloë Grace Moretz plays a resourceful hustler who manages to get herself hired by the hotel on false pretence, with Michael Peña being his usual scene-stealer as the resident event manager. Alas, critics may struggle to find anything else to say about the result. Like many live-action films incorporating animated animals, it’s very much aiming low and cluttering its running time with dull human interactions in-between the animated showpieces. Director Tim Story struggles with tonal unity, as some sequences seem far more imaginative or stylistic than what surrounds them (case in point: the interrogation sequence, which seems to come from another more interesting film). Obviously, Tom & Jerry works when it seeks close adherence to its source material, and doesn’t quite work as well when it doesn’t — despite the weirdness of 2D-shaded animal characters, these are recognizably Tom and Jerry… enough so that the kids won’t mind. But unlike true family films, this one may bore anyone above eight.

  • Extinction (2018)

    Extinction (2018)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (Netflix Streaming, December 2019) There is a surprisingly fine line between an intriguing premise and a dumb idea, and Extinction boldly vaults from one to another. Twists make sense if they answer questions rather than create new ones, and they work even better if the rest of the film works well without the twist. Alas, Extinction is the kind of movie that paints itself in a corner, with only the twist to save the day. It does pain me to acknowledge that it doesn’t work—I do like Michael Peña and Lizzy Caplan a lot, but they’re not particularly served well here. Peña is stuck in an intentionally dumb character (the twist partially but not satisfactorily explains why), while Caplan struggles in an intentionally shrill and unlikable character. But actors and their characters are the least of this premise-driven film, in which a standard alien invasion story is upended to be revealed as something else. That could have been intriguing, except that the revelation only makes the first half of the film feel increasingly dumb—and the longer you spend trying to justify the twist, the less sense it makes. Even acknowledging that movies aren’t built on logical consistency, there is something particularly insulting in Extinction’s premise that just doesn’t work. Even if you grant it one or two willing suspension of disbelief, there are still two or three move unresolvable issues that torpedo any attempt to make sense of it. It especially doesn’t work well considering that the conclusion of the film is about as stupid as anything else I’ve seen this year. I should probably add details, because anyone reading this capsule review probably won’t believe me. But Extinction frankly exasperated me, and I don’t want to spend any more time with the movie even in reviewing it. It’s just dumb, unsatisfying and if I’m clueless enough to revisit it in the future then I’ll deserve to re-experience my disappointment all over again.

  • Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018)

    Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (Netflix Streaming, January 2019) It says much about the Marvel Cinematic universe’s self-assurance that it not only knows how to make decent movies (nearly) every single time, but counter-programs deliberate tonal shifts within the series itself. Much as the sombre Avengers: Age of Ultron was followed by the first comic Ant-Man, here we have the even-more sombre Avengers: Infinity War followed by the almost-as-comic Ant-Man and the Wasp. Once more featuring a charming Paul Rudd, this sequel also aims for a lighter, funnier, not quite as melancholic kind of film with the MCU … and that’s not a bad thing. It’s often very funny (with Michael Peña once again winning comic MVP), although the comedy aspect is balanced against more serious elements, including an unusually sympathetic antagonist as played by Hannah John-Kamen. Rudd is backed by capable supporting talent, including a much-welcome bigger turn from Evangeline Lilly, as well as characters played by veteran Laurence Fishburne, Michael Douglas and Michelle Pfeiffer. The transition from lighthearted caper film to more metaphysical fantasy in interesting to watch, and the top-notch special effects help sell the film’s wilder sequences, such as a car chase exploiting the scale-changing powers around which the Ant-Man series is based. It may not be particularly deep (and at times it feels like a filler episode in between the Infinity War/Endgame two-parter), but Ant-Man and the Wasp passes the time nicely—there’s something interesting, funny or entertaining every few minutes and that’s not a bad change of pace after the sombre conclusion of previous MCU film—which shows up in a ponderous post-credit sequence.

  • 12 Strong (2018)

    12 Strong (2018)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, October 2018) Despite Hollywood’s supposedly left-leaning tendencies, it can be counted upon to deliver, year after year, a reliable stream of pro-war statements wrapped in the American flag, family values and unquestioned imperialism. The latest entry in the subgenre is 12 Strong, which heads back to the woolly post-9/11 days when the United States boldly invaded Afghanistan half a world away. Such initial force projection isn’t easy, and so the first boots on the ground belong to Special Forces, leading the charge that more conventional military troops would later follow. Afghanistan is not an easy country to invade, and much of 12 Strong portrays the adaptations of the American soldiers as the CIA sets up factions against each other. Our protagonists eventually take up horses as the only workable transportation in the country, leading to a somewhat surreal scene featuring a 21st-century cavalry charge. Surprisingly enough, 12 Strong ends with everyone making it back home against overwhelming odds, marking a rather pleasant change of pace given the number of movies focusing on recent American military disasters with few survivors. This is not a particularly deep film—there is practically not introspection here about the wisdom of invading other countries, nor about the looming quagmire that would sweep up American (and Canadian!) troops over there for almost two decades. The dramatic arcs of the film play on familiar threads: family, safety, and bonds between men under combat. Only the cavalry aspect of the film distinguishes it from so many other similar efforts. Still, the film is a decently entertaining watch under Nicolai Fuglsig’s direction. It does help that it features terrific actors: in between Chris Hemsworth, Michael Shannon, Michael Pena and William Fichtner, the cast is a bit too good for the limited material, but they do give it a dramatic heft. It’s too long for its own good, and even then doesn’t quite manage to flesh out its characterization. But it does come alive in battle scenes, and documents an underappreciated facet of the Afghan invasion. At times, 12 Strong feels like a throwback to the war-is-an-adventure school of filmmaking, but that’s a nice change of pace from the overly ponderous war movies of late.

  • CHiPS (2017)

    CHiPS (2017)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, November 2017) Why does it seem so hard for Hollywood to make an R-rated action comedy these days? I may be selectively misremembering things, but it seems to me that every halfway promising action comedy screws things up by throwing far too much crassness, gore and unfunny material into the mix, until even the good bits are drowned out by the bad ones. The case in point here is CHiPS, another unsuccessful attempt to bring an old TV show to the big screen. To be fair, there are a few things to like in the result. Michael Peña is fantastic in a super-organized horndog role, stealing scenes as he reliably does. Co-star Dax Shepard (who also co-wrote and directed) is far less successful, playing an abrasive screw-up that annoys more than he amuses. While the plot (revolving around uncovering crooked cops) has some heft to it, it often becomes far too violent (witness: graphic suicide-by-throwing-oneself-out-of-a-helicopter, graphic decapitation, graphic amputation of a lead character’s limbs) to remain fun as a comedy. While some mature content is fine, CHiPS often overplays its hand into something repellent in what isn’t supposed to be a gross-out comedy. Fortunately, the stunts and action scenes are generally solid despite being hyperactive—knowing Shepard’s fondness for cars (as seen in Hit and Run), it’s easy to understand why he’d take on CHiPS as an almost-passion project. There are a few known faces (David Koechner, Maya Rudolph and, of course, Kristen Bell as Shepard’s wife) in minor roles. The sunny Los Angeles setting is used effectively, and doesn’t revisit overly familiar places. Alas, the script does feel lazy, especially once it takes up running gags that aren’t funny the first time and then proceed to grow increasingly exasperating through repetition. The result is not particularly good, although it does have some better moments thanks to Peña and the action scenes. Still, especially as compared to not-so-distant examples of the form such as 21 Jump Street, it’s disappointing.

  • Collateral Beauty (2016)

    Collateral Beauty (2016)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, August 2017) It’s hard to accurately gauge whether an actor is smart from their screen performances alone. The best ones can play characters completely unlike themselves and we’d never know. But I have a growing suspicion that you can tell a lot about an actor by the roles they choose to play. Now, I won’t make any accusations about Will Smith (whom I still rather like a lot), but looking at a filmography that includes Seven Pounds and After Earth and now Collateral Beauty, I have to ask—is he even reading those scripts? Replace After Earth by the more respectable The Pursuit of Happiness and you would have an instant trilogy of manipulative faux-inspiring dramas that are so melodramatic as to court unintentional hilarity. So it is that Collateral Beauty is so ill-conceived from the start (something about a grieving man writing to Death, Time and Love, and then scheming co-workers hiring actors to play Death, Time and Love) that the first half hour plays as a farce despite itself, ridiculous while insisting otherwise. Things really don’t improve much during the last act of the film, in which two bigger revelations are dropped upon the audience, unfortunately earning nothing more than two big collective shrugs. Collateral Beauty is convinced that it has something profound and poignant to say, but it has forgotten to check whether audiences agree. I suspect that reactions will vary widely—as for myself, I’ve seen too many of those movies to be impressed. Now, I won’t make too much of Smith’s talents for script-picking considering that the cast also includes reliable performers such as Hellen Mirren, Edward Norton, Michael Peña and (to a lesser extent) Kiera Knightley. They may all have gone insane, but then again maybe I’m out to lunch on this particular film. Either way, I can only report that the result feels like a falsely profound tearjerker attempt. The premise seems so flawed that I’m not sure anything could have been done to rescue the result from unintended laughter. The twists won’t matter so much when it’s established early on that the movie stems from an inane place.

  • End of Watch (2012)

    End of Watch (2012)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (Video on Demand, February 2013) Writer/director David Ayer has basically worked his entire career so far in the “LAPD thriller” genre, but the surprise with End of Watch is how the film seems determined to re-invent the police drama, in presentation if not necessarily in content.  Seen from the street-level perspective of two LAPD officers, End of Watch deliberately creates its cinema-vérité atmosphere through the use of enough handheld camera footage as so not to distract when the entire film turns out shot more conventionally.  This appeal to realism is reinforced by actions that go against the grain of how movie policemen usually behave, along with dialogue that sounds improvised and a lack of detail regarding the big picture of the film’s plot.  The episodic plotting gets ludicrously flashy at times (our heroes get involved with enough drug stashes, imperilled kids, human trafficking rings, car chases and shootouts to qualify for the evening news several times over) but the direction of the film keeps everything grounded.  It helps that in-between the action sequences, End of Watch spends time a lot of time with its characters and so ends up focusing on their day-to-day reality.  Jake Gyllenhaal isn’t initially convincing as a tough police officer, but he gets more credible as the film advances.  Still, it’s Micahel Peña who steals the show in a typically compelling performance.  By End of Watch’s conclusion, it becomes clear that this is (unlike much of Ayer’s work-to-date) a film that celebrates the work of ordinary policemen: there are no corrupt cops here, no half-gangbangers, no superheroes: just two guys with badges, trying to do their jobs and make the world safer for their kids.

  • 30 Minutes or Less (2011)

    30 Minutes or Less (2011)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In theaters, August 2011) As a criminal comedy, there are a lot of similarities between this and Pineapple Express.  Not only does Danny McBride has a prominent role in the two movies, but both are criminal comedies starring underperforming slackers in the lead roles.  Here, a pizza delivery guy in his twenties is kidnapped by two other slackers, put in an explosive vest and told he’s got no other choice by go rob a bank.  What follows is a quick 80-minutes tale of criminal stupidity and plucky heroes.  Forget about social commentary, wholesome family entertainment or mind-expanding revelations: It’s pure comic character work set within a thriller template.  Despite the film’s similarities to the Brian Douglas Wells criminal case, 30 Minutes or Less doesn’t claim to be based on a true story, and fortunately doesn’t try to remind aware audiences of the real-life drama.  Jesse Eisenberg is a bit more tolerable than you’d expect as the lead, but it’s really Aziz Ansari and Michael Peña who steal the show in enjoyable supporting performance.  The script is peppered by high-energy moments –including a car chase that plays with the conventions of the genre and a quick ending that’s over almost before we know it.  The humour to too crude to be fully enjoyable, the violence is too gory to be forgettable and the rhythm is inconsistent, but 30 Minutes or Less still manages to score a few hits, and the tone is just controlled enough to avoid the exasperating immaturity of, say, Pineapple Express.  While it’s a step down for Zombieland director Ruben Fleischer, it’s nonetheless an acceptable summertime crime comedy.