Rob Cohen

  • The Rat Pack (1998)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In French, On Cable TV, January 2022) In my continuing exploration of Hollywood history, I keep going back to the Rat Pack as something of a high point—which is really strange, because there’s not much in the Vegas lifestyle espoused by the Ratpackers—gambling, booze, womanizing—that I find admirable: they would have kicked me out of their group with no hesitation. But over the years, the idea of a few performers forming their own close-knit friendship does have its appeal: Circa-1960 Las Vegas is vintage these days, and the sins of past generations don’t appear so degenerate. It does help that the Rat Pack still exemplifies an appealing idea of cool: Frank Sinatra, Sammy Davis Jr. and Dean Martin are still references when it comes to looking good and being terrific performers. So, a fictionalized take on the Rat Pack was a can’t-miss proposition, even if the film itself is a made-for-cable biopic that overboils its subject matter to the point of almost missing the point of it. Largely focusing on the 1960 presidential campaign as a flashpoint, The Rat Pack is an interesting but often disappointing way to fictionalize a never-ending evening of song, game, drinks and women. The Rat Packers came together to party, and there’s a limit to how much of that you can fit into frame (although there’s a brilliant montage to “Ain’t That a Kick in the Head” showing the Rat Packers in various bedroom activities). No, much of the film is dedicated to the Rat Pack’s attempt to get into politics, and how the two worlds ultimately didn’t mix—the racism affecting Davis, the mob connections affecting Sinatra, and Dean Martin maybe being above it all. The biopic condenses years of events into a much shorter period and ultimately focuses on Sinatra (as the Chairman of the Board) far more than the others. It works in fits and spurts—I came away from it understanding a little bit more how Sinatra could have been seen as having mob ties (essentially: “I was a performer in their clubs; they helped me out”) and why he could have had aspirations to being involved in Kennedy-era politics. On the other hand, there’s so much dramatization going on that it’s difficult to trust the film on details. Ray Liotta has too-big shoes to fill as Sinatra and Joe Mantegna is limited by Martin’s low-key approach, but Don Cheadle is nothing short of terrific as Davis. Other actors get their chance to play past celebrities (perhaps the next-best being Deborah Kara Unger as Ava Gardner) and there’s some undeniable fun in seeing Hollywood turn the spotlight on itself like that. Director Rob Cohen was near the top of his career at the time, and that translates into a made-for-TV film that is slightly more ambitious than usual, and also held back by its limited budget. As a narrative, The Rat Pack ends up being less interesting than the myth, the stories and the fantasy of partying with the group in a more innocent Vegas.

  • The Skulls (2000)

    The Skulls (2000)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On TV, March 2020) True to form for a Hollywood thriller, The Skulls takes the kernel of a good premise (behind the scenes at an Ivy School secret fraternity, à la Yale Skull and Bones) and then takes it to a ludicrous level that, ironically enough, makes it quite forgettable. Our protagonist’s bland everyman qualities ensure that the character isn’t quite as interesting as the antagonist (Paul Walker, in a pre-Fast/Furious starring role). The rest of it seems to steal from low-octane conspiracy thriller tropes without necessarily putting the pilfered ideas together in an interesting whole. Fairly bland directing from Rob Cohen doesn’t help the film stick in mind, although I suppose that twenty years later The Skulls is taking on a time-capsule kind of newfound relevance in chronicling Hollywood’s idea of cool at the dawn of the century. Still, there’s a feeling that, despite a fun premise, a director capable of much better, some interesting young actors and good production values, The Skulls simply isn’t fun enough or smart enough or wild enough to stick. Although I suppose that a true-life exposé of Ivy League secret societies would be even duller to watch.

  • Dragonheart (1996)

    Dragonheart (1996)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (Second Viewing, On TV, January 2020) I first saw Dragonheart in theatres on its opening weekend, and twenty-five years later, this is clearly a different time for movies. Most strikingly, circa-2020 viewers have been blessed by a long list of very convincing CGI characters over the past two decades… no wonder if this early-CGI creation feels creaky. But Dragonheart was a pioneer in that space, and the thrill of seeing an ILM-created dragon emote and speak with Sean Connery’s voice back in 1996 has inevitably abated in 2020. Still, there’s a bit more to Dragonheart than a talking CGI dragon, and the film does manage to establish itself as an average medieval fantastic adventure. Under Rob Cohen’s direction, it does suffer a bit from less-than-convincing battle sequences (clearly, the money went to the CGI dragon), but redeems itself through acceptable comic sequences (including a prolonged standoff between a knight and a dragon) and a sombre finale. While I’d watch Dina Meyer wearing red curls in nearly anything, the film does belong to Dennis Quaid as a knight who’s not above a bit of film-flammery, with some assistance from David Thewlis and Pete Postlethwaite. While Dragonheart doesn’t quite have what it takes to be a good or great movie (it’s a mis-mash of high and low material, especially at the script level—the film’s production history is a horror show of dramatically lowered ambitions and the studio/director is probably to blame) but I can understand its cult popularity even now.

  • Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story (1993)

    Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story (1993)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, November 2019) The Story of Bruce Lee is so interesting, so dramatic that it would have made little sense for a biopic to follow a strictly factual style. (Leave those to the books, I say!) So it is that director Rob Cohen’s Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story wisely chooses a far more fantastic framework in which to tell us about Bruce Lee, complete with martial-arts fights almost as good as the ones in his films. Going from Hong Kong to the United States and back again, Dragon follows Lee as a young man on the way up (as portrayed quite convincingly by Jason Scott Lee), but elides much of his stardom years in favour of dramatizing the events surrounding his death. As befit the subject, it’s not merely a chronicle of Lee’s life as an occasion to talk—in the early 1990s—about stereotypes, prejudice and the idea of manliness as portrayed by Asian actors. (Which has me wondering if Dragon had any impact on the brief but real influx of Asian talent, themes and techniques in the later half of the 1990s.)  This being a heroic biographical portrait of Bruce Lee, do not expect much distance or critique of the man—this is meant as a celebration rather than a serious biopic. Still, it’s fun—the first fight scene alone is almost comical and the later sequences keep the entertainment factor high. Still, I can’t help but wonder if we may be ripe for another project looking at Lee’s life from a more realistic perspective—and ideally one from filmmakers closer to Lee’s background.

  • Alex Cross (2012)

    Alex Cross (2012)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, October 2013) Here’s a useful spoiler-filled tip for filmmakers: If you’re making a good movie, you can get away with murdering your protagonist’s pregnant wife midway through.  If all you’re making is derivative trash, then stay away from those kinds of stunts, because all you’re doing is pissing off the audience.  So it is that Alex Cross, which is a routine cop-versus-psycho thriller up to its halfway mark, goes one plot development too far and murders both a sympathetic bystander and all audience sympathy at one stroke.  It’s not putting the hero through personal grief; it’s purely exploitative cheap drama, and it’s easy to recognize as such.  Before that plot point, Alex Cross’ numerous problems are easy enough to overlook; after that, the film can do nothing right and becomes steadily more risible as it gets dumber and dumber.  Director Rob Cohen’s career as a technically-proficient filmmaker hit an apex of sorts in the early naughties with The Fast and the Furious, xXx and Stealth, but his decline since then has been fierce.  Here, occasional good moments of direction come at the expense of a dull film leading to a terrible final fight where even the camera shakes and slow-motion seem to have been added in sheer desperation during post-production.  The script is the usual genius-cop-versus-psycho-killer shtick we’re see so many times before, albeit with a psycho-killer-for-hire who seems intent on self-destructive decisions despite supposedly being at the top of his profession.  Straining to find something nice to say about the finished film, let’s at least recognize that Matthew Fox is physically remarkable -all sinews and muscles- as the antagonist, while Tyler Perry is occasionally effective as the eponymous lead –if nothing else, he also has a significant physical presence, and he fills out the frames.  Still, mentioning the other actors who show up only highlight how disappointing Alex Cross actually is: Edward Burns and Jean Reno quickly show up, but have almost nothing to do –Reno’s presence of the script even quickly highlights an overarching conspiracy plot that is frankly uninteresting to revisit after the antagonist makes the fight so personal.  Ah well; Alex Cross (sort-of-adapted from a patchwork of novels by thriller-factory James Patterson) isn’t meant to make sense as much as it’s supposed to re-launch a franchise.  In this regard, let’s hope that the dismal results keep all potential sequels at bay –we don’t need another series of pure-formula crime thrillers cluttering the screens. 

  • xXx (2002)

    xXx (2002)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In theaters, August 2002) I like Vin Diesel. I think he’s one of the most credible “action heroes” to pop up since the Fall of Schwarzenegger. XXX is nothing but a star vehicle for him, and as such it works very well: The script is copied from a rejected James Bond outline, the dialogues are pedestrian and the direction can be underwhelming at times, but Diesel carries the whole film on his shoulders with impressive ease. Say whatever you want about his range (or perceived lack thereof), but you can’t stop watching him whenever he’s on screen and that, friends, is old-fashioned star power. Remove Diesel and replace him with any of the “action wimps” of the past few years (calling Matt Damon… Ben Affleck… Josh Hartnett…) and suddenly the film becomes far less interesting. Oh, I’m not saying it’s a great film even with Diesel; for all its self-serving rhetoric about being better/more current/more extreme than the Bond series, “Triple-X” Xander Cage is just another copy of Bond, down to the cute chicks, nerdish technical assistant and big stunts. (Actually, the stunts are very impressive, even when they’re digitally enhanced) The techno-rap soundtrack basically defines its public and attitude; you can simply hear the film and decide if it’s going to be for you. It’s fun summer fare, not very ambitious nor too serious about it. I liked it, but I recognize the wide variety of reactions that this movie will elicit.

    (Second viewing, On DVD, February 2003) Vin Diesel is a James Bond for teenage boys in this bad-boy story that’s nevertheless more inoffensive than most PG-13 action thrillers. The macho extreme-sport posturing is amusing to watch, but not nearly as amusing as hearing director Rob Cohen try to mythologize this very average action film in his commentary track. But let’s be fair; Cohen is one of the only directors able to sustain a fill-length commentary by himself, and he is genuinely amusing throughout. The film doesn’t gain much at a second glance: The plot, dialogues and villains are still pedestrian. Only Vin Diesel can make this stuff work despite all odds… the true definition of a movie star. The “special edition” DVD contains a few making-of supplements; the “filmmaker’s diary” is interesting, but the others are very fluffy, including -I kid you not- a five-minute ad for the upcoming GTO car. There is a noticeable lack of information about the visual effects, probably because a lot of it involved replacing stuntmen’s faces with Vin Diesel’s own. But you’ll have to read Cinefex in order to learn about it, because nothing can come between Diesel and his mystique…

  • The Fast And The Furious (2001)

    The Fast And The Furious (2001)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In theaters, June 2001) Yes! After a diet of pretentious pseudo-profound cinema and ultra-hyped moronic flicks aimed at retarded teens, it’s such a relief to find a honest B-movie that fully acknowledge what it is. If you like cars, you’ll go bonkers over The Fast And The Furious, one of the most enjoyable popcorn film seen so far in 2001. The plot structure is stolen almost beat-for-beat from Point Break, which should allow you to relax and concentrate on the driving scenes. There aren’t quite enough of those, but what’s there on the screen is so much better than recent car-flick predecessors like Gone In Sixty Seconds and Driven that director Rob Cohen can now justifiably park in the space formerly reserved for Dominic Sena and Renny Harlin. The film’s not without problems, but at least they’re so basic that they’re almost added features. The protagonist is supposed to be played by Paul Walker, but don’t worry; bland blond-boy gets each and every one of his scenes stolen by ascending superstar Vin Diesel, whose screen presence is of a rare distinction. Feminists will howl over the retrograde place of women in the film, but even wannabee-sensitive-guys like me will be indulgent and revel in Jordana Brewster and Michelle Rodriguez—not to mention the other obligatory car-babes kissing each other. Despite the disappointing lack of racing in the first half, there is a pair of great action sequences by the end, the best involving a botched robbery attempt on a rig with an armed driver. That scene hurts, okay? I still would have loved a better ending, but otherwise, don’t hesitate and rush to The Fast And The Furious if you’re looking for a good, fun B-movie.

    (Second viewing, On DVD, March 2002) There isn’t much to that film, if you look closely; three or four action scenes, conventional plotting, a few hot young actors and that’s it. But once again in B-movie-land, it all depends on the execution. Here, the young actors are really hot (from Walker to Diesel to Brewster to Rodriguez), the direction is unobtrusive enough and the film is infused with a love of speed that manages to make all quibbles insignificant. The ending is still problematic, with all its unresolved plot-lines, but the film holds up very well to another viewing. The DVD includes an amusing director’s commentary, deleted scenes (some good, some less. Unfortunately, the director once refers to an alternate ending that’s not included), a rather good making-of, three rather bad music videos and a bunch of other stuff.

    (Third viewing, Streaming, December 2025) Decades later, the publication of Barry Hertz’s history of the Fast and Furious franchise suddenly had me hankering for a re-watch of the series’ first instalment. As many have since said, The Fast and the Furious really holds up.  At its core, it remains a solid genre thriller, streamlined to focus on the essentials.  The story moves fast except when it slows down for just-enough background for the characters, the Los Angeles setting or the car culture that’s central to the film’s comfort.  The few action sequences are handled with a professional’s touch, with just enough non-mimetic material (such as some brief CGI, or the sped-up transitions from day to nighttime highlighting the different realms of the film) to highlight the metal-on-metal tactility of the stunts.  It’s easily watchable without too many dull or dumb moments.  And the soundtrack is terrific — although that may just be me recognizing the tracks I was listening at the time. But it’s the the halo effect of its many sequels’ blockbuster success that helps lift it up even further: Paul Walker is quite good here, and Vin Diesel is remarkable. Even comparing this relatively grounded first installment to its increasingly bombastic follow-ups isn’t that big of a jump: You can see where the most successful bits of the sequels come from, and where some of the characters are introduced.  The sequels also manage to tie up the loose ends of the abrupt ending, and develop some half-baked ideas.  But even taken on its own, The Fast and the Furious is a slick, fast, well-made action movie — well worth a look even a quarter-mile, er, a quarter-century later.