Author: Christian Sauvé

  • Down aka The Shaft (2001)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In French, On Cable TV, April 2022) I originally planned to begin this review with a remark on how many “killer elevator” movies there were in between Der Lift, Devil, Blackout, (a few more I’ve only heard about) and now Down. But then I learned that Down was a remake of the original Dutch film Der Lift by the same writer-director Dick Maas, and then there was something more interesting to say in comparing the remake with its inspiration. It’s not just about the Americanization of a very European film – there’s a world of difference between a science-fictional premise made in 1983 versus a horrific rehashing in 2001. In this remake, the action has been moved to a fictional Manhattan high-rise, with different characters and some clear differences in plotting. The deaths are wilder, the cinematography far more expensive, and there are even a few known names in the cast. (Although I doubt Naomi Watts often talks about this early effort when there’s The Ring to highlight.)  Down does have a definite entertainment value to it, but it deflates the longer it goes on, as the plotting gets more ludicrous and the film goes out of its way to privilege wild moments over coherence. There’s a skateboarder death, for instance, that confounds most of the rules the film should have set for itself in playing around with a malevolent elevator, but the film makes a joke about it and simply moves on, at which point viewers can be forgiven for shrugging at a film with no intention of remaining internally coherent. There’s also a lessened impact from the revelation about the roots of the elevator malfunctions – it was an intriguing science-fictional prospect in techno-anxious 1983 (the same year as Wargames, Videodrome and Brainstorm), but it feels cheap in 2001, especially as the script is very loose about consistency. (And I’m not getting into the film’s tonal discontinuities.)  Down remains fun to watch, but it’s not particularly gripping – and it doesn’t have the same impact as its earlier, rougher but more controlled inspiration.

  • Moonfleet (1955)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, April 2022) I would really like to have better things to say about wannabe-swashbuckler Moonfleet. It is, after all, a late-career Fritz Lang film, one of the last he completed in Hollywood and one of the few to feature colour cinematography. It features the always-fun George Sanders, smugglers, gothic adventure and a kid protagonist that underlines how it’s supposed to be an adventure for the entire family. Unfortunately, the reality of the film is far less than its promise. Despite it supposed to be an adventure tale, there simply isn’t much fun to be found here. Moonfleet feels gloomy, moody, glum and cold at once, with very few of the elements coming together into an entertaining package. The studio-bound shooting looks unacceptably fake and limp, while the script doesn’t offer much in terms of strengths that would offset the lack of action. The cinematography is so sombre and monotone that the film might as well been shot in black-and-white. Sanders feels wasted in a dull role, although Liliane Montevecchi does earn a good look during her dancing sequence. It’s not enough to save the film, though – Moonfleet does feel like a singularly wasted set of opportunities, unable to make the most out of what it could have done. It’s a reminder that Lang’s talent did not extend to all genres of filmmaking – a terrific director for downbeat noir, not so much for more entertaining material.

  • Dummy (2002)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On TV, April 2022) One of the fascinating things about small low-budget independent movies is that, from time to time, some of them can have a second life as a showcase for actors who became famous much later. I should be careful in talking about Dummy as an ensemble cast of then-unknowns –at the time, Milla Jovovich was already well-known, Adrien Brody was on the upward trajectory of his career (and about to hit the big time thanks to The Pianist) and Ileana Douglas had a long filmography. On the other hand, Vera Farmiga and Jared Harris were in their first years in the movie business – and that clearly shows in how nearly unrecognizably young they look compared to their later high-profile years. But yeah: five actors, many of them used in ways not necessarily associated with their best-known screen persona. It’s quite a trip to see Jovovich as an emo-type struggling singer with a tendency to fly off in a rage, or Harris as a young man with stalking issues. Brody, on the other hand, is playing to type as a socially awkward young man who finds ways of expressing himself through ventriloquism. There’s a low-key comedy tone running through the film even as it focuses on some miserable characters – the upbeat ending ensures that viewers will get a good feeling from this quirky film. Dummy is a bit of a surprise – not a big one, but a low-profile independent film that managed to cast five actors of interest in the service of an ultimately feel-good film. I’ve seen much worse.

  • Faust: Love of the Damned (2000)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In French, On Cable TV, April 2022) Seeing that Brian Yuzna was Faust: Love of the Damned’s director was enough to convince me to record and watch the film. Yuzna is a proud-and-loud proponent of wild horror movies: he produced, wrote or directed several very enjoyable genre classics between 1985 and 2005(ish), and while some of his films are far better regarded than others (anyone with Re-Animator, From Beyond, Society and Return of the Living Dead 3 on their resume is someone worth noticing), there’s usually something interesting in even the weakest of his films. Such is the case with Faust: Love of the Damned, a horror film that sometimes plays like an energetic remake of Batman (down to a very similar “character swoops down from a rotunda” shot) with added gore, nudity and a deal with the devil. It’s not a great movie – but at its best you can see it as a successor to the wilder horror movies of the 1980s (many of them from Yuzna). The plot describes the deal that our protagonist makes with a supernatural entity in order to be able to avenge the death of his girlfriend at the hands of underworld hoodlums. The protagonist predictably gets more and more demon-like as the story progresses. The nudity is punishing, as the film’s biggest special effect showcase is a grotesque body-horror riff that starts with a naked woman and then makes it worse and worse. (And that’s not even covering the semi-comic makeup for the main character.) But while Yuzna is willing to go wild in helming the film, he’s not quite as good in realizing the potential of his material – many of the action sequences are shot in a very dull fashion that doesn’t impress not capitalize on the film’s assets – and the biggest exception seems taken from 1989’s Batman. Still, I had more fun watching Faust: Love of the Damned than many other horror movies of that era: it’s not respectable, not refined and not subtle at all, but it doesn’t intend to be. Watch a Yuzna film, and dive into the more insane end of the horror pool.

  • Beyond the Time Barrier (1960)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, April 2022) Now here’s a curio – a largely forgotten Science Fiction film originally meant as a mockbuster alongside The Time Machine, but that stumbled into something interesting on its own. The production history of Beyond the Time Barrier is one of competent people brought together for a low-budget production (the American Pictures International logo being enough of a giveaway, even if they merely distributed the picture rather than produced it) and the result reflects that span of expertise. The plot, makeup, effects and acting are just fine – but they co-exist right alongside far less impressive bits of plot, makeup, effects and acting. The narrative is actually not too bad despite the unconvincing justification: an air force pilot finds himself marooned in the future after a scientific experiment, and meets a number of survivors of a global catastrophe who need him to repopulate the Earth. But this isn’t just an early forebear to A Boy and His Dog – there are savage mutants to contend with and (in a rather good extrapolation of what’s possible in that universe) other stranded time-travelers with their own plans for his time-travelling jet. If you can remain indulgent about much of the film’s production values, there’s some intriguing material here. I’m not exaggerating when I say that a similar premise could still work today, considering the kinship between this film and the much more recent The Tomorrow War (2021). This late-career entry from well-regarded director Edgar G. Ulmer has a few great moments, with Robert Clarke doing fine as the square-jawed hero and Darlene Tompkins looking really cute as the female lead. I’m not going to suggest that Beyond the Time Barrier is a hidden gem of some sort: It still pales in comparison to the better-known The Time Machine. But it’s more effective than many of the low-budget Science Fiction films of the time, and it still works well for modern audiences. Call it a solid success at a time when the SF genre didn’t have that many of them.

  • I Am JFK Jr. (2016)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On TV, April 2022) Now that I’ve seen almost all of Derick Murray’s “I Am” series of biographical documentaries, I knew what to expect from I Am JFK Jr.: a semi-hagiography about a dead celebrity featuring friends and family, going through the man’s life and delivering a sympathetic assessment of his achievements. Considering those expectations, the result is not surprising. The obvious question about John F. Kennedy Jr., of course, is whether there was more to him than the scion who died too soon from a 1999 plane crash.   A young boy at the time of his father’s assassination, JKF Jr. instantly became American royalty – someone groomed for higher office, whatever and whenever that office may be. That never happened: other than founding a moderately striking lifestyle/politics magazine (“George,” which lasted from 1995 to 2001 — barely outliving its founder after a precipitous drop in interest while JFK Jr. was still alive), JKF Jr. worked at the intersection of law, politics and New York City: working in the public defender’s office and being a darling of the tabloid press. The documentary draws a largely chronological portrait of his life using interviews with notable figures (the most incongruous of them being Ann Coulter), friends and drawing upon archival footage. The tack that the film takes in approaching JFK Jr.’s legacy can be summed up in a simple quote cited early in the film as a framing device: “People often tell me I could be a great man. I’d rather be a good man.”  Or, in other words, here is someone to be applauded for living his life well rather than being insanely ambitious in fulfilling the expectations of others. Anything that would distract from this narrative (such as the ongoing decline of his magazine by the time of his death) is not really mentioned, although the film does leave a few breadcrumbs to suggest that, through it all, JKF Jr. was positioning himself to make a jump in politics if the right circumstances presented themselves. But that’s the nature of the “I am” biopic series: an homage, an easy lesson and not a serious work of scholarship. It’s well done, though, and entertaining as well – Four years later, Murray’s I am Jackie O would revisit a closely related topic, so there’s a double-bill possibility for you.

  • Cleopatra (1934)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, April 2022) What a surprise! My intention in watching the 1934 version of Cleopatra was comparative – how would the film compare to the lavish 1963 Elizabeth Taylor spectacle, and how would it compare to the 1925 series-of-tableaux silent version? The surprise was that I really started enjoying the film by itself. Completed right as the Hays Code started enforcing its ludicrous censorship, Cleopatra nonetheless includes scantily clad extras, and a gorgeous Claudette Colbert not wearing much either. (Those cheeks! Those dark bangs!) It helps that the film starts with a semi-comic tone, not daring to be taken quite seriously, as Cleopatra is first tied up to a post in the desert, then rolled up in a carpet from which she emerges triumphantly for her new paramour. The art deco set design doesn’t have much to do with classic Egypt, but it exemplifies classic Hollywood glamour. The dialogue isn’t particularly good, but the amazing images more than make up for it: director Cecil B. DeMille was clearly the reigning master of big-budget spectacle and there are some amazing shots for a 1934 historical epic. Even more impressive is the fast-paced battle montage that illustrates a war episode later in the film: even modern viewers will be amazed at how quickly the images are presented and how much mayhem those second-long bits show– I wonder how it played back then. Right now, though, this 1934 Cleopatra is certainly worth a look, and not simply as a companion to the better-known later version.

  • Anastasia (1956)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, April 2022) While I’m not a target audience for Anastasia’s mixture of costume drama, historical mystery and overwrought melodrama, I have to admit that there’s a certain grandiose nature to all of those elements brought together here. Add to that an Oscar-winning Hollywood comeback performance from Ingrid Bergman, a typically strong turn from Yul Brynner and you’ve got something that can be watched even if you think you’re not interested. (And it throws in a metatextual final line to reward everyone who made it to the end.)  Even if you haven’t grown up with European royalty ballroom fantasies, there’s enough cynicism going on in the conman subplot to make things interesting, and the lavish production design should satisfy those who did grow up wanting to become princesses. There’s a uniquely lavish 1950s quality to the result that makes it a very nice period piece. I can’t say that I’m a big fan, but Anastasia is watchable enough.

  • Glass Trap (2005)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In French, On Cable TV, April 2022) For some reason, I’ve been finding a lot of ant-related horror movies in the TV listings recently, and I still don’t think that it’s a good topic for a credible horror film. Glass Trap won’t change my mind. Coming from notorious schlockmeister Fred Olen Ray, it’s a hodgepodge of dull storylines, cut-rate production values, laughably fake CGI, terrible characterization, bewildered actors and failed attempts at humour. The storyline has something to do with gigantic ants in a skyscraper and the people trapped in there trying to survive, but the real point of the film is to make a trailer that will convince unambitious viewers to give it a chance rather than stare at literally anything else for 90 minutes. It’s not completely terrible – there’s an occasional chuckle, lingerie-clad actresses, some screaming and a few accidentally entertaining moments. It’s infinitely preferable to, say, a depressing horror film that mean-spiritedly slaughters its entire cast. Still, this isn’t much of a compliment. Suffice to say that Glass Trap is only fit to be seen if you can’t reach the remote nor can get up, or if you’re desperate enough to make yourself an ant-themed horror movie marathon.

  • King of the Ants (2003)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In French, On Cable TV, April 2022) Seeing “The Asylum presents” pop up at the beginning of a film is usually a warning. With very few exceptions, The Asylum specializes in bottom-of-the-barrel genre productions with inane scripts, terrible special effects and cheap production values. But that’s now – The Asylum started with slightly loftier intentions, and early production King of the Ants is a glimpse at what may have been a very different company had it not found a more profitable racket. One notable difference is the calibre of the director: Stuart Gordon doesn’t have an impeccable filmography, but you can’t talk about him without mentioning Re-Animator and From Beyond, and that’s already a better filmography than most of The Asylum’s other directors. The result can be seen in the mean thriller that flows from King of the Ants’ opening moments, as a young man gets caught in a sombre assassination to ensure that a corruption scandal is never brought to light. Clearly influenced by a sadistic strain of neo-noir, it charts in often painful and gory detail the downfall of its protagonist through ever-escalating moral degradation and violence. King of the Ants never lets good taste or plausibility win when there’s an opportunity to be gross or gory – there’s a particular juncture at the mid-point of the film where we’re supposed to accept that the bad guys’ plan is to beat the protagonist into brain-damaged amnesia. It’s ludicrous, but it’s meant to make viewers feel intensely uncomfortable and that fits in the film’s logic. As a result, King of the Ants eventually becomes too contrived and mean-spirited to remain engaging: the tricks of the screenwriter (Charlie Higson, adapting his own novel) become too outlandish, and don’t help the film find a consistent tone in-between dark suspense or outright horror. It’s nice to see a few C-list actors show up for a while, most notably George Wendt in a very dark role, Ron Livingstone in a short cameo and Kari Wuhrer as the film’s lone female character of note (and object of the protagonist’s desire). I’ll give King of the Ants one backhanded compliment, though: as flawed and ugly as it is, it’s notably more striking than the average film that The Asylum would go one to churn on a regular basis.

  • Influence (2020a)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On TV, April 2022) While Influence feels like a pilot for an upcoming TV series, it does have (unlike its BET+ original stablemate Sacrifice) the decency of delivering a complete plot, intriguing characters and just enough fun to offset the film’s problems. Adapted from a very different novel by Carl Weber, it introduces the Hudsons – a family of lawyers working together as a small law firm able to take on impossible odds and win. As the film begins, a music/acting superstar is found stabbed in bed, and the number one suspect is his wife, equally renowned as a singer/actress. It doesn’t take a long time to understand that this is going to be a blunt and awkward film, far from the polish of better productions: the on-the-nose opening sequence creates more questions than exposition, and this keeps going all the way to a botched ending with a blindingly obvious fact presented as an astonishing revelation, as well as a murderer whose identity makes no sense. Still, let’s be frank: I don’t watch BET movies for strong plots or filmmaking prowess: I watch it for the attractive actresses, interesting characters and general atmosphere. On those metrics, Influence certainly delivers. It’s simply a lot of fun, in-between quickly sketched but promising characters (see above for; feels like a pilot for a TV series), actresses such as Deborah Cox, Kellita Smith and Nadine Ellis (Influence not only features The Lingerie Scene familiar to nudity-averse BET originals, but it’s announced an hour before it happens), and a generally pleasant atmosphere halfway between cheap plot contrivances and blunt wish-fulfillment. Music, acting and expensive shopping figure as prominently as capable characters banding together for justice, a few alluring hints of hot romance, and sequences built more for cool than plausibility. It’s not subtle stuff – some plot revelations can be guessed an hour in advance simply by seeing how the straightforward narrative suddenly stops for a supposedly throwaway detail (Hmm, I wonder if those angel figurines commented upon by the detective will play a role later on…). Even the acting is limited by a script that doesn’t offer credible dialogue – as much as I like Roger Guenveur Smith, he’s saddled with lines unbecoming of his stature. Still, don’t get me wrong: I liked it. I would probably watch a TV series featuring these characters in further adventures (which doesn’t seem likely two years later). I realize I’m betraying the film criticism community for liking an objectively bad film, but there’s something hard to resist about BET+ original films: their earnest imperfection, maybe.

  • Northern Pursuit (1943)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, April 2022) Even though Canadian audiences are among the closest to the American ones (long-standing proof being that the “American” box-office totals are really the sum of the American and Canadian grosses), there’s a long and rarely glorious history of Hollywood romanticizing Canadian history and landscapes in ways that feel hilarious north of the border. Northern Pursuit, in a vein very similar to the near-contemporary British film 49th Parallel, uses WW2 anxieties to propose a Nazi spy running across Canada toward a dastardly plan, and a brave Canadian Mountie tracking him. Considering that none other than Errol Flynn plays the heroic Mountie, few will be fooled by a momentary suggestion that he had joined the Nazis – and even fewer will be surprised that the film devolves into heroic antics. It’s a revealing look at how Hollywood exoticized even a near-neighbour, and a sometimes-wild demonstration of the limitations of movies shot on studio backlots. No Canadian with experience dealing with snow, for instance, will be convinced by the obviously fake winter scenes shot indoors: there are a few outdoors sequences, but not enough to distract from, well, the distracting rest. (The film’s production history notes that nothing was shot in Canada – at best, Idaho doubles for the outdoor sequences.)  Northern Pursuit is far funnier and sillier than anything else – especially as a propaganda film meant to bolster morale at home. At least it’s not as astonishingly stupid as the 1934 version of Rose Marie.

  • Jessica (1962)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, April 2022) If your idea of a good time is to hang out in a small Sicilian village with Maurice Chevalier being your guide as a young attractive American woman arrives to upset nearly everyone, well, there’s Jessica for you to watch.   But be forewarned: the film is almost obscure for good reasons: it’s far duller and longer than expected, doesn’t quite know what to do with its assets and plays out in a way that fails to engage. Chevalier himself was in his seventies by the time the film was shot – far too old to play a romantic lead, and so safely neutered as an elderly priest able to pick up an instrument, directly address the audience and be his own one-person musical segment. Angie Dickinson is cute as an attractive America earning lust and jealousy alike. But the film’s attractions (once you factor in the Italian scenery) pretty much stop there, because its development is laborious and there’s seldom any strong attachment to the material being shown. Jessica is practically unknown today, and the sorry state in which TCM (infrequently) shows it is indicative of the lack of attention it has attracted since its release. At best you’ll see Chevalier in another a late-career role as romantic facilitator, but even his considerable charm can’t do much to save the rest of the production.

  • Final Analysis (1992)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In French, On Cable TV, April 2022) Don’t be surprised to experience a strong and repeated sense of deja vu during the now-obscure Final Analysis, especially if you’ve already seen many 1990s erotic thrillers. Clearly in the same mould as Basic Instinct (released roughly at the same time, so not a copycat case), this thriller features a psychologist (Richard Gere) with poor impulse control when it comes to sleeping with patients, a disturbed woman who ends up being a femme fatale (Kim Basinger) and a younger woman (Uma Thurman) who may be sympathetic to one or the other. You may be thinking that you’ve already seen all of those elements before in slightly different combinations and you’d be right – watching Final Analysis is like rediscovering a forgotten film that somehow feels redundant. The plot is squarely in-line with the later series of erotic thrillers launched in the wake of the far-more-successful Basic Instinct – featuring things like a psychologist character too smart for his own good, yet easily manipulated. You can see the Hitchcockian influence, but also the way it anticipated a long string of prestige thrillers throughout the following decade. I didn’t hate it – even though it felt intensely predictable down to the personas of the actors involved, that very predictability also made it comforting to watch. On the other hand, I wouldn’t be that surprised to learn that the largely forgotten Final Analysis really came from a very similar parallel universe in which Hollywood history played out in slightly different yet similar ways.

  • The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane (1976)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In French, On Cable TV, April 2022) There’s a fascinating intersection of two separate micro-trends at play in the low-budget Canadian thriller The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane, plus two celebrities to headline the cast. The first of those trends was a steady descent into ever-more-shocking horror throughout the mean 1970s – gone was classic Hollywood, and the movies were getting increasingly bloodthirsty even when featuring nice protagonists. The second micro-trend was a brief flash of interest for Quebexploitation genre films produced for the American market by Quebec-based producers. (In this case, Astral Films, early adopters of the Canadian federal tax breaks that led to a brief “Tax Shelter films” period.)  That second micro-trend is largely forgotten today in the rest of the world – Scanners and other Cronenberg films may endure as the subgenre’s most celebrated achievement, but Canadian TV channels wanting to show “classic” films often dip into the 1970s Quebexsploitation corpus to meet CanCon requirements. So that explains how The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane is still shown fifty-five years later… although –let’s not fool ourselves—the presence of a very young Jodie Foster (famously body-doubled by her sister in a late-film nude scene, eek) and none other than Martin Sheen (as a hamster-killing antagonist) in the cast does ensure that the film is still interesting today. It features a 13-year-old girl (Foster) living alone despite increasingly pointed questions from neighbours, and uncomfortable sexual advances from the film’s villain. She’s not the most likable character, but the film does force a certain sympathy for the situation by pitting her against an even worse antagonist. Clearly the kind of dark and depressing 1970s film meant to make you want a cleansing shower after watching, The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane does leave an impression, Quebexploitation or not.