Author: Christian Sauvé

  • Hide and Seek (2005)

    Hide and Seek (2005)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On TV, November 2015) For most of Hide and Seek, we’re left pondering one crucial question Why would no less than Robert de Niro sign up for a schlocky horror-tinged thriller?  Because, for quite a while, that’s all this film seems to be: After the death of his wife, a widower leaves New York with his daughter for a simpler life in a small upstate town.  But their attempt to heal quietly doesn’t go as planned when strange and upsetting events start happening.  When he daughter starts blaming everything on her imaginary friend, is she to blame, or is there something less natural at play?  So far so familiar: director John Polson is competent but not exceptional in the scares he conjures up and if ne Niro and Dakota Fanning are fine as lead protagonists, Hide and Seek doesn’t quite rake up the memories.  But that’s not necessarily a bad thing, considering the ludicrousness that awaits in the third act of the film.  As the crazy psychological twist become apparent, we start understanding a few things: Why de Niro would accept a seemingly boring role; why go-for-broke endings can feel as exhilarating as cheap; and why Hide and Seek got such terrible reviews.  By the time the credits roll, the only thing left to do is laugh nervously and say something along the lines of “well, that happened”.  As long as you believe in the infinite malleability of the human mind as demonstrated by crazy psychological thrillers, then Hide and Seek may be of interest.  Otherwise, it may rank high on your list of movies destroyed (or redeemed) by their final few minutes.

  • House of Wax (2005)

    House of Wax (2005)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On TV, November 2015) Two or three things distinguish House of Wax from your usual run-of-the-mill teenagers-attacked-by-crazy-hillbillies thriller.  Depending on your mood, they may be worth a look.  The first is that one of the teenagers is played by none other than Paris Hilton, and her inevitably gruesome death sequence may be what you’re looking for.  The second may be more important: Our psycho hillbillies here are big fans of wax sculptures, or more accurately spraying wax on living subjects until they live no more.  The sequence in which they discover an eerily silent village, and then a house filled with waxy bodies, is a cut above the usual horror shlock.  This was Jaume Collet-Serra’s first feature film as a director, and the visual sense he would demonstrate in latter film (as well as a penchant for crazy scripting) is already fully featured here.  None of those positive points are enough to make House of Wax any better than an average horror film.  The first act takes too long, the characters aren’t particularly likable; there’s an almost-complete lack of thematic depth to the proceedings and the end sequence doesn’t amount to much but a spectacular waxy melt-down.  The visual atmosphere, I suppose, is enough to save the film from the memory oblivion that awaits most horror films.  It could have been worse, of course.

  • Saving Mr. Banks (2013)

    Saving Mr. Banks (2013)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, November 2013) Disney’s become astonishingly self-referential over the past few years, riffing off its history in ways that would have seemed almost parodic not too long ago.  After such films as Enchanted, Maleficient, Into the Woods, or live-action Cinderella, this is more than the reflection of an increasingly degenerate pop-culture implosion: it’s a deliberate corporate strategy, meant to groom another generation of fans as much as re-gain an older one.  The stature of Disney is made bigger with the promotion of its own history, and it’s in that spirit that Saving Mr Banks goes all the way back to the fifties to offer not only a romanced look at the making of Mary Poppins, but also a myth-defining portrayal of Walt Disney by none other than Tom Hanks himself.  Giving him repartee is Emma Thompson as the magnificently acerbic P.L. Travers, author of the original Mary Poppins story and definitely reluctant to let anyone adapt it to the screen.  Interspaced in-between the gradual seduction of Travers are flashbacks to her childhood in Australia, dealing with a self-destructive father (another interesting secondary role for Colin Farrell).  Even if not a single frame of Mary Poppins is shown on-screen, some passing familiarity with the film is best in order to catch some of the jokes and allusions.  A gentle character study, Saving Mr. Banks is at its best in detailing Travers’ perpetual scowl, and Disney’s constant sunniness, along with the behind-the-scenes look at Mary Poppins’ pre-production.  It’s unfortunately not as interesting in its seemingly endless flashbacks, as essential as they can be in defining Travers’ character.  Still, the result has its moments and it works even if you’re not really in the mood for some deliberate Disney myth-making.

  • Taken 3 (2014)

    Taken 3 (2014)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (Netflix Streaming, November 2015) It may be time to sit down with Liam Neeson for an intervention.  For all of the money he must be making in doing these action thrillers at an age where most actors are trying to slow down, it’s not movies like Taken 3 that will make up his end-of-career highlights reel.  Duller and clunkier than most action thrillers, Taken 3 stays near Los Angeles in depicting a third family crisis for Neeson’s protagonist.  This time, though, the film dares to kill a returning character and the protagonist’s fury seems curiously tame compared to the first two films.  But then again, he’s being followed by criminals and the police.  Less xenophobic but far less interesting, Taken 3 struggles with the bare essentials of its genre: the action sequences are badly directed by Olivier Megaton, with choppy editing, incoherent sense of space and uncontrolled dramatic progression.  Taken 3 is lazy filmmaking at best, almost uninterested in its own story on the way to delivering another film in the series.  It doesn’t do much, wastes the dramatic potential of a death in the family and feels rote even at the best of times.  Neeson is far better than the material, and he’s the sole reason why this wasn’t a straight-to-video release.  What’s more damaging, though, is that he’s getting to be, well, a bit boring in these action roles.  Next to the underwhelming Run all Night and A Walk Among the Tombstones, we’re far from the dramatic heft of The Gray, or the bonkers action of Non-Stop or The A-Team.  I hope he starts picking better projects soon.

  • Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2014)

    Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2014)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (Netflix Streaming, November 2015) I did not expect much from this latest eponymous effort to revive the Turtles for the big screen: I’ve never been a big fan of the TMNT comic books, TV show or toys, and the various attempts to make a big-screen franchise out of them over the years are starting to look desperate.  This latest version bets heavily on special effects to create computer-animated versions of the turtles set against a live-action New York.  Much of it is almost instantly forgettable, except for a surprisingly good action sequence set on a snowy mountain (conveniently located near New York).  Director Jonathan Liebesman is most at easy handling big action spectacles, and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles has a big truck sliding down a snow-covered incline, with ninja turtles jumping all over the place in an effort to do something fairly trivial.  It’s the sole (but significant) highlight of a film that otherwise doesn’t manage to make different characters out of its amphibian heroes, nor make much out of its human characters (as nice as it can be to see Megan Fox on-screen again.)  Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles’s tone is resolutely juvenile despite half-hearted attempt at fake grittiness, and ILM’s top-notch special effects work doesn’t quite manage to keep things interesting outside the action sequences.  Having no real reason to exist except to sell toys and reboot a franchise of undistinguishable films. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles seems to exemplify the worst in contemporary blockbuster filmmaking: so much effort for so little results, forgotten as soon as the next such effort makes it to the big screens.  My low expectations weren’t even partially met.

  • Broken Flowers (2005)

    Broken Flowers (2005)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (Netflix Streaming, November 2015) Mill Murray’s career took a very stranger turn after Lost in Translation, fulling embracing a sad-clown phase that probably reached its epitome in Jim Jarmusch’s Broken Flowers.  Here, Murray plays eccentricity on an almost entirely melancholic register as a rich but sad computer businessman who learns from an unknown source that he’s got a son.  Driving around to see his exes in an effort to find out who sent the letter and what happened, Murray’s hangdog charm is just about what saves Broken Flowers from overpowering sadness.  Shot blandly and featuring a deliberately maddening ending that doesn’t solve anything, this is the kind of film that either works as a succession of moments between actors, or simply infuriates.  (The road-movie structure of the film, in which the narrator travels, meets an ex, escapes and repeats, doesn’t help.)  It’s the kind of stuff that some people like a lot.  On the other hand, it’s about as dull as Murray has been on-screen, and it may help explain why ten years would go until (in St-Vincent), he’s take another lead role: the sad-clown phase of his career being fully realised, what else was there for him to do?  Certainly not go back to the earlier anarchic brat phase of his career; onward, then, to respected elder statesman of comedy, best used in small roles by quirky directors such as Wes Anderson.

  • What We Do in the Shadows (2014)

    What We Do in the Shadows (2014)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, November 2015) Hype is a wonderful, dangerous, terrible thing.  It gets people through the door, but it sets up expectations that may not be matched.  I started hearing about What We Do in the Shadows when the film made its way through film festivals, picking up good word-of-mouth as a vampire comedy that played with the conventions of the genre.  I was over-primed to see it, which may explain that my reaction at the end of the film was definitely more muted than I expected.  While I liked the result, I found it far less compelling than I’d hoped for.  It’s certainly interesting as a concept: Four vampires living together in Wellington, pooling resources to survive in a world that has changed considerably since they first turned.  Add to that the complication of trying to find sustenance in an increasingly watchful society and there are a few good ideas here and there, especially when the characters are meant to reflect various sub-archetypes of the vampire myth.  Coming from the New Zealand film industry, What We Do in the Shadows often feels fresh, making choices that an American film wouldn’t have attempted.  Writers/directors Jemaine Clement and Taika Waititi certainly know what they’re doing: The film isn’t without its choice moments or quotes (“We’re werewolves, not swearwolves” is terrific) and the humor makes most of its mileage by confronting the sublime nature of vampirism with the ridiculousness of everyday existence.  This being said, I’m not a big fan of the found-footage aesthetics (or credibility) of the mockumentary style adopted by the film, and the type of humor favoured by the film often seemed to target a slightly different audience.  Never a big fan of improvisation-driven comedies, I found this one to be slacker than I’d liked, with long lulls between laughs that never went beyond chuckles.  On the other hand, well, What We Do in the Shadows is something different, and it tackles a geek-favourite subject.  That makes it worth a look… and long as your expectations are in check.

  • The Parent Trap (1998)

    The Parent Trap (1998)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On TV, November 2015) Charm can beat ludicrousness, and so it is that this modern take on The Parent Trap doesn’t suffer too much from its reality-stretching premise thanks to the comic talents of no one else but… Lindsay Lohan in her debut feature film role.  Lohan’s fate since then has been the stuff parental nightmares are made of, but in 1998 she is pure teenage bubbly charm as she plays a pair of long-lost twins reunited at a summer camp.  The rest of the plot is predictable as the twins conspire to change lives and bring their estranged parents back together, but Lohan is a delight as she goes from British stiff upper-lip to Californian whimsy.  Dennis Quaid and Natasha Richardson are fine as the parents targeted by their daughters, but it’s really Lohan who steals the show here.  In her feature film debut, director Nancy Meyer is at ease depicting the same kind of over-privileged characters in wish-fulfillment settings that would characterise her subsequent films.  The broad strokes of the plot are familiar (all the way to how a romantic suitor for the father is conveniently and definitively dispatched) but this is a film best served by its execution, small sequences and actors doing their best to be charming.  As such, it fulfills its goals and leaves the audience smiling.  Don’t ask too many questions about the premise, though, otherwise your brain will melt trying to figure out how to get there.  In retrospective, The Parent Trap is now more powerful as a striking beginning for Lohan and, to a lesser extent, Meyer, than a standalone comedy.

  • Southpaw (2015)

    Southpaw (2015)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (Video on Demand, November 2015)  With a few modifications, Southpaw would have made a splendid Rocky II: It begins with a boxer in the prime of his life, winning fights, enjoying his money, loving his wife and doting on his daughter.  But it doesn’t take much for all of it to be taken away, and much of the film is spent going through this riches-to-rags story and then looking on as the protagonist digs himself out of the hole he’s fallen into.  It’s a relatively familiar story (although the triggering incident twenty minutes in the film will surprise many who haven’t seen the trailer), but it’s generally well-executed enough.  What really shines here is Jake Gyllenhall, physically pumped-up and ripped to a degree that may shock fans who aren’t used to seeing him in such peak condition: beyond the physique, he brings his usual intensity to a role far more aggressive than most of his previous performances and the result is often mesmerizing.  (Compare him in Prisoners, Enemy and Nightcrawler for an astonishing slice of filmography spanning just three years)  Forest Whitaker and Rachel McAdams don’t exactly stretch themselves in supporting roles, but they each bring what they do best.  Curtis “50 Cents” Jackson and Naomi Harris have all-too-brief minor roles, while Oona Laurence is remarkable in a tough child performance.  Director Antoine Fuqua thankfully leaves some familiar tics behind in delivering Southpaw (it’s not quite a gratuitously violent nor as obsessed with police elements as many of his previous films, or instance) and he’s able to direct familiar boxing scenes with a good amount of power.  It’s not quite a feel-good film (despite the triumphant ending, viewers will have to crawl along a lot of mud alongside its protagonist to get to the good parts) but it’s satisfying enough.  Southpaw’s not meant to be subtle, but it lands its punches.

  • The Boat That Rocked aka Pirate Radio (2009)

    The Boat That Rocked aka Pirate Radio (2009)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In French, On TV, October 2015)  I’m always fascinated by the oddball pockets of pop-culture history, and The Boat the Rocked revolves around something I didn’t know about—the pirate radio stations that broadcast rock music from the seas surrounding Great Britain in the late sixties and early seventies.  Writer/director Richard Curtis fashions an ensemble comedy from various anecdotes and music of the era, never sticking too close to reality (thus introducing anachronisms that even colonials will be able to spot) but delivering a moderately entertaining film with an unexpectedly spectacular conclusion.  The film begins as a young man makes his way to such a seaborne pirate station, meeting its various eccentric DJs and getting a close look at the government’s efforts to shut down the pirates.  Numerous amusing moments follow.  The cast is filled with known names goofing off, from Philip Seymour Hoffman’s unabashedly American DJ to owner Bill Nighy to Nick Frost as a sex-obsessed cad.  Rock Music is at the heart of the film, so you can expect a great soundtrack. (Fortunately, the French version of the film retains the original music, which compensates somewhat for the loss of the original actors’ voices.) The Boat That Rocked does take a turn for the unexpectedly dramatic toward the end, providing a big-scale conclusion to a film that seemed happy without such spectacle until then.  It mostly manages to hit its target, but there is a gnawing sense that the film isn’t as good as it could have been given its subject matter and capable actors.  The sprawling ensemble cast gets difficult to distinguish aside from the name actors, and the episodic one-anecdote-after-another nature of the film doesn’t help it feel more coherent.  This being said, I’ll note that I saw a French-language dub of the American version of the film (“Pirate Radio”), which reportedly runs twenty minutes shorter than the original British version – I’m not sure that more material would help the film (which already feels sprawling), but it does feel as if something is missing.  Still, The Boat the Rocked is more than worth a look, especially if you’re in the mood for a music-heavy comedy. 

  • Transformers: Age of Extinction (2014)

    Transformers: Age of Extinction (2014)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (Netflix Streaming, October 2015)  My loathing at the robotic aesthetics and the awful scripts of the Transformers series is only matched by my curiosity at its visual effects and how low the series will sink.  I knew I wouldn’t enjoy the experience, but I had to take at least a look.  So it is that I purposefully made an effort to see Transformers: Age of Extinction in the worst possible conditions: on my phone’s tiny screen, wearing crappy headphones (usually only one earbud), watching a few minutes in bed as the last thing I did before going to sleep.  Given that the film weighs in at 2h45, it took days –most of them ending with “Ah, I can’t be bothered any more… zzzz.”  Unfortunately, my scheme may have backfired, because taking in such a big movie in bite-sized increments minimized the accumulation of stupidity and incoherence that could have been lethal had I seen the film in one big gulp.  The small screen and tinny sound minimized the audio-visual aggression, making the experience ironically more pleasant.  I can’t properly express how powerfully dumb the script actually is: I would describe the scene in which a twentysomething character patiently explains (card in hand) why it’s not illegal for him to date the 17-year-old daughter of the protagonist and you would not believe that such a scene made it in a two-hundred-million-dollar-plus movie.  I’d describe the nonsense that passes for plot, the contortions the film takes in order to film in China (thus ensuring healthy Chinese box-office revenue) or the wretched dialogue and characterization given to the supposedly-heroic Autobots but it doesn’t really matter, doesn’t it?  This is about action scenes, grand images, swooping cameras and state-of-the-art special effects.  And, praise being given properly, everyone has to acknowledge that Michael Bay’s style remains just as effective: he presents Midwest America as if it was a heroic succession of golden corn fields, somehow manages to keep a film of that logistical magnitude under control and finds ways to maximize the dramatic potential of everything on the table.  Too bad he can’t focus, simplify or sustain – but as I’ve said, watching ten-minute snippets for two weeks can lessen the pain.  The point here isn’t to determine whether Transformers: Age of Extinction is a bad film or not (it most assuredly is), but how to make it feel less awful in order to watch it to the end.  As much as it’s designed to be an all-out widescreen 3D assault on the senses, the way to rebel is to refuse it all the crutches it needs in order to reveal it for the hollow shell it is: small screen, bad sound, confused fatigue and short attention span it is.  That’s called leveling down.  I’m sure that a sequel will follow, although I rest assured that it’s still a nightmare a few years in the future.

  • The Congress (2013)

    The Congress (2013)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, October 2015)  I actually wanted to like this film, and for its first half-hour or so, I thought it was leading somewhere interesting.  The Congress (very loosely adapted from a Stanislaw Lem story) starts of promisingly by playing games with audiences, as Robin Wright is “Robin Wright”, a difficult actress offered a digitization contract by a Hollywood studio.  Accepting means that she will relinquish all rights to her performances while the studio uses her likeness in as many movies as they want.  So far so good, with Hollywood in-jokes butting heads against ideas about the future of cinema and the toll taken on actors.  But then The Congress jumps twenty years in the future, going from live-action of animation and getting dizzier by the moment.  What follows gets wilder, although less interesting as the sense of “anything can happen” almost negates the emotional stakes of the film.  After a good start, The Congress loses steam, doubles back on itself, gets more depressing as it advances and makes a mess out of provocative ideas.  Wright herself isn’t to blame: the script should have been able to tie up its premise with a great deal more wit and coherence.  The Congress, to be fair, isn’t the only recent SF film to start promisingly and end in a bid puddle of nonsense. (Also see: The Zero Theorem)  But that doesn’t make it any less frustrating.

  • Leap Year (2010)

    Leap Year (2010)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (Netflix Streaming, October 2015)  The gift of romantic comedies is to make us believe in suspense even when there can’t be.  That, unfortunately, can lead to strange decisions such as stretching out a forgone conclusion several minutes after it should be done.  But that’s only one of Leap Year’s mistakes, as it sets up typical romantic-comedy contrivances to make sure that Amy Adams’s character finds true love rather than the bland sterile life promised by her materialistic fiancé.  In order to do so, we spend most of the film in a version of Ireland heavy in clichés and familiar story beats, at the mercy of a cranky young man (Matthew Goode, dependably competent) who will never-ever-ever fall for the protagonist.  The Irish fetishism gets to be a bit too much at times.  Much of Leap Year feels on autopilot, especially as the initial frictions between the characters predictably give way to romantic attraction.  Both Adams and Goode are sympathetic in their roles, but they are not good enough to forgive the rest of this bland romantic comedy.  Leap Year actually builds such a reservoir of resentment at some point that as it busies itself through an unnecessary conclusion, bored audiences become amenable to the idea that Adams characters should return to America and settle down with her boyfriend, if only it could make the film end sooner.  Leap Year isn’t terrible, but it’s not very good either in a genre where seeing one film means seeing almost all of them.

  • Evan Almighty (2007)

    Evan Almighty (2007)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (Netflix Streaming, October 2015)  I’m genuinely perplexed at Evan Almighty, and not for any single one reason.   I’m perplexed, for instance, at the film’s insistence at tying itself to Bruce Almighty through a tenuous set of coincidences (as in; a minor character of the first film becoming a congressman and seemingly changing personalities entirely –this makes more sense when you know that the script was developed as its own thing and was then retrofitted to become part of a series)  I’m perplexed at the guts it must have taken to take an explicitly religious topic (as in; God telling the protagonist to build an ark, because a flood is coming) and turn it in an expensive special-effects-driven mainstream comedy film.  I’m perplexed at the inclusion of political content in the story.  I’m perplexed at the way the film builds itself up to a biblical catastrophe… only to deliver a relatively modest disaster.  I’m perplexed at the practical scale of the film’s sets… and the moderate results delivered by the script.  Thanks to Steve Carell and director Tom Shadyac, Evan Almighty does have its share of comic moments, although it has just as many exasperating scenes and lulls as the film underlines everything two or three times.  It doesn’t help that the story aims for profundity but falls into mediocrity: For all of its sanctimonious attitude, Evan Almighty forgets that audiences will forgive anything in an entertaining film, and condemn everything in a dull one.  Evan Almighty has serious tonal issues (Wanda Sykes is relatively entertaining, but she seems to be playing in a different film than Morgan Freeman) and scatters itself in too many directions to be successful.  The result is, as I’ve mentioned, perplexing: Why does this movie exist, and what exactly were they trying to accomplish with it?

  • Stigmata (1999)

    Stigmata (1999)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On TV, October 2015)  Some films age worse than others, and Stigmata certainly is one of them.  Granted, it wasn’t a good movie in 1999 and it’s still not a good movie now, but there’s a frantic nature to Stigmata’s direction and editing that smacks of late-nineties style, right after Avid consoles made the process easier but before everyone calmed down enough to make responsible use of it.  It also blurs with quasi-contemporary Catholicism-horror film End of Days (both of them even feature Gabriel Byrne, and he looks lost in both), a comparison that does the film not favor when it’s so unremarkable.  Here, the mythology is a hodgepodge of heretic Catholicism, good-old demonic possession, bad horror clichés and moody direction that exasperates more than it efficiently tells a story.  The film goes crazy with rapid-fire editing and loud music the moment something supernatural happens, and the result isn’t to make us pay more attention (or even scare us) as much as it’s to make us wish for it to end more quickly.  I’m not sure if the dull script or director Rupert Wainwright’s work (or good-old classic studio interference) is most to blame for the uninspiring result.  Patricia Arquette does turn in a respectable performance with a strong physical component, but the rest of Stigmata can’t do it justice.  Ultimately, some movies are better off forgotten.