Movie Review

  • Tom à la ferme [Tom at the farm] (2013)

    Tom à la ferme [Tom at the farm] (2013)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, July 2020) Amazingly enough, there are still a few people out there that hold that genre fiction is “easier” than straight drama—that anything with crime, fantasy or extrapolation is somehow less respectable than strictly mimetic realism. That kind of attitude often leads to spectacular misfires when those creators finally deign to try their hands at those “lesser” forms of creation, as they clearly don’t understand what makes genres tick. Most of my go-to examples are from literature (and science-fiction literature at that), but I was reminded of those misfires in tackling Tom à la ferme, which feels a lot like a thriller in which the writer can’t be bothered to thrill. It’s a good thing that I’ve seen other better Xavier Dolan movies before this one, because it feels like an indulgent semi-parody. As a gay protagonist (check) goes back to rural Québec to meet his dead boyfriends’ mom (check) to the sounds of insistent pop music (check), we also meet the dead boyfriend’s brother, who’s also gay (check) and unusually violent (check). I don’t recall slow motion (not check), but there are enough sustained shots of the protagonist’s face against a variety of backgrounds that it actually makes more sense to learn that Dolan plays the protagonist and writes and directs himself. But my biggest issue with Tom à la ferme is that it builds the antagonist to fearsome levels but doesn’t actually go through any payoff—the characters run away, they find evidence that the bad person did a bad thing and the credits roll—if you want a damming illustration of the film’s lack of climax, try reading the Wikipedia plot summary cold: it’s accurate, intensely anticlimactic and it clearly illustrates the film’s inability to conclude. While the film does have its dramatically intense moments, they don’t really lead anywhere. There’s a genre bait-and-switch here, and I don’t like it. Fortunately, Dolan has done much better elsewhere.

  • Bad Girls (1994)

    Bad Girls (1994)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In French, On Cable TV, July 2020) There were a surprising number of revisionist westerns in the 1990s, each one poking and prodding at various aspects of the classic Hollywood western tradition. The male domination of the genre is clearly the thing that Bad Girls wants to discuss, but there had to be a better way of doing it. With Madeleine Stowe, Mary Stuart Masterson, Drew Barrymore and Andie MacDowell, Bad Girls attempts to upend the usual western clichés by making the prostitutes the heroines of their own stories, taking revenge over bad men. It’s not a bad premise, but the way the film goes about it feels subservient to a male gaze in its execution. (Not to mention rape as a near-omnipresent plot device.) Our heroines are often scantily clad, going for titillation as much as empowerment. It really does not help that the film is executed flatly, with little in terms of wit and grace in the dialogue and situations. Director Walter Scott seems content to play with the images of the genre without doing anything much with them. Even in presenting women as western heroines, the film errs in caricatures. I still think that the premise holds a lot of potential, and I am a bit surprised that a quick search for “feminist western” doesn’t reveal any well-known successors. But Bad Girls doesn’t set much of an example—it simply doesn’t know what to do with its potential, and wastes almost all of it along the way.

  • The Death & Life of John F. Donovan (2018)

    The Death & Life of John F. Donovan (2018)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, July 2020) Expectations ran high about French-Canadian wunderkind Xavier Dolan’s English-language debut The Death & Life of John F. Donovan, especially considering the calibre of the Hollywood cast that joined the project. But it doesn’t take all that much time to realize that the whole thing is a misfire. Emotionally fake and yet self-satisfied with itself, it features characters doing either implausible things (such as having an eleven-year-old being pen pal with a troubled star actor) or being amazed at their own actions when they’re fairly standard stuff (i.e.: a journalist being seduced by a rather humdrum story). The film quickly undermines its own internal coherence, as it mixes a framing device with two other previous plotlines, except that the framing device can’t even be aware of much of the previous timelines—it’s a bit of a mess and it rings hollow the way that other similar pretentious movies as The Goldfinch also did. The Death & Life of John F. Donovan is slick all right—and you don’t have to look all that deeply to spot Dolan’s usual cinematographic tics or thematic obsessions. I’m always lenient toward movies that take a poke at celebrity and filmmaking, but even considering that, The Death & Life of John F. Donovan is a disappointment, taking itself far too seriously from the title onward.

  • Mommy (2014)

    Mommy (2014)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In French, On Cable TV, July 2020) Any look at Xavier Dolan’s filmography has Mommy near the top of his critical notices and while the film is flawed, it does have some undeniable strengths. After a clumsy opening text that could have been handled in two or three lines of dialogue, we’re off to the races: A mother/son relationship (in keeping with Dolan’s obsessions) featuring a deeply aggressive young man kicked out of a specialized school and coming home to make life hell for his mom. If you’re looking for a nice, fun, comforting film, this isn’t it: there are a few scenes here that are excruciating to watch, and Mommy makes a bold bet in making a main character out of an irremediably despicable young man. The conclusion is forgone, and the way to get there is just as difficult. Dolan’s artistic choices are sometimes questionable—such as filming in 1 × 1 aspect ratio and justifying it as “intimate” when generations of filmmakers have presented domestic dramas in more standard formats. Anne Dorval is terrific as the titular mommy, while Antoine Olivier Pilon is perhaps too good as the hateful son. Also remarkable is Patrick Huard in a markedly more serious and less admirable role as usual. Mommy is certainly not easy to watch nor perfect, but there are a handful of scenes with tremendous dramatic intensity, and it’s executed better than usual.

  • “Crocodile” Dundee II (1988)

    “Crocodile” Dundee II (1988)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In French, On TV, July 2020) If you have a box office hit with a good premise, the best and easiest way to make more money out of it is to deliver another slight variation. Since the main attraction of the Crocodile Dundee series is both Dundee’s character and his fearless reactions at being out of his element, sequel Crocodile Dundee II keeps the character but inverts the structure: While the film begins in Manhattan to show more of Dundee’s antics in the urban jungle, familiar criminal plot mechanics soon bring the action back to the Australian outback, with Dundee playing with deadly opponents on his home turf. The result does feel a bit more Hollywoodish than the original—a bigger budget polishing the rough edges of the original Australian production, with an interest in reaching a bigger, less indulgent audience. The criminal plot is perfunctory, just expansive enough to bring the protagonist in contact with deserving targets all the way home. The point of Crocodile Dundee II remains Dundee’s character, and that does carry over the film. The result is not bad, and neither is the series star Paul Hogan, but it doesn’t reach for sophistication and does feel like much of the same.

  • Camping sauvage (2004)

    Camping sauvage (2004)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In French, On TV, July 2020) French-Canadian cinema has a decent tradition of going for big crowd-pleasing comedies, and Camping Sauvage is clearly set in this tradition, helped along by input from a number of the defunct but not forgotten Rock et Belles Oreilles comedy troupe—Yves Pelletier and Guy A. Lepage showing up in key roles, André Ducharme helping write the script and fan-favourite Sylvie Moreau playing the lead female role. The premise isn’t meant to be high art, as a Montréal financial high-flyer witnesses a criminal act by a mob figure and is immediately sent packing in a witness protection program until the trial. Which means being given a new lowest-of-the-low identity working in a camping establishment, with a biker gang headquarters right across the street and a policeman contact more interested in romantic jealousy than professionalism. Camping sauvage is slickly directed by most standards, although the humour is very French-Canadian in patois and cultural reference. Still, it’s a pretty good time—pair it with De Père en Fils (either the original or the sequel) for similar material.

  • Laurence Anyways (2012)

    Laurence Anyways (2012)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In French, On Cable TV, July 2020) Amazingly enough for a self-professed Canadian cinephile, I had managed to avoid watching any of wunderkind Xavier Dolan’s movies until now. Fortunately, here are CanCon requirements flying to the rescue, with a national movie cable channel broadcasting no less than five of his films for Canada Day. First up, one of his earliest: Laurence Anyways, arguably his critical breakthrough. From the evidence presented by that film, it’s easy to see what the fuss about Dolan is about: a difficult topic treated with panache and sensitivity, as a transgender woman has romantic issues with a longtime partner after her transition. The director’s work is made obvious through flourishes such as extended montages set to blunt-force pop music, slow-motion shots and clear shifts in tone and rhythm—it’s showy work, but it clearly shows fluency with the tools of the trade. The actors do good work (especially Melvil Poupaud, in a dual-gender role, and Suzanne Clément as the long-suffering girlfriend) and the result clearly exceeded my moderate expectations considering the film’s intimate, non-genre premise. The quebecicity of the film is zigzagged through the protagonist’s mid-Atlantic accent. Still, despite my overall good impression of the result, Laurence Anyways can sometimes be a bit too much, as the two-plus-hour running time isn’t fully deserved—simply avoiding the slow motion would significantly improve the film’s running time.

  • Thirteen Days (2000)

    Thirteen Days (2000)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In French, On Cable TV, July 2020) As I watched Thirteen Days, I was struck not so much by the familiar story of the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, but by how any movie that sets out to explore a presidency’s response to a crisis will be instantly measured against the administration in place. As of mid-2020, with more than 125,000 Americans dead from a global pandemic, an impeached (but not convicted) president, an incompetent administration and a current of urban unrest lingering from protests worsened by the federal response, this is the kind of film to twice underline how important it is to have capable leadership in place when things go wrong. It is very much a heroic presentation of the crisis, as seen by a protagonist close to JFK. Thirteen Days does manage to find creating ways to pump up its action quotient, most notably by going to the forefront of the not-quite-conflict in following reconnaissance jet pilots are they get potshots while surveying the Cuban countryside. There are touches of techno-thriller tropes in the way the film spans the chain of command from the president to the pilots, and slightly fetishizes the technology of the time. Political brinksmanship also comes into play as the president’s people try to figure out how to de-escalate the situation with the Russians. Thanks to the professional work from director Roger Donaldson, the film moves at the briskest pace it can afford while still offering a nicely package summary of the action—within the usual Hollywood indulgences, most notably in what the lead character does or knows. Kevin Costner plays that protagonist well, while Bruce Greenwood succeeds in the tough assignment of playing John F. Kennedy. The portrayal of the events is credible, playing into our preconceived notions of serious men in shirtsleeves, looking at documentation late in the night and bouncing ideas off each other to try to resolve the crisis. Of course, this is far more poignant now in 2020 than it would have been in 2015 or (hopefully) in 2021: the current president has proven more competent in creating crises than dealing with existing ones—he will be a blot on the presidency, and we can only be thankful that he will be replaced with good people in charge.

  • Fathers’ Day (1997)

    Fathers’ Day (1997)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In French, On Cable TV, July 2020) Some movies are about as forgettable as their titles, and so it is that Fathers’ Day is about as generic as its titular holiday. The premise does have a bit of interest to it, as a woman separately manipulates two ex-suitors into believing that they have a hitherto unknown son… and that he needs to be found. It wouldn’t be nearly as funny if the two men didn’t meet and share notes at some point, which does happen once the action gets underway. Of course, such material needs strong comic actors, and so perhaps the one thing that most people will remember from the film is that it’s Billy Crystal facing down Robin Williams as two very different father figures. The generic Hollywood comedy star vehicle approach means that the script leaves many opportunities for Crystal and Williams to mug at the camera and do what they do best. Williams is his usual hyperactive polymorphous persona as a dramatic drama teacher, while Crystal gets to punch an unusually large number of people in the face in a lawyer’s role. The picaresque adventure takes them on the road across California to find out what happened to their son, taking us from scenes shot in Los Angeles, San Francisco and Reno (at least one of those cities doubling for Sacramento) along the way. Much of the film is very generic once you get past the lead actors, although seeing late-1990s Julia Louis-Dreyfus is fun, and the atmosphere (specifically the overwhelming music) is starting to date the film as a period piece. I didn’t hate Fathers’ Day as much as some other reviewers did, but neither did I find it all that compelling.

  • Doctor Sleep (2019)

    Doctor Sleep (2019)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, June 2020) The recent second-generation re-ignition of interest in Stephen King’s adaptations is a beautiful thing to watch: I like King and I think that history will have great things to say about him, but it’s good to see the consecration happen in real time. With Doctor Sleep, director Mike Flanagan is at his second King adaptation and he continues to prove his suitability for the material. After several well-received low-to-medium films, Flanagan is now working in the big-budget leagues, and this translates into an increased ability to play with strong unusual images (the snake-like overhead shot of a caravan sticks to mind). For Doctor Sleep to rely so much on its association with The Shining is not necessarily a good thing at first, as it puts the bar too high for the film to ever reach—and it’s a bit of a bait-and-switch in that the essential plot of the movie has little to do with The Shining. No, here we’re tracking down a bunch of evil soul-stealers as they go kidnapping and harvesting psychic energy from unusually gifted children across the United States. Against them we have Terrence (returning from The Shining decades later) and another gifted child. While Doctor Sleep is imperfect, it does have quite a few things going for it. Like many of King’s adaptations, it’s a horror film that goes well beyond the boring monster features that so often pass for horror—there’s a little bit more to it, and parts of the film bring to mind more recent TV shows that use horror as a blend in their magical realism mix—at times, especially at first, there’s a cross-country Americana vibe to the film that could have been interesting in its own right… but here it’s a prelude to a good-versus-evil battle featuring flawed characters and unusual powers. Ewan MacGregor has a good role here, helped along by a large supporting cast. In many ways, Doctor Sleep does feel like the culmination of something that has been brewing in earlier episodes. Some clever set pieces are a highlight, such as when the bad guy has tables turned on them by one of the protagonists acting like a horror movie monster. The return to the Overlook Hotel at the end doesn’t quite work—again, too strong a reference to a previous work without hope of attaining it, with a payoff that is slightly disappointing. Still, the result is worth a look, especially in how it steps away briefly from what could have been a far more conventional story. We can thank King for that, and Flanagan as well.

  • The Greatest Show on Earth (1952)

    The Greatest Show on Earth (1952)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (Google Play Streaming, June 2020) Some Best Picture Oscar Winners are almost universally recognized as being weaker than the others, and The Greatest Show on Earth is often one of them. It’s not helped by the fact that it won the prize in the same year as High Noon (which was nominated) and Singin’ in the Rain (which wasn’t) were released. It rarely plays on TV, and I don’t recall any sustained critical attention about it except to bash it en passant in discussing Oscar-winners. I suppose that’s one of the reasons why it’s taken me so long to get to this film. It’s true that The Greatest Show on Earth is narratively weak—For a nearly two-and-a-half-hour film about the circus, there’s a three-ring-circus of subplots but only one of them is meant for the main stage. Revolving around a season in the life of the Barnum circus, the film often stops dead in its tracks to simply showcase the circus: the winter preparations, the train travels, the setup and takedown in each town and especially the numbers themselves. By most standards, this makes the film a bit uneven to watch, and dubious if you’re used to evaluating movies on strictly narrative merits. But (as much as it pains younger me, who believed it fervently) there’s a lot more to movies than plot, and The Greatest Show on Earth does exist in the same space as many early-talkie Hollywood movies that intended to bring the spectacles of other mediums (often Broadway) to the big screen. In historical context, The Greatest Show on Earth came at a time when movies were reacting to the arrival of TV with Technicolor and a wider aspect ratio and a conscious effort to show wonderful things to audiences. There’s something fascinating about depicting the intricate machinery of a circus and the sights and sounds of something grandiose. The film was produced with an exceptional amount of cooperation from the real Barnum Ringling circus, to the point of occasionally feeling like a big commercial. This takes on an even more precious quality now that the circus has, since 2017, stopped operating. Capturing the sights and sounds of the circus is important enough, and it will amply justify the film’s viewing for those people who may be interested in those things. The plot itself does serve in sticking things together, but most of its merit is in showcasing the circus rather than having stories. Still, it is fun to see Charlton Heston as a no-nonsense circus manager, James Stewart as a clown with a dark past, or Betty Hutton as a trapeze artist. The Greatest Show on Earth may not be a particularly strong Best Picture winner, but I’m still glad that I had an excuse to see it, as it may very well be the purest expression of Cecil B. DeMille’s thirst for spectacle.

  • Los olvidados [The Young and the Damned] (1950)

    Los olvidados [The Young and the Damned] (1950)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (YouTube streaming, June 2020) Consecrated cinema classic The Young and the Damned does have a few things going in its favour. For one thing, there aren’t that many movies set in late-1940s Mexican slums. For another, there aren’t that many strictly neorealist films in writer-director Luis Buñuel’s filmography—while the film does sport one surreal sequence halfway between reality and dream, much of the film is as gritty and realist as possible, fully embracing the life and environment of its street-urchin protagonists on their way to becoming hoodlums. At 88 minutes to present a full-featured narrative (not always a given in Bunuel films!), The Young and the Damned doesn’t overstay its welcome. The film is resolutely not that optimistic about human nature and can occasionally become harrowing viewing. But, after generations of film critics have designated this as a classic, is it still worth a look? Probably. Maybe, if you can tough it out.

  • The 7th Voyage of Sinbad (1958)

    The 7th Voyage of Sinbad (1958)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, June 2020) Fantasy films weren’t as plentiful in the 1950s as they are today, so the all-out thrills of The 7th Voyage of Sinbad made a mark on an entire generation, and for good reason. As a fantasy spectacle, it’s still potent today. The special effects alone are worth a look, considering that they’re from master step-motion animator Ray Harryhausen and there are a lot of them. His creatures are still remarkably effective today, carrying both menace and personality. It’s a good fit for a film that’s still filled with charm and perhaps even more so today, given the dated nature of it all—arch dialogue, overdone musical dues and rough-hewn optical effects can either feel old-fashioned or old-school, depending on your perspective. The adventure with an eastern twist is not particularly complex in matters of narrative, but that helps it stay perfectly accessible today. Considering the amount of work that went into illustrating Sinbad’s fantastic voyages, it’s not a surprise if the film clocks shorter than expected at 90 minutes or so. It’s remarkably obvious why The 7th Voyage of Sinbad is still considered a milestone of fantasy filmmaking’s history.

  • Pickpocket (1959)

    Pickpocket (1959)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, June 2020) “Ugh, Bresson” is slowly becoming “Eh, Bresson,” and while that doesn’t sound like much, it’s actually quite a bit of progress: I can now start watching his films without feeling as if it’s going to be as terrible as That Donkey Movie. Not that writer-director Robert Bresson steps away all that far from his usual techniques in Pickpocket: it’s still sparsely scored, delivered in low-key, almost affect-less style, employing non-professional actors, and joyfully dispenses with notions of genre conventions. Despite revolving around an active criminal pursued by the police, Pickpocket is far more of a character study than a genre crime film—it zigs and zags and seldom settles for the simplest plot development. Adding philosophical musings to a crime story, it almost defies categorization. I actually… ahem… liked it, which is more than I can say about other Bresson films.

  • Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)

    Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, June 2020) Like most 1970s westerns, Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid is grimy, dirty, dispiriting and violent. In his rush to do a revisionist take on the genre, director Sam Peckinpah goes back to his old standbys of violence, nudity (not arousing), dusty sets and unhappy endings (even when it’s shown first). Yet another brick in the mythological wall erected by Hollywood at the memory of Billy the Kid, this film stars an aging lawman, Pat Garrett, hired to kill his friend Billy the Kid. Much of the film is a chase, although one tempered by a sense of fair play and friendship. There are some interesting names in the cast, mind you: James Coburn as Garrett is a good idea, Kris Kristofferson has an early role (without facial hair) as Billy the Kid, and Bob Dylan not only scores the film (writing the classic “Knockin’ on Heaven’s Door” for it) but has a small part at the edges of the narrative. Fans of Hollywood history may want to have a peep at the film’s very troubled production history, with a booze-fuelled Peckinpah constantly at odds with the studio up and including the studio chopping up the film for distribution. (Thanks to TCM, I saw the definitive “director’s cut” rather than the theatrical version.) You can find plenty of laudatory reviews for Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid, but this won’t be one of them. I can’t muster up much enthusiasm for what feels like an undistinguished revisionist western, adrift in a long, long list of similar films made during New Hollywood and later. I’m not saying it’s bad—I’m just saying that I didn’t care for it.