Movie Review

  • The Color of Money (1986)

    The Color of Money (1986)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In French, On Cable TV, May 2019) I’m one of those weirdos that doesn’t particularly care for the original The Hustler (1961), so I was coming to The Color of Money with low expectations. Which may have worked to the later film’s advantage, as I found it more interesting than its predecessor. It helps that this follow-up does what sequels often loath to do—use the previous film as back-story while telling a new story in which returning characters are developed in interesting ways. Much of the credit for this creative intention goes directly to the authors of the novel from which The Color of Money is adapted, who conceived it as a sequel to the novel that spawned The Hustler. Paul Newman is back as a former professional pool player, now more interested in staking bets for younger players. Playing against him is Tom Cruise as a younger, more impulsive player, and the great-looking Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio as the third party in their merry crew. (Plus, John Turturro as an evil hustler.)  The relationship between the three characters is what sustains The Color of Money on its way to the final tournament in Atlantic City, with everyone changing and allying themselves differently every few scenes. The middle of the film even sees a significant plot rearrangement, as the mentor/mentee relationship gives way to the mentor getting himself back into the game. While not quite as dramatic as its twenty-five-year distant prequel, The Color of Money nonetheless makes for fascinating viewing. Director Martin Scorsese being Scorsese, there are a few technically impressive shots here, as well as new ways of showing familiar things—most notable being the pool-as-tennis sequence, and some shorts from the perspective of the ball. The ending isn’t particularly cheery, but it does work to cap off the film in a satisfying way. It’s not quite as ambitious or universal as The Hustler, but The Color of Money does feel more enjoyable.

  • Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot (1992)

    Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot (1992)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In French, On TV, May 2019) Some titles live on in infamy—not necessarily the films, but the titles, and Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot is way up there with the worst. It does sum up the film’s premise nicely, though, as Sylvester Stallone plays a super-cop who’s saddled with an overbearing mother who screws up his ongoing investigations. As a concept, it’s not the worst idea in the world: it could have worked as intended, as a take-off on the kind of buddy-cop movie that was so popular at the time. Alas, the execution is limp: predictable, unfunny, about as in-your-face as it could be. What’s more, it feels stuck in a weird borderland in between too dumb to be realistic, yet not absurd enough to fully play into the premise. Estelle Getty is not really to blame as the titular mom, but Stallone is not even up to his low standards here—although try to watch the film in French if you can, as his dubbing actor is marginally more competent at line reading than he is, and thus gives the impression that he’s a better actor. Not that it’s enough to rescue this film from easy punchlines and lapidary assessments—as a title, Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot is awful, but it turns out that the movie is as well.

  • Cyborg (1989)

    Cyborg (1989)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In French, On Cable TV, May 2019) I was never a big fan of Jean-Claude van Damme in his prime period, and it’s dull movies like Cyborg that explain why. Here, a generic post-apocalyptic landscape acts as a backdrop to a series of poorly justified fight sequences. The occasional flashes of interest in the story and cyborg effects soon pass, hampered by a limited budget and a lack of imagination. Director Albert Puyn isn’t known for high quality productions, and his work on Cyborg is true to form: aside from very occasional instances of visual flair, it feels like an incredibly generic piece of 1980s action filmmaking. The lead actors may be attractive (Deborah Richter in particular), but the film gets boring very quickly once the martial arts sequences begin.

  • Troop Beverly Hills (1989)

    Troop Beverly Hills (1989)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In French, On Cable TV, May 2019) Let’s face it: I would probably have hated Troop Beverly Hills had I seen it any time before my forties. It’s not a terrible film, but it’s clearly aimed at younger girls and I didn’t have the empathy to see that until a bit later in life. The premise isn’t complicated, with a ditzy Beverly Hills socialite taking responsibility for her daughter’s Girls Scout (oops: “Wilderness Girls”) troupe and combining that work with her other overriding passions. The plotting is strictly kids-grade material, with an outlook that celebrates the simple-mindedness of its adult heroine. But once you understand who it’s aimed for, the film does become quite charming. Much of that credit goes to curly red-haired Shelley Long, who turns in a terrific performance as a shallow but likable socialite trying to get over her ongoing divorce by taking care of a few girls—and put the harsher-than-thou matrons in their place. It’s certainly not great art, but the now-quaint late-1980s fashion makes Troop Beverly Hills, with the added attraction of a few celebrity cameos and early performances by Carla Gugino and Tori Spelling. Amusingly, I see that the film has appreciated with time—the right expectations (this being a wish fulfillment or rather wish-empowerment fantasy rather than a satire of the rich and famous) helping to correctly frame its reception.

  • Less than Zero (1987)

    Less than Zero (1987)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In French, On Cable TV, May 2019) If you’re looking for a film that exemplifies some of the worst excesses of the 1980s, Less than Zero would be a good way to start. Taking place among the privileged but disaffected youth of the Los Angeles rich, it reduces young adulthood to a meaningless series of parties, hook-ups and endless lines of cocaine. The more cynical will point at the film’s pedigree, traced back to a semiautobiographical novel written by a young L.A. native, and wonder how much of the novel appealed to the Hollywood studio executive culture. No matter how it came to be, though, Less than Zero is not the most uplifting film out there. While it ultimately pays some sort of acknowledgement at drugs being bad (killing off a main character to make the point), it does take place in this dispiriting environment of meaningless hedonism and rampant abuse. Still, there are a few things worth noticing here and there: Jamie Gertz frequently looks amazing (A reminder: I came of age in the big-hair late 1980s), while Robert Downey Jr. has an ironic role as a drug-addled young man. James Spader also has an early role as the film’s remorseless antagonist drug dealer. The indignation of the film rings a bit false considering how thoroughly it wallows in filth, but that was Beverly Hills in the 1980s. It doesn’t help that the film doesn’t have much of a plot, seemingly content to repeat itself with different inflections. Less than Zero had, upon release, quite a reputation associated with it and the novel’s author, enfant terrible Bret Easton Ellis—hype and fear that their transgressive fiction would prove the new mainstream. That has largely been forgotten over the decades, but I’m not sure that this absence of hype has been kind to Less Than Zero: Stripped of the importance placed on it, it frequently feels like a performative melodrama meant to shock but otherwise hollow.

  • A Dangerous Method (2011)

    A Dangerous Method (2011)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, May 2019) Now here’s a subject matter you don’t see every day: A slickly made film exploring the evolution of the relationship between Sigmund Freud and Karl Jung, and the woman between them. A Dangerous Method is clearly an actor’s showcase: In keeping with late-career David Cronenberg’s work, it’s low on gore, violence or overdone drama, but no less intriguing through its solid look at the roots of modern psychoanalysis. Even if you don’t happen to put too much stock in Freudian (or Jungian) theory, there’s some fun in seeing Viggo Mortensen and Michael Fassbender playing two titans of psychology, with Keira Knightley as a patient who becomes something more. (She especially good earlier on, as she plays several shades of hysteria.) The historical recreation is polished—aside from some dodgy CGI depicting a nautical approach to New York City. A Dangerous Method has an unusual, highly intellectual subject matter and I could use more of these kinds of film even if they’re best appreciated in a very specific mood.

  • The Hunter (1980)

    The Hunter (1980)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In French, On TV, May 2019) Steve MacQueen lived fast and died young at 50, after a mere twenty-three-year career as a leading man. The Hunter has the distinction of being the last film he did before his death from a drawn-out battle with cancer. He’s clearly older here than in the roles that made him famous, and the age is part of the point: Showcasing an older bounty hunter protagonist, The Hunter blends action and light comedy even from the first few scenes. Largely episodic in nature, the film takes us from one bounty-hunting assignment to another, in between domestic scenes showing the protagonist’s unusual lifestyle (but “cool”—because MacQueen), his struggles being an expectant father and a psychotic stalker taking aim at his pregnant girlfriend. The bounty-hunting episodes are far more entertaining than the more grounded and suspenseful domestic material: The farm combine sequence is a highlight, as is an extended chase in downtown Chicago that culminates with a car driving off the corncob Marina towers into the Chicago River. Too scattered to be wholly effective, The Hunter nonetheless has a few good action beats, and offers a glimpse into what kind of actor Steve MacQueen could have been had he lived longer: he clearly wasn’t going to let age make him look any less cool.

  • Benny & Joon (1993)

    Benny & Joon (1993)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In French, On Cable TV, May 2019) By now, I’ve seen enough movies about mental illness that I’ve grown immune to most of the usual ways the topic can be approached. But not every film about mental illness has to be a tear-jerky emotionally disturbing drama, and that may explain my tepid liking for Benny & Joon: While there is something to be said about its occasionally twee take on two non-neurotypical people finding love, it does dare to try something else. Much of the film rests on the very different performances from its lead actors, from Aidan Quinn’s quiet Benny to Mary Stuart Masterson as the schizophrenic Joon, but especially Johnny Depp’s impressive performance going through silent film-inspired comedy routines. The rest of the cast features many known actors even in small roles, from Julianne Moore (playing an ex-exploitation film actress), to Oliver Platt, C. C. H. Pounder, Dan Hedaya and William H. Macy. It can also rely on a charming small-town atmosphere, even when things aren’t going so well for our characters. Soundtrack fans should be aware that Benny & Joon does a lot of mileage to the very familiar tune of “500 Miles.”  After a bit of a romantic fantasy, the film eventually confronts the reality of living with a schizophrenic person, but in a way that ensures it will end well. Which, which optimistic, is not a bad message on which to end those kinds of movies.

  • Dying Young (1991)

    Dying Young (1991)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In French, On Cable TV, May 2019) A good old-fashioned weeper, Dying Young is built on a premise that has been made before (Dark Victory, gender-switched) and after (Me before You)—it’s an entirely unsurprising caretaker-falling-in-love-with-a-dying-person film, executed with very 1990s style and period-appropriate stars. Clearly relying on its star power, the film features Julia Roberts as a nurse and a then-slim Vincent D’Onofrio as the ailing patient. In terms of plot, that’s pretty much it—it goes through the motions of its predictable plotting, but slowly enough that you start being exasperated at both the speed and the obviousness of it all. Both actors are worth a look, though: D’Onofrio has some good material to rely on, and circa-1991 Roberts, fresh off her meteoric breakthrough role in Pretty Woman, was spectacular to behold. Unfortunately, the movie really isn’t as good as its actors—despite good production qualities, it feels on autopilot from beginning to end, especially if you’ve seen any of the many similar movies. The soundtrack will feel very familiar to those of us who were 16 in 1991. Otherwise, there’s really not much to say about Dying Young—it’s almost exactly what the plot summary tells you.

  • Gorky Park (1983)

    Gorky Park (1983)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, May 2019) It’s clear that we will never quite experience Gorky Park like Western audiences perceived it back in 1983 (or in reading the original thriller novel by Martin Cruz Smith two years earlier). 1983, after all, is the year where the world narrowly avoided nuclear war between the USA and the Soviet Union, in the middle of Reagan’s first term and the years before Gorbachev’s détente. Back then, the idea of a crime thriller set deep behind enemy lines was novel and interesting by default—how would familiar genre elements work under the Soviet regime? Now, of course, the number of Hollywood movies shot and set in Russia has exploded, so we’ll never quite see Gorky Park with the same extra-narrative interest as audiences upon its release. But what’s left today is a decent thriller—not spectacular, not terrible, but engrossing enough in its depiction of a multiple murder whose investigation quickly goes to the top, with side glances at an espionage subplot. The synth music occasionally feels modern and then almost immediately dated. John Hurt is not bad in the lead role, as a disgraced police officer getting embroiled in intrigue. After a remarkable first half-hour, Gorky Park then loses steam the longer it does on, ending with the expected shootout knee-deep in the snow. The romantic story is a bit dull, especially compared to the rich atmosphere—Gorky Park may not have been shot in Moscow, but it presents a credible approximation of it. One lingering question remains, though: Did it accurately present Moscow at the twilight of the Cold War, or is it a Westernized idea of it, complete with the blatant pot shots at the regime in place? It’s left to interpretation, although the solid nature of the film isn’t up for discussion.

  • Mr. Destiny (1990)

    Mr. Destiny (1990)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In French, On Cable TV, May 2019) There’s a surprisingly strong subgenre of movies exploring what it would be like to rewrite your own history and see the outcomes of different choices. From the angels-driven plot of It’s a Wonderful Life to the more recent examples justified by quantum mechanics mumbo-jumbo, you can see the appeal of the plot device in order to deliver a statement on the human condition. But it’s the execution more than the premise that will determine the impact of the film, as Mr. Destiny clearly suggests. Clearly made for a mass audience, the film’s hackneyed approach to alternate realities for our everyman protagonist isn’t particularly impressive, nor is its cavalier approach to respecting the integrity of the parallel timeline (helpfully pointed out by the magical character, asking our protagonist if he isn’t behaving reprehensibly by wooing another woman than his now-wife). Moral issues aside (and it’s tough to put them aside, because they are significant and do lessen the impact of the lesson the film think it’s teaching us) Mr. Destiny’s biggest problem is the complete and unvarying predictability of the result as it goes through the expected paces. It doesn’t help that two of the headliners are Jim Belushi and Jon Lovitz, two actors who are obnoxious on their best days and actively irritating on all others. More fortunately, Linda Hamilton and Rene Russo are sights to behold, but they’re not quite enough to make the film interesting—and their place in the plot, as mere prizes to be juggled by the white male protagonist having a not-even-mid-life crisis, betrays some ugly scripting issues. Michael Caine is perhaps the only likable character, but he comes across as ineffectually pointing out basic problems caused by the protagonist’s selfishness before it doesn’t matter and we get out of the dream sequence anyway. There are some far better movies tackling more or less the same issues out there—there’s no need to even watch Mr. Destiny.

  • The Dreamers (2003)

    The Dreamers (2003)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In French, On TV, May 2019) No matter which culture you’re from, Paris exerts this irresistible pull as a travel destination, or better yet as the place to go for a coming-of-age experience. I’ve now seen movies from countries as far away as America and China purring over French culture, and Anglo/French/Italian co-production The Dreamers certainly plays into that trend. Our initial anchor is a young American man travelling to Paris to study French in the late 1960s, during which he gets involved with very close twins that invite him to stay at their apartment, the arrangement eventually becoming a form of romantic triangle. They don’t do a whole of formal classroom study during the course of the film, going instead for lengthy discussions about life, love, cinema, politics and runs through Le Louvre. Right at the moment when it seems it won’t end well, the 1968 Paris protests begin and the film ends on a thoroughly romantic note. This heavily romanticized vision of studying in Paris has attracted a lot of attention for its copious nudity (much, but not all of it from Eva Green, who has since made it one of her trademarks) but is most interesting for its portrayal of three young cinephiles exchanging classic cinema references (many of them illustrated by clips) and living life in 1960s Paris. Writer-director Bernardo Bertolucci clearly wanted to create a belated French Nouvelle Vague movie, so specifically does it associate with this movement and quote its inspirations. The result does seem in the same vein, although (cinema having changed since the 1960s), some elements of The Dreamers would appear closer to titillation than homage. But that’s Bertolucci for you…

  • Invasion U.S.A. (1985)

    Invasion U.S.A. (1985)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In French, On Cable TV, May 2019) It’s not really fair to say that every Chuck Norris movie is terrible —there are a few mild exceptions. But Invasion U.S.A. is not a likely candidate for the honour: Made to lowest-common-denominator purposes by B-movie factory Cannon Films, it takes anti-Soviet paranoia to new depths by supposing an invasion of the United States by Soviet and Cuban guerillas intent on causing as much damage as possible. I’m told that the novelization actually transforms the film’s ludicrous premise into a workable terror plan, but none of this is apparent in the movie. Instead, we have unseen attackers acting like mischievous gremlins, doing not-so-lethal things at random while being constantly thwarted by that rascally Chuck Norris. It even takes places at Christmas for those heartwarming seasonal moments where communists blow up family Christmas trees. No, but really: Invasion U.S.A. was badly conceived from the start, and executed even more badly. Norris is a wooden block of anti-Soviet action, stuck in incompetent filmmaking—it’s so incredibly stupid from beginning to end (wait until you see the school bus sequence) to the point of not being all that much fun. While it gave the world the iconic image of Chuck Norris brandishing Uzis submachine guns, Invasion U.S.A. doesn’t even qualify for so-bad-it’s-good status.

  • The Rite (2011)

    The Rite (2011)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, May 2019) Any movie that takes on Catholic exorcism is measuring itself against the obvious heavy-hitter in the genre — The Exorcist. Fortunately, The Rite is aware of that precedent, and seems built to go beyond the tropes of the 1973 film. Featuring a young priest protagonist asked to undertake exorcism training, the film takes us in an enjoyable conspiratorial view of the Catholic Church in which demonic possession is seen as something to be managed through rigidly defined protocols. While Colin O’Donoghue is bland as the protagonist, it doesn’t matter very much given that Anthony Hopkins is the real driving force of the film. He hams it up as a renegade priest who happens to be the best in dealing with possessed souls—until, predictably, he is possessed himself. As a horror film, The Rite is merely serviceable at best—the horror is small-scale, the frights are familiar and the entire thing does live in the shadow of many similar films. But it does have its share of good moments as well: a protagonist written as having his doubts, a relatively credible portrayal of the Vatican’s most extraordinary people and quite an anchor in Hopkin’s portrayal. I suppose it could have been much worse.

  • Singles (1992)

    Singles (1992)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In French, On Cable TV, May 2019) It’s remarkable what difference a few years can make at some crucial junctions. If you’re not a kid at a time when a kid’s movie is released, the film will not reach you in quite the same way. The same goes for other movies aimed a very specific age group even later on. As a late and reluctant member of the Gen-X generation (my parents were boomers, so I’m clearly obviously “Echo” rather than the forgotten cohort in between Generation X whose definition keeps changing … but don’t get me started on generational cohorts), I often feel as if I was slightly too young to fully appreciate the classic Gen-X movies as they were released. Singles, for instance, features actors ten years older than me playing characters roughly five years older than me—and that can be a significant difference as a teenager if you’re using university as a significant dividing line. All of this to say that I never saw Singles in theatres, and never had any real desire to see it since then. But now that I’m systematically investigating 1990 movies, Singles stands as a beacon of sorts—widely recognized as a major movie of its generation (I can effortlessly find no less than five “defining movies of Gen-X” lists that mention it, usually in the top ten). It certainly captures a defining time and place—Early-1990s Seattle, with grunge set against an endless backdrop of coffee stores. Our titular “Singles” means both the ensemble cast and a central apartment building not geared toward couples or families. The plot is conventional in the romantic comedy vein, but more interesting than usual in its execution. Writer-director Cameron Crowe was hitting his peak cultural relevance at the time, and his eye for hipness certainly carries throughout the entire film from fashion to musical choices. Obviously, it’s all romanticized, almost fetishized—but at least it’s absorbing enough to keep our interest throughout. It helps that the film features pretty actors—Kyra Sedgwick is Julia-Roberts-level good-looking here, and in between a very cute Bridget Fonda, Campbell Scott, and Matt Dillon the film has enough eye candy to catch anyone’s eyes. There is a place for movies that firmly (even consciously) mark a definite time and place, and I suspect that the specificity of Singles, having crossed over to period-piece status, will keep acting as a time capsule of sorts for a specific generation … even if it happens to be not quite mine.