Reviews

  • Missing (1982)

    Missing (1982)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On TV, January 2020) To anyone used to Jack Lemmon’s comic body of work, it can be jarring to see him at work in Missing, a film about as humourless as any can be. Here, Lemmon plays an American businessman travelling to Chile an unnamed country after a coup to investigate his son’s disappearance. He teams up with his son’s wife, but their relationship does not start harmoniously and it’s further tested as their investigations either produce no results, or lead them to darker and darker certainties. Eventually, writer-director Costa-Gavras, working from real events, accuses the US government of complicity in the coup and the numerous deaths that ensued. Missing is absolutely not a happy movie: the atmosphere of a post-coup authoritarian country is utterly nightmarish, and the central mystery at the heart of the film has a merciless resolution. Lemmon, as one could expect, is quite good in a much darker role than usual, channelling righteous anger as he portrays a father looking for his only child. Alongside him, Sissy Spacek is also quite good in a more difficult role designed to clash with the older man. (Both of them earnest Academy Awards nominations for their roles) Where Missing stumbles is in not focusing tightly on the story it wants to tell—Costa-Gravas is a bit too self-satisfied and goes on numerous tangents (the opening twenty minutes, for starters) that don’t necessarily improve the result. Still, Missing is a film with weight, anger, and a thick atmosphere you’ll yearn to escape.

  • Pulse (2006)

    Pulse (2006)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In French, On Cable TV, January 2020) I like a lot of what Pulse attempts to do—namely, blend the technological with the supernatural and poke around at some of the fears of the information age. The dead possessing the living using technology—that’s still a great premise: someone should make a movie about it. Alas, Pulse aims for the lowest common horror movie denominator, and by that, I mean a teenage audience, with a by-the-numbers execution that barely scratches the potential of its premise. The good ideas (and a few good visuals) don’t last long, as the college-age characters run around screaming. Christina Milan does look great—but she’s only in the movie for a moment. Otherwise, Pulse is so conventional that it becomes boring considering the random scares: there’s no discipline to director Jim Sonzero’s approach. The mid-2000s patina of the film is obvious not only in the technology being used, but also the constant bathing of everything in blue light. Sure, Pulse can be worth a chuckle or two at the way it completely drowns the potential of its premise into generic horror clichés… but there are other better movies that should be watched before this one.

  • Village of the Damned (1995)

    Village of the Damned (1995)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On DVD, January 2020) If you’re a horror fan, the 1995 remake of Village of the Damned should be somewhere on your long list of things to see—if only to see how famed director John Carpenter would take on the task of modernizing the classic 1960 film. Predictably, the result is decent… while remaining quite a bit less than the original. Still, let’s recognize that Carpenter at least has the chops to make the film slightly more accessible than the sometimes-cold original, and that, from a distance of 25 years, the mid-1990s setting is fast becoming a period piece in its own right. The result can boast of an intriguing cast—Kirstie Alley is fine as a hard-driven scientist, and it’s fun to see both Christopher Reeves and Mark Hamill in roles away from the best-known characters. (As it happened, this was the last film that Reeves completed before the horse accident that left him paraplegic.) Carpenter fans will recognize this as middle-tier work from someone who had mastered horror directing at this point in his career—it’s suspenseful and atmospheric, but also slightly ridiculous and at times too gory (but not always). The rescue subplot at the very end is troublesome, considering that it messes with something that should not be messed with. Still, while it may not reach the heights of Carpenter’s best work, Village of the Damned is still a serviceable little chiller that can be watched easily—and it’s probably more interesting now than it was upon release.

  • Janghwa, Hongryeon [A Tale of Two Sisters] (2003)

    Janghwa, Hongryeon [A Tale of Two Sisters] (2003)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In French, On Cable TV, January 2020) Arguably the breakthrough feature for South Korean writer-director Kim Jee-woon, A Tale of Two Sisters is a psychological thriller that feels completely at ease alongside much of the work from Jee-woon’s contemporaries. (Compare and contrast with Stoker and The Handmaiden, for instance.) It’s delicate, gruesome, violent, ambiguous, meditative and twisted. It takes place in a peaceful rural setting, but features spectacularly warped characters and an intricate backstory that is slowly teased then revealed throughout the third act. It’s a bit of gotcha-cinema (although made at a time when such things weren’t as much of clichés as they are now) and it seldom holds back for shock value, heralding some of the far more violent movies in Jee-woon’s later filmography. As a psychological thriller, it faithfully holds dear to the notion that there should be long stretches of silence in its first half, and plenty of screaming in the second—plus hallucinations and supernatural phenomena just to make things even more complicated. A Tale of Two Sisters is really not a bad movie, but viewers may have a hard time getting and staying interested—especially if you’re not a big fan of twisty psychological thrillers or, on the flip side, have seen too many of them already.

  • It’s Showtime (1976)

    It’s Showtime (1976)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, January 2020) I suppose that It’s Showtime had to be made at some point in Hollywood history—a clip-show documentary of selected animal performances. Yup, that’s it—That’s Entertainment for your pets, mining Classic Hollywood for amusing bits. It’s all made of mostly short black-and-white film clips, interspaced with coloured intertitles. Don’t expect an explanation of how animals are made to perform on screen—the film is sparsely narrated to its detriment (some context would have been helpful), with the intent being strictly to amuse. If you’re not already amused, then the overbearing sound effects added to the clips will tell you when to laugh. It’s not all bad—the opening is a cute parody of Singin’ in the Rain (which makes the kinship with That’s Entertainment even more apparent) and some of the clips do remain impressive and/or cute enough to watch. But your appreciation will hinge at least partly on your tolerance for dressed-up dogs. The 1970s were a decade where many of these clip-show films were made as the declining studios looked at their vaults and riffled for the best bits. That’s Entertainment showed that there was some money there, but not all of its imitators were equally successful—such as It’s Showtime demonstrates.

  • Yao ling ling [Goldbuster] (2017)

    Yao ling ling [Goldbuster] (2017)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On TV, January 2020) The profoundly silly Chinese comedy Goldbuster is a blend of capitalistic critique (in that the holdouts for a planned land development deal are scared by actors hired by the developer) and very broad comedy (in that the holdouts call for an exorcism). The result is amusing and not necessarily predictable in medium strokes—Sure, the underdogs will win, but who could see a zombie film emerging midway through? Sandra Ng directs and likably stars into a film that can blend special effects, slapstick physical comedy, mild social criticism, and plenty of goofiness. Goldbuster is not that good, but as a glimpse into the parallel universe of blockbuster films for a Chinese audience, it’s fun and accessible without being overbearing with propaganda or completely incomprehensible.

  • Ghost Ship (2002)

    Ghost Ship (2002)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On DVD, January 2020) As far as horror films go, Ghost Ship exceeds modest expectations in a few significant ways. For one thing, it does start with a memorable sequence in which a snapped cable kills all the adults on an ocean liner dance floor. After that, we time skip and get a classic horror premise in slightly different clothes, as a salvage crew boards an old abandoned ship, then experiences numerous supernatural incidents. It’s all good genre fun all the way to the ending, which provides both an expiation and a stinger in quick succession. Director Steve Beck handles everything efficiently, with the highlight being a great exposition sequence three-quarter of the way through that takes place without dialogue. He’s also gifted with actors who understand the material they’re playing, with Julianna Margulies being a specific standout. The gore could have been turned down, though—the film has enough other things going on. Ghost Ship is not, to be clear, a great movie—but like a lot of perfectly decent genre films, it can be watched twenty years later with no big expectations and a sense of satisfaction when it delivers what it aims to.

  • Libeled Lady (1936)

    Libeled Lady (1936)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, January 2020) If someone tells you that Libeled Lady is one of the top comedies of the 1930s, believe them—there aren’t many better ones. Firmly ensconced in the screwball subgenre, this is a film that plays into the whole weddings-don’t-mean-much (but they do!), harebrained-schemes-are-better-than-honesty, let’s-see-who’s-the-craziest ethos of those kinds of films. The cast alone is a solid treat, what with the legendary William Powell/Myrna Loy screen duo, bonified with Jean Harlow (who was romantically involved with Powell at the time, adding another layer of interest) and a dark-haired Spencer Tracy to round off the main cast. Everything takes place in a gloriously escapist Manhattan upper-class society setting (with a bit of newspaper journalism thrown in) where people have no better things to do than to pursue demented schemes, maintain misunderstandings and riff off quips at each other. It’s a hugely enjoyable film [April 2024: And one that appreciates upon subsequent viewings] because director Jack Conway’s execution is so smooth, not to mention the acting—Powell being Powell, his line delivery is perfect, but every main player has three other gifted comedians to play with, and the result is a small triumph. Even the outdated period detail becomes charming or at least easy to forgive. (There’s a bit of casual racism at the very beginning of the film, but it’s early, quick and more annoying than insulting.) The cavalcade of last-minute twists that serve as resolution is part of the joke: having no reasonable way to untangle the plot, the writers added more things and called it quits while daring anyone to say anything about it. Libeled Lady was, upon release, a box-office hit and an Academy Awards Best Picture nominee. It’s still a marvel even today—easily worth a watch.

  • Broadway Melody of 1940 (1940)

    Broadway Melody of 1940 (1940)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, January 2020) The Broadway Melody series goes out with a bang in the fourth and final instalment Broadway Melody of 1940. If you want to talk about individual films leaving a legacy, consider that this is the only on-screen pairing of two of the era’s greatest dancers at the height of their powers—Fred Astaire in fine youthful form, and the equally-impressive tap-dancing sensation Eleanor Russell. They share two dancing numbers, and they are both terrific: the first number is loose, flirty and fun, while the second is polished (musically and visually) and carefully controlled. Other delights abound; the film gets started on a strong note with a dual-tap dancing sequence featuring Astaire and George Murphy. Then there’s a fun ball-balancing act. The nautical stage number is a prowess of set design. The Broadway-themed plot shows up just enough to string along the dancer numbers, and that’s all we need. Movie musicals historians will tell you that this was Powell’s last major film, the first of Astaire’s second MGM contract, and the last big black-and-white musical from MGM. But what’s important is that Broadway Melody of 1940 captures some incredible performances and can still be watched with great interest eighty years later. Now that’s a legacy!

  • Broadway Melody of 1938 (1937)

    Broadway Melody of 1938 (1937)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, January 2020) Decades before Internet movie reviewers started babbling about film franchises, here was Hollywood tapping the Broadway Melody IP for all it was worth with no less than four yearly instalments. Fortunately, there was still enough gas in the tank for the third instalment Broadway Melody of 1938 to showcase a few highlights. What’s worth remembering here? Eleanor Russell tap-dancing in a barn, Russell again dancing in New York City streets, a young Judy Garland singing the Broadway Melody song, and her fannish ode to Clark Gable. Otherwise, what’s thrown into this glorified sketch show is fairly ordinary stuff for 1930s musicals—all subplots revolving around new ingenues trying to make it big on Broadway (“Where thousands of young people come… to write home asking for money.”) Horses are also popular here, for some reason. It all ends with a Broadway show, of course, whose first highlight is a tap-dancing number featuring Judy Garland and a cute white car. But the piece de resistance is Russell’s end number, singing the Broadway Melody while tap dancing on a vast cityscape stage while surrounded by tuxedoed dancers. In between the musical numbers, it goes without saying that Broadway Melody of 1938 isn’t designed to be quite as strong. There is, for instance, an inexplicably recurring bit about a sneezing guy that was probably a lot funnier to the writers than the audience. Still, it’s intermittently impressive and interesting throughout for the unapologetic way it plays into the star system, the Broadway myths and film franchising opportunities of the time. The previous two films in the series are better, but sometimes you learn more from the imperfect ones.

  • Wine Wars aka Qiang Hong (2017)

    Wine Wars aka Qiang Hong (2017)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On TV, January 2020) When I say that Wine Wars is a bit of an odd movie, I’m unfortunately using “weird” along the lines of “disappointing.” Taking the Chinese fascination for all things French to a logical extreme, this is an action film that largely takes place in France (well, “France”—not sure if it was where most of it was shot) and revolves around a priceless bottle of wine. As a pretext for a few action scenes and a plot that revolves around greed, violence and betrayal, that’s more intriguing than usual. I liked the leads (and so does the director—Leon Lai directs himself as one of the lead roles) and some of the cinematography is very slick, but the film doesn’t do as well overall. The action sequences may be remarkable, but they’re not that numerous, and the entire film is harmed by awkward directing and staging, with the narrative not always being easy to follow, even allowing for translation issues. The visual interest, however, never outranks the narrative confusion. There are a few chuckles to be had in a Chinese film so preoccupied with European winemaking even as it tries to reclaim some of it—at one point, one of the characters mentions something about how “if [historical figures] would have remained in China rather than go to Italy, China would be the world’s finest wine producer!” Wine Wars may be worth a look if you’re interested in Chinese action cinema, or the veneration in which Chinese culture seems to be holding France, but don’t complain if you’re disappointed that it never reaches its potential.

  • Father of the Bride (1950)

    Father of the Bride (1950)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, January 2020) There’s a reason why Father of the Bride remains a classic seventy years later, after a (rather good if far more histrionic) Steve Martin remake and many social upheavals that make the 1950 world of the film feel distant: It’s still sweet, humane and a terrific showcase for both Spencer Tracy and Elizabeth Taylor. Adapted from a then-bestselling novel, the story is simple to the point of being archetypical—Daddy’s favourite daughter is getting married, and that’s cause for emotional, financial and comic upheaval. Handled by director Vincente Minelli in a manner reminiscent of his other musicals, the film moves at a steady pace, starting with a quiet but very effective monologue that sets the frame for the rest of the film. Spencer is typically good as the harried everyman father pushed to his limits in organizing an extravagant upper-middle-class wedding, while Taylor here plays the cute ingenue without the sex-symbol mystique that would accompany many of her later roles. Father of the Bride was an Academy Awards favourite, earning nominations for best picture, screenplay and a nod to Tracy’s performance (most likely cinched by his bittersweet narration that wraps up the film). It almost goes without saying that the socio-economic context of the film is almost entirely alien at this point, with much of the film treating the protagonist’s patriarchal viewpoint as the default assumption, and multiplying rich-people’s-problems as a source of comedy. But is it really so outdated? For all of the intervening social upheavals, there’s still a solid core of drama (expressed as broadly-accessible comic sequences) in seeing a middle-aged man go through the realization that his daughter has become a woman and is leaving his orbit. Father of the Bride is not quite as time-bound as you may think—for all of its circa-1950 context, it still works quite well today.

  • Hooper (1978)

    Hooper (1978)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, January 2020) I repeat myself, but I’ll say it again: I’m astonished that there aren’t more movies about stuntmen. It’s a naturally dramatic premise, it’s Hollywood-related, it’s meta and it’s spectacular. What else do you need? At least there was a brief spate of such films back in the late 1970s, with Hooper being the best of them. It’s really not an accident if the film came from a collaboration between Burt Reynolds and director Hal Needham—both actors/former stuntmen who had a streak of successful collaboration on stunt-heavy comedies from Smokey and the Bandit to Stroker Ace, through one of my favourites The Cannonball Run. Hooper was the second of their big collaboration, and it’s as definitive a statement on the life and thrills of professional stunts as you can still imagine. The film goes into the nitty-gritty of the profession and the tolls it takes, the kind of personality it attracts, and the relationships between stuntmen and other people around them. The biggest surprise here is that the film is as much of a character study as it’s a showcase for big stunts, with a finale that collapses chimney stacks, blows up tanker trucks and has the protagonist jump over a damaged bridge. Reynolds is ridiculously charismatic here, and there’s a sense that he’s spending accumulated starpower to work with Needham in delivering an homage to their former profession. (It was several years in the making.) Then-veteran Needham seems to be having fun as well in staging action setpieces, poking fun at the Hollywood machine and letting Reynolds play in his element. The stunts, as befit such a film, are exceptionally impressive, especially in a post-CGI world—for a film dealing with danger, it’s appropriate to fear (even a little bit) for the characters and the stuntmen stepping in for the characters. And that, unfortunately, may clue us in as to why the late 1970s were the golden age for stunt movies—as special effects grew during the Modern Hollywood era, so did the artifice—while stuntpeople are still risking their lives for movies today (and still too often dying for it), no one will ever greenlight a project perceived as dangerous and even if they did, there would be so much CGI as to contradict the theme of a stunt film. Audiences simply wouldn’t believe it unless extraordinary care would be taken in selling the illusion. The other thing is simpler: Hooper does such a terrific job at exploring the world of stunts that it may never be equalled. Maybe it’s better not to attempt it.

  • Babes in Toyland (1934)

    Babes in Toyland (1934)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, January 2020) This is not going to be a long review, because I’m not big on Christmas movies and I’m not big on Laurel and Hardy. Sure, I like both, but not to the point of obsessiveness, and watching Laurel-and-Hardy-meets-Christmas film Babes in Toyland as a January leftover is a few weeks too late to get into the spirit of things. It’s perhaps more interesting as a proto-fantasy film in which the comedy duo doesn’t quite know what to do with animated toys. If you’re here for the comedy duo, prepare to be disappointed, as the demands of a big-budget family fantasy overwhelm their usual brand of comedy—and then wonder why Laurel and Hardy had to be the anchor of a film (adapted from a decidedly non-Laurel-and-Hardy stage musical) that could have been just fine without them. Mickey Mouse shows up in what’s bound to be a surprise to most viewers. As a family film, though, it’s a bit rougher than more contemporary fare—they didn’t coddle kids back then, and it shows through some unpleasant imagery even deep in the fantasy. There are many versions of the film (monochrome or colourized), but I believe that the one I watched from TCM is the original one. Anyway—Babes in Toyland is intriguing, but I didn’t hate it and I didn’t love it either. A rewatch may improve things—and you know it’s bound to play at least once a year.

  • Holiday Inn (1942)

    Holiday Inn (1942)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, January 2020) Most of Fred Astaire’s musicals are good, and almost all of his good ones are easy recommendation. Holiday Inn, while ranking high on musical and dancing value alone (I mean— it does have Bing Crosby as a co-star, and it introduced the holiday standard “White Christmas”) now comes with warnings—the film is structured around seasonal songs, and one musical number comes with blackface. Like—a lot of blackface, Bing Crosby in blackface, a grotesque blackface getup for the female lead and real black people singing a verse but segregated from the film’s stars. Oh, and all of that to celebrate Lincoln’s birthday. Like—whyyy? You can’t even rationalize it as a homage (like Astaire in Swing Time) or as thematically apropos: Practically nothing about the song would have changed had been done without blackface. Anyway— that’s why Holiday Inn shown on non-specialist channels often cut out this sequence. I disagree with the edit (films should reflect their production era, warts and all) but I can’t quite find fault with those who want to show the film as a holiday classic without getting deep in the discussion of what’s appropriate for all audiences. The catch is that once you excise that blackface sequence, the rest of Holiday Inn becomes far less controversial. Parts of it are even fun: Crosby and Astaire make for a good on-screen match, with Astaire playing the fiancée-stealing cad, getting drunk and dancing while Crosby’s singing. The premise (a hotel only opens for holidays, with big musical numbers taking on a seasonal flavour) barely makes sense but we’re not really here for verisimilitude. The blackface may be the lowlight, but the highlights include firecrackers to enhance Astaire’s tap-dancing, a first draft of “Easter Sunday” (later re-used in one of Astaire’s better movies) and a funny Washington’s Day skit mixing all kinds of music. For Astaire fans, Holiday Inn ends up toward the middle of his filmography—good production values, decent music from Irving Berlin, a few interesting set-pieces, but dragged down by a scene that you almost want to fast-forward through and can’t really recommend to anyone.