Reviews

  • My Left Foot: The Story of Christy Brown (1989)

    My Left Foot: The Story of Christy Brown (1989)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, April 2019) There’s a well-known formula to inspiring films about people overcoming disabilities to achieve their potential, but I’m not sure any film has done it better than My Left Foot: The Story of Christy Brown. Adapted from a real story, it describes events in the life of a man who, born with cerebral palsy, is unable to walk or talk but can use his left foot to paint or write. Even decades after its release, My Left Foot remains a showcase for Daniel Day-Lewis’s acting, as he delivers an unbelievable performance that goes beyond human behaviour to deliver a striking result. He won an Oscar for it, and deservedly so. But his performance caps a great script that consistently delivers good character work, avoiding the false sainthood that some of those roles often get to. (By the time the protagonist instigates a bar brawl, yes, he’s flawed.)  The film, even when working on familiar grounds, becomes an awe-inspiring story of determination despite severe disabilities. The working-class origins of the protagonist are depicted with gut-wrenching grittiness, adding even more interest to the results. Generally speaking, My Left Foot is a film that gets better as it goes on, or at least more rewarding for its protagonist as he manages to gain independence and audaciousness. Effective even for jaded viewers, it remains well worth watching.

  • Dodsworth (1936)

    Dodsworth (1936)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, April 2019) Much of the interest in exploring classic films is not only experiencing solid movies that have wowed past audiences, but measuring them against our own modern standards, and seeing how some of them still make an impression even through decades of changes. Dodsworth is a more interesting case than many—it clearly reflects the standards of the 1930s, but it still manages to surprise through some unusual character work that goes beyond clichés and easy stereotypes. The story starts once a small-city mogul sells his company, with the hazy goal of doing nothing for the rest of his life, spending time with his wife and visiting faraway destinations. That’s already an interesting character (even though he’s warned by others that he won’t like a loafing retirement), but the situation becomes even more complex once his wife makes it clear that she does not approve of that plan. As is often the case, retirement doesn’t suit the couple, who steadily drift apart in many ways (none as simplistic as “he wants this, she wants that”—these are multifaceted characters, and so are their conflicts) until a mutual breakup that ends up confirmed by the end of the film. Walter Huston stars as the title character with Ruth Chatterton taking on the ingrate role of his wife, and small appearances from Paul Lukas and David Niven as suitors. Some 1930s tropes are indissociable from Dodsworth—the romance of long-distance cruises as the best way to cross the Atlantic, the details about the early decades of the automobile industry, the lingering remnants of the European class system as intertwined with the aristocracy, and the cut-and-tried gender roles of an American marriage: There’s a supposedly playful line said from the wife to her husband, “Will you beat me?” that betrays a whole lot. At the same time, there’s no clear gender stereotype here between the husband wanting to step away from workaholism, and the wife gladly lusting after other men. The characters are strong enough to avoid clichés, and I have some respect for the way Dodsworth makes the wife a gradual villain without quite becoming misogynistic. (Viewers are clearly meant to identify with the fun-loving husband rather than the wife increasingly revealed to be an arriviste.)  There’s also something intriguing in the way director William Wyler ensures that the story—adapted from a theatrical play, even if that filiation is nearly obscured by the film’s globetrotting settings—makes upper-class ennui relatable by asking itself what would happen if people would be free to do that they wanted without artificial obstacles, and letting things play out. There are plenty of timeless lessons here even for modern couples, and it’s such things that ensure that Dodsworth remains relevant and interesting even after eight decades.

  • Breaking Away (1979)

    Breaking Away (1979)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, April 2019) As far as small-town quirky dramas go, Breaking Away certainly has a few elements to distinguish itself. The most distinctive of them must be our colourful protagonist, a bicycle-racing enthusiast obsessed with all things Italian (to the point of picking up the language and culture, and passing himself off as an exchange student to woo a girl). Everything takes place in a small Indiana city with a university, leading to town-and-gown problems that are used in clever ways. Much of this cute, unpretentious coming-of-age film (which eventually turns into a sports underdog third act) is about the usual themes for recent High School graduates: girls, future, friends. But it’s handled with some wit, a knack for memorable sequences and sympathetic acting work. Dennis Christopher leads, but there are early supporting performances here from Dennis Quaid, Daniel Stern and Jackie Earle Haley. Breaking Away doesn’t try to change the world, but it manages to give it a good time.

  • Manhattan Murder Mystery (1993)

    Manhattan Murder Mystery (1993)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, April 2009) Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: Woody Allen riffing on the upper-class Manhattan lifestyle, with rich bored couples going out on the town daily and developing fancy theories of … murder? Well, yes: that’s what happens in Manhattan Murder Mystery when you get bored with arthouse movies and the rest of New York City culture. Allen doesn’t necessarily make things easier on himself by featuring borderline unlikable characters—the so-called protagonists do themselves no favours even during their introduction by criticizing their boring neighbours. Allen being Allen, this is a low-key remix of familiar murder mystery tropes, from Double Indemnity (explicitly show on-screen) to Rear Window and others. There are also other familiar tropes from Allen … most notably having a somewhat younger wife (albeit “only” ten years younger) but most amusingly by getting a few choice one-liners and rambling self-deprecating mumblings. (“This is a neurotic’s jackpot!” is pretty good.)  He also plays his usual nebbish character at a reduced level. What starts out as a forgettable trifle eventually becomes weightier as late-middle-age ennui leads the lead couple to spend a lot of time with other people indulging their obsessions. Some other noteworthy roles include Diane Keaton and Angelica Huston playing dark and sultry unusually well. The film gets wilder and wilder as it goes on, with people seemingly coming back to life, re-dying and so on. Meanwhile, our lead couple grows closer due to the therapeutic power of sleuthing. Stylistically, there’s nothing much to report except numerous long handheld camera shots, but well-executed to keep focusing on the action. Manhattan Murder Mystery is a trifle, but a fun one (Upper-class Manhattan living is an aspirational atmosphere for many viewers) even if a subplot of marital alienation may have had much to do with Allen’s own marital issues at the time. Allen did much worse throughout the 1990s, so might as well enjoy this one as middle-tier Allen.

  • Cheaper by the Dozen 2 (2005)

    Cheaper by the Dozen 2 (2005)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, April 2019) I’m not sure there’s anything meaningful to say about Cheaper by the Dozen 2. It’s very much what it wants to be: a sequel to the 2003 Steve Martin version of Cheaper by the Dozen, a lowest-common-denominator family comedy working in the broadest possible comic register. While the result will be a hit for kids, anyone over the age of eight is likely to be bored by the obvious jokes you can see coming from miles away, the obvious plot threads and the complete lack of surprise. It is what it wants to be—an innocuous family comedy with a nostalgic bent, far too many characters to properly develop beyond a few gags, with a familiar soundtrack telling us what to feel if we’re not too sure. Martin himself seems to be daring himself to mug it up as widely as possible, perhaps in a kind of performance art piece echoing the kind of Dadaistic stand-up he did earlier in his career. It is fun to see Eugene Levy also hamming it up as an antagonist, and a few familiar names in smaller roles. Cheaper by the Dozen 2 is not much, but then again—if you start watching a sequel, you know what to expect, for better or for worse.

  • Le procès [The Trial] (1962)

    Le procès [The Trial] (1962)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, April 2019) I generally enjoyed watching much of Le procès, but it’s clear that I’m not smart enough to understand this film. Coming from writer-director Orson Welles’s middle-years phase, it’s an adaptation of Franz Kafka’s The Trial, and it plays up the disorienting nature of the original text. As a man is accused of some unspecified offence, his attempts to understand the charges and defend himself are constantly rebuffed by an uncaring system that barely seems human. The story is not meant to be understood—it’s meant to be felt, and Welles gets to work in splendidly visual fashion, putting his characters in vast cavernous spaces, confronting them with early computers and nightmarish bureaucracy. From a purely cinematographic standpoint, there’s a lot to like here. The casting is also nothing short of amazing, in between names such as Anthony Perkins, Jeanne Moreau, Romy Schneider, Michael Lonsdale and Orson Welles himself. Where the film intentionally falls apart is in making sense of it all. It’s not supposed to, and yet at times it feels like anything for anything’s sake. Many shots are arresting; some of the absurdity is funny; but eventually, Le procès hits a point where the whole thing feels too long and undercooked. Nonetheless, it clearly remains an Orson Welles film, and one where he really gets to work his magic.

  • In Cold Blood (1967)

    In Cold Blood (1967)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In French, On Cable TV, April 2019) 1967 was a remarkable year in American cinema history, as the tensions building up in the wake of freer social mores finally came to a head and ended up producing a landscape-shaking slate of films that are still being hailed today: Bonnie and Clyde, The Graduate, In the Heat of the Night, and so on. In Cold Blood isn’t so often mentioned in the same breath (it wasn’t nominated for a Best Picture Academy Award even if it got four other nominations) but probably should be, considering that its raw quasi-documentary style and downbeat tone both make it feel different from most of what came before in Hollywood history. It was clearly a neo-noir at a time when noir was barely defined—darker and harder than what the Production Code allowed in its depiction of crime and punishment. While adapted from a celebrated “no-fiction novel” by Truman Capote, no one will ever accuse the film adaptation of being a slavish copy: thanks to some very interesting directorial choices from writer-director/producer Richard Brooks, such as very stylish visuals, naturalistic approach and a soundtrack by Quincy Jones, it’s very much its own thing. In Cold Blood still feels fresh, and more unnerving than countless other mass-murderer thrillers.

  • Watch on the Rhine (1943)

    Watch on the Rhine (1943)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, April 2019) I have some fondness for a very specific kind of film—the cozy global thriller, in which issues of world-shattering importance are somehow brought down to a humble little set, in which conversations and a moderate amount of action end up doing the heavy lifting. Watch on the Rhine certainly shows its theatrical origins in its focused presentation, essentially becoming a living-room spy thriller in which our hero and heroine (Paul Lukas and Bette Davis, both quite good) must deal with a Nazi threat right in their house. It’s a gentle story of treason and duplicity in Washington, DC, featuring an anti-fascist protagonist facing off with a Nazi-affiliated operative. Lukas is commanding in the lead role, with some assistance from Davis. At 114 minutes, Watch on the Rhine definitely exceeds its welcome toward the end, but it remains a pretty good watch. It definitely reflected the times, though, and a Best Picture Academy Award nomination (along with a Best Actor Oscar for Lukas) reflects that the high-class approach definitely had its fans in Hollywood.

  • The New World (2005)

    The New World (2005)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In French, On TV, April 2019) I’m constantly amazed at how, over the past years, I’m grown to appreciate and maybe even like the work of filmmakers I used to despise or at least dismiss. So it is with Terence Malick, who seems to be parodying himself half the time. The New World looks and feels a lot like The Thin Red Line or The Tree of Life with a simple story intercut with ponderous voiceovers and moody editing. It’s a style that can be deployed to ridiculous effect (when you’re not taken by it) or can feel profound (when you are). The New World is basically a loose retelling of the Pocahontas legend, what with a white European explorer marrying a Native princess and subsequent complications. The story is familiar and not overly complicated, but what could have fit neatly in 90 minutes here takes nearly three hours given the voiceover, meditative pace and half-sequitur editing. It would have been maddening in theatres, but I found that as part-background viewing at home, it’s almost pleasant. There are, mind you, plenty of reasons to look at the screen: Emmanuel Lubezki’s cinematography is often terrific, the recreation of early European settlements is gritty enough, and Q’orianka Kilcher fits the casting requirement of a princess. The sentimentalism of the picture is variable, most reliably heartfelt in tackling the romantic drama of its leads, but not quite ready to sustain the “noble savage” clichés when they’re shown as equally ruthless in assaults on colonists. While I won’t count myself as a fan of The New World, I’m at least satisfied by it, even occasionally impressed by what it manages to show in between the endless monologues and slack pacing.

  • Venom (2018)

    Venom (2018)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, April 2019) I wanted to be more positive toward Venom, but it’s a slick and overproduced piece of typical action/SF blockbuster, well made at times and yet conceptually dull to a surprising extent. The fun here isn’t in the overall concept, which was also tackled to superior effect in the similar Upgrade. No, where Venom show signs of life is in the details of its execution, whether it’s sight gags during a rather good pursuit through San Francisco streets, a sexy She-Venom (taller and curvier than Michelle Williams) showing up for a few moments, or the ticks and quirks of Tom Hardy’s performance as a man not entirely in control of his life or his body. Part of the problem is in the ludicrous idea of making the film fit within PG-13 confines—the creature design, body horror and tendency for the monster to decapitate and eat its victims make it a poor fit for the rating. I’m usually the last person to opine that R ratings are superior, but that’s not the case here: never mind the lack of blood, it’s the film’s self-conscious restraint in the PG-13 context that makes it repeatedly frustrating—a hard-R would have allowed creative freedom to the result. Otherwise, well, Venom does feel a bit silly in between its good moments. The plausibility of nearly everything is dubious, and the film does suffer from the overproduced tendency of modern blockbusters to keep the camera shaking, overcut action scenes to shreds and throw so much CGI on-screen that we never believe in it. Fortunately, there is a human element: The always-cute Jenny Slate shows up for a few moments; Tom Hardy does turn in an interesting half-possessed performance (with a few exceptions, Hardy isn’t that interesting an actor when he’s just himself—he has to take over a bigger-than-life role to be compelling); and supporting players such as Ahmez Riz to wrap things up. There’s also some mildly interesting subtext (or rather quasi-text) in the symbiotic relationship between the protagonist and his alien host that plays well to audiences willing to let their imaginations run wild. Still, for all of the good bits and pieces to be found in Venom, they feel like exceptions dragged down by the film’s overall dull tone and plot. Something far more interesting could have been possible by using those elements better and so the film remains a disappointment no matter its scattered strengths. But I’m sure we’ll get a sequel anyway.

  • The Twilight Zone: The Movie (1984)

    The Twilight Zone: The Movie (1984)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (Second Viewing, In French, On TV, April 2019) There’s no use soft-pedalling it: The Twilight Zone: The Movie is an uneven anthology of stories inspired by the classic TV show, but it remains far more noteworthy for an on-set accident that killed Vic Morrow and two child actors, an accident that required changing much of the film’s first segment and considerably soured the films’ production—not to mention its critical reception. The behind-the-scenes drama is fascinating (there’s an entire book about it) but what’s on-screen is not quite as interesting. The opening sequence is cute but overlong. John Landis’ first segment, the one that led to the shooting deaths, is left as a trite morality tale—and while I think that unrepentant racists getting a taste of their own bigotry is wholesome entertainment, the segment feels like obviousness piled upon obviousness. The second segment, directed by Steven Spielberg, is far too cute and unsurprising to be interesting. Things do get quite a bit better with Joe Dante’s take on the omnipotent kid trope, with stylish directing (making the most out of the visual effects of the time) and an overall feeling of dread that makes the segment work even if we know about the twist well beforehand. But the best is kept for the end: the well-known (and much-parodied) remake of “Nightmare at 20,000 feet,” a typically intense George Miller production featuring John Lithgow as a terrified airplane passenger who glimpses something frightening on the airplane wing. That segment is a little marvel of tight editing, impressionistic direction (including bulging eyeballs in a split-second moment), Lithgow’s great acting and good execution rather than a striking premise. Those last two segments do much to erase the bland impression left by the first two stories, but the overall feeling left by The Twilight Zone: The Movie is very uneven, and a waste of solid premises made even worse by its cost in human lives. I actually remembered a few things from seeing this film when I was a teen, but my current disappointment with the film is newly renewed.

  • Splash (1984)

    Splash (1984)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In French, On TV, April 2019) I know that a lot of people remember Splash fondly—on a surface level, what’s not to love? Perennial 1980s comedy young beau Tom Hanks falling in love with a Mermaid played by Daryl Hannah: isn’t that enough to many anyone happy? There’s a strong fairy-tale component to the result (despite a few moments with heightened threats) and it’s best to approach the film as such. Unfortunately, there’s a point where Splash doesn’t have a lot to differentiate it from other fish-out-of-water comedies, with a script that seems obvious and by the numbers. Fortunately, the execution isn’t bad (this being one of Ron Howard’s first efforts as a director and arguably his first big commercial success) and you can’t really ignore the mermaid aspect that still makes Splash a memorable film. Hanks is slightly subdued compared to some of his other comedies of that time, Darryl Hannah is fine as the mermaid that named thousands of Madisons and there’s an interesting Canadian connection with supporting roles given to John Candy and Eugene Levy. Still, I have a hard time getting enthusiastic about it all—there’s not a whole lot to say: it seems as if we’ve seen everything in there a few times since then.

  • First Light aka At First Light (2018)

    First Light aka At First Light (2018)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, April 2019) I’m of at least two minds about First Light — If you want to be nice about it, it’s a competent low-budget film that manages to create a convincing atmosphere. If you’re not as nice, it’s a threadbare story with no point nor conclusion. So how do we reconcile this? Let’s start with the obvious, which is to say that it’s a film about a first contact scenario between humans and non-humans, sparked by a teenage girl discovering new powers after being saved from drowning by mysterious lights. It doesn’t start badly, as it features economically challenged characters in a gritty atmosphere, having to deal with new and strange powers. There are echoes of Chronicle in there, even as it seems to be putting together alien contact Science Fiction with superhero fantasy without too much care as to how these things go together. There are strong whiffs of YA teen movie clichés as well, which seems overly restrictive when a slightly different approach would have been more universal. The problems with First Light grow bigger as it goes on: it quickly starts feeling overlong, dull in its increasing lack of originality, unambitious in how it does not develop its characters, derivative in that it seems to embrace more and more clichés along the way. By the time the third act is done, writer-director Jason Stone rehashed conspiracy theories and fumbled the ball at the climax, leading to a big “… and then?” in lieu of a conclusion. It’s maddening to see such empty substance handled this well. First Light is a reminder that “low-budget filmmaking” doesn’t always mean what it used to—thanks to technology, we can have inexpensive aerial cinematography (such as drone shots looking at the action from above, suggesting an otherworldly perspective) and seamless special effects. Alas, those aren’t substitutes for a hollow story: while the film occasionally feels like a smarter-than-usual take on a familiar scenario, it’s depressingly unoriginal at the final tally. It’s a shame it couldn’t be as adventurous and disciplined throughout—as it stands, First Light leaves the door too open to a sequel, making us wish we’d seen it instead.

  • Nothing but Trouble (1991)

    Nothing but Trouble (1991)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In French, On Cable TV, April 2019) If you’re curious to know what would happen if you mixed Silent Hill with gross-out dumb comedy, then have a look at Nothing but Trouble … but heed this: It’s not going to make you happy. This so-called horror comedy follows Chevy Chase and Demi Moore as they make their way from their comfortable upper-class Manhattan penthouse to the depths of rural New Jersey where they will be tormented by murderous hillbillies led by the local hanging judge. The film’s execution is meant to be comic (with a lot of fake screaming, cultivated grotesqueries and a series of dumb sketches strung along) but the effect is more puzzling and dreadful than funny. The only sequence worth highlighting as being tolerable features Digital Underground and a few party girls bringing some welcome urbanity back in the film—but then the same sequence features Dan Aykroyd’s worst tendencies in having him join the song with a piano bit. Landing the blame at Aykroyd’s feet is only natural given that he’s the film writer, director and producer, in addition of holding two on-screen roles—with a smattering of other Aykroyd family members in the supporting cast list. Nothing but Trouble definitely reflects a personal comic sensibility trying to find a happy middle ground between horror and comedy, but doesn’t succeed at even mastering one or the other—at best, the film settles for a series of disgusted yucks and blank stares at what it thinks is funny. There’s a waste of John Candy (in dual roles, one of them in drag), the overuse of Chevy Chase (now known to have been as unpleasant behind the scenes as his reputation suggests), and not a whole lot to do for Demi Moore. The set design is good, though—it’s a shame that it couldn’t have been used for anything better. I suspect that the film has aged slightly better than upon its reception, if only because it features a few familiar names in earlier roles, because there’s now an even bigger glut of hellbilly horror movies that it could be seen as parodying and because today’s audiences may be more familiar now with genre hybridization. On the other hand, there’s been many better horror/comedy hybrids since 1991, and the limits of Nothing but Trouble are now even more apparent.

  • Flesh and the Devil (1926)

    Flesh and the Devil (1926)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, April 2019) As much as I love exploring what Classic Hollywood has to offer, it’s not because a film is old and still remembered that it’s good. While Flesh and the Devil is still noteworthy today for being one of Greta Garbo’s Hollywood breakout roles (and was selected for the National Film Registry), it remains a particularly melodramatic silent drama and those often age badly. The premise has to do with a love triangle between a woman and two friends, with plenty of complications. I didn’t like it all that much. Some of it has to do with the nature of silent dramas—the pacing is mortally slow, the overacting can get tiresome even by the standards of the day, and the underpinning of the drama is nothing like today. But some of it is specific to the choices made by Flesh and the Devil as well: the melodrama is overdone and Garbo’s character is portrayed as purely a temptress with little personality of her own. This dismissive portrait of the female lead, combined to a relationship between the two friends that would work better if they were brothers or even homosexual lovers, leads to an incredibly cruel bros-before-hoes climax that will leave modern viewers dumbfounded. I know, I know—cinema at that time was a heroic endeavor, and that it actually pulls off something that we can appreciate today is in itself a miracle. Still, well, blah.