Reviews

  • The Princess Diaries 2: Royal Engagement (2004)

    The Princess Diaries 2: Royal Engagement (2004)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On TV, May 2017) There really isn’t a whole lot to say about The Princess Diaries 2: Royal Engagement, other than it does take up the Disney Princess wish fulfillment of its target audience even beyond the high-water mark of the first film (but seriously: a lavish princess slumber party?). The plot is clearly for the kids (this is a movie in which the villain quickly announces himself sotto voice to the audience) and quickly cycles through an episodic series of misunderstandings and dirty tricks. Anne Hathaway stars, making everyone a bit nostalgic for the phase of her career when she could play the bubbly long-haired ingénue: as of 2017, it’s been awhile since we’ve seen her in anything but a series of increasingly dour roles. Also notable is Chris Pine as a love interest, young but already charismatic back then. Julie Andrews gets a few laughs, while John Rhys-Davies doesn’t get much to do but sneer as the villain. Much of the film is tough to review for a middle-aged man, as it’s clearly meant for pre-teen merriment. There’s some lip service paid to deflating the idea of an arranged royal marriage, but it’s almost immediately undercut by the romance between the lead couple. Ah well; everyone goes into this movie for proxy royal thrills rather than enlightenment about the tension between love and duty. The Princess Diaries 2: Royal Engagement is a perceptible step down from the first film, but it should still please those who liked the first film a lot.

  • Caddyshack (1980)

    Caddyshack (1980)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On DVD, May 2017) As a quintessential golf comedy, Caddyshack’s reputation precedes it in many ways. A favourite filler on golf TV channels, it seems to enjoy a consecrated reputation as something of a lowbrow classic. Taking a good look at it, however, may reveal a film weaker than expected. The plot zigs and zags in mystifying fashion, largely uninterested in the action of its putative teenage leads but all too eager to showcase comic routines by Rodney Dangerfield, Chevy Chase and Bill Murray. It makes for a clash of comic sensibilities, considering how their styles don’t necessarily belong in the same narrative. The most egregious instance of this is Dangerfield’s quasi-stand-up routine blasting the age and status of a country club members—the movie pretty much stops dead during that time. Another physical comedy bit involves nautical hijinks, while Chevy Chase has his own comic-seduction routine, and Bill Murray kind of dawdles into the movie with his own absurdist take (He’s got that going for him, which is nice) and a groundhog exists in a separate explosive movie. Very little of this actually fits together, making for a disconnected but occasionally very funny film. Caddyshack’s impact makes more sense once you find out the chaotic nature of its production and the various ways then-novice director Harold Ramis altered the film is post-production. The result is a mess, but an entertaining one—if only for seeing Chase, Dangerfield and Murray each playing up their comic persona, leaving the other aspects of the film far behind.

  • Storks (2016)

    Storks (2016)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, May 2017) There are a lot of animated kid movies in theatres these days, and Storks does seem poured in the same mould as most of them: Imaginative premises, anthropomorphized characters, madcap action sequences, pat emotional core, musical interludes … and so on. While Strokes doesn’t venture too far away from the formula, it does execute it decently and thrown in a few good laughs along the way. The two lead characters have their appeal, and Stork does allow itself a few minutes to explore plot tangents that are nearly superfluous to the plot. (It particularly liked the “stork landing zone” construction project that bonds the family … and proves itself useless.) It doesn’t amount to much more than a serviceable film of its genre … but that’s not bad. For the Warner Animation Group, it’s a way to step out of The Lego Movie shadow and show that they can develop their own properties. They haven’t scored a unanimous success yet, but they’re in the running.

  • Sully (2016)

    Sully (2016)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, May 2017) It may be just another biopic, but Sully does a few things to take it beyond being a simple biopic barely seven years after the events it’s portraying. The first is probably the cinematic nature of the events it re-creates: The dramatic “Miracle on the Hudson” in which an entire flight was saved by the decision to land on the Hudson River … in January. This aspect of the story is portrayed clearly, with alternate scenarios in which other decisions are shown as ending up with a fiery crash in Manhattan. The structure of the film is also notable, as it begins with a fake-out, work its way forward through the investigation of the events and then only portrays the event in detail. Tom Hanks is his usual self as the protagonist—looking different from other roles, but acting with the same core of honour and sympathetic humility that has ensured his success as an actor. Director Clint Eastwood turns in another dependable film, with a higher-than-usual number of special effects but the same kind of middle-America appeal. There’s some bit of repetition in the way Sully digs deeper and deeper into its central events, but the recreation of the disaster is evocative and the whole thing is cleanly presented. The conclusion does appear too pat—from the moment “machines” and “simulations” are mentioned, it’s obvious that the film will fall back on fuzzy notions of humanity … but knowing how the computers will be blamed for everything is another way of ensuring that Sully is comforting to everyone. It amounts to a solid, if only occasionally spectacular film. Come for the true story of flight 1549—stay for the ghoulishly striking sequences of plane crashes in the city.

  • Moonstruck (1987)

    Moonstruck (1987)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, May 2017) I’ll give you two good reasons for watching this film: Nicolas Cage and Cher. Never mind that it’s a romantic comedy set against the Italian-American Brooklyn community. Or that it’s from acclaimed writer John Patrick Shanley and veteran director Norman Jewison. Or the unpredictable, gentle nature of the plot. The focus here is on Nicolas Cage’s energetic performance, and Cher’s terrific portrait of a woman contemplating middle age with doubts. Cher looks spectacular here, but so does Cage, and Olympia Dukakis has a strong supporting role. I’m not sure there’s a lot of substance in Moonstruck, but there’s a lot of sympathy and gentle humour—the way the film climaxes, with an unusually reasonable discussion around a dinner table, is the most unusual flourish on an improbable film. But it works, and it’s charming enough even a generation later.

  • Cube Zero (2004)

    Cube Zero (2004)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, May 2017) I would have paid good money for an explicative sequel to Cube when I first saw it in theatres in 1997. The low-budget aesthetics of the movie conjured a much bigger mystery rife for exploration in a better-budgeted sequel. But then we got our wishes: Cube 2: Hypercube glossily repeated the same material a bit more satisfyingly without offering many more explanations, whereas Cube Zero goes industrial in presenting a prequel with a view of the cube from the outside. Unfortunately, the answers are far less interesting than the mystery: by the time we’re served with a religious dictatorship as “explanation”, the air has gone out of the premise and we’re stuck with low-imagination ramblings that don’t even make sense. It doesn’t help that the tone is just as dour as the rest of the series: the deaths are gory, everybody dies, everything falls apart and answers are strongly discouraged. I saw the movie out of a sense of series completion (not that they’re consistent with each other), but I’m not exactly itching to re-watch any or all of them.

  • The Changeling (1980)

    The Changeling (1980)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, May 2017) Some horror movies age strangely, few of them like The Changeling. A Canadian production (explaining why it still plays frequently on Canadian cable TV stations eager to fulfill their CanCon requirements), The Changeling is successively dumb, boring, intriguing then ridiculous. A terrible opening sequence features one of the least convincing familial trauma sequences ever shot, as a snow plow slams into a car, killing the protagonist’s entire family. This is followed by an interminable first act in which our protagonist (a refreshingly older man decently played by George C. Scott) experiences the same kind of spooky stuff than in nearly all haunted house movies made since then. This, however, is followed by a genuinely intriguing third quarter in which the protagonist’s investigation reveals a mystery closer to The Ring’s vengeful ghost than anything else—the film’s standout sequence has to be the one in which a well is discovered under a house, revealing something crucial. Then, well, the film kind of loses it: the wheelchair sequence is almost too dumb for words (which doesn’t stop it from looking even dumber on-screen) and the film goes back to autopilot right in time for a run-of-the-mill finale. While it doesn’t amount to a film that demands a look even today, The Changeling does have enough quirky (some good, some bad) moments to make it an interesting watch. Horror historians will probably find more to see in this film, especially how it compares to other haunted-house movies of the era.

  • Terms of Endearment (1983)

    Terms of Endearment (1983)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In French, On Cable TV, May 2017) Get your hankies out, because Terms of Endearment is here to make you sob as hard as you can. The story of a relationship between a mother and her daughter spanning decades, this is the kind of slice-of-life movie where mundane details add up to epochal drama. The weight of the passing years heighten the sweep of the drama, but it’s not all wall-to-wall dourness as the film does reach for comedy under writer/director James L. Brooks. Some of the film’s most memorable moments are very funny, although they do take on a more sombre quality knowing how the film ends. Shirley MacLaine and Debra Winger both turn in best-of-career performances as the mother/daughter duo, with Jack Nicholson, Jeff Daniels, Danny Devito and John Lightgow all delivering good supporting roles along the way. It’s a kind of A-list picture that big studios don’t make anymore (although you’ll find similar material in independent films) and while it still works today, it’s a kind of movie made for a specific audience—I didn’t respond all that deeply to it, but I suspect that’s because I fall outside its target demographic.

  • Wyatt Earp (1994)

    Wyatt Earp (1994)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On DVD, May 2017) It’s either a good or a bad thing that I got to see Tombstone a week before Wyatt Earp. A good thing, in that Tombstone suggests a better way to develop the same material as the dour, overlong and self-important Wyatt Earp. Although, to be fair, seeing Kevin Costner at the top of the cast would suggest something as dour, overlong and self-important as nearly all of his other movies. Rather than focusing on a specific slice of time in Earp’s life, this movie chooses a far more inclusive approach, beginning with childhood experiences and going all the way to an Alaskan cruise epilogue. In doing so, it may present a more faceted portrait of the character, but it can’t be bothered to provide excitement or even enough entertainment over the course of a rather long three hours and change. Costner himself is stoic, impassible, heroic without being engaging. (On the other hand, Dennis Quaid is compelling as Doc Holliday) The film plays without being interesting, and even the Tombstone-set segment suffers in comparison to Tombstone’s more dramatic approach. There’s no scenery chomping here, and that’s too bad, because even as Wyatt Earp does touch upon the nature of myth-making late in the film, there’s a sense that it, itself, has not pushed that aspect more. Years later, Tombstone has decisively won the comparison with its near-contemporary: it’s remembered more frequently and fondly. Even if the only thing people remember from Tombstone is Kurt Russell’s over-the-top “Hell is coming with me!”, then that’s one more thing than people will remember from Wyatt Earp.

  • Little Fockers (2010)

    Little Fockers (2010)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, May 2017) Given that Little Fockers (such wit in the titling!) is the fourth film in the Meet the Parents series, anyone who doesn’t like it despite having seen the previous movies only has themselves to blame. An easy grab-bag of humiliation comedy, repeated routines, gross gags and repetitive character interaction, Little Fockers is pretty much what you can expect from it. Oh, let’s see the protagonist spar with his father-in-law, get into humiliating situations and save the day at the end—how novel. How lazy. This is not a film for subtlety or surprises: jokes can be seen well in advance, their point seems to be as much embarrassment as possible and who cares if they’re rehashing conflicts from the previous three movies? Still, it’s surprising that the project was able to attract and retain so many name actors, including a reportedly reluctant Dustin Hoffman who barely shows up in a few disconnected scenes. Charitably, it’s hard not to mention that after four movies spanning ten years, Little Fockers feels like an episode in a long-running sitcom: What are those unchanging characters up to? Fortunately, it now looks as if the series will stop there. A good thing too, given that every time a new one is released, you can hear Ben Stiller and Robert de Niro’s reputation sink to new lows.

  • Gold (2016)

    Gold (2016)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (Video on-Demand, May 2017) The good news are that while Gold is based on a true story, it’s certainly not beholden to it, and so the Canadian Bre-X scandal becomes an American one and the hero is allowed to walk away with what amounts to a happy ending of sorts. The film is at its best when it offers a look behind the scenes of a mining company, from exploring prospective mining sites to meeting investors on Wall Street. Matthew McConaughey de-glams himself in the lead role, taking on a balding haircut, unflattering teeth and an overweight physique to give us a character unlike any in his filmography. It’s not a great performance on the order of what he’s been regularly presenting in the past half-decade, but it’s decent enough and he surrounds himself with capable character actors such as Édgar Ramírez, Bryce Dallas Howard and Corey Stoll. The film itself is rather duller than you’d expect from the high-flying subject matter—writer/director Stephen Gaghan has done much better in the past, and Gold can’t quite get out of a safe comfort zone. On the other hand, it’s a relatively entertaining watch, and it ends with a somewhat happier note than you’d expect. Gold may not be much more than a standard evening’s entertainment, but the inner look at mining operations can be enough to tip the scale for some viewers.

  • The Karate Kid (2010)

    The Karate Kid (2010)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On TV, May 2017) The 1984 version of The Karate Kid is such a cultural fixture that any attempt to remake it was doomed to irrelevancy. This being said, this 2010 remake does try its best, most notably but relocating the action in China where our hero involuntarily immigrates when his mom gets a new job. The change of scenery does much to renew a movie that largely recycles the original film’s structure: The look inside modern China can be interesting at times, as well as highlighting the fish-out-of-water nature of the protagonist. Unfortunately, that same basic decision does have its drawbacks: it removes the quasi-universal nature of the backdrop for American audiences (although, and this is significant, it does open it up to Chinese audiences), making it much harder to empathize with the high-school trials of the (significantly younger) protagonist. It also weakens the impact of Mister Miyagi’s teachings and makes a mush out of the protagonist’s attempts to fit in. Essentially, it transforms the universality of the first film into a very specific situation, and sabotages itself along the way. It doesn’t help that at eleven or twelve, lead actor Jaden Smith looks far too young for an archetypically teenage role. While it’s nice to see Jackie Chan in a decent American movie role, he doesn’t have much to do—far more judicious is seeing Taraji P. Henson in the “mom” role, greatly expanding the original character. To be fair, this Karate Kid remake is decently executed: anyone who hasn’t seen the 1984 film is likely to be moderately satisfied by the result. But for those pesky viewers with fresh memories of the original, this remake has too many small issues to enjoy.

  • Year One (2009)

    Year One (2009)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (Crackle Streaming, May 2017) If Hollywood history has proven anything, it’s that nothing is safe from its vulgar lowbrow comic premises. Here, Year One uses prehistory as an excuse to let Jack Black and Michael Cera go wild with their usual comic persona, from cavemen to old-testament riffs. The anachronisms are the point of much of the humour, but the juvenile nature of most jokes doesn’t allow Year One to fly high. Still, what’s maybe most impressive about the film are the number of known actors willing to ham it up for such a vapid film: Whether you’re talking seasoned comedians like Paul Rudd, David Cross, Oliver Platt and Hank Azaria, or it-girls such as Olivia Wilde and Juno Temple, Year One is heavy in small cameo roles. This may give the impression that the film is better than it is, though, which isn’t the case. Depending on your reaction to Cera and Black’s screen persona, Year One either feels like a chore or a slog. (Black’s shtick is more overly offensive than Cera’s, but an entire film built on Cera tics would be unbearably dull.) Year One probably works best as one of those films you let play on background while doing other things. It’s not as if you’re going to miss anything crucial if you don’t happen to pay attention at every time, and it’s not as if you’re going to feel guilty about missing a few moments of the film if you have to leave the room for a while.

  • Glory (1989)

    Glory (1989)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, May 2017) Blending a war movie with judicious social progressivism seems almost de rigueur these days, but I gather that it wasn’t as obvious in 1989, when Glory came out with a relatively groundbreaking depiction of an African-American battalion during the Civil War. As you’d expect from this kind of hybridization, Glory spends its time either indulging in the usual plot mechanics of a military training story, in-between describing the plight of its heroes on social issues. Nearly thirty years later, it’s not quite so innovative, but it’s made well enough to remain mildly interesting. (I suspect that, like all movies specifically dedicated to American social history, it’s going to be more relevant to American viewers.) Matthew Broderick stars as the military commander of the group, but the film’s most interesting performance goes to Denzel Washington, as a surly but ultimately honourable black soldier; Morgan Freeman and Andre Braugher are also featured prominently. The familiarity of the film can lull viewers in a comfortable daze, but the finale of the film does much to elevate it—spent in sand rather than the usual open field battlegrounds of Civil War movies, it’s also unusually bleak in how it adheres to historical fact. Glory may not be fun or fresh especially today, but it’s solid and respectable.

  • Fifty Shades Darker (2017)

    Fifty Shades Darker (2017)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (Video on-Demand, May 2017) The Fifty Shades trilogy keeps going with this second instalment and the results as just as dull as viewers of the first film can imagine. While the BDSM content has been toned down in favour of a far more conventional romance, Fifty Shades Darker still plays like a direct-to-video romantic thriller enlivened by more explicit than usual sex scenes. It’s remarkably boring, especially as the plot is so threadbare. Stalkers, ex-lovers, etc.: how ordinary. Dakota Johnson is, to her credit, still the best thing about the movie: her acting runs circles over the impassible Jamie Dornan, and she will probably have a career after this series wraps up. Kim Basinger also has a decent small role, but otherwise there isn’t much to say. There’s quite a bit of wish fulfillment in the way the film lingers in high-priced sets and gadgets. There’s even a bit of sunshine when the two characters take a sailboat out for a day. Roughly half a dozen sex scenes interrupt the dull story for even duller moments—the recurring “panties removal” motif is interesting, but not much else. Otherwise, the film does spend quite a bit of time short-looping its dramatic developments (the boss is lecherous? Wait two scenes and he’ll be gone. Christian Gray disappears after a helicopter accident? Wait two scenes and he’ll be back) while spending its last fifteen minutes setting up its third instalment. We know it’s coming. There’s nothing we can do about it.