Cher

Mermaids (1990)

Mermaids (1990)

ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

(In French, On Cable TV, August 2019) As a historical coming-of-age dramedy, Mermaids defies easy assessment. Yes, it’s cute (and reportedly cuter than its original darker vision was) and occasionally off-putting (what with a consummated relationship between a 15-year-old girl and a 26-year-old man) and often contrived in ways that are only possible in movies—yet reaching for a complex depiction of women of two generations figuring out what they want to do in their lives. The casting is probably the most spectacular aspect of the film, what with Cher as the family matriarch (the word being a bit too strong here, considering her loose and friendly parenting style) over a rebellious teenager played by Winona Ryder and a younger daughter played by Christina Ricci in her screen debut. Bob Hoskins also stars as someone who could be part of the solution to their issues. But the focus here is on the mother/daughter relationship, and the chosen tone is somewhere between comedy with serious moments. It’s a good film, but not a great one—and viewers will be free to further gauge the result based on their own biases and idiosyncrasies. I’m not sure anyone will put Mermaids on their list of essential films from 1990, but it does leave a favourable impression, wraps things up satisfyingly and gets a few good performances from known performers. You don’t have to pin it down exactly to appreciate it.

Mask (1985)

Mask (1985)

ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

(In French, On TV, July 2019) There’s something almost joyous in the way director Peter Bogdanovich presents Mask, the story of severely disfigured teenager Rocky Dennis, as adapted from a true story. Well, at least through most of the movie—as we follow Rocky while he integrates to a new school, his visible disfigurement takes a back step to his sweet inner nature and the various other issues he’s got to work through, from a drug-addicted mother to the vagaries of romance and friendship. Eric Stoltz masters the lead role under a significant amount of makeup, but Cher is quite amazing as a feisty single mom running with bikers, and Sam Sheppard has a persona-defining performance as a revered motorcyclist. A teenage Laura Dern shows up as a significant secondary character. Much of Mask is considerably lighter than you’d expect, with the protagonist overcoming one obstacle after another through intelligence, humour, and determination. There’s an absorbing rhythm to the film as it sidesteps expected sequences and grows larger than simply being about the protagonist’s appearance. (Decades later, Wonder would have much of the same approach and strengths.)  The ending of the film, alas, isn’t nearly as cheerful. While telegraphed early on (and predictable from the facts on which the movie is based), the conclusion brings the cheerfulness to a halt and adds a lot of gravitas. Nonetheless, Mask is a bit of a surprise—not as exploitative, broader than expected, it remains a fine film now that the mid-1980s patina has added a bit of period charm to the result.

Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again (2018)

Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again (2018)

ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

(On Cable TV, April 2019) “Here we go again” is indeed the point of Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again as it tries, and succeeds better than expected, at recreating the in-your-face fun factor of its 2008 predecessor. This time, the timeline splits into a prequel and a sequel, showing a mother/daughter pair of stories with parallels to each other. Clearly, the novelty factor of the original (if such a thing could exist considering its adaptation from a long-running touring musical) is no longer there, replaced by comfort at the premise. The large ensemble returning cast is made even larger by the duelling timelines, and features both better vocal performers and a somewhat more judicious use of those returning actors with limited vocal ranges. Everything is shot in a comfy colourful way meant to evoke happy memories and sun-drenched holidays. While this Mamma Mia sequel is watchable to those who haven’t seen the original (or don’t have specific memories of it), it’s clearly meant as an encore for fans. The film deftly plays on its own self-awareness, blending allusions to itself and its actors in a way that’s unapologetically meant to be fun—just witness the buildup to Cher’s arrival in the film and the mass prostration that follows. It’s all great good fun like the original (and perhaps even more so, given better vocals, more ambitious cinema-specific scripting and bigger slicker numbers), even though the constraints of sticking to the ABBA catalogue mean diminishing returns in terms of big anthems. It does reach a crescendo during the final number, blending timelines in a big celebratory number. In the grand spirit of musicals, Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again is not meant to be intricate, but there are a few nice touches along the way. But perhaps best of all, it’s utterly unrepentant about the kind of musical comedy it means to be.

The Witches of Eastwick (1987)

The Witches of Eastwick (1987)

ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

(In French, On TV, October 2017) There is, without question, a lot of fun to be had watching The Witches of Eastwick on a basic level, as three likable women are seduced by the devil incarnate, only to take revenge. Jack Nicholson playing the Devil is as perfect a piece of casting as you can imagine, and there’s no denying the combined sex-appeal of Cher, Michelle Pfeiffer and Susan Sarandon as the titular coven. The film does have a good go at satirizing various relationship conventions (What do Women Want? Indeed) before predictably moving toward a female empowerment finale. But therein lies the rub: There was no other way to finish the film, and it kind of goes wrong in subtle and no-so-subtle ways. I would feel far better if a woman had written the screenplay, because the male gaze (and male privilege) shown here is problematic. I’m not sure that all three women being ga-ga over babies of a dubious father makes sense. (It makes even less sense to consider that one of the female characters already has half a dozen children that practically never show up during the movie—where are they and why isn’t she spending time with them???)  In some way, The Witches of Eastwick is an artifact of a time that is hopefully past—a dumb producer’s (i.e.: Jon Peters) brute-force vision of something that should be far more delicately handled. The Witches of Eastwick is funny and sexy, but it’s a guilty fun and an even guiltier sexiness. It doesn’t help that the script seems patched-up at times. The cherry pit-vomiting sequences are just gross and take away from the generally amiable remainder of the picture. (Then again, this is directed by George Miller, who’s made a career to strange tonal shifts) But this was 1987 and we’re now thirty years later—I’d be game for a less problematic remake, but I’m not sure who could step up to Nicholson’s performance.

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.

Stuck on You (2003)

Stuck on You (2003)

ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

(On TV, March 2016) The touch of the Farrely brothers is obvious in Stuck on You, another of their comedies in which disability is seen sympathetically, North-eastern United States represents and comedy springs from uncomfortable situations. To wit: Stuck on You is about conjoined twins linked at the hip, and how they try to achieve one of them’s success as a Hollywood actor. As a physical comedy, Stuck on You milks a lot of laughs from suggesting the practical reality of its characters (one of them donning black clothes as the other perform a one-man show, the other wearing a teddy bear suit in bed when the other meets a romantic prospect), then goes for gentle Hollywood satire when a truly awful TV show becomes a rating darling. Matt Damon and Greg Kinnear are rather good in thankless roles, while Cher gets a few laughs in a relatively unflattering role. (Eva Mendes and Meryl Streep also show up successfully in small roles) Stuck on You is a film of small moments rather than overall storytelling: the plot is familiar, the beats are predictable and what sets it apart is some degree of success in delivering the small laughs that populate the larger but blander framework. In retrospect, it’s almost amazing that Stuck on You manages to last more than ninety minutes without quite wearying what could have been a one-note premise. Interestingly enough, the film manages to avoid most gross-out gags, which may be surprising given some of the Farrelly Brothers’ filmography. But they would have been out of place in a film that generally plays things sweetly and without meanspiritedness. Better than it could have been, Stuck on You isn’t particularly sophisticated entertainment, but it holds its own against most odds.

Burlesque (2010)

Burlesque (2010)

ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

(In theaters, December 2010) Burlesque does quite a few things blandly or badly, but the real test of musical comedies is whether they deliver the expected music, laughs, dance choreographies and smiles whenever the final credits start to roll.  So it is that we can’t really fault the film for an intensely familiar structure, predictable plot developments, weaker tunes or a very PG interpretation of “burlesque”; not as long as it has enough song-and-dance.  There are plenty of good news: Christina Aguilera proves to be a credible actress, Cher looks amazingly good for her age (and you can see this as an invitation to cue all of the usual cosmetic surgery jokes), Stanley Tucci is as good as he usually is, the somewhat better-than-usual banter probably comes from Diablo Cody’s screenwriting and in terms of choreography, Burlesque has more or less what we can expect from a contemporary musical.  Unfortunately, there is little here to set the film apart from more notable musicals: The songs are instantly forgettable (the one exception, a maudlin solo number by Cher, stays in mind because it uses the flimsiest of pretexts to stop the entire film dead in its tracks), the plot offers few surprises, the choreography of each number blurs into an indistinct mush, and the choice to play much of the story earnestly rather than as ironic camp seems like a modestly wasted opportunity.  There’s no risk-taking here, and the film’s family-friendly take on neo-burlesque is a telling clue as to what kind of middle-American target the filmmakers were aiming for.  Fortunately, there are still enough fancy fishnet stockings on display to resort to sheer sex-appeal when the film’s other qualities prove defective.  No matter what, there is at least some redemption in the mud: Burlesque may be ordinary, but it’s not often boring.