Famke Janssen

  • Redeeming Love (2022)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, October 2022) If ever you find yourself wondering what the heck kind of gosh-darned film Redeeming Love is supposed to be, don’t worry: there are plenty of explanations to offer. The biggest piece of the puzzle is that it’s not only an adaptation of a novel, but a novel that explicitly attaches itself to the Christian romance subgenre. As such, it’s prone to tropes that may feel baffling to viewers who aren’t immersed in American Biblical/Christian subculture. The first few moments of the film may lead you to believe that it’s a hard-hitting feminist fable about the exploitation of women during the Gold Rush—but no: suffering is how this subgenre builds character, and the protagonist’s arc is to go from sinner to saint. You may have your doubts about the man who virtuously takes it upon himself to rescue her from the fate as a whorehouse star yet ensures that she can leave at any time—but no, he is the Anti-Manic Anti-Pixie Anti-Dream Anti-Girl but he is the pretext she needs in order to become more virtuous. As Redeeming Love’s episodes accumulate and zig-zag all over the place, a few things will become clearer: The film is dearly in love with itself, for one thing. For another, it should have been a miniseries. Or, for a third, it should have taken far more liberties with the source material. Still, the biggest surprise here is to see that D. J. Caruso co-wrote (with the original author) and directed the film—Caruso is nowhere as bankable or well-known as he was in the late-2000s for directing a few well-received thrillers, and it’s a surprise to see him work in the Christian subgenre. Also surprising, but welcome: Famke Janssen’s deliciously evil performance as a brothel madam, against whom the leads of the film are not even worth mentioning. The technical credentials of the film are pretty good, and Caruso can still capture an image nicely. Unfortunately, Redeeming Love is built on a quicksand foundation—unlikable female lead, objectified male lead, bits and pieces of sexual abuse, incest and pedophilia thrown in the mix for thrills, a tone that shifts every fifteen minutes, and some really weird quirks that make no sense until you find out it’s from the Christian publishing enclave at which point you go—oh, right. Not everything makes sense, but at least there’s an explanation.

  • Dangerous (2021)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, September 2022) There are a few interesting ideas bouncing around Dangerous, and more than a few dashes of welcome dark humour—but the entire thing stubbornly refuses to become enjoyable. The film at least gets an acknowledgement for playing around with the idea of a dangerous, jaded assassin figure—by having him being in frequent phone therapy with his psychiatrist (a relatively enjoyable Mel Gibson, literally phoning in his performance safely isolated from the rest of the case) and showing him trying to get away from the psychopathic thrill of killing. But the film doesn’t really have any use for a pacifist: not when he’s got to protect his estranged family against a bunch of bloodthirsty mercenaries. The isolated Pacific northwestern location in which the film takes place has a whopper of a secret, but all of this is window-dressing to a coolly efficient killer killing even more despicable killers. It’s unfortunate, then, that for the film’s occasional inventions (including a hidden WW2-era Japanese submarine!), it really can’t bring itself to anything more than a low-budget straight-to-streaming effort. (Yes, I know Dangerous was released in theatres. I’m just saying it should not have been.)  The action is murky and dull, most of the dialogues are pedestrian (exception made of the psychologist patter, but you’d have to work overtime to mess those up), the set designs are cheap and David Hackl’s tightly enclosed direction seems to make things look even worse. For a cast of relatively known names in the B-movie space, Dangerous wastes a lot of talent—Scott Eastwood is bland and generic, Famke Janssen doesn’t have much to do and Tyrese Gibson doesn’t have an outlet for his usual glibness. A lot is left on the table here, but the script should have understood from the get-go that if you’re building an action thriller, you’re building pure entertainment—the rest comes after, once you’ve figured out the basic structure of the thing. Dangerous doesn’t have even that—it’s just a bunch of ideas thrown in a sack, and inelegantly executed.

  • Lord of Illusions (1995)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In French, On Cable TV, January 2022) Although largely forgotten these days, there’s quite a lot to like in Lord of Illusions despite its now-terrible special effects. After all, it begins with a sequence that would be worthy of a climax in a more routine film, as a bunch of young adults take down a supernatural cult leader and bury him after making sure that an iron mask is drilled into his face. After that fast-paced opening, the real story picks up decades later with a private detective investigating a stage magician who apparently dies onstage. But there’s a lot more to it, and the buried threat is coming back, at it always does in horror films. What’s perhaps most interesting in Lord of Illusions is the depth of its middle act, as familiar genre elements (the supernatural private eye, the growing cult, the traumatized survivor) are combined with an over-the-top look at stage magic. It ends up, as we expect, with a showdown between good and evil, but there’s quite a bit of texture along the way. What hasn’t aged as well are the digital effects: coming from the inglorious mid-1990s where computers were no match for practical special effects, the film has a bizarre mixture of rather good (practical) gore and thoroughly unconvincing CGI—unavoidable given the budget and time of the film, but still noteworthy. Other than that, however, it’s a competent genre exercise. Some of the writing from writer-director Clive Barker, adapting his own short story, is even quite good—I was particularly fond of “You were my lambs, but I was never your shepherd.” [February 2022: Amusingly enough, I just checked and that good quote is better in the French dub which I just back-translated. The original, as per the script, is “You just waited like lambs. (beat) Well, I’m not your shepherd.”]  Lord of Illusions is not, to be clear, a terrific horror film. But it does qualify as something of an underrated genre exercise, still entertaining decades later. If nothing else convinces you, just know that Famke Janssen stars in an early role.

  • Goldeneye (1995)

    Goldeneye (1995)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (Second Viewing, On Cable TV, September 2019) After the six-year hiatus that followed the disappointing Licence to Kill, Bond is back with Goldeneye, an exemplary return to form for the series with a new creative team, new lead actor (Pierce Brosnan), new setting, new attitude and an impressive mixture of Bond formula and self-awareness about said formula. From a twenty-first century perspective, the opening flashforward is a useful reminder that the Soviet Union crumbled to pieces in between the previous film and this one, posing a rather vexing problem for a series that had started relying on rogue Soviet antagonists as a substitute to the original SPECTRE. But the moviemaking world also changed between 1989 and 1995: After a spirited opening sequence, good credits show off the series’ new ability to use CGI as a creative assistance, reminding us of Lenin’s statues being torn down and Bond’s usual motifs. What’s perhaps most impressive about Goldeneye is that it manages to return to the formula (complete with a better-than-average villain who’s the equal of Bond, a villainous lair, over-the-top action sequences, and a top-notch dark Bond girl) while also being aware enough of the formula to make it feel fun again. In between lapidary lines such as “I might as well ask you for the vodka martinis that have silenced the screams of all the men you’ve killed … or if you find forgiveness in the arms of all those willing women, for all the dead ones you failed to protect,” we get a still-exhilarating tank chase that destroys part of St. Petersburg and an evil lair underneath the Arecibo observatory. Famke Janssen gets a Bond Hall of Fame mention as one of the most dangerous Bond Girls in the franchise, while Sean Bean portrays the kind of evenly matched villain that makes the better Bond movies so much fun. Where Goldeneye has lost a bit of its lustre since 1995 is in its self-brooding rumination about whether Bond is relevant to its current era—twenty-five years later, we know he is and will forever remain so. Nonetheless, at the time, it was a valid question as the franchise reset itself. The later Brosnan follow-ups wouldn’t feel as fresh (although Brosnan himself is a good combination of Bond’s better traits, with added consideration for his female partners), and would drive the series in increased silliness as it went on. Still, Goldeneye does remain as a remarkable freshening up of the franchise. The mid-to-late 1990s were a wonderful time for action movies, and Goldeneye was in near-perfect synch with the mood of the time.

  • Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters (2013)

    Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters (2013)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (Netflix Streaming, April 2015)  Call it encroaching old age, but I’m getting a bit tired of mashups combining historical references with monsters.  Whether those monsters are zombies, vampires, robots or (in this case) witches, and whether those familiar references are fairytales, established genres, historical figures or classic fiction, the result often doesn’t have anything to offer but a blend of buzzwords.  Pride and Prejudice and Zombies!  Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter!  Jack the Giant Killer!  The concept becomes the crutch, and once you’ve grown accustomed to buzzword blending, there’s often nothing beyond the high-concept.  All of which to say that Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters is nothing more than what it says in its title (ie; grown-up fairy-tale heroes become witch hunters… I told you it was the title), and that it doesn’t do much with its own premise.  There is a bizarre mixture of high comedy (most absurdly a reference to a missing kid picture on a milk carton) and low horror that never quite solidifies into something meaningful.  Many of the action sequences repeat themselves, and the occasionally-good visuals doesn’t excuse the film’s overall tedium.  What’s too bad is that I quite like Jeremy Renner and Gemma Arterton, but neither have much to do here aside from running and shooting.  (Famke Janssen does seem to have fun playing pure evil, though.)  The script is weak and contrived –especially when it comes to the heroes going back to their childhood home and discovering that their backstory means something in the current moment.  While the martial anachronisms can be amusing, most notably by providing Big Guns to dark-ages heroes, the film doesn’t quite seem to know what to do with the assets at its disposal.  The problem with Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters isn’t its premise; it’s that it’s just its premise.

  • X2 [X-Men 2: X-Men United] (2003)

    X2 [X-Men 2: X-Men United] (2003)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In theaters, May 2003) Faster, meaner and, yep, better than the often-tepid original, this is one sequel that assumes everyone’s seen the original and so dispenses with the usual load of dull exposition. The motif of bigotry is still present -and so is the unsettling political subtext-, giving weight to the film. Despite sometimes-unconvincing special effects, those action sequences are indeed spectacular, with particular props going to the opening sequence and a very cool sequence involving iron-enriched blood. The most spectacular part of X2, however, is how it can juggle a cast of a dozen (including three Oscar winners) without too many lapses. Hugh Jackman once again steals the show, endowing Wolverine with the most steadily engrossing presence. Others deliver mixed performances: Halle Berry is better than in the original, but she, like Famke Janssen, looks bored with what she’s given to work with. (And the least said about James Marsden’s Cyclops, the most appropriate.) As summer entertainment, X-Men 2 is a strong entry, even with the rather overlong third act which degenerates in a “sacrifice” that feels contrived. But by the time the credits roll, everyone’s had enough entertainment for their money. Until the third instalment, then…