George Miller

  • Lorenzo’s Oil (1992)

    Lorenzo’s Oil (1992)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On TV, October 2021) As far as real-life stories go, the one behind Lorenzo’s Oil seems tailor-made for a movie adaptation. It’s about the dramatic high-stakes of a child being sick of a rare disease and gradually degenerating, with his parents trying to find any solution to make him better. But it’s also about the parents doing research, learning about the disease, coming up with ingenious solutions and finding ways to implement them despite formidable obstacles (such as synthesizing rare organic compounds) and shifting the scientific consensus despite opposition. You can see the elements that attracted writer-director George Miller to the film, and you can also see why it was essential to have a veteran, polyvalent director like him at the helm. What could have easily turned out to be a bland movie-of-the-week here turns into something more challenging, better-handled despite the potential for mawkishness. Not that the entire film escapes melodrama—whenever the kid is in obvious pain, Susan Sarandon emotes as the mom or Nick Nolte goes on a thickly accented rant, we can feel the melodrama being deployed. Still: tolerable. What’s not so much fun about the film is how it’s probably used as inspirations by deluded parents who are not being rigorous about their “research” and contest the facts—even the filmmakers acknowledged that Lorenzo’s Oil goes too far in its depiction of scientists as useless, and you can see how the film dismisses some truly valid questions by sole virtue of being aligned with the parents. Still, there’s some skill in the way it’s all put together, with evocative vignettes (such as the elderly chemist taking on the synthesis of a new compound as a personal challenge) adding much to the film. Of course, we now know a few things that we didn’t when Lorenzo’s Oil was released: Most of the characters have died since then (although the titular Lorenzo defied prognoses by dying at age 30, after improving thanks to his parents’ discovery) and the compound at the heart of the film is still under study as a preventative agent. The latest news has states mandating testing for the genetic ailment at birth so that preventative measures can be taken early. In that respect, Lorenzo’s Oil has aged much better than others promoting dubious cures. The key, which many will miss, is that the parents were indeed scientists and rational in how they approached the problem—they just had very different incentives from the establishment and (in real-life, if not the film) were able to work with them.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)

    Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (Video on Demand, September 2015) “Oh, what a day!  What a lovely day!” is the kind of thing that post-apocalyptic science-fiction action movie fans are wont to quote after watching Mad Max: Fury Road.  Despite a lengthy gap between installments, a new star, rumors of a troubled production and generalized post-apocalyptic fatigue among moviegoers, this new Mad Max is a solid action film that dares distill its essence in a nearly all-encompassing chase sequence.  The non-stop action is shot impressively, with veteran director George Miller proving that he’s still a master of the form.  Better yet, the action-movie template actually features a lot of world-building (in the form of crazy details that hint at much more) and relatively progressive politics as women take active roles as agents of the plot.  Fury Road cleverly weaves its storytelling in its action sequences, resulting in a film that only pauses deliberately to take its breath.  Tom Hardy makes for a fairly good new Max, while Charlize Theron has a strong role as the rebellious Furiosa.  Still, this is Miller’s film, and the way he crams more and more excess in his stripped-down film feels like a breath of fresh air: the film is colorful, has stunts that feel honestly dangerous (or painful!).  There’s also a lot of thematic depth to the film’s relentless action, from the nature of cultism to the artificial illusion of patriarchy, to altruism as rebirth.  While the chase can come across as a bit repetitive, Fury Road remains a solid action film, the likes of which we see too rarely.  It’s good enough to make anyone’s day.

  • Happy Feet Two (2011)

    Happy Feet Two (2011)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, June 2013) Let’s hand it over to writer/director George Miller: He’s never content to deliver something entirely conventional, and so it is that Happy Feet 2 gladly takes up wildly different protagonists that (almost) never meet, adds a live-action sequence in the middle of an all-CGI film, tackles existentialist philosophical issues, heightens the dramatic stakes beyond expectations and brings everything together in a stomping-tapping-clicking climax.  Not everything works all the time, but the film manages a few high notes along the way, including a laugh-aloud opening medley, banter between two unusually bright krill and some spectacular Antarctic scenery.  While the film can feel aimless (especially compared to the first one), it has the decency to build to a good conclusion.  Sure, Happy Feet 2 could have been better… but why complain when it’s cute, charming, toe-tapping fun?

  • Mad Max (1979)

    Mad Max (1979)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In theaters, March 2001) Worth seeing out of historical interest, but that’s it. Doing wonders on a very low budget, this first effort by George Miller starts with a very good car chase whose energy level is sadly not surpassed anywhere later in the film. The middle section is a predictable bore, as it laboriously sets up a revenge story whose shocker comes only fifteen minute before the end of the film. A young Mel Gibson stars, looking a lot like the popular stereotype of a gay porn star. Interestingly enough, the whole post-apocalyptic thematic of the two sequels is nearly undetectable in this first film, as much a consequence of the low-budget than a lack of imagination at that stage. Often unintentionally ridiculous by its lack of funds and polish.

    (Second Viewing, On Cable TV, October 2022) As much as the original Mad Max enjoys a killer reputation as a marvel of low-budget filmmaking, even a second viewing the film can’t make me muster much enthusiasm for the film as a whole.  I’m not going to argue the point that the film is as good as it gets during its action sequences: the way writer-director George Miller is able to pace and frame his action sequences is good, and even more impressive know how little he had to work with.  But it’s when Mad Max stops moving and starts walking that the film loses a lot of energy and cohesion – it can’t tell its story cleanly, and as a result, we’re stuck waiting for the next fast-paced sequence.  (Further compounding the problem is that the best sequence is the first – nothing else later on acts as an action climax.)  A few of the film’s strengths come from those budgetary limits – the sense of a society sliding into a complete social breakdown is still an intriguing facet of its atmosphere, but it’s clearly because they couldn’t afford to do more than talk about it in front of then-contemporary sets.  Max Mad benefits considerably from the halo effect of its sequel: The Road Warrior is about as perfect an action film as has ever been made (not to mention Fury Road), so it’s natural that its scrabbly predecessor would also get some second-hand glory from it.  But even on a second viewing, I’m more interested than impressed by the result: it’s visually rough, but it’s even rougher narratively, and that’s weirdly opposite to the usual strengths and weaknesses of low-budget films.

  • Babe (1995)

    Babe (1995)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On TV, January 2000) A charming fairy tale about a farm, its animals and the human farmers. Though quite fun and always interesting to look at, it does lacks some “oomph”. The computer-animated animals are cute, but there are signs that the film doesn’t fully exploit its potential. Still, good fun.

    (Second-through-fiftieth viewings, Toddler-watching, On DVD, June 2014) Sometimes, it takes a different perspective to appreciate a film at its true value, and so it is that toddler-watching Babe (that is; over and over again) with a curious two-and-a-half year old only underscores what a magnificent achievement this film is. We usually skip over the dark opening and the sheep death scene, but most of Babe is fit to be watched by very young kids, even if as nothing more than a pleasant montage of scenes with adorable animals. (Tell no one, but the scene in which Babe convinces a sheep to take her medicine proved to be of pedagogical value.) It’s upon the fifth or fifteenth viewing that you begin to realize how perfectly executed Babe is: As a representation of a bucolic family farm, it’s got charm beyond measure. James Cromwell is nothing short of an icon as a laconic farmer, and the near-silent climax is a thing of beauty. Babe him/herself is a hero worth cheering for, and the sheep are almost impossible cute (and I say that as someone who has worked with sheep.) George Miller’s hand in this film is mostly that of a producer/screenwriter (Chris Noonan directed the film), but you can recognize the success of his approach in the rewatchability of the film. Babe is sweet but just as much fun for adults than it is for young kids. Let go of any cynicism and enjoy.