Helen Hunt

  • Then She Found Me (2007)

    Then She Found Me (2007)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On TV, April 2021) When I say that I’m intrigued by movies where actors become directors, I probably have to specify that the results so far have been more interesting than satisfying: It’s fascinating to see actors, often known for a specific persona, pick a specific project that speaks to them and presumably get the opportunity to do things their way rather than being directed by someone else. Alas, the track record of actors becoming directors is often disappointing: The films can be dull, meandering, and focused on performances rather than story or visual style. Actors often reach for small-scale drama and it can be a challenge for the films to distinguish themselves as being more than “the directorial debut of X.”  All of this applies to Then She Found Me, the directorial debut of Helen Hunt, who also produced, co-wrote and starred in the film as a middle-aged teacher who (let’s take a deep breath) is left by her milquetoast husband, sees her adoptive mother die, meets her biological mother (who’s also a locally famous talk show host), gets in a relationship with the father of a child in her class and discovers that she’s pregnant with her no-good husband. Adapted from a novel, the script is simultaneously busy and empty, with an accumulation of underwhelming events taking up the space of witty dialogue or any dramatic buildup. Not helped along by a not-meant-to-be-likable protagonist, the third act feels like a carnival of bad decisions motivated by an intrusive author rather than the resolution of the plot threads. At least Hunt is not too bad, and she has brought her friends along for the experience: Matthew Broderick is deliciously slimy, Colin Firth plays another one of his rock-solid romantic protagonists, and (most remarkably) Bette Midler has a substantial role without taking over the entire film in the way she could have. Then She Found Me is certainly watchable, although the lack of distinctiveness to the result is liable to leave anyone wondering if that’s all by the end of it. Which is a surprisingly common reaction to films hyped as directorial debuts of well-known actors.

  • Kiss of Death (1995)

    Kiss of Death (1995)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In French, On Cable TV, May 2020) The first thing anyone will notice about Kiss of Death is—holy moly, what a good cast of actors: David Caruso (back when he thought TV stardom led to a cinema career), Samuel L. Jackson (looking young!), Nicolas Cage (as a crime lord!), Helen Hunt, Stanley Tucci (with some hair!), Michael Rapaport, Ving Rhames… I mean, that’s interesting. The second thing one notices after the credits is—wow, this was a completely unremarkable crime thriller. Directed in solid but unspectacular fashion by Barbet Schroeder, it’s an update to the 1947 film noir classic that transposes the story in the 1990s, but doesn’t really do anything all that exceptional with it all. It’s not uninteresting—at the very least, you can say that it’s watchable without trouble. But it’s not anything more: moments where the film is overwrought (thank you, Nicolas Cage) almost give a glimpse into what this Kiss of Death could have been with more verve from everyone. In its current state, though, it’s having a really hard time distinguishing itself from the middle of the pack of 1990s crime thrillers: admittedly a good decade for those, but not an excuse for a film that doesn’t quite reach its objectives.

  • Next of Kin (1989)

    Next of Kin (1989)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In French, On TV, September 2019) The interesting thing about going back in movie history and checking the lesser-known movies is that, from time to time, you get to discover something. Next of Kin isn’t that well known today, but have a look at this cast: Patrick Swayze, Liam Neeson, Adam Baldwin, Helen Hunt, Bill Paxton and Ben Stiller in one of his earliest roles. The premise also has some potential, what with Kentucky folks seeking revenge against Chicago mobsters who killed one of their own. Alas, the film itself doesn’t quite manage to justice either to its premise or its cast—although we do get to see Neeson, decades before Taken and the Liamsploitation craze, use his physical bulk to seek revenge for a fallen family member. Next of Kin comes closest to achieving is semi-comic potential in a climactic sequence set in a cemetery, with machine-gun-armed mobsters being outwitted by rural opponents using bows, bear traps and a bus full of snakes. But that’s a very short section in what feels like a much longer film that tries far too hard to play things seriously and ends up simply being bland. Swayze isn’t bad (especially playing off Hunt’s minor role or Neeson as his brother) but the script simply doesn’t fully seize upon what it had at its disposal. The cinematography is largely undistinguishable from countless other urban crime thrillers, and the direction isn’t much either: For all of the semi-fizz of a sequence set atop Chicago transit trains, the script itself just goes through the expected motions most of the time. Too bad for Next of Kin … but have you seen that cast?

  • Pay it Forward (2000)

    Pay it Forward (2000)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On TV, June 2015) A weepy emotionally-manipulative ludicrous drama is already bad, but a weepy emotionally-manipulative ludicrous drama with a terrible ending is much, much worse.  I actually could have lived with Pay it Forward’s central conceit –a young teenager creating a self-reinforcing wave of generosity that sweeps the nation.  (In this age of social media, you can completely imagine #payitforward as a viral week-long sensation.)  It’s all meant to be Highly Dramatic, although some of the sting is taken off through a non-chronological structure that works as a mystery.  Adapted from a novel, Pay it Forward is obviously meant to appeal to the same kind of people who put up inspirational quotes all over their social media feed.  And that’s fine –everyone deserves stories meant for them.  For the rest of us cynics, though, Pay it Forward can be so manipulative as to be repellent.  And that’s before we get to the terrible ending, which throws its protagonist under the bus in order to make everything even more Dramatic and Meaningful.  Ah well; whatever.  At least Haley Joel Osment, Kevin Spacey and Helen Hunt (in a thoroughly un-glamorized role) all get something to play, and moralizing do-gooders everywhere get a film they can enjoy.  If only it wasn’t for that ending, that truly awful ending…

  • As Good as it Gets (1997)

    As Good as it Gets (1997)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On TV, March 2015) While As Good As It Gets was a good box-office hit and a monster award contender in 1997, I had somehow managed to avoid it until now.  Featuring iconic performances and oft-quoted material, I thought I knew what the film was about.  I was wrong, of course, but the idealized version of the film that I carried in my head remains more satisfying than the one on-screen.  Both don’t start to diverge until fairly late in the film: As a confirmed obsessive-compulsive misanthrope who has somehow become a much-loved best-selling author, Jack Nicholson has one of his signature character here, and the cockiness with which he delivers either put-downs or compliments is nothing short of legendary.  (And those quotes… they’re ever-green.) Opposite him, Helen Hunt has rarely been more appealing as a single-mom waitress whose boundless compassion is tested by a thoroughly detestable human being.  (Meanwhile, Greg Kinnear is just fine as a gay artist overcoming the trauma of an attack, although this is really not his movie.)  As Good as It Gets is enjoyable as it forces these characters to be together for a while, their eccentricities and neuroses bouncing off each other through great dialogue and telling details.  But the film seems to lose itself somewhere in its third quarter of the film: For all of the interest in the platonic friendship between our two leads, I feel that the film takes a step too far by matching them together romantically.  The age difference between the two is bad enough (twenty six years!), but the film itself seems to acknowledge how bad a fit they are, and the small moment of détente at the very end isn’t particularly convincing: I would have been far happier a viewer at seeing both of them heal each other, and evolve in their own respective directions.  But, eh, what do I know?  As Good as it Gets made money, got great reviews and remains a bit of a reference almost twenty years later.  Given that, I’ll take my opinion and keep it for myself.

  • Twister (1996)

    Twister (1996)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (Second viewing, On VHS, January 1999) I loved that movie when I saw it in theatres. It was fun, fast, exceedingly well-done and incredibly exciting. Those who complained about the lack of character development, plot or thematic relevance were, I felt, missing the point of the film. Twister existed solely to make us see things we hadn’t seen on the silver screen before, and it delivered the goods. I was concerned, however, that the video version wouldn’t pack the same audiovisual punch than the movie, and up to a certain point, it’s true: this is a movie to be enjoyed on the biggest, loudest home theatre system you can find. But no matter; even diluted down to my monaural 20” TV setup, Twister is still a fun ride. Well-directed and competently acted within the confines of the action movie genre, this movie doesn’t loses itself in philosophical meandering and endless digression: Everything is to the point and we’re carried along for the ride. Enjoy it again.

    (Third Viewing, On Blu-Ray, July 2024) For years, Twister was my answer to “what if you won a contest and could organize a private theatrical showing for family and friends?” The unexpected release of a sequel had me second-guessing myself — would the film hold up after twenty five years of CGI?  While the verdict is not unqualified, I’m happy to report that Twister generally holds up. Not so much for the special effects — some of them still quite good, others not so much: the opening credits sequence is rough but a lot of the practical effects are pretty good.  What’s perhaps missing most from director Jan de Bont’s visuals is the kind of CGI-fueled large-scale shots that help ground everything in-between quick cuts and tight shots.  But here’s the really surprising newsflash: Twister nowadays isn’t as remarkable for its visuals than for the absolute sheer fun of the characters.  For a film that regularly gets dinged on the quality of its script, there’s a really convincing atmosphere of camaraderie between the storm-chasers at the middle of the narrative. Co-written by Michael Crichton, the script is not subtle but it knows what it’s doing. The characters may be stock figures, but they’re played by actors who understand the assignment (none more than Bill Paxton, Helen Hunt and pre-stardom Philip Seymour Hoffman in a small role — “We crave sustenance!”) and effortlessly create attachment to the characters.  The story is simple, and that’s part of the beauty of the film’s maximalist execution. While I’m not so sure that Twister would still be my top choice for a private theatrical showing (more out of increased competition), it’s still a lot of fun to watch.