James Foley

  • Who’s That Girl (1987)

    Who’s That Girl (1987)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In French, On TV, November 2019) I strongly suspect that anyone seeing Who’s That Girl today, with no real knowledge of Madonna, would have a very different experience than those who saw it in the late 1980s in a pop-culture environment saturated with Madonna in films and song. The film was badly received at the time, with critics piling on to decry its modern reimagining of screwball comedy tropes, and delivering mixed opinions on Madonna’s acting skills. It’s not necessarily a better movie today—the schematic nerd-meets-firebrand plot premise is overly familiar, the attempts to recreate screwball madness are not quite successful, and James Foley’s direction is not what the film needs. (Don’t worry—he’d direct much better movies later.)  But one element of Who’s That Girl may have improved, and that’s Madonna’s go-for-broke comic performance as The Girl. While she’s hardly a good actress (I’ve often said, truthfully, that she’s a far better performer in French than in English—because her voice dubbers do much better line-reading) and her self-styling after Marilyn Monroe often fall short, she’s not too bad here. Her comic timing is pretty good, she commits to a very specific performance and she eventually creates a character that’s not Madonna. What twenty-first century viewers have that late-1980s viewer don’t is the ability to differentiate between Madonna-the-persona and the not-so-ditzy ball of energy she plays here. She’s not that good—but as with the film itself, she’s watchable, and the Razzies people once again made idiots of themselves by band-wagoning into “worst of the year” nominations for the result. Have a look at Who’s That Girl: it’s not that bad, but more than that it’s interesting.

  • Confidence (2003)

    Confidence (2003)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In theaters, April 2003) Ah yes. The con film that begins with the narrator describing his own death. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that this is all going to turn out nicely, but the twists and turns are the name of the game and if Confidence isn’t particularly revolutionary, it plays well enough. I’ve been, inexplicably, a mild fan of Ed Burns for a while and he certainly knows how to play as the lead man in a gang of con artists on a rampage in Los Angeles. One operation goes too well, they find out they just double-crossed a powerful crime lord and suddenly, they must atone for their miscalculation by performing another con. Double-crosses, counter-crosses, infini-crosses follow. Fans of Rachel Weisz will not be disappointed, as she demonstrates an uncanny capability at playing a scheming seductress. The rest of the supporting cast is also quite good, with the usual props to Dustin Hoffman, Paul Giamatti and Andy Garcia. The direction moves with a certain style and the screenplay efficiently propels the story forward. The ending is a bit of a mess; I’m not even sure if it makes any sense at all. But in a con film, these senseless twists are the norm, and they are easily forgiven as long as it ends in a satisfactory fashion. Indeed, it’s hard to imagine a happier ending than the one featured here, and this happy impression is the one to keep.

    (On DVD, September 2010) Years later, this film may play even more smoothly than it first did: I had forgotten much about the smooth scene transitions, clever dialogues and exceptional ensemble cast. Director James Foley knows what he’s doing, and his Los Angeles is drenched in unusual color accents. As a con film, it’s hardly revolutionary… but it promises a good time and it fulfills its part of the bargain handily.