Jan de Bont

  • Roar (1981)

    Roar (1981)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In French, On Cable TV, October 2019) Oh boy, what a movie. The story of the making of Roar is amazing in itself, but even if you see the movie absolutely cold you’ll be gobsmacked at what you will be seeing: a family of actors in their own rural home, interacting with a menagerie of wild cats running all around them. If you’ve grown up (like, well, everybody) with a healthy respect and primal fear of lions, tigers and panthers, that’s amazing enough. It’s hard not to be impressed by the way the actors and the animal share physical space with seemingly no barrier or protection: Far from the usual treatment of actors sharing the screen with dangerous animals, our protagonists make full physical contact with the beasts. It’s so captivating that it does take a while to realize that the story here hangs on only by the flimsiest of threads: It’s about a family joining their father in a big cat-infested house in Africa, and learning to like the animals. (Animal psychology is arguably more important in Roar than human psychology.) The scene-by-scene plotting is disjointed at best, with very little narrative cohesion from one shot to another. The editing is choppy. It feels improvised. These impressions are not accidental when you start reading about the amazing behind-the-scenes story of Roar and how it came to be. The quick version goes like this: While shooting a film in Africa, wife-and-husband Tippi Hedren and Noel Marshall came to like big cats and decided to illegally host as many of them as they could in their remote California residence. After altering the terrain to look like Africa and bringing together as many at 71 lions, 26 tigers, 10 cougars, 9 panthers and a host of other dangerous animals (including four Canadian geese potentially being the worst of them), they started shooting a movie with the noble goal of bolstering preservation efforts for big cats in Africa. Things, however, did not go as planned: The shooting took five years, not helped along by the animals’ lack of acting cooperation. There was a catastrophic flood, ruining sets, film, equipment and the producer/director/star’s own home. The finished film went unseen in North America. They went bankrupt. Animals died, either after escaping and being shot by authorities, or through illness. Roar’s five years of shooting extended to eleven years from pre-production to the final cut. Then there’s the fact that 70 people were injured on-set (some seriously, such as daughter Melanie Griffith and then-cinematographer Jan de Bont), because (as anyone knows) humans and big cats aren’t meant to live together. Imagine the crew turnover under these conditions. Hilariously enough, the film begins by the standard “No animals were harmed during the shooting of this movie”—when the film was re-released in 2005, the tagline added, “70 Cast and crewmembers were.”  The resulting footage is frankly amazing—By the time the characters share their beds with lions and tigers, it’s hard not to be scared and envious. (While nothing bad happens in the film, it was broadcast on a horror channel and my daughter flat-out refused to watch it, showing better self-preservation instincts than any character in the film.) But it does raise the question of whether this has been worth it—it’s easy to laugh in amazement at the kind of madness that led to the existence of the film, but only because nobody died along the way. Still, it exists, and its 2005 re-release did much to remind people of the fact: in the annals of moviemaking, you’d be hard-pressed to find a more amazing making-of than the story of how Roar came to be.

  • Flatliners (1990)

    Flatliners (1990)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, April 2012) For years, I wondered if missing out on Flatliners had led to an embarrassing omission in my movie-going culture.  Hadn’t this film earned some interest as a science-fiction film?  Didn’t it star a bunch of actors who went on to bigger things?  Wasn’t this one of Joel Shumacher’s best-known movies from his earlier, better period?  The answer to these questions is yes… but the film itself seems a bit of a letdown after viewing.  Oh, some things still work well, and may even work better than expected.  Of the five main actors, Kiefer Sutherland, Julia Roberts, Kevin Bacon and Oliver Platt have all gone on to big careers –with poor William Baldwin being left behind.  Schumacher’s direction is backed-up with Jan de Bont’s impressive cinematography: the visuals of the film may not make much sense, but they evoke a modern-gothic atmosphere that remains distinctive even today.  The high-concept of the film remains potent, with genius-level medical students voluntarily defying death to investigate the mysteries of the afterlife.  Unfortunately, all of these elements don’t quite add up satisfyingly.  The jump from the high concept to the characters’ personification of those concepts is weak, and the contrivances become almost too big to ignore.  The idea of atonement being closely linked to death is powerful, but the way this variously follows the character is more difficult to accept.  (As Platt’s character knowingly remarks, those without deep-seated traumas will end up with some fairly silly phantoms.)  There is quite a bit of repetitive one-upmanship in the way the plotting unfolds, and Flatliners sadly goes too quickly from provocative idea to ordinary morality.  Still, it’s easy to argue that the film is worth a look: Roberts, Sutherland and Bacon look really good in early roles, and the visual style of the film is still an achievement twenty years later.  There are some good ideas in the mix (witness the visual motif of “construction” -reconstruction, deconstruction- underlying nearly each scene), the portrait of intelligent characters interacting is charming and some of the suspense still works surprisingly well when it doesn’t descend in silliness.  There are a few films that qualify as “minor classics” of their era in time.  While Flatliners certainly won’t climb year’s-best lists retroactively, it’s a film that remains more remarkable than many of its contemporaries.  I don’t regret seeing it… and I may even have liked to see it a bit earlier.

  • Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life (2003)

    Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life (2003)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In theaters, July 2003) You would think that a film dealing with Pandora’s box, starring Angelina Jolie and taking place on three continents would be more memorable than this. But no: despite the inherent interest of archaeological quests and Jolie’s chest, the film quickly dissolves away as soon as the credits roll. Director Jan de Bont turns in his least remarkable film yet (and that’s saying something considering the disaster we still remember as The Haunting), but he’s working from a lifeless script that itself doesn’t contain any moments of brilliance. Okay, so the film features a practice fight in a library; I shouldn’t ask for much more. But the dull villain (Ciarán Hinds, who deserved much better after a good turn in The Sum Of All Fears) is nearly as ineffective as the putative love interest in raising our involvement in the story. Lara Croft isn’t much of a warm and sympathetic character, and this aloofness also characterizes the rest of the film. One could say plenty of bad things about the first film, but at least it had a visual style and the go-for-broke willingness to use outlandish material like the Illuminati. This entry is more realistic, but it never takes off as an adventure despite visuals that should be spectacular. A third film is unlikely. Too bad; it’s a lousy end for a series that could have been far better.

  • The Haunting (1999)

    The Haunting (1999)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In theaters, July 1999) Are horror films basically incompatible with the Hollywood blockbuster mentality? This film offers part of the answer. This big-budget, star-studded Haunted-house offering from Dreamworks manages the rare feat of being a completely ordinary horror film without one good scare in it. Aside from a mild jump-shot or two, The Haunting fails at eliciting anything approaching dread from the audience, with disastrous results. In many ways, this is a movie from another time, where you could afford to build up the suspense for an hour before letting it all flow. This approach could have been applauded if The Haunting has done anything worthwhile… but this build-up only elicits impatience rather than tension. The below-average script doesn’t help things, with some particularly bad dialogue (mirroring almost everything the characters feel despite the fact that it’s blindingly obvious to the audience.) and a lack of any sympathy for the characters. Jan de Bont’s direction is far from being as dynamic as I would have expected from his work on Speed and Twister. Catherine Zeta-Jones is as lovely as ever, but she has to fight against the House itself in the looks department. The bad ending finally seals The Haunting‘s rating to, at best, barely average.

    (Streaming, June 2025) Twenty-five years later, I come to the 1999 version of The Haunting with a very different perspective informed by having seen the 1963 version, having read Shirley Jackson’s novel and being far more appreciative of classic horror.  Alas, none of this leads me to a more positive appreciation — although there a a few things I do like more about it.  The beginning, for instance, is rather good — never mind a fleeting glimpse of Virginia Madsen in the opening scene, The Haunting is never quite as good as its first half-hour where everything is still possible and the film does seem intent on combining terrific set design with an intention to follow the original novel.  The casting helps a lot — Lili Taylor is really good as the mousy protagonist, Catherine Zeta-Jones fantastic at the outgoing Theo and Liam Neeson makes for a great authority figure. When I read the novel, I couldn’t help but imagine them in the lead roles. (Alas, Owen Wilson is utterly miscast in a badly-written character — I like 1963’s Russ Tamblyn much better.)  The sets are grand and the pacing is such that you can hope for the best.  But then The Haunting takes a turn for the worse by going for a special-effects spectacle at a time when CGI really wasn’t perfect and from source material that’s built on ambiguity.  The final half-hour is grotesque overkill — and I’m not even objecting to the heroic-sacrifice finale. As of this to say that despite a very different path, I still end up twenty-five years with an impression of the 1999 The Haunting that’s no less critical.  It’s not even trashy-fun like the near-contemporary remakes of 13 Ghosts and House on Haunted Hill — it’s just ponderous, misguided and near-useless.  This wasn’t the movie that killed Jan de Bont’s promising career as a director — but it was one of the three strikes (alongside Speed 2 and Lara Croft 2) that earned him early retirement from Hollywood.

  • 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.

  • Speed (1994)

    Speed (1994)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (Third viewing, On TV, October 1998) This is still, after several viewings, a devastatingly effective piece of action cinema. Cleverly (if not exactly smartly) written by Graham Yost and marvellously directed by Jan de Bont, Speed understands the dynamics of an action movie, and keeps on delivering what the viewer wants. Great performances by Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock also help. Watch it again; you’ll be pleasantly surprised.

    (Fourth viewing, On DVD, July 2003) Good action films are hard to find, and viewing the best ones can be helpful in understanding why. In this case, Speed shows all the other upstarts how it’s done: With panache, taut tension, perfect understanding of technical aspects, sympathetic characters and a little bit of reality-defying insanity. Even after all the flack they’ve received for other roles, Sandra Bullock and Keanu Reeves are truly a pair of heroes with whom we can relate. Jan de Bont’s direction has never been as good since, and the clean metallic sheen of the whole production gives a mean focus to a film that is all about never going under the limit. It’s not just good: it’s really good at a level that other action films only dream about. If only more filmmakers would study this movie… The “five-star edition” DVD indeed includes everything you’d ever wish to know about the film, from copious amount of production information to a pair of rather entertaining commentaries. The second commentary track is especially entertaining, as writer Graham Yost and producer Mark Gordon take apart the film in far more detail than even the most nit-picky viewers.