Jodie Foster

  • Nell (1994)

    Nell (1994)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In French, On Cable TV, September 2021) There are a lot of Hollywood dramatics in Nell, the story of two researchers investigating what could be a feral child following the death of her mother. Liam Neeson and Natasha Richardson play the slowly-falling-in-love researchers in likable performances (as far as I can determine, the shooting of the film roughly coincided with their real-life wedding), but Jodie Foster hogs all attention as the not-so-feral-child around which the rest of the film revolves. It’s a ferocious, daring performance, especially given how much of it is in a quasi-invented language. The rest of Nell is very much aligned with the usual tropes of outsiders being taken in by so-called normal characters. There are many plot contrivances along the way, but it ends like it should with everyone being reasonably happy. It’s generally interesting throughout, and there’s more nudity from Foster than anyone would expect (it’s not a scene meant to make anyone feel good). Neeson is very solid in a role that expects him to be an anchoring presence. Much of the film takes place in well-photographed nature, making it even more alien when the film briefly retreats to a courtroom in time for a trial. Familiar but executed reasonably well, Nell isn’t meant for surprises.

  • Little Man Tate (1991)

    Little Man Tate (1991)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In French, On TV, May 2020) There’s a striking appropriateness in how Jodie Foster, a child prodigy herself, not only chose to direct gifted-child drama Little Man Tate, but also plays the role of the averagely intelligent mother trying to steer her child through the isolation of genius. Alas, that’s probably the most interesting thing about the film, which ends up being a predictable middle-ground kind of drama going for a middle-ground kind of sentiment. It reinforces unfortunate prejudices about gifted kids, settles for bland “it’s not how smart you are but how you use it” sentiments acceptable to the masses, and runs through a long list of known tropes about its topic. In many ways, Little Man Tate feels like the kind of smaller actor-driven films that Hollywood studios used to grant as favours to their box-office workhorses: something almost gone from the cinema landscape these days.

  • Tom Sawyer (1973)

    Tom Sawyer (1973)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, January 2020) There’s a straight correlation between the crash of the movie musical in the 1970s and that decade’s insistence in adapting known properties as downbeat musicals. This being said, I’m not sure that Tom Sawyer is worth my usual eyerolls and criticism of 1970s musicals—in adapting the classic Mark Twain novel as a musical comedy largely shot on location, it avoids becoming an overly reverent stuffy take on the source material, and keeps its tone as a pleasantly mild comedy. It’s not that distinguished, but it’s not terrible either and things could get much, much worse in 1970s musicals. Amusingly produced by none other than Reader’s Digest magazine, the film hops from one episode to another in adapting the novel, and strings along the upbeat songs to go with the narrative. Jodie Foster shows up in one of her earliest roles. This version of Tom Sawyer is not something that you’ll remember for a long time, but it’s still an interesting take on one of the most sacred novels in American literature.

  • Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore (1974)

    Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore (1974)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, October 2019) The 1970s were a melodramatic time for everyone, including directors better known for straight-up genre fare. In Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore, here we have Martin Scorsese tackling a romantic drama, looking at lower-class Americans through the eyes of a new widow trying to make it as a singer. Of course, money is scarce, there’s her son to consider, and new romantic relationships are a path fraught with peril. As befit a New Hollywood film, it’s all dirty, grimy, realistic and depressing. We’re stuck around Phoenix, Arizona for most of the duration. Scorsese’s usual sense of style is muted here (well, other than a very stylish opening and a long tracking shot) but considering that he took the job in order to bolster his credentials as an actor’s director, he over-succeeded at his ambitions at the moment Ellen Burstyn (looking impossibly young here) won an Oscar for the role. Other than Burstyn, there’s a fun number of famous actors in the cast, from Kris Kristofferson to Diane Ladd to Harvey Keitel to Jodie Foster (plus Laura Dern in a cameo if you know what to look for). Still, the star here is Scorsese, who delivers a very atypical film by his later standards but was able to parlay his experience here in later more memorable projects.

  • Hotel Artemis (2018)

    Hotel Artemis (2018)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, July 2019) You can either consider Hotel Artemis as a Science-Fiction film or a stylish criminal drama, but it really makes most sense as the latter. The SF elements are merely dystopian window-dressing for an unusual premise: a hidden hospital catering to an exclusive underworld club, headed by a medical professional who has made it her refuge. When someone gets shot in the Los Angeles area, they can just show up, machines will patch them, and they can recuperate in peace in one of the hotel’s five rooms. Of course, the kind of people who would need access to such an establishment… Are the reason why we’re watching. There isn’t much missing to declare Hotel Artemis as taking place in the same universe as John Wick, with impossibly competent assassins operating within a secret society. Who cares if Los Angeles is burning due to ten-years-in-the-future water riots? The point here is seeing the characters colliding, old grudges being settled and some compelling actors being asked to do what they do best … or go beyond their usual persona. The case in point for the latter has to be Jodie Foster, here playing much older and wearier than usual but exceptionally good at it. Then there’s Sterling K. Brown and Sofia Boutella showing up as the lead couple, Boutella being back to her usual femme fatale roles. Jeff Goldblum, Jenny Slate, Dave Bautista, and Zachary Quinto also show up, although Slate (in a dramatic turn) doesn’t have as much to do as she should. Writer-director Drew Pearce here delivers a lot of atmosphere, somewhat less excitement and only the bare minimum of a plot. Hotel Artemis is fun to watch, but it’s best not to ponder what else could have been done with the same premise, or how the story may have played out more excitingly in other hands. It does manage to be entertaining, but does leave a lot on the table.

  • The Accused (1988)

    The Accused (1988)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In French, On TV, April 2019) You wouldn’t necessarily expect a tough subject matter film to create a compelling viewing experience, but The Accused still carries quite a punch even three decades later. As a procedural legal thriller following the consequences of a rape in a small-town bar, it’s not meant to be fun or comforting—but the twists and turns ensure that it remains a gripping viewing experience. While Kelly McGillis headlines the film as the attorney, it’s Jodie Foster’s showy role as the victim that still earns all the attention. Foster, who won an Oscar for her performance, does have a difficult role, one that impresses even now given that it doesn’t quite fit her later upper-class screen persona. Despite being focused on a courtroom trial, the script cleverly keeps its harshest moment for late in the film—after an opening that takes place after the mass rape central to its premise, it proceeds for a solid three-quarter of its length before flashing back and taking the audience kicking and screaming through the entire traumatizing experience. This is not a unique structural trick, but by this time, the film has already established the sympathy for the character, and its bona fides as a serious and non-exploitative film. (Also, not to put too fine a point on it, the sequence has audiences watching a rape in the context of a trial about witnesses who watched a rape, after creating sympathy for the victim.)   The Accused made quite a stir back in 1988 (Even as a teenager, I recall some of the chatter) and it’s still remarkably effective today—even if you think you know what the film is about, its execution is excellent, with director Jonathan Kaplan creating that elusive scene-to-scene “I wonder what’s going to happen next?” quality. It feels more entertaining (if that’s the right word for it for a film with such an unbearable sequence) than a strictly social-issues film. And it does feature a high-intensity sequence that remains exceptionally effective even today.

  • Maverick (1994)

    Maverick (1994)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In French, on Cable TV, August 2017) Given the western genre’s continued tendency to reach for dour drama, it can be a relief, even decades later, to encounter a light-hearted western. It feels even more refreshing to see it use its western setting as a springboard for a gambling conman comedy. In Maverick, Mel Gibson is practically perfect as a wisecracking protagonist equally adept with cards and guns, bluffing and shooting his way to a high-stakes gambling tournament. It’s a fine performance in his best persona, but it’s equalled by Jodie Foster in an atypical western bombshell role—Foster’s long been known for playing mostly cerebral, often desexualized roles, so it’s a bit of a delight to see her play up blonde curls and tight dresses. Other name actors round up the cast, in-between James Coburn, Dan Hedeya, James Garner, Graham Greene and Alfred Molina … plus more cameo roles than you’ll be able to recognize. Director Richard Donner’s rapid pacing helps its entertainment value, but there is considerable charm in its setting and attitude—not many westerns have steamboats, and fewer include rapid-fire romantic repartee or wryly funny native characters. The script, by legendary William Goldman, is as good as you’d expect, with a pile-up of confidence games and triple-crossing characters in addition to the western backdrop. Maverick is not a great movie, but it remains a really good one. 

  • Carnage (2011)

    Carnage (2011)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On TV, July 2017) Roman Polanski’s Carnage, adapted from a theatre piece, isn’t much more than a one-set conversation between two couples that quickly turns bad. It almost acts as a prototype for Polanski’s later Venus in Fur, down to the bookends being the only escape from the limited set. In some ways, it’s depressing to see grown adult viciously turn on each other. In others, and especially toward the end, it becomes blackly amusing to see the four characters variously argue against each other, forming shifting alliances, as well as exposing secrets and resentment in an explosion of anger. It helps that in-between Jodie Foster, Kate Winslet, John C. Reilly and Christoph Waltz, Polanski doesn’t need more help in the acting department: All four are terrific, although Waltz gets perhaps the most overly slimy role, while Reilly gets to break out of his usual nice-guy persona. This being said, none of the other characters are perfect, and Carnage is about peeling the layers that usually limit polite conversation. Once you’re caught on that this is going to be a verbal demolition derby, you can wait until the next inevitable reconfiguration of factions—including couples vs the other, men vs women, three-vs-one and so on. Also: If you’ve been waiting for seeing Kate Winslet vomiting profusely, then this is the film for you. (As for the rest of us: Ew.) Unfortunately, Carnage ends limply, almost as if it had run out of things to say—there isn’t much of a conclusion to the conversation, and whatever closure is offered by the film comes from the final bookend. Still, as a film that places so much emphasis on dialogue between limited characters, Carnage is a nice change of pace, and even a mildly entertaining piece of verbal fireworks.

  • Money Monster (2016)

    Money Monster (2016)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (Video on-Demand, September 2016) Given how I’ve been screeching about the disappearance of medium-budget Hollywood thrillers, I should at least take a moment to acknowledge the very existence of Money Monster, which not only provides two A-list actors with an original script, but also returns to the kind of contemporary issues-driven film that has also disappeared from the timid studio slates. Money Monster is about corporate malfeasance in financial matters, and the uneasy relationship between industry and the media. It’s also a bit of a cry against the exploitation of workers, but that’s easy to forget as the film moves into a thriller narrative in which a downtrodden worker takes a celebrity financial commentator hostage while live on the air. Cue the efforts of the show’s producer to try the resolve the situation without bloodshed … and maybe piece together the piece of a financial scandal along the way. Directed with some energy by Jodie Foster, Money Monster also turns out to be a mid-list showcase for the kind of role that George Clooney (as a borderline-sleazy TV pundit who learns better) and Julia Roberts (as a competent show producer) can do purely on the strength of their persona. As the complications pile up, Money Monster remains engrossing throughout—although there’s a temporary lull when the action moves outside the studio. Perhaps more interestingly, it ends up satisfying a scratch for almost exactly that kind of perfectly serviceable thriller, dabbling in social issues while showcasing good actors. (If you were wondering about how Money Monster existed, bet something on Foster’s ability to attract A-listers.) It may not be a film that will remain at the top of the year-best rankings, but it’s good, it’s entertaining, it’s got morals at the right place and it’s the kind of film I’d like to see more often.

  • Elysium (2013)

    Elysium (2013)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (Video on Demand, December 2013) Writer/Director Neill Blomkamp made a splash in 2009 with his debut feature District 9, an exceptional blend of kinetic thrills and thematic wit.  Elysium may not benefit from the same element of surprise, but it certainly operates in the same vein: Drawing a clear line between impoverished Earth and privileged space station Elysium, the film tackles social issues in an explicit SF setting with gritty aesthetics and impressive action sequences.  Matt Damon is quite credible as a lower-class working man who is forced to become a hero through desperate circumstances while Jodie Foster is perfectly ice-cold as the orbital protector, but it’s Sharlto Copley who steals scenes as a crazed mercenary.  The film’s other unassailable highlight are the action sequences, shot a bit too close, but with a documentary-style dynamism that works pretty well.  In-between clever visual design and various bits of post-cyberpunk plotting, there’s enough here to keep true Science Fiction fans happy.  Unfortunately, Elysium has enough small problems that it seems somewhat less than solid as a whole.  The intention to discuss issues of class, wealth and privilege is laudable (there’s even a historical reference to the mercenary class taking over the rich elites when the barbarians come knocking), but it’s ham-fisted and riddled with inexplicable bits of world building.  Never mind the open-sky design of Elysium or the software-based plot to overthrow the station’s social order: the lack of a shown middle-class to keep the poor in line is historically strange (it can’t be explained solely by robotics), and it would have been nice to see a bit more nuance beyond the Manichean Earth-is-poor-Elysium-is-rich world-building.  The ending makes little logistical sense, and even less political sense –it med-beds are so effective, wouldn’t it be an effective instrument of social control to install them downside?  The problem with Elysium may not be that it’s as nonsensical as most Hollywood SF blockbusters, but that it’s so thematically and visually ambitious that it invites greater scrutiny, and that its world-building isn’t able to sustain more than surface-level contemplation.  (As an aside, I expect that as Hollywood Science-Fiction gets better and smarter -pushed along by, yes, people such as Blomkamp and movies such as Elysium-, the contrast between its stated sophistication and brute-force Hollywood-style plotting will be more and more apparent.)  Elysium is, all things considered, pretty good at what it tries to do.  But it’s missing the extra little bit of credibility that would have vaulted it from merely good to potentially great.