Oliver Platt

The 9th Life of Louis Drax (2016)

The 9th Life of Louis Drax (2016)

ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

(On Cable TV, May 2020) Any viewer with a fondness for genre-busting will have a great time in watching The 9th Life of Louis Drax, which never completely settles for one genre when several will do the trick. At first a medical mystery (as a doctor cares for a boy in a coma), then a romance (as the doctor begins a relationship with the mother), then a murder mystery (as a body is found), then maybe horror (as a creature makes its way into the hospital), then again maybe just pretentious literary devices (as the boy in a coma narrates everything and the film is adapted from a novel). Considering that it’s directed by Alexandre Aja, whose best-known films are all in the horror genre, The 9th Life of Louis Drax is a glossy, off-kilter, visually stylish blend of very different things. The casting won’t make it any easier, as we see actors known for a variety of genres all have small and big roles, from Jamie Dornan, Oliver Platt (in a serious role), Molly Parker (as a police officer), Barbara Hershey, to Aaron Paul. If the point is to keep viewers guessing, then great—but the continuous hesitation in picking one of several genres may test other viewers’ patience. It’s also an ambiguity that places far more emphasis than usual on the ending to solve the nature of the story itself, more so than a film that delivers on its premise throughout. Is this magical realism? Is it psychological thrills? The 9th Life of Louis Drax ends up more perplexing than anything else—maybe a realistic tale but one told with so much storytelling style that it feels supernatural.

Beethoven (1992)

Beethoven (1992)

ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

(In French, On TV, April 2020) At least the logline of this film writes itself: “Family adopts a very big dog, mayhem ensues.” Written by John Hughes under pseudonym, Beethoven is so clearly and directly aimed at family audiences that its single-minded determination to crack that market is almost admirable. A multiplicity of subplots further widen the appeal, ensuring that at least someone will get something out of at least one plot strand. (Fittingly enough, I most identified with the harried father—a suitably comic performance from Charles Grodin.) Given this, it seems almost churlish to point out that the film ekes a mediocre result. The same forces packaging the film for maximum audience sympathy also prevent it from going anywhere interesting. There is one exception, and it’s a bad one—one scene is surprisingly bloody for a family film, and that’s not even getting into the wisdom of putting animal experimentation in a family film in the first place. On a happier note, this film is amazing for a few young up-and-coming actors getting supporting roles, whether it’s David Duchovny as an arrogant venture capitalist, or both Stanley Tucci and Oliver Platt as hoodlums. None of this makes Beethoven that much better, but at least it’s something to watch while the youngsters are happily cheering the dog along.

Sap ji sang ciu [Chinese Zodiac aka Armour of God 3] (2012)

Sap ji sang ciu [Chinese Zodiac aka Armour of God 3] (2012)

ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

(In French, On TV, March 2020) Hey, why didn’t anyone tell me about this film? Just as I was thinking I had seen every classic Jackie Chan and resigned myself to his retirement, here’s a late-period Chan that’s clearly aligned with his classic era of goofy martial arts adventure. Chan is his usual deceptively amiable self, and while he’s not quite as fast or daredevil as in his earlier years, he’s still a joy to watch in action. While the result isn’t quite a complete tonal fit for the mantle of “Armour of God 3,” it’s clearly set in that tradition, with the plot being a big ball of nonsense meant to propel us from one action sequence to another. It works, though: We don’t ask too many questions, we get to enjoy Chan in France (what is it with Chinese movies set in France?), and admire the tradecraft of the numerous high points. I do have a few issues: there’s a feeling, for instance, that the best sequence of the film is not kept for last, which creates an unbalanced climax. The film also introduces some martial artists two-thirds of the way in through disconnected sequences, once against betraying an imperfect structure. Still, Chan fans will find what they’re looking for: imaginative set pieces (rolling down a hill at high speed, or being stuck in a hedge maze), silly-fun fighting sequences, a bit of historical detective work, and an entertaining atmosphere. There are even a few pleasant surprises along the way, such as Oliver Platt randomly showing up in a tertiary role, or short appearances by a Canadian stamp and some maple syrup. Chinese Zodiac, directed by Chan himself, is clearly meant to be a career capstone of a sort, the last of his purely leading roles: The end credits not only contain the usual revealing outtakes and behind-the-scenes footage (including how they filmed the skydiving sequences) but it also offers a retrospective of Chan’s career-in-action highlights. Later appearances since 2012 have seen him in more sedate supporting roles. Still, this isn’t a bad send-off for an action legend: one last kick at the can to show what he could still do in his late fifties.

Bulworth (1998)

Bulworth (1998)

ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

(On Cable TV, November 2016) I really thought I’d like Bulworth more than I did. As a look in the life of an American politician, it’s not too bad: we get a feel for the trade-offs, the deals, the drudgery of the work. It’s even promising when it becomes obvious that the lead character has decided to give it all up and hires an assassin to take himself out. But then Bulworth decides to become heavily didactic, has its character raps through a few scenes and more or less gives up on any kind of unified tone. It doesn’t work, even despite the good efforts of the performers. Warren Beatty is very good as the titular politician; meanwhile, a young Halle Berry shows up as a young woman that teaches him the errors of his ways. (She gets a very good speech answering “Why do you think there are no more black leaders?”) Bulworth, to its credits, plays with a few daring ideas that remain evergreen (and I write this even despite the crazy electoral circus that was 2016), trying to pass along those ideas within a credible framework. (Witness Oliver Platt, shining as a political operative trying to keep his candidate on track.) But Bulworth ends up shooting itself in the foot a few times, most notably by having Beatty vamp it up by rapping at high-society events, adopting black speech patterns and trying to ingratiate himself in lower society. It’s often more embarrassing than successful, betraying a juvenile intent more than proving its political sophistication. By the end, Bulworth has become a grab bag of intriguing moment and cringe-worthy ones. Beatty the actor does well, but Beatty the director could have used more restraint and another script re-write. But then again, after the results of the 2016 American elections, it may be that our ability to distinguish satire from reality has completely evaporated.

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.

2012 (2009)

2012 (2009)

ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

(In theatres, November 2009) It’s not much of an exaggeration to say that Roland Emmerich’s 2012 tries to ape and one-up much of the disaster-movie genre.  Where else can you find a 10.5 earthquake, a super-volcano and a mega-tsunami in the same movie?  As such, it demands to be considered according to the particular standards of the disaster movie genre, and that’s indeed where it finds most of its qualities.  The L.A. earthquake sequence is a piece of deliriously over-the-top action movie-making (I never loved 2012 more than when the protagonists’ plane had to dodge a falling subway train), the Yellowstone volcano sequence holds its own and those who haven’t seen an aircraft carrier smash the White House now have something more to live for.  The problem, unfortunately, is that those sequences are front-loaded in the first two-third of the film, leaving much smaller set-pieces for the end.  This, in turn places far more emphasis on the characters, dialogue and plot points, none of whom are a known strength of either the genre or 2012 itself. Sure, the cast of characters is either pretty (Thandie Newton!  Amanda Peet!), competent (Chiwetel Ejiofor, Danny Glover) or entertaining (John Cusack, Oliver Platt).  Of course, we want to see them live through it all.  But as a too-late consideration of ethical issues bumps against less-impressive sequences and significant lulls (including a 15-minutes-long prologue), it becomes easier to see that this 158 minutes film is at least 45 minutes too long and suffering from a limp third act.  The defective nature of the roller-coaster also makes it less easy to tolerate the hideous conclusions, screaming contrivances and somewhat distasteful ethics of the screenplay.  While the clean and sweeping cinematography (interestingly replaced by a hand-held video-quality interlude during one of the film’s turning points) shows that 2012’s production budget is entirely visible on-screen and will eventually make this a worthwhile Blu-Ray demo disk, there isn’t much here to respect or even like.  At least special-effects fans will be able to play some destruction sequences over and over again.