Reviews by johanlefourbe

To be honest, I wonder how I ended up watching this flick but I remember that it was broadcast on TV. Anyway, it is not very often that I had the opportunity to witness the birth of a new star just in front of me. Indeed, I had never seen Clive Owen before and it would take him a couple of years to finally breakthrough with the mainstream audience but, while watching this flick, I really knew it would happen soon enough. Basically, this movie had a rather generic story but the mood was pretty neat and there always has been something intriguing about casinos. Above all, Owen was just so damned charismatic. Indeed, even though I have seen this kind of character many times before, he still managed to make this character interesting to follow. Eventually, 5 years later, Clive Owen would work again with Mike Hodges for ‘I'll Sleep When I'm Dead’ but even though the title was pretty awesome, the whole thing was just too pedestrian for my taste. Anyway, to conclude, even though it was not a masterpiece whatsoever, I thought it was a decent neo-film noir and I think it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Clive Owen’s work. 

It wasn’t really sure what to expect from this flick but since I always had a weak spot for Michael Douglas and Jane Fonda, I thought I might as well check it out. Eventually, I’m rather surprised that this movie is pretty much forgotten as it is in fact a fairly realistic and quite entertaining thriller dealing with a possible nuclear threat. In fact, I think it must be the most realistic disaster movie I have ever seen. It is rather interesting that, even though we have a genuine and probably legitimate fear of nuclear power, there is however no other way to provide enough juice to sustain our decadent lifestyle, I’m afraid. So, in the sense, there was something slightly hypocritical about the whole thing. Furthermore, I guess, another issue was perhaps that the whole thing felt slightly too easy somehow. Indeed, you have here a political thriller dealing with a topical subject and maybe to have Jane Fonda playing the nosy reporter was a little bit too obvious. Anyway, to conclude, even though it wasn’t really a masterpiece, I thought it was a decent political thriller and I think it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre. 

Like any other major popstar, at some point, Madonna thought she should be an actress as well. However while most of her colleagues like Britney Spears, Mariah Carey or Christina Aguilera would all stop after making one terrible movie, for some reason, Madonna kept on going for more than 17 years even though virtually all of those movies were critically trashed. Anyway, this movie was her first leading part and it was released not so long after her 2^nd album ‘Like a Virgin’ became a huge hit worldwide. Eventually, even though she wasn’t the main character in this film, her profile was such at the time that the movie was heavily marketed as a Madonna vehicle. Anyway, even though the whole thing was watchable and better than many later movies involving Madonna, it was still not really good, I’m afraid. First of all, pretty much like in ‘Who's That Girl?’, Madonna was playing someone so close to her public image, you can’t say that she really had to display some massive acting range here.  Above all, the main issue with this movie was that the story was was rather weak. To conclude, even though I have seen worse, I don’t think it is really worth a look, except if you are a die-hard fan of Madonna or if you are seriously nostalgic about the 80’s. 

In fact, I have actually seen this movie in the movie theater when it was released and I should probably re-watch it at some point. Indeed, after being completely blown away by ‘Funny Games’, I was really eager to see Michael Haneke’s following directing effort, especially since he was working for the first time in France. On top of that, he was working with Juliette Binoche, easily one of the best French actresses so I had some really high expectations concerning the damned thing. However, this movie turned out to be rather disappointing. I don’t know, maybe I was too young at the time to really appreciate it but, in my opinion, the whole thing was just too murky, at least for me. I mean, sure, it was still not bad at all but I really had a hard time to connect with the characters or to care for what they were going through. At least, thanks to Binoche who got in touch with Haneke expressing her interest in working with him, he made most of his following movies in France and most of them were just really impressive, especially ‘Caché’ and ‘Amour’. To conclude, even though this movie turned out to be rather disappointing, it was still a decent watch and I think it is worth a look, especially if you are interested in Michael Haneke’s work. 

To be honest, it has been a while since I have seen this movie and I should definitely re-watch it at some point. I wonder if I actually saw it in the movie theater when it was released. Anyway, back in the 90’s, I used to be a huge fan of Spike Lee’s work and even though this movie is nowadays rather forgotten, I think it is actually one of the best delivered by this director. Basically, it is some kind of crime thriller combined with the Hood genre which was so popular in the 90’s. As a result, you get to see a really entertaining murder investigation taking place in a raw and realistic urban environment and this mix worked really well. Indeed, the whole thing was really bleak and even rather depressing and shows how the life of a drug dealer is seriously dangerous and rather hopeless. Concerning  Mekhi Phifer, he gave here a really strong acting debut but even though he since then had a decent career, he never really impressed me again, at least, not as much as in this movie at least. Anyway, to conclude, I believe this movie is seriously underrated, I really loved the damned thing and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Spike Lee’s work.

To be honest, I had no idea what to expect from this movie but since it was starring Dustin Hoffman and Susan Sarandon, I was quite eager to check it out. To make the cast even more interesting, there was also Jake Gyllenhaal just after his breakthrough performance in ‘Donnie Darko’. Eventually, all these actors provided some really good performances and they were helped by the fact that all those characters were properly developed. Furthermore, I thought the whole thing gave some interesting views about how to deal with grief (it might have helped that Brad Silberling actually went through a similar experience as his girlfriend was in fact killed in 1989). It also enjoyed the fact that Jake Gyllenhaal’s character actually broke up with his girlfriend just a few days before she died which added an interesting extra layer in this already rather subtle drama. Eventually, the only issue I might have had is that the whole thing got side-tracked by a murky and rather boring sub-plot involving a real estate project.  To conclude, even though it was probably not a masterpiece, it was still a solid drama and I think it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.  

To be honest, I wasn’t really aware about who Liberace was before watching this movie but it was supposed to be the last movie directed by Steven Soderbergh before his retirement (which lasted only 4 years after all) so I was quite eager to check it out.  Eventually, I thought it was not bad at all  and I was above all impressed by Michael Douglas. Indeed, he easily gave one of his best performances and it was really neat to see him playing something else than his usual rich oversexed and arrogant SOB. Eventually, the main problem I had is that I didn’t care much about this story. Since it was the adaptation of the book written by Scott Thorson, it made sense that it was focusing on his relationship with Liberace and that the whole thing was told from his point of view but , while Liberace was quite fascinating, Thorson was not really interesting, I’m afraid. It is like their relationship, were we supposed to be actually shocked that a rich man like Liberace would have a live-in lover like Thorson? Why?!? I mean, there are some many celebrities who have a gorgeous trophy wife who doesn’t work at all and I don’t think there is something really weird about such  relationships, at least, that’s my opinion. Another thing, even though Matt Damon was not bad here, I think he was way too  old to play the part (Indeed, Scott Thorson was only about 17 years old when he met Liberace while Matt Damon was already 42 at the time) and I think an actor half his age would have been more interesting. Anyway, to conclude, in spite of its flaws, I thought it was a decent watch, above all thanks to a really good Michael Douglas, and it was definitely worth a look.