Login
Home
585 Lists
7772 Reviews
CollectionsAn average movie
Posted : 9 years, 6 months ago on 9 September 2015 09:20
(A review of Double Whammy)Basically, it was one of those movies that I wanted to watch for many years, probably more than a decade. Indeed, I just loved 'Living in Oblivion' and after releasing quickly the decent 'Box of Moon Light' and 'The Real Blonde', I was really curious to see Tom DiCillo's next directing effort. Eventually, after 4 long years, he came up with this flick and I'm afraid it was quite a step down from his previous work. Indeed, except for a cool title and a nice soundtrack, this movie didnât have to much to offer, I'm afraid. Basically, the different sub-plots were just really underwhelming and I didnât care for any of the characters involved. The only actor who managed to do something with this weak material was Steve Buscemi but the guy is so talented, he always manages to be compelling to watch. I wish I could say the same thing about Denis Leary who is always boring and he was really a poor choice to play the lead. The biggest waste was probably with Elizabeth Hurley who did what she could with a completely underwritten character. I mean, she definitely had some charisma, which is pretty much the case in all the movies I have seen her, but it is such a pity that she always got involved in such weak movies. Anyway, to conclude, the whole thing was a huge disappointment and I don't think it is worth a look.
0 comments, Reply to this entry
An average movie
Posted : 9 years, 6 months ago on 9 September 2015 10:00
(A review of Will It Snow For Christmas?)Once again, it is another really obscure French feature that almost no one here on listal has seen and, to be honest, I actually wonder how I actually ended up watching the damned thing. If I recall it correctly, I even saw it in the movie theater when it was released and I think I saw it because the reviews were really good at the time. Well, the whole thing turned out to be a huge disappointment. Indeed, even though I pretty much understood that they wanted to go for a realistic approach, showing the hard and supposedly pure countryside way of life. However, the end result was just really dreary and, above all, so boring to watch. Seriously, I never cared for the characters and what they were going through and, in my opinion, it is a perfect example of how such cheap art house feature aiming to be deep and truthful can actually turn out be dreadfully tedious and pretentious. Even the realistic and almost documentary directing style couldnât save this movie for me. To conclude, I thought it was one of the most underwhelming movies I saw at the time and I seriously donât think it is worth a look.
0 comments, Reply to this entry
A good movie
Posted : 9 years, 6 months ago on 9 September 2015 08:03
(A review of The Man Without a Face)In 2016, 10 years after âApocalyptoâ, Mel Gibson will finally come back with a new directing effort. Nowadays, Gibson is no longer the A list star he used to be and he has even a rather lousy reputation. Anyway, even though his work as a director was never really prolific (he has made only 4 movies in 20 years), I think it has been quite intriguing so far. The funny thing is that between his huge box-office successes (âBraveheartâ and âThe Passion of the Christâ) and his other movies (âThe Man Without a Faceâ and âApocalyptoâ), I definitely prefer his âflopsâ, especially âApocalyptoâ which is by far his best directing effort in my opinion. Coming back to our main feature, it is definitely the least ambitious movie directed by Gibson so far but, since it was his directing debut, I think it was a smart move to start with something small. On top of that , at the end of the day, it is a rather straightforward and predictable drama but I thought it did work and I liked the damned thing. To conclude, even though it was nothing really amazing, I thought it was a decent watch and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Mel Gibsonâs work.
0 comments, Reply to this entry
An average movie
Posted : 9 years, 6 months ago on 8 September 2015 10:17
(A review of The Man Who Cried)There was a time when I was a huge fan of Johnny Depp but, from the moment that he became a huge box-office draw thanks to the âPirates of the Caribbeanâ franchise, I started to loose interest in his work and his last movies have all been some critical and commercial flops (âMortdecaiâ, âTranscendenceâ, âThe Lone Rangerâ, âDark Shadowsâ). Hopefully, at some point, he will go back to some smaller indie features like the ones he used to make in the 90âs. However, I have to admit that not all his small movies from that era were great and this movie was a fine example. First of all, it was basically one of these productions showing Depp prominently on all the promotional material when, in fact, he had a rather small part. In fact, the lead was actually played by the lovely Christina Ricci and it would be the 3rd movie she would make with Depp (after âFear and Loathing in Las Vegasâ and âSleepy Hollowâ). Anyway, the whole thing was a decent periode drama with some solid directing but, to be honest, I actually had a rather hard time to care about the story and the characters involved. Surprisingly, after all these years, even though she has a solid reputation, it is still the only film directed by Sally Potter that I have seen so far. Anyway, to conclude, even though it was slightly underwhelming, I still think it is worth a look.
0 comments, Reply to this entry
An average movie
Posted : 9 years, 6 months ago on 8 September 2015 08:08
(A review of 2010: The Year We Make Contact)I wasnât really sure about this flick, even before watching the damned thing. Indeed, it seemed to be a really misguided idea to make a sequel to this seminal classic, especially by Peter Hyams, a director who has only made some B features throughout his career but, on the other hand, I have to admit that I was still intrigued by this movie. Indeed, it was actually based on another novel by Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick, even though he obviously refused to be involved, actually approved this sequel which wasnât something I expected. Eventually, I have to admit that it was not bad, in fact, it is easily the best movie directed by Peter Hyams but, of course, it never came close to the awesomeness delivered by â2001â. Basically, they kept some of the same elements but they added also a lot of characters, a lot of dialogues and even some jokes but all of this was actually pretty useless. Sure, as a result, the whole thing was actually easier to swallow than â2001â but also much more forgettable. Indeed, by giving so much information, they removed much of the mystic that made its predecessor so mesmerizing to behold. Still, all in all, it was a decent watch and I think it is actually worth a look.
0 comments, Reply to this entry
A good movie
Posted : 9 years, 6 months ago on 7 September 2015 02:00
(A review of Marathon Man (1976))I already saw this movie but since it was such a long time ago, I was quite eager to check it out again. Well, I'm glad I gave it a 2nd chance because I was much more able to enjoy it this time around. Indeed, it is basically one of these typical paranoĂŻd thriller from the 70's with some really solid directing and a perfect cast. Above all, I really enjoyed the first half during which there was a great tension and during which you keep wondering how this mild-mannered student will end up being entangled in this spy conspiracy. Furthermore, Dustin Hoffman was at the top of his game, he was a great choice to play the lead and it was just really refreshing and reletable to see a lead actor who looked like an average guy instead of the usual movie stars who looked more like some top-models. However, the second half, during which you finally get some answers, was not so strong though. I mean, it was still quite entertaining but it was after all rather far-fetched and some stuff just didn't make much sense. For example, they tell us that, in 1945, Szell would trade gold and diamonds with Jews to help them escape but I don't think that so many Jews still had anything to trade so late during the war. In fact, even if Laurence Olivier was rightfully praised for his performance, most of what his character did didn't make much sense in my opinion. Anyway, to conclude, in spite of its flaws, it was still a really entertaining thriller and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.
0 comments, Reply to this entry
A good movie
Posted : 9 years, 6 months ago on 7 September 2015 12:11
(A review of Mask (1985))Not to be confused with 'The Mask' made almost 10 years later starring Jim Carrey, even though this movie wasnât really original, I thought it was still a decent drama. In fact, this movie was quite a milestone for many players involved. Indeed, after âThe Last Picture Showâ turned out to a huge critical success, many thought that Bogdanovich would become the next best thing. Unfortunately, his following movies were rather underwhelming but, with this movie, he made somewhat a come-back. For Cher, at the time, she was trying to launch her acting career and I have to admit that she was pretty good in this flick. Concerning Eric Stoltz, the upcoming actor got a huge blow after he was replaced by Michael J. Fox after shooting half of âBack to the Future â but he got some critical acclaim for his performance in this movie. Coming back to our main feature, even though they all tried very hard to convince the viewers that the whole thing was quite edgy, in fact, it is a rather straightforward true life story but, even though I have never been a huge fan of the genre, I thought it was fairly well made and effective. To conclude, even though it might not be a masterpiece, I still think it is worth a look.
0 comments, Reply to this entry
An average movie
Posted : 9 years, 6 months ago on 7 September 2015 08:18
(A review of Insurgent)To be honest, I find it really hard to actually care about this franchise. As a result, even though I saw the first installment only a month ago, I think I already forgot half of it. Seriously, sometimes, they were talking about some events and characters that I really couldnât remember at all.. For example, who was this guy Will?!? Still, I have to admit that the damned thing was actually slightly better than the first installment. Indeed, I thought it was darker as you get to see how messed up Tris and Four might have become. Unfortunately, they didnât get really far in this direction and the whole thing was just barely entertaining. Apparently, contrary to the previous movie, they changed many things like adding the simulations to open the box but it was a good move as those simulations were pretty neat, especially visually speaking. However, Iâm afraid I still didnât care much about the story and the characters involved. Eventually, it is quite a shame that, with such a stellar female cast (Shailene Woodley, Kate Winslet, Ashley Judd, Naomi Watts, Octavia Spencer, ZoĂŤ Kravitz, Maggie Q, Suki Waterhouse), they couldnât deliver something better than this and, except for Woodley, none of them had actually much to do during the whole thing. Anyway, to conclude, all in all, I have to admit that it was still a decent watch but I will probably forgot about the whole thing within a few days, Iâm afraid.
0 comments, Reply to this entry
An average movie
Posted : 9 years, 6 months ago on 6 September 2015 06:07
(A review of The Whistle Blower)I wasn't expecting much from this flick but since I always had a weak spot for Michael Caine, I thought I might as well check it out. Basically, it was one of those cold war thrillers that Caine used to make in the 80's but, to be honest, I thought it was pretty weak. To my surprise, I discovered later on that Roger Ebert really liked it a lot. Sure, I have to admit it, there were some good things, some of it was actually pretty believable and it, really slowly though, started to grow on me after a while but I just didn't care much for the whole thing. Indeed, I thought the plot was just really murky and also way too slow to take off. Seriously, half of the running time was about providing a set-up and what happened after, even though it was easier to follow, was barely more interesting. At least, at some point, when Caine's character finally knew what was actually going on but couldn't do anything about it, that was a bleak but realistic ending but, unfortunately, it wasn't actually the end and they added some rather underwhelming cowboy stuff. To conclude, even though it wasn't really awful, I thought it was just really weak and I don't think it is really worth a look.
0 comments, Reply to this entry
A good movie
Posted : 9 years, 6 months ago on 4 September 2015 10:17
(A review of Major League)This movie is definitely a childhood favorite. Indeed, the first time I saw it, I must have rented it on VHS at the time and I must have been about 12 years old. Back then, I thought it was actually a really fun flick. The funny thing is that, the fist time I went to Baltimore (something like 16 years ago), we went to see a baseball game in the actual Baltimore stadium. If I recall it correctly, it was actually a game between The Baltimore Orioles and the Cleveland Indians, the team featured in this movie. Since I really liked this flick when I was a kid, it was quite surreal to see them playing. Anyway, it was definitely a cool experience. Anyway, coming back to our main feature, through the years, I started to think that the whole thing must have been actually rather lame but, after I watched it again my step-son, I was positively surprised by the whole thing. Indeed, in fact, it is actually a really solid comedy. I mean, sure, it is a very old gimmick, to have a band of misfits who are first pathetic but then starts to win big, but I think it has rarely been done better than here. To conclude, beside the nostalgia, it is actually a decent sport movie, easily one of my favorites, and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.
0 comments, Reply to this entry