Reviews by johanlefourbe

To be honest, I has been a while since I have seen this flick and maybe I should check it out again at some point. Basically, it is a rather straightforward but still well made and effective drama about prejudices in a US prep school during the 50’s. So, it was a decent feature but the most interesting thing was to see the cast with all these young actors who were all starting up at the time (Brendan Fraser, Matt Damon, Chris O'Donnell, Cole Hauser, Ben Affleck, Anthony Rapp) . They were all unknown at the time but most of them became pretty famous afterwards. So, from all these promising young men, the first one to break out was therefore Brendan Fraser and, even though the guy became most famous thanks to some rather lame comedies (honestly, he must be one of the most underwhelming actors around but that’s just me) and it is rather interesting that the guy actually started in such a serious feature. On top of that, he actually gave quite a solid performance. To conclude, even though it might not be a masterpiece, it is still a decent periode drama and I think it is worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

It is quite an obscure flick (only 6 listal users have rated it, including a couple of fake ratings) and, to be honest, I wasn't expecting much from it but since I had this dvd already for ages, I thought I should finally watch the damned thing. Well, eventually, it turned out to be even worse than I expected. Indeed, back in the 80's, Anthony Michael Hall reached fame after starring in many movies directed and/or produced by John Hugues but, later on, he apparently thought he should direct his own movie to re-launch his career. Well, that was pretty much a terrible mistake. Basically, the whole thing was just really weak on every level : directing, writing, acting,... I mean, at first, it seemed to be some kind of vanity project from Anthony Michael Hall who wanted to show the a great singer-song writer he was (he was indeed reponsible for most of the songs in the movie) and you think for a while you might get to see the rise of a rockstar but, no, it was actually something else, some kind of comedy about a lame main character called Julius Caesar MacGruder (that was actually the best joke in the whole thing) involved with some rather boring characters. To conclude, it was pretty terrible and I don't think it is worth a look whatsoever.

To be honest, I thought the title of this movie sounded rather lame but since I have a weak spot for Lasse Hallstrom's work, I was still eager to check it out. Unfortunately, like most of his recent work, the whole thing was rather underwhelming and it seems that the guy has pretty much lost his touch. I mean, in those days of economic crisis, this concept of a sheik spending 50 millions of pounds so he could fish salmon in his home country was a tough sell and, honestly, rather inappropriate. Concerning Ewan McGregor and Emily Blut, I don't think they should be blamed as they both managed to give life to their characters and they delivered some decent performances. The main issue was more concerning the tone. Indeed, later on I have discovered that this movie was an adaptation of a best selling book in the UK and, in fact, this book was a political satire which made much more sense. Unfortunately, the only remaining thing concerning this satire was Kristin Scott Thomas's character which was obviously the best asset in this flick. Instead, Hallstrom decided to change this story into something inspirational with a romantic subplot but it was a rather poor choice, I'm afraid. To conclude, I still think it was a decent watch but it could have been much better if they would have chosen the right angle.

Since this movie had received some pretty good reviews, I was quite eager to check it out. On top of that, it was dealing on a very interesting subject so it seemed quite intriguing. To be honest, I didn't know or didn’t remember the actual outcome of this election and I was actually pretty sure that Pinochet would either cheat or refuse to step down but, no, he really lost and accepted the result and some democratic elections followed soon after so this campaign was really historical in Chile. The first interesting thing about this movie is obviously how it was shot. Indeed, they used some low definition magnetic tapes which gave the impression that the whole thing was reality shot in the 80’s and, with the combination of some actual archives footage, it was a really realistic approach. On top of that, there was this intriguing struggle between marketing and politics developing some interesting ideas about the fact that, to reach a wide audience, you have to be able to sell your ideas and you have make those ideas attractive even though it might seem to contradict all the suffering that many people went through this dictatorship. To conclude, it's a pity this movie didn’t get more attention when it was released and I think it is definitely worth a look.

I already saw this movie but, since it was ages ago, I thought I might as well check it out again. Back then, Al Pacino was going through a strange periode in his career. Indeed, in the 80’s, he made only 5 movies and except for ‘Scarface’, all his other movies were not really amazing. With ‘Sea of Love’, he actually made quite a come-back 4 years after ‘Revolution’ which had been a massive critical and commercial flop. Basically, it turned out to be a decent steamy thriller, a classic genre of the 90’s, and I have to admit that most of it actually worked fine. Indeed, there was a nice film noir mood and Pacino and Barkin had tons of chemistry together. Even the relationship between Frank Keller and his partner played by John Goodman was actually fairly well developed. However, the whole concept of the detective falling in love with a murder suspect was hardly original. Furthermore, they focused so much on the burgeoning relationship between this detective and his suspect that there was not much room left for the actual murder investigation. I mean, I never really bought their theory (the fact that I already knew how it would end probably didn’t help though) and, to make things worse, the killer simply showed up pretty much out of nowhere during the final act so they could wrap this up during the last 10 mins. Still, compared to what he is doing nowadays, Al Pacino was still at the top of his game back in those days and the guy was quite spellbinding to behold (the 90’s, after the 70’s obviously, were his best decade). Concerning Ellen Barkin, I have never been a huge fan but I have to admit that she was pretty much pitch-perfect here. Anyway, to conclude, in spite of its flaws, I still think it is a decent thriller and it is worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Of course, I already saw this movie back in the 90's but it was a while back so I was quite eager to check it out again. In fact, it was the first script that Quentin Tarantino was paid to write, for the mere sum of $1,500 and it was one of the first projects involving him and Robert Rodriguez (‘Desperado’ and ‘Four Rooms’ were both released earlier though). Well, like everything else written by Quentin Tarantino, it quickly became a cult classic. However, even if it is a fun flick, to be honest, it is still nothing really amazing though. I mean, if you have never heard of this movie before then it is pretty neat because, half way through, you have this huge twist (that’s what happened to my sister actually). Unfortunately, before watching this , I knew what was going to happen, so the surprise was rather ruined for me and I just didn’t care much for the second half of this story. In my opinion, it is pretty much a glorified B feature and, back then, Tarantino thought he could be also an actor (fortunately, he dropped the idea since then) but while watching this again, it was pretty obvious that the guy should stick to writing and directing. Anyway, to conclude, in spite of its flaws, I have to admit it, it is still a decent flick and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Since it has been a while since I last saw this flick, I was quite eager to check it out again. Indeed, I remember it very well, I saw it when I was very young and, at the time, it must have been the darkest thing I ever saw and it had quite an impact on me. At the time, Disney was not doing really well and Don Bluth, a Disney animator, left the company with several colleagues and set up his own studio when Disney didn’t have any real competition. It took some guts and their first production was critically acclaimed because Bluth was aiming for some beautiful and detailed animation instead of the cheap methods used by Disney at the time. So, after all these years (I think it took me maybe 20 years to finally see the damned thing again), it was wondering how I would experience this movie this time around. Eventually, I thought it was pretty neat and definitely something else than your typical Disney feature but, to be honest, I can’t say I was really blown away by the whole thing though. Personally, I do believe that the people who claim that this feature is amazing feel this way mostly out of nostalgia (like I used to be) but if you watch it 30 years later, as a grown-up, it is basically a solid animation feature but not really an actual masterpiece. Anyway, to conclude, all in all, it is still a pretty good flick and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

I wasn’t really sure what to expect from this flick but since I have a weak spot for Carice van Houten, I still wanted to check it out. Unfortunately, even though the whole thing actually had some potential, I thought it was eventually really half-baked. Indeed, it basically follows the very old road-movie formula but they really didn’t add anything really interesting to the genre (they even threw in the really pedestrian karakoe scene…). On top of that, they made it really hard to root for Holly Hunter’s character who was rather obnoxious and who barely spoke a word during the whole thing. Finally, the ending, with a really lame double-twist, was seriously underwhelming and it felt terribly anti-climatic. And yet, I really liked those 3 actresses and they all gave some decent performances but they really deserved a better story than this. In fact, it is not really that the story was really bad, it is more that it was rather poorly written, at least, that’s my opinion. To conclude, the whole thing felt like a missed opportunity but, in spite of its flaws, I still think it is worth a look, especially if you are interested in Dutch movies.

It has been a while since I have seen this flick and it would be nice to actually re-watch it at some point. To be honest, I don’t really remember how I ended up watching this flick and, on top of that, I have to admit that I hadn’t seen yet at the time the seminal classic ‘Nosferatu’ but, still, I thought there was something quite mesmerizing about this movie. Indeed, it is such a weird feature, half of it actually really took place and the other half was based on some legend that Max Schreck was in reality a vampire. Of course, it is a really ridiculous idea (expect maybe if you believe that vampires do exist, just like Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny) but there was something quite exhilarating to see that a film maker that would dare to tell such a far-out story. Still, it remains a really weird tale and I thought it was rather difficult to take it really seriously. To conclude, even though I don’t think if it is really a masterpiece, I thought it was a very intriguing feature and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in something a little bit more experimental.

Honestly, it has been a while since I have seen this flick and I might rewatch it at some point. The first time I saw it, I must have been a teenager and, even though I did like it, I can’t say it really blew me away. I mean, sure, it was a decent comedy but there was nothing really amazing about the whole thing, at least, that’s my opinion. I believe this movie got a legendary status above all for the famous scene involving Marilyn Monroe's dress blowing up around her legs but pretty much like in ‘Some like it hot’, Marilyn Monroe looked positively charming but, honestly, her character was rather moronic and obnoxious. Therefore, I had a hard time to really care for the whole thing. On top of that, it does feel rather dated nowadays. Considering Billy Wilder’s work, after watching 8 of his movies, I came to the conclusion that I enjoyed much more his dramas (‘Sunset Blvd.’, Stalag 17’, ‘Witness for the Prosecution’) than his comedies (‘Some Like It Hot’, ‘The Apartment’, ‘Sabrina’). Anyway, to conclude, in spite of its flaws, it is still a decent comedy and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.