Reviews by johanlefourbe

Obviously, ‘Boogie Nights’ is and remains the ultimate film about John Holmes but there was a few years later actually another film made about the notorious porn star. It was barely noticed when it was noticed and didn’t get much love (Roger Ebert gave it only 2 stars but we don’t need to agree on everything I suppose) but I thought it was actually pretty good. Contrary to ‘Boogie Nights’, it focuses on a specific time period in John Holmes’ life and the tone was much grittier than Paul Thomas Anderson’s opus. Furthermore, even though Anderson  wasn’t really trying to be faithful to the facts, this movie seemed to be more factual even though they always modify some details to make it more dramatic. Personally, I liked the gloomy tone and Val Kilmer gave a solid performance at the time (such a shame that his career has become so disappointing).  It was also a time when Kate Bosworth was a promising actress with a bright future. Unfortunately, her rise was pretty much stopped 3 years later with the failure of ‘Superman Returns’. To conclude, even though it is nothing really amazing, I thought it was a decent flick and I think it is worth a look.

I remember very well when I watched this flick. I saw it back in the days when there was a DVD rental shops around the corner (I’m not sure abroad but,  in the Netherlands, all these shops are disappearing) so I rented it but I honestly had no idea what it was about but since it was directed by Robert Rodriguez, I was quite eager to check it out. Apparently, according to Imdb, it is so far the worst movie directed by Rodriguez (followed really closely by ‘Spy Kids: All the Time in the World in 4D’)  but, like I said before, I wasn’t aware of this fact before watching it and, as a matter of fact, I thought it was actually better than the Spy Kids franchise. Indeed, I thought the sequels were rather abysmal (I still need to see the last installment but I’m not optimistic) and even though the first installment was not bad, I still slightly preferred this flick. Indeed, I thought the concept was not bad, it was visually pretty cool and I thought it was quite entertaining. At the time, Taylor Lautner was still just a small kid but I thought he was quite charismatic. To conclude, obviously it is nothing really amazing, and  a re-watch might change my opinion entirely, but I thought it was a decent kids flick and it is actually worth a look, especially if you need to entertain your children.

Honestly, I wasn’t sure what to expect from this flick but since I have a weak spot for Jonathan Demme’s work, I was still eager to check it out. Well, it wasn’t really good and it even turned out to be one of the most underwhelming remakes I have ever seen. I mean, for starters, even though I thought that ‘Charade’ was a decent flick, it didn’t really blow me away. Basically, I thought that Audrey Hepburn and above all Cary Grant were really good but the plot was actually rather weak in my opinion so I didn’t really see the point of remaking it. And, indeed, once again, the story was quite underwhelming, especially since it was my 2nd time around but, above all, the casting was a huge failure here. I mean, Thandie Newton was a great choice, by far the best thing in this hot mess. She was just really charming and a perfect fit for this part. On the other hand, Mark Wahlberg was a total disaster. I mean, not only he didn’t really look the part but he had barely any chemistry with Thandie Newton and, above all, his acting was pretty pathetic. At least, he was aware of this and considers himself it to be his worst film. Apparently, Will Smith was supposed to be the lead but was still involved with ‘Ali’ at the time and he had to drop out and you could imagine that it would have worked better with him, even though the story would still have been pretty weak. Anyway, to conclude, thanks to Thandie Newton, it was still watchable but it remains a very weak flick and I don’t think it is really worth a look.

Even though I have watched many times the Spaghetti Westerns starring Clint Eastwood when I was a kid with my dad, I discovered his Dirty Harry flicks much later on in my life. Eventually, even though I still prefer his Westerns, I still enjoyed his famous cop features as well. The interesting thing with this franchise is that the sequels were actually pretty decent and this one was not an exception. Obviously, since ‘Dirty Harry’ was a big success, it wasn’t really surprising that they decided to go a forward with a sequel but it was pretty cool that this 2nd installment was actually quite entertaining. To be fair, it wasn’t really groundbreaking but it was still a decent story and, of course, Clint Eastwood was really bad-ass. It is also interesting to note that the original idea was originally pitched by Terrence Malick for ‘Dirty Harry’ but it was at the time rejected by Don Siegel. However, Eastwood really liked this script which was the basis of this sequel which was subsequently written by John Milius and further developed by Michael Cimino. To conclude, I thought it was a decent sequel and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

I don’t think Jeroen Krabbé is really famous abroad but he is actually very well known in the Netherlands where he has almost the same status as Rutger Hauer who remains by far the most famous Dutch actor. Well, at some point, like many other actors, Krabbé decided to be a director as well and this movie was definitely really ambitious. Indeed, it is an adaptation of one of the most famous Dutch books ever written, ‘De Ontdekking van de Hemel’, a book I actually have at home but I haven’t read it yet (As a matter of fact, I think it might be the next book I will read even though it might be too complex for me). So, it is a rather difficult and massive (more than 900 pages) book and it was a huge challenge for Krabbé to squeeze all this in just 2 hours. Obviously, since I haven’t read the book, I can’t tell if it was a faithful adaptation but I thought it was a pretty good movie nonetheless. Apparently, Harry Mulisch, the writer of the book, picked up Stephen Fry himself and Fry was a surprising but very interesting choice to play the lead. To conclude, even though it wasn’t really amazing, it remains an intriguing feature and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Dutch movies

Like many other actors, Forest Whitaker decided to direct some movies as well but, unlike some of them who managed to have a pretty good career in this field, his work as a director has been rather underwhelming so far. Still, compare to ‘First Daughter’ and ‘Hope Floats’ which were both pretty average, this flick was his most ambitious one and, at least, it definitely had some potential. Indeed, to start with, there was a pretty good cast involved (Whitney Houston, Angela Bassett, Loretta Devine, Lela Rochon) and some of the scenes and dialogues felt pretty genuine. Unfortunately, it was still nothing really amazing I’m afraid. The main issue is that the whole thing was just too shallow. I mean, even though all these women tried to convince you that they were having some major crisis, you never feel that there was anything really important at stake. Take for the example the way Loretta Devine ends up with a man. Conveniently, she gets a new neighbour and he happens to be a perfect match for her. Same thing with Angela Bassett. During the whole thing, she was involved in a rather messy divorce but, just at the end, everything turned out to be quite alright. Anyway, to conclude, I had some rather mixed feelings about this flick but I guess it is still worth a look, at least, if you like the genre.

Of course, like everyone else, I heard about this flick when it was released and I was really curious to see exactly what was all the fuss about. Eventually, I thought it was an interesting experimental feature, Mel Gibson was quite courageous with this flick but, still, I can’t say I thought it was really amazing. I mean, in my opinion, at the end of the day, this movie is ¾ of the duration about a guy who is getting whipped, beaten and tortured in front of us which is not something I find really interesting or entertaining. The fact that the victim was Jesus and not some other guy doesn’t change this fact and, honestly, I had sometimes the feeling that I was watching some kind of deep religious version of a ‘Saw’ installment. You can always argue that I didn’t get this movie because I’m a die-hard atheist and therefore I wasn’t touched by the passion displayed by our beloved prophet. As a matter of fact, even though I don’t believe in God, I find religion actually fascinating but, in my opinion, what Gibson decided to show in his movie was rather reductive and, honestly, pretty repetitive. Still, it is far from being a bad movie. Indeed, the first ¼ of the movie, before the whole torture thing, was quite mesmerizing to behold and even the rest was quite intriguing, thanks to a fearless performance by Jim Caviezel and some solid directing by Mel Gibson. Anyway, to conclude, even though I wasn’t really blown away by the whole thing, it remains an interesting and unsettling flick and I think it is worth a look.

Since I kept hearing good things about this flick, I was quite eager to check it out. Well, I wasn’t disappointed and I’m glad I knew very little about it beforehand which is the best way to watch any movie in my opinion. Basically, it is a heartbreaking drama and a nail-biting thriller at the same time and, even though not much really happen during the whole thing, it was quite spellbinding to watch. Indeed, in the contrary to most of the US thrillers which go for the cheap thrills without much consistency, here, the story and the characters evolved organically which was a really refreshing approach. It was the first movie directed by Jeff Nichols that I have seen so far and he seems to be one of the most interesting American directors at work nowadays and I will definitely check his other movies when I get the opportunity. Of course, Michael Shannon should get some credit as well and he is definitely something else than your usual pretty faces, an intense actor who is finally getting some recognition. As you can see, even though I really enjoyed this movie, my rating is rather low which had to do mostly with the ending. Indeed, even though the movie was obviously about mental illness, Jeff Nichols pulled a ‘Breaking the Waves’ conclusion on us as he gives a rather enigmatic last scene which migh suggest that the main character might have been some kind of visionary after all. In my opinion, it either contradicted the whole thing or I missed the whole point. Still, in spite of this conclusion, it remains a very strong feature and it is definitely worth a look.

Even though I have watched many times the Spaghetti Westerns starring Clint Eastwood when I was a kid with my dad, I discovered his Dirty Harry flicks much later on in my life. Eventually, even though I still prefer his Westerns, I still enjoyed his famous cop features as well. The interesting thing with this franchise is that the sequels were actually pretty decent and this one was not an exception, even though it was still the weakest installment though. The point is that all these movies were pretty much resting on Clint Eastwood’s shoulders and the plots provided in these flicks were usually not really amazing, at least, that’s my opinion. Well, this time, the story was the weakest they would provide with the always bad-ass Dirty Harry. In fact, Clint Eastwood was supposed to direct this one but after getting rid of Philip Kaufman, he had to take over the directing duties on ‘The Outlaw Josey Wales’ and he was still too busy working on the post-production and couldn’t direct this movie at the same time. One of the asset of this 2nd sequel was Tyne Daly as she gave a solid performance and she would be Harry’s only female partner. To conclude, even though this flick was  slightly disappointing, I thought it was still entertaining (it was also a major success when it was released) and I think it is worth a look, especially if you like the genre.