Reviews by johanlefourbe

I already saw this movie but, since it was a while back and since I had it on DVD, I thought I might as well check it out again. Personally, I wonder why it took Alexander Payne 7 years to finally come up with a new director effort back then but I guess the guy is not really productive. Anyway, it was definitely worth the wait, that’s for sure. Indeed, I thought it was a very good drama with a perfect pace and it was probably the best directing by Payne so far. There were also some really strong performances and some of the best written characters I have seen for a while. The beginning monolog also stroke a personal chord in the sense that my ex-wife had been really sick for about 2 years now and I had about the same internal monologs as our relationship was already pretty chaotic even before she got some health issues and even more afterwards. Of course, I didn’t went through the rest of the story myself but it was definitely a good start. In fact, many later years later, we actually got divorced so I had a totally different vibe while I was re-watching this movie. But the movie was not only about a family tragedy, it was also about the fate of an aristocratic family and what they should do with their land. That part of the story was also quite fascinating and it is quite amazing that they managed to balance such diverse topics in one movie. This movie will also always be remembered as being the breakthrough of Shailene Woodley, even if she eventually never really became the next Jennifer Lawrence as predicted by many. She was still really good here though. Anyway, to conclude, I thought it was really good and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Alexander Payne’s work.

While, at least for some time, Pixar was always focusing on making the highest quality of CGI animated features, not only from a technical point of view but also storywise, Dreamworks never had such ambitions as they produced more features than Pixar and always with an obvious commercial purpose. As a result, their trackrecord as been pretty much spotty with a few bonafide hits (‘Shrek’, ‘Madagascar’, ‘How to train your dragon’) and a lot of misfires. Eventually, this movie definitely belonged to the 2nd group as it didn’t get much love but, personally, I have to admit it, I really had a weak spot for this flick. Of course, the story is actually not really amazing, there was no depth whatsoever but I thought it was still a fun animated feature. Apparently, it is based on a syndicated comic strip which I don’t really know and, pretty much like ‘Garfield’, it was a rather difficult task to move from those short little stories to a full length feature. At the end of the day, they focused mostly on the characters which were pretty funny and not so much on the criticism on our consumerist society. Still, even though it is nothing amazing, I thought it was pretty good and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

After Paul Verhoeven, Dick Maas must be the most succesfull Dutch director ever. I mean, unlike Verhoeven, he never managed to build up an international career (he did try though at the end of the 90’s, directing actors like Naomi Watts and William Hurt but both movies ‘Do Not Disturb’ and ‘Down’ were huge flops). Anyway, in the Netherlands, he had some major success, especially with the awful ‘Flodder’ franchise but he has made also some major Dutch classics and this movie was definitely one of them. Personally, I really had a hard time to care about ‘De Lift’ which has a very good reputation in the Netherlands but this movie was really good. Indeed, even though I don’t think it was really original, it was still a really solid thriller, with a good mood and a decent performance by Huub Stapel, a very good Dutch actor who has worked many times with Dick Maas. There was also Monique van de Ven, another major Dutch actress, involved in this movie. To conclude, I’m not sure this movie can be considered a masterpiece but it remains a pretty good thriller and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Dutch movies.

When I was a kid, I have watched this movie many times with my father (I was probably way too young at the time but I thought it was really awesome). Years later, I would watch it again with Nick, my step-son, but, somehow, he didn’t connect with the whole thing. I think it may have had to do with the pacing as it was way too slow for him. In fact, when you think about it, maybe half of the movie is made of static close-ups of the actors and there were not so many action scenes after all. Basically, it is all about the mood and, personally, right from the opening credits with the awesome score by Ennio Morricone, I was getting some goose-bumps. The way I feel about this movie probably has to do with a little bit of nostalgia but, still, even 50 years later, the whole thing is really entertaining. Personally, I always had a hard time with Westerns, even the major classics starring John Wayne, but those directed by Sergio Leone are still pretty awesome, even after multiple re-watches. Of course, Clint Eastwood, in a star making performance, was completely bad-ass and combined with the inspired directing by Sergio Leone, they pretty much reinvented the whole genre. To conclude, it is a classic that every decent movie buff must watch at least once in their life.

One of the worst thing about the current wave of CGI animated features is that it has made it much easier to combine animated characters in a live-action environment. It means that while ‘Who Framed Roger Rabbit’ was revolutionary back in those days, today, there is nothing really amazing about all those movies. Eventually, the main issue was that all these movies were just terribly underwhelming (‘Alvin and the Chipmunks’, ‘HOP’, ‘Yogi Bear’,…) and this flick was not an exception. I mean, seriously, Garfield is a great character and it was already difficult to move to a feature length format (I’m not sure if it was even doable in the first place) but why would you make a mix live-action and animation while 100% animation would have worked much better? As a result, you have a real dog to play Odie while Garfield is animated and it seemed to be a really misguided choice. On top of that, they completely miscast Jon who should have looked like a younger version of William H. Macy and, to make things worse, they added a terribly underwhelming romantic angle involving Jon and a veterinarian played by Jennifer Love Hewitt. At least, Garfield was pretty cool and Bill Murray was a great choice to voice the lazy cat but that was the only redeeming feature in this boring flick. To conclude, it is not really good and I don’t think it is really worth a look.

Honestly, I wasn’t expecting much. Indeed, with such a title, you can be pretty sure you won’t watch anything oscar-worthy. On top of that, I have never been a fan of skiing. I mean, I can ski, I gave it a try a couple of times but I think that those holidays are awfully expensive just to go up and down in the cold wet snow. Still, it is not very often that you get to see a movie in this environment and there was definitely some potential. Unfortunately, they put together 3 storylines (the girl was a ace skater and will apparently become an ace snowboarder, the girl falls in love with her boss and there is also some class struggle) and none of those was really satisfying. Personally, I think that they could have focused more on the sport stuff. I mean, it wouldn't still have been a great movie either but, at least, it wouldn't have been something I saw 100 times before. Still, Felicity Jones was really charming and she seems to have some potential, she just needs some better material than this and, of course, Good Old Bill Nighy could turn anything into gold, no matter how dreafull the movie is. Anyway, to conclude, even though it wasn’t really awful, it was still pretty damned average and I don’t think it is really worth a look.

Personally, I always had a weak spot for Dianne Keaton and she was the most attractive aspect of this flick. Indeed, in my opinion, it is a rather typical 80’s comedy, supposedly dealing with a timely subject, but the approach is usually cheesy and our appreciation of those flicks is usually colored by a good doses of nostalgia. Basically, this time, it develops this theory that, nowadays, women have become so focus on their career that they are not able to be mothers anymore. It was, at the time, something rather new and, of course, the studios had to surf on this new hype. On top of that, at the time, they created a kind of sub-genre in comedy about people getting a kid or a baby pretty much against their will and this movie was definitely one of those. Back then, when I was very young, I thought the whole thing was quite hilarious but, to be honest, it didn’t grow old very well. The point is that Diane Keaton has some very good comedic timing and basically carries the whole thing on her shoulders but, honestly, it was just way too pedestrian and predictable to become really rewarding. To conclude, I think my rating might be a little bit too generous but I think it is worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Back in those days, Dakota Fanning was probably the biggest child-star at work. She smoothly transitioned to some more adult work but she hasn’t reached a huge critical success yet but she is still young. Anyway, usually, I’m not a huge fan of those movies (for example, I really didn’t like ‘Flicka’s starring Alison Lohman) and I really didn’t like much ‘Charlotte’s Web’ which had a bigger profile than this movie but, somehow, this one was actually pretty decent. I’m pretty sure I saw this one with my step-daugther when she was around 12 years old. Indeed, those movies are made with this demographic group in mind and I’m not sure someone else would really like a movie like this one (their mothers, maybe). Of course, the story was not really original and the whole thing was still quite predictable but it still remain an uplifting story. At least, whereas Alison Lohman was just way too old to play the lead in ‘Flicka’, Dakota Fanning really fit the part and gave a charming performance. I also had a weak spot for Kurt Russell and he was pretty solid as well. To conclude, even though there are 100s reasons why I shouldn’t like this flick, I thought it was not bad at all and it is worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Oh dear, this movie was a tough watch… I mean, since I was familiar with Charlie Kaufman’s work, I knew beforehand that it would be quite surrealist but still. I guess it might have to do with the fact I’m going through a difficult time in my life right now so I wasn’t in the best mood to watch such a depressive picture. Indeed, I thought it was really dark and not so much fun like the previous movies involving Kaufman. I mean, it was pretty straightforward for the first 30 minutes but, then, I think when Cotard started his huge meta play, that’s when the whole thing became more and more difficult to follow and to grasp. The late Roger Ebert really loved this flick and if you read his review, completely worshipping this movie, you will see that it is pretty far out as well. I don’t know, the combination of my own current personal struggles, the massive agony faced by Caden Cotard and the (recent) tragic death of the great Philip Seymour Hoffman (I saw this movie a month after he passed away) didn’t make for a very pleasant watch. Don’t misunderstand me, it is a good movie, it goes very deep in the human psyche, but I got lost pretty quickly and I had a rather hard time to connect with all those characters, fictional or real. Anyway, to conclude, even though I think it is a rather difficult movie, I still think it is worth a look, especially if you like (very) thoughtfull and poetic features.

Honestly, I didn’t think it was so bad actually. The point is that I went to see it with some rather low expectations and that’s probably why I didn’t think it was too underwhelming. First of all, I really enjoyed Joel Kinnaman. Indeed, I thought he had a great charisma and it was nice that they took some time to show him as a police officer before he becomes Robocop. Unfortunately, that’s probably the only thing they really got right. I mean, there were many good things, but probably too many of them actually. The whole thing tries to be a futuristic action flick, a familly drama, a political thriller and also a satire, that was just way too much to handled and all of those ideas were rather half-baked. Personally, I don’t think that the original movie directed by Paul Verhoeven (I prefer ‘Total Recall’) was that great but Verhoeven definitely managed to mix all those genres together very well whereas, with this remake, they kept switching from one thing to another, hoping that we wouldn’t notice all the plot holes and the very weak script. Apparently, José Padilha (who made the amazing ‘Tropa de Elite’) didn’t get much freedom from the studio which couldn’t make up their mind if they wanted a brainless and badass action flick or something more thoughtfull. To conclude, in spite of its flaws, it remains a really intriguing story and I still think it is worth a look but don’t expect anything really amazing.