Reviews by johanlefourbe

You probably have never heard of him but Reinout Oerlemans is a big success story in the Netherlands. Indeed, he started as an actor in the biggest Dutch soap-opera, then he became a TV personality but, at some point, he decided to become a TV producer and that’s where he became really successful. Indeed, apparently, he is nowadays one of the richest men in the Netherlands and you think it would be enough but, no, he also decided to be a movie director as well. His debut was the smashing success ‘Komt een vrouw bij de dokter’ so with this follow-up, he went for an even more ambitious project, the first Dutch 3D movie. Honestly, you wonder why it was made in 3D since it was a period piece, anyway, even though it was again quite successful at the box-office, it wasn't very well received and I tend to agree. I mean, Oerlemans is a smart man but this project was just way out of his league. It was indeed an interesting story but it is quite a challenge to make a journey boat exciting and, therefore, they added a whole bunch of underwhelming sub-plots. It is also quite pathetic how they added as many scenes as possible with Doutzen Kroes (yeah, the famous supermodel) with a big focus on her mighty breasts. To conclude, even thought it is a failure, it is still an intriguing adventure though and I think it is worth a look, especially if you are interested in Dutch movies.

Since I really loved ‘Pollock’, Ed Harris’ directing debut, I was really eager to check out this follow-up. My guess is that Harris always wanted to be in a Western but since this genre is not so popular anymore, the only way for him was to direct one himself. Even though it was not as impressive as ‘Pollock’, it was still fairly enjoyable. Indeed, the directing was, once again, solid and, even though the plot was rather pedestrian, there was a great chemistry between Ed Harris and Viggo Mortensen and they both gave some pretty good performances. Unfortunately, they added a woman to the story and, from that point, the whole thing became rather underwhelming. Basically, Zellweger played her typical quirky chick which was not really a bad thing, but what was more annoying, is the way this woman influenced the whole plot and Ed Harris’ behavior. I mean, at least 3 or 4 times during the whole thing, I thought to myself ‘Dump the b*tch, for crying out loud!’ but, for no reasonable reasons, he sticks with her which terribly undermined his character. To conclude, even though it was slightly disappointing, I still think it is worth a look though, especially if you like the genre.

I wasn’t sure what to expect from this flick but I thought it could be a nice watch for me and my step-son. Honestly, within the first 5 minutes, it was obvious that the whole thing had a lot of potential. Indeed, you could feel some pretty dark stuff underneath the surface, like how you create leadership or the psychological turmoil of a young genius who has to become a military strategist. It was some pretty great stuff but, unfortunately, it became also obvious pretty quickly that the makers had no intention to go to deep into those issues in order to reach the widest audience possible. As a result, there is a constant shifting in the tone between some compelling scenes lost in the middle of some familly friendly affair. Furthermore, while Viola Davis was perfectly cast, I thought that Harrison Ford was rather distracting and I kept wondering what the hell he was doing here. A part from that, it was visually quite compelling and I enjoyed the mind game and the war game at the end. The zero gravity game was not really my thing, it was just some futuristic paintball and I thought it was rather underwhelming. To conclude, it could have been great but they watered down the content so it could never really fulfill its potential. I still think it is worth a look though, especially if you like the genre.

Lately, I have been focusing on silent features and this one was the last one I saw (for now). Honestly, I think it's rather difficult to review this flick. Indeed, even though it was rather long (more than 130 minutes), especially for a silent feature, it was actually supposed to be 6 hours! After watching the whole thing, you wonder how Eric von Stroheim managed to get 6 hours from this story but, I guess, we’ll never know. So, how can you review a movie when you have seen only a fraction of it? Many of us (include myself) blame Peter Jackson for indulging himself with overlong movies but, with von Stroheim, it goes to a whole different level and he must have been one of the most decadent directors that ever lived. As a matter of fact, at the time, this movie was the most expensive ever made and it figures. Indeed, even though the action takes place in Monte Carlo, and it seems as if they went there to make the movie, they actually recreated the whole thing at Universal Studios with some impressive accuracy in the details. Personally, I enjoyed above all von Stroheim who, of course, played the lead and he gave one of the best silent performances I have seen. To be honest, even though I have a weak spot for con-artists, nothing much happened during the whole thing but it was still pretty good and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Since I kept hearing good things about this movie, I became quite curious it and I really wanted to check it out. I always thought that Doug Liman was an intriguing director but he never seemed to break through in a big way and I’m afraid his upcoming blockbuster ‘Edge of Tomorrow’ starring Tom Cruise won’t improve his status. Anyway, this movie must be the most popular one he has made so far (though ‘Swingers’ which I still need to see is pretty popular and ‘The Bourne Identity’ is actually one of the best action flicks ever made). Coming back to our main feature, I thought it was indeed a pretty good flick with some pretty shady characters. Indeed, there was a pretty nice cast (Katie Holmes, Sarah Polley, Scott Wolf, Timothy Olyphant, William Fichtner, Taye Diggs, and Melissa McCarthy) and they all delivered some solid performances. It is another example that Katie Holmes was actually quite a promising actress before she got involved with Tom Cruise. In the meantime, they have already divorced and you wonder if her career will ever recover. To be honest, I don’t think it was really that amazing, it surfs too much on the hype and quirky vibe, but it still remains a fun and very well made flick and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Lately, I have seen quite a few silent features but, to be honest, I usually have a hard time to watch them. Personally, I find it pretty tough to sit through a full length feature without any dialogs, especially when it is about 3 hours long. However, I had a good time to watch this one though because it was actually quite fun. Indeed, it is a great adventure, a real escapist feature, and I thought it was more entertaining than all those heavy dramas directed by D.W. Griffith for example. I especially enjoyed the first part when you have Douglas Fairbanks making some trouble in Bagdad’s market. To be honest, as soon as he fell in love with the princess, the whole thing lost some steam and I preferred when he was just a devilish thief. Also, the fact that ‘Aladdin’, one of my favorites Disney animated features, was basically a remake of this old classic, might have played a part in the fact that I didn’t completely enjoy this feature since I already knew most of the plot. Furthermore, the thief, as a character, is actually more fun than Aladdin but you miss the genius and, with a running time around 140 minutes, it was just too long for its own good. Still, it is definitely a fun and entertaining movie and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

I wasn’t sure what to expect from this flick but since there was a pretty cool cast, I thought I should give it a try. If I recall correctly, I saw this one with my wife because she has a huge weak spot for thrillers. Personally, I always had a somewhat difficult relationship with the typical US thrillers and this movie is a perfect example. Indeed, it started quite alright, there was indeed a nice cast (Ashley Judd, Samuel L. Jackson, Andy Garcia, David Strathairn) and they all delivered some decent performances. I always had a weak spot for Ashley Judd, back in those days, she was still on the A list and she was basically the Queen of the thrillers after showing up in ‘Kiss the Girls’, ‘Double Jeopardy’ and ‘High Crimes’. Furthermore, the mood was also quite decent and the whole thing seemed to be a watchable feature in this genre. Unfortunately, and this is the main reason why I have such a hard time with this kind of movies, the ending was just downright ridiculous. I mean, it is typical with thrillers, the build-up is pretty nice and entertaining but they always have to finish up with some preposterous twist ending, usually involving some random action scene, ruining the whole thing. Well, in this case, the ending was indeed very weak. To conclude, even though it had some potential, it is actually a rather weak thriller and it is not really worth a look, I’m afraid.

It is once again a huge classic I have been postponing indefinitely and for several reasons. First of all, I always find it a daunting prospect to watch a 3 hours long silent feature and its notorious and controversial reputation was not really attractive. Eventually, I must admit it, the first half was actually quite impressive. Indeed, it was a really intriguing depiction of the Civil war, displaying the impact on the people of the North and the South. There were also some very well made battle scenes, especially considering the fact that it is a 100 years old feature and it must have cost a fortune back in those days. However, in the second half, Griffith went completely apeshit on us and the whole thing became really despicable. Where should I start? First of all, the way black people were described was just really awful. Indeed, they are basically portrayed as evil, ignorant and completely useless. It was so disturbing that even at the time many people were really outraged. But, it doesn’t stop there, no… While the first part seemed pretty accurate historically speaking, in the second half, they gave an alternate version where the North and South were actually bonding against the black oppressor ruling in the South and the Ku Klux Klan was described as some kind of rightful resistance group… Seriously, you got to be kidding me… . Still, even though you don’t agree with Griffith's ideas (I’m not, that’s for sure), you have to bare in mind that the guy was actually a visionary and he has single-handedly created most of what we know of the cinematic language (intercutting between various scenes, establishing shots going to medium shots going to close-ups,…). When you see this movie, you don’t notice those tricks because you have seen them in 100s of movies that came afterwards but he invented all these things. So, from a technical and historical point of view, it is quite a valuable feature and it is usually considered as the birth of the modern American cinema but the ideas developed were just disgusting and the whole thing felt terribly misguided. To conclude, even though I didn’t like it, since it is such a classic, I still think it is worth a look, especially if you are interested in cinema history.

Since I’m a huge fan of Clint Eastwood’s work, of course, I was really eager to check his directing debut. So, that’s where it all started for him, at least, as far as you consider his career as a director. You can guess that, at the time, the studios thought that Eastwood was just another actor who wanted to pretend to be a director and since he was a huge star, they thought they should give him his wish but they didn’t pay much attention to the end-result. They were not the only ones though as it took about 20 years before Clint Eastwood was taken really seriously as a director. Anyway, how was this directing debut? To be honest, it was a decent flick but still nothing really great though. I mean, it felt like an obvious warm-up for Eastwood who was basically playing around with the medium without breaking much new grounds. Still, I thought it was a solid thriller and I was entertained throughout the whole thing. I especially enjoyed the mood created by Eastwood. To conclude, I think it is a solid directing debut and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Clint Eastwood’s work.

Honestly, I wasn’t sure what to expect from this flick but since I have a weak spot for both Natalie Portman and Ashley Judd, I still wanted to check it out. Eventually, it wasn’t really good, I’m afraid. I mean, with a title like this, you pretty much know what you will get beforehand, basically, a sappy tearjerker and, unfortunately, it didn’t really go further than this. I mean, Natalie Portman and Ashley Judd were both really charming and actually way too good for this kind of material but it was still pretty neat to see a very young Natalie Portman whose status was getting bigger and bigger every year at the time. Concerning Ashley Judd, like most actresses above 40 years old, she struggles to remain in the limelight nowadays and even though you get to see her from time to time, none of her current work is really interesting. Of course, I know, I shouldn’t take the plot so seriously but, honestly, it is really difficult to care for those characters or what they are going through if they are stuck in such a preposterous and underwhelming story. To conclude, I have seen worse but it still remain an average drama and it is not really worth a look, I’m afraid.