Reviews by johanlefourbe

At last, it seemed that Eddie Murphy would finally come up with a watchable feature after decades of garbage. Unfortunately, it was a flop but I still wanted to check it out as I always end up watching Murphy’s movies at some point. Eventually, even though it was indeed a major improvement on Eddie Murphy’s latest work, I was still quite underwhelming though. Indeed, maybe we should blame Brett Ratner who is always an easy target but it was just a rather weak story and one of the most tedious heist I have ever seen. Somehow, they gathered a decent cast (Ben Stiller, Eddie Murphy, Casey Affleck, Alan Alda, Matthew Broderick, Téa Leoni, Michael Peña, Gabourey Sidibe) but none of those characters was remotely interesting. Furthermore, it took forever to take off with an endless introduction and Eddie Murphy came very late to the party. And indeed, when Murphy finally got involved, it started to be a little bit more fun but the plot was terribly weak. Man, the guy needs another supporting character but, instead, with some really edgy director like Quentin Tarantino for example. Anyway, even though it wasn’t really awful, it was still pretty weak and I don’t think it is really worth a look.

I already saw this movie but, since it was a while back and since it was available on Netflix, I thought I might as well give it a second chance. I have noticed that my rating was a little bit harsh and, after rewatching the damned thing, I actually wonder why. Sure, it was still nothing really thrilling, it was basically a really classic Western tale told in the most classic way possible. I don’t know, maybe at the time, I was really bothered by its generic aspect. Anyway, I think it is actually a decent watch after all. I mean, with such actors involved like Cate Blanchett and Tommy Lee Jones, you can’t really go wrong. Furthermore, you can say whatever you want about Ron Howard but the guy is quite a versatile director, he has tried a lot of different genres and this time, he tried his luck with one of the oldest genres, the Western. Unfortunately, even though Howard is a competent director, his work usually turns out to be rather bland and uninspiring and this movie was a perfect example. I think it was also the reason why this movie was pretty much completely unnoticed when it was released. I mean, lot of people think that the Western is ‘dead’ but the reason why so many of these movies flop is not because of the genre itself. Indeed, I think it’s because directors like Ron Howard, instead of adapting this genre to the modern audience, keep pretty much the same formula, or something very close to it, which was used back in the 50’s and 60’s but, as a result, these movies fail because the modern audience is either bored or can’t really relate to them. Anyway, to conclude, in spite of its flaws, I have to admit that this movie was actually better than I remembered and I think it is worth a look, at least, if you like such classic Westerns. 

Since I kept hearing good things about this flick and since I always had a weak spot for Alan Parker's work (by the way, it is a real shame that he seems to be retired nowadays), I was really eager to check his directing debut. Honestly, it was quite ambitious to make a movie only with children as his debut as kids are notoriously difficult to work with and as they are not allowed to make long shooting days. Even though I'm not a huge fan of musicals, I thought it was pretty neat and Parker already displayed some solid directing skills. Another interesting aspect was to see a very young Jodie Foster who was at that the time already a famous child star. To be honest, even though I have always been a fan of Foster, I haven't seen much of her work as a child so it was pretty neat to see her in this flick. Eventually, it was also an intriguing concept to have some kids portraying some gangsters but it was not really mind-blowing in my opinion. To conclude, even though it is nothing really great, it remains an original musical and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

I actually already watched this movie but it was at least a decade ago and since there was a really impressive cast, I wanted to give it a 2nd chance. And indeed, the cast was pretty neat (Samuel L. Jackson, Vanessa Williams , Jeffrey Wright, Christian Bale, Busta Rhymes, Dan Hedaya, Toni Collette, Mekhi Phifer, Elizabeth Banks) and, even though I enjoyed Samuel L. Jackson who was the best possible choice to portray the most bad-ass black cop ever, I was above all impressed by Jeffrey Wright. Indeed, Wright is a very good character actor and he was easily the best thing in this flick. Unfortunately, the movie itself was not really good though. I mean, it starts with a promising flashy and steamy title sequence with the original Shaft theme but, as soon as the movie starts, it became a middle of the road cop feature with a rather pedestrian plot. Apparently, Samuel L. Jackson himself was disappointed by this movie and it was indeed a box-office failure. John Singleton, a once so promising director, had a great project here with some potential but, somehow, they didn’t take enough risks and the whole thing was sometimes actually rather boring. Anyway, to conclude, in spite of a very interesting cast, it is a rather average flick and I don’t think it is really worth a look.

Val Kilmer and Mira Sorvino, I have a huge weak spot for those two actors and it is a real shame that both their careers are in pretty bad shape nowadays. I mean, they still make movies but nothing really noteworthy. Anyway, back then, when they were still young and on the A list, they made this flick together and I thought it was actually not bad at all. The point is that, of course, the whole thing is way too over-sentimental and, instead of some regular folks, you have those two gorgeous people who obviously will fall in love in each other. Still, you don’t see much movies dealing with blindness and I thought they treated the subject fairly well. Also, you can say whatever you want about Val Kilmer but when the guy gets the right material, he can deliver some pretty solid performances and it was definitely the case here. Also, like any Hollywood picture, since there is one character with a disease or a handicap, of course, they will try to fix him which was also rather annoying but, I must admit it, it was quite intriguing to behold a formerly blind man going through life with a new ability to see resulting in many psychological trouble. To conclude, even though it is nothing great, it remains a rather decent romantic drama and I think it is worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Basically, it is once again one of those really obscure French movies which almost no one has seen here on Listal. I had seriously no idea what to expect from this flick but since Isabelle Huppert was playing the lead character, I thought I might as well check it out. Eventually, it turned out to be an intriguing drama with some rather interesting characters but the makers keep you so long in the dark about their motivations that I kind of lost interest at some point. I mean, I did like the directing and there was something really nice about the relationship between Ann and Georges but it was really difficult to follow them and their thoughts. Every once in a while, the director would give the audience a very little bit of explanation so you could chew on it for a while but most of the movie was pretty obscure, I'm afraid. Eventually, most of the actions taken by Ann turned out to be pretty random, she was pretty much a cold, arrogant and selfish woman and it was rather difficult to really care for her and what she was going through. Anyway, to conclude, even though it was rather flawed, I still think it is worth a look, especially if you are interested in French movies.

Recently, Rugter Hauer, arguably the most famous Dutch movie star, has been coming back making some movies in the Netherlands and this must have been the most ambitious feature so far. Indeed, who other than Hauer could portray another Dutch icon like Alfred Heineken? So, the cast was quite brilliant and, of course, this movie was dealing with one of the most notorious real crime in Dutch history so they had the ingredients to make quite a great movie. Eventually, the end-result was pretty good but still not really mind-blowing, unfortunately. To start with, the directing was quite decent with a rather bombastic soundtrack which somehow reminded me of ‘Inception’. I don’t know, like I said before, it is quite a fascinating story which doesn’t deal only with the kidnapping of Heineken, of course with his detention but also with what happened after he was freed. Unfortunately, even though some bits were really well setup, some of the scenes were terribly murky and sometimes, the narration was pretty shaky. The fact that they added some terribly underwhelming subplots (his girlfriend who was also with another gang members and the fact that he has to get his driving license) involving Rem Hubrechts/ Willem Holleeder didn’t help either. Anyway, to conclude, even though it didn’t really reach its potential, I still think it is a decent crime feature and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Dutch movies.

Back in the 90’s, I used to really worship Al Pacino. I mean, nowadays, I still have a weak spot for the guy and keep watching his movies whenever I get the opportunity but pretty much like Robert De Niro, you can feel that the spark is not there anymore. Anyway, back in the good old 90’s, Al Pacino made his directing debut with this feature which was a fairly ambitious and experimental project. Indeed, it is labeled as a documentary but I’m not sure if it is actually really accurate. Anyway, even though Pacino has become famous by portraying some of the most famous mob figures, he has actually always loved the theater and especially the work of William Shakespeare. So, to make this all accessible to the movie watchers, he came up with this flick. Apparently, it was supposed to be a straightforward adaptation of ‘Richard III’ but Al Pacino thought he could never compete with the version made by Laurence Olivier, the greatest Shakesperian actor that ever lived. As a result, he came up with this and ended up shooting 80 hours of footage over 4 years between his various movie projects and, I have to admit it, it is pretty damned hard to follow and many actors involved had no clue where the whole thing was getting at. Still, even though it is nothing really amazing, it remains an intriguing experimental flick and I think it is worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Basically, it is once again one of those really obscure French movies which almost no one has seen here on Listal. Honestly, I’m not sure how I ended up watching this flick or why I wanted to see it in the first place. Anyway, I thought it was not bad at all and a rather fun flick. The first interesting aspect is that this movie was yet another collaborations of the Podalydès brothers. Indeed, even though most brothers in the movie business seems to end up directing movies together or separately (The Coen brothers, the Scott brothers, the Hughes brothers, the Wachowski brothers,…), those two guys took a different path as Bruno directs while Denis acts. And, I have to say, I really enjoyed Denis Podalydès in this flick. Indeed, he portrays one of those grumpy and selfish Frenchman and he had some pretty nifty dialogs, a really good timing resulting in some quite hilarious situations. Obviously, the story was not really revolutionary but it was never meant to be and I thought it was fairly entertaining. To conclude, even though it is nothing really amazing, it remains quite enjoyable and it is worth a look, especially if you are interested in French movies.

Every year, you have one very obscure indie feature scoring very big at the box-office and this movie was one of those. Since then, it has developed some extreme reactions. Indeed, apparently, most of the people either thought it was hilarious while the rest really despised it. With this in mind, I was rather curious to check the damned thing. Eventually, I enjoyed it, even though it was really nothing great. I mean, there is really a relentless way how the makers decided to portray this Napoleon Dynamite guy and it was rather courageous but also difficult to care for this deeply unlikeable character. Also, I also appreciated the way they described the grim high-school life. Indeed, even though Napoleon is way down at the bottom of the barrel, the popular kids didn’t look glamorous at all which was quite refreshing. Furthermore, I also liked the fact that he was not really bullied, that nobody really treated him very badly which is another old stereotype from most high-school movies. Still, there is not much going on in this flick, except a succession of weird and eccentric characters. To conclude, I don’t think it is anything great but I still enjoyed the damned thing and I think it is worth a look, especially if you like the genre.