Reviews by johanlefourbe

Since it is a huge classic, I was really eager to check it out. To be honest, I usually have a hard time to care about those old classic Westerns. Indeed, even though I enjoyed such movies like 'Rio Bravo' or 'Shane', they didn't really blow me away. Fortunately, I liked this one a lot. The point is that it is not only a Western, it is also actually a nail-bitting thriller and, during the whole thing, you wonder how it will end up. Furthermore, it was also a very interesting character study. Indeed, Fred Zinnemann, a director I start to like more and more, took his time to develop all the people in this town, not only Will Kane, who is basically your typical righteous sheriff. All the reactions of this common people felt really genuine and their reactions, even though it might seem cowardice, were actually rather understandable. As a result, you get a rather dark Western which clearly stands out from the other movies in this genre. I have to admit, I was at first a little bit disappointed by the end (great, another shoot-out during which the hero kills all the bad guys and saves the day...) but the way he throws his star to the ground, looks disgusted towards his fellow citizens and leaves the town right away with this wife was just priceless. To conclude, it is easily one of the best Westerns I have ever seen, it is a great classic and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Even though Brian De Palma is nowadays pretty much forgotten, I always had a weak spot for his work and I still try to check his movies whenever I get the opportunity. This movie was actually pretty experimental, completely different than the typical De Palma features and it was completely unnoticed when it was released. Basically, it is almost a remake of 'Casualties of War', the Vietnam war movie directed by De Palma, it follows the same plot but it takes place, obviously, in Irak, it is based on a true story and the directing style was completely different. Like I said before, it was quite experimental, and felt sometimes like a mockumentary, even though it was still something else and I'm not sure what Brian De Palma was trying to prove by making the movie this way. Eventually, it was rather distracting and the poor acting didn't help either. However, it was still a really intriguing piece. I mean, at some point, it felt pretty damned realistic and the facts displayed, even though not really surprising, were quite shattering. It is rather surprising that no movie about the Irak war has been really successful (even 'The Hurt Locker' which won the Best Picture academy award was barely seen when released) but maybe it will come one day. Anyway, to conclude, in spite of its flaws, it remains a really intriguing war movie and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Brian De Palma's work.

To be honest, I wasn't sure what to expect from this flick but since I have a weak spot for Jim Carrey, I thought I should check it out. At first, it seemed to be one of those whacky comedies that Carrey used to make in the past but, as soon as those pinguins showed up, it became pretty obvious that it was just a rather underwhelming family feature. It might be entertaining for young kids (I doubt it though) but for any adult, the whole thing is just way too non-sensical. Why did his father send him a pinguin? Why does he suddenly decide to keep them? Why do his children think it's awesome to spend some time in a freezing apartment with some pinguins? I mean, even his ex-wife acts as if it is the greatest thing in the world. Basically, the premise was completely ridiculous and the fact that it took place in a realistic modern world made it even worse. Of course, you could argue that since it is a kid flick, it doesn't need to make any sense, as long it is really mushy. Well, I think it is a terribly condescending approach towards children, that's for sure. To conclude, it wasn't really bad but it was still pretty damned average and I don't think it is really worth a look, except maybe if you are a die-hard fan of Jim Carrey.

I was just a kid when saw the first installment and I thought it was pretty cool. Indeed, it was actually a decent sport feature and even though it pretty much followed the standard formula, I thought it was actually rather edgy and pretty funny, especially when I was young. I even re-watched it recently and even though the flaws were pretty obvious this time, it was still pretty entertaining and it definitely held up pretty good. Back in those days when I was young and innocent, since I really enjoyed it, I end up watching the sequel as well. Unfortunately, this 2nd installment turned out to be pretty disappointing. I mean, the 1st movie was ok but it was nothing amazing whatsoever and the material was just too fine to justify a follow-up. Nonetheless, since ‘Major League’ was mildly successful, they of course had to milk it for what it’s worth. The fact that this sequel showed up 5 years later was not a very good omen either and pretty much everyone had lost interest in these characters at that time. Still, most of the cast returned (Charlie Sheen, Tom Berenger, Rene Russo for a 2 minutes cameo) except for Wesley Snipes who became a major star in the mean time. To conclude, it is a rather poor sequel and it is not really worth a look, even if you enjoyed the first installment like I did.

To be honest, I wasn't sure what to expect from this flick but since I have a weak spot for Mark Whalberg, I thought I should give it a try. Honestly, I wasn't really good, I'm afraid. Apparently, they tried to make one of those action-comedy from Hong-Kong (the director, Kirk Wong, was even from Hong-Kong) but the end-result was pretty disappointing. Indeed, the humor was ever bad or too tongue-in-cheek and the action scenes with some typical slow-motion were not really impressive. Mark Whalber, who wasn't yet a big star at the time, was not bad at all though and there was something actually quite appealing about his character. Even better was Lou Diamond Phillips who seriously stole the show every time he was on the screen. Unfortunately, all the other characters were uninteresting or downright obnxious. All the way, you could feel that there was some potential, that it could have been actually decent, but the whole thing never took off and it was simply rather underwhelming. To conclude, it is a pretty average flick and it is not really worth a look, even if you like the genre.

Of course, I wasn’t expecting much from this flick but since I have a weak spot for Kirsten Dunst, I thought I should check it out. Eventually, since the main subject is cheerleading, the whole thing was pretty lame but, somehow, it was pretty successful and launched a franchise (on the other hand, all the sequels were straight-to-DVD and even worse than this 1st installment). In my opinion, the only redeeming feature was the cast (Kirsten Dunst, Eliza Dushku, Gabrielle Union) as they all delivered some decent performances. Like I said before, even though I tend to dismiss the whole thing, even though it is not an interesting topic, it must be, I guess, the best movie about cheerleading ever made, even though it is pretty straightforward. Indeed, it follows the typical structure of your average sport feature and they really made sure they didn’t add anything new or really original to the formula. Right of the bat, I could imagine a really dark and twisted tale about some mental cheerleaders but I guess I would probably be the only one interested. I guess, the people who used to do some cheerleading in their youth (something terribly American and the appeal is beyond most of us Europeans) would probably enjoy it in a nostalgic way. To conclude, I thought it was pretty average and I don’t think it is really worth a look, except maybe if you are a fan of the genre.

By now, I have seen almost all the movies starring Eddie Murphy (they all show up sooner on later on the diverse Dutch channels I have) and his career can be split basically in 3 parts. First, you had the 80's during which his movies were some massive box-office success, often critically heralded, making Murphy a superstar in the process. Then, you had the 90's during which Eddie Murphy was still pretty successful, even though the movies were not really that good. Finally, you have the part which started at the beginning of the 00's and which is still ongoing nowadays, a period during which Murphy has been making one terrible movie after the other, movies which always flop at the box-office. This flick was definitely a typical effort from the 90's. Indeed, it was pretty popular and generated a sequel. Personally, I don't think it was really good though. I mean, once again Murphy wears a fat suit (one of his trademarks) and it could have been interesting if he would have remained like this during the whole thing but, of course, Eddie Murphy had to show up as Buddy Love, one of the most annoying characters ever created. The way Murphy played the whole family Krump was also pretty neat but it was not enough to make this flick really entertaining to me. To conclude, even though he has done way worse later on in his career, it still remain a rather weak effort for Eddie Murphy and I don't think it is really worth a look.

Honestly, I wasn't sure what to expect from this movie but since I have a weak spot for Emily Blunt, I thought I should check it out. In my opinion, Blunt is a really talented actress but she doesn't seem to pick the most brilliant features and this movie was a perfect example. I mean, the beginning was pretty weak. Basically, she ends up in a car with a total stranger after texting someone during her class and it felt pretty awkward. I mean, it was terribly rushed and a rather artificial way to create some tension which eventually had nothing to do with the actual plot. Indeed, the whole thing actually deals with some kind of haunted road and since you are dealing with a US thriller, they spent most of the last 20 minutes explaining what was going on using some flashbacks. That's one reason why I tend to dismiss this kind of movies, is that they try really hard to rationalize something completely preposterous when they should keep something to the imagination of the viewer. In my opinion, it would have been more interesting to make it a minimalistic survival flick with those two strangers stuck into a car in the middle of an icy winter storm. Eventually, the only redeeming feature was Emily Blunt who, in spite of the poor material, still managed to deliver a decent performance. To conclude, it is a rather weak horror feature and it is not really worth a look, even if you like the genre.

I wasn’t sure what to expect from this flick but since there was a very nice cast, I still wanted to check it out. Basically, t is an adaptation of a very famous book which had been adapted so many times, I even used to watch a Japanese cartoon based on this book when I was a kid in the 90’s. For all the live action versions, this is the most recent one and, like I said before, the main attraction was the cast (Winona Ryder, Gabriel Byrne, Samantha Mathis, Kirsten Dunst, Claire Danes, Christian Bale, Eric Stoltz, Susan Sarandon). And indeed, they all delivered some solid performances and the directing by Gillian Armstrong was also pretty decent but I seriously had a hard time to care about the whole thing. The great Roger Ebert was more enthusiast than me and was apparently slowly won by this adaptation but, in my case, I admired the work and skills involved in this production but it wasn’t a drama which really managed to impress me. You could say that it was a major chick flick and that’s why I didn’t like it much and, even though it might be possible, in my opinion, the story was rather too shallow and over sentimental. To conclude, even though I didn’t really like it, it remains a solid drama and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.