Reviews by johanlefourbe

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.

After hearing some pretty good things about this flick, I was definitely eager to check it out. Indeed, it was pretty successful when it was released and it has been ever since considered as a classic thriller from the 90’s. Furthermore, since it was directed by Curtis Hanson (‘L.A. Confidential’), I was quite sure it would be at least a pretty decent thriller. Unfortunately, I thought that the whole thing was rather underwhelming. Personally, I don’t think that Rebecca De Mornay should be blamed as she gave a decent performance and she tried her best to make something from this material (eventually, this movie will probably be the one everyone will remember her for). I don’t know, I still have a hard time to understand why everybody back in the 90’s thought it was so frightening. In my opinion, it was just a rather weak thriller with a typically convoluted plot with some terrible twist(s) at the end. I know, I might be asking too much from this genre but I thought this movie was actually hardly entertaining and a major disappointment. To conclude, I thought it was pretty damned average and I don’t think it is really worth a look, even if you like the genre.

After 7 seven long years, Spike Jonze finally came up with a new directing effort and I was definitely eager to check it out. When I bought the DVD in France with its cute poster and since it was an adaptation of a children book, I thought it would be nice to watch it with my 7 year-old daughter. Wisely, I decided to check it out first on my own and within 5 minutes, I realized it was definitely nothing for her and that was the first failure of this movie in my opinion. I mean, it was way too dark and gloomy for the kids and since it really looked like a family feature, I really wonder who was actually the target audience in the end. I don't mean that it was a bad movie, not at all. It was actually pretty good and visually really interesting but from a sweet children book (which I haven't read though), they basically made a rather dark tale about a psychotic young boy who meets some rather psychotic monsters. Basically, it is a pretty tough sale. Apparently, Jonze started filming in 2005 and only released the whole thing in 2009 so the production was pretty hazardous (Apparently, it was terribly difficult to manage to create those wild things) and I did appreciate the work provided and its originality but it never really managed to convince me. To conclude, in spite of its flaws, I still think it is worth a look though, especially if you are interested in Spike Jonze's work.

Almost 10 years after 'Crimson Tide', Tony Scott and Denzel Washington were reunited again and it seemed they had a pretty good time since they rapidly made 3 other movies together. From all the movies starring Denzel Washington, it is pretty much the only one which managed to reach cult-status. Seriously, I don’t know how many times I met someone who were claiming that this was one of the best movies ever made. And indeed, the directing was really dynamic and efficient, something expected from a seasoned action movie director like Tony Scoot and Denzel Washington gave a very strong performance as usual. Still, even though I thought the whole thing was pretty entertaining, I also thought that the story was nothing really amazing and actually rather predictable. I guess, it depends what you expect from your typical action flick. If you just need some impressive and cool action scenes and a really bad-ass main character, than you will love this flick. However, if you also require a certain amount of depth in the characters and/or in the story (like I do), you won’t be really impressed. Still, even though I don’t think it is anything really amazing, it remains a really solid and very well made action flick and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

What was the point of remaking EXACTLY the same movie (it is said that the house even has the same dimensions) ? Who cares when it is directed by the great Haneke?!? Since I am a huge fan of the original version (as a matter of fact, it is one of my all-time favorite movies), of course, I was really eager to check it out. Eventually, I liked this remake a lot. Of course, I have to admit it, it was rather pointless to make the same movie again (I really wonder why Haneke thought it was a good idea) but it remains a great story and I loved it almost as much as the amazing original version. The tone was identical, visually, it was really similar (I still don't think it was really shot-by-shot the same though) and the acting was really strong. That's probably one of the few issues here compared to the original. Indeed, for this US version, they decided to bring some (relatively) big name actors and while Tim Roth was a very good choice, I'm not so sure about Naomi Watts. I mean, she delivered a very good performance but I think someone more plain looking would have been more appropriate, plus the fact that she keeps making some remakes wasn't in her favor (see also 'The Ring', 'King Kong' and 'Down'). The other thing that bothered me was that Michael Pitt and Brady Courbet who both did a pretty good job, looked too similar. It would have worked better with a young Brad Pitt or a young Leonardo DiCaprio for the role of Paul. Of course, those were small details and the main issue is that the whole thing remains pointless since the original worked fine as a stand alone. To conclude, in spite of all this, I think it is actually a very good flick and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Michael Haneke's work.