Reviews by johanlefourbe

Since I kept hearing good things about this flick, I was really eager to check it out and I had some pretty high expectations. Honestly, I thought it was slightly disappointing. I mean, it was visually appealing and I thought that the cast (Gael Garcia Bernal, Diego Luena, Maribel Verdu) all gave some solid performances but I seriously failed to see what was so amazing about this story. Pretty much like ‘Children of men’, another universally heralded movie directed by Cuaron, I didn’t really connect with the story. I mean, it was not bad at all, it was even quite intriguing but I thought it never really took off. Basically, it is supposed to be a steamy affair but I really had a hard time to care about the characters. I mean, good for them, they managed to explore their sex life but I didn’t think it was really that compelling. I don’t know, maybe I wasn’t in the right mood and I might re-watch it in the future to make up my mind for good. I mean, don’t misunderstand me, I actually liked the damned thing, it’s just that I didn’t get why it was so highly regarded. To conclude, even though I thought it was slightly underwhelming, it is still a pretty good flick and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Alfonso Cuaron’s work.

First of all, it is interesting to point out that the original title literal translation is not ‘the Dinner game’ or ‘Dinner of Schmucks’ but in fact ‘The Dinner of Cunts’. I always found it pretty nice that the French were never too skirmish to put a naked lady of some really foul language on their movie posters. Anyway, when I lived in France, this movie was a huge success when it was released. Personally, except for the rather subversive title, I didn't care much about the whole thing as it looked really stupid and it took me a while to finally watch it. If I'm not mistaken, the first time I eventually saw it, I was completely stoned out of my mind so I wasn't really able to judge it. Eventually, I saw it a second time around and I thought it was actually not bad at all. I mean, don't misunderstand me, it was far from being a masterpiece whatsoever but I have to admit it , it was indeed pretty funny. It is above all thanks to the late Jacques Villeret that it did work. Indeed, all the other characters were rather spineless and uninteresting but he managed to make his character stupid but somehow also friendly and above all constantly hilarious. Later on, they would make an American remake called ‘Dinner of Schmucks’ but even though they cast Steve Carell as the new ‘cunt’, it was really underwhelming. To conclude, even though I don’t think it was really great at all, this original version was still a solid comedy and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in French movies.

I wasn't expecting much from this flick but since I have a weak spot for Bruce Willis, I thought I should check it out anyway. Surprisingly, even though Willis is shown prominently on all the promotional material, he has actually a rather small part and the lead was played by Curtis '55 Cent' Jackson who seems to be still struggling as an actor. Coming back to Bruce Willis, it is rather odd, with his megastar status, that he pops up more and more often in such underwhelming direct-to-DVD features. Anyway, it was just a very weak action flick which was thankfully really short (not even 80 minutes). Even though it was really short, they managed to throw in an impressive amount of characters, a technique used, I suppose, to hide the overall weakness of the script. If the main character played by 50 Cent would have been an heartless SOB, it could have been a little bit more interesting, some dark and immoral tale but, since it wasn't the case, I didn't care whatsoever for the story or the characters involved. To conclude, I think I'm being really generous with my rating here, it is a really weak action flick and it is not really worth a look, even if you are diehard fan of Bruce Willis.

I have always been a huge fan of those clay-animated features by Aardman so I was really eager to check this flick. For once, they dropped the clay and opted for the first time for CGI (the 2nd and last one so far was ‘Arthur Christmas’). Apparently, they made this choice because there were too many water scenes which would be too difficult to handle with clay. However, even though the expectations were pretty high, it was eventually a flop when it was released. Personally, I had mixed feelings about the whole thing. I mean, I thought it looked really good, which was something you should expect from Aardman but the story and the characters were not really amazing. There was definitely some funny bits and the bad guy was really cool (I also liked ‘Le Frog’) but I thought that the main character was pretty underwhelming, especially if you compare him to the awesome and charismatic Wallace and Gromit. There was also some overkill visually. I don’t know, maybe I should give it another shot and watch in English this time (the first time, I watched it in Dutch with the kids). Still, to conclude, even though it was slightly disappointing, it remains a decent animated flick 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 I have a weak spot for Sylvester Stallone and Rutger Hauer, I thought I should give it a try. Eventually, even though it was not bad, it was still not really convincing either. Basically, it is an awkward mix between the 70s' gritty thrillers and the 80's buddy cop action flicks and even though this mix was intriguing, it didn't work very well. As a result, you get an endless set-up and since the movie was rather short (just above 90 minutes), the 2nd half felt really rushed. Still, I liked the grim look of the whole thing, the dialogs were pretty rough and Stallone and Hauer were both really charismatic. Back in those days, Stallone was still trying to make it as a legit actor, even though except for his 'Rocky' movies, all his other movies were flops and, for Hauer, it was his first American production and, basically, this movie became basically the blue-print of what he would do for the rest of his career (the psycho bad-guy). To conclude, even though it is nothing really amazing, it was not bad after all and I think it is worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

There was something really appealing about this flick. I mean, it was a dark thriller dealing with snuff movies, directed by Joel Schumacher, starring Nicolas Cage and Joaquin Phoenix. It really seemed that they have gathered all the necessary ingredients to make a decent flick. Unfortunately, the whole thing was pretty disappointing. Seriously, I gave this movie a fair shot and even watched it twice but both times, I thought it was actually rather underwhelming. The main issue I had is that it is basically a thriller which pretends to be dark and gloomy but, at the end of the day, it remains a rather glossy Hollywood flick. I mean, it is not really a bad movie at all. Nicolas Cage was still a very good actor back then (don’t talk to me about his recent work…) and Joaquin Phoenix in a rather thankless role managed as always to make something quite intriguing. The most annoying thing is that you feel that there was some potential here but they didn’t dare go all the way with this sensitive subject. As a matter of fact, Andrew Kevin Walker (who also wrote ‘Seven’) wrote the screenplay, and apparently, the whole thing was way darker but the studio asked him to lighten up the tone. Eventually, Walker walked out and disowned this flick. To conclude, even though it is far from being awful, it still remain an average and disappointing thriller and it is not really worth a look, even if you like the genre.

Honestly, I didn't know what this flick was about beforehand and I didn't know what to expect. It is something I actually really enjoy, to watch a movie without knowing nothing about it. In my opinion, especially when you watch a thriller, it makes it much more exciting. Of course, there is the risk that you will end up watching some garbage but it is a risk I'm always glad to take. Unfortunately, this flick was still pretty weak. Basically, it managed to hold my attention for about 30 minutes but, after that, it was pretty abysmal. Indeed, it is one of these very convoluted thrillers with some repetitive annoying twists and I really had a hard time to care about the whole thing. If I'm not mistaken, they were maybe 5 different characters with a shady background and instead of leaving a mysterious fog around them, their back story was a little bit developed but not enough to make it interesting and too much to not become really underwhelming. I was reminded of 'Memento' which is a perfect example of carefully developing all the characters by giving ONLY the information you need in order to enjoy the story. Here, it is the complete opposite, they keep throwing at you some random information just to make the whole thing more 'exciting' but it had the opposite effect. So, most of this movie was actually garbage but there were here and there some good ideas and there is definitely something intriguing about agoraphobia. Anyway, to conclude, I think I was rather generous with my rating here, it is a pretty weak thriller and it is not really worth a look, even if you like the genre.

It is once again one of those really obscure French movies which I'm the only one to have seen here on Listal so it might be one of the most obscure movies I have ever seen. To be honest, I have actually no idea how I ended watching this flick but it was actually pretty good. Indeed, even though it is nothing really amazing, it was one of the very few movies dealing with disabled people I have seen and they handled this subject pretty well. The cast was mostly composed of unknown expect for Olivier Gourmet (the marvelous guy who works regularly with the Dardennes brothers, also very good in this) and Saïd Taghmaoui (who breakthrough with 'La Haine' and managed to built up a decent career in the US starting with 'Three Kings'). Basically, it deals with the fact that disabled people also might have the rights to experience sexuality and maybe we should provide them the means for their needs. Even though the outcome was pretty predictable, their journey was interesting and I did care for those poor fellows. To conclude, even though it is indeed a really obscure flick, it is actually pretty good and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in French movies.

I wasn't expecting much from this flick but since I have a weak spot for Mickey Rourke, I thought I should give it a shot anyway. I remember that it was a huge flop when it was released and, eventually, it was indeed pretty bad. To start with, it must be one of the lamest title ever conceived. I mean, how can you recover from this?!? Well, they did not, that's for sure. The cast is basically a has-been reunion (Mickey Rourke, Don Johnson, Daniel Baldwin, Vanessa Williams, Tia Carrere, Tom Sizemore, Kelly Hu) and the story was just terribly tedious. The sad thing is that Mickey Rourke and Don Johnson were actually both pretty charismatic and there were here and there some tiny bits which did work but those guys were basically lost in this terrible mess. How could they greenlight something like this? They must be some better scripts out there. Anyway, Rourke later on admitted that he did this flick for the money and, from there, it was all downhill for him and it took him more than 10 years to get his sh*t together. To conclude, the whole thing is a terrible waste of time and you shouldn't even bother watch this, even if you are a fan of Mickey Rourke's work.

What happened to Wolfgang Petersen? Is he in semi-retirement? His last movie was 'Poseidon', a huge bomb, but since then, he hasn't done much. Anyway, even if you may not like most of his output, you can't argue that Petersen was one of the most successful European directors in Hollywood. Before starting a career in the US, he made two of the most impressive European productions, 'Das Boot' and 'The NeverEnding Story'. 'The NeverEnding Story' is one of those movies that I saw when I was very young and, back then, I thought it was just fascinating, probably the best fantasy story I saw at the time. In my young eyes, it looked great, it was a mesmerizing world, it was a great adventure with also some scary moments and the fact that a young kid like me was reading a book, living this adventure was also something that really intrigued me at the time. Seriously, with its various levels of story-telling, it is basically a mind-f*ck for kids. Of course, when the time was right, I had to re-watch this flick with my kids but, unfortunately, most of the magic was gone. I mean, I still thoroughly enjoyed it, absolutely, but I thought it looked pretty cheesy (30 years later, what would you expect?) and the weaknesses in the story or the acting were much obvious this time around. In my opinion, to really enjoy this flick, you have to be really young, at least 6 years but no more than 12, and you still need to have some kind of innocent soul to be touched by its magic. To conclude, I still think it is a classic, I really cherish this flick and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.