Reviews by johanlefourbe

I wasn’t sure what to expect from this flick but since I have a weak spot for Anthony Hopkins, I thought I should give it a try. Hopkins is basically one of those actors I love so much that I would watch anything starring the guy. Well, this time, I really wonder if it was worth it. Call me stupid but I thought that there was something appealing about an action comedy starring Chris Rock and Anthony Hopkins and directed by Joel Schumacher. I know, after reading this, many people would think ‘Damned… That sounds like a lame movie!’ and actually, they would be right. Let’s start with Chris Rock. Personally, I do believe that the guy can be really hilarious but you really need to give him the right material which wasn’t the case here, definitely not. Basically, the whole thing was rather poorly written and Rock keeps throwing some weak jokes the one after the other. Concerning Anthony Hopkins, he gave the feeling that he would rather have been somewhere else and it is always a terrible shame to see an actor of such a caliber wasting his time. For Joel Schumacher, it was yet another underwhelming directing effort and probably one of the least interesting movies he has made so far. To conclude, even though the whole thing actually had some potential, it was eventually a rather weak action comedy and it is not really worth a look, even if you love the genre.

Since I have a weak spot for Nicole Kidman and since I kept hearing good things about this flick, I was really eager to check it out. Honestly, because of the concerned subject, I was also rather apprehensive. I mean, when I told my wife what it was about, she told me right away that she wasn’t interested which is quite understandable. I mean, a few years back, she lost her father which was really shattering (as a matter of fact, she still have a hard time with it) and to think of losing one of our children would be unbearable for her but for me as well. So, if you have kids, this movie is not really a nice watch, even if some critics or viewers would tell you that there was still some humor, the overall sadness was pretty heavy but it was also what makes this drama valuable. Still, even though it was pretty good, I wasn’t completely blown away by the whole thing. I mean, it was a nice approach to not have a straightforward plot and instead having these random events involving the grieving couple. However, somehow, those events were not always compelling and I thought that those meetings between Nicole Kidman and the perpetrator were very unlikely. I mean, it was an interesting touch but I really had a hard time believing that they would get along like that. Still, Nicole Kidman and Aaron Eckhart were both really impressive, only for them it is worth checking this flick. Furthermore, it was an interesting change of pace for John Cameron Mitchell. Indeed, John Cameron Mitchell’s directing debut was ‘Hedwig and the Angry Inch’, one of the most over-the-top and excessive movies I have ever seen and this new directing effort was exactly the opposite. Indeed, it was a very sober, rather minimalistic affair but considering the sensitive subject, it was really appropriate. To conclude, I thought it was a pretty solid drama and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

It has been a while since I watched this flick and I thought it was time for a re-watch, this time, with Nick my step-son. Honestly, it is not really a good movie and again a step down compared to its predecessor and even more from the classic first installment. The big difference, in my opinion, was in the tone. Indeed, the first movies were actually dramas with a very few fighting scenes. Here, the focus was much more on the action scenes. As a result, for the kids, it is actually a more enjoyable installment. Indeed, the running time was shorter, there was the usual training montage and with 3 fighting scenes, there was barely anytime for any drama or character development (I'm pretty sure it is so far my step-son favorite installment). For example, even though Mr. T looked physically competent, his character was barely developed and was more a cartoon figure. Since I'm not a kid anymore, I can't say I really enjoyed this flick though. I mean, from the inspiring and uplifting drama provided by the classic first installment, this franchise became more and more oriented towards standard and pedestrian action. To conclude, it is far from being an awful movie but it was still pretty average and even though it was a success when it was released, I don't think it is really worth a look, except if you really love this franchise.

Since I'm a huge fan of Danny Boyle, of course, I was really eager to check this flick. Therefore, I had some rather huge expectations and, unfortunately, I thought it was slightly disappointing. I mean, don't misunderstand me, I actually enjoyed it and I was entertained throughout the whole thing but it was definitely a weaker effort, especially considering the exceptional track-record of Danny Boyle. Basically, it is a psychological thriller, a mix between 'Inception' and 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'. The link with 'Inception' was pretty obvious since it was dealing with various levels of reality but Boyle's movie was still completely different than Nolan's opus. Basically, he built up some kind of a maze and even though it was quite intriguing, it was never really convincing. Indeed, I thought that the beginning was rather weak and the last 30 minutes were just an endless succession of the usual preposterous twists. Still, I like the damned thing. Indeed, the cast was solid (James McAvoy, Vincent Cassel, Rosario Dawson) and some scenes were quite exhilarating. Indeed, even though the story barely made sense (after a while, I just stopped counting the plot-holes), Boyle still managed to make it engaging and to make the most of it, you just have to sit back and enjoy the show without analyzing too much what is actually going on. To conclude, even though it turned out to be a disappointment, it remains a solid thriller and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Danny Boyle's work.

Honestly, I wasn't expecting much from this flick. Indeed, it had a pretty lousy reputation but since I have a weak spot for Russell Crowe and Meg Ryan, I thought I should give it a try. To my surprise, it turned to be a rather decent thriller. Basically, it is one of those movies which got a bad rep not because it was actually bad but because of all the shenanigans surrounding the production. Indeed, while making this flick, Meg Ryan and Russell Crowe had an affair and, as a result, she ended up divorcing Dennis Quaid after 10 years of marriage. It was not the kind of publicity this movie was asking for and it turned out to be a flop and the romance between Ryan and Crowe was really short-lived so you really wonder if it was worth starting with it at all. Russell Crowe's career seems to have recovered from the blow whereas Meg Ryan's is pretty much done at this point. What about the movie then? It is actually a mildly entertaining thriller directed by Taylor Hackford who is definitely a competent director. The weird thing is that it deals with a woman looking for a kidnapped husband and she is helped by a negotiator but they slowly fall for each other. Will she end up with the negotiator or with her husband? Considering Ryan and Crowe's common history, the ending was actually rather surprising but still made more sense. To conclude, even though the whole thing was rather pedestrian, I thought it was a decent thriller and it is worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Since I have a weak spot for Louis Malle's work, I was really eager to check this flick. Furthermore, Since this movie had a very good reputation and since it is considered as one of Malle's best movies, my expectations were pretty high. Unfortunately, I thought it was rather disappointing after all and I actually had a hard time to care for the whole thing. I mean, the directing was solid and this little girl did provide a pretty good performance but there was something that really bothered me about the tone. Indeed, basically, there was not much of a plot and the whole thing was supposed to be some kind of satirical whimsical tale but it was so frivolous, it actually tended to get on my nerves, it even became slightly obnoxious at some point. I don't know, maybe I wasn't in the right mood when I watched it and maybe I should give it a second chance at some point but I simply didn't connect with it. Still, Louis Malle is a terrific director and he managed to make an interesting flick, I will have to admit that. Anyway, to conclude, I guess it wasn't for me but I still think it is worth a look, especially if you are interested in French movies.

At first, there was a pretty good buzz about this flick. Indeed, it was another steamy thriller adapted from a book by Jan Wolkers, a famous Dutch writer, and it was Monique van de Ven's directing debut. The interesting thing is that, 40 years earlier, van de Ven made her acting debut also in an adaptation of a book written by Wolkers, 'Turks Fruit', and it turned out to be a huge success and one of the best Dutch movies ever made. So, the expectations were pretty high but, surprisingly, it turned out to be a flop and the movie was literally destroyed by the critics and indeed, I thought myself that the whole thing was pretty disappointing. Let's start with Waldemar Torenstra, the actor playing the main character. Torenstra has been really popular lately and showed up in many high profile Dutch productions released recently but I always had a hard time to care about the guy. I mean, he is a good looking fellow, that's pretty obvious, but he always seems to be too nice, showing the charisma of a Teddy Bear. It was even more obvious in a movie like this which would require a rather dark and tormented guy like, for example, Michael Douglas in 'Basic Instinct'. Concerning Sophie Hilbrand, a famous Dutch TV host, who was making her acting debut, she was better but even though she displayed a wild side, she was still not really convincing in a seemingly femme fatale role. Finally, the directing was just plain weak and it didn't feel much excitement during the whole thing, in fact, it must have been one of the most soporific thrillers I have seen lately. To conclude, the whole thing was a failure and it is not really worth a look, even if you are interested in Dutch movies.

I had actually already seen this flick but it was a while ago and I thought it was time for a re-watch. Honestly, I thought it was pretty good but I didn't expect it to be so intense. Indeed, it is easily the best movie dealing with children that I have ever seen. It is widely known that to make a movie with children is one of the most difficult things for multiple reasons and most of the features dealing with this subject are either phony or terribly condescending. Not this flick though. Indeed, for once, Stephen King dropped his horror shenanigans and instead wrote a simple but really efficient and completely heartfelt youth story and Rob Reiner created one of the best adaptations of a King book. Man, Reiner was really on fire back in those days... 'A Few Good Men', 'Misery', 'When Harry Met Sally','The Princess Bride', 'The Sure Thing', 'This Is Spinal Tap',... All those movies were critical and financial success and most of them some bonafide classics. It is such a shame that afterwards, it all went downhill with him and his work nowadays is terribly underwhelming. Of course, I shouldn't forget to mention the terrific cast (Wil Wheaton, River Phoenix, Corey Feldman, Jerry O'Connell, Kiefer Sutherland, Richard Dreyfuss, John Cusack), especially those 4 kids were just downright amazing, giving some of the best children performances you'll ever see. The whole melancholy and sadness generated by this movie was even more grabbing when you think that the great River Phoenix would die only 7 years later. To conclude, this flick is even better than I remembered, it is a great classic and it is definitely worth a look, especialy if you like the genre.

Dear God... What the hell happened to Nicolas Cage?!? For many years, I have been defending this guy, arguing that he was actually a very good actor. However, every movie coming out starring him is a new blow to his career and he makes it really hard to take his side... Only in 2011, he has made 'Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance', 'Trespass, 'Seeking Justice', 'Season of the Witch' and this movie. So far, I have already seen this movie, 'Season of the Witch' and 'Ghost Rider' and they all ended up on my top 10 worst movies of 2011... This time, it is basically some kind of grind house kind of feature and you could think that Cage would be great in this with his typical over-the-top acting style. Well, no, he wasn't really good I'm afraid. Amber Heard tried really hard but I didn't care for her character either and William Fichtner was the only one who managed to make his character a little bit more entertaining. Basically, the whole thing completely bored me from the beginning until the end and I didn't core for the story, the characters, the dialogs or the action scenes whatsoever. Finally, I have to admit that it was pretty neat that they gave some 3D glasses with the DVD but after 5 minutes, we switched to the regular version because it looked truly awful in 3D. To conclude, even though this flick had the potential to be better than the usual garbage provided by Nicolas Cage, it was eventually not much better and the whole thing is not worth a look whatsoever.

Even though some people believe this movie doesn't deserve so much praise, you can't possibly deny its huge impact on motion picture history. Basically, it is one of those flicks that you could/should watch every 10 years. Indeed, the first time I watched it, I was about 16 years old and, of course, I had some huge expectations and, to be honest, I thought it was slightly disappointing. Indeed, even though I did like it, it didn't really grab me like, for example, 'Goodfellas' did. The point is that Scorsese's masterpiece is full of energy, wildly entertaining, pretty much in-your-face and really accessible for younger viewers. Coppola's masterpiece, on the other hand, is a total different kind of ball game. Indeed, it is really subtle, quiet, slow paced, really meditative and, quite frankly, it went over my head when I was younger. So, I re-watched it, 10 years later, with my wife and this time, I was really blown away by the whole thing. Indeed, this time, I was able to appreciate this masterpiece in all its perfection. Whereas 'Goodfellas' was basically shouting at me about its awesomeness, this movie was actually whispering about its greatness and I wasn't able to hear it the first time around. Basically, the story was just spellbinding, the cast was great and Coppola was absolutely at the top of his game (this guy basically ruled the 70's anyway). To conclude, it deserves all the praises it has received, it is a great masterpiece and it is a must-see for any decent movie lover.