Reviews by johanlefourbe

Honestly, I wasn’t expecting much from this flick but since there was an interesting cast, I thought I might as well check it out. Eventually, even though it was nothing really amazing, I have to admit it, for its genre, it was not bad after all. Sure, it uses the very old gimmick of turning a supposedly ugly chick into some amazing hot girl which was hardly original but I thought it was rather well made and fairly entertaining. On top of that, I have seen a few movies with Freddy Prinze Jr. (as a matter of fact, I have seen most of his movies) and I ‘m pretty sure this movie was the least bad of them, at least, it was fairly entertaining. Above all, as I mentioned before, there was a very nice cast (Freddie Prinze Jr. , Rachael Leigh Cook, Matthew Lillard, Paul Walker, Jodi Lyn O'Keefe Kevin Pollak, Anna Paquin, Kieran Culkin, Elden Henson, Usher, Lil' Kim, Gabrielle Union, Clea DuVall,...) and only for this, I think it is worth watching the damned thing. To conclude, I thought it was a decent watch and if you don't expect anything fancy or original but if you like teen romantic comedies, you may end up enjoying this.

Soon, we will get 2 adaptations of the very famous book written by Rudyard Kipling, one directed by Jon Favreau and one directed by Andy Serkis (it will be his directing debut). I always wonder why they often release two movies back-to-back like this about the same story and, usually, it is not good fo the business. Anyway, 20 years ago, Disney already came up with another live adaptation of this tale and, to be honest, I wonder how I ended up watching it. I think I watched it mostly because Lena Headey was involved. Obviously, it never really reaches the quality of the animated version but it was still not bad at all and I thought it was definitely a nice try. Indeed, Jason Scott Lee was an interesting choice for the lead character and he gave a decent performance and the directing was rather competent. It is interesting to point out that, just like the famous animated version, this live adaptation didn’t really follow the original story written by Kipling and it would be neat to have something more faithful in the future (maybe from one of those 2 movies coming up?). Anyway, to conclude, even though it was nothing really amazing, I thought it was still a decent family feature and I think it is worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

I wasn’t really sure what to expect from this flick but since I have a weak spot for Drew Barrymore, I thought I might as well check I out. Eventually, to be honest, I wasn't really impressed by the whole thing. I mean, there was definitely some potential about the whole thing but the makers couldn’t make up their mind if they wanted to make something sexually titillating about an underage characters played by an underage actress but they still kept it politically correct which was understandable but also rather disappointing. On top of that, even though it was nice to see Drew Barrymore trying something new, I thought she was far from being really convincing in this role. However, she was not the only one to blame, the story was rather predictable and the directing was pretty damned average. Eventually, even though this flick was rather lame, they still come up with 3 sequels (starring such cuties like Alyssa Milano and Jaime Pressly) and considering the very low ratings of these sequels, I don’t think I will watch them any time soon. To conclude, I thought it was pretty weak and I think you should watch it only if you're a big Drew Barrymore fan.

Honestly, I had no idea what to expect from this flick but since there was a very nice cast, I thought I should check it out. It is always rather surprising to watch such an obscure movie with such an impressive cast (Aaron Eckhart, Ian McKellen, Brittany Murphy, Nick Nolte, Jessica Lange, William Hurt, Alan Cumming, Vera Farmiga,...). I mean, what went wrong here? What did they see in this movie which was seen by virtually no one when it was released? All this makes for a rather weird experience and this feeling was enhanced by a plot about several level of realities so it was a rather weird but still intriguing viewing. Still, to be honest, the whole thing was not entirely successful though. Indeed, it was once again one of those movies with way too many characters so many of them were rather poorly developed and some aspects of the story didn’t make much sense. Still, I think it was rather well made and the acting was definitely pretty good. To conclude, in spite of its flaw, it remains a really interesting reflection about fiction against reality and madness against sanity, I actually enjoyed it and I think it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Since I have always been a huge fan of Charles Chaplin, of course, I was really to check this flick. On top of that , this high-profile biopic was directed by Richard Attenborough who, in the same genre, managed to deliver something pretty impressive with ‘Gandhi’ released exactly 10 years earlier. Eventually, even though I had some rather high expectations, it was a decent flick but not much more than that, I’m afraid. Indeed, Chaplin was a fascinating genius but also a complex man (for example, the guy had an obvious weak spot for younger girls and kept getting married with slightly underaged women) and the movie never really managed to go deeper into this guy, to really show what was going on with him. Therefore, what you get was a by-the-numbers biopic and I couldn’t help thinking that this great artist should have deserved something more inspired and inspiring. Still, there is no doubt that Robert Downey Jr. gave a really impressive perfomance and he makes it worth to watch the damned thing just only for him. To conclude, even though the movie is far from perfect, I still liked it and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Charles Chaplin.

Honestly, I wasn’t expecting much from this flick but, somehow, I still ended up watching it. For many years now, I have kept watching movies starring Steve Martin (I have seen about 25 of them by now) but, pretty much like Eddie Murphy, most of his movies turned out to be rather lame and uninteresting. Eventually, this flick was no exception and I would go as far as saying it is even actually one of the worst he made so far. Indeed, it was just really tedious, misguided, and kind of offensing when you think about it. Above all, it was just not funny at all. Later on, I discovered to my surprise that it was actually fairly successful (On a budget of $35 million, the film became a surprise hit. It earned $132 million in the United States and an international gross of $32 million, bringing its worldwide gross to $164 million). Concerning Queen Latifah, I have to admit that a huge weak spot for her, in fact, I think she is quite gorgeous but, to be honest, she basically always plays the same part over and over again and she never really impressed me in any of her movies. To conclude, I thought the whole thing was rather embarrassing to behold and you should pretty much avoid it.

It is quite an obscure flick but since there was a decent cast, I was quite eager to check it out. Eventually, I was actually positively surprised and I though it was pretty good. Indeed, it deals with depression, a subject which is not very often developed in movies and it is a subject I find really interesting. On top of that, the directing was competent and all the actors involved (especially Emile Hirsch and Sigourney Weaver) delivered some solid performances. The story was rather depressing but it is not something I mind, if the movie is interesting enough. Back then, when it was released, it was barely seen and it actually got some rather mixed reviews but even though I have to argue that it was maybe a little too quirky for its own good, I thought it was a decent character study. Concerning Emile Hirsch, this movie was once again a showcase of his talent and it is a real pity that after his amazing turn in ‘Into the Wild’, it pretty much downwards with his once promising career. Anyway, to conclude, even though it was not a masterpiece whatsoever, I thought it was still a pretty good flick and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Honestly, I wasn’t expecting much from this flick but since I have sometimes a rather weird taste, I still wanted to check it out. On top of that, I managed to find a really cheap dvd and since I have a weak spot for Sandra Bullock, I thought I might as well check it out. To be honest, the whole thing actually did have some potential but, unfortunately, the story, the directing and the acting were all just too weak. On top of that, there was some weird, actually kind of hot, sex scene with Sandra Bullock (if I’mn not mistaken, it is the only partially nude scene she ever did) and after she became famous, she did her best to prevent this movie from being released. In fact, this scene had completely nothing to do with the rest of story but it made it (almost) worth it to watch this flick. Basically, like most of the movie stars, Bullock has one movie that really made her ashamed and that’s this movie. To be honest, it could have been worse (for example, ‘Hangmen’ in which she gave her acting debut, was seriously 10 times more abysmal in my opinion). To conclude, it is a rather weak effort and you should watch it at your own risk.

To be honest, I don't really remember why I wanted to watch this movie exactly (in fact, I think I watched the damned thing only because Debra Missing was involved which is rather weird because I’m not even a big fan of her work but whatever…). Anyway, watching this flick was definitely a mistake and, apparently, many shared my opinion since this movie was a flop at the box-office when it was released. Apparently, it was based on some old popular TV show from the 60’s with Ernest Borgnine playing the title character (he even had a small part in this movie) and I hope that this TV show was more fun than this borefest. The first major mistake they made, in my opinion, was to give Tom Arnold the lead part. Indeed, I believe that Tom Arnold doesn't have any charisma whatsoever and he shouldn't be a lead in any movie (at least, as a supporting actor, I have to admit that he can be bareable like in ‘True Lies’ for example). Still, to be honest, the rest of the cast was not really good either after all. To conclude, the whole thing was rather dull, lame and not funny at all and I think you should pretty much avoid it.

Many consider this movie to be the last masterpiece directed by Alfred Hitchcock and I was indeed quite impressed. Even though it may not be as good as his previous classics such as ‘Psycho’, ‘Vertigo’ or ‘The Birds’, it still is a damned good picture. Personally, I especially enjoyed how dark the tone was and even tough the guy has constantly made some impressive thrillers through his career, he has never made something so bleak before and it must have been quite a shock when it was released. To be honest, this gloominess made the whole thing quite intriguing to behold but it made also it difficult to really connect with this feature. It is like the fact that he, for once, didn’t use any stars but some fairly unknown actors. Indeed, the glamor was completely removed which was an interesting touch but it made the whole thing, I don’t know, a little bit dry. Still, there is no denying that, as usual with Hitchcock, the directing was quite impressive. To conclude, even though I’m not sure if it really belongs to the many masterpieces directed Alfred Hitchcock, it is still a really solid thriller and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in the great master’s work.