
Posted : 12 years, 11 months ago on 17 June 2012 08:46
(A review of
Mr. Brooks)
Since I kept hearing good things about this flick, I became really curious about it. First of all, I think it was awesome to see Kevin Costner portray a psychopath. Costner became a superstar playing heros, righteous men and such and it was brilliant to see him playing the exact opposite. The other masterstroke was to choose William Hurt to portray his 'imaginary' friend. Futhermore, both men delivered some strong performances so the basic elements were there and made up for an enjoyable thriller. Unfortunately, there were a few things which didn't work out so well. First of all, I thought that Demi Moore was far from being convincing. I mean, she's supposed to be some cop but compared to how impressice Costner and Hurt were, she was just not really believable. There was aslo another annoying subplot concerning Dane Cook which didn't work for me either. A part from that, it is actually an entertaining and rather intense psychological thriller. To conclude, in spite of its flaws, I thought it was pretty good and it is definitely worth, especially if you like the genre.

0 comments,
Reply to this entry

Posted : 12 years, 11 months ago on 17 June 2012 08:20
(A review of
Things Change)
I'm not a huge fan of David Mamet's work as a director but I was rather curious to check his sophomore directing effort, even though it seems to be a rather obscure flick. Basically, it is a minimalist gangster movie with some dry humor. It features two strong performances by Don Ameche and Joe Mantegna who perfectly deliver the typical Mamet's dialog. There were also William H. Macy and Felicity Huffman with small parts. There is some kind of poetry to the proceedings and it defers with your typical gangster flick in the sense that there is no shooting, no chases, no violence whatsoever, at least, not on the screen. No, it is a character driven picture and I thought it made a very interesting viewing. Still, it remains an acquired taste since nothing much happpens during the whole thing and the tempo is rather slow. To conclude, even though it is a rather osbcure flick, it is actually pretty good and definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in David Mamet's work.

0 comments,
Reply to this entry

Posted : 12 years, 11 months ago on 16 June 2012 02:52
(A review of
Bait)
To be honest, I wasn’t really sure what to expect from this flick but since it was directed by Antoine Fuqua and was starring Jamie Foxx, I thought I might as well check it out. First of all, even though Jamie Foxx originally started out with some comic parts and, eventually, became an Academy Award winner, in between, he actually tried to become an action movie star but it never really worked out very well. I mean, it seemed at first like a good idea, to combine his wisecrack humour with some badass action scenes which is reminiscent of Bruce Willis, probably my favourite action movie star ever. The problem was that, in this movie, his character should have been entertaining but, eventually, he turned out to be more obnoxious than anything else. Furthermore, Antoine Fuqua is a decent director but the whole thing was rather uninspired and bland in my opinion. Sure, you had some unexpected twists but they felt pretty random and obligatory. Above all, I was rather bored by the whole thing and even though it may not have been one of the worst action movies I have ever seen, it was still pretty much unremarkable. Anyway, to conclude, it is a rather average action flick and it is not really worth a look, even if you like the genre.

0 comments,
Reply to this entry

Posted : 12 years, 11 months ago on 16 June 2012 02:24
(A review of
Unstoppable)
Since it was the last movie directed by Tony Scott which I hadn't seen yet, I definitely had to see it at some point. I have to admit that I'm not really a big fan of action movies since most of them are rather preposterous and predictable. However, this one turned out to be quite enjoyable. Indeed, Tony Scott was one of the best action movie directors and it definitely showed on the screen. I mean, how could you make an exciting movie about such a static and inert thing such as a train?!? But Scott did pull it off and, for 90 minutes, I was actually wondering what would happen next. For the 5th time around, Denzel Washington was working again with this director and he delivered one of his usual performances, the righteous man under a terrible ordeal. To be honest, it could be nice if he did something else once a while but he does it so well, I won't blame him. Honestly, Washington and Pine didn’t have actually much to do and actually nothing much happened during the whole thing but, surprisingly, it was still quite entertaining and I think it had to do with the fact that they chose a realistic approach and it worked very well. Anyway, to conclude, even though the whole thing was nothing amazing, it was still a well made and entertaining action flick and it is worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

0 comments,
Reply to this entry

Posted : 12 years, 12 months ago on 15 June 2012 02:15
(A review of
Memphis Belle)
Even though Michael Caton-Jones is far from being a great director, I always had a weak spot for his work so I was really eager to watch his sophomore effort. Eventually, it was a pretty good WII flick, maybe not really original, but definitely entertaining. I enjoyed above all the solid directing by Caton-Jones and there was also a nice cast filled with some interesting young actors (Matthew Modine, Eric Stoltz, D.B. Sweeney, Billy Zane, Sean Astin, Harry Connick Jr., David Strathairn, John Lithgow, Jane Horrocks). By the way, what happened to Matthew Modine?!? This guy showed up in this and two other great WWII flicks ('Birdy' and 'Full Metal Jacket') but it seems that he never really had his breakthrough and we don't hear much from him anymore. Anyway, even though it is now a rather obscure flick, I think it remains a solid WWII feature with a decent mix between the harsh realities and glamorization of War. It was probably a plus that there was no huge star and, this way, you were able to care for them as a group instead of focusing on one specific character. To conclude, I thought it was pretty good and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

0 comments,
Reply to this entry

Posted : 12 years, 12 months ago on 15 June 2012 12:52
(A review of
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country)
I already saw this flick but since it was a while back and since I have it on DVD, I thought I might as well check it out again. Well, following the abysmal 5th entry, they gave us once again and for the last time, the original crew and, I must say, it is one of my favorite Star Trek flicks. Indeed, at last, they gave us some decent special effects, still nothing mind-blowing though but compared to the cheesy stuff they gave us in all the previous movies, it was way better and I also enjoyed all these weird looking aliens. Furthermore, it was their best story so far, it was really entertaining and finally, the Klingons had a central part. I never understood why in the previous movies the Klingons were barely used. Furthermore, the original cast was there including a few guests (Kim Cattrall, Kurtwood Smith, Christopher Plummer, Iman, Christian Slater) and Plummer was pretty awesome, as usual, but I wasn't so sure of Kim Cattrall as a Vulcan. Maybe it is too bad they didn't develop more the whole concept concerning the Klingons needing help when they were in fact the archenemy. Anyway, to conclude, even if it was nothing really groundbreaking, it was still an entertaining flick, a great farewell for this mighty crew, and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

0 comments,
Reply to this entry

Posted : 12 years, 12 months ago on 15 June 2012 07:38
(A review of
Death Becomes Her)
When I was about 12 years old, I actually saw this flick at the movie theater when it was released. To be honest, I'm not sure if it was really appropriate or anything for me to watch it at that age but I had a good time and I eventually never forgot it. Eventually, I watched it again 20 years later and, to be honest, I thought it was still pretty good. Basically, it is a very dark and sardonic comedy directed by Robert Zemeckis. Furthermore, you had a pretty cool cast (Meryl Streep, Goldie Hawn, Bruce Willis, Isabella Rossellini) and they all delivered some decent performances, above all, Bruce Willis who played against his usual type very well here. On top of that, the special effects which were quite awesome when I was a kid and still hold up pretty good nowadays (You can say whatever you want about Robert Zemeckis but the guy is and has always been a special effects wizard). I must admit that the story was rather messy and it is not surprising since the film underwent some major re-editing after some negative feedback was received during the test screenings. I guess I like it above all out of nostalgia but I still think it is a nice black comedy. To conclude, it is a rather forgotten and obscure dark feature but I think it is actually worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

0 comments,
Reply to this entry

Posted : 12 years, 12 months ago on 14 June 2012 08:46
(A review of
Anna and the King)
I wasn't expecting much from this flick but since Jodie Foster is one of my favorite actress, I thought I should still check it out. First of all, I haven't seen the original movie so I couldn't compare both. Anyway, my wife loved it but I didn't really like it very much. I mean, come on! I have seen 'The Last Emperor' which was really mesmerizing and, for me, this is just a pale and romanticized version. The sets, the costums, everything look prettty good and Jodie Foster and Chow Yun Fat both give some decent performances but what a boring story... The whole thing was just really predictable and uninspiring, in my opinion. Ok, nowadays, Jodie Foster doesn't do anything really amazing but she used to be an amazing actress back in the days and it is quite sad to see her end up here. I mean, I couldn't help thinking while watching this that she purely did this gig for the paycheck. I guess it is also a matter of taste, I mean, if you are into those romantic flicks, you would probably enjoy it more than me but I was rather bored during the whole thing. To conclude, I didn't really like it and I don't think it is really worth a look.

0 comments,
Reply to this entry

Posted : 12 years, 12 months ago on 13 June 2012 10:07
(A review of
Love's Labour's Lost)
In 2011, Kenneth Branagh had a rather impressive come-back as a director with 'Thor' but, honestly, none of his movies he made during the 2000's were either critical or financial successful and it seems that most of those movies were barely seen. It is rather surprising since Branagh was really succesfull in the 90's. Anyway, he started the 2000's with yet another Shakespeare adaptation, it definitely belongs to his most obscure work and it took me years to find this on DVD. The end-results was ok but nothing much than that, I'm afraid. I mean, first of all, expect from Branagh, you have a B cast (Alessandro Nivola, Alicia Silverstone, Natascha McElhone, Matthew Lillard, Emily Mortimer, Nathan Lane, Timothy Spall) and they were not bad but compared to the all-star cast of 'Much Ado About Nothing', it is definitely another kind of ball game. So, the story is kind of weak, it mixes Shakespeare with some musicals songs and dances, a whole bunch of things which I'm not really fond of so, even though I have the utmost respect for the endeavour, I can't say I really enjoyed it. Still, Kenneth Branagh is and remains a great Shakespeare master and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

0 comments,
Reply to this entry

Posted : 12 years, 12 months ago on 13 June 2012 08:50
(A review of
Agora)
I was quite blown away by 'Mar adentro' which was basically the best Spanish movie I have ever seen so I was really eager to watch Alejandro Amenabar’s following directing effort. I was rather amazed that this movie was barely seen and quickly forgotten. Indeed, it might not have been Amenabar's best movie so far but I thought it was still pretty good. Basically, it was dealing with philosophy, science, religion and love and most of it was actually quite spellbinding. The main issue was that it was probably too ambitious and all those ideas were not really well developed after all. For example, there were not one but two romances around Hypatia but I understand why they added those. Indeed, it was to add some human dimension to these grand scale events but those romances were more annoying than anything else eventually. Furthermore, the movie was fairly anti-Christian since the Christians were portrayed as merciless bullies. Of course, they destroyed some invaluable books and artifacts in the past but so did the Muslims, the Jews, the Pagans or any other religion. Eventually, the message was really striking but the execution was rather heavy-handed. Anyway, to conclude, in spite of its flaws, it was still an intelligent film, something rare nowadays, and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Religion.

0 comments,
Reply to this entry