Posted : 13 years ago on 5 February 2012 09:18
(A review of
The Big Bounce)
Elmore Leonard is behind some pretty cool stories ('Jackie Brown', 'Get shorty',...) so I thought I should check this one out. Plus, there is a very nice cast (Owen Wilson, Morgan Freeman, Gary Sinise, Charlie Sheen, Vinnie Jones, Harry Dean Stanton). Unfortunately, the end result was rather disappointing. I mean, Owen Wilson was born to play this kind of part and the rest of the cast was pretty good as well but the story was not really original, not really funny and above all, not really entertaining. You can feel there was some potential here but the plot was just too weak. The fact that it is a remake of an already weak movie doesn't help much either, I guess. To conclude, it is not really bad but I have seen much better heist movies and this one is not really worth a look.
0 comments,
Reply to this entry
Posted : 13 years ago on 4 February 2012 10:32
(A review of
Carnage)
Since I'm a huge fan of Roman Polanski, I was really eager to watch this flick and when I heard about the cast, I became even more excited. Eventually, I wasn't disappointed and I’m so amazed that this movie doesn’t get more credit. Indeed, the whole thing was just so funny and it has been a while since I laughed so much at the movie theater. Seriously, Roman Polanski always impressed me in the past but I didn't expect him to make such a hilarious dark comedy. Of course, the casting was pretty much perfect and they all gave some strong performances. I have to admit that I had my doubts when Kate Winslet was drunk as I thought that she wasn't really convincing but it wasn’t a big issue. I'm usually really critical about comedies because most of them go for the easy stupid jokes but, here, it was dealing with some recognizable human beings with a wide range of emotions. There was no trick, just 4 actors stuck in a a room with their dialogues. Fortunately, those dialogues were terrific and after 15 minutes, I couldn't wait to see what would happen next. All these characters were imperfect and rather annoying, self-righteous and arrogant but that's what made them so damned interesting. To conclude, I really loved this movie and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Polanski's work.
0 comments,
Reply to this entry
Posted : 13 years ago on 4 February 2012 09:37
(A review of
The Invention of Lying)
To be honest, I'm rather amazed that this movie has such a low rating on this website. Of course, the whole concept sounded like a lame gimmick for yet another comedy starring Jim Carrey or, even worse, Eddie Murphy. However, the man behind this was Ricky Gervais and he managed to turn this ridiculous idea into an interesting reflection on human kind and also religion. Basically, Gervais seems to share my belief that religion is a (rather ridiculous) concept that many people need because they want some simple answers to some impossible questions like what is the meaning of life and what will happen when we die. Furthermore, we are always told that lying is very bad but this movie shows that lying is something that we can’t possibly live without and it was such a fascinating thought.They also managed to get an impressive supporting cast, even though most of them had just some cameos. Still, I have to admit that not everything worked though. For example, I didn't get why Ricky Gervais’s character was so crazy about Jennifer Garner's character who was eventually just a rather dull pretty face. Anyway, to conclude, even if it was maybe not a masterpiece, I really enjoyed the damned thing, it was really funny and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Ricky Gervais's work.
0 comments,
Reply to this entry
Posted : 13 years ago on 4 February 2012 08:25
(A review of
Christopher Columbus: The Discovery)
Back then in 1992, 2 movies celebrating the discovery of America were released. Even though '1492' didn't get the best critics, compared to this mess, it was a real masterpiece. Indeed, this other version was directed by John Glenn who was mostly famous for making a few decent James Bond flicks in the past but this time his directing was not inspired at all. The title role was portrayed by a total unknown, Georges Corraface, who didn't look bad but gave a really weak performance. The rest of the cast was actually interesting (Marlon Brando, Tom Selleck, Rachel Ward, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Benicio del Toro), even though it was pretty ridiculous and unconvincing to have Tom Selleck portraying a king. The biggest mistake they made is that you never get the feeling that you are actually witnessing one of the greatest adventures of humankind and this movie follows the trend of the all the other dreadful movies Marlon Brando did at the end of his illustrious career. To conclude, the whole thing is pretty bad and patheric, it is just plain boring and not worth a look whatsoever.
0 comments,
Reply to this entry
Posted : 13 years ago on 3 February 2012 10:04
(A review of
Imagine That)
Do you know what is even worse than a movie starring Eddie Murphy? A family feature starring Eddie Murphy... Seriously, this movie was just so lame. Of course, it turned ou to be again a huge flop for Murphy when it was released and it was not a surprise, I'm afraid. I mean, the whole thing was just so embarrassing to watch and I barely laughed while watching this movie. To make things worse, was it really supposed to be fun for kids? I don't think so. I mean, during the whole thing, he played some rather mean and unpleasant guy who only started to take interest in his little daughter when he saw that it could benefit his work. Furthermore, there was nothing fun or appealing concerning the stock-market for a young audience. I mean, it could have worked if it would have been a drama about a stock-broker actually losing his mind when he starts to listen to his little daughter for advice. At least, Thomas Haden Church was not really bad but even his character became rather obnoxious after a while. Anyway, to conclude, I really didn't like the damned thing, I was bored during the whole duration and it is definitely not worth a look, even for your kids.
0 comments,
Reply to this entry
Posted : 13 years ago on 3 February 2012 10:55
(A review of
Executive Decision)
This is easily one of the most surprising and underrated action movies I have ever seen. I mean, it was surprising in the sense that I didn't expect much from it but it ended up being really entertaining. The first masterstroke was to give Steven Seagal a supporting part (after 7 starring roles in a row, it was actually his very first supporting part) and, of course, to kill him within the first 30 minutes. I mean, after this shocking scene, you know you are watching something else than the usual action flicks. The 2nd masterstroke was to have Kurt Russell playing an analist, instead of his usual tough guys. Of course, it is a rather standard action movie with a standard plot but the movie is very well made and there are many bigger or smaller details like the one I mentionned before that make the whole thing really entertaining to watch. The best way to watch this is when you know nothing about it. Anyway, to conclude, in my opinion, it is one of the most underrated action movies ever made and it is definitely worth a look.
0 comments,
Reply to this entry
Posted : 13 years ago on 3 February 2012 10:07
(A review of
Green Zone)
Following ‘[Link removed - login to see]’ and ‘[Link removed - login to see]’, Matt Damon and Paul Greengrass decided to do something completely different together this time, to the despair of their studio. Eventually, it turned out to be a huge flop when it was released but I still wanted to check it out anyway. Well, the main issue with this movie was that, from the start, you already had the answers about what was going on (Basically, there were no WMDs in Irak, in spite what the Bush administration said). So, as a viewer, it was not really rewarding to watch since there was nothing much at stake. Still, in spite of these flaws, I thought it was an entertaining flick. Indeed, Greengrass is a very talented director, the movie had a really realistic feeling and I enjoyed the decent performances delivered by the cast (Matt Damon, Brendan Gleeson, Greg Kinnear). Above all, it gave a good look (even if it was a fiction) on the war in Irak which was/is pretty dirty and rather messed up. In spite of what they say, it was eventually all about political power and intrigues and it had nothing to do with improving the life of the poor Iraki people. Anyway, to conclude, in spite of its flaws, I still think it was a well made, interesting and entertaining thriller and it is worth a look, especially if you are interested in Paul Greengrass's previous work.
0 comments,
Reply to this entry
Posted : 13 years ago on 3 February 2012 09:02
(A review of
Mission: Impossible II)
This movie is easily the least appreciated installment in the Mission Impossible franchise but I think it doesn't deserve such a bad rep. Indeed, it was the most successful installment (until 2012 when the 4th movie came out) and it was even the highest grossing movie in 2000. Of course, it has barely anything to do with Mission Impossible and it was basically a one-man-show by Tom Cruise but it didn't bother me. What bothered me was that, once again, the whole plot was based on a rogue agent, just like the 1st movie. Couldn't they come up with something else? However, their biggest mistake was to make Ethan Hunt fall in love with a female member of his team. It terribly dragged down the whole story and it was just a bad idea. There is reason why James Bond never falls in love with any woman he meets (all right, except for 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service' and 'Casino Royale'). Still, in spite of these flaws, I still think it was an entertaining action flick. Above all, the masterstroke was to hire a director with a total different style than the style used in the previous movie. Indeed, you can say whatever you want about John Woo but the guy knows how to direct action scenes and there were some gorgeous shots out there. To conclude, even if the story is rather preposterous and disappointing, it remains an entertaining and well made action flick and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in John Woo's work.
0 comments,
Reply to this entry
Posted : 13 years ago on 2 February 2012 08:45
(A review of
Escape from L.A. )
Snake Plissken is one of the most badass characters ever created and it is not a surprise that, after all these years, the finally decided to make a sequel to his first adventure. It is probably the most charismatic character in Kurt Russel's career and, once again, he delivered a solid performance. The main issue is that, unfortunately, the plot is way too similar to the first installment. I mean, you could almost consider it a remake instead of a sequel, seriously. I guess the die-hard fans must have been very glad but, honestly, I thought it was rather disappointing. I mean, it could have been awesome to see Snake Plissken in some new adventures in this doomed futuristic world but I guess, it wasn't meant to be. By the way, in my opinion, it was also the last decent flick directed by John Carpenter. After that, he made only 3 movies ('The Ward', 'Ghosts of Mars, 'Vampires') and all were rather worthless, if you ask me. To conclude, it is a rather disappointing sequel but it is still pretty entertaining and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you missed Snake Plissken.
0 comments,
Reply to this entry
Posted : 13 years ago on 2 February 2012 08:08
(A review of
Mission: Impossible (1996))
Back then, Tom Cruise was the biggest movie star in the world and Brian De Palma was one of the most highly regarded directors. But the time has changed and for De Palma, it would be his last hit... Anyway, it was back then a huge success and 16 years later and it has now become a bonafide franchise with already 5 installments. This first movie is probably the most faithful to the TV-show and I really liked how that the whole movie took place in Europa. Anyway, De Palma is definitely here in his element and the directing was just very efficient. Furthermore, you had here an impressive international cast (Tom Cruise, Jon Voight, Emmanuelle Béart, Jean Reno, Ving Rhames, Kristin Scott Thomas, Vanessa Redgrave, Emilio Estevez) and they all gave some decent performances, except maybe Emmanuelle Béart who never managed to find the right tone (no surprise she didn't breakthrough abroad afterwards). Still, I wasn't convinced by the whole thing. In my opinion, the main issue is that the plot was just too far-fetched and, as a result, after 20 minutes, I didn't care much about what was going on, as long as it looked good. Still, it is a rather entertaining spy movie with 2 of the most amazing action scenes ever made and it is definitely worth a look.
0 comments,
Reply to this entry
Login
Home
582 Lists
7745 Reviews
Collections