Reviews by johanlefourbe

Back in the 80's, John Landis did direct some pretty cool flicks (‘Animal House’, ‘The Blues Brothers’, ‘An American Werewolf in London’, ‘Trading Places’) but I'm afraid he has nowadays pretty much lost his touch. Apparently, Landis made this movie after getting so frustrated with the changes the studio made to ‘Blues Brothers 2000’ and he decided to make something for himself and this flick was the result. Well, I haven’t seen ‘Blues Brothers 2000’ yet but I really wonder if this movie was any kind of improvement. Concerning Nastassja Kinski, the result was also rather sad. Indeed, no matter how bad the movie can be, she is always very charming but it's too bad she keeps showing up in the most average flicks such as this one. Indeed, this movie was just boring and neither the plot or the characters were interesting whatsoever. Even if there was a rather decent cast (Billy Zane, Michael Biehn, Rob Schneider, Lara Flynn Boyle, Thomas Haden Church, Adrian Paul, Dan Aykroyd), they couldn’t make this plot more interesting. Eventually, I have seen worse and it is not really a bad movie but it is not really worth a look either, even if you enjoyed the previous work done by John Landis.

After ‘Unforgiven’, it is probably my favorite Western directed by Clint Eastwood. Indeed, the first thing I really enjoyed with this flick, is that the main character portrayed by Eastwood was a throwback to his most legendary role, ‘the man with no name’ , immortalized in all those great Spaghetti Westerns directed by the great master Sergio Leone. Apparently, this time, this character was also a ghost which is something, I must confess, I completely missed when I watched this flick so I guess I should double-check this when I get the opportunity. Anyway, if ‘Unforgiven’ was really brilliant because it was a very grim and, my opinion, a very original take on your typical Western figures and mythology, this one was on the other hand actually pretty straightforward and it was its only real weakness. However, even though it doesn’t break any new ground, it was still really entertaining. Indeed, even though it did lack in originality, it was still a very fine picture made by one of the most iconic figures in this genre. As a result, the directing was pretty flawless and Clint Eastwood was, as usual, completely charismatic, really convincing and a total bad-ass, the kind of guy you’d rather have on your side. To conclude, even though it is a rather classic Western, I really enjoyed it and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Out of sheer curiosity, I thought I should check this one out. Oh boy! That was a big mistake.... The whole thing was just not funny or entertaining whatsoever. I'm not sure which sequels was the worst one but none of them reached the level of the 1st installment (which wasn't really a masterpiece anyway but at least, it was quite entertaining). Still, I must admit it, the opening scene with Dr. Phil and Shaquille O'Neal was actually quite hilarious so I would say this movie was the best sequel but it doesn't mean much... Once again, it was directed by David Zucker, one of those guys responsible for ‘Airplane!’, allegedly the best movie in the spoof genre, and 25 years later, he is directing some worthless sequels probably some of the worst movies in this genre. It is quite sad and, concerning Anna Faris, you might wonder if she will ever recover from the damage done to her career and if she will ever be taken seriously as an actress. Eventually, for some weird reasons, they decided to make yet another sequel (which I haven’t seen yet) and it was eventually another flop. To conclude, at the end of the day, it is pretty bad and you should pretty much avoid it at all cost.

Since I kept hearing good things about this flick (if I’m not mistaken, it was even on the list ‘1001 movies you must see before you die’ at some point) so I had some rather high expectations before watching it. Apparently, it was a massive critical success in Australia and it was then also heralded as well abroad. However, I must admit it, I was eventually rather disappointed by the whole thing. I mean, it was a good movie, no doubt about it and I really enjoyed the directing and the acting as well but, honestly, even though the story was interesting enough, it was nothing mind-blowing whatsoever in my opinion. Somehow, it was reminiscent of other multi-layered features (or hyperlink features) such as ‘Magnolia’ or ‘Babel’ and some viewers seem to suggest that it is a very subtle feature with a lot going on in the subtext and the symbolic but, honestly, I was not entirely convinced. Personally, I thought the whole thing was mildly entertaining and interesting but, not much more than that, I’m afraid. To conclude, even though I might not be an Australian masterpiece after all, it is still a very well made detective story and it is definitely worth a look.

Honestly, I wonder how I ended up watching this. I guess I was above all attracted by the (voice) cast but, also, even though I'm an atheist, I think religion is a fascinating subject and I always enjoyed (good) movies about it. Apparently, this movie gets a lot of love (just check the rating in Imdb) but I think it is because it is rather faithful and respectful of the material and, therefore, religious folks really loved it. Honestly, you might wonder why they chose to go with claymation but, from a technical point of view, this flick was rather well made and it was a nice watch. The fact that I always had a weak spot for claymation might have helped as well. Still, like I said before, it was rather faithful, at least, according to what I knew about the holy scripture and while it was therefore satisfying for the really religious viewers among us, I thought it was as a result rather tedious and I can't say I was blown away by the whole thing. I mean, I hoped they would show something different or something I didn't know but it was not something to expect with such a feature. To conclude, even though I don’t think it was really amazing, it remains a decent religious feature and it is worth a look.

Even though I wasn’t sure what to expect from this flick, a Western starring Clint Eastwood is always a treat, so I was really eager to check it out. The fact that it was directed by the great Don Siegel made it even more interesting. If I’m not mistaken, it was the 2nd movie he made with Clint Eastwood, the first one being ‘Coogan’s Bluff’ and they would make almost 4 movies back to back ending with their seminal classic ‘Dirty Harry’. However, I wasn't really convinced by the addition of Shirley MacLaine in the mix but she didn't bother me much. On the other hand, it was nice to have a strong female character in a Western for once but, somehow, it didn’t connect with this one. Originally, Elizabeth Taylor was linked to play this part but, for various reasons, it didn’t happen and, apparently, Shirley MacLaine didn’t get along with Don Siegel and even Clint Eastwood didn’t really know what to do with her. Eventually, it is not really a revolutionary flick, Eastwood basically plays the same character he has always been playing so far but it remains an entertaining Western and I think it is worth a look, especially if you are looking for a good old Western starring Clint Eastwood.

I already saw this movie a couple of times times but since it was a while back and since I'm planning to watch 'Clerks 3' pretty soon on Netflix, I thought I might as well check it out again. Since I'm a huge fan of 'Clerks', of course, I really had to see this flick when it came out. Well, eventually, this sequel was unfortunately not as good as its predecessor but it was to be expected and I stil enjoyed the damned thing. First of all, even though some might argue that this movie had a more polished professional look, I actually missed the raw look and the whole thing didn't feel as authentic as the first time. Indeed, whereas the Quick Stop felt genuine because, well, it was actually a genuine convenience store, this time around, the fast-food restaurant felt fake and it figures because it was made up for this movie. Seriously, it would have been so awesome if they could have used a real fast-food chain but it was mere wishfull thinking since there is no way that a real fast-food chain would have given their approval. Furthermore, Brian O’Halloran and Jeff Anderson have never been some great actors but the dialogues were so great with the first installment so you didn’t notice or care for this lack of skills. However, 12 years later, they didn’t improve as actors but, at least, Kevin Smith’s dialogues are still pretty funny and he managed to bring here and there some hilarious scenes. Eventually, as I mentioned before, in spite all these flaws, I still really enjoyed the damned thing though. Indeed, it was just awesome to see again those characters I loved so much 12 years later and even though the whole thing was maybe nothing really amazing, it is definitely worth a look and a must see for any respectable fan of Kevin Smith's work.

Since I kept hearing good things about this flick, I thought I should eventually check it out. Indeed, even though it was a rather small independent film, and despite never holding the number one spot at the American box office, the movie went on to earn a massive $369 million. Eventually, a couple of years later, it would loose the 1st place as the highest-grossing independent film of all time, a spot taken by ‘The Passion of the Christ’. To be honest, even though I thought it was pretty good, it wasn't really mind-blowing in my opinion. What I particularly enjoyed is that the romantic leads really looked like real people and not like your typical Hollywood stars like Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie. However, the story was not very original and rather predictable. Concerning Nia Vardalos, it seemed to be a big fairy tale for her, as she started this story in a one-woman play called ‘My Big Fat Greek Wedding’ which was then turned into a huge success at the box-office. So , it seemed that she had a bright future ahead of her but she didn’t get much success since then. Still, to conclude, it is a rather entertaining and well made romantic comedy and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

When is the last time that Ivan Reitman has directed a hit? Back in the 80’s, he has directed some major classics like ‘Ghost Busters’ but in the 90’s, his movies were already becoming rather underwhelming and, nowadays, his work is not really worth a look anymore. This time, the fact that Uma Thurman was involved was not much reassuring. I mean, I have a lot of respect for her but, for every good movie she makes, she makes at least 5 very average or even bad movies. This flick is a good example of how disappointing their careers have become for both of them. In this age of massive blockbusters about super-heroes, the concept was not bad at all and rather original but the end result was just so underwhelming. Indeed, at the end of the day, the story was lame, the jokes were not funny and I was bored by the whole thing. Basically, it was pretty tricky to mix your average super-hero feature with a romantic-comedy and the makers seriously failed to deliver something decent. To conclude, even though this project did have some potential, it was eventually a rather tedious comedy and I don’t think is really worth a look, even if you are interested in Ivan Reitman’s work.