Reviews by johanlefourbe

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.

Back in the 80’s, Rob Reiner was one of the most successful directors at work. I mean, just check his track-record, it is quite impressive (‘This Spinal Tap’, ‘The Sure Thing’, ‘Stand by Me’, ‘The Princess Bride’, ‘When Harry Met Sally...’, ‘Misery’, ‘A Few Good Men’). But then, he made ‘North’. To be honest, I have seen this movie once and I didn’t think it was that bad after all. I mean, I thought I would watch the worst movie ever made so that’s probably why. Anyway, it was a massive flop, both financially and critically, and it seems that already 20 years later Rob Reiner has still not recovered from the damage. This flick is a pretty good example. I mean, even though it received some tepid reviews, I thought it was not bad at all and I especially enjoyed the A list cast (Kevin Costner, Jennifer Anniston, Shirly MacLaine, Mark Ruffalo, Richard Jenkins). Still, I can't say I was really fascinated by the story which felt rather convoluted to me. Of course, the whole concept was rather misguided from the start but the end-result could have been worse. To conclude, it is a rather entertaining romantic-comedy but still very routine and it doesn't really sparkle whatsoever but, somehow, I still think it is worth a look, but don’t expect anything amazing.

Honestly, I wasn’t sure what to expect from this flick but since I have a weak spot for Demi Moore, I thought I might as well give it a try. Indeed, even though she was definitely on the A list back in the 90’s, somehow, it all started to slow down for her and between 1997 ('Deconstructing Harry') and 2006 ('Bobby'), she only made 3 movies. It isn't much and you may think that she decided then to focus on quality instead of quantity. Unfortunately, I'm afraid it wasn’t really the case here... Indeed, one of those flicks was 'Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle' (obviously, not a real masterpiece) and later on she did this paranormal thriller. Eventually, it was not a success either, either financially or critically. Basically, the story was very average, it is one of those rather convoluted and underwhelming thrillers with the usual annoying twist ending. The fact that Demi Moore's acting was not really convincing didn’t help much either. On a positive note, it was fun to see Henry Ian Cusick, one of the major actors in ‘Lost’, but that was a rather small compensation. To conclude, it is not a really bad movie but it is not really worth a look either.

Even though he is way past his prime, I still try to watch all the movies starring Robert De Niro. This movie is probably one of the most obscure he has made in the last decade but it was not one of his worst (alright, it doesn’t mean much nowadays…). I hadn't heard much about this flick but I was rather intrigued since there was a rather impressive cast (F. Murray Abraham, Kathy Bates, Gabriel Byrne, Geraldine Chaplin, Robert De Niro, Émilie Dequenne, Harvey Keitel, Samuel Le Bihan, Dominique Pinon). Unfortunately, even though the story was intriguing, I can't say I was really fascinated by the whole thing and eventually, I was rather underwhelmed. The point is that I don’t really get what all these actors saw in this story. I mean, when you see all these names on the cover, you expect some massive work of Art, an award pretender, but, eventually, you get a rather tedious affair. After making some research, I found out it was based on a very acclaimed book of the same title, a book which has been adapted already twice before. So, maybe the book was great but this adaptation was rather forgettable. Still, in spite of its flaws, it remains a decent watch and I think it is worth a look somehow but don’t expect anything really amazing.

Since I’m huge fan of Clint Eastwood’s work, I was really eager to check this flick. First of all, it was not surprising that for his sophomore directing effort Clint Eastwood decided to direct a Western. Back in those days, it was the genre he was the most associated with and it was pretty much compulsory that Eastwood would star in all his directing effort otherwise the studio wouldn’t back his projects. As a result, Eastwood had to also play the lead in most of the movies he directed even he was solely interested in directing the damned thing. Anyway, back to our main feature, Clint Eastwood is the last Western living legend and it has always been a pleasure to see him kick some ass. To be honest, this flick was nothing really original whatsoever but it was very well made and entertaining enough. Out of the 4 Westerns he has directed, it was probably the least interesting one but it doesn’t mean it was bad, not at all. To conclude, I thought it was a pretty good movie, and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are looking for a good old-fashioned Western directed by and starring the great Clint Eastwood.

Honestly, I wasn’t sure what to expect from this flick but since there was a decent cast, I thought I might as well give it a try. Eventually, I thought it was not bad at all. Indeed, the mood was well set and there was a good cast (Cher, Dennis Quaid and Liam Neeson who was still rather unknown at the time). Furthermore, I thought that Cher and Dennis Quaid had a pretty good chemistry, even though it was rather disappointing that they still ended up together. Basically, it is a typical whodunit and, even though it was actually rather entertaining thanks to the intriguing characters and the work provided by the actors, the conclusion was rather underwhelming. I mean, to start with, since it is a thriller, you have the usual annoying twist and routine action scene at the end and the whole conclusion was not really satisfying (Roger Ebert further developed this failure in his own review) but it didn't ruin the movie for me. To conclude, it is nothing really original or amazing whatsoever but I thought it was a well done and entertaining thriller and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Honestly, I wasn't expecting much from this flick. Basically, it is once again one of those remakes of a popular French comedy (it is usually not a good omen...) and the fact that I found Martin Short most of the time really obnoxious didn’t help either. Eventually, I must admit it, it was not bad at all after all which was rather surprising. Short was indeed rather annoying but he didn't ruin the movie and there were actually many over the top and really hilarious scenes. I wonder if I saw the original French movie starring Gérard Depardieu and Pierre Richard (I used to find him hilarious when I was a kid). Back then, Francis Veber (who also directed this remake) made 3 movies back-to-back with those guys and these movies were big successes in France. There is a fair chance that the original was actually much better but I was still really entertained by this US version which displays the versatility of Nick Nolte, a great thespian and probably one of the most underrated actors ever. To conclude, even though it is far from being a masterpiece, I think it was decent comedy and it is definitely worth a look.

When it came out, more than 15 years ago, I saw this flick at the movie theater and, yesterday, I finally saw it again. Back then, the expectations were pretty high but it was not very well received. Indeed, this movie has a rather poor reputation but I think it is actually pretty good. First of all, I just love how baroque and decadent the whole thing looked like. Furthermore, in my opinion, the cast provided some good performances and I especially enjoyed John Cleese who was barely recognizable and, for once , he wasn't funny whatsoever but he was still pitch perfect. And obviously, it is and remains a classic but it is still quite a fascinating story. However, I have to admit it, the movie does loose some steam and focus especially during the 2nd half. On top of that, the whole thing did seem to be a huge ego-trip for Kenneth Branagh (he was the director, the lead actor and he spent way to much time without his shirt on showing off his marvelous abs). Anyway, to conclude, it is indeed far from being a masterpiece but I still think it is an interesting and entertaining adaptation and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre. 

Back then, when 'The Da Vinci code' was released, everybody trashed it but I thought it was a little bit exaggerated. In my opinion, the main issue was that the book itself wasn't actually that great for starters. Furthermore, basically half of the book is about Robert Langdon explaining some historical facts or legends which is fine on paper but quite tricky to translate on the silver screen. Anyway, I went to see this sequel with an open mind (I even saw it in the theater somehow) and I was actually positively surprised. Indeed, it was definitely more focused than the first movie and I was rather captivated by the whole story, at least until the end. Of course, the whole thing was rather preposterous but there was something quite awesome about making a thriller in the Vatican, mixing some historical facts, myths and some good old blockbuster action scenes. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the end was so over the top, seriously, my mouth fell wide open. Whereas the rest of the movie was pretty strong, this ending was just really disappointing and actually did ruin the whole thing for me. Anyway, to conclude, it is definitely not a masterpiece but I still think it is a well made and entertaining thriller and I believe it is actually worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Ever since I have been living in the Netherlands, I have been interested in the Dutch movies. In the 10 years I have been there, I have seen many movies and, I have to admit it, the Dutch movie industry is not really impressive. For example, every year, only a few Dutch movies manage to make a splash at the box-office and not really because they are really great. Indeed, one of the leading genres is the family feature which has been quite successful for many years. Personally, I think it has to do with the fact that, in the Netherlands, except for the animated features, all the movies remain in their native language and if the parents wants to watch with their kids a live action feature for a change, they basically have to watch a Dutch movie. Anyway, coming back to our main feature, it is basically another average Dutch kids flick. I mean, the special effects looked terribly lame and, above all, the story was just plain boring. On a positive note, it was kind of neat and cute that they tried to make a movie about insects but the end result was rather underwhelming. To conclude, it is a really average flick and it is not really worth a look, except maybe if you are under 6 years old.