Reviews by johanlefourbe

I have never heard of this flick before but since there was a rather impressive cast I was rather eager to watch it. And, indeed, the cast (Morgan Freeman, Kevin Spacey, Justin Timberlake, LL Cool J) was pretty cool and the actors gave some decent performance. Furthermore, at least, at first, the movie had a nice atmosphere but, unfortunately, the story was rather messy and after a while, I kind of lost interest in the whole thing. Unsurprisingly, after some poor test screenings, the film was released direct-to-DVD . Apparently, this movie was another failed attempt Justin Timberlake’s career as a leading man (as a matter of fact, it was even his first ‘real’ acting part). Eventually, almost 10 years later, it seems that Timberlake has developped as solid career as a supporting actor in some interesting movies like ‘Alpha Dog’, ‘Black Snake Moan’, ‘The Social Network’ or ‘Inside Llewyn Davis’ but everytime he gets the lead like for ‘Friends with Benefits’, ‘In Time’ or ‘Runner Runner’, it turns out to be a flop. Anyway, the whole thing turned out to be rather disappointing but it's too bad because it actually had some potential but, eventually, it is not really worth a look.

Jennifer Aniston must be one of the most frustrating actress I know. I mean, she is quite charming and she seems to be rather talented but, honestly, she always plays the same role in the same average and predictable romantic comedies and, at this point, it is getting pretty tiresome. She made this flick right in the middle of her career in ‘Friends’, it was actually one of her very first movies, apparently, it was her first lead part and it is actually a fine example about why her career has become so disappointing. Indeed, it is basically one of those romantic-comedies with a high concept, the plot didn't make much sense and it was not really entertaining whatsoever. At least, Kevin Bacon stole the show as usual but even him didn't succeed in making this movie more watchable. At the end of the day, it is a really uninspired and predictable rom-com which tried to surf on Jennifer Aniston’s new fame with ‘Friends’ (that’s probably the reason why her character felt so similar to Rachel Green). To conclude, it is not really a bad movie, but it's pretty average and it is not really worth a look, except maybe if you are a die-hard fan of Jennifer Aniston.

Catherine Hardwicke was, at first, a production designer for almost 20 years and, way before directing 'Twilight', she started her directing career with this rather amazing flick. In my opinion, 'Twilight 'was not that bad after all, at least it was way better than the terribly underwhelming sequels and with its $400 million global success, it made her the most commercially successful woman film director ever at the time. Anyway, coming back to our main feature, it was a really heartbreaking story and I thought it was actually rather frightening when you have kids of your own. Indeed, your teenage kids don’t need much to go down this terrible path and there is not much you can do to really prevent it, except hoping that they will use their good sense before doing something really stupid. Eventually, this movie was very well directed (which is even more impressive when you think that it was a directing debut) and the performances by all the actors were very impressive. I really liked the raw feeling of the whole thing and how realistic it looked, apparently, Nikki Reed wrote this movie with Hardwicke and she displayed some talent in this area but her acting career has been rather underwhelming afterwards. Anyway, to conclude, if you don't mind getting depressed when watching a movie, it is actually really good and it is definitely worth a look.

Years after years, Ken Loach came with his movies to the Cannes Film festival and, this time, he finally received the coveted Golden Palm thanks to this flick. Did it deserve it? It is difficult to tell since I have not seen all the movies in competition for that particular year but what I do know is that it was a damned fine movie. Indeed, as usual with Ken Loach, the directing was sober and completely efficient and the actors all delivered some very good performances. Furthermore, I always had a weak spot for movies dealing with politics so I thought that the story was rather spellbinding. It was also a very nice touch to have Ken Loach directing a period piece for once and it was even more interesting that he managed to keep his social-political vision. On the downside, you could argue that Ken Loach’s views were obviously biased in the favor of the Irish Republicans but he definitely had some good arguments and he developed a very strong and heartfelt drama. To conclude, I thought it was a very good flick and I think it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Ken Loach's work.

Honestly, I had absolutely no idea what to expect from this flick beforehand. Indeed, everything about it sounded terribly generic (the title, the poster, the plot,…) but, eventually, I thought it was not bad at all. Of course, the story was little bit far-fetched and it tends to go over the top from time to time but, still, I thought it was a very well made and entertaining thriller. It was directed by Jonathan Mostow who would direct some big blockbusters like ‘Surrogates’ and the even bigger ‘Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines’ but this movie was actually better in my opinion. Indeed, usually, I have a hard time to care for those preposterous action-thrillers but, this one, even though it is not very well known, was actually really fun. Above all, I enjoyed how they constantly built up the tension until the very end. On top of that, Kurt Russell delivered his usual dependable performance as your everyday man and this character was much more enjoyable that the usual tough guys that they give you in this kind of those features. Eventually, the main issue for me was the ending which was unnecessary violent in my opinion. Still, in spite of its flaws, I think it is actually quite a decent action-thriller, I believe it is really underrated and it is definitely worth a look.

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.