Reviews by johanlefourbe

Honestly, it is quite an obscure flick and I had no idea what to expect here but since there was a pretty cool cast, I thought I might as well give it a try. Apparently, not only virtually nobody went to see this flick but it was also a huge critical flop when it was released. Indeed, it was so bad that Roger Ebert really despised the whole thing and he even choose it as the worst movie of the year. To be honest, even though I thought it was indeed pretty weak, I didn’t think it was so awful and it didn’t even end up in my list of the Top 10 worst movies released in 1996. Even so, there is no doubt that this movie was indeed rather messy. But, at least, there was indeed a nice cast even if they must have regretted to be attached to this project (Ellen Barkin, Gabriel Byrne, Richard Dreyfuss, Jeff Goldblum, Diane Lane, Burt Reynolds, Kyle MacLachlan, Angie Everhart,...). Anyway, the directing was very average and the story was neither really dramatic, funny or entertaining whatsoever. To conclude, even though I have seen worse, the whole thing was pretty weak and I don’t think it is worth a look.

When I was a kid, without daring watching the damned thing, I thought that ‘Critters’ looked awesome and pretty scary. Eventually, it took me about 20 years to finally watch this movie and I have to admit that it was rather harmless and pretty lame after all. So, you wonder why I would bother watch yet a 2nd sequel in this case? Well, in fact, the main reason I ended up watching this franchise is because I bought a (very cheap) dvd box with all the movies. The other reason I wanted to watch this 3rd installment was because there was Leonardo DiCaprio in it but honestly, it wasn’t really worth it though. I mean, sure, it was fun to see a very young DiCaprio giving a pretty average child performance (was he really 15-16 years old when he shot this?!? He looked so much younger) but, after 5 minutes, I'm afraid the fun was already pretty much gone. Basically, they just repeated again and again what happened in the previous movies and you can feel that this franchise was getting seriously lame at this point. So, I didn’t really like the damned thing but if you're into this kind of things, you may enjoy it more than I did but otherwise, you should probably avoid it.

Last year (2014), I saw ‘Exodus: Gods and Kings’ and since it was directed by Ridley Scott, I had some pretty high expectations but, unfortunately, it turned out to be one of the most disappointing movies released that year. The main reason was probably because this tale has been adapted so many times before and, above all, way better. This version directed by Cecil B. DeMille is already almost 60 years old but it still considered as one of the best. To be honest, from the same era, I actually prefer ‘Ben Hur’ which is truly an amazing picture. I mean, I don't mind an old movie from time to time, especially if it is well made like this one. Still, it is really over the top, lasts almost 4 hours and even though I find this subject interesting, I'm usually more interested by something more sober. At least, it was more fun than reading the actual Bible (I did try to read the damned thing but after a couple of 100s of pages, I got bored out of my mind and couldn’t finish it) and Charlton Heston and Yul Brynner were perfectly cast. To conclude, even though I’m not a huge fan, it is still a solid classic and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Even though for at least 7 years, Lindsay Lohan seemed to be the poster child of a young star going a-wire, in the last couple of years, Amanda Bynes managed to show that, in fact, it could be even worse. It's a pity because, when Amanda Bynes started her career some time ago, you could see she had some potential. Anyway, I won’t go too much into details but the girl seems to have some major issues. Pretty much like Lohan, the whole thing is pretty sad. I mean, Amanda Bynes was never really a great actress, but at least, as she was popular and pretty charismatic. Unfortunately, before her meltdown, she was really chosing only the most worthless movies and this one was a very good example. Indeed, the story was just lame, predictable and not funny at all. Basically, the whole appeal was supposed to lie on Bynes’s charisma but even though she tried really hard, I was really bored by the whole thing. I mean, sure, she was playing the lead but, with such a lame concept, she should had rather focused on some more interesting parts like in ‘Hairspray’ or ‘Easy A’. Anyway, to conclude, the whole thing was a complete waste of time and you should just avoid it, even if you are a die-hard fan of Amanda Bynes.

Basically, this movie is really a 80's classic and, therefore, I was really eager to check it out. Back then, William Hurt was a really hot actor, starring every year in the movies with the highest profile and this movie was definitely one of those. Apparently, Holly Hunter replaced Debra Winger at the last moment and got this part which pretty much launched her career. Basically, this tale is pretty much a rather straighforward love triangle and the whole thing therefore does sometimes sound like a soap opera but it does take place in a fascinating environment, in a network news department, and you can feel that that they did their best to create something realistic here. On top of that, the trio of actors involved, William Hurt, Albert Brooks and Holly Hunter all gave some really solid performances. For James L. Brooks, following ‘Terms of Endearment ‘, it was another big critical success and it was eventually nominated for 7 Academy Awards (ok, it didn’t win anything eventually but still). To conclude, I thought it was a really solid feature, probably one of the best dealing with this subject, and I think it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Again, another very bad movie with Tim Allen... Honestly, beforehand I had some rather low expectations but it was even worse than what I thought it would be. I mean, I keep watching the movies starring Tim Allen but they are all worthless which is something quite impressive (of course, the Toy Story trilogy was awesome but even Allen with his bad karma couldn't mess up with those jewels). As a matter of fact, I'm not sure if it is really his fault, it seems rather that he just picks up the worse movies. Anyway, at least, it was a pleasure to see Robert Downey Jr though but it wasn't enough to save this disaster... I mean, the story was just terrible (is it remake? was the original version any good? Is it possible to make a good movie from such a tedious premise? Honestly, I really don't care...), the characters were not interesting whatsoever (expect of course, for the great Robert Downey Jr but he could play a living banana and still be great) and the whole thing just bored me to death. To conclude, I have seen worse movies but it is still a damned average familly feature and it is definitely not worth a look.

No matter what everybody says, I will always have a weak spot for Val Kilmer. Indeed, I think he has a lot of talent and his older movies are always worth watching. Alright, I have to admit that this career has been seriously disappointing for ar least 5 or even 10 years at least and most of his movies usually end up nowadays in the direct-to-dvd bin. However, in the mid-90's, his status was quite different and the guy was pretty much on the A list. Indeed, at the time, he just had a massive box-office success with 'Batman Forever' and he actually turned down the sequel to be in this movie. To be honest, I'm not really familiar with the TV-show but I thought that the whole thing had a nice premise so it could have been something. However, the execution was really poor and the final result was a predictable and very average flick. To conclude, even though it wasn't really awful, it was still a rather weak feature and I don't think it is really worth a look and it's too bad because it really had some potential but I don't think it is really worth a look.

When I was a kid and started to watch more movies on my own, I was at first interested by action movies (I was just 12 years old so that’s hardly surprising) and I wonder if I did watch this flick back in those days. Anyway, 20 years later, I watched the damned thing and, to be honest, I thought it was pretty weak. I know, you're not supposed to take that kind of movies too seriously but I thought it was seriously underwhelming. I mean, sure, the actions scenes were decent and Arnold Schwarzenegger was as usual pretty badass but everything else was just terrribly weak. Indeed, the story was lame, the dialogs were lame, the acting was lame and the only thing which was not bad was the soundtrack which was quite surprising since most of the movies from the 80’s had usually some of the most awful soundtracks ever made. To conclude, even though it might not be a really bad movie, I still think it is a rather weak action flick and I think you should watch it only if you are a die hard fan of Anorld Schwarzenegger or a fan of those cheesy action flicks from the 80's.

To be honest, I wasn’t really sure what to expect from this flick but since it was David Lean’s directing debut, I was really eager to check it out. Indeed, it is very old, more than 70 years old as a matter of fact, and yet it is still pretty good even compared to more current movies. Basically, it follows a British Naval ship and you get to see the tale going from its construction to its sinking during action in World War II and you get to learn the survivors through some flashbacks. It was a rather straighforward approach but I thought it was really effective. Even though the whole thing was a Noel Coward project (he was directing, writing the damned thing and also playing the lead), this movie would be mostly remembered as David Lean's directing debut (Apparently, Coward was nervous about this directing debut and someone suggested him to work with David Lean who was considered at the time as the best editor in the UK) . After this picture, Lean would go on making some of the biggest classics in motion picture history. To conclude, even though it was nothing really amazing, I thought it was still a decent war feature and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in David Lean’s work.