My feed

johanlefourbe added 1 item to A Complete Review of George Miller's work list

Cast : Tilda Swinton, Idris Elba What was it about? A lonely scholar, on a trip to Istanbul, discovers a Djinn who offers her three wishes in exchange for his freedom. My two cents: Eventually, it turned out to be a very classic tale but the fact that the story was fairly derivative was not a problem at all. Indeed, it was actually pretty neat to see Miller giving his own twist on this old genre and the damned thing was visually really nice as well. Furthermore, Tilda Swinton and Idris Elba were some perfect choices to play their respective characters and they had an interesting chemistry together, up until a certain point though. Indeed, as far as I was concerned, I think it was a huge mistake that, I think right before the 3rd act, Alithea suddenly professed her love for the Djinn and, apparently, he did share the same feelings. Seriously, it came out of nowhere and, while these 2 characters definitely had an interesting connection, it seemed to be obvious that it was an intellectual connection and not a romantic one. Unfortunately, I’m afraid this approach actually pretty much derailed the whole thing and I wish they just left these characters alone in this hotel room in Istanbul debating the meaning of life and what was the basis of a great story. Indeed, I really liked the idea of this scholar specialized in narrative study who would meet an ancient Djinn who would tell her the most incredible stories that she had ever heard. Eventually, without making a single wish, by telling his tales, he would already give her the greatest gift she could ever wish for. My rating: 07/10 Check the full review

5 years, 1 month ago

johanlefourbe added 3 items to My Queue 2 - Movie backlog list

5 years, 1 month ago

johanlefourbe added 1 item to A Complete Review of Guy Ritchie's work list

Cast : Matthew McConaughey, Charlie Hunnam, Colin Farrell, Henry Golding, Hugh Grant What was it about? An American expat tries to sell off his highly profitable marijuana empire in London, triggering plots, schemes, bribery and blackmail in an attempt to steal his domain out from under him. My two cents: Well, after making an unnecessary and rather misguided new version of ‘Aladdin’ and also an unnecessary and even more misguided new version of ‘King Arthur’, Ritchie went back to his roots, to the genre that gave him his breakthrough, the British gangster flick. Of course, since I really loved ‘Snatch’, I was hoping for something seriously wild and entertaining and I had some rather high expectations but, to be honest, I actually ended up with some mixed feelings. I mean, sure, it was well made and there was a really solid cast involved and it mostly worked fine but it wasn’t exactly a home-run though. Indeed, I still missed the wild energy displayed in ‘Snatch’ and the whole thing felt sometimes a little bit flat. Furthermore, even though Hugh Grant probably gave here one of his best performances, I think it was a mistake to spend basically all the movie on his conversation with Charlie Hunnam’s character. Indeed, they were both hardly the most interesting and/or entertaining characters but we were still stuck with them through the whole duration. Above all, this framing of this story was not really entertaining and it did outstay its welcome at some point. As a result, we didn’t spend so much time with Michael Pearson and it’s a pity because having Matthew McConaughey playing a marijuana drug baron in a Guy Ritchie gangster flick was actually freaking awesome. Anyway, in spite of its flaws, it was still nice to see Guy Ritchie doing what he is best at. My rating: 07/10 Check the full review

5 years, 1 month ago

johanlefourbe added 1 item to A Complete Review of Ron Howard's work list

  Cast : Amy Adams, Glenn Close, Haley Bennett, Freida Pinto What was it about? An urgent phone call pulls a Yale Law student back to his Ohio hometown, where he reflects on three generations of family history and his own future. My two cents:  Since this movie had been really poorly received, I had some rather low expectations but, to be honest, I didn’t think it was so bad at after all. At least, the material definitely had some potential but I have to admit that this movie still never really worked though. The first issue was that Ron Howard was obviously not the right guy to handle such a dark material. I mean, this story was clearly about a highly dysfunctional family but, instead of diving into the complex mechanisms involved in this group of people, Howard always remained skin-deep and instead constantly hammered the fact that the narrator actually really loved his family. The directing was not the only problem though. Indeed, I haven’t read the book it was adapted from but the fact that it was a best-seller doesn’t necessarily mean that it was actually really great. I mean, you could assume that the main drive of this story was the deconstruction of the American Dream showing in the process that some big chunks of the American population will never come close to this ideal. Yet, the fact that this tale was actually told by a guy who came from nothing and managed to study at Yale and eventually became a venture capitalist and a successful author, basically reaching the American Dream, in my opinion, clearly undermined the whole message. Finally, the movie spent too time much on the narrator who remains seriously clueless about what was going around him, even as a grown-up, when they should have focused more on Mamaw and Bev. At least, even though their performances reeked of Oscar-bait, I still think that Amy Adams and Glenn Close were both really good in this flick. Anyway, in spite of its flaws, I think it was a decent watch though but there is no doubt that it was another rather misguided directing effort from Ron Howard. My rating: 06/10 Check the full review

5 years, 1 month ago

johanlefourbe added 1 item to A Complete Review of Clint Eastwood's work list

Cast : Paul Walter Hauser, Sam Rockwell, Olivia Wilde, Jon Hamm, Kathy Bates What was it about? Security guard Richard Jewell is an instant hero after foiling a bomb attack at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics, but his life becomes a nightmare when the FBI leaks to the media that he is a suspect in the case. My two cents: To be honest, I kinda of lost faith in Clint Eastwood a couple of years ago, however, since this movie had been rather well received, I thought I might as well check it out. Well, once again, Eastwood chose to tell the true story of an American hero and, while the end-result was at least miles better than the abysmal ‘The 15:17 to Paris’, to be honest, I still struggled to care about the damned thing. I mean, the whole thing was well made and there was definitely a solid cast involved but the story was just too pathetic for my taste. Of course, you might argue that it is how it all went down back then but, even so, this tale might have been strong on paper but I thought it was hardly fascinating. Basically, Richard Jewell was maybe a loser but it was just obvious that the guy was completely harmless and the fact that it took the FBI months to figure this out is just staggering and shows the lack of competence of everybody involved in this investigation. At least, they didn’t plant some evidence to completely frame the poor fellow. The worst character was probably the one played by Olivia Wilde though. Indeed, in my opinion, the way this character was developed was terrible and actually rather misogynist. Sure, that this journalist was some kind of vulture looking for any juicy story was not really shocking but the way she would sleep with anyone to get some intel was just pushing it too far (and, apparently, it was completely made up for this movie). Basically, you spend 2 hours with some rather pathetic characters getting stuck into a pathetic story so it didn’t feel really rewarding, even with a strong cast and a solid director like Eastwoord behind the wheel. My rating: 6/10 Check the full review

5 years, 1 month ago

johanlefourbe added 1 item to A Complete Review of Christopher Nolan's work list

Cast : John David Washington, Robert Pattinson, Elizabeth Debicki, Kenneth Branagh, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Clémence Poésy, Michael Caine What was it about? Armed with only one word, Tenet, and fighting for the survival of the entire world, a Protagonist journeys through a twilight world of international espionage on a mission that will unfold in something beyond real time. My two cents: As usual, once again, this new directing effort was my highest priority for 2020. On top of that, because of the Coronavirus, even though the movie was completed, it kept getting postponed increasing my expectations in the process but also for everyone else. Well, I wish I could say it was worth the wait, as it is usually the case with this director. Unfortunately, I'm afraid Nolan has delivered the first misfire in an otherwise pretty much flawless career so far. The saddest thing is that it was, according to Nolan, his most ambitious movie so far. Anyway, what went wrong? Well, for me, it felt like they gave permission to David Lunch to direct a blockbuster with a 200 million dollar budget. The difference would be that Lynch would probably deliver something just as weird, bonkers and nonsensical as Nolan did but, at least, it would be on purpose. I mean, it is not as if Nolan was working for the fist with a rather far out complex. However, the question I keep asking myself is 'was it really such an awesome idea?'. Well, I'm not so sure. I mean, for more than 2 hours, the viewers and the characters struggle with the dammed idea but it never became really fascinating. To make things worse, every 5 mins, they would add another completely random piece of information making the damned thing even more confusing. Concerning the cast, this time, Nolan didn't have so many characters to deal which was probably a good thing. John David Washington and Robert Pattinson were both pretty good and had some good chemistry but, unfortunately, their characters were barely developed whatsoever. Concerning Kenneth Branagh, it didn't work so well though as he was completely miscast and you might wonder why they didn't simply hire a Russian actor. Anyway, was it really some complete garbage? Of course, not. The time passed by very quickly, the soundtrack was badass, it was visually still impressive and it felt good to go back to the movie theatre after almost 6 months but there is no doubt that the damned thing was seriously disappointing. My rating: 07/10 Check the full review

5 years, 1 month ago

johanlefourbe added 1 item to A Complete Review of David Fincher's work list

Cast : Gary Oldman, Lily Collins, Amanda Seyfried What was it about? 1930's Hollywood is reevaluated through the eyes of scathing social critic and alcoholic screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz as he races to finish the screenplay of Citizen Kane. My two cents: Unfortunately, even though I really admired the work done, to be honest, I can’t say I was really blown by the end-result though. I mean, as usual with David Fincher, it was visually really impressive and I loved the way he tried to reproduce the vibe of a movie from the same time period. Furthermore, Herman Mankiewicz was an interesting character and Gary Oldman gave another really strong performance. In fact, the first issue was already the fact that, beside Mankiewicz, none of the other characters were developed whatsoever. However, the biggest problem was that, even though this movie was obviously a passion project for Fincher (it was even written by his father years ago), it was interesting at best but never really fascinating, I’m afraid. In a sense, you could compare it to ‘Once Upon a Time in Hollywood’ which was basically Tarantino’s love songs to the end-60’s Hollywood, in this case, Fincher brought us back to the 1930's Hollywood with his meticulous attention to the details but, just like with Tarantino’s acclaimed opus, I just didn’t care much like they both did. Furthermore, concerning the conception of ‘Citizen Kane’, it didn’t go really deep after all. I mean, basically, Mankiewicz locked himself up in some lodge in the middle of nowhere and delivered one of the best screenplays ever written, that’s it. Anyway, even if I didn’t care much the material, it was still another fine directing effort by David Fincher. My rating: 07/10 Check the full review

5 years, 1 month ago

johanlefourbe added 1 item to A Complete Review of Roman Polanski's work list

Cast : Jean Dujardin, Emmanuelle Seigner,, Louis Garrel, Mathieu Amalric, Melvil Poupaud, Denis Podalydès, Vincent Perez What was it about? In 1894, French Captain Alfred Dreyfus is wrongfully convicted of treason and sentenced to life imprisonment at Devil's island. My two cents: Eventually, it turned out to be tricky to judge the damned thing. Indeed, it was Polanski’s most accessible movie in years and, in production value, also one of his most ambitious. And, indeed, it was in general visually neat and very well directed. However, on the other hand, he didn’t add anything really interesting or surprising to this story so the whole thing still felt rather generic. It didn’t help that there was an obvious attempt from Polanski to make a comparison between his predicament with justice and what happened to Dreyfus, an attempt which felt terribly misguided. Indeed, even if they both might have been victim of a flawed justice system, Dreyfus was completely innocent and condemned only because he was Jewish whereas Polanski was after all probably guilty. Concerning the story itself, I’m not sure if it is well known abroad but it was one of the biggest scandals that ever took place in France so it was pretty neat to get a detailed account of what happened back then. Basically, it shows that 40 years before WWII, we were already plagued by some massive antisemitism and, obviously, not only in Germany. In my opinion, it also displayed the weakness of our modern justice system and I think it still applies nowadays, I’m afraid. Basically, even though some naive people might argue otherwise, if the background of the accused (social, economic, ethnic) fits the bill, most of the the time, he/she will be condemned and the evidence eventually never really actually really matter because it can be completely twisted as it was displayed in this movie. My rating: 07/10 Check the full review

5 years, 1 month ago

johanlefourbe added 2 items to A Complete Review of Steven Spielberg's work list

5 years, 1 month ago

johanlefourbe voted for list

Most anticipated films of 2020 (45 movies items)

5 years, 1 month ago

johanlefourbe added 1 item to Movies I can't wait to see list

5 years, 1 month ago

johanlefourbe added 1 item to A Complete Review of Ridley Scott's work list

Cast : Matt Damon, Adam Driver, Jodie Comer, Ben Affleck What was it about? King Charles VI declares that Knight Jean de Carrouges settle his dispute with his squire by challenging him to a duel. My two cents: Eventually, this movie turned out to be a flop but I think it’s a shame, not because it was really a masterpiece but because it was at least something else than another Fast & Furious, Star Wars, Marvel instalment or any other big blockbuster franchise. Anyway, at least, you can trust Good Old Ridley Scott to deliver a lavish and gritty Medieval epic as the whole thing was visually really neat and convincing. Furthermore, I really enjoyed the ‘Rashomon’ approach. Still, I thought there was a a huge plot hole in their story though. Indeed, even though they gave us basically 3 times the same story, in none of these versions, did they give us an explanation on how Jacques Le Gris managed to pay his ‘visit’ to Marguerite de Carrouges exactly at the right moment when everybody had left her castle. Seriously, I thought there was a huge gap here. I think it was also pretty obvious that Ben Affleck was originally supposed to play Le Gris so he could face his BFF which would have been pretty awesome but, unfortunately, because of some schedule conflict, he had to settle down for a smaller part. Still, he definitely had some fun playing Pierre d'Alençon and the whole cast was actually really good here. Coming back to the ‘Rashomon’ structure, it was pretty neat that basically pretty much all the male characters turned out to be some douchebags after all but I’m not sure if it was really so interesting to display the woman involved in this conflict as some kind of immaculate innocent victim. Basically, it did turn the whole thing into some kind of medieval feminist #metoo pamphlet. On the other hand, it was a good reminder that women were pretty much treated like garbage back in those days. My rating: 07/10 Check the full review

5 years, 1 month ago

johanlefourbe added 3 items to My Queue list

5 years, 1 month ago

johanlefourbe added 2 items to My Queue 2 - Movie backlog list

5 years, 1 month ago

johanlefourbe posted a image

5 years, 1 month ago

johanlefourbe added 4 items to their collection

5 years, 1 month ago

johanlefourbe added 1 item to A Complete Review of David Lynch's work list

Cast : David Lynch What was it about? In a locked down train station, a homicide detective conducts an interview with a tormented monkey. My two cents: Well, it was a typical David Lynch short feature, completely surreal with a dark and gloomy mood. However, it was also terribly fun, which was quite refreshing coming from this director. Seriously, this monkey was actually hilarious. Furthermore, most of their dialogue was composed of proverbial phrases which was also quite entertaining. Still, even if the whole thing was pretty neat, I wonder if a shorter running time (around 5 minutes) wouldn't have been more appropriate. Indeed, even if the gimmick was neat, it was still a gimmick and it became rather repetitive rather quickly. Anyway, I really enjoyed the damned thing though. My rating: 07/10

5 years, 1 month ago