Reviews by johanlefourbe

To be honest, I wasn’t really sure what to expect from this flick but, since it was directed by Cédric Klapisch, I thought I might as well check it out. First of all, the circumstances I have watched this movie were just so weird... Indeed, I was planning to go for a week on holiday in Cameroon but, because of some bad weather, I missed by connection flight in Paris and I got stuck there for... 3 days! Since my sister and her family live in Paris, I spent some time with them and I ended up watching this movie. Even though my brother-in-law really didn't like it because, according to him, nothing was happening at all (he wasn't wrong though), I actually felt a connection with this movie. Indeed, my own situation was rather depressing and I actually enjoyed spending some time with these 2 characters who were also going through some kind of depression. On top of that, I'm not a huge fan of Paris which is just too big and rather gloomy to me which was perfectly displayed in this movie. Finally, I really enjoyed François Civil's performance in this movie. Indeed, I thought he was pretty much pitch-perfect playing the dazed state of mind that you can reach when you are lonely, depressed and, above all, sleep-depraved. Indeed, I had been there at some point in my life, even got some of these panic attacks, and it was exactly as it was depicted in this movie. The fact that they managed to make it also fairly amusing and not seriously sad or even dramatic was also really neat. Concerning Ana Girardot, she was quite lovely and she was not bad at all but I felt less connection with her character. I mean, why should you feel so bad for someone who manage to sleep for 12 hrs? It doesn't sound so bad to me. Since they live next to each other, you expect them to have some kind of meet-cute early on making the whole thing such a typical annoying romantic-comedy but it didn't happen which was a nice surprise. However, of course, they did end up together at the very end but, unfortunately, I'm afraid it was inevitable. Anyway, to conclude, even if it was nothing really amazing, I thought it was still a nice little movie and it is worth a look, especially if you are interested in Cédric Klapisch's work.

I wasn’t really sure what to expect from this flick but, since it was starring Al Pacino and since it was available on HBO Max, I thought I might as well check it out. To be honest, I have to admit that I actually never heard of Joe Paterno before watching this movie and the scandal that ended up his stellar career. In fact, when I read that it was about a sex scandal, I assumed that Paterno was actually the perpetrator but it was obviously not the case after all, as it was another assistant coach who did these horrible things and Paterno was accused at the time of not reporting it properly. Well, even though Paterno was probably one of the best (American) football coaches that ever lived, after watching this movie, you might wonder if the guy was actually any good at anything else though. The biggest issue or even lie maybe was that Paterno constantly argued through his staggering 60 years career that football was not 'so' important, that the whole development of the students in general should be the main focus. However, how can you say something like that when you knew or, at least, heard that one of your colleagues was possibly molesting young children and did so very little about it after all? Eventually, even though they acted as if Paterno was some kind of God, he was actually a rather little man, like the most of us, who didn't dare shake things up just to protect the only things he really cared for after all, his team and its university. It was also pretty neat to see Al Pacino delivering for once a solid performance, especially compared to the garbage he has delivered lately. To be honest, even though the material had some potential, they kept spinning around in a circle for too long and, with a running time of barely of 100 mins, they didn't cover much ground after all. For example, Riley Keough was completely wasted here. Anyway, to conclude, in spite of its flaws, it turned out to be a decent watch though and I think it is worth a look.

To be honest, I wasn’t really sure what to expect from this flick but, since there was a decent cast involved and since it was available on Netflix, I thought I might as well check it out. Well, I do think that the story definitely had some potential. Indeed, even if many people might not agree, I do think that almost everybody should have another shot in life, whatever horrible things they might have done during their lifetime and I think it was well displayed in this movie. Still, even though the approach was fairly realistic, it probably should have been darker, at least, on the edges. I mean, the guy used to be basically a ruthless killer, he pretty much the ruined at least the childhood but probably most of the entire life of his daughter. However, they focused only on the fact that he was suddenly, at the very end of his life, becoming the father and the grand-father of the year, which was, I have to admit it, touching, but, in my opinion, it was actually only half of the story. It’s only afterward that I discovered that this movie was actually directed by Catherine Hardwicke and, if she could have used the same sharp edginess that she displayed in ‘Thirteen’, I think this movie could have been pretty awesome. On the other hand, she made this very strong directorial debut already 20 years ago and her career was not really stellar afterwards. Concerning the actors involved, I have noticed that Brian Cox got most of the praises (it’s true, the guy was pretty good here), Kate Beckinsale was actually not bad at all and I think she was actually quite convincing. To be honest, the way her character was telling how much she loved her father at the end was too much a stretch comparing with where she stood at the beginning of the movie but it wasn’t Beckinsale’s fault. Anyway, to conclude, even if it was nothing really ground-breaking, it turned out to be a decent drama and I think it is worth a look.

To be honest, I wasn’t really sure what to expect from this flick but, since it was directed by Carl Theodor Dreyer and since it was available on Netflix, I thought I might as well check it out. Well, I have to admit that I was actually really impressed by this movie and, in fact, it might even of the best silent features I have seen lately, no less than that. Since I always watch movies with as little information as possible, it took me about 10 mins to figure out what was actually going on but, then, I was completely into the damned thing. First of all, it was a pretty neat time capsule showing how life must have been back then in Sweden and I wonder if it was supposed to be a contemporary picture but I couldn’t figure this out, even after watching this movie. Furthermore, the version I saw on Netflix was restored, it looked really good and it made me realized that the movies from the 20’s I saw on YouTube lately were actually seriously messed up. However, what probably impressed me the most with this movie was how hilarious it actually turned out to be. By now, I have seen my share of silent comedies with Charles Chapin, Buster Keaton, Harold Lloyd, Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy or Roscoe Arbuckle but this was something completely different though and, therefore, quite fascinating. Furthermore, in my opinion, the (silent) acting was also pretty good, especially from Einar Röd and Hildur Carlberg. It is also interesting how drastically different this movie was from ‘La passion de Jeanne d'Arc’ which is rightfully considered as Carl Theodor Dreyer’s magnum opus and easily one of the best silent movies ever made. Anyway, to conclude, even if the damned thing might be quite obscure, I really loved it and I think it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre. 

When I heard that Francis Ford Coppola was making a come-back with a passion project he had been working on-and-off for decades, it instantly became a big priority for me. Well, I wish I could say it had been worth the wait but, to be honest, it was not really the case, I’m afraid. I mean, in contrary to some viewers, I don’t think it wasn’t a total disaster but it seems that the great master really indulged himself to do whatever he wanted regardless if it might alienate the audience or not. Eventually, the end-result was, at best, some kind of feverish dream and, at worst, the most expensive student movie I have ever seen. Indeed, like any student movie, there were some interesting ideas and so much creativity displayed but, also like any student movie, most of it was also terribly pretentious though. One thing that bothered me was that this Cesar Catilina was supposed to be some kind of master architect but, even though I have absolute no knowledge about this Art, he didn’t seem to be a convincing architect at all. The other thing that I found so pretentious was that, because the guy was so freaking brilliant, the most gorgeous woman involved (played by the lovely Nathalie Emmanuel) of course had to fall completely in love with him. And, yet, I do believe that Coppola had a really genuine wish to change the traditional way of making a movie, this approach was really commendable and, only therefore, the guy did get some extra points from me. Anyway, to conclude, even if I was like the most of us rather disappointed by this so-called come-back, I still think it is worth a look but don’t expect a classic like ‘The Godfather’ or ‘Apocalypse Now’ and be prepared to watch something seriously experimental instead. 

To be honest, I have no idea how this movie actually did end up in my queue. I guess I was looking for some movies from 1921 for one of my movie projects, I bumped into it on YouTube and I thought I might as well check it out. Anyway, even though I looked it up, I'm still not sure what to make of this title. Did it mean that David was ‘tolerable’ or ‘acceptable’ maybe? Anyway, it was a typical quaint movie that they used to make back then, at least, the beginning. Concerning the plot, it was basically about a young boy who wanted to prove to himself and his community that he was a man. Well, at some point, it became clear that the way to reach this end-result was to avenge his brother and his father and, indeed, he did end up killing no less than 3 men more or less in cold blood at the end. That this event might be the cause for any kind of celebration was, in my opinion, rather deplorable but I guess it might be expected from a country who has been struggling with gun control ever since their Constitution has been published. Concerning the rest of the movie, it was not bad at all though. Indeed, such vintage features, even some vastly superior movies than this one, have the tendency to be slightly or even really disjointed but this one was actually well put together, at least, for a movie which was made more than 100 years ago. Richard Barthelmess was also praised for his performance and I have to admit that he was pretty good even if, at 26 years old, he was maybe 10 years older than his character was. Anyway, to conclude, in spite of its flaws, it was still a decent watch and I think it is worth a look, especially if you like the genre. 

To be honest, I still haven’t watched ‘Chicken Run: Dawn of the Nugget’ but there was no way I was going to miss this new Wallace & Gromit sequel. Well, after almost 20 years (wow… I didn’t expect it to be so long ago, I feel so old now…), it was really neat to see these iconic characters again. As usual with Aardman and Nick Park, the animation was just top-notch and what these guys can do with stop-motion nowadays is still downright mind-blowing. After all these years, they have now decided to add some CGI as well to the mix and, while this mix was technically not bad, I’m not sure I really cared for it though. And yet, even though Nick Park and his team definitely delivered the goods once again, to be honest, I have to admit that I wasn’t exactly blown away though. Basically, the issue with this movie but also this whole franchise, was that the plot was just too similar to the previous movies. Indeed, Wallace had once again created a new daft invention which created a lot of trouble and there was also some criminal mastermind involved that W & G would have to stop somehow. I mean, I really loved ‘The Wrong Trousers’, this movie was a complete riot, but I wish they tried something really different in the movies that followed (For example, ‘A Grand Day Out’ is great and went into a completely different direction). The fact that Feathers McGraw made a come-back, 30 years after ‘The Wrong Trousers’, was maybe a neat idea but it didn't improve my feeling that they keep recycling over and over again the same concept. Anyway, to conclude, I still have a huge weak spot for these characters though and I think the damned thing is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.  

Watching a horror flick with my filmclub has been a priority for me for quite a while and, since this movie had received some solid reviews, I thought it would be a suitable candidate for this experiment. Well, even though pretty much everyone in my filmclub completely dismissed this movie, I actually really enjoyed it though. Indeed, I have watched all the movies directed by Robert Eggers (we even watched his last movie ‘The Northman’ also with the filmclub), I really love his style and, once again, he didn’t disappoint me here. Indeed, there was a nice dark gothic vibe and the damned thing was visually really neat. Concerning the actors involved, I thought that Bill Skarsgard was quite fascinating but I guess it might be a matter of taste because he was not exactly the most attractive vampire you’ll ever see, in the contrary. At least, nobody could argue that Lily-Rose Depp was not good here. Indeed, I think there was something quite powerful and even quite spellbinding about her performance. The link between sex and vampirism was also interesting and it is something I always sensed in this genre but it was maybe the first movie I saw in which they explored this. Unfortunately, pretty much like with ‘The Northman’, even though the damned thing was visually quite fascinating, I’m afraid the story was just too generic though. Basically, it was the classic Dracula tale and, even though it did like the approach they took, it was still the same story I saw maybe 100 times before and, therefore, it was all rather predictable. Eventually, like the other movies directed by Eggers, it was still missing something to really blow me away. Anyway, to conclude, in spite of its flaws, this guy keeps delivering some of the most artistic horror flicks out there and the damned thing is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.