Reviews by johanlefourbe

Since this movie is a classic and since it was included in the '1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die' list, I was quite eager to check it out. Well, even though it was indeed pretty good, to be honest, it didn't completely blow me away. First of all, even though Joan Crawford delivered a solid performance and won at the time the Academy Award for Best Actress in a Leading Role, in my opinion, her character should have been more complex. Indeed, even though Mildred Pierce was first presented as a possible murderer, Crawford slowly removed any evidence that this woman was anything else than perfect and it backfired as it made this woman much lesser interesting then when the movie started. Eventually, the more complex character turned out to be actually Veda Pierce thanks to a really strong performance by Ann Blyth but even this character didn't really work after all. Basically, all what Mildred Pierce did was to give a better life to her children, especially Veda. However, at some point, she managed to become really rich which should have been more than sufficient but Veda kept on being impossible to deal with with no real explanation whatsoever except to provide some conflict to move the story forward. Anyway, to conclude, even though it didn't completely work for me, it was still a solid film noir and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Since this movie had a solid reputation and since it was involving a strong cast and a very good director, I was really eager to check it out and I had some rather high expectations. Well, even though it was at the time a critical and commercial success, to be honest, I was actually surprised by how half-baked the whole thing turned out to be. I mean, the cast was really strong and this story definitely had some potential but it was just so damned murky, it just never really worked for me. First of all, I never had a clear sense about when the action was exactly taking place and I wasn't helped by some really useless and annoying back-and-forth jumps in time. On top of that, Jane Fonda and Vanessa Redgrave looked exactly the same when they were supposedly teenagers and middle-aged women. Another issue was that the whole thing was supposed to be about this great friendship involving these 2 fascinating women but it was never really clear how they got acquainted with each other and, even worse, why they were so fond of each other. Indeed, during the really half-baked flashbacks, they gave some fairly meaningless scenes instead of showing why they became such great friends and they should have spent more time on this subject instead of showing Jane Fonda's character struggling to write some play. Anyway, to conclude, even though it turned out to be rather disappointing, I still think it is worth a look but there is no doubt that it could have been so much better.

I wasn't really sure what to expect from this movie but since I have a weak spot for Kathryn Bigelow's work, I was quite eager to check it out. Well, even though this movie has become a cult classic following its release, I actually had a hard time to really care about the damned thing. I mean, the beginning was not bad and they managed to deliver a nice mood with a nice soundtrack but, from the moment that Caleb turned into a vampire, it became just way too pedestrian for me. Sure,  it was still watchable but, in my opinion, Bigelow didn't add anything really new or interesting to the genre. In fact, the biggest issue I had was with the 3rd act which turned out to be even more tedious. Basically, somehow, out of completely nowhere, the main character managed to find a cure against vampirism and I couldn't believe how ridiculously simple this cure was. On top of that, one of the most interesting trademarks about vampires is the fact that they are doomed to live forever and I think it was a huge mistake to remove this element, especially in such a lame way. Anyway, to conclude, even though this movie didn't really work for me, I still think it is worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

To be honest, I really had no idea what to expect from this movie but since since it was included in the '1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die' list, I thought I might as well check it out. Well, it turned out to be a really weird experimental movie, almost a documentary but with no dialogue or comment whatsoever. At least, the soundtrack was pretty neat but there was still something quite intriguing about the damned thing. I have to admit that I'm not familiar at all with Kenneth Anger's work but apparently he was (and still is) a cult filmmaker who specialised in such short modern experimental features. In this case, he gave a weird mix of bikers who seemed to be gay but there was also some random Nazi symbols and some religious icons and movies popping up from time to time. There was also some homo-erotic vibe through the whole thing and the combination of all these elements resulted in something quite unique but I'm glad the running time was rather short since it was rather difficult to digest. Anyway, to conclude, I guess it is an acquired taste but I still think it is worth a look, especially if you are interested in experimental movies.

I wasn't expecting much from this flick but since I have always been a fan of Sean Penn, I still wanted to check it out. Unfortunately, it turned out to be some really weak mix of the 'Bourne' and 'Taken' franchises. Indeed, except for the fact that Sean Penn did look physically really convincing to play this part, pretty much nothing else did work in this movie, I'm afraid. Above all, the biggest problem was that the whole thing was just so boring and it is not very often that you will see such a basic action flick like this one taking itself so seriously. To make things worse, they decided to add a completely innapropriate and tedious love triangle involving Sean Penn and Javier Bardem. Seriously, you might wonder what happened with Sean Penn lately. Indeed, the following year, he would direct 'The Last Face', another movie dealing with Penn's political interest in Africa, and, somehow, this directing effort turned out to be even worse than this flick so the guy seems to have lost his touch. I mean, I do agree that what has been happening in Africa is just awful but, to release such terribly weak and pretentious movies won't raise the attention of the audience, I'm afraid. Anyway, to conclude, it was just a really weak action flick and I don't think it is worth a look. 

Since I really loved 'Fantastic Mr. Fox', of course, I was really eager to watch this new  stop-motion animated feature from Wes Anderson. And, indeed, I wasn't disappointed and I just really loved the damned thing. First of all, it was such a well made animated feature and the amount of neat details displayed on each screen was just impressive. Furthermore, it was just a really fun adventure with some hilarious dialogue with the typical dry humor we are used to get with West Anderson. On top of that, there was also some room for some more sensitive moments but these scenes never clashed with the rest of the movie. The only critic I could find was that the 'human' characters could have been more developed and the dogs, who were all pretty awesome, were not much developed either because there were so many of them but it wasn't a big deal. Eventually, even though the animation was more impressive than in  'Fantastic Mr. Fox', I have to admit that I still preferred Anderson's previous animated feature because the story and the characters were slightly more entertaining and interesting. Anyway, to conclude, Wes Anderson displayed once again that he is easily one of the most interesting American directors at work nowadays and I will definitely watch his next director effort.

Back in 2017, Ridley Scott pulled off the marketing stunt of the year. Indeed, just about a month before this movie was released, he decided to reshoot all the scenes involving Kevin Spacey, who had just been hit by a massive sex scandal, and replace him with Christopher Plummer. Even though Scott had been praised for this decision, in fact, it was only a win-win situation for him. Indeed, he actually never wanted Spacey for this role as he had been chosen/imposed by the studio and, on top of that, it was an unique opportunity to show to the rest of the world that only a great director like him could pull off such a stunt. Even for the studio, it was a good deal since the movie got much more media coverage than it would have received under normal circumstances. And, indeed, the whole thing looked great and it felt like Plummer had been involved from the very beginning. On top of that, he gave a very solid performance and it is hard to believe that Spacey would have done any better with tons of make-up and prosthetics. And, yet, if you put this stunt aside, was it really a great movie? Not really, I'm afraid. Basically, it was a typical effort from this director. I mean, it looked great, the material had a lot of potential but it still felt either rushed or lazy. For example, during the introduction, you get to meet John Paul Getty II and his happy family but, then, within a few minutes, he became a drug-addict living in Morocco. This character was just so poorly handled, without mentioning the fact that the guy was apparently actually much more involved in the negotiations with the kidnappers. Then, they made the mistake of focusing on one of the kidnappers. It was obviously made up but, above all, completely uninteresting and it was even worse that they chose Romain Duris, a French actor, to play this character. Another mystery was Mark Wahlberg's character. Seriously, what was the point of this character? At what point was he actually really helpful? I mean, to make us believe that he was the one who gave a heartfelt speech to John Paul Getty who would finally change his mind was just really ludicrous. Anyway, to conclude, I think I'm being rather generous with my rating here but it was an interesting story and Ridley Scott knows how to direct a good looking picture but there is no doubt that it could have been so much better.

In spite of or because of its controversial reputation, I was quite eager to check this movie. On top of that, it had been years since I saw a movie directed by Pier Paolo Pasolini. Well, eventually, it definitely deserves its reputation as it was easily one of the most f*cked-up movies I have ever seen and I have seen quite a lot of weird and messed-up flicks. In fact, the sex scenes were not so unbearable but it was the first time I saw a movie dealing with scatology and these scenes were just awful to behold. Later on, it didn't get much better with some horrible torture scenes. Seriously, compared to this movie, such movies like 'Saw' or 'Hostel' were pretty much like a walk in a park. Eventually, what was Pasolini's point? In my opinion, he wanted to show that Fascism was and still is the most decadent, depraved and insane political ideology that ever existed. Still, even though I have a weak spot for nightmarish movies, Pasolini went really far here and I think I will remain nauseous for a couple of days after watching this flick. Anyway, to conclude, I'm not sure if I should recommend it, I will probably never re-watch it ever again and you should be fully aware of its content before watching the damned thing.

I wasn't really sure what to expect from this movie but since this one was included in the '1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die' list, I was quite eager to check it out. First of all, it is obvious that you can't really analyse this movie as a straightforward story as the concept was rather preposterous. I mean, let's assume that this village would really need to dig the sand to survive, it would be much easier and efficient to send some of the local villagers every 3 months willingly going down there for a specific period of time instead of kidnapping some poor random guy. Eventually, it was a very subtle parable but did I really get what the director wanted to tell us? I'm not so sure as I might not be smart enough. As far as I was concerned, I saw it as a psychological thriller with some erotic undertones. Furthermore, I think it was about the fact that, in order to survive, we all need a purpose, even if almost everything we do might seem pointless and we might as well dig endlessly in the sand. Anyway, to conclude, even if I'm not sure if I fully understood this movie, it was still a really interesting watch and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.