Reviews by johanlefourbe

I really had no idea what to expect from this movie but since I have a weak spot for Angelina Jolie, I thought I might as well check it out. Well, I have to admit that I was really surprised by how awesome the concept was. Indeed, it was dealing with a great surgeon who lost his license because he was a junkie and, when the movie began, he started to work for a big gangster who might need a surgeon when his henchmen get shot. It reminded me of 'Breaking Bad' and it was just seriously brilliant. Unfortunately, even though the concept was fascinating, it turned out to be rather poorly developed. For example, David Duchovny was actually pretty good as long as he played the main character as some kind of junkie antihero who didn't give a sh*t about anything anymore but still enjoyed the thrill of surgery and of saving lifes. Unfortunately, it didn't last long and, at some point, he grew a conscience, cleaned up his act and outsmarted everybody including the mob and the FBI which was just lame and boring. Same thing with Timothy Hutton, he was not bad but his bad guy was still too stereotypical and boring. Imagine if his character, basically a gangster, would have been the smartest and nicest character in this movie? It would have been so much more interesting. Instead, the nice dark edge displayed at the beginning completely disappeared in the 3rd act and, suddenly, this conflicted and interesting main character became a hero and saved the day which was not only unconvincing but, above all, rather tedious. Anyway, to conclude, it has been a while since I have seen such a great concept in a movie but, unfortunately, it was poorly handled so I don't think it is really worth a look after all.

Since this movie is a huge classic and is very often considered as one of the best movies directed by Ingmar Bergman, I was really eager to check it out and I had some really high expectations. Well, to be honest, as usual with this director, I had a rather hard time to connect with the damned thing. It didn't help that I saw a very poor version on YouTube so maybe I should give it another chance in the future. Still, the fact that I didn't connect with this movie was probably because I'm not smart enough and not because it wasn't a good movie, that's for sure. Eventually, as usual with Bergman's work, I enjoyed more thinking afterwards about his movies than actually watching them and this one was a perfect example. First of all, even though our Western world is getting older and older, we still get very few movies dealing with old age and this movie is easily one of the best about this subject. Indeed, through his whole life, the main character was really successful professionally but he didn't care at all about his relationship with the people around him but, in his twilight years, he is looking back to his past, which is rather usual, and starts to show more compassion towards the few people still around him. However, if this change of attitude and way of thinking made complete sense with the main character, I think it was rather unbelievable that Marianne would suddenly change her mind about him and think that he was a great guy just after spending one road trip with him. Anyway, to conclude, even if it didn't completely blow me away, it is still a major classic and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Ingmar Bergman's work. 

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. 

I already saw this movie, I have even seen it in the movie theater when it was released, but, since I have it on DVD, I thought I might as well check it out again. The funny thing is that I actually bought this DVD for my daughter because she loved 'Fantastic Mr. Fox' so much (I can’t count how many times she watched it) but she never actually never watched this damned thing so, after all these years, I thought I might watch it myself. As far as I was concerned, 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 Wes 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 first time around, I didn’t notice it because I was so amazed by the animation, so entertained by the banter between these dogs and simply quite overwhelmed by all these neat details but, when I re-watched it, I noticed how actually dark it was, especially compared to the rest of Wes Anderson’s work. Not that it was an issue, not at all, it’s just that the material was actually quite bleak. Eventually, even though this stop-motion feature was also quite impressive , I have to admit that I still preferred 'Fantastic Mr. Fox' because the story and the characters were just 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 directorial efforts.

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.