Reviews by johanlefourbe

I already saw this movie but since I just bought a brand new TV, I thought I might as well check it out again on Disney+. Apparently, this movie is considered as one of the weaker MCU instalments but, I have to admit it, the first time around, I really enjoyed the damned thing. Indeed, against all expectations, I really loved this flick and, at the time, I was really convinced that it was by far one of the best stand-alone flicks delivered by Marvel so far. It was even more impressive because, not only Ant-Man seemed to be a rather lame character but, after Edgar Wright left this project, I was pretty sure the whole thing was doomed. Well, after all these years, I have to admit that I was apparently slightly too generous with this movie though. I mean, I still think it was visually spectacular with some impressive special effects and it was still quite hilarious. However, it was pretty clear that the story was nothing amazing though. On top of that, even though the casting was just spot-on (Paul Rudd, Michael Douglas, Evangeline Lilly, Michael Peña), they didn’t do anything really interesting with their characters. Finally, it was really awkward how they tried to connect the whole thing with the MCU. Eventually, after all these years, you can still wonder what Edgar Wright would have done with this material, especially after working for so long on this material. Anyway, even if it wasn’t as amazing as I thought it was, I still think they managed to make Ant-Man, a seemingly rather pitiful super-hero, quite awesome and bad-ass. To conclude, even if this movie has a rather weak reputation, I think it is actually a really enjoyable super-hero feature and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

To be honest, it has been a while since I have seen this flick but this flick has always been a childhood favorite and I will always remember it with a lot of nostalgia. Basically, when I was a kid, I would watch some Westerns with my father and we must have watched several Westerns starring Bud Spencer and Terrence Hill but this one was probably the only one that really impressed me. The point is that, as soon as Bud Spencer was involved, those movies became incredibly idiotic and rather underwhelming. Here, instead of Spencer, you get the great Henry Fonda and there is pretty much no way that Terence Hill could get a more prestigious sidekick (it would be eventually Fonda’s last Western). I remember it so well, at the time, I was fascinated by this guy called ‘Nobody’ and I thought it was just so clever. To be honest, there is a fair chance that if I would watch it nowadays, I wouldn’t be impressed as much by this gimmick but, back in those days, I thought it was pretty awesome. To conclude, even though it might not be masterpiece, I always had a weak spot for this flick and it is definitely worth a look.

Even though this movie has a terrible reputation, since I always had a weak spot for Guy Ritchie’s work, I was still eager to check it out. What was he thinking though?!? 10 years after, we are still wondering... I mean, after directing 2 of the most acclaimed British features ever put on the silver screen, Guy Ritchie pretty much managed to sabotage his once so promising career. Some say he has made a come-back with 'RocknRolla' but, personally, I still think he has lost his touch but who knows? He might make something amazing again in the future. To be honest, I do think that the hatred against this movie is actually a little bit exaggerated. I mean, of course, it is completely misguided, really weak, rather boring and pretty much uninteresting but I have seen way worse. From a technical point of view, the whole thing looked pretty good and I don't think Madonna is such a bad actress. I mean, you might find her annoying in this flick, but she pretty much played herself so it is not as if she needed some major acting skills to pull it off. Still, it remains a wreckage and a massive blunder career-wise, absolutely no doubt about it.

I already saw this movie but since it was a while back and since it has a decent reputation, I thought I might as well check it out again. Indeed, some people really enjoyed this movie, even the late Roger Ebert really loved it for example but, personally, I failed to see what was so amazing about it. Well, after rewatching the damned thing, I have to admit that it was more enjoyable this time around but only slightly, to be honest. I mean, there is no doubt that Cher gave here a really good performance (rewarding her with an Academy Award was maybe be a stretch though) as she managed to be at the same time really charismatic but also really convincing as an average Italian-American woman from Brooklyn. I had a harder time with Nicolas Cage whose performance was much less subtle but the guy was such a fine actor back then and he slowly won me over. I also enjoyed his speech about the fact that, even though love is a mess, we should pursuit it anyway. Still, they never really convinced me that these 2 characters belonged together. Sure, that Ronny would fall for Loretta, that was understandable but the other way around seemed rather dubious. Eventually, what bothered me the most with this movie was that all the dialogues were supposed to feel genuine but they were in fact basically an endless successions of jokes. Sure, I’ll have to admit that some of it was quite funny but it gave the whole thing such a theatrical fake feeling. Indeed, even though Loretta did feel like a real woman, just like all the characters involved in this movie, this constant obsession to be funny every freaking 5 seconds greatly clashed with their desire to deliver a genuine and believable community. Anyway, to conclude, it is eventually probably a matter of taste and even though I didn’t think it was such a great movie, it is still worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

To be honest, I wasn't really expecting much from this flick but since Nick, my step-son, was really eager to watch it, I thought we might as well give it a try. First of all, it is rather sad that many blockbusters like this one or 'Tomorrowland' or even 'John Carter' which are no sequels, prequels or reboots, are continuously flopping at the box-office because, as a result, the Hollywood producers will be even more inclined to recycle again and again the same ideas to minimize the risks taken. On the other hand, I have to admit it, this movie wasn't really good, I'm afraid. I mean, it was visually decent and there were here and there a few interesting ideas but most of it, especially the plot, was just some basic stuff that we have seen too many times before in some superior fantasy features. At least, Julianne Moore was really good as the villain but I can’t say the same for Jeff Bridges. I mean, it is nice that the guy is trying to get involved in some big productions like this one but, damned, his performance was terribly hammy and just bordeline obnoxious. I won't even mention Ben Barnes who must be one of the least inspiring young actors out there. To conclude, I might be a little bit generous with my rating here but I guess it is still worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

I wasn't exactly dying to watch this movie but my daughter was quite eager to watch it. On the other hand, I have always been a huge fan of Nick Park's work and the TV show was actually pretty decent so I thought I might as well give it a try. The first detail that really impressed me was the fact that there was no dialogue whatsoever. I mean, if you are familiar with the TV show, which is always completely mute, it made sense but I didn’t expect that they would follow the same approach for a full length feature. It was really ballsy and interesting but they definitely needed to add some killer jokes to compensate and that was the main problem with this movie. Indeed, most of the jokes were fairly amusing but none of them were really hilarious. I mean, if you watch Wallace and Gromit, sure Gromit doesn’t say a word but, on the other hand, Wallace talks nonsense all the time and he is therefore responsible for half of the jokes. At least, the animation was pretty much flawless but I wouldn't expect less from Aardman. To conclude, in spite of its flaws, it was still a decent watch and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

I remember it very well, when this movie was released, it was pretty huge. Back then, I went to see the damned thing with my father in the movie theater and I thought it was just really neat that I was with him but I'm not sure if he had the same experience. Anyway, I really loved this flick. Back in those days, it seemed that those guys from Pixar had decided to blow us away every time again and every feature they produced was better than the previous one. It's too bad they didn't manage to extend this miraculous hot streak but I guess they are human after all. Visually, after more than a decade, it remains one of their greatest achievement. I mean, the sea life was just gorgeous to look at and it was a great move to have the action take place in Australia for once. But, obviously, as always with Pixar, it went way beyond the impressive visuals as it is a strong and emotional tale about a father looking for his lost son and even though it might all sound pretty simple and predictable, they took their time to build some fully fledged characters and, at some point, you can't help caring for those damned fishes. Basically, it is a gorgeous animated feature with a great story, touching and entertaining at the same time and it is definitely worth a look.

When I heard about this movie, I was at first pretty excited. I mean, a movie starring Rober De Niro, Michael Douglas, Morgan Freeman and Kevin Kline, that sounded really promising. However, the plot didn't seem to be really groundbreaking and, eventually, when it was released, it was barely noticed and didn't get much love. Eventually, I thought it was a decent watch but it could have been much more. I mean, it is basically one of these movies that show some really big names on the poster and, that's it, they are pretty much done and they don't feel the need to give a story that could be actually challenging or at least a little bit more entertaining. Basically, it was just too easy, too low-brow and too predictable. Still, in this genre, I have seen much worse (the first one popping to my mind would be 'The Big Wedding' also released in 2013 and also starring Robert De Niro). Indeed, the characters were quite realistic and appealing expect maybe for Paddy whose grudge became quite irritating pretty quickly and the actors, some of the greatest thespians of our time, gave a fine job. To conclude, even though within 3 days, I will probably forget most of it, it was still a decent comedy and I think it is worth a look.

Like most of the Pixar pictures, I have seen this one in the theater ('Cars' must be the only one that I didn't see when it was released) and it was probably the first Pixar movie I showed to my 9 years old daughter. Even though it might be overlooked and considered a mere kids flick, it is actually enjoyable for anyone. Indeed, even though it is now more than 10 years old, the animation still looks great. Especially the main characters, James Sullivan and Mike Wazowski, those guys just looked really awesome. Back in those days, they were still struggling to provide some human beings that looked fine but those monsters all looked pretty neat. Furthermore, the story was really entertaining filled with hilarious characters. As usual, Pixar tackles a concept which sounded promising but it is above all the sensitive and smart way they chose to handle this concept that makes this feature quite spellbinding to watch. More than a decade later, they would release a prequel which was decent enough but, like most of the recent sequels produced by Pixar, it was nothing really amazing. Anyway, to conclude, this movie is pretty much a classic and it is absolutely and definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Since this movie had a solid reputation, I was quite eager to check it out. Eventually, even though it was a decent watch, I can’t say I really loved the damned thing though. I mean, it definitely has its charms and they definitely don’t make such movies anymore. Indeed, it is basically a moral tale dealing with such old fashioned elements like chivalry and piousness and, if you are into this kind of things, you will love the whole thing but, if you are not, it might rather bore you. Personally, I have always been more attracted towards dark and conflicted characters, so, I had a rather hard time to connect with such virtuous semi-gods. And, yet, it is always neat to immerse yourself in a different time period during which the norm and values were drastically different than ours. On top of that, there is no denying that the iconic soundtrack by Vangelis was really uplifting and effective. Eventually, this movie won the Best Picture Academy Award but, in my opinion, the competition was rather weak for that year (‘Atlantic City’, ‘On Golden Pond’, ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’, ‘Reds’). To conclude, even though I’m not a huge fan, it is still a solid sport feature and it is worth a look, especially if you like the genre.