Reviews by johanlefourbe

Since I have always been interested in Steven Soderbergh's work, of course, I was really eager to check his (supposedly) last theatrical effort. Well, to be honest, I find it rather hard to judge the whole thing. I mean, there were many things that I did enjoy a lot, the directing was really solid and there was a stellar cast who gave some strong performances (Rooney Mara, Jude Law, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Channing Tatum). And yet, as often with this director, during the whole thing, I couldn't help thinking that once again, he was just playing around, experimenting with his new toy without caring much for the end-result. Indeed, basically, the first half was an interesting study about the effects of depression. It was definitely intriguing, even though I didn’t care much about the huge focus on the medication. But then, the second half turned into some efficient but still rather far-fetched thriller and, apparently, everything we saw in the first half about depression, the meds and all that stuff was just pretty much bullsh*t. The more I think about it, the more it actually annoys me but, at least, it was well made. To conclude, I'm pretty sure my rating is actually too high but I still think it is worth a look, especially if you're interested in Steven Soderbergh's work.

I wasn't really sure what to expect from this flick but since I have a weak spot for Jennifer Anniston, I thought I might as well give it a try. To be honest, even though she is extremely charming and apparently rather talented, she keeps playing the same role over and over again but, from time to time, very not often though, she comes up in such small indie features so there was a chance that it would be better than her usual fare. Well, even though the whole thing had some potential, it wasn't really good I'm afraid. I mean, Anniston once again didn't really strech her acting skills but that wasn't even the problem. The main issue is that the main character played by Steve Zahn was such a pathetic loser, it was pretty much impossible to root for the guy. At least, Zahn, who is usually rather annoying, should be praised for doing his best with this material and he even managed to make the guy slightly likeable in a few scenes. Unfortunately, the whole idea that those two characters would end up together was just really far-fetched and their journey to get there was certainly not compelling enough. Anyway, to conclude, the whole thing was pretty weak and I don't think it is really worth a look.

I already saw this movie, but since it was a while back and since it was available on Netflix, I thought I might as well check it out again. First of all, I always had some rather mixed feelings about François Ozon’s work. Indeed, even though he has a really good reputation, I really hated his directing debut ‘Sitcom’ and really disliked his second effort ‘Les amants criminels’. Fortunately, he got better (the guy is so prolific, he managed to make 22 movies during the last 25 years) and I think it was with this movie that he got his first international success. It's interesting because, the first time around, I thought it was pretty obvious that Ozon wanted to emulate Hitchcock’s style but I didn't get this vibe at all when I rewatched it. Indeed, instead, in spite of a rather ominous score, Ozon actually didn't really settle for a specific tone or genre which made the whole thing quite intriguing. Eventually, I think it is above all a character study focusing on two different women who might seem to be complete opposites and, yet, I think they both shared a strong loneliness. By the way, I was slightly bothered by the fact that there was no way an average French girl like her who barely had contact with her English father could speak English so well (I'm French and I know French people just suck at speaking foreign languages). However, you could consider it as a hint that this character was actually fictional and therefore made up by Sarah Morton, even if this creation was actually flawed.  Anyway, there is no doubt that Charlotte Rampling and Ludivine Sagnier both gave some strong performances. For Rampling, she actually had to thank Ozon for completely rebooting her career back then thanks to this movie and 'Sous le sable'. For Sagnier, I always thought she would become huge after this movie but she turned out to have a decent career afterwards but not much more than that, at least, not outside France. Eventually, even though these 2 characters were intriguing and these 2 actresses were really good, the story was still missing something to become really fascinating though. Anyway, to conclude, even if I don’t think it was a masterpiece, it was still a pretty good movie and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in French movies.

Nowadays, we don’t hear much from Sharon Stone but after her breakthrough with ‘Basic Instinct’, she was a big star and for the following decade she was really in demand. She was therefore the main force behind this movie and chose not only the director but also two of the main actors, Russell Crowe and Leonardo DiCaprio, who were both quite unknown to the mainstream audience at the time. Amyway, eventually, I thought it was a decent Western but nothing really ground-breaking. The point is that if you compare it to the other movies involving Sharon Stone in the last 20 years, it is probably one of the best flicks she has done but if you compare it to the best Westerns (old or new), it was just too pedestrian and predictable. It is also the issue with the whole duel thing, on one hand, it was a pretty cool concept but, on the other hand, it is still remains a gimmick after all. Concerning Sharon Stone, she looked quite terrific back in those days but I’m not sure if she was really convincing, especially compared to Gene Hackman, Leonardo DiCaprio and Russell Crowe. To conclude, even though it didn’t really reach its full potential, I have to admit that I still have a weak spot for this flick and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Honestly, I wasn't expecting much from this flick but since Nick, my step-son, has a weak spot for Jackie Chan, I thought we might check this one out. Well, like all his other US productions, the whole thing was pretty inane. I mean, first of all, the very first scene involves a deer pissing in a stream. Come on, how on Earth can you recover from this?!? Well, apparently, it is not possible. Even this whole concept of a high-tech tuxedo was seriously misguided. Indeed, the main reason you might want to watch a movie starring Jackie Chan is to see the guy pulling some impossible stunts so to add a gadget involving a lot of CGI was clearly a bad move. Anyway, the moment they really lost me is when they got rid off of James Brown and used Jackie Chan to replace him. Again, seriously? At least, Jennifer Love Hewitt looked quite charming but this movie obviously didn’t help her career whatsoever. Anyway, by now, I think I have seen ALL the US productions involving Jackie Chan (I know, I have no life whatsoever...) and except for the 'Shanghai Noon' franchise which I found actually decent, the rest was a big waste of time and this movie was probably one of the worst of them.

Francis Ford Coppola completely ruled the 70's. He made 4 movies, 'Apocalypse Now', 'The Godfather: Part II', 'The Conversation', 'The Godfather, they were all critically acclaimed and at least 3 of them are arguably some of the finest movies ever made. So, he ruled the 70's but it was as much a blessing as it was a curse. I mean, basically, for each movie he made afterwards, the audience was expecting another 'Godfather' or another 'Apocalypse now'. Well, it never happened and with each new release directed by him, his reputation continued to diminish and, nowadays, he is pretty much considered a has-been. Personally, I think it's a shame because he has actually made some decent flicks which are terribly overlooked and this movie is a perfect example. I mean, sure, it is definitely not a masterpiece but I thought it was still quite entertaining and probably my favorite John Grisham’s adaptation. Back in those days, Matt Damon just had his breakthrough with ‘Good Will Hunting’ which was released the same year. Coppola, after this new flop, wouldn’t release another directing effort for a decade and since then he has been making only really small indie features. To conclude, even though it is nothing really amazing, I thought it was still a decent flick and it is worth a look, especially if you are interested in Francis Ford Coppola’s work.

Honestly, it has been a while since I have seen this flick and I should definitely check it again whenever I have the opportunity. The point is that I always had some rather mixed feelings about this flick (like most of the movies directed by the Coen brothers as a matter of fact). And, apparently, I’m not the only one feeling this way. Indeed, on one hand, it is nowadays regarded as a cult-classic but, on the other hand, some other people like Roger Ebert really didn’t care for the whole thing. In my opinion, it is indeed quite a wild comedy but, that’s also the problem, it is actually so wild and so over-the-top, it makes it actually rather difficult to take the whole thing seriously. Still, there were many things to enjoy here. For example, even though some people consider Nicolas Cage as one of the worst actors in the world, he actually worked with some of the greatest directors ever and, in this movie, he gave one of his unique weird performances and he was just pretty awesome. To conclude, even though I don’t think it is one of their best movies, it is still pretty good and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in the Coen brothers’s work.

Basically, it is once again one of these really osbcure French flicks that almost nobody has seen here on Listal. To be honest, I wasn’t really sure what to expect from this flick but since Eric Rohmer is probably one of the greatest French directors that ever lived, I thought I should check it out. Eventually, I think it was probably a minor effort (after watching 8 movies directed by this guy, I’m pretty sure I’m still not an expert in his work though) but I thought it was still a decent watch. Indeed, instead of having one traditional plot, you get 3 short-stories and the issue with this approach, in my opinion, is that you usually get some half baked tales intead of a fully fledged one. I mean, with a running time of 30 minutes, it is pretty easy to create a mood of mystery around the characters and what they are going through but I tend to think that it is a rather artificial gimmick. Still, I always had a weak spot for this director's laid back directing style and the guy was pretty much a master in creating such simple and yet fascinating little love stories. To conclude, even though it is nothing really mind-blowing, I think it is a decent romantic feature and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Eric Rohmer’s work.

Since it is such a classic, of course, I was really eager to check this flick. To be honest, the circumstances I watched the damned thing were far from being ideal (I was really tired and the recording was seriously messed up). On top of that, this movie has a disadvantage of being already 70 years old and, by that time, I had alredy watched many other film noirs with or without Humphrey Bogart so I wasn’t completely blown away by the whole thing. Furthermore, it is always the same issue with this genre, the plot is terribly murky and, in fact, it never really matters which is always something that bother me a little. And, yet, it is still quite an awesome flick nonetheless. Indeed, it is historically quite priceless as it started the directing career of John Huston, the career of Humphrey Bogart and it pretty much launched the genre at the time. Indeed, even though Sam Spade might be the main character, he is not actually a hero, he is definitely not a nice guy and he pretty much dumps the female lead at the end without shedding a single tear. That’s the difficult thing with this flick, I have been accustomed with this archetype from the movies that came afterwards and while watching this movie, it is almost impossible to handle it as something new. Anyway, to conclude, even though it didn’t really blow me away, it is still a very interesting classic and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

When I heard about this flick, I thought it sounded great on paper. Indeed, back in those days, Colin Farrell was hailed as the next best thing and, this time, he was associated with Al Pacino, easily one of the greatest actors of the last 30 years so I had some rather high expectations. Unfortunately, it turned out to a decent and entertaining thriller but not much more than that, I'm afraid, but, at least, it was still miles better than most of the recent movies involving Al Pacino. Basically, the beginning was decent, you get the usual introduction of the rookie in the spy agency, nothing really fancy or original but still pretty effective. But then, slowly but surely, the whole thing started to get pretty murky as they kept piling the twists on top of each other and I pretty much lost interest in the damned plot at some point. I wonder why they don't give us so more realistic spy features which would be much more compelling to behold. Anyway, to conclude, even though the whole thing had some potential, it was nothing really amazing but since I have a weak spot for the genre, I thought it was entertaining enough and I guess it is worth a look but don't expect anything really amazing though.