Reviews by johanlefourbe

Since I really enjoyed Kenneth Lonergan's debut, 'You can count on me', I was really eager to check his following directing effort and I was rather surprised that it took him more than a decade to finally come up with something new. Apparently, the movie was actually done much earlier, around 2006, and it was stuck for 5 years during the editing process because Lonergan's version was about 3 hours long but he was supposed to make something much shorter. Eventually, Scorsese edited the theatrical version which was still 150 minutes long and, even though it was barely seen, it was actually heralded as a masterpiece nonetheless by many critics such as Roger Ebert. To be honest, even though I thought it was quite intriguing with some very strong performances, especially by Anna Paquin, I can’t say I thought it was really amazing. I mean, the main story was not bad but did it really require such a long running time? I thought the whole thing was honestly completely all over the place constantly jumping from another trivial sub-plot to the other without really finishing what they already developed. On top of that, the main character was pretty annoying and even though her behavior seemed pretty consistent for a teenager, I'm not sure that I really cared to see her going basically nowhere for almost 3 hours. To conclude, I think that there was a lot to admire here, it was definitely an ambitious drama and even though I think it was just way too flawed to be called a masterpiece, it is still worth a look.

Like everyone else, I was very pleased by Matthew McConaughey's come-back but who would have expected him to win an Academy award so fast following this welcome renaissance? With this in mind, I was really eager to check this flick and I wasn't disappointed. I mean, pretty much like when Ben Affleck was called the worst actor in the world, I always believed that McConaughey had some potential, he just needed to pick up some decent material and, here, he goes all the way giving one hell of a performance. Concerning the story itself, it was definitely a strong tale, even though not everything did work. For example, I had a rather hard time to care for Jennifer Garner's character and, later on, I discovered that this woman was actually made up for the film which made this character even more superfluous. Apparently, even Jared Leto's character didn’t exist either so, even though Leto was pretty strong, I find it rather difficult to justify the addition of this transvestite. I mean, it seemed like a cheap way to get some attraction with a misfit embodying some of the most common stereotypes about HIV patients at the time. To conclude, even though it wasn’t really flawless, thanks to a really impressive McConaughey, I really enjoyed the damned thing and I think it is definitely worth a look.

Honestly, it is quite an obscure flick and I wasn't expecting much but since I had this movie on dvd for so long, I thought it was really time to watch the damned thing. Well, eventually, it was a rather straightforward and weak road-trip and I really had a hard time to care about the whole thing. I mean, I have to admit it, Christopher Walken was actually really good, as usual, and it was very neat that he was playing the lead for once. Unfortunately, pretty much everything else in this movie was just underwhelming. For example, Alessandro Nicola has never really impressed me in this movie or even before and he was just not charismatic enough to play the lead character (apparently, Sam Rockwell was to play the lead at some point and he would have been a much better choice). Then, you had Sharon Stone, an actress who was a late bloomer but, except for the great 'Casino', she hasn't done anything amazing during the rest of her career. Nowadays, just like in this movie, she usually shows up for a couple of scenes playing (rather poorly) some rather obnoxious lady. Anyway, to conclude, even with the great Christopher Walken, it was a rather weak feature and I don't think it is really worth a look.

Basically, it was yet another film that I had on dvd for ages (more than 3 and a half years as a matter of fact...) so it was definitely time to watch the damned thing. Unfortunately, right from the rather lame intro I lost pretty much faith in the whole thing and it was pretty much a waste of time. I mean, there were some decent actors like Woody Harrrelson and John Cleese but they were all stuck playing some boring nutjobs who were supposedly funny. To be honest, there were here and there some fun moments but those scenes were rather rare and were lost in a succession of rather poor jokes. I mean, if you have a running time of barely 90 minutes and you have to deal with not one but 3 bank robberies almost happening simultaneously (while writings this, I'm becoming aware that the concept did actually have some potential if done properly), there was just no room and space to develop any one of those stories or any one of these characters involved so, instead, you get a rather half-baked boring mess. To conclude, it was pretty weak and I don't think it is worth a look.

It was yet another movie that I had on dvd for ages. To be honest, I didn't really like the damned thing much. I mean, it's not that it was really awful, it's not that it didn't have any potential but I just didn’t really care much for the whole thing. The biggest mistake they made, in my opinion, is that they delivered one of the most boring main characters I have seen lately. Apparently, even the makers didn't believe in him and, on the promotional material, they displayed instead Asian Argento who was playing the title character. Indeed, it is pretty obvious that she should have been the center of this tale. Back then, she was just in her 20's but she was already terribly charismatic and the only flaw in her character was the fact that it was just really difficult to believe that she would fall for such a dull guy. I mean, I get it, he was the opposite of the thugs she was dealing with before she met him but, still, they could have made an effort to make him more interesting or entertaining. Anyway, to conclude, the whole thing was just pretty weak and I don't think it is really worth a look.

I already saw this movie, in fact, I even saw it in the movie theater when it was released but I was quite eager to check it out again. Through the years, the Academy has made some poor choices but, this time around, I have to admit that they finally got it right and this movie was definitely a worthy winner. Eventually, I still think that 'Boyhood' was in fact a better choice but this flick was really not far behind and I liked it a lot. To be honest, I thought that the actual play would be in fact about Birdman so I was expecting something slightly different but that wasn't a big deal, in the contrary. What we got here was a very smart, very well directed movie with some really impressive performances. Indeed, it was filled with some very long takes and you can imagine that it must have been rather daunting for the actors involved (apparently, Inarritu was actually eager to shot the whole thing in one single take but the actual merit of this rare technic is rather questionable if you ask me). For Inarritu, it was the crowning of an already impressive and pretty much flawless career and he probably delivered here his most complex movie so far. Indeed, it was basically some kind of intoxicating mix of dark hyper-realism with magical fantasy with so many fascinating layers. For all the actors involved (Michael Keaton, Edward Norton, Emma Stone, Naomi Watts), it was a definitely a very high point in their career. The only critic I might have was that the damned thing was actually so sophisticated that there was barely enough room to really develop the story and the characters involved but it was only a minor issue. Anyway, to conclude, it really deserved all the praises it has received and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Inarritu’s work.

It was yet again another movie I had on dvd for ages (more than 3 and a half years as a matter of fact...) so I was really eager to check this flick just to get rid off the damned thing. Well, to be honest, I had an incredibly hard time to connect with the whole thing. I don’t know, even though it wasn’t really late, I was really tired and I really had to fight not to fall asleep. On the other hand, I don't think it was really good though. I mean, I always had a weak spot for Guy Pearce and Helena Bonham Carter and I thought that they did a decent job but, to be honest, I didn't care much for the whole story. Apparently, I have seen the international cut constantly switching between some flashbacks and the present time when the original Australian version was actually linear so maybe I was unlucky and watched something butchered but I have my doubts. Basically, the whole premise was just too fine and I got bored pretty quickly. To conclude, it is pretty obscure but I don’t think it deserves really much more recognition and I think you should pretty much pass on this one.

It was another movie I had for ages on dvd so it was really time to watch the damned thing. To be honest, it took me a while to get what the whole thing was getting at. Basically, it is about the struggle of a hot-shot sports writer who suddenly has to take care of his young boy on his own and, apparently, the guy didn't have much clue what to do. Honestly, the very first scene was pretty ridiculous, you get to see his very young boy on the hood of his car while he is driving not really slowly on a beach. So, we are supposed to think that this father has become way too reckless to educate his son but that didn’t really match the rest of this movie. Indeed, I thought that the guy was doing his best considering the circumstances and if the boy is healthy and rather happy, seriously, who are we to judge his upbringing? So, it worked actually fine for a very good chunk of the running time with those gorgeous Australian landscape, some nice characters brought to life by some decent performances. Eventually, it lost me when he had to leave for te Australian Open. Indeed, was it really incredibly irresponsible to leave his 15 year old son to take care of his younger brother for a couple of days? I don’t think so. It wasn't the father's fault and it wasn't his son's fault either, the only thing to blame was a mean-spirited script looking for some cheap dramatic event. To conclude, in spite of its flaws, it was still a decent drama though and I think it is worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Honestly, I wasn't expecting much from this flick but, somehow, I still ended up watching this movie. Basically, it is 'The Sixth Sense' all over again but the concept this time was handled as a romance. Unfortunately, I'm not already a huge fan of the classic starring Bruce Willis and this romantic version was not really convincing but, I have to admit it, the whole thing had some potential.I mean, Zac Efron was quite charismactic and he could become an interesting actor but he really have to choose something where he has to do a little bit more than simply showing his pretty face. Also, why don't they handle such tales with a more tragic and serious angle? Basically, it deals with a character who has lived a traumatic event and has since then become mentally deranged which is quite intriguing but, instead, they pretty much chickened out and the guy seems to have some kind of gift which was just rather underwhelming. Also, something I didn’t get why was Kim Basinger involved in this? I mean, Ray Liotta has just 2 scenes bu they were really important in the story whereas she showed just for the first 10 minutes and never came back so you wonder why they took a big name to play this very minor part. Anyway, to conclude, I thought it was pretty weak and I don't think it is really worth a look.

I already saw this movie but since it was such a long time ago, I was really eager to check it out again. Basically, it was yet another masterpiece directed by Roman Polanski, it was a success when it was released and I think it definitely deserves its stellar reputation. Indeed, I'm a huge fan of this flick and it is absolutely one of my favorite horror movies of all time. The whole thing was so original, really unsettling and completely spellbinding from the beginning until the end. It was Polanski's first movie in America and he became right away a major director to reckon there as well. Unfortunately, the drama in his own private life would eventually prevent him to have an even bigger impact on American cinema. However, to be honest, I have to admit that this re-watch did tone down my enthusiasm for this movie though. I don’t know, maybe I wasn’t in the right mood or maybe it’s the kind of movie you can really appreciate only the first time around. Indeed, this movie works much better when you keep wondering what will happen next. I guess, this time around, I was also slightly bothered by the fact that the characters were barely developed after all and they turned out to be terribly passive, almost witnessing the events happening to them. Anyway, to conclude, even though I have sometimes a difficult time with older horror flicks (for example, I believe that ‘The Exorcist’ is actually one of the most overrated movies ever made), I have a huge weak spot for this one, I think it is just spellbinding to behold and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Roman Polanski’s work.