Reviews by johanlefourbe

I already saw this movie but since it was a while back, I thought I might as well check it out again. Even though it might seem weird, I always had a weak spot for romantic-comedies but most of them are actually rather underwhelming. However, sometimes, you get lucky and get to see a really truly romantic feature which is really endearing to behold. At the time, Meg Ryan was pretty much the queen of the genre and, after ‘When Harry Met Sally...’ which was one of the best rom-com ever made, this movie must be her best romantic-comedy. After the rather weird and underwhelming ‘Joe Versus the Volcano’, it was the 2nd time she would work with Tom Hanks and, this time, they really got it right. While rewatching the damned thing, I was above all impressed by Tom Hanks though. Indeed, the guy was just pitch-perfect here but it also helped that his character was so well written. His relationship with his son was also one of the best parent-child dynamic I have ever seen. Unfortunately, I wish I could say the same about Meg Ryan's character. It's not that I'm blaming Ryan, she was charming as usual and she delivered another solid performance, it's just that her character never really worked. Indeed, even though it was supposed to be super romantic, it was actually rather weird and unsettling to see this woman completely obsessing about a man she only heard during a radio talk-show. In the same fashion, I thought it was actually quite horrifying to see this little boy travelling on his own to New York to meet a complete stranger. Anyway, to conclude, even though it might be flawed, I have to admit it is still a very good romantic comedy and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

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 have always been rather amazed how high this movie was rated on IMDB and, with a 7.5, it sounded as if it was some kind of masterpiece (it was apparently a box-office hit when it was released). On top of that, there was quite an impressive cast involved so, before watching this flick, I had some rather high expectations, at least, the first time around. Well, after re-watching the damned thing, I figured out what did work and what didn't work with this movie. Basically, the first hour during which they focus on the characters when they were kids was actually pretty good and even heartbreaking. Indeed, you really got a genuine feeling of this time and place and all the kids involved gave some solid performances. Unfortunately, the second part during which they flashforward about 10 years later was so not effective, I'm afraid. I didn't mention this before but the whole thing was supposed to be based on a true story. However, the book this movie was based on has been widely criticized and it's rather easy to understand why. Indeed, everything happening in this 2nd half was just so far-fetched, it seemed really unlikely that it even occurred. But that wasn't even the biggest issue. Indeed, while the youth scenes had a nice flow and felt genuine, the adult scenes all felt rather clunky as they focused too much on this unconvincing scheme and not enough on the actual characters involved. It's too bad because they had a really neat cast, especially for this 2nd part (Kevin Bacon, Billy Crudup, Robert De Niro, Minnie Driver, Vittorio Gassman, Dustin Hoffman, Jason Patric, Brad Pitt, Brad Renfro). Anyway, to conclude, in spite of its flaws, it was still a decent watch though and it is worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

To be honest, even though I thought that 'The Wizard of Oz' was quite enjoyable, I have never been a huge fan but since I always had a weak spot for Sam Raimi's work, I was quite eager to check this prequel. Well, at least, you have to admit that it was visually quite impressive, maybe a little too much like Tim Burton's 'Alice in Wonderland, but still pretty to look at, and even though the story was not really amazing, it was still fairly entertaining. The main issue, in my opinion, is that even though it might have seemed like a good idea to focus on the Wizard, the guy was and still is pretty much a douche-bag which made it rather difficult to care about what he was going through. The other thing that bothered me was the time they spent on who was actually a good witch and who was actually wicked. Finally, with a prequel like this one, since you already know pretty much how it will end, it is rather tricky to keep the audience interested and they only partially succeeded. To conclude, even though it was not really great whatsoever, it was still a decent watch and I think it is worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Honestly, I had no idea what this movie was about before watching it but since there was a nice cast involved, I was quite eager to check it out. Eventually, after watching the damned thing, I find it rather hard to judge it. Indeed, the whole thing was really murky and it made it really difficult to really enjoy it or to take it seriously. For example, there was constantly this mix of English and French for no apparent reason and even though it was intriguing, I still can't see the added value. Then you had John Malkovich's character who was constantly speaking in riddles and even if it was appealing at first, it went on for way too long and got on my nerves pretty quickly. And yet, even though the whole thing was definitely half-baked, I can't completely dismiss it somehow. Indeed, the mood was pretty good, there was some interesting thoughts about Death and it was just really neat to see Romain Duris, probably one of the best French actors, in his first english-speaking role. Anyway, to conclude, even though I didn’t like at least half of it, it was still not bad at all and I think it is worth a look.

Honestly, it has been a while since I have seen this flick so maybe I should watch it again at some point to make up my mind for good about the damned thing. As far as I can remember, I think it must be the only science-fiction feature directed by Woody Allen. Of course, it is and remains a comedy but it was set in a futuristic world which was something quite unexpected from this director and this combination sounded really awesome. Unfortunately, even though I thought it was fairly amusing, I can't say I was really blown my away by the whole thing though. I don't know, maybe at the time, it was considered as really original but the whole concept of a guy who is cryogenically frozen in 1973 and defrosted 200 years later sounded rather weak and pedestrian to me, especially after watching many episodes of 'Futurama' and 'Austin Powers' . I know, those have been made way after so maybe I'm not being really fair with this movie but I just thought it wasn't really funny. To conclude, even though I thought it was slightly disappointing and even though I believe it is a minor effort for this director, it is still definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Woody Allen's work.

Honestly, I had no idea what to expect from this flick but since I have a weak spot for Drew Barrymore, I thought I might as well give it a try. Well, eventually, I didn't like it much. I mean, obviously, it was supposed to be some uplifting tale based on some actual events but it didn’t really work for me. The main issue for me was that there were just too many angles developed. Let me make a quick list: you have 2 different reporters, Greenpeace, an oil company, the national guard, the local Inuit tribe, some guys from Minnesota with some de-icing device, the Russians, a White House representative, Ronald Reagan who was the US president at the time, the people at home following the events through the news report and I might be missing someone. That was just way too much and there was even a half-baked love triangle. Some thought that it made the story stronger but I would disagree. It made it harder to really focus on what's actually going on and it gave the feeling that they didn’t believe that the story was strong enough so they threw all this people in the mix. To conclude, I thought it was rather weak and I don't think it is really worth a look.

If I recall correctly, I saw this movie in the movie theater when I was living in England. At the time, I was still a huge Woody Allen's fan and I was trying to catch all his movies when they were released. 10 years later, it seems rather like a minor effort for the great American director but I thought it was fairly enjoyable. To be honest, it was rather oddly constructed. Indeed, it started like a heist comedy which was quite hilarious and by far the best bit. But then, at some point, they just dropped the whole heist thingy and then it became a rather standard fish-out-of-water comedy. Still, somehow, I actually liked this flick. Indeed, it was nice to have Woody Allen playing the lead and, for once, he wasn't chasing a way too young girl and I really liked his character who was quite funny. Then, I always had a weak spot for Hugh Grant who was pretty much at the top of his game at the time and, combined with Allen's humor, he was quite hilarious. To be honest, it has been a while since I have seen this flick so I should probably re-watch it at some point but I think it is worth a look, especially if you are interested in Woody Allen's work.

It was yet another movie that I had on dvd for ages so it was really time to watch the damned thing. Recently, Matthew McConaughey has made one of the most impressive come-backs ever and, somehow, he has managed to become one of the most exciting actors at work nowadays. However, it hasn't always been like that for the Texan and for almost 10 years, he had been focusing on some really underwhelming romantic-comedies. A few years before his come-back, he actually tried something else and got involved in this project. While it was indeed something new, it actually managed to be actually even worse than his usual rom-coms which at least made some money at the box-office. Indeed, this flick was obviously some kind of vanity project for the thespian as the guy is well known for doing some surfing in his free time. I mean, many have been critical because he was spending too much time without his shirt in most of his movies, well, in this flick, he is shirtless from the beginning until the very end (and also many female extras as a matter of fact). Anyway, the plot involving some evil producers in real-tv and games and months without waves was terribly weak and uneven and all the characters involved were rather obnoxious and dumb. To conclude, I think I'm being rather generous with my rating here and I don't think it is worth a look whatsoever.

Honestly, it has been a while since I have seen this flick but I will probably re-watch it at some point. Nowadays, the box-office has drastically changed. You either get some huge blockbusters involving super-heros, YA adaptations, some very well know franchises or some very cheap indie features and that's basically it and many people involved in the industry find it actually rather worrying. Anyway, 20 years ago, the situation was quite different and you could release a heist feature like this one with a great cast (Robert Redford, Sidney Poitier, David Strathairn, Dan Aykroyd, River Phoenix, Ben Kingsley) and you could still reach a decent success. To be honest, even though I thought it was quite enjoyable and entertaining. I never thought it was actually really amazing. In my opinion, the tone is just too light to take the whole thing seriously, I never believed one second that those guys were actually able to do what the hell they were supposed to pull here and since I didn't take it seriously, then it was rather difficult to really care about the characters of what they are going through. Still, there is no doubt that this team was really charismatic, I had a good time watching this and it is definitely worth a look.

To be honest, it has been ages since I have seen this flick but I still recall it with pleasure. It belongs to a trilogy of books written by Roddy Doyle, all of them adapted in movies. In fact, it is rather odd that the first movie 'The Commitments', directed by Alan Parker was released in the movie theaters with some critical acclaim (I remember it very well, in my first band, pretty much everyone worshipped this movie) but this 2nd installment was actually first a TV feature (I'm pretty sure it was still released in the movie theaters in France but I was too young at the time to have seen it there). Anyway, even though it was nothing really amazing (just like 'The Commitments'), it was still an entertaining and fairly realistic comedy, a typical example of those British comedies with an heavy social background (I know, it actually takes place in Ireland but it definitely belongs to the genre). Eventually, Stephen Frears would direct also the 3rd installment 'The Van' which I haven't seen yet but, apparently, it was the weakest of them. To conclude, I thought it was pretty good and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.