Reviews by johanlefourbe

I had actually already seen this movie but it was a long time ago, so I was really eager to check it out again. Eventually, I think it is a rather minor work in Hitchcock's otherwise prestigious career but even so, it was quite entertaining and I really enjoyed it. The main issue, in my opinion, is that, at that point, Alfred Hitchcock had done already quite a lot of those thrillers and, sometimes, I had the feeling he was just going through the motions. As a result, it is highly reminiscent of some of his better movies, above all 'Vertigo', and I believe he never really cared about all the psycho babble displayed here. Still, the plot was entertaining and I thought that there was a great chemistry between Sean Connery and Tippi Hedren. Connery was also a nice choice and an interesting substitute to the usual suspects Cary Grant and James Stewart. There was also something quite messed up in their relationship which was quite spellbinding to behold, it's too bad it was not more developed because it wad definitely the most interesting aspect in this movie. To conclude, all in all, it is and remains a decent thriller and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Alfred Hitchcock's work.

I already saw this movie but since it was a while back, I thought I might as well check it out again. In fact, I remember very well the first time I saw the damned thing. Indeed, It was back then basically the end of the blockbuster season and this movie was the only new movie which seemed mildly interesting and, on top of that, Nick, my step-son was really enthusiastic about it. Well, it turned out to be yet another young adult book adaptation but, to be honest, I thought it was actually not bad at all. Indeed, the whole maze concept was quite intriguing and rather well developed. I also enjoyed the fact that there was no up-and-coming future star leading the cast which was quite refreshing. Of course, the characters were barely developed and the tone could have been darker in my opinion. There was also one detail that slightly bothered me and it was the fact that all the characters looked too well groomed for some kids who spent up to 3 years stuck into this place. Still, they built up a nice mystery which has been compared to 'Lost', except that the TV show had to go on for more than 100 episodes and at some point, the accumulation of weird stuff became just way too much. Here, they probably won't have this problem and this installment had the advantage that since you were still pretty much in the dark at the end, the excitement was not ruined by some lame ass climax which will probably occur later on during one of the sequels. Anyway, to conclude, I have to admit that it turned out to be better than I expected, it was indeed a decent watch and I think it is worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

After the massive success of 'The Hangover', the studios wanted to continue on this vibe and released 'Bridesmaids', basically a female variation which was also successful. So, they thought they should continue since the public was pretty enthusiastic and made therefore this flick. Unfortunately, it turned out to be a flop. To start with, even though I did like both 'The Hangover' and 'Bridesmaids', I didn't think that they were that great and this flick definitely displayed the limitation of the genre. Indeed, during the first half, they painstakingly took the time to show how shallow, selfish and obnoxious those girls are. Therefore, it was rather difficult to root for them and the whole business about the wedding dress was seriously tedious. Still, all those actresses were actually pretty good and they spent the whole second half trying to recover the damage with various amount of success (Isla Fisher's character was still seriously pathetic even at the end, such a waste for a girl who hasn't done anything really interesting lately even though she seems actually quite talented). To conclude, I think my rating might be a little too generous here, but somehow I think it was still fairly entertaining but don't expect anything really amazing before watching it.

Like pretty much everyone else from my generation, I did watch ‘Friends’ in the 90’s. Obviously, at some point, I dropped the whole thing but I certainly followed it for a couple of years. My favorite character was easily Chandler Bing and I always thought it was too bad Matthew Perry never managed to build up a decent career on the silver screen (eventually, from the ‘Friends’ cast, Jennifer Anniston is the only who really managed the transition). There is however one movie starring this actor which turned out well and it was this comedy. Obviously, he was basically playing Chandler all over again but it didn’t bother me. On top of that, Bruce Willis, albeit one of the biggest action movie stars, actually started his career with such light comedies and it was really nice to see him in this genre again. To round up the cast, you had such charming actresses like Natasha Henstridge and Amanda Peet and they all delivered some solid performances. All in all, it is a rather silly story but, somehow, I thought it did work actually pretty well, I was quite funny and it was fairly entertaining. Unfortunately, since this movie was quite successful, they made a sequel which was truly abysmal. Anyway, to conclude, I thought it was a pretty good comedy and I think it is worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Ever since I have heard about this movie, I became really intrigued about it. Indeed, somehow, Roger Ebert chose it as the best movie released in 1980, above 'Raging Bull' no less than that. However, at the end of the decade, it seems that Ebert came back to his senses and picked up 'Raging Bull' as best movie of the 80's and there was no sign of 'The Black Stallion' anywhere. Even so, I still wanted to check the damned thing. Basically, it is a decent family feature but not much more than that, I'm afraid. Indeed, it starts like 'The Blue Lagoon' and it becomes 'Seabiscuit' at some point. I mean, there is no denying that the first 30 minutes, without any dialogs, when you have just this boy and this horse alone on this island (Ebert's favorite part of this movie), you had some rather impressive scenes visually speaking and the tone was also very nice as well. The rest with the horse training and racing was also fairly decent but, all in all, I didn't care much about the whole story. To conclude, even though I don't really share Roger Ebert's enthusiasm about this flick, it is still a decent watch and I think it is worth a look.

Honestly, I wasn’t sure what to expect from this flick but since I have always had a weak spot for Harrison Ford, I still wanted to check it out. Apparently, it was probably his last box-office success (the last Indiana Jones installment doesn’t really count since it was a box-office success mostly because it was a very well known franchise). Since then, he showed up in some other blockbusters (‘Ender’s Game’, ‘Cowboys & Aliens’) but there were flops and, above all, he wasn't the main character anymore. Anyway, at the time, Harrison Ford was still a leading man and one of the very few actors who could portray a believable president but also a convincing action hero. Basically, that’s the whole point of this flick : to have the US president kicks some major ass and to enjoy this movie, you really need to dig this concept. Personally, I thought it was quite ridiculous but it was still fairly entertaining because Ford was very charismatic, Gary Oldman was as usual a great villain and Wolfgang Petersen definitely knew how to direct an entertaining action feature. To conclude, even though I don’t think it is really amazing, it is still a decent action flick and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

At first, I thought it would be great to have a new modern adaptation of this novel since it is one of my favorite books. However, pretty quickly, my excitement diminished for this movie. Indeed, when I heard that Ben Barnes was playing the title character, I became disillusioned about the whole thing. Even though Barnes has indeed a pretty face, I doubted he could portray the devilish Dorian Gray and I'm afraid I was right. At least, I have to admit it, he did try but that was hardly enough and it felt like watching a little lamb trying to pretend that he is actually a wolf. On top of that, even though the whole thing looked pretty good and convincing, they didn't get the tone right. The only actor who really stood out was Colin Forth who managed to do a lot with very little since his character was not very well developed either. Eventually, it wasn't really awful but I was actually rather bored during the whole thing which was quite something since I actually loved the story it was based on. To conclude, it wasn't a complete failure but it is still a weak adaptation and I don't think it is really worth a look.

For some reasons, I ended up watching this flick in the movie theater with a chick I knew and, looking back, I seriously wonder why we decided to pick up this flick. Anyway, it is basically a really unremarkable slasher flick which could be almost considered as a remake of ‘The Texas Chainsaw Massacre’. The only point of interest would be to have such charming actresses like Eliza Dushku and Emmanuelle Chriqui on the screen but even them couldn’t really save this flick. I mean, it wasn’t really awful but I just really didn’t care about the whole thing. Apparently, it was actually quite successful on DVD and, therefore, they launched quite an impressive franchise with no less than 5 direct-to-dvd sequels (obviously, I haven’t seen any of them and I’m not planning to). Eventually, the director Rob Schmidt would direct another thriller called 'The Alphabet Killer', starring once again Eliza Dushku and, even though it was still rather underwhelming and even cheaper to look at, at least, it developped a few interesting ideas about a cop slowly becoming insane. Anyway, coming back to our main feature, I think it is a really weak horror flick and I don’t think it is really worth a look, except maybe if you are a die-hard fan of the genre.

Basically, it is another major classic directed by Oliver Stone but, to be honest, the first time I watched it, I thought it was actually slightly disappointing. I mean, it remains a very good movie, no doubt about it, but I thought that Charlie Sheen’s character was terribly bland and not very well developed. Furthermore, the whole thing about the young stockbroker being attracted by greed but who ultimately rejects it was rather boring and pedestrian. Still, there was some great stuff here, absolutely. First of all, Michael Douglas was just terrific as Gordon Gekko and only to see him makes it worth watching the whole damned thing and, in my opinion, he should have been the main character. Basically, that was the main problem with this movie. Indeed, even though the movie was against Gekko, yelling that he is the bad guy and that you should despise him, deep down, everyone thought he was awesome and this character became an icon, a role model for many guys who wanted to succeed in the stock-exchange world. To conclude, in spite of its flaws, this movie is still an invaluable time-capsule showing Wall Street back in the 80’s and it is definitely worth a look.

Since I had this movie on DVD for such a long time (I bought it at least 3 years ago), I thought it was really time to watch the damned thing. Mel Brooks is basically one of these directors I was really interested in at first but after watching most of his movies (I think by now I'm only missing 2 or 3 of his movies), I came to the conclusion that I'm not really a huge fan of his work, except for 'The Producers'. This movie is actually a perfect example. I mean it is nowadays pretty much forgotten and it must be one of Mel Brooks's most obscure features but, even though I thought it was not bad and fairly entertaining, I can't say I was really blown away by the whole thing though. Above all, I had a hard time to care about the plot and I got tired at some point to see these characters running after each other holding one of those damned chairs. Still, some dialogues were pretty funny and I especially enjoyed the completely nuts priest played by Dom DeLuise. It was also pretty neat to see a very young Frank Langella. To conclude, I don't think it is anything remotely remarkable but I still think it is worth a look, especially if you are interested in Mel Brooks's work.