Reviews by johanlefourbe

In the 90's, Kusturica was one of the most important directors in the world and I was a big fan of his work. Unfortunately, we haven't heard much from him during the 00's and that's too bad. Anyway, back in the 90’s, after making his only US production so far starring no one less than Johnny Depp (it’s called ‘Arizona Dream’ and it is quite marvelous), Kusturica went back to (ex-)Yugoslavia to make what many consider his magnum opus and, for the second time around, the Serbian director won the prestigious Golden Palm at the Cannes Film Festival. Eventually, even though I did like it at the time (I saw it in the movie theater when it was released), I wasn’t exactly blown away. I guess I was just too young at the time (I think I must have been 15-16 years old when I first saw it) and since it is a rather complex feature with many layers, quite frankly, it went a little bit over my head. Still, it is quite an impressive piece of work, a big epic about Yugoslavian history. To conclude, I hope I will re-watch it someday to make up my mind for good about the damned thing but it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Emir Kusturica’s work.

It has been a while since I have seen this flick (I'm actually pretty sure that I actually saw it in the movie theater when it was released in fact). Anyway, it is one of the more obscure and less ambitious features directed by Oliver Stone but I thought it was thoroughly enjoyable. Basically, instead of the rather heavy historical and/or political dramas which had become Oliver Stone's specialty, it seems that this time, he just wanted to have some fun, so he decided to make this flick which is some kind of neo-film noir and even though it is nothing amazing whatsoever, it still believe it was a decent effort in this genre. Indeed, even though the story was nothing really original and was rather predictable, I really enjoyed the directing and there was a terrific cast (Sean Penn, Billy Bob Thornton, Jon Voight, Powers Boothe, Nick Nolte, Joaquin Phoenix, Claire Danes, Liv Tyler). Finally, it is not very often that you get to see a pretty good movie starring Jennifer Lopez, that is already noteworthy on its own, don’t you think ? To conclude, I think it is a pretty good flick and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Oliver Stone's work.

Honestly, I wasn't expecting much from this flick but since I have a weak spot for Jason Schwartzman and Ben Stiller, I thought I might as well give it a try. Basically, it belongs to this sub-genre in comedy, when the main character is more or less a pathetic moron. Personally, I have never been a fan of the genre, I even disliked a lot a huge classic like 'Dumb and Dumber', and even though I did like 'Napoleon Dynamite', it was still nothing really amazing. I mean, it is so tricky, you have to manage to create a pityful character but he or she still has to be interesting or entertaining to watch. Well, Marc Pease was certainly not interesting or entertaining. To make things worse, they thought it would be hilarious to have another major douchebag played by Ben Stiller but, again, it was a massive failure. To complete this, they added a very weak female character played by Anna Kendrick to create an underwhelming love triangle. As a result, the whole thing felt like a big waste of time for all these talented actors. To conclude, I think I might be really generous with my rating here, it is just a really weak comedy and I don't think it is worth a look whatsoever.

Honestly, this movie sounded really cheesy on paper but since I always had a weak spot for Robert Redford and Michelle Pfeiffer, I was still eager to check it out. Eventually, I thought it was actually not bad at all. I mean, sure, it remains a rather sappy feature and you won't get much real journalistic work but both leads were really charismatic and they definitely had a great chemistry together. In fact, this story was actually based on the life of Jessica Savitch who was apparently a famed newscaster at the end of the 70's. As a result, you have some glimpse of some interesting insights of what this movie could have been but the producers apparently didn't trust this interesting material and drastically altered her story and added above all a really pedestrian love story. I mean, it is always rather disappointing when they add a romantic intrigue just to spice up the proceedings as if they don't trust the audience to get involved in a smart and engaging tale. Still, even though the whole thing was rather misguided, it was still a decent watch, thanks to the actors involved, and I think it is actually worth a look, especially if you have like those fluffy romantic features.

Honestly, I wasn't sure what to expect from this flick but since I have a weak spot for Jennifer Aniston and Paul Rudd, I thought I might as well give it a try. Well, by now, I have seen most of the movies involving Judd Apatow and I'm afraid it might be his weakest production I have seen so far. Indeed, in my opinion, the whole thing was just really misguided and the fact that none of the characters were likeable or remotely funny didn't help either. In fact, I woud go further and say that they were actually pretty damned annoying. I mean, it is not really a secret that, in fact, Judd Apatow is actually fiercely against weed smoking and it was just so obvious here. Right from the start they show us this community, it is from such a negative point of view, since there is apparently nothing really pleasant about this experience, you never really understand why the main characters would actually want to get involved in this. So, all along, you get some very lame jokes which were actually more cringe-inducing than funny. To conclude, even though it might have sounded interesting on paper, it was eventually a rather weak comedy and I don't think it is really worth a look.

Since David Fincher is definitely one of the best directors at work nowadays, I was really eager to check this movie and the fact that it had received some really positive reviews made me even more eager to watch it. Well, once again, Fincher came with a really original work and I'm actually surprised that it is actually so popular since it is far from being a maintream feature. Indeed, it is probably his weirdest movie since 'Fight Club' with so many layers that I will probably keep thinking about it for many days. The first layer was obviously a thriller about a man who might have killed his wife. Then, the second layer was a really pitch black comedy about an average guy who gets involved in this very weird media circus. This combination was already pure genius and like 'The Wolf of Wall Street', it was rather unexpected but very much welcome. Obviously, the whole thing went even further and it became this really weird study about how married life can make you think and or do the weirdest thing, even if in this case, it became pretty extreme but it was obviously all on purpose. To be honest, I'm not sure that everything really did work though. For example, I'm not sure that Ben Affleck's and Rosamund Pike's characters did belong in the same movie as she was seriously over-the-top while he was much more realistic and therefore more engrossing. Still, even though I'm not sure if it is really a masterpiece, it was certainly an impressive movie and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in David Fincher's work.

Honestly, I wasn't expecting much from this flick but I since I have a weak spot for Jamie Foxx, I thought I might as well give it a try. I have to confess that, even though the poster looked terribly lame, I though that Nia Long looked quite stunning on this poster (I know it sounds a little bit weird but anyway...). However, even though she was therefore displayed prominently on all the promotional material, it was quite disappointing that she was basically dropped within the first 10 minutes. Anyway, even with her, I don't think it would have been much better. Indeed, it is basically a rather boring comedy taking place in one single location with a bunch of tedious characters. Sometimes, it was almost a comedic version of 'Dog Day Afternoon' but this attempt was rather pitiful. Concerning Jamie Foxx, it is difficult to believe that the guy would eventually win an Oscar 5 years later for 'Ray'. I mean, it's not that he was really bad, it's just that the whole thing was just meaningless and a big waste of time. Anyway, to conclude, I have seen worse but it was still a very weak comedy and I don't think it is worth a look, even if you are fan of Jamie Foxx.

Sidney Lumet has recently passed away and during his very long career, he has directed a few classics (12 angry men, Dod day afternoon, Serpico,...) and also a few stinkers (The wiz, Gloria,...). He made this movie already 40 years ago and, in my opinion, it belongs in his decent-but-not-really-great features. I mean, on paper, the whole thing sounded great as it was a prestigious adaptation of a famous book written by Agatha Christie with an insanely impressive all-star cast (Albert Finney, Lauren Bacall, Ingrid Bergman, Jacqueline Bisset, Jean-Pierre Cassel, Sean Connery, John Gielgud, Anthony Perkins, Vanessa Redgrave, Michael York) so it should have been great. Eventually, it was a well made and entertaining flick but, to be honest, I wasn’t completely blown away. I mean, there is such a focus on all the great stars involved, they put more attention to give everyone a little bit of screen time instead of developping a really great story. As a result, like in most of Agatha Christie’s stories, I was hoping for a very smart and impressive conclusion in the climax but I thought it was actually rather underwhelming. Anyway, to conclude, even though I was expecting a little bit more from this feature, it was still pretty good and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

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. Indeed, I saw it when I was very young actually before his big classics and I thought it was pretty good. I mean, I never heard of Preston Tucker before and, to be honest, I’m not sure I really cared about his story, at least, not as much as Coppola himself. Still, I thought it was an entertaining biopic with a very good performance by the always dependable Jeff Bridges. To conclude, I think it is a pretty good flick and I should re-watch it at some point to make up my mind for good about the damned thing.

I already saw this flick and I really didn't like it all but I thought I was maybe a little too harsh so I decided to give it a second chance and re-watched it with Nick, my step-son, since he loved vampire movies. Well, even after all these years, I still think it is actually pretty terrible and definitely one of the worst movies directed by John Carpenter. The main issue I had with this movie is that, in my opinion, it was so empty. Indeed, it was void of any original ideas and, above all, it was just so damned boring to watch. I mean, even James Woods who is usually quite fun to watch tried to make his character look and sound as if he was really bad-ass but he didn't manage to make this more compelling to me. Obviously, when you end up casting Daniel Baldwin, probably the worst and cheapest Baldwin brother, you should already know there is something wrong. At least, it was nice to see Sheryl Lee a few years after 'Twin Peaks' but since she was a real zombie during most of the duration, it was hardly a redeeming feature. Anyway, to conclude, I think it is pretty bad and I don't think it is worth a look, even if you are a fan of John Carpenter's work.