Reviews by johanlefourbe

This flick is registered as a TV show here on Listal but, in IMDB, it is considered a standard movie (I think it was considered as a TV feature on IMDB as well but it has been modified in the mean time). In fact, this film was originally supposed to have a theatrical release but it eventually ended up debuting on Showtime in the U.S. Anyway, I wasn’t sure what to expect from this flick but since I always had a weak spot for Sigourney Weaver, I thought I might as well check it out. Basically, it is a rather dark version of the famous tale but, even though the concept was interesting, the end-result was rather underwhelming. To start with, the reason why it wasn’t originally theatrically released is maybe because the whole thing looked pretty cheap. Furthermore, I had a really hard time to invest myself in this version because, by now, like everyone else, I pretty much know this tale and to make it really interesting again, they have to come up with something really impressive, which wasn’t the case here. At least, Sigourney Weaver was a very good choice to play the evil queen but it was the only redeeming feature here. To conclude, even though it is not completely awful, it is still a fairly weak feature and I don’t think it is really worth a look.

By now, I have seen almost all the movies directed by Hayao Miyazaki and, of course, at some point, I had to watch his directing début. Well, even though it was fairly enjoyable, it was still his weakest effort so far. Indeed, basically, it wasn’t a personal project but, like everyone else, he had to start somewhere and it could have been worse, I guess. Obviously, the animation felt rather dated, although some action scenes (above all the car chase at the beginning) were sometimes quite mind-blowing and I found out afterwards that they had just 4 months (!) of production. How could they manage to make this 100 minutes animated feature in such a short time is beyond me, especially when you think that the average production time for an animated flick is usually around 4 years. Apparently, because of this tight production schedule, Miyazaki had to play around with the script and he was never really satisfied with the end-result. To be honest, the whole plot was pretty chaotic but maybe it has to do with the fact that I haven’t seen the previous installment or the TV show it was based on. To conclude, in spite of its flaws, it remains a decent watch and it is worth a look, especially if you are interested in Hayao Miyazaki’s work.

By now, I have seen all the movies starring Eddie Murphy (I’m only missing his last movie ‘A Thousand Words’) and it has been a very thankless task. Indeed, it is not very often that you come across an actor who managed so thoroughly to destroy his career (Val Kilmer and Nicolas Cage are some decent contenders as well). However, it hasn’t been always like that for Murphy. Indeed, in the 80’s, he was definitely one of the most popular actors, maybe even the most popular one, and this movie was a huge success and it has become by far his most iconic part. With this in mind, I had some rather high expectations and, to be honest, I thought it was slightly underwhelming. The point is that the whole thing sounded great on paper but I thought that the end-result was decent but nothing really mind-blowing. I don’t know, in my opinion, it seemed that the makers were happy with the concept and just let Eddie Murphy throw some funny one-liners without really developping this concept. Therefore, I thought the timing was a little bit off. Surprisingly, I actually prefer the 2nd installment which had a better mix between the hard action scenes by expert Tony Scott and the wild humor provided by Murphy. To conclude, in spite of its flaws, it remains a decent action comedy, it is a classic, and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

To be honest, it has been a while since I have seen this flick and a re-watch might change my opinion about the whole thing. On top of that, I have never been a huge fan of Stephen King’s book adaptations but, at least, the ones with a realistic angle were always better in my opinion (with the notable exception of ‘The Shining’). Anyway, I have to admit it, it was actually a decent thriller but I couldn’t help thinking that the whole thing was pretty much a gimmick. Indeed, 5 years before, Kathy Bathes already played a major role in a Stephen King story, in ‘Misery’, and she pretty much gave a career defining performance (and, indeed, ‘Misery’ is pretty much rock solid as a feature). So, this time again, they took the same formula (thriller+Stephen King+Kathy Bates) and hoped they would reach the same success. Sure, the plot was fairly entertaining and, at the time, Jennifer Jason Leigh was definitely one of the most talented actress of her generation (too bad she never got the major breakthrough she deserved) but I can’t say I was really convinced by the whole thing. Still, to conclude, I still think it is one of the better Stephen King’s book adaptations (with all the garbage they produce, it is hardly surprising) and it is worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

It has been a while since I have seen this flick and I was quite impressed when I saw this as a kid in the movie theater. I must have been 6 or 7 years when I saw it at the time and I thought it was pretty dark and almost scary. Watching it back after so many years later, I can see that there was in fact not much to be scared about after all. I mean, sure, it was darker than your usual Disney feature but it was still really kid friendly with the usual annoying songs popping up every 10 minutes. At the time, Don Bluth, who once worked for Disney but decided to work on his own, was going through a golden period and this movie and his following directing effort ‘The Land Before Time’ were easily his biggest successes. Basically, I think it is a flick really enjoyable when you are very young and, for grown-ups, it remains an interesting watch but the cheesiness is a little bit too much for my taste. Anyway, to conclude, all in all, it is definitely a pretty good feature and I think it is really worth a look, especially if you are interested in animated movies.

Since I had this dvd for so long (apparently, I bought it more than 2 years ago), I thought it was finally time to check the damned thing. As a matter of fact, I had it for so long ago that, when I bought it, Marc Anthony and Jennifer Lopez were still married, and now that I finally managed to see it, their divorce has been finalized. Anyway, it is always nice to see a biopic about an artist I have never heard of and, I must admit it, the music was really good. Unfortunately, the movie was rather weak and it must be one of the most pedestrian biopics I have ever seen. I mean, the guy comes to New York and, just like that, gets into a club and, a few months later, he is pretty much a star already. Then, without much of an explanation, he starts to get addicted to drugs and then you have the very slow road towards self destruction which we have seen already so many times before. I mean, Marc Anthony was actually not bad but his character was poorly developed and we never really got the opportunity to get to know him. Concerning Jennifer Lopez, while watching this, I was thinking about what Roger Ebert used to say, something like 15 years ago, that she was one of the most talented actresses around. Well, I always felt that this statement was a bit exagerated but there was some potential however her acting career is not doing so well lately and I can’t say she really impressed me here. Anyway, to conclude, I have seen worse but it still remain a weak feature and I don’t think it is really worth a look.

I always find it rather amusing when people tell me that they find 'Gladiator' totally awesome. Do they know that the Peplum is actually one of the oldest genres in cinema and that 'Gladiator' is merely a reboot? Anyway, this movie was probably the least personal project for Stanley Kubrick as he was hired at the last minute by Kirk Douglas. Indeed, the whole thing was supposed to be directed by Anthony Mann but he was fired by Douglas who then hired Stanley Kubrick but they didn’t get along either and Douglas swore he would never work again with Kubrick. This movie was also the first and last time Kubrick made what you could call a 'standard' big budget studio feature without full control (as a matter of fact, After 'Spartacus', Kubrick always kept full control over all the aspects of his films). Even so, I thought it was a really awesome flick with some spectacular scenes and it is definitely my favorite peplum. I have re-watched it recently and I was again quite impressed. Indeed, it is obviously the movie which stands out the most from Kubrick’s filmography as his touch is not so omnipresent and I think it is his most accessible flick but it is not necessarily a bad thing. To conclude, I thought it was really good especially and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Stanley Kubrick’s work.

Since I really loved ‘Bowling for Columbine’, I was really eager to check Michael Moore’s following directing effort. From a box-office point of view, this movie was a huge success. Indeed, it was the first ever documentary to cross the $100 million mark in the United States (it might still be the most successful documentary ever made but I’m not really sure about this). In fact, this tremendous success was in fact one of the main issues with this flick. Indeed, ever since ‘Bowling for Columbine’ became such a huge critical success (completely deserved in my opinion), Michael Moore pretty much became a superstar and a brend and that’s more the reason why the US audience rushed to see this flick. Of course, they were interested by the topic but if some obscure director would have made it, would it have been so successful? I highly doubt it. I mean, it remains an interesting flick with some very intriguing ideas and theories but it was less sharp than ‘Bowling…’ and, like I just pointed out before, Michael Moore put to much focus on himself. Sure, he is quite smart and often quite funny but he should focus more on the topic at hand. Still, even though I don’t think it was great, I still think it was pretty good though and it is worth a look, especially if you are interested in Michael Moore’s work.

Ever since ‘Toy Story’ became a critical and financial success, CGI animation has been an ever expanding market. Nowadays, you have two giants, ‘Pixar’ and ‘Dreamworks’, but behind those two , you can find a multitude of smaller studios trying their hands at this popular genre. One of them is Blue Sky which is probably the 3rd on the podium, just behind the two giants, above all thanks to the Ice Age franchise. Personally, I really liked ‘Ice Age’ and I was really curious to see Chris Wedge’s following directing effort. Eventually, I went to see it with my wife and my step-kids in the movie theater and I thought it was actually pretty good. Indeed, it really looked gorgeous, much more than ‘Ice Age’ which had a rather minimalistic animation style. Here, there were many impressive details and they created all these amazing daft robots. Furthermore, there were also some impressive action scenes (the best one being the travel through the city with Rodney and Fender). The only issue was that the story was a little too pedestrian but I thought it was still entertaining enough. Unfortunately, it wasn’t a smashing success at the box-office, especially compared to the huge numbers reached by the Ice Age franchise so this flick has always been rather underrated. To conclude, even though it is not really amazing, I think it is actually a pretty good animated feature and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.