Reviews by johanlefourbe

Like many actors before and after her, Diane Keaton decided at some point to direct a movie and this flick was therefore her directing debut. It’s a really obscure feature which barely got noticed when it was released but I did see it back then in the movie theater, if I’m not mistaken. Eventually, even though it was nothing really amazing, I thought it was a nice subtle little drama. At the time, Andie MacDowell was one of the most popular actresses and she was charming as usual.  Another interesting aspect was to see Michael Richards who was in the middle of his run in ‘Seinfeld’ (one of my favorite TV shows) and I’m pretty sure it was the first of his movies I have seen (he didn’t make many movies in fact). Eventually, this movie was pretty good at showing some rather sweet and eccentric characters but it felt to deliver much else. Later on, Keaton would direct ‘Hanging up’ which was not as terrible as the reviews tried to make you believe but it was definitely a step down after this promising debut.  To conclude, even though it is a rather obscure feature, it is actually a decent whimsical drama and it is worth a look, especially if you like the genre. 

Honestly, I was always had a hard time with this franchise. Indeed, even though the 1st installment was a surprise success at the box-office, I thought it was rather underwhelming even if the concept actually had some potential (as a matter of fact, I preferred ‘The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl 3-D’ which was a massive failure and received some even more abysmal reviews). Anyway, at the time, it seemed that Robert Rodriguez  found his new cash-cow and kept making Spy Kids flicks until the audience really got fed up. As a result, this movie was a flop and Rodriguez finally decided to drop the whole thing (he did make another one in 2011 and even though I haven’t see it yet, it seems to be even more pathetic). At least, 6 years before ‘Avatar’, Rodriguez already tried to revive the 3D technology but it seems that it was too early and the audience didn’t care for it at the time (the movie did look pretty ugly indeed). Even Sylvester Stallone playing multiple villains couldn’t save this flick. To conclude, I didn’t like it much and I don’t think it is really worth look, except maybe if you are a fan of this franchise. 

Even though this movie is rather obscure, since I have a weak spot for Natalie Portman, I was quite eager to check it out. Eventually, it is a rather dark drama but I thought it was pretty good. Indeed, since I’m myself a step-dad for already 10 years, this movie definitely had an extra dimension and the makers showed many aspects correctly. Indeed, when I met my wife, she was still married, with 2 children, and within 6 months, I was living with them when I was just 23 years old at the time. It was tough (it still is) but I never had to face such tension with my step-children (Nick, my step-son, is, as a matter of fact, a huge movie fan and I mention him quite often in my reviews). They were always very kind to me and, in fact, it was my wife who was always impatient. But what could you expect? She had 10 years to learn to be a mom and even with the best intentions, I would never be able to fill this gap. Anyway, they did a pretty good job describing the tricky dynamic involved in such a nuclear family. I also enjoyed the fact that the main character was not really a nice person, she was in fact borderline egoistical which was quite refreshing. I mean, she went through a traumatic experience (which wasn’t necessarily an excuse) and by every mistake she made, she displayed how far behind and disconnected she was from her husband and her step-son (once again, a very familiar situation). Still, it wasn’t flawless though. Indeed, Scott Cohen was not a great choice to play the husband/father and he didn’t have much chemistry with Natalie Portman. Furthermore, during the last 20 minutes, it seemed that the makers didn’t know anymore what to do with them. Should they split? Should they stay together? Since they couldn’t decide, they even threw in a rather underwhelming ambiguous ending. To conclude, in spite of its flaws, I think it is actually a solid drama and it is definitely worth a look.

It is once again a rather obscure French movie which not much people have seen here in Listal. It was the directing début of Claude Miller, a very good French director who passed away recently and never really reached a great success abroad which is too bad. Anyway, this movie was probably his best, at least, that’s my opinion. Indeed, first of all, there is a great title which was inspired by a holiday camp song which I was not familiar with. Then, it dealt with a holiday camp (une colonie de vacances), something really French, and it was based on Claude Miller’s own experience. I used to go in such camps every summer so the story was quite recognizable (my mother made me go there and, as a matter of fact, I really hated it). Eventually, the best aspect of this flick were the two main characters, very well played by Patrick Dewaere and Patrick Bouchitey. Indeed, it is basically a very subtle and fascinating character study, something the French excel at.  To conclude, even though it is a really obscure flick, it is actually a really good drama and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in French movies. 

Back in the 80’s-90’s, Luc Besson was probably the most ambitious French director and his popularity peaked with ‘Léon’ (a vastly overatted movie but it is still considered a masterpiece) and, at the top of his game, he seemed to quit directing and focused on producing some rather boring but very successful action flicks. However, back in 2005, he started to direct again and has made no less than 8 movies in 10 years. Unfortunately, none of them have been really impressive so far and this movie is a fine example. I mean, it is rather odd to see Besson who was very good at directing some very stylish thrillers making instead here a historical drama. The end-result was not really bad but such a historical figure like Aung San Suu Kyi deserved better. I mean, Michelle Yeoh shouldn’t be blamed, she delivered a very good performance, probably her best I have seen so far and David Thewlis was not bad as well but the directing was pretty weak. I mean, as usual with Besson, everything looked beautiful and the shots were perfectly made but he didn’t manage to make this story compelling. Indeed, the biggest mistake he made was to put such a big focus on her relationship with her husband. I’m sure he was a great guy who supported her until the end but can you imagine Richard Attenborough spending half of the running time of ‘Ghandi’ talking about Ghandi's wife? To conclude, even though it was a rather weak drama, it remains an important story and I think it is still worth a look, especially if you are interested in the subject.

It seems surprising considering the fact that, even though I have seen more than 5000 movies, in all kind of different genres and era, I still haven’t watched anything directed by  Andrei Tarkovsky (I know, I’m rather ashamed but hopefully, someday, I will finally get acquainted with his work). Anyway, this movie seemed to be another misguided project for the once workaholic and now retired Steven Soderbergh. Since I’m not familiar with Tarkovsky’s work, I had no preconceived ideas before watching this flick which might explained why I actually enjoyed it when it was actually poorly received. Apparently, it was first James Cameron who was actually planning to direct this flick and he spent many years to get the rights but he was always too busy so he had to drop out.  It was already the 3rd (out of 6) movies starring George Clooney and directed by Soderbergh and, in my opinion, it was at least better than the even more underwhelming ‘The Good German’. Eventually, even though this movie didn’t get much love, I thought it was a nice SF feature with a nice slow flow and a meditative mood. To conclude, even though it was not a masterpiece (like Tarkovsky’s version, at least, according to its reputation), I thought it was a pretty cool flick and I think it is worth a look, especially if you like the genre. 

Ever since I was a kid watching Marco van Basten, Ruud Gullit and Frank Rijkaard with my father, I always had a weak spot for the Dutch national football (soccer) team so I was quite eager to check this documentary. Indeed, it deals with Johan Cruijff, easily the best Dutch football player and probably one of the top 3 best football players that ever lived.  This movie focused on the time he spent at FC Barcelona first as a player (later on, he was also a very successful trainer there as well). The guy had therefore a huge impact on this club and many years later, the football fans from Catalonia had still very grateful for what he did. Indeed, the population was going through a tough time because of the Franco dictatorship and he was apparently a source of hope and inspiration. To be honest, even though the subject was really interesting, the directing was not really inspired. I mean, it was efficient but nothing really fancy. Still, it was quite impressive to see that Johan Cruijff who is already a massive icon in my fatherland, also managed to reach this status in Barcelona and the rest of the region. To conclude, it is a pretty good documentary and it is worth a look, especially if you are interested in this subject. 

Once again, it seemed to be another flop for Tom Cruise and, apparently, the poor guy will never learn. At least, this time, it was actually pretty good, much better than the rather underwhelming ‘Oblivion’ and, to be fair, it would have been a hit if it would have been released 15 or 20 years ago. Basically, there is not one single star who can guarantee a box-office hit, not even Johnny Depp, Will Smith or Adam Sandler who were the last stars who could manage this. Anyway, in spite all this, it was definitely a pretty good flick. There is one thing that bothered me though. Why on Earth was Tom Cruise sent to the front?!? I mean, I have to admit that it was pretty neat that we didn’t know why because we were then able to share the confusion of the character but it was never explained. It was a pretty cool concept though, some mix of ‘Groundhog Day’ with ‘Source Code’. Furthermore, Tom Cruise delivered a decent performance, even though it would have been interesting if the guy became more depressed by his predicament. I was above all impressed by Emily Blunt who was completely convincing as a lethal soldier and we got a glimpse of what she would have done if she played Black Widow as scheduled. Anyway, to conclude, to be honest, I don't think it was really amazing but it was still a really well made and entertaining SF feature and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

I actually already saw this movie but it was a long time ago so I thought I should give it a 2nd chance, considering its pretty good reputation. Indeed, the first time around, I didn’t like it much and I even thought it was actually rather boring. Maybe I didn’t really get the appeal because I grew up in Europe and not in the USA and the whole thing seemed rather pointless to me. Well, this time around, I was finally able to see why it was so popular. The point is that it is actually rather realistic and, instead of having a straightforward plot, you just follow some American kids in the 60’s throught one night and, like any other teenagers, they didn’t do much actually. The funny thing is that 50 years later, they still do pretty much the same thing. Indeed, when I was younger, I used to go every year to Baltimore and, sometimes, the oldest son would ask me to go somewhere in his car and I remember while sitting in his car, I was really wondering where the hell we were going. We weren’t going anywhere, we were just driving around which was a very odd concept to me. Apparently, that was and still is their way to past their time in the week-ends. Anyway, coming back to our main feature, I still believe the characters were still not really engrossing and the way Ron Howard and Richard Dreyfuss’ characters suddenly switches their destinations felt rather artificial. Still, it remains a pretty good flick and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

I have always been intrigued by Terry Gilliam’s work, even though not all his movies have convinced me though and since this movie was Terry Gilliam's first official directing credit, I was really eager to check it out. Indeed, up to that point, Gilliam was working as a member of the Monty Python, it was his first stand-alone feature and that was pretty obvious. I mean, you can see that even though he was already a visionary, especially concerning the visual style and his trademark dark humor, Gilliam was still searching himself and, on top of that, as usual, he didn't have really a big budget at his disposal and many of the scenes were shot in a single take, as there was not enough time or money to afford multiple tries.  Still, even though it didn’t really blow me away, it remains a decent watch but, at the end of the day, it is nothing really amazing in my opinion, above all compared to what he has done later on in his career. To conclude, even though this movie didn’t get much love when it was released, it was pretty awesome to see this wizard finally working on his own and, therefore, this movie is definitely worth a look.