Reviews by johanlefourbe

Honestly, it has been a while since I watched this movie and maybe I shoud rewatch it at some point to make up my mind for good but I thought it was pretty good at the time. I remember, when it was released, there was a pretty good buzz about it. Indeed, it was an epic periode drama directed by Anthony Minghella, previous oscar winner with ‘Shakespeare in Love’, there was an all-star cast and it was distributed by the Weinstein brothers who always had a very agressive campaign to make sure their indie productions got a lot of attention. Eventually, even though it did pretty well financially (from a 80 million dollars budget, they reached 170 million dollars at the box-office), it managed to get only some decent reviews when it was in fact clearly aiming for the oscars but it makes sense in my opinion (Renée Zellweger did win on oscar though but it was a minor one and, on top of that, her character was in fact the most annoying one in the whole flick). Indeed, it is a rather gorgeous epic with some great decors and costumes and there was a very nice cast (Jude Law, Nicole Kidman, Renée Zellweger, Brendan Gleeson, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Natalie Portman, Giovanni Ribisi, Donald Sutherland, Ray Winstone, Charlie Hunnam and even Jack White) . The main issue was that even though the story was entertaining, it was never really spellbinding enough. Still, I actually liked the damned thing and I think it is worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

To be honest, it has been a while since I saw this movie and I was very young when I saw it and maybe a re-watch would change my opinion. The point is that, at the time, Emma Thompson was definitely one of the best actresses around and it was heralded at the Cannes Film Festival (it won the Jury Special Prize at the time) so I had some pretty high expectations but, somehow, I thought it was slightly disappointing. The fact that I wasn’t familiar with the real life figures involved didn’t help either but I had a rather hard time to care about the whole thing. Basically, it is about a loveless relationship so I’m not sure if it could be considered a real love story. Still, the actors shouldn’t be blamed. Indeed, Emma Thompson was really good as usual and Jonathan Pryce shouldn’t be forgotten as he had the rather unthankful task of playing a rather unlikeable character and he absolutely delivered a solid performance, probably one of the best of his career. To conclude, even though it didn’t really connect with this flick, it remains an interesting periode drama and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

It is once again a rather obscure French movie which not much people have seen here in Listal. It had been a while since I saw a movie directed by Claire Denis so I was quite eager to check this flick, even though it was a definitely obscure flick. Basically, it is rather simple movie, with only two characters, and even though it was nothing really groundbreaking, it was still pretty good though. Indeed, the French have a rich history of movies with no action whatsoever and with the only the characters endlessly talking to each other and, I’ll give you that, it is an acquired taste but I always had a weak spot for those flicks. To be honest, I have never been a fan of Valérie Lemercier who is a rather famous comedic actress in France. Indeed, I found her usually rather annoying but she toned down her usual hysteria this time and she actually delivered a decent performance. Vincent Lindon was also pretty good and he usually does when he is given some decent material like here. To conclude, it might not be the most memorable movie directed by Claire Denis but I think it is still a decent flick and it is worth a look, especially if you are interested in French movies.

Honestly, I wasn’t expecting much from this flick but since I still have a weak spot for Nicolas Cage, I thought I might as well give it a try. Well, honestly, I thought it was not bad at all after all. Indeed, back in those days, Cage was still one of the most interesting actors and he was not chasing some paychecks. Obviously, the story was basically a comedic version of ‘Indecent Proposal’ and it was nothing really amazing. At first, it seemed that it was about a man unable to get married for some dubious reasons but, like I said before, it was in fact about a man who ‘lends’ his girlfriend to some rich guy. So, I didn’t care much about the plot at all but, man, Cage was good back then. Indeed, in many scenes, the guy was just really hilarious, giving one of his typical manic performances. Another interesting aspect was to see a much younger Sarah Jessica Parker and I have to admit it, even though she might be one of the least attractive actresses at work nowadays, she was actually quite stunning at the time. To conclude, even though it is nothing great, it is actually worth a look, if only for Nicolas Cage’s work.

Not so long ago, I have seen ‘Gettysburg’ and even though it was a tough watch (at 4 hours long, it is the longest US production released theatrically), it was still pretty good so I was quite eager to check this 2nd installment. In fact, it is a prequel showing what happened in the years just before this famous battle and, to be honest, it wasn’t really good I’m afraid. Again, they made a very long and a realistic film full of historical details but I really had a hard time to care about the whole thing this time. They decided to focus on Stonewall Jackson which wasn’t really a bad idea since he was one of the most famous generals involved in the Civil War but why on Earth did they cast Stephen Lang who played already a completely different part in ‘Gettysburg’?!? That was so distracting, I think it took me at least 45 minutes to realize he was actually someone else. The other issue is that they thought it would be a good idea to show the life of the people behind the frontline, like in ‘The Birth of a Nation’, but those scenes were really tedious with some really pathetic dialogs. Finally, this time, they managed to bring 2 black characters but they were so poorly developed and stereotypical, it was borderline insulting. To conclude, the whole thing is rather a failure and I don’t think it is really worth a look.

It had been a while since I saw a movie directed by Robert Altman and since this one is considered as one of his ultimate masterpieces, I was really eager to check it out. While watching this, I realized that Altman is actually a rather difficult director. I mean, it is not that his movies are really cryptic or difficult to follow like with David Lynch or Kim Ki-Duk for example, but he definitely has a very oblic approach concerning his directing which might explain why I have sometimes a hard time with his movies. Basically, he usually puts his camera in the middle of the scene and leave the characters do the talking but there is no real editing and, sometimes, you have 5 characters speaking to each other, sometimes improvising their dialogues which have nothing to do with the plot. It is like when someone gets into a room, normally, he would be presented to the audience somehow but, since the characters already know this person, they just skip this. As a result, you get something really realistic and this directing style definitely was Robert Altman’s trademark but, honestly, I think I find it rather alienating. I mean, there is something pretty mesmerizing about this directing style but I think it is also creates a gap between the audience and the characters. Still, even though this movie didn’t really blow me away, it looked quite terrific, the songs provided by Leonard Cohen were a perfect fit and it must be one of the gloomiest Western I have ever seen. To conclude, I think it is a really nice flick and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Robert Altman’s work.

I´m not really sure if it is a really famous movie abroad (it still managed to reach 15 millions viewers across Europe, without counting the 4 millions in France) but, in France, it was a massive success and it is pretty much a classic. The point is that the whole thing was highly recognizable, at least, from the French people from my generation. Indeed, we have all been to one of those 'boums' which is basically a party involving teenagers between 10 and 15 years old, where there was  some music and dancing but no booze, smoking and drugs whatsoever and, for many kids, it was the first discovery of their romantic feelings or attraction towards the other sex. It was all very innocent and it didn´t go further than kissing and hugging (usually, nothing happened at all) but, even though they were usually nearby, parents were were not supposed to be present and witness the whole thing. Anyway, this movie definitely gave a believeable view on this phenomenom. On top of that, this movie is also memorable in the sense that it launched the career of Sophie Marceau who was just 14 years old at the time. Still, to be honest, even though it is a cute movie dealing with a cute subject, it doesn´t go much further than this though. To conclude, even though I don´t think it is a really amazing flick, it remains a decent watch and it is worth a look, especially if you are interested in French movies.

For Nolan, it is where the whole thing really started. I mean, many people, included me, had noticed him before, above all thanks to 'Memento', but, up to that point, the guy was rather unknown to the mainstream audience. Anyway, it was his most ambitious project so far and it was nothing small. Indeed, his mission was to resurrect the almighty Cape Crusader, a beloved character whose reputation had been terribly destroyed following the misguided installments directed by Joel Schumacher. Eventually, this first movie was a success, financially and critically. Indeed, he threw away everything that had been done before and started the whole thing from scratch, with a new gritty realistic approach. Suddenly, super-heros meant serious business and this genre never looked the same after that. Of course, it was not completely flawless. Indeed, Katie Holmes was not really convincing and the 2nd part, when we actually finally see the Batman, was actually weaker than the awesome 1st part when you witness his actual birth. Still, even though it might not be a masterpiece like the great 2nd installment, it remains an awesome flick and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre or if you are interested in Christopher Nolan´s work.

For many years, Colin Farrell seemed to be on the verge of becoming the next best thing but he never really managed to fulfill these promises. Indeed, except for a few real gems, like ‘In Bruges’, his career has been basically filled with under-performing blockbusters or some rather underwhelming obscure flicks. Well, this movie definitely belongs to the second group. I mean, the subject was really interesting and there was some real potential here but the whole thing was rather poorly developed in my opinion. I mean, how convenient was that Paz Vega’s grandfather had some useful experience in this field? At least, Christopher Lee delivered a solid performance but I really had my doubts when he started to make Colin Farrell drawing on the walls. I mean, seriously?!? Obviously, the fact that he had a breakthrough after just 2 meetings was already rather unbelievable but this small and rather insignificant detail, I’ll give you that, made the whole thing rather unconvincing. For Danis Tanovic, the director of this movie, it was quite a step down from ‘No man’s land’. Still, to conclude, in spite of its flaws, it remains a decent feature and I think it is worth a look, especially if you are interested by this subject.

There was a time when Jean-Jacques Annaud was one of the most inspiring French directors, one of the few who managed to develop a decent career abroad, but those days are long gone, I’m afraid. One of his most impressive movies was ‘L’ours’ which was a very unique feature and a huge success at the time, at least, in France and, 16 years, it seemed that he was going for something similar with this movie so I was really eager to check it out. This time, he made a movie focusing on two tigers, not easily the easiest animals to work with I presume, and once again, he didn’t use this terrible Disney gimmick to make the animals talk and behaving like human beings which was a great reveal. Unfortunately, whereas the plot from ‘L’ours’ was quite realistic, at least, believable, for this movie, he went for a rather far-fetched story, maybe easier to digest for young children but rather underhwelming for the grown-ups and the focus put on the boring human characters didn’t help either. Still, once again, he came up with some quite marvelous footage with those tigers, something I had never seen before, and only therefore, the movie was still quite intriguing to behold. To conclude, even though the whole thing was rather flawed, it remains a rather original and interesting picture and I think it is worth a look.