Reviews by johanlefourbe

Back then in the 90’s, Costner decided to make his directing debut with ‘Dances with the Wolves’ which turned out to be pretty successful and it was even won the Best Picture Academy Award (which is pretty shocking when you think that ‘Goodfellas’ was also nominated. I wasn’t exactly blown away by his directing debut but, at least, it was miles better than his following directing effort, ‘The Postman’ and after that, most of us though that Kevin Costner’s directing career was pretty much over. However, 6 years later, he came along for another attempt at the directing game and guess what? It was actually pretty good and I would go even further and say that it was better than ‘Dances…’. Indeed, this time, he managed to make a compelling Western, albeit less epic, but with some more balanced characters and a better tone alltogether. I have to admit it, it wasn’t really original and it shouldn’t be remembered as a masterpiece in this genre but Costner did a good work here and I was entertained throughout the whole damned thing. To conclude, even though this movie is nowadays pretty much forgotten, it is actually pretty good and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

I wasn’t sure what to expect from this flick but since there was a pretty good cast, I thought I might as well give it a try. Well, honestly, I didn’t like this movie, I thought it was a really chore to watch and I was really surprised to find out that Roger Ebert actually really enjoyed this movie. I mean, it did look good (probably too good when you are actually dealing with the Great Depression, hobbos and what not) and the actors did what they could with the material but I really had a hard time with this mix of childiness and heavy topics such as people losing their homes, their jobs and many other things. The point is how can you make a kids flick about the Great Depression? I don’t think it is impossible and Roberto Begnini with ‘La vita e bella’ or anything involving Charles Chaplin showed us that you can make something light from something actually rather depressing. Here, every dramatic aspect was toned down by something whimsical happening on the side and, at the end, you get a really moralistic message that it wasn’t so bad after all and it even actually made them stronger. To conclude, even though it wasn’t really a bad movie, I thought it was rather misguided and I don’t think it is really worth a look.

Back in the 90’s, I was a huge fan of Jim Jarmusch so I was really eager to check this flick. It also sounded like a really intriguing concept. Indeed, for a 17 year period, Jim Jarmusch was shooting some short movies always involving people smoking cigarettes and drinking coffee. Apparently, the first movie was shot in 1987 with Roberto Benigni. Eventually, it was not bad but the whole thing was somehow still rather underwhelming. Indeed, it is always the same thing with a collection of short movies, some of them are pretty good but some of them are rather weak and, therefore, the end-result is not really impressive. Personally, I really liked the one starring Iggy Pop and Tom Waits, the one with Cate Blanchett, the one with GZA, RZA and Bill Murray and the one with Alfred Molina and Steve Coogan. The rest, however, didn’t really blow me away though. Eventually, after the amazing ‘Dead Man’ and impressive ‘Ghost Dog’, I had some pretty big expectations with Jim Jarmusch, this movie was a step down in my opinion and, even though ‘Broken Flowers’, his following directing effort, was another critical success, I didn’t think it was that amazing (I should re-watch it though). Anyway, even though it is a minor effort in Jarmusch’s career, it is still not bad at all and definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in this director.

Honestly, I had a rather hard time to make up my mind about this movie. Indeed, both Joe Pesci and Helen Mirren gave some solid performances and you could feel that the whole thing had some potential but, eventually, I came to the conclusion that I didn't care much about this story. I mean, it was intriguing to make a movie about a brothel in Nevada but, to start with, even though the whole place looked pretty sordid, they tried to make us believe that it was not so bad for the girls working there. Furthermore even though the whole brothel thing was enough for one movie, they decided to add up a boxing angle which I didn't really care for and, to make things worse, they made Helen Mirren's character fall in love with the much younger Argentinian boxer. Basically, it wasn't a very good story and both Helen Mirren and Joe Pesci deserved better. It is not very often that the great Helen Mirren gets to play the lead and, for Pesci, the waste was maybe worse since it was the first movie he made in 12 years (if you don't count 'The Good Sheperd' which was merely a cameo). To conclude, even though this movie had some potential, it is eventually rather weak and not really worth a look.

Basically, it is one of those movies that I had like forever on dvd (seriously, I think I bought it at least 3 years ago maybe) and I thought it was really time to finally watch the damned thing. Honestly, the beginning was pretty shabby (I think my dad gave up within the first 20 minutes) with some really sappy soundtrack (surprisingly, I discovered that it was composed by no one else than Hans Zimmer). Still, it slowly grew on me and it turned out to be one of the most satisfying love story I have seen lately. Indeed, it was dealing with two people who shared a thirst for fantasy and who didn't want to be limited by the moral constraints of their time. Unlike other romances, their relationship was rather conflicted which was something really refreshing and, for once, you could understand why they were attracted to one and another. Indeed, I think it took them at least 1 hour before they had one very passionate kiss but, unfortunately, the story never really went further than this. I mean, it was pretty obvious that they were both in love but their relationship got stuck in this endless bickering and it became rather tiresome at some point. Still, I really liked that they focused on those characters who very well played by Renée Zellweger (before she became a household name) and Vincent D'Onofrio and there was no annoying sub-plot or unnecessary supporting character to distract us from the main story. Anyway, to conclude, in spite its flaws, it was a pretty good romance and it is worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Even though it has been at least 15 years since Robert Redford had either a critical or financial success as a director, I still keep watching his movies and I was really eager to check his latest effort. I mean, just check the cast (Robert Redford, Shia LaBeouf, Julie Christie, Susan Sarandon, Nick Nolte, Chris Cooper, Terrence Howard, Stanley Tucci, Richard Jenkins, Anna Kendrick, Brendan Gleeson, Sam Elliott), that's a lot of Oscar nominees and winners. Eventually, to have this star-studded cast was also a distraction since most of them just popped up for a couple of scenes and, as a result, their characters were reduced to some stereotypes. Furthermore, the plot didn't work very well. I mean, we are supposed to believe that all those (very) old political activists have become some very skilled spies with the same abilities to disappear like good old Jason Bourne. I mean, everything goes so fast, you don't really have the time to check the details but not all of it made sense or was really believable. Still, somehow, I enjoyed the damned thing. Indeed, Robert Redford is still mighty charismatic like hell (even though at around 75 years old, he shouldn't try to run around like Jason Statham) and I liked the idea of reflecting back to the 70's when there was some kind of revolution going on and to think about where do we stand after all these years. To conclude, it is a really flawed picture but I still enjoyed it and I think it is worth a look.

Already 10 years ago, Sean Connery decided to retire after the dismal failure of 'The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen' and since then, the only thing I can do is either rewatch his classics or watch his more obscure movies. This movie definitely belongs to the 2nd category and even though Connery was displayed prominently on all the promotional material, he actually only had a supporting part. Basically, it is a rather misguided black comedy with some rather terrible stereotypes about the folks in Africa. I mean, you can feel that there was some potential with this anti-hero but the tone was never right and the end-result was rather underwhelming. Eventually, the best character was played by the always dependable John Lithgow who was the only one who managed to find the right way to deal with this material. Concerning the 'real' Africans, they didn't have much to do and they were either corrupt or dealing with some 'ridiculous' superstition and, of course, the African mistress of the main character had to be displayed in full nudity. Anyway, to conclude, even though it was not quite a really despicable comedy, it was still pretty damned average, my rating might even be a little bit too generous here and I don't think it is really worth a look.

Right now, I'm on holiday in France and we went to see a movie with my daughter, my wife, my sister and my niece. My sis picked up this movie and, at first, I have to admit it, I was rather skeptical. Indeed, I never heard of it and I thought we should watch 'Cloudy with a chance of meatballs 2'. Eventually, I was really positively surprised and we all enjoyed this flick. Apparently, it started with some short movies on French TV and they decided to expand those into a full length feature film. You can say whatever you want about French cinéma but, at least, they are able to come up with some very original projects like this one. Indeed, all the sets were real and all the insects were CGI animated but, unlike Disney, those animals never talk, at least not French which was a really refreshing approach. Furthermore, they were all quite realistic, even though some of their actions were obviously some fantasy (I don't think insects are able to light up fireworks or use spray insecticide). The 3D was also quite efficient for once and even my wife who really hates this gimmick enjoyed it this time. To conclude, even though it might not be a masterpiece, it remains an original and charming little feature and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you want to show something different to your kids.

Honestly, I wasn't expecting much from this flick but since I have a weak spot for Kate Beckinsale, I thought I should give it a try. Eventually, after watching this, I wonder if the original comic-book it was based on it was actually any good because this adaptation was seriously underwhelming. Basically, it resembles a really average CSI episode, or any similar cop show, and the only thing which was intriguing was the fact that it was taking place in Antarctica. I mean, right from the first scene with Beckinsale, they managed to have her taking off all her clothes and even though she is still in shape and still look stunning, you wonder what this scene was supposed to add to the whole plot. So, it was a rather boring story and Antarctica with its impressive landscape and harsh conditions of life, meaning that you could easily die within a few minutes if you are not careful enough, was the only point of interest. I mean, none of the characters were developed and even Beckinsale's background was rather pathetic. To conclude, if they kept the setting, threw away the whole plot and rewritten all the characters, it could have been a decent movie but the story they gave us was pretty boring and I don't think it is really worth a look.

Like virtually everyone else, I really enjoyed 'Let the Right One In'. I mean, it wasn't one of my favorite movies but it was definitely one of the most intriguing and original vampire movies I had seen. And then, of course, the Americans needed to produce their own remake and just like 'The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo', it was released just a few years after the original Sweedish version. Honestly, both remakes were actually pretty good but, seriously, what is the point? So that the American audience don't have to read the subtitles? Especially in this case, Matt Reeves not only faithfully followed the plot but the mood was also identical. The only thing that they added were some more graphic death scenes and those were rather underwhelming, in my opinion. Still, it is not a bad movie, far from it. Indeed, the cast of the young children was just spot on and both Chloe Grace Moretz and Kodi Smit-McPhee gave some very impressive performances. To conclude, I might have enjoyed it more if I didn't see first the original version but I still think it is worth a look though but, on the other hand, you might just as well skip it and go watch the superior Sweedish version.