Reviews by johanlefourbe

Honestly, I wasn’t sure what to expect from this flick but since I have a weak spot for both Natalie Portman and Ashley Judd, I still wanted to check it out. Eventually, it wasn’t really good, I’m afraid. I mean, with a title like this, you pretty much know what you will get beforehand, basically, a sappy tearjerker and, unfortunately, it didn’t really go further than this. I mean, Natalie Portman and Ashley Judd were both really charming and actually way too good for this kind of material but it was still pretty neat to see a very young Natalie Portman whose status was getting bigger and bigger every year at the time. Concerning Ashley Judd, like most actresses above 40 years old, she struggles to remain in the limelight nowadays and even though you get to see her from time to time, none of her current work is really interesting. Of course, I know, I shouldn’t take the plot so seriously but, honestly, it is really difficult to care for those characters or what they are going through if they are stuck in such a preposterous and underwhelming story. To conclude, I have seen worse but it still remain an average drama and it is not really worth a look, I’m afraid.

Basically, it is one of those classics I knew I should watch at some point but I kept postponing it indefinitely since I was pretty sure I would have a hard time to care for the whole thing. And, indeed, If you are a real movie buff, you have to watch this movie at some point but, man, it remains a tough watch though... I mean, I have to admit it, it was pretty impressive from a technical point of view and it has a huge historical value but it is also seriously boring and quite sickening to behold. Basically, half of the movie is about Adolf and his demented buddies making some dreadful speeches and the other half is about some endless marches involving 1000’s and 1000’s of fanatics in uniform. Like I said before, it was quite groundbreaking at the time and you can imagine that Leni Riefenstahl couldn't resist the temptation of making such a huge production with a virtually limitless budget so she did some pretty impressive stuff visually speaking making the most notorious propaganda feature ever conceived. Still, I felt pretty sick during most of the duration, even their uplifting music couldn’t cheer me up. To conclude, it must be one of the most awful classics ever made and, yet, you should see it just to make sure you never forget how messed up it was back in those days.

Since I kept hearing interesting things about this documentary, I became really curious and I was really eager to check it out. Well, I wasn’t disappointed. Indeed, it must be the ultimate making-of and it is not very often that a making-of is released as a stand-alone feature like this one (another example is ‘Lost in La Mancha’ ). Of course, ‘Apocalypse Now’ is a really impressive movie, one of the many masterpieces directed by Francis Ford Coppola in the 70’s (Man, the guy was really on fire back in those days!) and we all heard about the rumors surrounding the hellish shooting but it was just really awesome to have a full length feature telling us all the dirty and (very often) crazy details. An interesting thing about this flick is that even though the production is really messed up and, here, we are talking of a very different level of messed up, you still can get a very good movie or even a masterpiece, at least in this case. In my opinion, the best way to go is to first watch ‘Apocalypse Now’, then watch this documentary and then again ‘Apocalypse Now’ or maybe even the Redux version. To conclude, it is an awesome making-of, almost as fascinating as ‘Apocalypse Now’ itself and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are a movie-buff like me.

Honestly, I wasn’t sure what to expect from this flick but since I have a weak spot for romantic-comedies, I thought I should give it a try. It is a basically movie with a typical plot in this genre, starting with a dilemma which is of course solved towards the end. So, it wasn’t really good but it remained watchable though. Once again, John Krasinski was stuck with a supporting part but he was easily the best character in this flick but Ginnifer Goodwin and Colin Egglesfield made for a decent couple. Eventually, the weakest link was obviously Kate Hudson. I mean, she played such an obnoxious and selfish chick, it made it impossible to root for her and you wonder how Goodwin could have been her friend for so long or why Egglesfield decided to become her boyfriend or, even worse, to marry her. Eventually, if her character would have been more balanced and actually a nice and sweet girl, it would have actually created an interesting dilemma. Also, what was all about Kate Hudson going to England in the very last minute?!? That seriously came out from nowhere and seriously didn’t make much sense. Anyway, to conclude, I have seen worse but it still remain a rather weak romantic-comedy and I don’t think it is really worth a look, even if you like the genre.

To be honest, I wasn’t sure what to expect from this flick but since I have a weak spot for Ken Loach, I thought I should give it a try. Indeed, back in the 90's, I was a huge fan of Ken Loach. Nowadays, I don't follow him that much but when I get the chance, I still watch his movies even though he doesn’t seem to be a really popular director here on Listal. This flick is actually pretty obscure, one of his most obscure features, but it was still pretty good nonetheless. One interesting aspect was to see Frances McDormand in a British feature which was rather unexpected. As usual, with Ken Loach, it was a rather gritty and realistic political thriller, the whole thing was quite spellbinding to watch and you learn many interesting things about the conflict in Northern Ireland. Still, I have to admit it, it is one of his more far-fetched stories and it didn’t work as well as his other socio-political features, at least, that’s my opinion. To conclude, even though it was not really amazing, it was still a solid thriller and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Ken Loach’s work.

I always had a weak spot for Salma Hayek. I mean, not only she still look gorgeous at almost 50 years old but I always thought that there was something intriguing about this actress. Still, honestly, she usually ends up playing the bimbo in some rather forgettable features and it is not very often that she gets something more substantial to chew on. At some point, she decided to take care of this on her own and got involved in this project which resulted in an Academy award acting nomination. Even though I have never really cared for true life stories, I have always been interested in biographical features about artists and, in this case, I was rather oblivious about Frida Kahlo so it was pretty neat to get acquainted with her. There was a also a pretty nice cast (Salma Hayek, Alfred Molina, Antonio Banderas, Valeria Golino, Diego Luna, Edward Norton, Saffron Burrows, Ashley Judd ) and they all delivered some fine performances. Still, somehow, I wasn’t really blown away by the whole thing. I don’t know exactly why, I mean, Frida Kahlo was a really intriguing woman, maybe it has to do with the fact that I’m not a huge fan of her Art (I actually prefer Diego Rivera’s work). Still, even though it wasn’t really amazing, it remains an interesting biographical feature and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Frida Kahlo.

Why, Dear God, why all the major action movie stars have to make those terribly underwhelming comedies? Only Jason Statham has understood that he has absolutely nothing to gain by showing up in these always underwhelming features. Usually, they give this excuse that they made them so their little cousins/nephews/sons/daughter/dogs can watch them in a movie since they can’t watch their action stuff. That’s a terribly lame reason and no excuse to pick up such terrible projects. Still, guess what? Even though it was terribly weak and sappy, at least, it was not as bad as the awful ‘Tooth Fairy’. I mean, the whole thing is terribly formulaic and predictable, you start with a selfish father but, at the end of the movie, he is a very sweet man, you know the gimmick and the kid switches from really obnoxious to really nice and cute whenever the plot needs it so it remains pretty lame. But, still, I have to admit it, there was something actually genuine in this father-daughter relationship, Dwayne Johnson was actually believable and there were some bits here and there that actually worked. To conclude, even though it was not as bad as it looked, it still remain a rather weak family feature and I don’t think it is really worth a look, even for your kids, there are far better movies to watch with them.

Honestly, I didn’t care much for ‘Hugo’. I mean, it was a fine movie but not much more than that I’m afraid. Well, this time, Scorsese is back with his muse, Leonardo DiCaprio, and the end-result was much more than satisfying. Indeed, I thought it was so entertaining and actually downright hilarious which wasn’t something I really expected. During some scenes, especially when DiCaprio was heavily intoxicated, he gave us some real slapstick and it actually worked like a charm. I mean, even though there was a really solid supporting cast, the focus was put on Jordan Belfort and as a result, DiCaprio had basically to carry the whole thing on his shoulders. He did a fine job, supported by the fine directing provided by Martin Scorsese, but honestly, by now, we know pretty well that he can play the talented but very neurotic characters like no one else and it would be nice if he tried something else for once. Furthermore, the other characters were not very well developed since they didn’t get much space in my opinion which is rather surprising since the movie lasted 3 hours. And, indeed, it was rather long (the fact that I needed to take a piss for 2 hours didn’t help either) and you wonder how many times Belfort will finally get caught and eventually fall down. To conclude, it might not be one of the best movies made by the duo Scorsese-DiCaprio (I need to re-watch it to make up my mind though) but it was terribly entertaining and the most hilarious film from 2013 that I have seen so far.

Honestly, I wasn't sure what to expect from this flick but since I'm a huge fan of Alfred Hitchcock, I was really eager to check it out. After watching many (rather disappointing ) silent features directed by Hitchcock, it was quite nice to see a good old thriller directed by the great master of the genre. I have to admit it, it wasn’t one of his best work and even though it was a box-office success, Alfred Hitchcock himself didn’t like it much but I thought it was fairly enjoyable. Indeed, even though the story was rather flawed, it was still entertaining and it featured one of the best villains ever displayed in a Hitchcock thriller. Indeed, I kept hearing Charles Laughton was a great actor and, here, he really impressed me. The rest of the gang was not really interesting but Sir Humphrey Pengallan was a really intriguing and funny fellow and Laughton really stole the show every time he was on the screen. It was also quite nice to see a very young Maureen O’Hara in her very first part and even though her character could have been more developed, she still managed to give us a strong and high-spirited woman. Eventually, it would be the last British feature directed by Hitchcock and he will then take off for Hollywood reaching some even greater success. To conclude, even though it is actually nothing really amazing, I still liked the damned thing and it is worth a look, especially if you are interested in Alfred Hitchcock’s work.

At last, I finally saw this flick. I mean, it was on my queue for more than a year but I kept pushing it away because, let’s face it, to watch a 3 hours silent feature is a rather daunting prospect, at least to me. Eventually, I have to admit that it was quite impressive. I mean, it was a very ambitious production, no doubt it, and the production value was really amazing. Apparently, D.W. Griffith spent $2 million to make this flick which was a huge amount of money at the time and, apparently, even so, the audience were not really attracted by such a long movie so it wasn’t really a financial success after all. I must admit it, myself, I was quite intrigued during the 1rst hour but then, I had a hard time to focus until the end. Griffith basically mixed 4 stories, 3 around some historical events (the fall of Babylon, the crucifixion, the massacre of the St. Bartholomew's Day) and a contemporary fiction and the fact that he kept switching between all these tales made it even more difficult to hold on the whole thing. Still, it was very well directed, especially when you think that it is almost 100 years old. To conclude, even though I’m not a huge fan of those very long silent features, this one is a classic and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.