Reviews by johanlefourbe

I have always been amazed that, according to Imdb, ‘Good Will Hunting’ is still Gus Van Sant’s best movie. I saw it again recently and, honestly, I think it is a decent drama and an entertaining feature but I don’t see what was so amazing about it. In my opinion, his best movie was actually this flick, his sophomore directing effort. To be honest, it has been a while since I saw it and it probably needs a re-watch but, back then, I thought it was quite amazing and one of the best movies dealing with drug addiction. At the time, Matt Dillon was one of the leading actors of his generation and he was really good in this (apparently, Dillon cites this film as his personal favorite of all the films he's done and I have to agree with him). It is seriously a dark and rather ominous affair and when William S. Burroughs shows up on the screen playing a junky priest, it becomes even quite surrealist. The only critic I would have is that Matt Dillon and Kelly Lynch might look too good to be some massive junkies but, on the other hand, you could argue that they had been hooked only for a few years. Anyway, in my opinion, it is one of the great forgotten classics of the 80’s and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Gus Van Sant’s work.

It had been a while since I saw a good old fashioned ghost story, plus, I was pretty sure that Nick, my step-son, would be interested so we ended up watching this flick. Personally, I think I was a good choice for Daniel Radcliffe to pick up a project like this one after the massive Harry Potter franchise. Indeed, it is something really different and there wasn’t a massive all-star cast behind him (indeed, except maybe for Ciaran Hinds, there was no familiar figures involved) so he really had to carry the whole thing by himself. Eventually, I thought he was quite believable, even though you might argue that he looked a bit young to be a father. Still, while watching this, I couldn’t help thinking that an ambitious, reckless and arrogant young man would have been more suited but I guess that’s how the story was written originally. Above all, the whole thing looked great and you really had a feeling of this time period but, still, the story itself was not really amazing. I mean, it was some pretty standard horror stuff and while it was fairly entertaining, it was also quite forgettable. To conclude, in spite of its flaws, it remains a well made feature and I think it is worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Even though I studied in English in College (I even got my master), I have actually never read Jane Austen (to be honest, I’m even more ashamed of the fact that I have never read William Shakespeare either). With this in mind, I wasn’t sure if I would really enjoy this flick but, even though the makers try to constantly convince you that it’s ok if you didn’t the read the books to actually enjoy this movie, I still have my doubt about this matter. So, I didn’t really love this flick but there were still many things to enjoy though. To start with, there was a very nice cast (Maria Bello, Emily Blunt, Kathy Baker, Amy Brenneman, Maggie Grace, Kevin Zegers, Marc Blucas, Hugh Dancy, Lynn Redgrave, Nancy Travis). Above all, I was very impressed by Emily Blunt who really stood out from the rest. Even though the way she patched things up with her husband was rather unexpected and not really satisfying, she still managed to give her character some extra dimension. I also liked how the relationship was developped between Hugh Dancy and Maria Bello but, since there was just too many sub-plots, there were all rather underdevelopped. To conlude, even though I thought it was rather flawed, it was still an interesting watch and I think it is worth a look, even more so if you are a fan of Jane Austen’s work.

Back in 2012, there were two Snow White movie productions and while ‘Snow White and the Huntsman’ was a success (at least, if you consider the box-office results), this movie was a flop. Well, I didn’t care much for ‘Snow White and the Huntsman’ but it was still indeed slightly better than this flick. The most saddening effect is the impact it might have on Tarsem Singh’s career. Indeed, I think I have never seen a director rising and then falling so quickly. Indeed, he started with the visually impressive ‘The Cell’, then blew us away with ‘The Fall’ and many, including myself, thought we had one of the most exciting directors but then he gave us two huge misfires (‘Immortals’ and this feature) and there is not much left from those great expectations. I mean, once again, the whole thing looked terrific. Indeed, everything, from the design, the costumes, the sets were just gorgeous but that was probably the only positive thing I can think of. Basically, the story was just terribly underwhelming. Furthermore, even though Lily Collins and Armie Hammer were perfectly cast (Hammer having the most fun with his part), I seriously didn’t care much for Julia Roberts. I mean, it was nice that she tried to be the villain for once but the Evil queen needs to be really evil, not just arrogant and selfish (just check Charlize Theron in ‘Snow White and the Huntsman’, that’s how you should play it). To conclude, it was a really misguided project from the start, it is seriously tedious to watch and I don’t think it is really worth a look.

I remember it very well, when ‘Lola rennt’ was released, there was some buzz about Tom Tykwer but afterwards he eventually made two rather osbcure movies much less accessible to the mainstream audience than ‘Lola rennt’ which was visually quite appealing but above all lots of fun. He first made ‘Der krieger und die Kaiserin’, also starring Franka Potente, a thoughtfull but difficult to follow drama and, after that, he made this movie from a script written by Krzysztof Kieslowski just before his death (it is part of a trilogy called 'Heaven’ , ‘Hell’, ‘Purgatory’). This movie was Tykwer’s first international production and he managed to get one of the best actresses around, Cate Blanchett. Honestly, pretty much like ‘Der krieger und die Kaiserin’, the whole thing was quite intriguing but I also had a hard time to follow what the whole thing was getting at. Basically, it is actually a thriller but whereas US thrillers tend to dumb down the story with some cheap thrills, here, it is the opposite, you get some pretty obscure scenes and you never really understand what the hell is going on with the characters which makes for a compelling but also, at times, frustrating viewing. To conclude, even though it is nothing really remarkable, it remains an interesting feature and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Tom Tykwer and Krzysztof Kieslowski.

Honestly, I don’t really know why I keep wasting my time with Jackie Chan’s US productions. Ok, I have to admit it, the Rush Hour and Shanghai Noon flicks were quite enjoyable but the rest is just some serious garbage (I still have to see ‘The Tuxedo’ but I’m not really optimistic). I mean, at first you get a pretty neat montage including other Jackie Chan spy movies and you think for a few seconds that the whole thing might be actually pretty entertaining but, right away, you get a really pityful scene involving a mom, her 3 kids and a pig. From then on, it never became better and the whole thing was just a chore to watch. First of all, I find it rather surprising that even though Jackie Chan has been making movies in the US for about 15 years and before that, for 20 years in Hong Kong, his English is still really weak. Of course, you don’t watch his movies for the dialogs but even the action scenes were rather underwhelming. Concerning the plot, it reminded me of ‘The Pacifier’, another inane comedy starring Vin Diesel about a Navy Seal office who has to protect some kids. To conclude, I thought it was pretty bad and you should definitely avoid it.

I already saw this movie but since it was a while back, I thought I might as well check it out again. Well, to be honest, I actually didn’t remember much about the damned thing but, on the other hand, it was hardly surprising though. Indeed, I have noticed that those Lara Croft flicks don’t get much love in general but I have to admit that the first installment is actually a guilty pleasure of mine. Basically, I have always been a huge fan of Indiana Jones and it is always a lot of fun to watch an adventure flick dealing with archeology. Of course, I’m not pretending that the first installment came near the level of greatness of the Indiana Jones franchise but I think it was watchable, at least as far I’m concerned. However, I really had a hard time to care about this sequel though. I mean, I still believe that, once again, Angelina Jolie was incredibly charismatic, she was probably the only actress who could pull something like this without being completely ridiculous and I think she had some solid chemistry with Gerald Butler. Unfortunately, they completely messed up the tone though. Indeed, the first movie was a fun and light adventure flick while this sequel was just grimmer for no good reason. Indeed, half of the movie was about some tedious shooting parties and I wonder how many people Lara Croft actually killed during this movie. As a result, it very often felt like a boring action flick. At least, the funny thing with this movie was that, on one hand, it was the beginning of the beginning for Angelina Jolie since she was becoming a superstar back then and, on the other hand, it was the beginning of the end for Jan de Bont who wouldn’t direct another movie ever after. Anyway, to conclude, I’m not surprised that Angelina Jolie didn’t want to come back for a 3rd movie to play this character and even though I have seen worse, this sequel turned out to be rather tedious and I don’t think it is really worth a look.

Honestly, I wasn’t expecting much from this flick but since it was on TV, I thought I was as well give it a try. Well, the only thing that this movie proves is that you don’t actually need to make a good movie to have a massive success at the box-office. I mean, I can understand somehow that the first movie was a success but a 2nd sequel?!? Come on, by now, the audience should know better than this. At least, I saw it for free. Honestly, it is rather difficult to find any redeeming features in this piece of garbage. At least, even though it wasn’t better than the previous installments, it wasn’t worse either and I guess that (very) young children might enjoy it. And indeed, the animation is technically pretty good but what an abysmal plot… Basically, Alvin is terribly obnoxious and it makes it terribly difficult to care at all about his adventures and since they are stranded on a desert island, you get these really cringe-inducing jokes about ‘Cast Away’ (as if the kids would understand what the hell it was all about). To conclude, the whole thing is just a terrible waste of time and even you have some children to entertain, just show them anything made by Pixar instead.

Every year, I organize a poll concerning the best movies according to the Listal members and even though ‘The Godfather part I’ usually wins or ends up in the top 3, this movie doesn't get much love. Indeed, in spite of its greatness, it will always remain a sequel, probably the best sequel ever made but still a sequel nonetheless. Anyway, the fact remains that it is a great flick, probably as good as the first one. The masterstroke was to continue the story with most of the same characters but it still stands on its own though. To do so, Coppola chose a different structure which was quite spellbinding. Indeed, not only you follow Michael Corleone in his rise (or fall, it depends how you see it) as the new godfather but you follow also Vito Corleone going from Sicily to New York with literally nothing and slowly climbing his way up in the mob hierarchy. To make things even more amazing, to portray a young Vito Corleone, Coppola picked up a then still unknown Robert de Niro so he had two acting giants at the top of their games to play 2 generations of Corleones. Honestly, it doesn't get much better than that. To conclude, it is a great gangster drama, the best sequel ever made, it is absolutely worth a look and a must see for any decent movie buff.

Recently, Ben Affleck has made one of the most impressive come-backs and even won the Best Picture Academy award which is something that none of us actually expected. Well, 10 years ago, the situation was quite different for Affleck as he showed up in a string of huge flops and this movie was one of them. With this in mind, I wasn’t expecting much from this flick but I still wanted to give it a shot. Eventually, I thought it was not bad at all. Indeed, to start with, it was based on a very fascinating story by Philip K. Dick (which I haven’t read, to be honest) and I thought the whole thing was quite entertaining. Indeed, I always had a weak spot for science-fiction features and this one was mixed with a rather tensed thriller so I don’t really get the hate towards the whole thing. All right, I have to admit it, it was still rather flawed. I mean, even though there was a nice cast (Ben Affleck, Aaron Eckhart, Uma Thurman, Michael C. Hall), the performances were not that great. Above all, even if Ben Affleck happens to be a fine director, he wasn’t really the best choice to portray a brilliant scientist. Concerning John Woo, he was obviously way other his head with this material and it was once again another underwhelming US feature for him. Still, in spite its flaws, I thought it was a fairly entertaining SF feature and I think it is worth a look, especially if you like the genre.