Reviews by johanlefourbe

The first Pink Panther remake was quite terrible and it was rather surprising that they decided to go for a sequel since the first installment was a complete disaster, at least critically. At least, they couldn’t make a worst movie, it seemed rather unlikely and, indeed, it wasn't worse but it wasn't really better either, I’m afraid. Indeed, even though Steve Martin is a huge fan of Peter Sellers, he completely messed up his performance as Inspecteur Jacques Clouseau, once again, and, this time again, the whole plot was just a terrible bore. To cover up all these weaknesses, they brought a massive supporting cast (Jean Reno, Emily Mortimer, Andy Garcia , Alfred Molina, Aishwarya Rai, John Cleese, Lily Tomlin, Jeremy Irons, Johnny Hallyday) but every single one of them was really wasted and none of their characters was either interesting or entertaining. Not so long ago, I finally saw the original version and, even though I wasn’t completely blown away, I was indeed impressed by Peter Sellers who gave one of the best comic performances I have ever seen. It was pretty obvious from the start that Steve Martin wouldn't manage to top such a performance but I didn’t expect him to deliver such a tedious job. To conclude, I thought it was pretty bad and I don’t think it is worth a look at all, especially if you are a fan of the original Pink Panther.

Honestly, I wasn’t sure what to expect from this flick but since I have a weak spot for Lena Headey, I thought I might as well give it a try. Eventually, I must admit it, it wasn’t bad at all. Indeed, it features some of the most amazing air combat fights I have seen, the only critic I would have is that the music was pretty flat in those moments. Also, I thought that the Red Baron was quite an intriguing character and I liked the way he was displayed as some kind of melancholic gentle noble knight. Still, it was still not nothing great though. Indeed, even though Lena Headey was really charming as usual, the obligatory romance added almost nothing and it could have been removed but, I guess, they cannot make those movies without a standard love sub-plot. A part from that, the makers were pretty successful in showing that chivalry was really important back in those days, ‘La Grande Illusion’ already did that a long time ago and way better than here though, but then, it seemed that they couldn’t make up their minds and towards the end, they decided to show that the war was a great butchery so that was rather uneven. Still, in spite of these flaws, it was fairly entertaining and I think it is worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

I already saw this movie but since it was a while back, I was quite eager to check it out again. Well, many people seems to think that it is one hell of a movie and, after rewatching the damned thing, I have to admit that it was actually pretty damned entertaining. Basically, you had here two of the best actors at the time, Samuel L. Jackson and Kevin Spacey, with some interesting characters and they both gave some really solid performances. The main issue was that even though the concept had some potential, the makers had to somehow turn a hostage negotiator into a hostage taker and the end-result was rather preposterous, I'm afraid. It's too bad because both actors were pretty strong and made half of the story quite believable. Unfortunately, everything else was just the typical gimmicks you usually get in such basic conspiracy thrillers. On top of that, the damned thing was just too long. I mean, it was nice that they didn't bring Kevin Spacey right away but such stories never need a running time of 150 mins. Anyway, to conclude, even though I don’t think it is that great, it is still an entertaining thriller and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Honestly, I’m not a huge fan of the Beatles at all (I think that the Rolling Stones are way more interesting) but since it seemed to be an intriguing movie, I still wanted to check it out. First of all, while watching this, I couldn’t help thinking about the fact that Aaron Taylor-Johnson hooked up with the director of this movie, Sam Taylor-Johnson, when he was just 19 years old and she was already 43 years old. I know, it has absolutely nothing to do with the movie itself but their relationship eventually got more publicity than the movie itself. Anyway, in spite of all this, it was indeed an interesting watch. Basically, it focuses on the teenage years of John Lennon and his rather tumultuous relationship with his mom who was quite cheerful but dumped him when he was a kid, and with his aunt who took care of him but was cold and distant and didn’t care at all about him becoming a musician. Once again, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, who was as I mentioned earlier just 19 years old, gave a very strong performance and he is definitely one of the most interesting actors of his generation. I also enjoyed Kristin Scott Thomas’ performance and she must be one of the most underrated actress at work nowadays. Still, every time you see John Lennon meeting Paul McCartney or George Harrison, you really wonder what happened between them but this movie didn’t go there and it was a little bit frustrating. All in all, I thought it was a nice look on the earlier years of John Lennon and it is worth a look, especially if you are a fan of his work.

Since Nick, my step-son, loved the first installment, of course, we had to watch this sequel. Honestly, even though I didn’t expect much from ‘New Kids Turbo’, it was much better than I thought it would be and it was miles better than the horrible ‘Flodder’, a huge Dutch classic with some gross humor as well. Well, this sequel didn’t disappoint me. I mean, even though it didn’t improve the formula, it still delivered and it was pretty nice to see again those stupid characters. This time, they even added a sub-plot about some zombies. Somehow, even though the movie was pretty short (not even 80 minutes), they ended up with 2 storylines, a rivalry with a village nearby and those zombies I mentioned before and you wonder if it might have better worked if they did focus on one of those 2 stories. Obviously, the makers didn’t care much about this and the whole thing remained a succession of swearing and random violence but it was, most of the time, actually quite entertaining. I also liked this touch that when they go to Friesland to face those zombies, they changed the directing style to some grindhouse visuals which displays that those guys are actually quite knowledgeable about movies and, even though they portray some of the most stupid characters I have ever seen, they themselves might not be stupid at all. To conclude, even though it was nothing really amazing, it remains a decent sequel and it is worth a look, especially if you enjoyed the first installment.

Even though I didn’t expect much from this flick, since I really loved the older Conan movies as a kid, I still wanted to check this one out. To be honest, it was not that bad after all. Indeed, Marcus Nispel has become a remake expert and it was already his 3rd one (after ‘The Texas Chainsaw Massacre’ and ‘Friday the 13th’) but I have to admit it, the whole thing looked pretty good. Then, the biggest obstacle was to replace Arnold Schwarzenegger and, honestly, I thought that Jason Momoa did a decent job. Unfortunately, the 2nd half was really weak and I was seriously almost falling asleep. Indeed, Conan keeps meeting his nemesis but, instead of finishing it, they kept postponing their final showdown. I mean, the main character even gets to his stronghold with his sidekick, battles a huge monster, to finally discover that the guy has already left the place… Before that, the movie was not really great either but it faithfully followed the formula and Conan was definitely a merciless warrior but they just couldn’t keep up and messed up the 2nd half. Eventually, it became another failed attempt to revive an old franchise and, now, since good old Arnold is back in the game, they are talking about bringing an new installment with the original Conan this time. Anyway, even though it was better than I expected, it was still really average and I don’t think it is really worth, except maybe if you are a die-hard fan of the genre.

Honestly, I wasn’t sure what to expect from this flick but since I’m a huge fan of Michael Mann’s work, I was really eager to check it out. Eventually, even though it is one of his more obscure movies, I was actually impressed by the damned thing and, in my opinion, it is easily one of his best directing efforts. Indeed, I always had a weak spot for heist features and this flick is, by far, one of the best I have ever seen in this genre. Right from the start, you get an amazing opening scene during which you have one of the most realistic heist I have ever seen in a movie. Apparently, the burglary tools used throughout the film were not props, but actual tools which were supplied by actual thieves who served as technical consultants on the film. Therefore, the whole thing felt really raw and pretty realistic and it was just spellbinding to watch. On top of that, James Caan was really on the top of his game and he gave easily one of the best performances of his career (apparently, Caan shares this opinion and after ‘The Godfather’, it is his favorite film he has made). To conclude, even though the story was actually rather pedestrian, it is so well made, so well directed, I really loved the damned thing and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Even though Val Kilmer’s career has become pretty pathetic nowadays, I still have a weak spot for the guy and I really wanted to check this flick. Eventually, even though it was not really great, it was actually pretty good and, I would go as far as saying that it is his last decent he made for which he had the lead (he did make a few decent movies later on ‘The Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call - New Orleans, ‘Kiss Kiss Bang Bang’ or even ‘Deja vu’ but he didn’t have the lead in those). This time, Val Kilmer was working with David Mamet and, basically, David Mamet is one highly regarded director, and he is even more highly regarded as a writer (he even won the Pulitzer prize) but I always have a hard time with his work. I don’t know, his movies are always intriguing but there is somehow always something missing to make them really remarkable. This movie must be my favorite of his and still, it was not really great though. I mean, Val Kilmer was really good, I really liked the mood but, at the end of the day, it remains a rather pedestrian and predictable spy thriller. To conclude, even though it was nothing really amazing, I still liked the damned thing and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Honestly, I wasn’t sure what to expect from this flick but since I have a weak spot for Sidney Lumet’s work, I thought I might as well give it a try. Lumet had a rather productive career managing to direct more than 40 movies, some major classics, some major bombs and a whole bunch of really obscure features. This movie definitely belongs to the last group. Indeed, a little bit like Orson Welles, Sidney Lumet had the curse that he made a huge masterpiece as his directing debut, ’12 angry men’, and none of his following movies ever managed to be that great again. This movie was thus his sophomore effort, it is indeed pretty obscure (only 3 users in Listal have rated me including me) and it wasn’t really good, I’m afraid. Basically, it is a rather whimsical comedy taking place in the theater world in New York. Although I call it a comedy, there were some darker moments, especially involving Henry Fonda, and even though those scenes were actually interesting, they made the whole thing rather uneven. Also, even though everybody was playing it straight , Susan Strasberg who was quite charming to look at, was really over-the-top, playing it like in a play (this movie was indeed a play adaptation) and this mix didn’t work very well. Still, it remains an intriguing movie, Henry Fonda was a usual quite fascinating, and it is worth a look, especially if you are interested in Sidney Lumet’s work.