Reviews by johanlefourbe

From time to time, my wife tries to surprise me by buying some (really) random dvds and she sometimes came back with the most obscure movies you could imagine and this movie was one of those. To be honest, I wasn’t expecting much but I was not bad after all. Basically, it is a rather unknown flick from Hong-Kong (it is mostly known for a cameo by Jackie Chan) and this is a pretty good example of how taste greatly differs from one culture to another. I mean, in this flick, they mixed some very broad comedy with some action stuff and drama and, even though it is something they also do in Western features, in Asian movies, especially the ones coming from Hong-Kong, it is a totally different kind of ball game. Basically, try to imagine ‘The Departed’ with a comic twist with the the fact that Leonardo DiCaprio’s character was gay. Now, you get pretty much the picture. Eventually , it became so far out that it got rather difficult for me to care about the story or the characters involved. Still, all in all, it remains a rather entertaining flick and it is worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Honestly, I wasn’t expecting much from this flick, but since it was on TV and since I have a weak spot for Dennis Quaid and Andie MacDowell, I thought I might as well give it a try. To start with, I didn’t care much for the original version and this remake didn't add much to the formula. Actually, even worse than that, they pretty much copied the whole thing and only changed some tiny details and you wonder what was the point of remaking this at all. At first, I thought that the acting was really poor, even by Dennis Quaid but, after a while, I got used to it and I didn’t pay too much attention to it. I have to admit it, the dancing scenes were pretty good but, damned, it still remain a really ridiculous premise. I mean, already 30 years ago, it was not really believable but, in our age, to make us believe that they would ban dancing, that’s kind of ridiculous. Eventually, the saddest thing about this flick is the downward spiral of a once promising director. Indeed, back then, Craig Brewer had his breakthrough with ‘Hustle & Flow’ which was a pretty good flick and even though ‘Black Snake Moan’ was a little too far-out for its own good, it was still an intriguing picture. Well, 5 years later, he comes up with this and it is rather sad. To conclude, I think I’m being rather generous with my rating, it must be one of the most unnecessary remakes ever made and it is not really worth a look, I’m afraid.

This flick must be one of the most infamous winners of the Best Picture Academy Award. Indeed, back in those days, most thought that ‘Brokeback Mountain’ would win but, allegedly because it was basically dealing with gay cow-boys, it was snubbed. A part from that, the opinions towards this flick are pretty extreme. I mean, some people love it (Roger Ebert picked it up as the best movie released in 2005, above ‘Brokeback Mountain’) and some people think it stinks pretty bad. Personally, I’m actually in between. Indeed, in my opinion, it is an intriguing movie with some good intentions dealing very awkwardly with a very sensitive subject. The best example was this scene when Ludacris steals a care with his friend. Indeed, at first, you see those two black guys in the street and you smell trouble (an obvious racist stereotype) but, then, they start to talk and you realize that they are actually pretty articulate and you feel bad about your first impression. But then, as soon as their conversation is done, they go steal a car nearby… This scene illustrates the whole movie, playing with stereotypes about racism but it does it so poorly, it was sometimes rather cringe-inducing. Still, there was a massive cast (Sandra Bullock, Don Cheadle, Matt Dillon, Jennifer Esposito, William Fichtner, Brendan Fraser, Terrence Howard, Ludacris, Thandie Newton, Michael Peña, Ryan Phillippe) and they all delivered some solid performances and it remains an intriguing picture dealing with an important subject. To conclude, even though the whole thing was actually flawed, I still think it is a good flick, not a great one, but still good, and it is worth a look.

Even though this movie is nowadays pretty obscure, it was actually rather well received when it was released and eventually I really wanted to check it out. Honestly, even though I thought it was not bad, I can’t say I was really blown away by the whole thing. 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 and this flick was a perfect example. Indeed, the mood was nice, the story was entertaining and it was actually pretty neat to see Steve Martin playing something completely different than his usual work. Still, I thought the whole thing was still slightly disappointing. Maybe it has to do with the fact, that even though Campbell Scott is a fairly talented actor, he doesn’t have the shoulders to be a leading man or maybe I was just not in the right mood when I watched this flick. To conclude, even though I was expecting more, it is definitely not a bad movie and I still think it is worth a look though, especially if you are interested in David Mamet’s work.

I wasn’t sure what to expect from this flick but since it was nominated for the Best Picture Academy award back in those days, I thought I might as well give it a try. Honestly, the whole thing was actually quite intriguing. Indeed, it is 3 hours long and it mixed a lot of things : historical drama, massive peplum, biblical epic and even soap-opera. As a result, I was never really sure if I really enjoyed the damned thing. Take Petronius for example. He was indeed a rather fascinating character (apparently an historical figure) and he had some pretty nifty dialogues but, then, every once in a while, you would have this very peculiar romance with his slave which didn’t add much to the story. It didn’t make much sense and that’s what I meant with the soap-opera factor. As far as I was concerned, these romantic plots or sub-plots were pretty tiresome and uninteresting. Furthermore, even though I did like the contrast between the Roman way of life and the Christian philosophy, the depiction of the Christians really followed what they believed in 50’s, it was pretty much biased and even though it was expected, it was a little bit disappointing. Anyway, to conclude, it was still a massive production (the most expensive movie ever made at the time) and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

I know, why on earth did I watch this flick… To be honest, I just had a huge argument with my wife, I felt really depressed and I wanted to watch something really stupid which wouldn’t take too much of my attention. Well, I got what I wanted, that’s for sure. It was indeed pretty terrible but it would have been a waste to watch a good movie since I was in a terrible mood. Like many other pop-stars, Jessica Simpson started a movie career and managed to get the somewhat coveted part of Daisy Duke in ‘The Dukes of Hazzard’ but it turned out to be a huge flop and it was really trashed when it was released. From there, it only got worse and this was the last movie she made (did she retire from the movie business? It might be a wise choice…). Basically, it is really a poor copycat of ‘Private Benjamin’ (which wasn’t really great to start with) and the whole thing was just pretty abysmal. I mean, Jessica Simpson really can’t act, the jokes were lame and the whole premise was just downright stupid. To conclude, it is pretty bad and it is not worth a look whatsoever.

The main reason why I wanted to watch this flick is because it was heralded by Roger Ebert (he even chose it as one of the top 10 movies released in 2010). Well, even though I did like it, I wasn’t really blown away by the whole thing though. Basically, it is a rather cryptic feature where nothing is really explained with words but more through the acting and the mood provided by the directing. After reading his review, I understand that good old Roger managed to get much more from this movie than I did. I don’t know, at first, there was this focus on this rich aristocratic Italian family and even though all the members were introduced, you didn’t really get to know them. At some point, they moved the focus on Tilda Swinton and her love affair with her son’s friend and, honestly, I had a rather hard time to get into this romance. I mean, Swinton gave a very good performance and it was very nice to see her playing the lead for once but I didn’t really understand why her character was so much infatuated in Antonio. Still, it was a gorgeous movie to look at and there was indeed something quite mesmerizing about the whole thing. Anyway, to conclude, even though I wasn’t really blown away like Roger Ebert was, I still liked the damned thing and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Like everyone else, I have been following Robert Rodriguez for many years and I thought it was finally time to watch his directing debut. First of all, before judging this flick, you have to bear in mind the circumstances during which it was directed. Indeed, it was made on one shoe-string budget (allegedly 7000 dollars, although the post-production and promotion did cost 1 million dollars), Rodriguez considered this movie as pure practice and it was actually meant to be a straight-to-video feature. So, of course, it looks cheap, the acting was pretty weak and the plot was rather pedestrian. Still, I did like the damned thing though. Indeed, it is a fun movie and it is just really amazing to see how Rodriguez managed to shoot those action scenes, even though the guy didn’t have any money at all. Since then, Rodriguez has been pretty productive and even though not all his movies were great, he has been a master at making low cost features always generating a profit so I think he is actually some kind of role-model, especially in the current movie environment which is nowadays dominated by the massive expensive blockbusters. To conclude, even though it is nothing really amazing, I still think it is a pretty cool flick and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Robert Rodriguez’ work.

Since I kept hearing good things about this flick (it was even on the list ‘1001 movies you must see before you die’ for a couple of years), I was really eager to check it out. Eventually, even though I did like it, I can’t say I was really blown away by the whole thing. Let’s start with the good stuff. Indeed, it was a solid British social drama, reminiscent of Ken Loach’s style and it was a very striking depiction of a teenage life in a barren social environment. Also, this young actress, Katie Jarvis, was pretty impressive but, on the other hand, since she played someone so close to herself, you might wonder if she was acting at all. As usual, the always dependable Michael Fassbender, one of the best actors of his generation, was really good as well. So, it was a good flick, that’s for sure, but I was missing something though. I mean, during the first 90 minutes, there was not much going on, reflecting the fruitless and hopeless life of the main character and, then it got pretty intense in the last 30 minutes, even though it was fairly predictable. Indeed, it was pretty obvious that she would have had sex with her mother’s boyfriend, it was also pretty obvious that he was already married with kids and it was again really obvious that the dance audition was for some kind of strip-club. On top of that, the ending was not really convincing. I mean, a random guy she just met tell her he wants to go to Cardiff and, that’s it, she’s got her ticket out of this mess. Still, in spite of these flaws, it remains a pretty good British social drama and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

I have always been surprised by the mixed reactions towards this movie. Indeed, on one hand, it has a solid rating on Imdb (7.1) which should mean that many people love it but, on the another hand, it was pretty much trashed when it was released. In my opinion, it is actually a decent blockbuster and ‘Gladiator’ (a really overrated flick in my book) which is regarded as a ‘classic’ is only slightly better. Of course, Ridley Scott is a better director than Wolfgang Petersen and neither Brad Pitt or Eric Bana are as bad-ass as Russell Crowe but both stories were both entertaining without being really amazing. One of the biggest critic was that it was not really faithful but that’s rather ridiculous. I mean, the Iliad is full of legends, Gods and myths and it was never meant to be really historically accurate and the makers made their own adaptation which was fine by me. A part from that, the whole thing was pretty spectacular, there was a solid cast (Brad Pitt, Eric Bana, Orlando Bloom, Diane Kruger, Brian Cox, Brendan Gleeson, Garrett Hedlund, Sean Bean, Julie Christie, Peter O'Toole, Saffron Burrows) and the whole thing was quite entertaining. It was also one of the last blockbusters starring Brad Pitt, a genre he has been cautiously avoiding, and, to be honest, it wasn't really his best flick or best performance. To conclude, even though I don’t think it is anything remotely amazing, it remains a decent flick and it is worth a look, especially if you like the genre.