Reviews by johanlefourbe

I wasn’t really expecting much from this flick but since there was a nice cast, I still wanted to check it out. The main issue with this flick is that it sounded and really looked like a female version of ‘Dead Poets Society’ and I think that’s the main reason why it was not very well received. Eventually, I thought it was actually not bad at all, even better than ‘Dead Poets Society’ which is one of the most overrated movies in my opinion. Indeed, there was a pretty good cast (Julia Roberts, Kirsten Dunst, Julia Stiles, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Ginnifer Goodwin, Marcia Gay Harden) and they delivered some solid performances. Above all, I thought it was much more subtle than the terribly stereotypical ‘Dead Poets Society’ and it was much more subtle in the way that the characters handled this way of learning. Concerning Julia Roberts, she was not bad, she gave her best shot, but, honestly, it is rather difficult to take her seriously as a teacher. I mean, she has always been a charming actress but I always thought she was rather limited as an actress since, in every movie, she basically plays a variation of the same character. Still, even though it was nothing really amazing, I thought it was a decent inspirational drama and it is worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Following his tremendous success with the LOTR trilogy, Peter Jackson joined the club of the very few directors (including James Cameron, George Lucas, Steven Spielberg and Christopher Nolan) who can do whatever they want and spend as much money as they please. For Jackson, it was the opportunity to fulfill his lifelong dream of remaking 'King Kong'. And that was probably the main issue with this movie. I mean, except for Peter Jackson, were there really so many people expecting a new 3 hour long version of this story? I'm not so sure and eventually, in spite of the huge buzz around this movie, it wasn't really a huge success. Personally, I thought it was pretty good and, above all, it looked really awesome with some pretty amazing set pieces but that's something we have been accustomed to with Peter Jackson. I have re-watched it recently and, honestly, I have to admit it, I wasn’t really blown away. I mean, it remains a huge spectacle, that’s for sure, but Peter Jackson has some serious editing issues. It worked fine with the LOTR but with 'The Hobbit', he is showing no restraints and this movie had some problems as well. I mean, one hour to get to see Kong, one hour on Skull island (the best section) and one hour back in New York, it wasn’t really effective. Especially in the first part, he introduces way too many characters with their own sub-plots while they could have been removed easily. Finally, Jack Black was seriously miscast here as he gave one of his usual goofy performances. Anyway, to conclude,, in spite of its flaws, it was still a decent blockbuster and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Peter Jackson’s work.

Not so long ago, I saw the 4th installment of this franchise. I had some rather low expectations but I heard here and there that it was actually pretty good so I thought I should give it a try. Eventually, I thought it was terribly disappointing and, in my opinion, it was really not worth re-launching this franchise 10 years later. Personally, I really loved the first installment, it is a genuine classic, but all the sequels were disappointing. The point is that the ideas developed in ‘Scream’ were quite intriguing but there was no way it would work with some sequels. The first issue was to let the main cast survive all along. It kills a lot of the momentum. Then, you have the twist(s) which was pretty cool the first time around but those became really predictable and above all really ridiculous. The 3rd installment has the worst reputation but, personally, I think it was actually a slight improvement on this 2nd movie which was, in my opinion, really abysmal. Indeed, what a stupid flick… Apparently, it is actually a decent sequel so maybe my rating might be a little bit harsh but, in my opinion, it was a huge step-back from the awesome first installment. To conclude, I thought it was pretty bad and I don’t think it is worth a look.

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. Basically, it is one of his very old silent features (Apparently, it was Alfred Hitchcock's last silent film) and, honestly, I had a hard time to care about the whole thing. Indeed, the plot was just too thin for my taste. Pretty much like ‘The Ring’, another old feature directed by Hitchcock and also starring Carl Brisson, the whole thing is based on a love triangle, with 2 friends in love with the same woman. It also reminded me of ‘Pearl Harbor’ somehow. So, this rather obnoxious woman (whose behavior drastically changes throughout the movie) marries one of them, while she is in fact in love with the other guy and you have to wait until the very end so they can finally sort this out. So, it is a tale of loyalty and honor, something they really loved back in those days, but personally, I thought it was pretty tedious. I mean, Hitchcock was the master of the psychological thriller but he wasn’t really good in the psychological drama. Still, in spite of its flaws, it remains watchable and it is worth a look, especially if you are interested in Alfred Hitchcock’s work.

Of course, I wasn’t expecting much from this flick but, somehow, I was still curious to check if it was really as bad as it looked. Well, it wasn’t really good, that’s for sure. Apparently, they thought it would be a good idea to surf on Taylor Lautner’s new popularity but it didn’t really work out and this flick was a flop. Since he is still very young, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt but, at that point, the guy is just not ready yet to lead an action flick like this one. The sad thing is that the story actually had some potential. Imagine you’re a teenager, you fell don’t you fit into this world (like most teenagers) but, some day by accident, you discover your face on a missing persons website. What do you do then? So, there were some good opportunities there and even though the action genre was not the most interesting option, they could have pretty much followed the Bourne franchise formula and add a teenage twist but, unfortunately, you got no depth whatsoever, not much character development and, instead, some rather underwhelming action scenes. To conclude, even though the whole thing actually had some potential, it remains a rather weak action flick and it is not really worth a look, I'm afraid.

I remember it very well, when this movie was released, I was honestly not really interested. Eventually, there was a massive word of mouth (back in those days, that’s how it worked, there was no internet or social medias involved), everybody was talking about it so I was eventually eager to check it out. And, indeed, it was really good, the genuine rebirth of the slasher flick and an impressive come-back for Wes Craven. Indeed, Craven pushed the genre to a different level, it became really meta and quite entertaining. Basically, instead of the usual naive or even stupid victims, here, the characters were all smart-ass and quite aware of the rules of this genre resulting in some pretty nifty dialogues. Eventually, even though they played with those rules, they actually still remained pretty faithful to the genre so I think it is actually more an homage than a parody like it was sometimes described. Of course, since it was a huge success, they made some sequels, all directed by Wes Craven which was rather unusual, but those other installments were all really disappointing (I especially dreaded the 1st sequel). Anyway, to conclude, I really liked this flick, it is definitely a 90’s classic and it is absolutely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Not so long ago, I saw the 4th installment of this franchise. I had some rather low expectations but I heard here and there that it was actually pretty good so I thought I should give it a try. Eventually, I thought it was terribly disappointing and, in my opinion, it was really not worth re-launching this franchise 10 years later. Personally, I really loved the first installment, it is a genuine classic, but all the sequels were disappointing. The point is that the ideas developed in ‘Scream’ were quite intriguing but there was no way it would work with some sequels. The first issue was to let the main cast survive all along. It kills a lot of the momentum. Then, you have the twist(s) which was pretty cool the first time around but those became really predictable and above all really ridiculous. This 3rd installment has the worst reputation but, personally, I think it was actually a slight improvement on the 2nd movie which was, in my opinion, really abysmal. At least, this time, there were some cameos by the awesome Jay and Silent Bob (on the other hand, to have them show how serious the whole thing was). To conclude, even though it wasn’t a total disaster, it remains a rather average horror flick and I don’t think it is really worth a look.

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. Basically, it is one of his very old silent features and, honestly, I had a hard time to care about the whole thing. In fact, I would go as far as saying that it is his weakest movie I have seen so far (apparently, Hitchcock himself thought that this film was his least favorite film out of all the films he had directed.). To be honest, it wasn't a complete disaster but it wasn't far from it, I'm afraid. Indeed, even though it was a comedy, we were far from the comic genius displayed by Charles Chaplin and the whole thing was seriously tedious to watch. Basically, it deals with a really obnoxious spoiled rich girl and even though I could spot the jokes, those were barely funny. It is one of those standard plot that they used a lot back in those days about someone rich who loses its fortune, struggle during the whole thing but at the end, everything is fine again ('Donwhill' also by Hitchcock followed the same pattern). In my opinion, those stories are usually quite boring, this time, the whole thing was also pretty sketchy and the scenes were pretty random. Eventually, even if Hitchcock was a master of thriller, comedy was definitely not his cup of tea, that's pretty obvious. To conclude, it might be the weakest movie ever made by the great master and it is not really worth a look, except maybe if you are a die-hard fan of Alfred Hitchcock's work.

To be honest, I have never been a fan of the Farrelly brothers’s work. Indeed, I completely despised ‘Dumb & Dumber’ and I really didn’t like much ‘There’s something about Mary’. Last time, I saw one of their last movies, ‘Hall Pass’, and it wasn’t really good either. Still, they made a couple of good movies and this one is definitely one of them, at least, that’s my opinion. The weird thing is that it is one of their most obscure movies, a movie they made between their 2 biggest success, ‘Dumb & Dumber’ and ‘There’s something about Mary’. Of course, the story was completely preposterous and filled with gross jokes, I thought it worked quite well this time. Indeed, this time, they decided to make fun of bowling which is a rather ridiculous sport when you think about it, and it was really funny. Furthermore, they decided to cast 2 comic geniuses, Woody Harrelson and Bill Murray, and they just rocked their performances, as usual. It has been a while since Woody Harrelson has played the lead and that’s a shame because he is very charismatic and just plain badass. To conclude, even though it is nowadays pretty much forgotten, it is actually a solid comedy and it is worth a look, especially if you are interested in the Farrelly brothers’s work.

Honestly, I’m not a huge fan of silent movies, except for those awesome comedies starring Charles Chaplin but since this movie is a huge classic, I was really eager to check it out. Well, it was quite mind-blowing and it really deserves its reputation as one of the best silent movies. Indeed, if nowadays, movies are dominated by huge blockbusters with some wall-to-wall CGI, well this movie is the complete opposite. Indeed, this movie is rather minimalistic and focuses on the trial of Jeanne D’Arc, so it is mostly indoors dominated by the dialogs between Jeanne and the juges and you barely get a glimpse of the (allegedly) really expensive decors ordered by Carl Theodor Dreyer. From the moment that Maria Falconetti shows up on the screen, I knew she was something else. Nowadays, her performance is still considered as one of the best ever given on the silver screen and it was indeed really impressive. You can imagine that Dreyer must have messed her up pretty bad to get this numb expression, her face is one you will never forget. This movie has also many layers. From an historical point of view, you can see that the Church, a powerful political force at the time, felt threatened by this girl who was amazingly popular among the French people and argued she had a direct connection with God. You can also read that it is a tale about Fanaticism. Fanaticism from Jeanne who goes to war after speaking to God and Fanaticism from her judges who will kill her because she doesn’t follow their dogma. To conclude, it is a great classic and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.