Reviews by johanlefourbe

Basically, it is once again one of those really obscure French movies which almost no one has seen here on Listal. Let me correct this, I’m the only one who has seen this movie so far! A few years back, we used to have a French-speaking channel called TV5 and they would often broadcast movies. Some of them were pretty classic and some others were pretty obscure. Well, this movie definitely belonged to the 2nd group. In fact, the director, Catherine Breillat, is actually pretty notorious for her rather sexually explicit movies like ‘Romance’. If you expect something edgy like ‘Romance’ when watching this, you will be quite disappointed though. Basically, it is a rather straightforward police neo-noir feature but I did like the tone which was pretty dark. It was also fun to see Lio in this. You have probably never heard of her but back in the 80’s-90’s in France, she was one of the most obnoxious singer you could think of but, to be honest, she gave here a decent performance. I also liked Claude Brasseur who was pretty good, portraying a seasoned tough cop. To conclude, even though the whole thing is nothing really amazing, it is actually a pretty good flick and it is worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Honestly, I had no idea what to expect from this flick but since I have a weak spot for Dustin Hoffman, I thought I might as well give it a try. Basically, it is one of his more obscure movies, apparently not even 10 people have seen it here on Listal and it wasn’t really good, I’m afraid. At first, when I realized it was an adaptation of a play written by David Mamet, I got pretty intrigued but I seriously had a hard time to care about the whole thing. Indeed, it is just about two losers who spend a whole day in a junk shop, arguing about some pathetic heist and, from time to time, you have a black kid showing up. I don’t make it sound really exciting and, indeed, it wasn’t. I mean, it wasn’t bad either, Dustin Hoffman is a fine actor and delivered a decent performance and the dialogs written by Mamet were quite entertaining but those guys were not really interesting, I would even say that Teach (played by Hoffman) was just terribly obnoxious. I don’t know, the play is apparently a classic (even Al Pacino played Teach for a couple of years) and maybe it wasn’t the right material for a movie adaptation. Anyway, to conclude, in spite of its flaws, it still remains a decent watch and it is worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Since I’m a huge fan of Alfred Hitchcock’s work, I was really to check this flick. I wonder if it was his first real success. I mean, before that he already did direct about almost 20 movies but they were all pretty much obscure. Anyway, Hitchcock would even remake this flick 20 years later with James Stewart and Doris Day with even more success. Since I already saw the 2nd version, I wasn’t really sure what to expect this time but I was rather pleased that the two movies didn’t have much in common actually. I mean, the basic plot is indeed similar but the execution was really different so it is really worth a look to watch both movies. Basically, it follows the usual gimmick used by Hitchcock, which is to put some ordinary folks in some obscure thriller. The thing I enjoyed the most was probably Peter Lorre’s performance. The guy became famous with ‘M’ and this was his first English language film and he did a great job. Indeed, all the other actors were decent but Lorre clearly stood out creating a spellbinding mannered man which was even more impressive when you learn that he didn’t even speak much English at the time. To conclude, even though it is not one of Hitchcock’s masterpieces, it remains a pretty good thriller and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Honestly, I’m rather surprised that so few people have rated this movie. I mean, don’t misunderstand me, I don’t care much about this franchise but I always thought they were very much loved. Anyway, my wife is a die-hard fan so she bought the dvd box and, obviously, I had to watch those flicks with her. At first, I thought it would be completely awful but, to be honest, the first installment was not bad at all. I mean, I wasn’t blown away either but I could see its appeal and why it was so popular. On the other hand, I really had a hard time to care with this 3rd installment. Indeed, at that point, the whole concept was really starting to get on my nerves. The poor little impress who doesn’t get to see her husband because he has to rule the country…. She knew what she was getting into when she married him, didn’t she?!? And of course, she becomes ill but, since it is a very (sappy) romantic feature, the whole thing is perfectly timed and she is completely cured by the end of the movie. Apparently, they were even planning to make a 4rth movie but Romy Schneider refused to play the title character any longer. Good for her! To conclude, obviously I wasn’t the target audience for this movie and I have seen worse but I still think it was a rather lame romantic feature and it don’t think it is really worth a look.

Honestly, even though I was interested by this sequel, I actually wanted to see the first installment before but, somehow, it never happened. Indeed, even though it has now reached a cult status, it is never broadcasted on any of the channels I have and I never came across a dvd with a decent price. On the other hand, this sequel was finally on TV so I thought I should skip the first installment for now. Eventually, I must admit, it looked pretty awesome and, apparently, it was one of the few movies worth seeing in 3D in the theaters and with the cool soundtrack provided by Daft Punk, they managed to create a really nice mood. Unfortunately, it was still not really amazing though. I mean, you could feel that the whole thing had some great potential, it could have been more than another fancy looking blockbuster but, unfortunately, you end up with a slightly idiotic plot with some major plot holes. On top of that, I was never convinced by Garrett Hedlund but I’m not sure that it was actually his fault, I think it was more due to the fact that his character was rather poorly developed with some really cheesy dialogs. Still, in spite of its flaws, it remains a decent SF feature and it is worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Honestly, I had some really low expectations about this flick but, somehow, my kids ended up buying the dvd so I still had to watch the damned thing (and since we have the dvd, I even watched it a couple of times by now…). I’ll give you that, young kids really love it. My youngest daughter have watched it maybe already 10 times so I guess it’s a real treat for the target audience but, God, I thought it was seriously tedious. I mean, come on, the story is about a zebra who thinks he is a horse and wants to become a racehorse... It was quite inane and to see all those talking animals didn’t really cheer me up. On a positive note, it was rather fun to see Hayden Panettiere before she became a huge star with 'Heroes' and I guess I would watch anything involving Dustin Hoffman, even if it means he will only voice a grumpy pony (although I’m pretty sure I have seen only the Dutch dubbed version so even this small pleasure was lost on me…). I know, it is just a family feature so I shouldn’t take it too seriously but I really had a hard time to care about the whole thing. To conclude, I have seen worse but it still remain a rather weak kid flick and I don’t think it is really worth a look, except if you have some very young kids who need to be entertained.

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. It doesn’t mean that it was a bad movie though, in the contrary. Indeed, if there is one genre that Lumet really mastered, it was definitely the gritty crime feature and this flick is a pretty good example. I mean, it never reaches the level of ‘Serpico’ but it was still quite intriguing. As usual, Sidney Lumet managed to give the whole thing a really nice mood and Nick Nolte gave once again one hell of a performance. Against him, you had Timothy Hutton, an actor who never really managed to breakthrough even after winning an Academy award for ‘Ordinary People’ and there again, he didn’t really blow me away and he was obviously upstaged by the superior Nolte. Still, even though it might not be a masterpiece, I thought it was a really solid crime feature 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 the title sounded pretty cool and it seemed to be a rather bad-ass medieval feature so I was rather curious about the damned thing. Eventually, I really liked how grim the whole thing was and most of the duration was about a siege which was pretty entertaining. There was also a Paul Giamatti in top form who produced a solid performance as the bad guy and, at this point, it is pretty obvious that he could play almost anything. Still, I have to admit it, the whole thing was not really amazing though. I mean, with some blood and grittiness and some historical background, they tried to cover up the fact that the plot was rather pedestrian. Furthermore, even though it looked really good, the directing was not really amazing (the shaky cam during the action scenes was really annoying) and the dialogs were pretty weak. Finally, this movie was yet another attempt to sell us James Purefoy as a leading man but, even though he does look the part, he definitely doesn’t have the charisma of a Russell Crowe or a Hugh Jackman. Still, in spite of its flaws, it remains a decent flick and it is worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

I did watch this movie way before Lindsay Lohan became such a mess (she might have been in trouble already but nothing compared to what’s going on nowadays) and, even before that, back in those days, when she made her acting debut with this movie, she was definitely a promising child star. I mean, you can always argue that the story was nothing really original and rather predictable but it was still a rather entertaining flick and Lohan definitely displayed some potential. I mean, she was just about 12 years old at the time and she still managed to give both siblings a distinct personality so she should be praised for that. Fast forward 15 years later and her 6 last movies, if you don’t include ‘Machete’, managed to only gather an average rating of 3.7 on Imdb (including ‘'The Canyons', 'Scary Movie 5', 'InAPPropriate Comedy', 'Liz & Dick', 'Labor Pains' and 'I Know Who Killed Me'). Wow! That’s pretty impressive… Will she ever make a come-back? As the years go by, it seems less and less likely but if you take Robert Downey Jr., he was a major drug addict for more than a decade and he is nowadays one of the most bankable actors in the world so who knows? Anyway, even though this flick is nothing really amazing, it remains a decent family feature and it is actually worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Before becoming a ‘serious’ actor and winning two Academy awards back-to-back, Tom Hanks used to make some pretty goofy comedies and he was pretty successful at it. Well, this movie must be the goofiest of them all and even though Roger Ebert really loved it, I had a rather hard time to care about the whole thing. Of course, the plot was completely preposterous and it was supposed to be really whimsical but, honestly, I thought it was rather annoying. This movie would be the first Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan would make together (‘Sleepless in Seattle’ and ‘You got mail’ would then follow) and it was probably the least successful, even though it was probably more original. The one thing I enjoyed was to see Meg Ryan playing 3 different characters and I especially enjoyed the 1st one, Dede. Indeed, I really had a hard time to actually recognize Meg Ryan and I was quite impressed by her performance. The second character she played, Angelica, was too broad and obvious for my taste and the last one, Patricia, was just the typical blond girl that she has played so many times in her career. But that Dede girl was definitely something different and it’s too bad she was there only for 10 minutes. Except for that, I didn’t care much for the whole thing though. To conclude, even though they tried to make something different, it didn’t really work and I don’t think it is really worth a look.