Reviews by johanlefourbe

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.

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.