Reviews by johanlefourbe

Even though ‘Jumanji’ was rather poorly received after its original release, I always had a weak spot for this flick. Of course, it was nothing mind-blowing but I thought that the special effects were pretty cool, I enjoyed the whole chaos created by the plot and this chaos was a good match with Robin Williams’ hysterical blend of humor. So, when I heard they were making a sequel (sort of…), I was rather intrigued. Basically, the plot follows the same template as in ‘Jumanji’, except that, this time, the board game transports the players into outer space instead of a mysterious jungle. Unfortunately, I thought it was a little bit more underwhelming than its predecessor. I don’t know, maybe I have outgrown this kind of stories (on the other hand, I was more than 15 years old when I watched ‘Jumanji’ the 1st time around) but I was missing something in the plot or the characters to make it really entertaining. I mean, ‘Jumanji’ was honestly totally wack but that’s why it was pretty fun whereas this flick was just way too straightforward. Still, it remains a fun flick with some pretty cool special effects and it was also pretty neat to see both Josh Hutcherson and Kristen Stewart both starring in this before their break-through. For Jon Favreau, it was again a really solid directing effort, following the successful ‘Made’ and ‘Elf’ and his next directing gig would be ‘Iron Man’ which was, of course, a huge critical and financial success. Unfortunately, it seems that his career as a director has taken a blow with ‘Cowboys & Aliens’ but I hope he will recover soon and come up with another great feature. Anyway, to conclude, even though this movie was nothing really amazing, I still think it is a rather entertaining family feature and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you need to entertain your kids.

This movie was on my ‘to-watch’ list for a couple of years already and I was really glad to finally watch it. Even though I really suck balls at chess, I think it is a fascinating game, even more than poker or pool, and since I kept hearing good things about this flick (Roger Ebert really loved it for example), I was really curious about it. Eventually, to be honest, even though I enjoyed this flick, I can’t say I was really blown away by the whole thing. I don’t know, it seemed as if they didn’t know what to do with the main character. Indeed, his characterization was pretty sketchy. At first, he seems barely autistic but at some other moments, he seemed like an average kid who just wanted to have fun. Eventually, you never get to know his motivations and we never learn why he plays chess or if he even likes it at all. Instead, as it seems they didn’t know what to do with this little fellow, the plot spends more time developing the adults surrounding the main character (his parents, his two mentors, the parents of his opponents, his school teacher,…). And, in my opinion, this movie is more about the impact of the young boy on his environment than about himself but that was still really interesting and there was a really solid cast (Joe Mantegna, Joan Allen, Ben Kingsley, Laurence Fishburne, William H. Macy, Dan Hedaya, Laura Linney). The other thing that bothered me was his ‘nemesis’. Indeed, the young boy playing Josh Waitzkin was pretty good but the other kid was really some kind of constipated drone. I know, working with kids is one of the most difficult things when making a movie but still. In spite of all this, I really enjoyed this flick, definitely. Basically, even though it is rather flawed in my opinion, it is still the best movie dealing with chess. All right, I have to confess, I haven’t sen many of those but it was really interesting and quite entertaining and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in chess.

Like many movie buffs, I spend way too much time watching recent movies (just check Listal, the most movie activity concerns movies which have been released in the last 3 years). Anyway, as a results, I tend to neglect older movies and that’s a real shame. Indeed, recently, I became a huge fan of Henry Fonda but I have seen only 9 movies starring this legend only because I keep watching new movies most of the time. Anyway, this was his last movie and he was just great, as usual. He won the Academy award for his performance which of course was completely deserved and, surprisingly, considering his impressive body of work over 6 decades, it was his only best actor Oscar. To round up the impressive cast, you also had his daughter Jane Fonda and Katherine Hepburn who won her 4th Academy award in the process as well. So, for Henry Fonda, this movie was a terrific swan song, the best way to end his illustrious career but it was also a fascinating movie dealing with senior citizens. Indeed, Hollywood is usually obsessed with beauty and young people so it is pretty rare to get a feature dealing with older people. So, the subject was really interesting and it was also handled with a lot of sensitivity. To conclude, I thought it was a very good flick and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Henry Fonda’s work.

It is one of those movies I kept hearing about for a very long time so I was really eager to check it out. Eventually, I wasn’t disappointed. Indeed, during the whole thing, I was rather flabbergasted by what was going on but I couldn't help wondering if it would happen the same way in real life (apparently, it did since it is based on an actual experiment). I wasn't completely convinced at first but it was eventually really engrossing and it will remain in my thoughts for a few more days, that's for sure. To be fair, the movie was not perfect. In my opinion, the beginning, when they introduce you to the main character was actually pretty weak. I mean, it is pretty obvious that they wanted the viewers to identify with the guy, to better understand his motivations, but it felt pretty awkward, especially his relationship with this girl he met after a rather weird one-night stand. Of course, the movie is not about this but about the experience, it was really unsettling and worked very well. Like I said before, during the whole thing, you are scratching your head, questioning the attitude of both guards and prisoners but I do believe it gives a really believable and quite convincing study on human behavior and psychology, resulting in a fascinating movie. To conclude, I thought it was a really good flick, it really deserves its reputation and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Back in the 80’s, not only Lawrence Kasdan had some major success as a screenwriter (he wrote ’The Empire Strikes back’ , ’Return of the Jedi’ and ’Raiders of the Lost Ark’ , not too shabby, ain’t it?), he developed also a solid career as a director and all his movies were acclaimed (’Body Heat’, ‘The Big Chill’ , ‘Silverado’ , ‘The Accidental Tourist’) . However, in the 90’s, his directing efforts were not that impressive and, in my opinion, it all started to go wrong with ‘I Love You to Death’ which was pretty lame. Anyway, his directing debut was a definitely critical and financial success. Indeed, it is a pretty solid néo-noir, almost a remake of ‘Double Indemnity’ (which I still need to watch) and not only did it launch Kasdan’s directing career but also William Hurt and Kathleen Turner (this movie was also her acting debut). So, it was a pretty steamy affair and, personally, I really enjoyed the mood provided by the competent directing. Hurt and Turner were really good as well, they had some great chemistry and after this movie, they would both become major players in Hollywood in the 80’s. Unfortunately, I was still not completely blown away by the whole thing. Indeed, like in most of the néo-noir features I am familiar with, the plot was pretty pedestrian and all the characters were really stereotypical. I know, it is something inherent to the genre but I always find it rather frustrating. Still, even though I don’t think it is really a masterpiece, it still remain a really solid erotic thriller and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

To be honest, I wasn’t sure what to expect from this flick. Indeed, McG would be the last guy I would expect to direct a sport drama based on a true events. Still , according to IMDB, it is his best movie so far so I thought I should give it a try. This movie was also starring Matthew McConaughey who made recently an impressive come-back. Back in those days, pretty much like McG, McConaughey had a pretty lousy reputation and this movie was one of the very few which wasn’t a lame romantic-comedies during which McConaughey would loose his shirt half-way through. Anyway, how was this flick after all? First of all, this story really had some potential as it dealt with a huge trauma for this (American) football team, this school, even the whole town. Unfortunately, the makers barely went into the psychological turmoil involved and, at the end of the day, it remains a rather pedestrian and predictable sport feature. I mean, as usual, you have a multitude of characters with their own story-line and it gives an excuse for the makers to avoid spending too much time with one character and instead they kept jumping from one to another and eventually, all those plots were pretty much half-baked. The other thing that bothered me was that, even though it is a sport feature, it was not about competition, winning, trophies and that kind of stuff. It was more about a community and how they tried to deal with grief and yet, they felt compelled to add a big game at the end during which Marshall won as the underdog. Of course, it was uplifting and I must admit that McG directed some really nice football scenes but it wasn’t what the story was supposed to be about. Still, it remains a decent sport flick with indeed some pretty uplifting bits and there was a nice cast as well. To conclude, even though the whole thing had some potential, at the end of the day, it is a rather standard sport drama but I guess it is still worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Since I have a weak spot for Wes Craven and since this movie had developed a rather infamous reputation since its release, I was quite eager to check it out. Unfortunately, I didn't care much for the whole thing. I mean, it was still much better than the recent remake which was really weak but, in my opinion, it was just a rather nasty cheap-ass horror flick like they used to make back in those days. I was really surprised to discover that the late Roger Ebert actually liked a lot this movie since he never displayed much love for this genre. I mean, there was some good stuff, absolutely. For example, the juxtaposition of raping and mutilation with the upbeat soundtrack was really striking and some of the actors were actually decent (not all of them unfortunately). The mood was also really dark, grim and quite relentless and I can imagine that it must have been quite shocking when it was released 40 years ago. Still, even though it was an interesting directing debut for Wes Craven, personally, I really preferred his 2nd directing effort, 'The Hills have eyes', which wasn't really a masterpiece either but it was still much stronger story-wise, at least, that's my opinion. Anyway, to conclude, even though I thought it was a little bit disappointing, it still remain a classic horror feature and I think it is worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Even though I'm not really a fan of musicals, I still try to catch the classics in this genre and a true movie buff should watch all kinds of movies in my opinion. This time, I was actually pretty optimist with this flick since it sounded pretty alternative. Unfortunately, I thought the whole thing was rather disappointing. I mean, it is a pretty neat time-capsule, displaying the ideas of manners from the 70's but that was also the main issue with this flick. Indeed, if it was pertinent when it was released, it does look pretty cheesy nowadays. Furthermore, and that's the main issue I have with musicals in general, is that the story and the characters were poorly developed. Indeed, musicals always focus more on the mood and the emotions than the actual plot which is something that always bothers me. Coming back to our main feature, the songs were ok but nothing really mind-blowing. Still, there was something really intriguing about this flick, at least it tried to be original and, I'll give them that, it must be one of the most bad-ass titles I came across. To conclude, even though it was slightly disappointing, I still think it is worth a look though, especially if you like the genre.

Since I am huge a fan of Paul Giamatti and above all Dustin Hoffman and since I heard some pretty good things about this flick, I was really eager to check it out. Eventually, it turned out to be a really intriguing movie with a hell of a one-man show by Giamatti. To be honest, the whole thing was still rather flawed though. I mean, the first half hour was for example pretty messy. Once again, they used this back-and-forth between past and present which was as usual pretty annoying. I mean, even though the make-up on Paul Giamatti was very well done, I was still confused about when was the action taking place. Furthermore, the fact that they dropped the back-and-forth half way through made it even more pointless. It was also rather unclear what the hell was he doing in Rome to start with and who were these people with him. Later on, the whole thing got more focused and I was able to dive into the life of this Barney character. And it was such a great character. I mean, the guy was deeply flawed but that made him even more interesting. It was also great to see Paul Giamatti in the lead for once and his performance was a real tour-de-force. I also loved Dustin Hoffman and their scenes together were probably the best. At the end of the day, I think the makers got too ambitious and tried to develop too many stories (Rome, his 3 marriages, his friend Boogie who died mysteriously, the cop suspecting Barney of murder, his kids, his TV work, his alzheimer,...). I mean, that was a lot to digest and they could have dropped a few things. Still, the main character was really fascinating and the acting was excellent so I really liked it and it is definitely worth a look.

I don't why exactly but I was really eager to check this flick and eventually it took me a while to get my hands on it. It was probably the idea of watching a thriller with a confrontation between Denzel Washington and Gene Hackman that attracted me. Anyway, it was the first movie Denzel Washington and Tony Scott made together (they would make eventually 5 movies in total together) and, in my opinion, it is definitely and easily the best one. Yeah, even 'Man on Fire' which has become a cult classic is not that good in my opinion. Coming back to our main subject, it is easily one of the best submarine features I have seen. Of course, it doesn't come near 'Das Boot' which will remain the ultimate best in this genre for a very long time but it is still damned fine entertaining and this Clash of the Titans between Washington and Hackman was just awesome. Actually, it could have been pretty neat if they switched, you know, Hackman playing the righteous man and Washington playing the devious bad guy for a change but I guess it would have been too confusing for the average viewer. Still, even though the whole thing is actually rather pedestrian, it remains a very well made and really entertaining thriller and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.