Reviews by johanlefourbe

I wasn’t really sure what to expect from this flick but since it was directed by Alain Resnais and since it was available on Netflix, I thought I might as well check it out. Well, after all these years, I have to admit that I’m still not familiar with this director’s work but, even though I have seen only 6 of his movies so far, I’m already impressed by his versatility as all his movies were so completely different from one and another. In this case, the material was interesting but, to be honest, the movie itself was not really impressive though. The main issue was that the story was rather disjointed. Serge Alexandre Stavisky was apparently a notorious con artist in France back in the 30’s who might have had some political connections. However, instead of showing these actual connections, they gave us some scenes involving Leon Trotsky’s exile in France where he lived for 2 years which was rather bewildering since Stavisky and Trotsky never had any contact for real or during this movie. Another issue was that, even though Anny Duperey and Charles Boyer were fine, they were given just too little to do. At least, Jean-Paul Belmondo was even better and a perfect choice to play the lead character. Eventually, Stavisky was basically displayed as a massive bipolar, it was mentioned a couple of times that he struggled with bouts of depression and the best moments where when he seemed to be doubting but this most interesting aspect of the character was barely developed after all. Instead, you get to see him going from one meeting to another, always playing the coolest cat in the room, which felt rather redundant at some point. Another even weaker narrative gimmick was when they gave us the supporting characters testifying about him during some commission. Anyway, to conclude, in spite of its flaws, it was still a decent watch though and I think it is worth a look, especially if you are interested in Alain Resnais’s work. 

To be honest, I wasn’t really sure what to expect from this flick but since there was a nice cast involved, I thought I might as well check it out. Well, I have always had a weak spot for the heist genre and, even though this movie didn’t get much love when it was released, I thought it was fairly entertaining. Basicall, it turned to be some kind of geriatric version of ‘Ocean’s Eleven’ and the cast involved was pretty much pitch-perfect (Michael Caine, Jim Broadbent, Tom Courtenay, Ray Winstone, Michael Gambon). It was also neat that the heist seemed to be doable, instead of something really far-fetched, even though it was surprising that there was not a single security guard on the premises at night or even through the whole Easter weekend. On the other hand, it was actually based on a real heist, the Hatton Garden Safe Deposit Company was actually notorious for his lack and/or outdated security and it went out of business a few months after this robbery took place. It was also interesting how this affair took a dark turn during the 2^nd act as all these robbers seemed to get along fine at first but then started to turn on each other. That’s also an issue with this genre, the fact that they tend to really glamorize such robbers but, in fact, most of them are no gentleman and this movie really displayed how dangerous and mean-spirited this occupation actually is. Unfortunately, the whole 3^rd act barely worked at all and pretty much ruined the whole thing, I’m afraid. First of all, even though all the characters worked fine, ‘Basil’ was barely developed whatsoever. In fact, who was this guy? What was his actual relationship with Brian Reader? Another issue was that they really struggled to further develop this story during this last act. Eventually, I wish they explained better how a group of seasoned robbers would manage to completely botch the final phase of this robbery. Anyway, to conclude, in spite of its flaws, it turned out to be a decent watch and I think it is worth a look, especially if you like the genre. 

I wasn’t really sure what to expect from this flick but since there was a decent cast involved and since it was available on Netflix, I thought I might as well check it out. I remember when this movie was released in France though. Back then, Vanessa Paradis was one of the most famous singers in France and she was eager to start a side career as actress. Unfortunately, after ‘Elisa’ which was a big critical and commercial success, this plan was almost instantly derailed by this massive misfire. Indeed, it was a huge flop and, to be honest, it turned out to be even worse than I expected. The first really annoying thing was the fact they dubbed all the characters. Indeed, the French actors dubbed themselves, rather poorly, but, even worse, the US actors were dubbed by some French actors which was just so cringe-inducing. Seriously, if you want everybody to speak French, why didn’t they set the action in France with some French characters instead? Concerning the story itself, it seems that it was conceived as a family feature but I can’t imagine young kids being entertained by this. Indeed, it was dealing with some rather convoluted mythology around good and bad witches but, above all, the end-result was just so tedious to behold. At least, Paradis was just so charming and charismatic, especially back then, but it was probably the only thing that worked with this movie. The rest of the cast (Jean Reno, Jeanne Moreau, Gil Bellows) all gave some rather pathetic performances but I guess they were not helped by the fact that their characters were really lame. Eventually, a few years later, Vanessa Paradis would fall in love with Johnny Depp, got pregnant within a few months so she took a break and it was only during the 2010’s that she would finally have a real acting career. Anyway, to conclude, the damned thing was a big waste of time for all the people involved and you should probably avoid it. 

Of course, since I have been faithfully following the MCU from the very beginning, I was quite eager to check this last instalment of the Guardians of the Galaxy. Well, even though it turned out to be a decent watch, to be honest, it didn’t really blow me away though. Eventually, the thing that bothered me the most was the fact that the damned thing was just too damned long. Seriously, when will they learn that such blockbusters really don’t need to be more than 2 hours long? It’s too bad because it was actually a great idea to focus on Rocket’s mysterious past. On top of that, the scenes involving this character when he was young with his freakish friends were some of the best scenes ever delivered by the MCU, no less than that, However, there is no way that his tale required a whopping 150 mins of running time. Eventually, 90 mins would have been just fine or they should have combined it with something else. It was also rather disappointing what they did with Adam Warlock who was basically the only new character in the mix. Indeed, the character was pretty cool and Will Poulter did what he could with the material provided but, eventually, he was simply given just too little to do and it seems that this character could have been easily removed. Still, this group of characters was and still is really awesome. Indeed, except maybe Groot, they are all so messed-up and so traumatized, it makes them all flawed but also so much more interesting than most of the super-heroes out there and, eventually, it all makes sense that they have such a strong bond. Anyway, to conclude, even if it doesn’t belong to the best MCU instalments, it was still quite entertaining and it is worth a look, especially if you like the genre.  

To be honest, I wasn’t really sure what to expect from this flick but since it was directed by Jean-Luc Godard and since it was available on Netflix, I thought I might as well check it out. Well, I was a while since I saw a movie directed by Godard but, right away, I was reminded how borderline unwatchable his work can be. I mean, I really loved ‘À bout de souffle’, after all these years, it is still one of my favorite movies but, to be honest, pretty much everything else this guy has delivered was usually seriously hard to digest and this movie was not an exception, I’m afraid. At least, as I grow older, I think I’m slightly more able to understand what he is trying to do. Basically, what Godard tried to do with this movie but also pretty much all his movies, is to completely reject the traditional narrative rules involved in film making. As a result, you don’t really have a plot or some actual characters, you have instead, well, ‘something’ else. Indeed, you don’t have some actual dialogues and everyone speaks in riddles. Even with the shots, many of them or even most of them didn’t follow the usual conventions in this area. Anyway, even if I do respect this original approach, it never really dazzled me, in fact, it is usually rather uncomfortable to watch. In this specific case, there was also the fact that there were numerous nubile girls (Aurelle Doazan, Emmanuelle Seigner, Julie Delpy) often involved in some rather ambiguous situations and you might seriously wonder what was the added value here. At least, the rest of the cast was pretty neat (Jean-Pierre Léaud, Nathalie Baye, Claude Brasseur, Johnny Hallyday), especially Nathalie Baye who was just so charming and charismatic in this movie. Anyway, to conclude, even if I had a hard time to care about the damned thing, it was still a decent watch and I think it is worth a look, at least, if you are interested in Jean-Luc Godard’s work.

It is probably the oldest movie I have seen so far. On top of that, it had been a while since I saw a movie directed by Georges Méliès so I was quite eager to check it out. Well, I really enjoyed the damned thing, that’s for sure. Indeed, even though it was basically only a static shot of 2 mins, it’s incredible how much Méliès managed to achieve with the technology available at the time. Of course, in 2 mins, there was no way he could develop a plot but it didn’t really matter. Indeed, it was still fine anyway and, instead, he gave us such a completely daft scene involving Méliès himself playing some mad scientist blowing up the head of some random guy, of course, played by Méliès himself as well. Eventually, the damned thing was probably not as ambitious or complex as ‘Le voyage dans la lune’ was but it was still seriously awesome. Eventually, beside the real neat special effects for the time period, Méliès had obviously so much fun, it was just seriously contagious, and, even if it was all so short, it was also really entertaining. Eventually, if you are into very old movies, you should really check it out. 

Recently, I have watched several vintage experimental shorts directed by Hans Richter, Fernand Léger and Marcel Duchamp and, this time, I thought I might as well watch this one directed by Man Ray. First of all, even though I did hear before about Man Ray, I have to admit that I’m not really familiar with his work but he was apparently mostly famous for his modern photography even if he considered himself a painter. Concerning the movie itself, I’m getting rather acquainted with the genre and I think these short experimental movies could be divided into 2 categories. On one hand, you have some films constantly repeating endlessly the same pattern(s) and, on the other hand, you have some films which are completely random with a succession of seemingly unrelated surrealist bits. Well, this movie definitely belonged to the 2nd category, that’s for sure. Seriously, it was actually quite impressive how much random stuff Man Ray has managed to cram in just 2 mins. Eventually, I have always a rather hard time to get a good grip with such movies because it all seems so incoherent. Still, there is no denying that the end-result was quite intriguing, especially towards the end, with a really gorgeous topless lady who was apparently the famous Kiki de Montparnasse, Man Ray’s lover and muse for many years. 

I wonder how I actually ended up watching this movie. Indeed, I constantly add movies to my queue. Right now, I’m focusing on older movies released during or before the 40’s and I think I picked up this one because it had been nominated for the Best Picture Academy Award back in 1944 (it didn’t win though). Well, to be honest, I really had a hard time to care about the damned thing. Of course, the fact that I was really exhausted when I watched it probably didn’t help, even if I did start to watch it at 17:00. Anyway, I still don’t think that this movie required almost 3 hours of running time. Seriously, nothing really much happened though the whole duration, there were only a handful of characters and none of them really evolved, except maybe Jane Hilton. Basically, it was some piece of propaganda showing how everybody back at home in the US was brave while most of the men were gone to fight during WWII. Not so long ago, I saw ‘The Best Years of Our Lives’ which was released only a few years later after and this movie was quite interesting in the sense that it delivered a more complex and actually rather bleak view on the impact this war had on the individuals who were directly involved. You won’t get any of this here though but, on the other hand, back in 1944, the US were still deeply involved in this conflict so I guess you can’t blame them to try to give a more positive message. It was also pretty neat to see Shirley Temple when she was just a teenager and it’s a pity to think that her career would end only 5 years later. Anyway, to conclude, even though the damned thing was terribly cheesy, I have to admit that it was also rather harmless and I guess it is worth a look but probably only if you really like the genre. 

I wasn’t really sure what to expect from this flick but since it was directed by Alain Resnais and since it was available on Netflix, I thought I might as well check it out. Except for ‘Nuit et brouillard’, it had been so many years since I saw a movie from this French master and, to be honest, with its title and poster, I was actually expecting a light comedy. Well, it turned out to be something completely different after all, that’s for sure. Indeed, eventually, it was some kind of experimental feature dealing with the play ‘Eurydice’ written by Jean Anouilh, not exactly some easy stuff to digest. It reminded me of Louis Malle’s last movie, ‘Vanya on 42nd Street’, which was focusing in a similar way on Anton Chekhov’s play. The interesting thing with this approach is that it allows such a great focus on the text and the performances of the actors and, in this case, Resnais pushed the concept even further by having some characters played by 3 different actors. He also played around with and without sets but it all looked so fake, especially this weird house owned by their host. Well, even though I do respect this approach and believe it’s intriguing, to be honest, I have to admit that it is not really my thing. In fact, I think it is actually terribly sleep-inducing. Seriously, there were many times during which my mind was wandering off and, when I was finally focusing on the movie again, I was really wondering what the hell they were actually talking about. Anyway, to conclude, even if I had a hard time to connect with the damned thing, it was still an interesting watch and it is worth a look, especially if you like the genre or if you are interested in Alain Resnais’s work.