Reviews by johanlefourbe

Since I have a weak spot for Denzel Washington and since there was a pretty good buzz around this flick, I thought I should check it out. It was also one of the last movies directed by Norman Jewison (who seems to be retired nowadays) and probably one of his very best. To be honest, I don’t think it is really a great movie but it is sure a good one. First of all, Denzel Washington was pretty good and really convincing in this (he even won the Silver Bear at the Berlin Film festival for his performance). You could argue that, as usual, Washington keeps playing ‘the righteous man’ and therefore remains in his comfort zone but, once again, he does it so well, he is so charismatic, he is basically one of the very few actors for whom I never get tired of, even though they keep playing basically the same character over and over again. Considering the story, they kind of romanticized the whole thing a little bit (Carter is a little bit too perfect to be true) and the whole thing remains a little too stereotypical for my taste. Still, it remains a very solid and interesting court-drama and I was entertained from the beginning until the end. To conclude, even though it is not really mind-blowing, I still liked this flick and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

I wasn’t sure what to expect from this flick but since I have a weak spot for Angelina Jolie and Clive Owen, I thought I should give it a try. Apparently, it was a financial and critical failure when it was released. Honestly, even though the whole thing was indeed rather misguided, I still don’t think it was that bad at all. Indeed, you can say whatever you want about Angelina Jolie, at least, she tried to make the mainstream audience a little bit more aware about some terrible things that happens in the third world. And indeed, it was really intriguing to see those humanitarian aid workers doing their job but, unfortunately, they had to wrap up a very conventional and unwelcome romantic plot to the whole thing. It is as if they didn’t trust that their main subject was interesting enough so they added some very underwhelming elements that you get from your typical Hollywood productions. Also, there was the all issue of the CGI dying baby. Indeed, there is a point in the movie, when they show a baby dying of hunger and since they obviously couldn’t show a real baby dying, they made a CGI one. It was a really unsettling sight and you really wonder if it was a good idea. It looks really fake so it feels a little bit weird but if it would have looked more realistic, it would have been probably even more creepy. Still, on the other hand, if you are dealing with this subject, should you leave out this aspect or confront the audience? To conclude, even though the whole thing was really flawed, it still provides enough food for thought and I think it is worth a look.

Since I'm a huge fan of Michael Caine, I was really eager to check this flick. Eventually, I have even seen it a couple of times. Basically, it is a pretty solid spy feature with, as usual, a terrific performance by Caine who was even nominated at the Academy awards. Basically, it is a rather sober and realistic spy feature, especially if you compare it to all the non-sense displayed in the James Bond franchise. So, here, you don't have some huge action pieces but some pretty interesting characters instead. I think Philip Noyce should be credited as well as he managed to create a really nice mood and there was definitely something fascinating about Saigon in the 50's. Still, even though I enjoyed this flick, I wasn't completely blown away though. First of all, I always have a hard time to take Brendan Fraser seriously as a dramatic actor, or as an actor altogether, but I have to admit, he gave one of his better performances here. Furthermore, even though the plot was entertaining enough, it was not really fascinating in my opinion. Still, it remains a pretty good flick and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Even though this flick had a pretty bad reputation, I was still eager to check it out. I mean, before it was released, there was pretty good buzz about it. Indeed, after 5 longs years, Richard Kelly was finally coming up with a new directing effort after the acclaimed 'Donnie Darko'. Eventually, his sophomore outing was a huge flop, critically and financially, and his career has never really recovered from the blow. So, how was the damned thing? Well, it was indeed a huge mess... I mean, I think I liked the 5 first minutes. Basically,  it was some kind of home video of a birthday, and at some point, there was some nuke exploding starting WWIII. It was a promising beginning but, unfortunately, all the rest was just a disjointed and tedious mess. At some point, I got so bored and started to count all the actors involved who obviously thought this movie could shake their image and boost their career (Sarah Michelle Gellar, Dwayne Johnson, Mandy Moore, Seann William Scott, Justin Timberlake,...). Honestly, I gave here Kelly a few extra points just for trying something highly ambitious but, dear, the end-result was just so underwhelming. After watching this, it felt as if he just got lucky somehow with 'Donnie Darko' which must be one of the most inspired mind-f*cks ever created. Well, this time, he managed to create the most cringe-inducing mind-f*ck ever made. To conclude, I think I'm being really generous with my rating here, this movie is a real mess and a boring one and it is not really worth a look, I'm afraid.

I already saw this movie but since it was such a long time ago, I was quite eager to check it out again. Well, I'm really glad I gave this movie a second look after all these years. Indeed, as a matter of fact, I’m pretty sure it was the first movie directed by von Trier which I have seen but, to be honest, at the time, even though it had been universally heralded, I have to admit that I didn’t like it much. Basically, Lars von Trier is one of those directors which I always found interesting without ever really enjoying his movies. Eventually, it's not that his movies are extremely difficult to watch (they're are not easy though), it's above all because they're all so dark and depressive. Anyway, after watching pretty much every single movie directed by the Danish master during the next 30 years, I was now much more able to appreciate this classic. Indeed, afterwards, von Trier would deliver some movies which were so much more darker and messed up than this one so it wasn't so hard to swallow now (it was still nothing really cheerful though). First of all, I thought it was interesting that, even though everyone in the film and the audience should find Jan's request to be appalling, I didn't think that it was now so revolting after all and I'm sure there are other couples where such things actually do occur. I'm not saying that it was usual or that it was a great idea but I'm just saying that the concept was not as revolting as it might seem at face value. Eventually, if Bess could have been slightly more discrete instead of becoming basically a cheap prostitute in plain sight in the middle of a very religious conservative community, I actually believed that it could have worked somehow. However, Lars von Trier has always been obsessed in relentlessly punishing his characters but, after all these years, I can handle that. In this case, everything Bess did and everything that happened to her was not because she believed in God but out of sheer love and, in fact, the basis of Religion is actually love, so, it seems that it all came together somehow, in a very neat way, even if von Trier did choose a really dark path to make his point. Of course, I shouldn't forget to mention that Emily Watson was absolutely brilliant in this. Indeed, her performance was really impressive, one of the best acting debut ever, and I wonder why Lars von Trier didn't work again with her afterwards. The first time I watched this movie, the last thing that really bothered me was this ending with those bells in the sky… As a matter of fact, at first, I even despised this ending, seriously. However, it didn't bother me again the second time around. Anyway, to conclude, even if I'm still not a huge fan, I have to admit that it is actually really good and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Lars von Trier’s work.

I wasn't expecting much from this flick but since I have a weak spot for Ray Liotta, I thought I should check it out. Eventually, it wasn't really good, I'm afraid. Basically, it is a really obscure comedy and, for once, Liotta was not playing one of his usual psychos but an insecure and sensible family man for once. Somehow, it reminded me of ‘American Beauty’ but it was then a very weak version. Indeed, the tone was never dramatic enough or funny enough to make it entertaining. At the beginning, we are introduced to 2 characters which are very awkwardly linked after the first 20 minutes. Eventually, I was above all amazed about how underwhelming some scenes were played out (one example that pops to my mind is when the main character drops a CD at his own work…). To be honest, I think the whole thing had some potential if they had made it way darker or way funnier but the way they handle it was just so , well, boring. Somehow, I still think Ray Liotta did a decent job but the rest of the cast was terribly uninspiring. To conclude, I think I’m being pretty generous with my rating here, it is a really weak comedy and I don’t think it is really worth a look.

Before it was released, there was a pretty good buzz but it wasn’t really successful after all. Basically, following the success of 'The Lord of the Rings' and 'Harry Potter', they adapted as many fantasy books as possible and most of those pretty much crashed and burned at the box-office and this flick was one of them. Honestly, I thought it was actually fairly entertaining with a very good performance by Jim Carrey. Eventually, I saw it again and, this time, I was able to spot what went wrong, at least, according to me. Above all, they messed up the tone. Indeed, with this material, it should have been a really dark and gloomy tale but, in order to reach a wider audience, they toned down the whole thing. So, it was never really dark and never really funny either. Furthermore, it looked pretty impressive but also really fake (apparently, the whole thing was shoot on soundstages with green screens) and, as a result, you never feel that there was anything at stake. Apparently, they were supposed to make more movies (there are 13 books so that should have been enough material) but it seems that they eventually dropped the whole thing so we won't see Count Olaf and the Baudelaire siblings for anytime soon. To conclude, even though my rating might be generous, I still think it was a decent flick and I think it is worth a look.

Since I have always had a weak spot for Jodie Foster, I was quite eager to check this flick. To be honest, even though I’ve seen virtually everything she did in the 90’s and the 00’s, I have to admit, I’m pretty oblivious about what she did as a child or young adult. On the other hand, Foster herself admitted that her career was on the low curve at that time, a low curse which ended with ‘The Accused’ for which she won her first Academy award. Anyway, how was the damned thing? Basically, it is another adaptation of a rather weird book written by John Irving, the guy also responsible for ‘The World according to Garp’. To be honest, I’m not sure if the book is weird since I haven’t read it but this movie was definitely weird, in a rather creepy way. I mean, I didn’t care much for ‘Garp’ but even though it was already rather peculiar, I could see the point of the whole thing. Not this time though. I mean, even though the actors were trying really hard to sell this, I thought this flick was seriously unpleasant to watch. Indeed, it is basically a quirky comedy which very awkwardly handles subjects such as rape or incest basically as jokes. I mean, I don’t think I’m easily shocked but even though it was supposed to be fun, it wasn’t and, like I said before, rather unpleasant. To conclude, even though it is not really awful, it is pretty much one really misguided comedy and it is not really worth a look.

Even though it is a really obscure flick, since I have a weak spot for Mel Gibson, I thought I should check it out. Eventually, I must admit, even though it was quite intriguing, it was not really satisfying. Mel Gibson made this movie just after 'Mad Max', even before it was released, as the director heard that Gibson was so good as Max Rockatansky, he decided to chose him for his movie. Between this and 'Mad Max', it was a huge stretch and I always believed that Gibson was actually rather talented, especially considering his status of action movie star. I mean, with Bruce Willis, he is one of the few action stars with some range. For example, among their colleagues, Sylvester Stallone never managed to be taken seriously as a dramatic actor and Arnold Schwarzenegger only had a mild success in comedies. Anyway, he was pretty good in this but the directing was pretty weak, especially the cheesy over-sentimental music was quite annoying. Furthermore, I really hard a hard time to make out where the whole thing was going. Was it drama? a romance? Eventually, in the last 20 minutes, it became quite clear but, even though it was a nice touch that they took their time to develop the relationship, it was not completely convincing. I also liked the fact all the characters were really nice and decent and it's too bad they felt compelled to add a phony conflict with the sister. To conclude, even though it was rather flawed, it remains an interesting drama and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you want to see something completely different starring Mel Gibson.

I already saw this movie, in fact, I even saw it in the movie theater when it was released but since it was a while back, I thought I might as well check it out again. For many viewers, this is David Lynch's best movie, his ultimate masterpiece, his magnum opus. Well, I'm glad I gave it another shot because, except for a few key scenes, I was surprised that I didn't remember much about it and I think I was more able to enjoy it this time around. Indeed, the directing was really awesome, it was Lynch's final movie before switching to digital and the acting was just so good as well with a breakthrough performance by Naomi Watts (Laura Harring did a great job as well though). Beside the mesmerizing mood, the thing I enjoyed the most was that Watts and Harring made for one of the most sensuous and intriguing couples I have ever seen. I still think that the whole set-up feels like some pervert wet dream but I can't deny that they were fascinating to behold as they had such a great chemistry together. Eventually, the first time around, just like with 'Lost Highway', I was really frustrated by the huge twist happening towards the end. Basically, they followed the same standard structure, a structure that you can spot in many other Lynch features such as 'Lost Highway' or 'Blue Velvet'. This pattern basically consits in building up a fascinating thriller during the 1st half and in the 2nd half, the plot is basically thrown away and what's left is a succession of some rather random and weird scenes. Well, I'm still not huge a fan of this approach, especially because David Lynch pulled this trick too many times in my opinion, but, after all these years, at least, I didn't bother me much with this movie. Eventually, I really wonder how this TV show would have turned out to be. Anyway, to conclude, I guess it is eventually a matter of taste, but there is no doubt that this movie is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre or if you are interested in David Lynch's work.