Reviews by johanlefourbe

To start with, I never thought that the first installments were that amazing. I mean, I thought they were pretty decent but just like the 'Spider-Man' flicks which tend to be overrated as well in my opinion, I don't think those 'X-Men' flicks were that great, especially if you compare them to the Batman trilogy by Christopher Nolan. So, when this 3rd installment was released, there was a big fuss about it because it was unworthy of the previous movies. Well, I don't agree. Sure, it was a slight step back compared to the previous sequel but it was about the same level in my opinion. I mean, the action scenes were descent, there were some pretty cool mutants (the best addition was probably Ben Foster as Angel) and the plot was entertaining enough. The main issue with this franchise is that they got stuck with the same plot line from the start (the mutants are not welcome) and every installment was about this subject (even the reboot 'X-Men: First Class'). It would be interesting if they could manage to do something really different with those characters. Another issue with this movie is that, just like the first installment, the running time (around 100 mins) was just way too short to properly developed the plot or the characters. Anyway, for a Brett Ratner feature, I thought it was decent but you wonder what Bryan Singer or Matthew Vaughn (who both backed out from the project) could have done with this material. Eventually, Vaughn would direct the following installment/reboot with much more critical praise so he apparently did the right thing back then. To conclude, even though it is nothing really amazing, I think it is actually a decent blockbuster and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Even though I only heard bad things about this flick, I was still curious to check if it was that bad. Since all the major comic-books character have already been adapted to the silver screen, what only remains are those rather obscure figures like this Jonah Hex guy. Honestly, the whole thing sounded promising. I mean, the main character was bad-ass and there was a really cool cast (Josh Brolin, John Malkovich, Megan Fox, Michael Fassbender, Will Arnett, Michael Shannon, Wes Bentley, Aidan Quinn). But, unfortunately, the whole thing was indeed terribly underwhelming. I don't know, maybe it had that to do with the fact that the director Jimmy Hayward only worked in animation before but his directing was definitely not inspired. You wonder if with Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor, the original directors, the movie would have been better (However, after watching the terrible 'Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance', I have my doubts). Anyway, to put it simply, it was just boring, the directing, the plot, the characters, the dialogs... The only redeeming feature was probably Michael Fassbender who did manage to make his character a little bit more interesting than the others but that's probably the only positive thing I have to say about this flick. To conclude, I think I'm being really generous with my rating here, the whole thing was really average and I don't think it is really worth a look whatsoever.

More than 40 years before ‘Paris, Je t’aime’ (which I have still not seen), another anthology film was made around the city of love. The big difference was that, this time, all the directors were French and they were all members of the New Wave. Even though I haven’t heard about 3 of them (Jean Douchet, Jean Rouch, Jean-Daniel Pollet) , the other 3 directors (Éric Rohmer, Jean-Luc Godard and Claude Chabrol) are/were amongst the best French directors ever so I was definitely eager to check this flick. Unfortunately, I thought that all those short segments were rather underwhelming. Indeed, I couldn’t pick one which was really better or worst than the rest. It is always the risk with short movies. Whereas a long feature can take its time to tell its story and his general message to the viewer, such shorts have to be effective really quickly otherwise, they feel rather pointless. I mean, those shorts were definitely not worthless though. Indeed, they provided a nice showcase of all those directors style from the French New Wave. To conclude, even though I thought it was rather disappointing, I still think it is worth a look, especially if you are interested in French movies.

Oh boy… How did I end up watching this flick? That’s actually a rather long story… Every year, I go to a 2nd hand shop with 2 plastic bags full of DVDs to sell them and I go back home with the same bags full of brand new 2nd hand DVDs to watch the following year. Anyway, after 3 hours long looking for some rarities, I was finally done and I was paying the bill and ready to go home. However, at the cash register, since I bought so many DVD’s, I was allowed to take 2 more for free. On one hand, it was pretty neat but, on the other hand, I really didn’t feel like checking all those DVDs again so I quickly pick two and this movie was one of them. Even though I got it for free, it went right away to the very bottom of my DVD queue and since it contains 80 movies right now, it meant that I wouldn’t probably ever watch it. But, somehow, Nick, my step-son, seemed interested so we ended watching it yesterday. Unfortunately, it wasn’t really good, I’m afraid. It was pretty nice to see Lou Diamond Philips who looked pretty awesome with his white hairdo. Concerning Seann William Scott, I have nothing against the guy and I think it was good for him to try something else, to be for once a tough guy than his usual Stifler figures. Still, he wasn’t really convincing as a lead character. And that’s the whole issue with this flick. There were some good ideas, here and there, but none of them were really convincing and the whole thing felt pretty half-baked. To conclude, even though I have seen worse, it is still pretty average and I don’t think it is really worth a look.

To be honest, I have never heard of this flick before but since I have a weak spot for Jean-Luc Godard’s work, I still wanted to check it out. It is definitely one of his more obscure efforts (on the other hand, 80% of his work could be described as obscure. Anyway…). In fact, Godard was done with this movie already in 1960 and it was supposed to be his 2nd directing effort just after ‘A bout de souffle’ but it was pushed back for 3 years because of the censorship. Even though I’m a huge fan of ‘A bout de souffle’, I always had some issue with the other movies directed by Godard and this flick was not an exception. I mean, there was something quite mesmerizing about the whole thing but it was also terribly alienating and very often, frankly quite boring. I mean, even if I’m very interested in politics and find it a fascinating subject, I found it really difficult to get into this flick because nothing is said in a straightforward manner, everything is more or less implied, if Godard implied anything at all. Still, this movie was really intriguing. It was after all the first time Godard worked with Anna Karenina, a really mesmerizing actress , and they would make many more together. To conclude, even though it is nothing great and doesn’t belong to the French master’s best efforts, I still think it is worth a look though, especially if you are interested in Jean-Luc Godard’s work.

I had actually already seen this flick but it was a while back so I thought it was time for a re-watch. Honestly, a movie about mental diseases and the psychiatric world directed by Alfred Hitchcock sounded great but, unfortunately, the whole thing was rather disappointing and it is not a match to the great flicks made by the master. The main issue is that even though the psychoanalysis elements were really intriguing (as a matter of fact, it was one of the first Hollywood films to deal with this subject), they felt compelled to add a crime story and a romance on top of that. Those plots were really far-fetched and hardly convincing which was disappointing, especially coming from Hitchcock who was responsible for some of the smartest thrillers I have ever seen. It seems that he didn’t take the story really seriously as himself referred to it as "just another manhunt wrapped up in pseudo-psychoanalysis". Still, I liked it because there were definitely some touches of greatness. Indeed, I loved the directing and the mood was created. Furthermore even though their love story was far from being convincing, I thought that Ingrid Bergman and Gregory Peck both gave some solid performances. Finally, there was this marvelous dream sequence based on Salvador Dali’s designs. Even though this scene was only 2 minutes (it was scheduled to last about 20 minutes originally), it was really impressive and makes worth it to watch the movie. To conclude, the whole thing had some great potential and ultimately disappoints but I is still a decent thriller and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Hitchcock’s work.

I wasn’t sure what to expect from this flick but since I have a weak spot for Christina Ricci, I still wanted to check it out. By the way, what happened to her actually? It has been a while since I have heard from her, expect for ‘Pan Am’ which was a failure. Anyway, for some personal reasons, I was really intrigued by the main subject developed in this feature. Eventually, they handled it quite well but I was still not entirely convinced though. Still, there was a nice cast (Christina Ricci, Jason Biggs, Anne Heche, Michelle Williams, Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Jessica Lange) even if it remains a great challenge to take Jason Biggs seriously in a drama but, at least, he gave his best shot. On the other hand, I was really impressed by Jessica Lange and above all by Christina Ricci. Such a talented actress, I wish she would soon get a good part in a good movie for a change. Still, even though it was interesting to see a movie about this subject, in my opinion, they barely scratched the surface and gave the usual stereotypes about depression. I don’t know, I wish they went a little further but , at the end of the day, it remains a cheap indie drama which never managed to be truly compelling. Still, in spite its flaws, it is one of the few movies dealing with this subject and only therefore I still think it is worth a look, especially if you are interested in Christina Ricci’s work.

I already saw this movie but, since it has such a strong reputation, I was quite eager to check it out again. Back then, it seemed that Michael Haneke was on top of his game, winning twice back-to-back the Golden Palm at the Cannes film festival. Unfortunately, even though I did like this movie, I didn’t really connect with it eventually. To start with, he is not the easiest director and he always challenges the traditional narrative conventions but it is something recurrent in his work. One of his trademark is to put his characters in some very stressful situation/environment and whereas a conventional movie would explain what’s going on, why all this is happening, Haneke doesn’t follow this path and you have to make up on your own what is exactly going on. I thought it worked amazingly well with ‘Caché’, ‘Funny Games’ or ‘Benny’s video’ but, here, I really had a hard time to get into the story. The first issue, I think, is that there were just too many characters. In the previous movies I mentioned before, Haneke was focusing on just one family (with one single child usually) so you could focus on those characters, on what they were going through. Here, there was a multitude of characters so it was rather difficult to keep track on who was who and who did what. I also had a hard time to invest myself in those characters since you didn’t spend much time with each of them and would constantly jump from one to another. Furthermore, I was not completely convinced by how the whole thing was written. I mean, pretty early on, they gave you the feeling that there was something fishy about those kids but then, the plot (if you could call it a plot) moved away from them, but then it came back to them, then moved away again and, then, at the end, it seemed there would be some kind of closure but, as usual, with Haneke, it was denied to the viewers. Apparently, I would later find out, the children in the film happened to be the generation of Germans who became Nazis, no less than that. Personally, I completely missed that while watching this flick and, to me, it felt like some kind of Arthouse version of ‘Children of the Corn’. Eventually, after rewatching the damned thing, I finally understood that the actions of these children were actually linked to the actions and behavior of the adults surrounding them. Indeed, they were imposed some very strict education through their whole youth while the adults around them were vain, selfish, dishonest, adulterous and even incestuous. Eventually, it is hardly surprising that the doctor was their first victim since he was probably the worst of the bunch. It didn’t excuse what they were doing but, at least, it was not completely random anymore. Still, even though it didn’t really blow me away, I still enjoyed this movie though. Indeed, it is probably the most beautiful movie made by Haneke so far with some gorgeous black and white photography. I also enjoyed the love story which was one of the most touching and genuine romances I have seen lately. Furthermore, even though I didn’t really connect with the whole thing, there was still definitely something mesmerizing about this village. Anyway, to conclude, even though it didn’t turn out to be the masterpiece I was hoping for, it was still an interesting flick and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Michael Haneke’ s work.

Even though it wasn't well received when it was released, since Clint Eastwood is one of the best directors at work nowadays, I still wanted to check it out. I mean, the whole thing sounded great on paper: one of the best directors and one of the best actors working together on a biopic on one of the most notorious figures of the 20th century. Unfortunately, the whole thing was indeed rather disappointing. Basically, they kind of messed up the script in my opinion. I mean, if we follow the story line, Hoover not only created the FBI, but was also a repressed homosexual, allegedly a cross dresser, a socially impaired borderline autistic fellow and his mother was apparently a b*tch as well. That was frankly a little too much too swallow as a viewer and a little too difficult to handle for the makers. In my opinion, they should have dropped a few elements and correctly handle what they kept. Take his secretary for example. They first have this peculiar date but it doesn't go anywhere and they decide she should be his secretary, that's about it. Indeed, for the rest of the movie, you have a great actress of Naomi Watts caliber showing up from time to time, doing a secretary. A part from that, she didn't have anything else to do during the whole damned thing so she could have been dropped all together as far as I'm concerned. I mean, it wasn't a bad movie, far from it, as a matter of fact, the great late Roger Ebert loved it. The whole thing looked really good, Leonardo DiCaprio did a pretty good job as well and there was something really interesting about this character but they didn't approach the material from the right angle. Still, like I said before, even if it was rather disappointing, it is far from being a bad flick and I still think it is worth a look, especially if you are interested in Clint Eastwood's work.

Before going into his motion-capture adventure which would last more than 5 years, resulting in 3 movies, all of them with some mitigated results, Robert Zemeckis made this thriller. Basically, it is pretty straight-forward affair which was sometimes compared to Hitchcok's work, even though it never reached that level. Apparently, he filmed this while production on 'Cast Away' was shut down. Indeed, Tom Hanks needed to lose some weight for his character. Anyway, I thought it was a pretty good flick with some solid directing. Indeed, Zemeckis managed to create a nice tensed mood. First of all, back in those days, Michelle Pfeiffer was a major A list actress and provided a solid performance. Concerning Harrison Ford, I wasn't completely convinced. I mean, it was really neat to see him in a thriller like this which was something really different than his usual fair and his character was also really interesting and completely different than his typical heroes. Unfortunately, it was pretty obvious that there was something fishy about this guy. That was the main issue with this movie. Indeed, it is all mood and no substance whatsoever and, as a result, even though the whole thing was rather entertaining, it was also highly predictable and not really interesting. Still, it remains a solid thriller and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.