Reviews by johanlefourbe

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.

Oh dear... It seems that the days of 'Snatch.' are long gone... What I mean by that is that 'Snatch' is one of my favorite movies ('Lock, stock...' was pretty good too) and, back in those days, Guy Ritchie seemed to be one of the most promising directors. However, his career went down pretty bad but he seems to be back in the game with 'RocknRolla' and 'Sherlock Holmes' which were both very well received. Personally, even though I enjoyed those two movies, I never thought they were that amazing but since 'Sherlock Holmes' was a huge box-office hit, of course, they had to come up with a sequel. Eventually, it was not bad but not much more, I'm afraid. I mean, it was visually really appealing (something Guy Ritchie still knows how to handle), Robert Downey Jr. was quite brilliant, as usual, and he had, once again, some very good chemistry with Jude Law. Unfortunately, I really had a hard time to care about the story. At least, with its predecessor, I didn't care much either but I was still entertained throughout the whole thing whereas, with this sequel, I started to get bored half way through. Personally, I think the whole thing is just way too convoluted. I mean, you either make an action movie or you make a cerebral one but don't make one pretending to be the other. Furthermore, I thought that Noomi Rapace was totally wasted here. For her first Hollywood part, even though she had a prominent role, she barely had anything to do during the whole thing except tagging along behind Holmes and Watson. Still, I have to admit, those two fellows worked pretty well together, the whole thing was very well made, so it remains a rather entertaining blockbuster and I guess it is worth a look, especially if you enjoyed the previous installment.

It is probably one of the most heralded movies made by Louis Malle so I was really eager to check it out. Eventually, it won the Golden Lion at the Venice Film festival back in those days and it definitely deserved this prize. 10 years before, Louis Malle made another movie about France during WWII called 'Lacombe Lucien'. Personally, I did prefer 'Lacombe Lucien' because it was more original, a dark really unique view of this time period in France. This movie was more a crowd pleaser but it was still really good nonetheless. Apparently, even though it wasn't really autobiographical, it was still based on Malle's youth memories. Eventually, even though the whole thing was not really original, it was a very well made drama, probably the best in its genre. Indeed, I really loved the understated directing and the children were just downright amazing. Indeed, it follows more or less the rules of the formulas (an outsider comes to a school, at first there is some apprehension but then, of course, they become friends before the ultimate separation) but the characters and the emotions displayed felt really genuine. To conclude, it is a great WWII classic and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

I already saw this movie but since it was a while back and since I just bought a brand new awesome TV, I thought I might as well check it out again. First of all, like anyone else, I was rather disappointed by 'Iron Man 2' but, as usual, they promised that the following installment would be darker and simply better. And, indeed, it turned out to be a massive box-office success following 'The Avengers' released the year before. Anyway, how was the damned thing eventually? Honestly, I thought it was a slight improvement on the previous sequel but not much more I'm afraid. Don't misunderstand me though, it wasn't a bad movie, far from it, and there were many things that I enjoyed a lot. Indeed, Robert Downey Jr. rocked as usual and he was very often hilarious. The whole anxiety thing was also interesting even if if they didn't spend much time on this and it was nice as well that they developed his relationship with Pepper Potts. Finally, the action scenes were pretty solid. So, what bothered me then? In my opinion, the story was barely interesting after all. I mean, it was entertaining enough but I never really cared about the whole thing. Furthermore, they kind of messed up the bad guy. Ben Kingsley gave, as usual, a decent performance so I don't think he should be blamed but, basically, they pulled off the same trick as in 'The Dark Knight Rises' which was to reveal at the end that the bad guy was not so bad after all but just a mere henchman. However, it is not a nice trick at all, in fact, it is actually terribly underwhelming and, in this case, it was not the best way to pay tribute to one of the most bad-ass characters from the Marvel mythology. Anyway, to conclude, in spite of its flaws, it was still a decent blockbuster though and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre but, as usual, don't believe the hype.

Ever since I watched ‘What's Eating Gilbert Grape’ a long time ago, I have been a fan of Lasse Hallstrom’s work. To be honest, his latest work was far from being really mind-blowing (except for the ‘The Hoax’ which was really underrated in my opinion) but there is always something appealing in his movies. This flick is a perfect example. Basically, it is a rather standard drama but I still liked it anyway. First of all, it was the last movie starring Robert Redford with a director different than himself. Redford is and has always been a fine actor and he didn’t disappoint me in this feature. To make this even better, his sparring partner was Morgan Freeman, another great actor, so to see them together was already pretty neat. Concerning Jennifer Lopez, I don’t think she is such a bad actress but she usually picks up the worst movies (‘The Back-up Plan’, ‘Monster-in-Law’, ‘Gigli’, ‘Enough’, ‘The Wedding Planner’, ‘Anaconda’). It is actually pretty funny, if you check Roger Ebert reviews about her older movies, he was really enthusiast about her and seriously thought she was a very talented actress. Anyway, this movie was one of the (very) few good movies she made and she gave a decent performance. Of course, the whole thing was nothing really original and rather predictable but I liked it, for what it was. To conclude, it is a decent drama and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Even though Robert Redford managed to win the Academy award for the best picture with his directing debut, ‘Ordinary People’, he never really managed to become a really great director like Clint Eastwood for example (on the other hand, Eastwood is probably the only one who managed to have such great careers both as an actor and as a director). Still, I always had a weak spot for Redford’s work as a director so I was really eager to check this out. Recently, I have seen and really loved ‘Lincoln’ by Spielberg and this movie was a nice companion piece. Unfortunately, I didn’t really blow me away though. I mean, the directing was solid and the cast was really impressive (James McAvoy, Robin Wright, Kevin Kline, Evan Rachel Wood, Tom Wilkinson, Justin Long, Danny Huston, Colm Meaney, Alexis Bledel, Toby Kebbell, Norman Reedus). However, I had a hard time to care about the whole story. I mean, it was mildly interesting but far from being spellbinding in my opinion. Of course, it is pretty obvious that the poor woman didn’t deserve to die but, come on, this country was at war and some pretty despicable sh*t happened back then. The whole point of this movie is that the constitution should be respected regardless if there is peace or war. Sorry, I don’t mean to be mean or anything but that’s extremely naive in my opinion. Indeed, any country in times of war or any major crisis will disregard many laws, constitutions, bills of rights or whatever. That’s how the world goes, I’m afraid. So, I had a hard time to care about this woman’s fate (without mentioning how many times a black man was judged and consequently hung without a fair trial). Still, in spite of its flaws, it remains a well made historical drama with a very strong cast and it is definitely worth, especially if you like the genre.

Arnaud Desplechin is rather an acquired taste but I like his work, especially ‘Un conte de Noël’ which was really awesome. You know, in your typical French drama, the average characters are always really talkative, usually with some major emotional and/or psychological issues. With Desplechin, it is entirely another kind of ball game though. Indeed, his characters are always massively neurotic and it is something that can put you off. Anyway, this feature is one of his romantic dramas with Mathieu Amalric portraying the main character. I have discovered Amalric a few years back and he is probably mostly know outside France for playing the bad guy in ‘Quantum of Solace’. Anyway, Amalric has quickly become one of my favorite French actors and, usually with Desplechin, he gets some really juicy roles. In this movie, he didn’t disappoint me and he was constantly hilarious. The whole thing reminded me a little bit of Woody Allen’s work as well. If you are into this kind of thing, you have also Marion Cotillard in a very short-blink-and-you’ll-miss-it role, one of her very first parts and even though her role was really short, she still managed to show up topless but it is seriously completely irrelevant concerning the overall quality of the movie itself. To conclude, even though it was nothing really amazing, I thought it was pretty good and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in French movies.

Of course, I have already seen this flick. As a matter of fact, I’m pretty sure I have seen it in the theater when it was released. Anyway, I thought it was time for a re-watch, this time, with Nick my step-son. The most striking thing with this franchise, in my opinion, is that they managed to make some really solid sequels which is quite unique especially when you are dealing with action movies (just check the lackluster sequels which followed ‘Die Hard'). The funny thing is that I don ‘t even believe that ‘Lethal Weapon’ was that amazing. I mean, it remains a solid action movie but not much more in my opinion, but it is pretty cool that they managed to keep the same qualities in the following installments. Anyway, back to our main feature, to start with, the story was nothing really amazing but it was not the main interest here. Indeed, there were other things to enjoy : the great chemistry between Mel Gibson and Danny Glover, the awesome action scenes, the hilarious one-liners, even the obnoxious Leo Getz was actually pretty funny. This time, they even managed to finally find a love interest for Martin Riggs. They tried in the previous installment but it was rather underwhelming but, this time, they got it right. Indeed, Rene Russo was terribly charismatic and Lorna Cole was the perfect match for Martin Riggs. To conclude, even though it is actually nothing really mind-blowing, it remains a really entertaining action flick, I really liked it and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Depardon is pretty much unknown here in Listal and also abroad, I guess, but he has a decent reputation in France, above all, as a documentary maker (as a matter of fact, I have seen none of his fictions but I’m not sure if they are any good). Personally, I really like his directing style. Indeed, there is no comment whatsoever, no music added. Basically, you have to make it up on your own the significance of what you just saw and I thought it was a rather spellbinding approach. This documentary is probably his most highly regarded and it is definitely intriguing. Indeed, you follow Valery Giscard d'Estaing during his presidential campaign (which he eventually won). It is interesting to know that even though Giscard was the one who ordered this movie subsequently, this feature was still censored for many years and was ultimately released only in 2002 (which was probably when I saw it the first time around). So, the end-result didn’t please the fresh new president but it makes even it more intriguing to us viewers. Indeed, you get a rather intimate view on this political figure, there is no positive or negative influence and you can make your own conclusion about the guy. To conclude, even though it is nothing really amazing, it remains an intriguing documentary and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.