Reviews by johanlefourbe

Every year, you have a couple of documentaries which become really successful or even a smash hit. This flick was one of them and was pretty huge back in 2002. Therefore, after hearing so many good things about this movie, I got some pretty huge expectations. Honestly, I thought it was rather disappointing. I mean, it was pretty good, that's for sure, but I really had a hard time to see what was so amazing about it. I don't know, maybe it has do with the fact that I was myself born in a very small French village and spent my first 6 years in such a small village school (though not as small as the one depicted in the movie) so there was no huge revelation for me there. I guess for all the people who spend their whole life living in the city, it might have been shocking somehow. I also had a hard time to figure out what the director was actually looking for. Still, it remains an interesting flick though, I above all enjoyed the understated directing style and it remains a charming little school, absolutely. To conclude, even though it don't think it was really amazing, it still remains a pretty good flick and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

I have already seen this flick a couple of times but I thought it was time to watch it with Nick, my step-son. Honestly, I think he was pretty bored during most of the duration, because, let's face it, in contrary to what Sylvester Stallone did for the rest of his career, it is not really an action flick. Indeed, except for the last 10 minutes for the final showdown, the rest of the movie is actually a rather grim drama. Nick is not really big on dramas but I thought it was pretty good. It was also rather funny to see Stallone having so many dialogs especially compared to what he did in the last 30 years during which has been usually blowing up some stuff or demolishing someone's face. Personally, I always had some mixed feelings about the whole thing. I mean, on one hand, it is indeed a pretty good flick, uncannily paralleling Stallone's whole life and it is the ultimate underdog story which has been copied 100's times afterwards. On the other hand, I'm sorry, but there are many better movies out there in my opinion. I mean, come on, the same year 'Taxi Driver' was released and was snubbed by the Academy awards in favor of this movie which still remain painful even 40 years later. Still, to conclude, even though I don't think it is really amazing, it is still a classic and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Honestly, since I have never heard about this movie before, I wasn't sure what to expect from it but since there was a pretty good cast, I thought I should give it a try. To my surprise, it was actually pretty good, probably one of the best movies about this conflict. First of all, it was directed by Elie Chouraqui, a French guy not really famous abroad but he still managed to make a few notable features outside France such as 'Man on Fire' which was, of course, eventually remade by Tony Scott. Anyway, this time, I above all enjoyed the dark tone of the proceedings. Basically, the whole thing was pretty grin and felt rather realistic. Furthermore, there was indeed a pretty cool cast (Andie MacDowell, Elias Koteas, Brendan Gleeson, Adrien Brody, David Strathairn, Marie Trintignant, Gerard Butler) and they all delivered some solid performances. Eventually, the only real weakness was the whole thing about the woman going to this war to find her lost husband. I mean, it is a rather pedestrian gimmick and, frankly, not really believable. To conclude, even though it was not really original or amazing whatsoever, I still think it is a solid war drama and it is definitely worth a look.

As usual, I had no idea hat is this movie was about before watching the damned thing and, honestly, for most of its duration, I thought it was rather confusing. I mean, even though I find religion interesting, I'm not a religious person and I really had a hard time figuring out what they were doing with this story. I mean, was it a straightforward comedy which just happened to take place in a Christian High-School or was it a satire poking fun at those establishments? Eventually, it finally became clear during the 3rd act. Indeed, according to the makers, those Christian schools got it all wrong as Jesus loves everyone of us, even the gay, the crippled, the Jews or the teenage pregnant girl. To be honest, even though the idea was not bad, I thought it took them forever to get to that point and before that it was rather unfocused in my opinion. Still, I thought it was rather original with a pretty cool cast (Jena Malone, Mandy Moore, Macaulay Culkin, Patrick Fugit, Heather Matarazzo, Eva Amurri Martino, Mary-Louise Parker). My favorite characters were easily the ones portrayed by Eva Amurri Martino and Macaulay Culkin (yeah, apparently, the small dude from 'Home Alone' is still making some movies very occasionally). To conclude, even though it was not entirely successful, it still remain an intriguing comedy and it is definitely worth a look.

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.