Reviews by johanlefourbe

In my opinion, the problem with such flicks is how much slack should you give to a movie because it is a family feature? I mean, my step-son used to love it and have watched all the sequels, I presume, but does it mean it was actually any good? I don’t know, personally, I really had a hard time caring about the whole thing. Still, I have to admit, it was really successful when it was released and it became quickly a classic among family features. So, following this reputation, I think it was time to finally check it out. Unfortunately, since I'm not 12 years old anymore, I thought the whole thing was pretty tedious to watch. I mean, it is well made, harmless and still rather watchable but like most of Disney features, it was completely by the numbers. I mean, you have the poor beast which was not treated as an animal but as a human being, you have the good guys, you have the bad guys and I thought it was quite boring. The usual argument is that since it is a family feature, I shouldn't expect so much but I don't agree. In my opinion, there is need to be so condescending with kids who are much smarter than we usually would admit. To conclude, even though it is far from being awful, I still think it is far from being really good either and I don't think it is really worth a look, expect maybe if you have some very young kids and nothing else to watch.

To start with, I don't think 'Shrek' and 'Shrek 2' were really that amazing. I mean, they were both really good, that's for sure, and it was really surprising that the sequel was at least as good as its predecessor but they are not that impressive especially when you re-watch them nowadays. Anyway, the first movie still managed to develop some interesting ideas (the main one being that the ogre as the hero) and, astonishingly, the makers were still able to add more nice things in the sequel (the main one being mixing 'Shrek' with 'Meet the Parents'). and that's where it went wrong with this 3rd installment. Indeed, the whole thing about Shrek becoming a king was just not interesting or entertaining at all. I remember, the first time I watched it, I was with my wife and the kids at the theater and I think I fell asleep a couple of times. Eventually, I re-watched it on DVD later on but it was still underwhelming. I mean, the animation still looked terrific, there were a few nice jokes here and there but the plot was just disappointing. To conclude, honestly, I think I'm rather generous with my rating but I guess it is still worth a look nonetheless, especially if you like the genre.

To be honest, I wasn't expecting much from this flick but since I have a weak spot for Meg Ryan, I still wanted to check it out. Eventually, it turned out to be one of the most underwhelming boxing flick I have ever seen. Basically, it is one of those misguided movies which take a real public figure (Jackie Kallen in this case) but instead of telling more or less her life, they decided to create a fictional story around her. It is always a rather dubious choice (see also 'The Last King of Scotland') but, in this case, it was made even worse by the fact that the plot was just really underwhelming. I mean, even the boxing scenes were disappointing. It seems that for Meg Ryan it was an attempt for an 'Erin Brockovich'-lite feature. At least, she still looked decent back in those days even if she was obviously already (ab)using plastic surgery. Honestly, I think there was somewhere a pretty good movie, hidden very deep. I mean, Jackie Allen seemed to be a really interesting character and there was definitely some potential but the whole thing was just wasted, that's for sure. Anyway, to conclude, I think I'm being really generous with my rating here, it is a really average boxing flick and it is not really worth a look, even if you love the genre.

I wanted to watch this flick for so many years and I was really glad when I finally managed to get my hands on it. Indeed, it is a really intriguing flick and for many reasons. First of all, it was Tony Scott’s directing debut and the weirdest and most interesting thing about this flick is that it has absolutely nothing to do with anything else Tony Scott has done afterwards. Indeed, Tony Scott has made mostly solid action movies throughout his whole career but his debut was definitely something quite different. As a matter of fact, it is actually one of the most intriguing vampire films ever made, with some rather steamy sex scenes with 2 giants, Catherine Deneuve and Susan Sarandon. To make things even cooler, you even have David Bowie starring as a vampire. To be honest, since it was a directing debut, the narration was sometimes rather weak and the pacing was also rather sluggish so I have to admit that even though it was really intriguing, it was still not entirely successful. Anyway, in spite of its flaws, it is still my favorite movie directed by Tony Scott and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

To be honest, I’m not a huge fan of Country music so I wasn’t expecting much from this flick. However, since I have weak spot for Gwyneth Paltrow, I thought I should check it out. Unfortunately, I didn’t like it much. Indeed, in my opinion, the whole thing was not dark enough to be really interesting. Furthermore, there were 3 or 4 romantic angles which was way too many. Still, somehow, I cannot dismiss the whole thing. Indeed, to start with, I thought that Gwyneth Paltrow was actually pretty good and it was nice to see her finally playing a more conflicted woman than her usual rather limited supporting characters. It is too bad that this Country superstar would have some rather spectacular swing moods just to accommodate the script. I must admit that Garrett Hedlund was not bad either but I still cannot make up my mind about this guy. Indeed, I’m still not quite sure if he is actually charismatic or rather bland. At least, he keeps being involved in some really diverse projects (‘On the Road’, ‘TRON: Legacy’, ‘Death Sentence, ‘Four Brothers, ‘Friday Night Lights’, ‘Troy’ and soon ‘Inside Llewyn Davis’) and it should be praised. To conclude, I didn’t really like this flick but I guess it is still worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

First of all, who are we kidding? The main reason either of us would watch this flick is above all because of its infamous reputation surrounded by controversy. Since I have always been interested in experimental movies, especially the ones pushing the envelop, I definitely wanted to check it out and I thought it was pretty good but it is definitely an acquired taste. Basically, it is an Art house picture with some non-simulated sex-scenes and, apparently, the very first non-pornographic film to feature scenes of fellatio and even an erect penis. Knowing this fact, most people would drop the whole thing and I don’t think it is something you should watch with your fresh new girlfriend but I think that the concept was actually interesting. Indeed, why should a sex movie be ugly as hell, with some terrible actors and an inane plot? A few mainstream directors were attracted by this concept at some point and there were even rumors that Stanley Kubrick wanted to make an Artsy porn flick. On the other hand, you could argue that there is no real point of having some real sex in a movie and simulated sex works just as fine. Anyway, what about the movie itself? It is definitely a bold affair. I mean, it is not only about sex, it is also about love, domination, submission, madness and many other things. Like I said, I thought it was pretty good, I especially enjoyed the directing but, to be honest, the whole thing was not really pleasant to watch and, at the end of the day, it is an intriguing experiment but not much more than that, I’m afraid. To conclude, I’m not sure if I should recommend it, I mean, it all depends if you are interested in that kind of stuff but if you are into weird experimental movies and you are not too skirmish about sex, you should definitely check it out.

The more I thought about this movie, the more it seemed I really needed to re-watch it. The point is that, as usual, the hype ruined it a little bit for me. Indeed, the first time I saw it was a couple of years after its release, it had managed to reach an impressive cult status and I had some huge expectations. Eventually, I thought it was indeed pretty good but it didn’t really blow me away at the time (As a matter of fact, ‘Hot Fuzz’ which was also pretty decent was even more disappointing in my opinion). I don’ t know, I thought it was a great idea to combine a romantic-comedy with a zombie flick but, to be honest, there wasn’t a single moment when I thought it was really hilarious. However, I have to admit it, Simon Pegg and Nick Frost were definitely quite amazing in their breakthrough performances. Eventully, I have finally gave it a second chance and I really enjoyed it more the 2nd time around. Indeed, sometimes, you have to double-check a movie before making up your mind for good and I’m positive now, it is a really fun flick. To conclude, even though it might not be a real masterpiece, it is still a really entertaining horror comedy and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

I remember, when I was still living in France, I was going very often to the movies, sometimes 3 times a week. Back then, I wasn’t really interested in huge blockbusters, I went usually to watch smaller movies and I ended up watching some rather obscure flicks. This movie was definitely one of them. It starred the late Pete Postlethwaite, one of the most reliable and underrated actors back in those days, and the lovely Rachel Griffiths who I didn’t know at that time. Basically, it is one of those typical realistic British dramas focusing on the working class and it could have been directed by Ken Loach. And that’s the main issue here. I mean, Sam Miller who’s specialized in TV work did a decent job but, to be honest, I have seen my share of Loach’s movies and this one never really reached that level. I mean, the actors were pretty good and they created some interesting characters but the story was missing something to make it really stand out from the other features in the same genre. Still, it remains a decent British drama and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Even though I have a master degree in English, I must confess, I have never read any books written by Charles Dickens. I remember that the great Roger Ebert was a huge fan of Dickens and was probably more able to appreciate those book adaptations than me. Indeed, I have never been really fond of those movies adapted from Dickens’ work (though ‘Great Expectations’ by David Lean was a really solid feature). And indeed, Ebert loved this movie but I didn’t care much for it. I mean, there was a pretty cool cast (Charlie Hunnam, Romola Garai, Christopher Plummer, Anne Hathaway, Jim Broadbent, Jamie Bell, Edward Fox, Nathan Lane, Alan Cumming) and the whole thing looked pretty good but I honestly had a hard time to care about the story. Above all, I though there was barely any nuances concerning the characters. Basically, they were either really good and nice or terribly nasty and evil. Apparently, at least according to good old Roger, it is how Charles Dickens wrote his stories but, personally, I prefer when characters are more complicated or more sophisticated than this. I mean, some of the bad guys like Wackford Squeers were borderline grotesque. To be honest, it was not bad at all, I was just not my thing, I guess. To conclude, even though I didn’t really enjoy it, it still remains a decent Dickesian drama and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Since I’m a huge movie buff, I watch all kinds of movies and I’m particularly interested in Classics. However, to be honest, in my opinion, there are two kinds of classics, some of them which remain untouched by time , and which will always be great and amazing like ‘Citizen Kane’ , ‘M’, ‘ Rashomon’ or ‘A bout de souffle’ and the other sort which are still very well regarded but which seems rather dated like ‘Breakfast at Tiffany’s’ , ‘The Wizard of Oz’ or ‘Gone with the Wind’ (Of course, it all depends what your taste is. You might find those movies still amazing and much better than the ones I mentioned before). Anyway, in my opinion, this movie belongs to the second category. I mean, it is a decent comedy with 3 amazing actors (Cary Grant, Katharine Hepburn, James Stewart) and the whole thing was rather fun but also terribly fluffy and I really had a hard time to care about the story . I’ll give you that it was much better than all those inane romantic-comedies you get nowadays but I can’t say I was really blown away by this flick. You could argue that the whole fluffiness is inherent to the genre but I don’t agree, a comedy always has to be funny but I don’t think it has to be shallow, at least, that’s my opinion. Still, it remains a pretty good comedy, a classic, and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.