Reviews by johanlefourbe

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.

Since I’m a huge fan of Michael Haneke’s work, I was really eager to check this movie already for many years. Unfortunately, it turned out to be his most disappointing feature I have seen so far, even more than ‘Code Inconnu’ which I seriously didn’t like at all. Basically, Haneke made this time a post-apocalyptic thriller and even though it may sound really appealing, it was in fact rather underwhelming. You know, I’m not a huge fan of the way your average Hollywood production dumb down every single element in the plot to make sure an infant couldn’t miss a thing but, with Haneke, it is the complete opposite as he doesn’t explain anything at any moment at all. Even though it is an interesting approach, eventually, I thought it was rather frustrating. Furthermore, the fact that none of the characters were really developed made for a seriously tedious movie. Still, it was far from being some garbage. I mean, the first 2 minutes were mind-blowing, just shattering, something only Haneke could do. There was something also quite fascinating about this messed up world and the acting was really good but I wouldn’t expect less from someone like Isabelle Huppert. To conclude, even though the whole thing was rather disappointing, I still think it is worth a look, especially if you are interested in Michael Haneke’s work.

I don't know why exactly, but I always been fascinated by this flick and I wanted to watch it for many years. Finally, I managed to get my hands on it and it was indeed a pretty decent thriller, a typical effort by Claude Chabrol. I don't think Claude Chabrol is really famous abroad, at least, not here in Listal. The guy actually had an impressive careers with a dozen of French classics with a career stretching from the New Wave until his death in 2010. He was a very prolific director and he has made around 50 movies (!). To be honest, I haven't seen so many of his flicks, only 7 or something, but I enjoyed all of them. Anyway, if you think you love French movies but have never heard of this guy, I would suggest to check his work. Coming back to our main subject, this movie was definitely not one of his best works but it was still a good watch. What makes this flick even more interesting is that it was originally a project developed by the great Henri-Georges Clouzot but he died before completing it. Of course, Emmanulle Beart was incredibly attractive back in those days and was perfect in this part. To be honest, in my opinion, the story was a little too pedestrian for my taste but it was absolutely entertaining enough. To conclude, I thought it was a pretty good thriller and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in French movies.

Before this flick was release, there was a pretty good buzz about it. Indeed, Joe Wright was trying something really different than his usual costume dramas, a modern thriller with Saoirse Ronan starring as a young female killing machine and an awesome soundtrack by the Chemical Brothers. Unfortunately, the whole thing was rather underwhelming, I'm afraid. I mean, it was not bad at all, the photography was really beautiful and there was a very strong cast (Saoirse Ronan, Eric Bana, Cate Blanchett). I was above all impressed by Saoirse Ronan who must be one of best actresses of her generation. Still, like I said before, the whole thing was not really amazing though. Indeed, I thought the story was rather weak. Basically, it is one of those thrillers with a murky plot where at the end everything is revealed. Unfortunately, I didn't care much for the whole thing or the characters involved and the ending was rather anti-climatic in my opinion. I don't know, it seems that Joe Wright didn't really master the genre and never managed to make the whole thing really exciting. Concerning the over-hyped soundtrack by the Chemical Brothers, it was just like the movie, decent but nothing amazing whatsoever. To conclude, even though it turned out be rather disappointing, I have to admit that it is still worth a look, especially if you like the genre.