Reviews by johanlefourbe

I wasn’t sure what to expect from this flick but I always thought it was a pretty neat title (I know, it is rather lame reason to watch a movie but, honestly, who cares?). Anyway, eventually, I thought it was not bad at all. Basically, it starts out as another version of ‘The Texas Chainsaw massacre’ (a group of youth get stranded in the mid-west and get chased by one of several degenerate rednecks) but then, at some point, it became something quite different, more similar to ‘Candyman’. ‘Candyman’ is one of my favorite horror movies and is criminally underrated in my opinion. Honestly, it is pretty obvious this flick never reached the level of this underrated gem though. Indeed, as long as the bad guy remained unseen, he was pretty efficient but as soon as he got more screen time, it became more laughable than scary. Still, like I said before, there were some elements I found rather enjoyable. For example, the fact that instead of a group of young people representing some stereotypes who get killed one by one, you just had a guy and his sister and I thought their relationship and dialogues felt pretty genuine, even though the performances were of course not oscar worthy bu they gave another dynamic to the genre and it was rather refreshing. To conclude, even though it was nothing really mind-blowing, I thought it was a decent horror feature and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Once when I went to see my sister in France, I borrowed her a box-set with some documentaries directed by Raymond Depardon. 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. Ok, I have to admit, the whole thing was rather bleak to behold but it was still very interesting nonetheless. This time, he followed some common people caught by the police and we get to see their confrontation with the public prosecutor. Here, we are really far from the glamour and excitement of your typical Hollywood feature and the only thing you get is the bleak reality of some usually mundane proceedings. To conclude, even though it is not really a cheerful flick, I thought it was a really well made and rather fascinating documentary and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in this genre.

I wasn’t expecting much from this flick and it was indeed pretty terrible. I don’t know if you have noticed, but after ‘Basic Instinct’, Sharon Stone may have become a huge star but, except for ‘Casino’, she hasn’t done anything remotely amazing. As a matter of fact, most of her movies are/were pretty shitty and this flick is a pretty good example. The other star in this movie was Isabelle Adjani and 10 years after ‘Ishtar’, she was once again involved in some huge debacle. Even though she didn’t make many movies in the US, she always managed to pick up the worst projects (even though I don’t think that ‘Ishtar’ was that bad, it was still a huge flop though). I might be a little too harsh concerning my rating but, compared to its predecessor, there was not much positive to say about this version. Even though the cast seemed to be right, the performances were just really weak and not convincing whatsoever. The directing was just without any inspiration and the whole thing was just a total bore to behold which is quite amazing considering that the original version was just spellbinding to watch. To conclude, there are many ill fated remakes out there and this is probably one of the worst of them. Of course, it is not worth a look whatsoever.

I had been chasing this movie for many years and finally got my hands on it (I actually found it for 2 euro in a second hand shop). It was the last movie directed by Peter Jackson which I hadn’t seen and it is easily the weirdest, most messed up movie he has made so far. Basically, it is pretty much like the Muppets on acids. Indeed, those puppets smoke, drink, take drugs, urinate, vomit, have sex and even shoot some porn. Honestly, I never really cared about the Muppets but I thought that those were pretty awesome. I mean, they did look pretty ugly but they were quite hilarious. On the downside, I must admit the whole thing was pretty random as some weird and outrageous scenes take place the one after the other without much continuity. Back then, Peter Jackson was the master of the nasty movies and, when watching this flick, it is actually quite difficult to imagine that 10 years later, he would direct a huge production such as ‘The Lord of the Rings’ trilogy and would become one of the biggest moguls in Hollywood at the same level as Steven Spielberg, George Lucas or James Cameron. To conclude, even though it is quite outrageous, I thought it was actually pretty neat and I think it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Peter Jackson’s work.

It might sound weird but I don’t think this flick was that bad at all. I mean, I watched it with my kids, expecting one of those dreadful animal features (‘ Stripes’ , ‘G-Force’ , ‘ Beverly Hills Chihuahua’ , ‘ Garfield’ , ‘Alvin and the chipmunks’ , ‘ Hop’,…) but this time, I honestly enjoyed most of it. Of course, the whole thing was just preposterous but the huge difference with the other movies I mentioned before, is that the makers were aware of this and just had fun with the concept. Seriously, there were here and there a few hilarious bits and the whole thing worked pretty well for me. Of course, it remains a family feature with talking animals, one of the least interesting cinematic genres ever created, so I can’t say it was really mind-blowing whatsoever, but, in my opinion, it was one of the best I have seen. To conclude, to be honest, it has been a while since I saw this one, and there is a good chance that a rewatch would lower my rating, but back then I thought it was a rather entertaining family feature and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you have some young kids, they will probably love it.

I wanted to check this movie for many years and I’m rather surprised that it took me so long to get my hands on it. Anyway, fortunately, I wasn’t disappointed. Indeed, there was a great cast (Geoffrey Rush, Kate Winslet, Joaquin Phoenix, Michael Caine) and they all delivered some solid performances. Above all, I was once again really impressed by Geoffrey Rush who was just terrific. He is definitely a very good actor and he is really underrated in my opinion. Furthermore, I thought it was a great approach to set the action in an asylum and it was quite impressive that, in spite of this dreary settings, there were still some hilarious scenes. Still, even though I really enjoyed it, it never managed to become truly remarkable though. Indeed, in my opinion, there were too many characters (Madeleine the laundry girl played by Kate Winslet, the Abbe played by Joaquin Phoenix, the doctor played by Michael Caine, his wife, the marquis’ wife,…) and they all had their own sub-plots. Most of those storylines were not really interesting and could have been dropped altogether or, at least, more developed. Furthermore, even though the Marquis was quite fascinating, they definitely toned down his personality to please the mainstream audience. After all, the word ‘sadism’ has been created after him but, in this movie, it is basically just a foul-mouthed writer who wanted to write some rather spicy stories, not much more than that. Even though, it was very often quite funny, personally, I was missing some depravity and some madness, especially considering the settings. Still, it remains a fascinating character, I enjoyed this flick and it is definitely worth a look.

Once when I went to see my sister in France, I borrowed her a box-set with some documentaries directed by Raymond Depardon. 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. Ok, I have to admit, the whole thing was pretty bleak and rather depressing to behold. Indeed, basically, we follow some lost souls and criminals and their confrontation with the police force and what a thankless job… Honestly, I haven’t never been a fan of cops in general but after watching this flick, I kind of felt sorry for them. Here, we are really far from the glamour and excitement of your typical Hollywood feature and the only thing you get is the bleak reality of some usually sordid proceedings. To conclude, even though it is not really a cheerful flick, I thought it was a really well made and rather fascinating documentary and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in this genre.

It is one of those 80’s classics I wanted to watch for many years. Eventually, I thought it was rather difficult to judge this movie. You can actually sum up this movie with the animated owl at the beginning. On one hand, it looked terribly cheesy and was not really convincing. On the other hand, more than 25 years ago, it was the very first attempt at a photo-realistic CGI animal character and, from this point of view, it was actually quite impressive. I mean, the story was decent but nothing really original and I never understood why in so many of those movies (see also ‘The Neverending Story’ or ‘The Chronicles of Narnia’), the main character starts in our world and, then somehow, travel to some fantasy realm. I understand that it is a probably a way to allow the viewers to identify themselves with the main character but it is a rather tiresome and boring gimmick since you have to wait for a while before the adventure finally get started. Furthermore, at least 3 times, they suddenly started to sing a song and I thought it didn’t match at all with the rest of the movie. Adding to this, those songs were really average even the ones sang by David Bowie. Concerning Jennifer Connelly, I was rather neutral concerning her. I mean, it was pretty neat to see her when she was very young but I can’t say I was really impressed by her performance. Still, I enjoyed most of this flick anyway. Indeed, the whole thing looked really awesome with some great monsters/goblins/weird creatures. Not only they looked great but the way they moved was also really impressive. In this age of CGI overdoses, it was really refreshing to see some physical effects. Like I said before, even though the plot was nothing really original, it was still entertaining enough. To conclude, in spite of its flaws, I thought it was pretty good and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Basically, it is one of those movies I wanted to see for many years, even though it has a lousy reputation. Eventually, even though it was supposed to be a great epic, it unfortunately ended up being a really dull Western. It wasn't really bad, the poster was pretty cool, the opening scene was really awesome and there was a decent cast but the whole thing was still really disappointing to watch. Indeed, right after the great opening scene, the whole thing became rather boring to watch. I mean, it takes Wyatt Earp 1 hour to finally become a sheriff and even though it was pretty neat to see the always dependable Gene Hackman portray his father, it also removed a lot of mystic around this legendary character. Imaging if in 'The Good, the Bad and the Ugly', they would spend a 1 hour long about a flashback explaining that Clint Eastwood was actually a very nice guy before he got unlucky and became a ruthless killer. It doesn't sound really exciting, does it? Even after that, they keep throwing at you a lot of information which probably was historically correct but it was so loosely connected, I didn't care much about it. Eventually, when Wyatt Earp finally became the badass Sheriff we have all heard about, even then, the whole thing still didn't produce much excitement, I'm afraid. Basically, this movie is one of those numerous vanity projects made by Kevin Costner in the 90's (see also 'The Postman', 'Waterworld' and even 'Dances with Wolves'). To conclude, even though it remains watchable, I think I'm really generous with my rating but if you love the genre, it still worth a look though.

It is probably one of the most osbcure movies starring Cameron Diaz but it is not half bad, actually. Even though Cameron Diaz tends to play over and over again some kind of annoying hysterical chick, from time to time, she tries other things and the end result is usually rather interesting ('The Last Supper', 'Being John Malkovich', 'Things You Can Tell Just by Looking at Her', 'My Sister's Keeper'). This movie is one of those. I mean, it is not entirely successful as it tends to overly romanticize the time period but I still enjoyed most of it. As a matter of fact, Diaz doesn't even have the lead part and you only see her in flashbacks. The lead was played this time by Jordana Brewster and it was only her second part. Brewster is a rather charming actress and she was not bad either in this movie, however, her career never really took off and she is now stuck in the dull 'Fast and Furious' franchise. Eventually, the best thing in this movie was Christopher Eccleston, an actor I always admired since I discovered him in 'Shallow Grave' and he is definitely one of those criminally underrated actors. To conclude, even though it is nothing really amazing, I still think it is worth a look though, especially if you want to see Cameron Diaz in something else than her usual fare.