Reviews by johanlefourbe

First of all, I want to make something clear, this is not a Disney feature. Even though their logo is displayed prominently on all the promotional material, they in fact only distributed it in the US, they didn’t actually make it. Actually, it was made in Europe by Ealing Studios and produced by Vanguard Animation. Even though it is always honorable when Europeans try to compete on the highly competitive animation market ruled by the Americans and the Japanese, in this case, the end result was not really convincing, far from it. First of all, I’m rather surprised when I read that some viewers thought that the animation was very well done. Honestly, I thought it was actually pretty ugly. Furthermore, even though the concept had some potential, the whole thing was barely entertaining and the humor was just inane. There was one thing that I enjoyed and that was the bad guy portrayed by a falcon. Indeed, this character looked and sounded pretty awesome but I didn’t care much for the rest. To conclude, even though there were some good ideas here and there, it remains a rather ugly and boring animated feature and it is not really worth a look, even if you like the genre.

If I recall correctly, I saw this movie in the theaters when it was released. Since then, it has reached a rather solid status and it is even considered one of the best movies made in 90's by Quentin Tarantino (Tarantino was actually offered the chance to direct, but turned it down). To be honest, I never thought it was that amazing. Still, since it has been years since I saw it I thought it was time for a re-watch with Nick, my step-son. To my surprise, it was damned entertaining, even more than I remembered. The most enjoyable thing was the fact that it was made before the whole CGI overdose. Indeed, thanks to the CGI technology, they can make basically everything they want which is sometimes awesome but also sometimes rather underwhelming, especially concerning action movies. Take the last 2 Die Hard installments. There, you have a whole bunch of completely preposterous action scenes where neither Bruce Willis or even a stuntman was actually involved. It is all fake but back in the 90's, those were real explosions and you really wondered how they managed to shoot all that stuff. This movie was also the directing debut for Jan De Bont who was up to that point Director of Photography above all for Paul Verhoeven but also for a few Hollywood productions such as 'Die Hard' or ' The Hunt for Red October'. The Dutch director basically made his best flick and never reached that level again, unfortunately. A young Keanu Reeves was back then trying to profile himself as an action star and even though many thought his acting was wooden (which is often the case), I thought it worked here. Indeed, the guy is supposed to portray a cop, focused on his work, not making jokes à-la-John McClane and I thought he was convincing. For Sandra Bullock, it was her breakthrough performance and I must admit it, she was really damned charming back in those days (she still is, as a matter of fact). Honestly, I was surprised about how the whole thing was damned so entertaining and I was on the edge of my seat during the whole duration. The only flaws would be that it was a little bit too long and the romantic ending was rather underwhelming. Still, it is easily one of best action movies ever made and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

A while back, I came across this really obscure flick called 'Eye of the beholder' starring Ewan McGregor and Ashley Judd. To be honest, it was not really good as it was a rather weird and really unfocused thriller but there was definitely something fascinating about it. Later on, I found it out it was actually a remake of a French movie so I was really eager to check the original version. This flick was directed by Claude Miller who's not really famous abroad but he is definitely one of my favorite French directors. This time, the leads were played by Isabelle Adjani, who was probably at the height of her career and was quite spellbinding to watch, and Michel Serrault who was as usual pretty good, even though I preferred Ewan McGregor in this part. Pretty much like the remake, it is a rather weird thriller and during the whole thing you are never really sure what the hell is going on which makes the movie quite fascinating but also a little bit annoying at the same time. Personally, I tend to prefer a little bit the remake but it is a close call. To conclude, even though the whole thing is rather flawed, it remains an intriguing thriller and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in French movies.

Carlos Reygadas is one of those directors which I find really intriguing, even though I don't really like their movies (Kim Ki-Duk is also one of those). This was his directing debut and it gave lots of food for thought. First of all, Reygadas has a really nice directing style, something in between Terrence Malick and David Lynch, and very often his shots are very beautiful to look at. Pretty much like Malick, you never get to know the characters and there is not much plot whatsoever. Eventually, his movie are more like a sensorial experience. Indeed, the goal, I think at least, is that you feel something while watching, traditional narrative conventions don't really matter and, as such, there is something really spellbinding about the whole thing. There is also always at least one or two really shocking scenes in his movies (just check the first 30 seconds of his directing follow up 'Batalla en el cielo'...) and, this time, at the end, if I recall correctly, there is an almost graphic scene of the main character having sex with a very old woman. Honestly, I'm not a prude, I don't really mind such scenes at all but, in the case of Reygadas, I really wonder what is the purpose of those scenes? What is he trying to achieve? Still, like I mentioned before, even though this movie and his work intrigues me, I can't say I really enjoy it though. First of all, especially with this flick, the pacing is really terrible and the whole thing is really but really slow. Furthermore, you spend 2 hours with a guy who wanders without a clear purpose, you never get to know him or what he exactly wants or thinks and, as a result, the whole thing feels rather pointless and frankly very often plain boring. To conclude, even though I can't say I really enjoyed this flick, I still think it is worth a look though especially if you are interested in the genre.

I didn't expect much from this flick but, somehow, I still wanted to check it out. When it was released, it was a flop, especially if you consider how big the budget was for a Jack Black vehicle. After watching it, I'm not really surprised it tanked. Basically, they tried to mix a classic fairy tale with a typical Jack Black comedy and that wasn't a good idea, that's for sure... I mean, as if young kids would care about Black frat humor and as if his fans would care about the Lilliput world... Furthermore, I really dread this trend to take a classic story and put into a modern context. I understand they do it so we probably can identify with the characters but it is just a tedious gimmick. Just keep the original setting and use our modern special effects to create a beautiful world, that's it. I felt above all bad for Emily Blunt... She is such a talented actress but, after all these years, I'm still waiting to see her in something truly amazing. Here, she had a small boring part and can you believe this? She was actually originally cast as Black Widow in 'Iron Man 2' but dropped out to be in this movie... I mean, 'Iron Man 2' was nothing amazing but the whole Marvel universe seems a little bit more interesting than Gulliver shenanigans... Anyway, to conclude, I have seen worse but it was still pretty damned average and I don't think it is really worth a look.

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 6 years old daughter seemed to enjoy it but does it mean it was actually any good? I don’t know, personally, I really had a hard time to care about the whole thing. Apparently, it is an adaptation of a very famous children book but I’m not familiar with this book, to be honest. I seriously hope that the book has a better storyline because I thought the plot was pretty inane. The fact that I always had a hard time with taking animals didn't help either, I'm afraid. I mean, make a movie with human-beings, make a movie about animals but don’t make a movie about animals acting like human beings, please! Furthermore, they made a big deal of the fact that Dakota Fanning (still playing young girls back then) was in it but she hardly does anything during the whole thing. The main characters were therefore the animals with a star cast for the dubbing (Julia Roberts, Steve Buscemi, John Cleese, Oprah Winfrey, Cedric the Entertainer, Kathy Bates, Robert, Thomas Haden Church, André Benjamin). It is really something of our time to have such big stars coming along just to give a voice-over for a spider, a horse or whatever. I’m probably just too cynical for this kind of features but a while back, they made a movie called ‘Babe’, it was nothing amazing but it was still a decent family feature, and this movie was just way too similar, only more boring and less interesting. To conclude, even though it is nothing awful whatsoever, it remains a rather average family flick and I don’t think it is really worth a look, except maybe if you have to entertain some very young children.

Some time ago, I watched the first installment and since I enjoyed it, I was definitely eager to check this sequel. The first positive thing with this second installment is that it was in Russian, and not dubbed like the previous entry (I have absolutely no idea why they decided to broadcast this movie in English…). Furthermore, I was this time familiar with this world and the characters involved so it was not as confusing as before. Still, I can’t say it was really much better than ‘Night Watch’. I mean, it was again visually really impressive and there is definitely something really appealing about this Russian underworld but I was still missing something about the story. Especially the characters could have been more developed. It is actually pretty funny that the whole thing was back then advertised as ‘The new Fantasy trilogy not to be missed’ when, in fact, Timur Bekmambetov never got to make the third installment and probably never will. On one hand, it is rather surprising since those two movies were among the biggest successes at the Russian box-office. On the other hand, because they were so successful, Bekmambetov got the attention of Hollywood, went on directing ‘Wanted’ and seemingly dropped the whole project alltogether. I would be rather curious to see where the story would go from there but, on the other hand, there was a nice closure at the end of this second installment so there is maybe no real need to go further on. Anyway, even though I don’t think it is really amazing whatsoever, it remains a pretty good flick and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

There was a time when Tim Robbins was one of the most exciting actors around. It started in 1990 with ‘Jacob's Ladder’ and ended in 1994 with his greatest movie ‘The Shawshank Redemption’. In the mean time, he managed to make ‘The Player’, ‘Bob Roberts’(his amazing and criminally underrated directing debut), ‘Short Cuts’ and ‘The Hudsucker Proxy’. All those were quite awesome and the guy was just in the zone back in those days. Unfortunately, all things have to end and this movie was definitely the beginning of the end. I mean, to be honest, it wasn’t that bad at all as it was actually a decent buddy movie, even probably one of the best movies starring Martin Lawrence who’s trying nowadays to challenge Eddie Murphy for the prize of most obnoxious actor. Of course, the whole thing is not really original, you have the white guy, the black guy and they can’t get along but, somehow, they have to spend some time together and, at the end, they become best friends. Still, even though the whole thing was not really original, both actors worked well together and I was entertained from the beginning until the end. To conclude, it is actually a decent comedy and it is definitely worth a look, 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. This time, one of the main characters played by Mathieu Amalric (easily one of the best French actors at work nowadays) was actually officially insane so it made things even worse. Anyway, even though I wasn’t completely blown away by the whole thing, I still enjoyed Amalric and Emmanuelle Devos, another actress working regularly with Desplechin, and the characters were quite interesting. Personally, I would rather have such messed up and convoluted characters than the usual stereotypes that you get in your average Hollywood production but that’s me, I guess. To conclude, I thought it was a pretty good flick and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in French movies.

Since I’m a huge fan of Orson Welles, I was definitely eager to check this flick. Unfortunately, I had a hard time to get into it because I was really tired and it is the kind of movies which require a lot of focus and concentration. Furthermore, I saw it on the BBC without subtitles so I’m afraid I missed half of those damned convoluted Shakespearian dialogs. Still, there were lots of things to enjoy here. First of all, it must be the gloomiest play ever written by William Shakespeare. Indeed, between the darker than dark version by Orson Welles and the gore fest by Roman Polanski, it is not what you could call a merry affair and compared to this, ‘Romeo and Juliet’ seemed like a picnic. Personally, I didn’t bother me, in the contrary, and I really enjoyed this dark tale, reinforced by the great impressionist directing by Welles. The acting was really awesome and I enjoyed the dialogs, even if I hardly could follow them. To be honest, nothing much actually happen, it is pretty much the characters talking to each other (or even on their own) from the beginning until the end and I was torn between boredom and fascination during the whole thing. To conclude, even though it is probably not one of Orson Welles most prestigious works, it still remains a solid Shakespeare adaptation and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.