Reviews by johanlefourbe

Even though 'Casino Royale' and 'Skyfall' were critically and financially hugely successful, even though Daniel Craig turned out to be a terrific James Bond, this flick still remains easily my favorite James Bond installment. Indeed, in my opinion, it is the only movie which perfectly mixed all the basic elements which you can find in this old institution. However, since it was only the 3rd movie with this legendary character, the makers were still really creative and not constantly repeating themselves (which is always the case nowadays even with the recent 'Skyfall'). I mean, that's the charm and the curse of thoses movies, this familiarity, the fact that even before the movie has started, you really know 90% of what is going to happen, how it is going to happen and who is going to take care of it. In my opinion, it wasn't the case back then in 1964. Back then, they were still perfecting the formula and it will never be that good again. I mean, Sean Connery, the ultimate James Bond, was at the top of his game, the James Bond girls were mythic (it doesn't get much better than the gold painted girl and Pussy Galore), Auric Goldfinger was one of the best villains and there was a terrific title song by Shirley Basset. Above all, for once, I really enjoyed the plot, probably the best James Bond story, and the reason I didn't really enjoy the movies starring Daniel Craig since they all featured some flawed stories. So, you may wonder why my rating is not higher since I really enjoyed this flick. The point is that, even with the best James Bond movie ever, I still think that the formula is rather limited and, to be honest, I have never been really a fan of those flicks. Still, to conclude, it is a really fun and entertaining spy feature featuring the most famous spy ever, a classic, and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

At last, they finally managed to really mess up a 'Die Hard' flick... Indeed, it is easily the most disappointing entry in this franchise. Even the 4rth installment was actually rather fun, especially compared to this final feature. To be honest, I wasn't expecting much from this but one of my best buddies is a fan of Bruce Willis and Nick, my step-son, saw recently all the previous installments so we went to see this the three of us which was pretty neat. To be honest, they were actually a couple of good ideas. Indeed, it was pretty cool to see McClane and his son in action, they made a great couple, and Jai Courtney really impressed me. Indeed, physically, he looked as if he could have been made Bruce Willis'son and he gave a decent performance against one of the biggest action stars ever. I think it was also a good idea to set the plot abroad in some kind of spy conspiracy but, unfortunately, it wasn't well developped. There were also a couple of neat action scenes but they were so preposterous, obviously made with CGI, it was even more over-the-top than the previous movie and, as a result, their impact was not really impressive. Above all, the whole thing was just really poorly written. I mean, the greatest asset in this franchise is McClane's humor and awesome oneliners but, there again, it was really disappointing and not much fun. Finally, even though the movie was rather short (not even 100 minutes), it felt much longer which is never a good sign, especially with this chase scene which really took forever to end. To conclude, even though I have seen worse movies, even though Bruce Willis remains really charismatic, it is still a rather disappointing action flick and it is not really worth a look, even if you are a fan of this franchise.

Since I'm a huge fan of Christopher Nolan's work, I was definitely eager to check his directing debut. Nolan has become one of the most successful and popular mainstream directors but the reactions towards his movies are quite extreme nowadays. Indeed, on one hand, you have his die-hard fans (I'm a fan but not so devoted) who push all his movies on the top of such lists like the Imdb top 250 or 'Listal's 100 Films To See Before You Die' but, on the other hand, more and more people are getting rather annoyed with this fanatism and think he is actually rather overrated. Anyway, 15 years ago, he made this very impressive directing debut which was barely seen when it was released but he sure got noticed. Apparently, like some other notable directors before him like David Lynch or Kevin Smith, he made this flick on a micro-budget with non-professional actors. The shooting of this film took over a year and because all the cast and crew members had other full-time jobs, they were only able to film on Saturdays about 15 minutes of footage until photography had been completed. Personally, I thought it was a rather fascinating plot, about a regular guy obsessively following some strangers. The directing was also pretty solid and the only real weakness would be the acting which was not really impressive but, back then, Nolan didn't have at his disposal such actors like Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Al Pacino or Morgan Freeman. To conclude, I think it is a very good directing debut and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Christopher Nolan's work.

I wasn't sure what to expect from this movie but since there was an interesting cast, I thought I should give it a try. Basically, it is one of those hyperlink features dealing with loneliness but I'm afraid that the whole thing was not very well written. I mean, you have 4 main plots and while 3 of those were rather well connected, one of them featuring Forest Whitaker didn't have anything to do with the rest. Furthermore, they really pushed it concerning Jessica Biel's character. Not only she is a stripper, but she is on drugs, her young son is in a coma and dies at the end, she has lost her dog, her mother is dead, she finally meets her father for the first time but he turns out to be a convict who spent 25 years in jail and is dying of cancer and her new boyfriend is an asthmatic mortician... I mean, come on, give me a break! Of course, one of the many attractions in this movie was too see Biel playing a stripper, I thought that she did a pretty good job and her routines were actually pretty impressive. That was also my problem with the strip-club, it seems as if the makers couldn't decide if it should be some classy affair or one of those sordid joints so those scenes were rather uneven. So, on one hand, I think it is rather courageous from Biel to take such a challenging role but, on the other hand, she might have chosen a better movie to take of her clothes. Still, there were many things I enjoyed in this movie. For example, I was really impressed by Patrick Swayze in his last part and I barely recognized him. The rest of the cast did a pretty good job as well (Jessica Biel, Eddie Redmayne, Forest Whitaker, Ray Liotta, Lisa Kudrow, Patrick Swayze, Kris Kristofferson, Sanaa Lathan). Furthermore, the tone was pretty good and there was a good use of the music. So, the whole thing actually had some potential but the script was just rather weak. To conclude, even though it is nothing really amazing, I still think it is worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Since I'm a huge fan of Alfred Hitchcock's work, I was really eager to check this flick. Apparently, it is his oldest movie I have seen so far (almost 80 years old now!) and, I must confess, I'm not a huge fan of his very old British features. I mean, they are old pretty good and entertaining, that's for sure, but except for 'The Lady Vanishes' which really impressed me, none of them actually blew me away and this movie was not an exception. It seems that it is a very popular story since it has been adapted 4 times already and, apparently, this version is the most acclaimed one. Basically, it is one of those many British spy movies Hitchcock made back in those days and even though I enjoyed it, I couldn't shake the thought that he was still rehearsing before creating all his masterpieces he made in the 40's and the 50's. Still, this movie is considered as a major British film of its time so I might re-watch it at some point in the future to make up my mind for good. To conclude, even though it didn't really blow me away, it is still a very entertaining vintage spy feature and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Hitchcock's work.

Beforehand, I wasn't expecting much from this flick but since Nick, my step-son, really wanted to see it, I thought I should give it a try. It is pretty funny that nowadays Dwayne Johnson is the go-to-guy concerning franchise revival. Indeed, after he starred in 'Fast Five', it was a huge hit, same thing with this movie and they hope he will do the same with the moribund G.I. Joe franchise (I really wonder if he will put it through a 3rd time around but who knows?). Anyway, coming back to our main subject, exactly like the first installment, I actually thought it would be much worse than this. Indeed, during the first 30 minutes, the intro was just really awkward and I thought the jokes were just terrible so it seemed to be heading towards a disaster but, after a while, I have to admit, it eventually got to me. I mean, the scene where The Rock sings 'What a wonderful world' on a ukulele was just hilarious. Furthermore, there were once again some rather insane action scenes just like in the first installment. I have to admit, Dwayne Johnson was really charismatic and ten times better than the dull Brendan Fraser so that was a good move from the producers. Basically, the movie is just some preposterous adventure but it remains a rather harmless feature. To conclude, even though it is nothing really amazing, I still think it is a rather fun flick and I think it is worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

I wasn't expecting much from this movie. Indeed, it seemed to be one of those typical dreadful true lifetime stories with some annoying sentimental music. However, I must admit it, I was this time really swept away by this story and it is the proof that this genre which I usually despise can be actually quite spellbinding. The weird thing is that the story is actually rather straightforward (a young boy gets sick and his parents decide to find a cure for him) but the execution was just quite amazing. Of course, you have the standard melodramatic music, the drama, the emotional climax, but there is also a rational logic in the plot. I mean, you do believe, thanks to the great performances by Nick Nolte and Susan Sarandon, that those two people would be smart enough, determined enough and dedicated enough to eventually pull this off. Concerning George Miller, his directing was quite impressive, miles away from his other work such as the Mad Max trilogy, 'The Witches of Eastwick', 'Babe: Pig in the City' or even 'Happy Feet'. The guy seems to be a really versatile director and it is really too bad that he's not been more productive those last years. I sure would have loved to see his Justice League flick but it wasn't meant to be, I guess. Anyway, to conclude, coming back to our main subject, it is really a great drama and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

I wasn't sure what to expect from this flick but since I have a weak spot for such music biopics, I still wanted to check it out. Personally, I thought it was not bad at all and I was above all impressed by Kristen Stewart and Dakota Fanning. They were both pretty good and it is a real shame to think that they would both waste their time with a franchise like 'Twilight'. Especially concerning Kristen Stewart, it will take a long time before her career really recover from this and that people start to take her seriously again. Of course, Michael Shannon was once again pretty impressive and he is slowly becoming one of the most interesting actors at work nowadays. Still, even though the subject was really interesting, even though those 3 actors did a really good job, the whole thing was still rather underwhelming. Indeed, it was unfortunately not really well written. I mean, the way Joan Jett met Kim Folwy sounded really phony and rather unbelievable. Like Roger Ebert pointed out, the weakness of the script was very often hidden behind some (albeit awesome) loud rock music. As a result, except for Kim Fowley who was the typical evil rock manager, you never really got to know the characters and, especially for Cherry Currie, it was never cleared what was exactly her problem eventually. Thank God at the end they tell us she eventually became a chainsaw artist! It was so much clear after that... Anway, it was still a fascinating band and those 3 actors were really good so I enjoyed most of this movie. To conclude, even though it never reached its full potential, it was still a decent music biopic and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

There was a time when Disney was ruling the world of animation and barely had any competition. But then, Disney themselves trough Pixar released 'Toy Story' and the game completely changed. Since then, even though Pixar and Dreamworks have been dominating the market, you have seen many studios trying their hand at this business. As a result, you have this overdose of CGI animated features and most of them are not really interesting. This movie is a perfect example. Even though there was a star-studded voice over cast (Julia Roberts, Nicolas Cage, Meryl Streep, Paul Giamatti, Regina King, Bruce Campbell, Lily Tomlin), the whole thing was just terribly underwhelming. Indeed, I mean, the animation was decent but nothing really amazing and, above all, the plot was just really tedious. Only a few years back, the giants Dreamworks and Pixar already made their own ants themed animated features and there was no need or demand for a third one. Even the same year Luc Besson released the similar 'Arthur et les Minimoys' which wasn't really mindblowing either but at least featured some amazingly gorgeous animation. At the end of the day, this flick suffered from the competition and wasn't really interesting or even really entertaining to start with. To conclude, even though I have seen worse animated features, this one is still pretty average and it is not really worth a look, even if you like the genre like I do.

To be honest, beforehand, I wasn't really sure about this movie. I mean, even though I have lots of respect for the Beatles and their legacy, I never cared about their music and I wasn't exactly thrilled by the idea of watching a 3 hour long documentary about one of those guys. On the other hand, the ratings were really good and since I'm a huge fan of Martin Scorsese, I thought I should give it a try. Eventually, I thought it was pretty good. Harrison obviously had a very rich life. The first 90 minutes were of course devoted to the Beattles during which George Harrison was often eclipsed by John Lennon and Paul McCartney. But you learn also about his solo career, his experimental drug using, his spiritual journey, his passion for car racing, his passion for gardening, the fact Eric Clapton fell in love with his wife, that he was stabbed by a mad man in his own houses, his battle against cancer and many many other things. Most of it was really interesting but I can't say I was really blow away by the whole thing. Indeed, many anecdotes were barely interesting and some elements were rather rushed out which was rather surprising when you take into consideration the extended running time. It was also interesting that Scorsese didn't show up or say anything during the whole thing. Still, even though I still don't really care about the Beatles, I thought it was an interesting documentary and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are fan of this legendary band.