Reviews by johanlefourbe

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.

By now, I have seen almost all the movies starring Eddie Murphy (I think I miss only 4 movies). The weird thing is that I'm not even a huge fan of this guy but his movies very often come up on the various Dutch channels so I always end up checking them, out of sheer curiosity of boredom. Nowadays, he shows up in the most inane features and his career doesn't have much credibility. Still, the guy has made a few good movies, especially in the 80's, and this flick is definitely one of them. Basically, it is one of your typical buddy action flick with a tough cop (played by Nick Nolte) and a clueless civilian (played by Eddie Murphy). To be honest, the whole thing was not really original but they used very well the rules of the formula and the whole thing was just really entertaining and pretty often really funny. Recently I saw 'Raw' and I was amazed about how hilarious Eddie Murphy could be. The point is that if you give him the right material, the guy could be really amazing. Unfortunately, for the last 20 years at least, he has been involved in some very stupid movies but, at least, his acting debut was pretty good. If there is someone I wish would make a come-back, he would be on my top 3 (Linsay Lohan would be there too). Anyway, it is one of his (very few) good movies 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 Hilary Swank and Sam Rockwell, I thought I should give it a try. Lately, I came to believe that Swank is struggling a little bit with her career after winning twice the Academy award for the best actress. To improve on this, she keeps showing up in real life stories like 'Amelia' and this flick. Unfortunately, those efforts were rather underwhelming. Still, I have to admit it, this flick was better than 'Amelia'. The point is that the story it was based on was really good but the movie, unfortunately, was not. First of all, I didn't care much about the random chronology. I mean, if it really doesn't add much, just don't use it. Furthermore, even though Hilary Swank gave a decent performance, I was still missing something from her character. Indeed, she ends up in a terrible situation and takes some drastic decisions but she never loses her mind in anyway. Maybe the real Betty Ann Waters also remained composed during her 20 years fight but it didn't make for a fascinating watch. On the other hand, I was once again really impressed by Sam Rockwell, such a fine and underrated actor. The guy basically spends most of the duration in the visiting room of the prison but you can see him slowly physically changing and decomposing mentally through the years. Also, at the end, they show a picture with the message 'For Kenny' so I was pretty sure the guy died but they didn't say. And guess what? I looked it up and he died in a freak accident only 6 months after he had been released! I mean, that's quite something but I guess they didn't want to ruin their happy ending. Still, it remains a very good story and in spite of its flaws, it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Since I’m a huge fan of Alfred Hitchcock, I was really eager to check this flick. In my opinion, it is not one of his great masterpieces like ‘Psycho’, ‘North by Northwest’ or ‘Vertigo’ but it is still a very solid thriller nonetheless. It was actually a rather important movie in his career. Indeed, it was the first film he made in Hollywood and the only one that managed to win the Best Picture Oscar (that the guy never managed to win a Best Director Academy Award is quite mind-blowing). To be frank, I don’t think it is one of the strongest stories developed by the great master but it was greatly compensated by the awesome mood created and the very good cast. Honestly, I haven’t seen many movies starring Laurence Olivier (only about 8 so far) but the guy was sure a fine actor and I will definitely check his other movies whenever I get the opportunity. Against him, you had Joan Fontaine, one of the many female stars we have seen in Hitchcock’s spellbinding thrillers. Fontaine was pretty good as well and together they had some great chemistry. Anyway, this first American feature was a success and his career which was doing already pretty well became even bigger, much bigger in the following years. To conclude, it is a very good thriller and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Ever since I heard that Matthew McConaughey made his come-back in this feature, I was really intrigued by it. Eventually, I thought it was not bad but still nothing really mind-blowing though. I mean, the first 20 minutes were really good, with a gritty look, some dynamic directing and indeed a very sharp McConaughey. Unfortunately, from the moment he got involved in the Roulet case, the whole thing became less interesting. I mean, it was well made and rather entertaining but it still felt like a standard thriller combining a court drama and your usual omnipotent serial-killer. It was rather disappointing that in the first part McConaughey created an interesting sleazebag lawyer but suddenly, the guy grew a consciousness and it was immediately rather underwhelming. Furthermore, the plot was not completely convincing, with enough plot holes and the usual annoying twists at the end. Still, McConaughey was indeed pretty good and the rest of the cast (Ryan Phillippe , Marisa Tomei, William H. Macy, Josh Lucas, John Leguizamo, Michael Peña, Frances Fisher, Bryan Cranston) was pretty nice as well. To conclude, even though it was nothing amazing in my opinion, it still remains a decent thriller and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.