Reviews by johanlefourbe

To be honest, I'm not a huge fan of musicals but, still, I try to remain open-minded and, like any other genre, if you watch the very best of them, there is a good chance they will be something you like about them. So, indeed, I thought it was pretty good, even if I wasn't completely blown away. Basically, it was Bob Fosse's 2nd directing effort and it was probably his most successful movie, at least critically. Fosse himself was actually quite a phenomenon. Indeed, he was an actor, a dancer, a choreographer, a musical director, a screenwriter and a film director. He won an unprecedented eight Tony Awards for choreography and was nominated for an Academy Award four times, winning for his direction of 'Cabaret' (beating Francis Ford Coppola for 'The Godfather' no less). If you ask me Coppola should have won the oscar back then but still the directing was pretty solid. Honestly, I never cared much about Liza Minelli but she was pretty good. Above all, the thing I enjoyed the most was how dark and gloomy the whole thing was. Indeed, most musicals are really joyful which tends to get on my nerves but this one was actually really sad and I really liked this approach. However, I still have a hard time when once a while the actors stopped the flow of the story just to sing or dance along but without this, it wouldn't be a musical but something entirely different. Still, to conclude, it must one of the best musicals I have ever seen and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

When I was a teenager, one of my best buddies loved 'Different Seasons' which was his favorite Stephen King's book. Did I read it actually? I'm not sure... Anyway, 'Different Seasons' is a collection of four Stephen King novellas with a focus on a realistic drama than the usual horror fiction for which King is famous. Out of those four stories, three have been adapted in movies and two of them became some bonafide classic ('The Shawshank Redemption' and 'Stand by Me'). This movie was the last one they made and the least known but I thought it was not bad at all. The main character was played by Brad Renfro, a talented but troubled actor who died very young (If I remembered correctly, he died around the same time as Heath Ledger). Against him, you have Ian McKellen before he reached worldwide fame with the 'X-Men' and 'The Lord of the Rings' franchise. McKellen was, as usual, excellent, Renfro was also pretty good and the story was really interesting but, as usual with Stephen King, the whole thing became rather preposterous at some point. For Bryan Singer, this feature was rather a step down after the amazing 'Usual Suspects' but that could be said about his whole career. To conclude, in spite of it flaws, it is actually a decent Stephen King adaptation and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Recently, every evening, Nick, my step-son, asked me when we will watch the Planet of Apes again. He is pretty hooked and, especially this time, I was sharing his enthusiasm. Indeed, at the end of the previous installment, Charlton Heston himself launched a doomsday bomb destroying Earth. Heston thought he managed to put an end to the sequels but the producers obviously outsmarted him. So, how did they do it? Time travel of course! Indeed, if Taylor and Brent managed to go in the future, why not send a few apes back in time? It was a pretty neat idea and something really different from the two previous installments even if you miss the whole Ape civilization that way. Unfortunately, the whole concept was not very well developed. Indeed, when the apes are welcomed in the 'old' Earth, we get a few scenes about them going shopping, to some parties, watching TV and even going to a boxing game because it is obviously what would most impact them. I thought it was really trivial and I didn't care much on this focus on consumerism. Furthermore, the whole theory developed by the bad buy didn't make much sense. Basically, something will happen in a very far future, changing the natural order but how killing those 2 and 1/2 apes would change anything? Finally, I thought the pace was pretty sluggish. Indeed, even though it is rather short, nothing much really happen. Still, I thought it was a decent SF feature, better than its predecessor, and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Ever since ‘Toy Story’ became a critical and financial success, CGI animation has been an ever expanding market. Nowadays, you have two giants, ‘Pixar’ and ‘Dreamworks’, but behind those two , you can find a multitude of smaller studios trying their hands at this popular genre. One of them is Sony Pictures Animation. Their business is actually pretty healthy, although it is rather disappointing that their most successful feature happens to be so far ‘The Smurfs’. Anyway, this flick was their first feature film and I thought it was a flop but, in fact, it was actually quite successful even though not at the level of such a mega success like ‘Shrek’ for example. Anyway, I thought it was not bad at all, especially for a first production. Indeed, I really liked the animation and the characters were cecent. Unfortunately, the story was barely original. I mean, at this point, I had rather enough of those features with speaking animals. Some like ‘Finding Nemo’ were great, some were pretty good like ‘Madagascar’ but most of them are terribly generic and this one was not an exception. Still, I think it remains a decent animated feature and it is worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Mike Leigh is one of the most highly regarded British directors of the last 20 years and he has made many fine pictures such as ‘Naked’, ‘All or Nothing’ or ‘Vera Drake’. All these movies were socially focused but there was one small exception and it is this flick. Indeed, it was this time a costume drama and probably the most obscure movie Leigh has made so far, at least among the ones I have seen. However, even though it was not well known, it was highly recommended by Roger Ebert who even chose it as one of the best movies released in 1999, so I was really eager to check it out. Unfortunately, I thought the whole thing was fairly disappointing. I mean, it looked good, the directing was decent and all the actors gave some pretty good performances but I seriously had a hard time caring about the story. Basically, it is a Victorian tale about some real figures involved in the theater world in England back in those days. I don’t know, maybe if you are more acquainted with the people involved or their work which I was really oblivious of, it might be a really enjoyable flick but , personally, I thought it was pretty tedious. Still, it remains a very well made and very well acted piece and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

To start with, I was pleasantly surprised by the first installment. Indeed, it was actually better than I remembered. Unfortunately, this sequel was quite a step-down. First of all, surprisingly, when you would expect the opposite since the first movie was a success, the budget was even smaller this time and, as a result, they used some masks instead of the awesome make-up for many of those apes. Furthermore, the writing was pretty messed up. Indeed, for some reasons, you start with Charlton Eston and end with him as well but for no particular reason, and this time, the main character was played by another actor, some Heston look-a-like. Why? Furthermore, the beginning was just way too similar to the first movie but, at least, it was pretty neat to get back to this world and get more acquainted with this ape culture/civilization. Than, you had the terribly underwhelming last 30 minutes involving this weird new generation of human-beings… I mean, the whole point of those movies are those apes, not the humans, but even so, if they wanted to put the focus on the humans, develop the ones we already know (Taylor and the savage humans) but don’t bring a new main character and a whole new sort of human beings. I must admit though, the ending was pretty cool. I mean, it was a total mess but to see Charlton Heston launching the nuke and blowing literally everyone to pieces was still pretty neat. To conclude, it was a really disappointing sequel, I’m actually really generous with my rating but I still think it is worth a look though, especially if you like the genre.

Out of the 5 Superman movies they made so far, it is easily the worst one. Yeah, in my opinion, it is even worse than ‘Superman IV’ which is usually even more hated but this 2nd sequel was pure garbage. This time, Richard Lester was back in the director’s chair but even it did a decent job with the 1st sequel, taking over when Richard Donner was fired, he did really mess it up this time. Apparently, someone thought it was a good idea to turn the whole thing into some kind of comedy and threw in Richard Pryor into the mix. I mean, to get an idea, it is as if they would have cast Eddie Murphy in ‘The Dark Knight’ to add a few more laughs. Sounds quite dreadful, doesn’t it? Ok, I have to admit it, Superman had never been a really serious affair in the first place but with this movie, it reached some new level of silliness and boredom. I have nothing against Richard Pryor, I haven’t seen enough of his movies to judge him, but it was pretty obvious he got himself involved in this for a fat big paycheck. At least, they tried to bring another bad guy than the always dependable Lex Luthor (Luthor would be eventually the villain in all the 4 over Superman installments. Talking about a lack of inspiration…) but that’s the only positive thing I can find here. To conclude, it was pretty bad and it is not really worth a look, even if you like the genre.

It seems rather unfair to judge this movie nowadays with our modern perspective. Indeed, for already 10 years, the super-hero features have been ruling the box-office with an iron fist and you get at least 4 of those every year with some wall-to-wall CGI so we have become rather accustomed or even blasé concerning the genre. So, when reviewing this feature, it is important to keep in mind that it was made more than 30 years ago. Back then, there was nothing else like this at all and they didn’t have some handy CGI either. So, the whole thing looks nowadays pretty cheesy but I guess it is also part of its charm. To make things even more complicated, even though the first movie was a success, Richard Donner was still fired and replaced by Richard Lester in mid-production (I really wonder how Donner’s version actually look like). Still, in spite of this stormy production, it was still a financial and critical success further establishing the franchise. Personally, even though Christopher Reeve was a really good Superman, even though the whole thing was pretty entertaining, I’m still not a really huge fan of this movie or even its predecessor, as a matter of fact. It has above all to do with Superman himself. Indeed, what makes Batman or Spider-Man really intriguing is not in fact really their super-power or gadgets, it is the fact that they are actually pretty messed up and therefore you can identify with them. With Superman, it is a completely different kind of ball game. Indeed, the guy is basically an Alien with some limitless superpowers and apparently indestructible. Even though it sounds awesome, it is actually rather tedious. Indeed, since there is no way the guy can die, there is never much at stake. Furthermore, I love Gene Hackman but Lex Luthor is seriously one of the most pathetic bad guy I have ever seen. Eventually, the whole thing is pretty childish but still rather enjoyable. To conclude, even though time has not been gentle on this flick, it is still a decent blockbuster and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

I already saw this movie but since it didn't really blow me away the first time around, I was really eager to give it a second chance. Indeed, back then, I did take me 2 years after its release to finally watch this seemingly overhyped feature. To be honest, I am always rather cautious with such movies and the fact that I tend to build up some sky high expectations doesn’t help. Eventually, I thought it was indeed pretty good but, to be honest, nothing really amazing, I’m afraid. Sure, I have to admit that it looked really terrific and it is even more impressive when you think that Nicolas Winding Refn had no knowledge of Los Angeles before shooting this flick (Apparently, Ryan Gosling drove him around to make him acquainted with the City of Angels). Furthermore, the music was just great, one of the most mesmerizing soundtracks I came across lately. The actors were also pretty good and I especially enjoyed Albert Brooks who was phenomenal playing against type a ruthless gangster. So, how come I didn’t really love this movie like (apparently) everyone else? Honestly, I didn’t care much about the story. Basically, the whole thing takes place just because the guy has a thing for his neighbor, that’s it. I thought it was pretty thin and the romantic intrigue was hardly convincing. Basically, you have a guy and a girl and they fall for each over for no particular reason except that without this love affair, there wouldn’t be any story to tell. I also had a hard time to care for the main character. Indeed, Gosling delivered a solid performance but since you don’t learn much about him, he always remained a little too far away. I understand that he was a throwback to such characters like ‘The Man with No Name’ immortalized by Clint Eastwood but the big difference is that ‘The Man with No Name’ obviously didn’t give a sh*t about anything and that was the only thing you needed to know about him. In the case of ‘The Driver’, there was obviously a lot going on in his head but since you never get to know him, it was rather frustrating. Still, they managed to create a great mood and I definitely enjoyed the whole thing. Basically, it was all style here but no substance whatsoever. Anyway, to conclude, even though it didn’t completely work for me, it remains a really intriguing movie and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Even though the new generation James Bond with Daniel Craig is becoming more and more popular, especially after the surprising monster success of ‘Skyfall’, I still prefer the good old installments featuring Sean Connery, especially the first 3 movies. Indeed, back in those days, they were still building up the foundations of this mythical character and even if Craig is a solid Bond and his movies are damned entertaining, they are still basically repeating the same formula perfected already 50 years ago by the mighty Connery who will always remain the ultimate 007. Anyway, this second installment was already an improvement on the solid ‘Dr. No’. Maybe back then they didn’t have the same special effects as today but they did have a good story, definitely one of the best used in the James Bond franchise. Since ‘Dr. No’ was a success, they doubled the budget and it was once again a critical and commercial success further establishing what would be an everlasting franchise. As you may have noticed, I’m not really a die hard fan of those James Bond flicks. At best, they are pretty fun to watch but they are always terribly shallow, rather unrealistic and quite misogynic. I find it above all rather tedious that after all these years, they keep following the exact same template. On the other hand, why should they change it since it is apparently what the mainstream audience is asking for ? At least, back then, they had a decent script and Sean Connery was just awesome, period. To conclude, after ‘Goldfinger’, it is probably my favorite James Bond feature and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.