Reviews by johanlefourbe

It might sound surprising to you and, maybe after posting this review, I will loose all credibility on this website but, I have to confess, I really enjoyed this flick. First of all, I have to admit, I have a huge weak spot for romantic comedies so I watch many of them but, honestly, most of those are really disappointing. The problem with this genre is that it is based on some clichés and formulas and most of the directors/producers just take those clichés without playing with them, without adding anything remotely interesting so you end up with some terribly tedious movies. This flick though is one of the exceptions. Indeed, the whole thing is pretty cheesy and predictable but there was something really appealing about the character played by Hugh Grant. Indeed, the guy used to be talented but has become a joke which is something that could be said about Hugh Grant himself (he even threatened a couple of times to quit acting altogether) and this extra layer is what make this feature standing out compared to the other movies in this genre. Furthermore, Hugh Grant was, as usual, quite hilarious (his best movie since ‘Four Weddings and a funeral’, better than ‘Notting Hill’ or even ‘Love actually’), he had some good chemistry with Drew Barrymore and even the singing was surprisingly decent. Unfortunately, even though it was better than your average romcom, it was still not really amazing and still too generic for my taste to become truly remarkable. Still, to conclude, I really enjoyed this flick and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

I wasn’t sure what to expect from this movie but since it seemed to be a rather decent thriller, I wanted to check it out. As usual, I didn’t know anything about the plot and I’m pretty sure it is the best way to watch this movie. Personally, I really enjoyed the first 15 minutes when those guys were getting ready. Basically, it is a very intriguing thriller with only 3 characters and the action taking place only in one place, an apartment. I liked how simplistic the whole thing was, I thought that the directing was decent and the acting by the 3 actors (Martin Compston, Eddie Marsan , Gemma Arterton) was pretty convincing. Unfortunately, since the story was pretty basic, they felt they had to add some twists every 5 minutes and it got a little bit tiresome after a while. I mean, some of those twists were actually pretty good but some of them were rather far-fetched and after a while, it was kind of difficult to take the story seriously since you knew something drastic would happen in the next 5 following minutes. Still, in spite of its flaws, it remains an entertaining thriller and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Even though I’m well aware of the fact that his movies are not really good, I always had a weak spot for Renny Harlin’s work, and his movies are among my guilty pleasures. As usual, this one was rather promising, at least, for a short while. Indeed, you had a rather interesting cast, albeit composed of B stars (Val Kilmer, Clifton Collins Jr., Jonny Lee Miller, Kathryn Morris, Christian Slater, LL Cool J). The premise had some potential, I above all enjoyed the fact that there was no real lead character and since Renny Harlin knows how to build a nice mood and I was intrigued at first. However, like most of his movies, the whole thing just fell apart pretty quickly. I don't know, everytime, with most of his movies, it seems that Harlin gets lazy or bored and you end up with a half-baked flick with a few good ideas and many idiotic twists and plot holes. As a B feature, the whole thing remains watchable but I can't say that I really cared for the characters or what they were going through. To conclude, it is yet another underwhelming feature delivered by the Finnish director and I don't think it is really worth a look whatsoever.

For a good while, at least until the Deathly Hallows was released, it used to be the most popular Harry Potter installment. The funny thing is that it is the one movie which turned out to be the least successful at the box-office (still, since it is, when I'm writing this review, the 39th highest grossing movie of all time so it should still be considered as a box-office success). Up to that point, this franchise seemed to be a rather family friendly affair but, quite suddenly, it became darker and I'm pretty sure many parents brought their (very) young kids and they must have been rather distressed by what they saw. Anyway, it was indeed better than the first two installments. You could see that the young trio (Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson) were getting the hang of it and their performance was a little bit more convincing. Above all, the best thing they did was to choose Alfonso Cuarón to direct this blockbuster and, visually, it was definitely an improvement. It's too bad they didn't really follow this road and picked up some other more creative directors. Still, even though this movie was a massive improvement, I can't say I was completely blown away by the whole thing. Indeed, the story was not bad at all and quite entertaining but I was still missing something and the way they wrapped up the whole story at the end with some time travel shenanigans was rather disappointing. To conclude, I think it deserves its reputation, even if  I don't think it is a masterpiece, and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

I have always been a fan of Denzel Washington and I have seen almost all his movies. I have to admit, he actually always plays the same character (‘the righteous man’) but he does it so well, with such a charisma, I always find him quite spellbinding to watch. Anyway, when I heard he was making his directing debut, I was really intrigued and eager to check it out. Apparently, it was barely noticed when it was released but I was actually positively surprised by this flick. Basically, it is a rather basic story, about a troubled young guy who finds a mentor who helps him to find the right path. The funny thing is that I didn’t even really like ‘Good Will Hunting’ which was dealing with the same formula and was a great success at the time. What I disliked is that the only reason why Will Hunting got any attention is because he was some kind of genius. Without his talent, they wouldn’t have cared about him whatsoever. In this movie, Fisher gets some support because he is just messed up and I thought it was way more compelling to behold. The other thing I enjoyed about this movie is that Denzel Washington decided to give the lead to someone else, playing a smaller part, albeit yet another wise and righteous man! I thought that Derek Luke was also really good in his acting debut and I was expecting a lot from this new talent but, unfortunately, 10 years later, he still didn’t manage to breakthrough and shows up usually in some small parts. To conclude, even though it is actually a really generic drama, I really liked it a lot and I think it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Beforehand, I wasn’t sure about this one. Indeed, nowadays John Carpenter’s movies are really popular among remakers and this movie was already the 4th one they decided to redo. Of course, I know, it is not actually a remake but a prequel tot the classic directed by John Carpenter. However, I still think it was obviously marketed as a remake. Indeed, the title was the same, the poster was really reminiscent to its predecessor and even the letter type for the title was exactly the same. I think it's really lame to make such an effort to make it look like a remake when actually, it isn't supposed to be one. To make things even worse, I thought that the plot was really similar and they tried really hard to make you believe that the whole thing was not an updated version. So, all these made it rather difficult for me to really enjoy this movie, but I have to admit, it wasn't bad at all and rather entertaining but except for some new fancy special effects, they didn't add much to the whole thing and it felt rather unnecessary. To conclude, in my opinion, it is actually a remake disguised as a prequel, but if you haven’t seen any movies from the Alien franchise, any movie involving The Thing, than there is a good chance you will enjoy this movie more than I did and I think it is somehow still worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

I wasn't expecting much from this flick but I always enjoy a horror flick from time to time so why not this one? Following the foot steps of Naomi Watts and Sarah Michelle Gellar, Jessica Alba hoped to find some success with this remake of an Asian horror flick but, unfortunately for her, the end-result was rather disappointing. To start with, I haven't seen the original version but there is a good chance it was better than this remake. Personally, I was more interested by the whole psycholigical aspect than the horror setting which reminded me of an half-baked version of 'Final Destination' (of which I wasn't a big fan in the first place). Concerning Jessica Alba, as usual, she looked pretty good but I still have a hard time to take her seriously as an actress. At least, you could see that she was really trying hard even though it wasn't really convincing. The directors are a French duo whose directing debut was 'Ils', a movie I should check out when I get the opportunity. Unfortunately, they consolidate the group of European directors who tried to breakthrough in America with a remake, usually in the horror genre, but expect for a few like Alexandre Aja, most of them are forgotten pretty quickly and David Moreau and Xavier Palud are not an expection and are now back in France soon releasing something else (separately this time). So, I didn't care much for this flick, it was rather well made but there was no depth whatsoever and I was rather bored during the whole thing. To conclude, it is yet another uninspired remake of Asian horror and it is not really worth a look, even if you like the genre.

Georges Lazenby will always be the black sheep among the James Bond actors. Indeed, he is the only guy who made just one movie while even Timothy Dalton managed to make two of those. Personally, I find it difficult to judge him since he would have needed a couple of movies to make the part is own. Futhermore, the guy was actually a model and completely unknown and it wasn't the easiest task to take over from Sean Connery, the best James Bond ever. Still, there was something interesting about casting a raw talent to play this character. Indeed, because of his lack of skills and experience, Lazenby's acting was more physical and it was an interesting approach to portray this legendary character. Like I said before, the opinions are quite extreme about this movie as many people wouldn't care for it but you also have some fans who argue that it is the best Bond movie ever made. First of all, it is one of the most faithful adaptations of an Ian Fleming novel and virtually everything in the book occurs in the film. It was also the first time James Bond really fell in love (It will never happen again until 'Casino Royale') and it was also the longest Bond movie (once again until 'Casino Royale' which was 4 minutes longer). Personally, I think it is one of the better Bond flicks. I mean, I don't think I'm a huge fan of this franchise but I think it is one of the better installments and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

I'm pretty sure I saw this one back then when I was a kid but since it is such a classic, I thought it was time for a re-watch. Personally, I think one of the interesting things about this movie is that it is a great test to know if you actually enjoy this genre of parodies. Indeed, even though it might not be the first one, it was and is the best one ever made. So, if you watch this flick and you think it stinks, you can skip directly everything in this genre because nothing else that came after was remotely better than this. For me, this test worked pretty well and I know where I stand now. Indeed, I thought it was pretty good and there were many many good jokes ('a smoking ticket, please!', just awesome...) but that was about it, I'm afraid. Indeed, in my opinion, even though it is supposed to be that way, it all remains pretty stupid and stupid humor is not really my thing, I'm afraid. After this, the directing trio (Jim Abrahams, David Zucker and Jerry Zucker) spent much of their career milking dry this genre and I didn't care much for it (yeah, even 'The Naked Gun' trilogy was pretty lame, in my opinion...). To conclude, even though I'm not a huge fan, it is definitely a pretty good comedy, a classic, and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.