Reviews by johanlefourbe

I wasn’t sure what to expect from this flick but since I have a weak spot for romantic-comedies, I thought I should give it a try. Furthermore, there was a charming cast (Ashley Judd, Greg Kinnear, Hugh Jackman, Marisa Tomei) so maybe it could be a nice surprise. Unfortunately, it turned out to be one of those rather underwhelming entries in this genre. Basically, it is one of those romantic-comedies which spends a terrible amount of time developing a lame plot based on some lame concept instead of making sure that they are creating some genuinely interesting characters. The whole thing was obviously based on some old stereotypes and, right from the start, you could see where it was getting at. Of course, you could argue that predictability is something inherent to this genre and you would be right. Personally, I don’t really mind if the whole thing is predictable but I certainly need to have some endearing and compelling characters to watch and that was definitely not the case here. Still, the actors were so damned charming, I wish they got a better story to chew on. Especially, I have a huge weak spot for Ashley Judd and it’s too bad she is not on the A list anymore doing some (even more) forgettable stuff nowadatys. To conclude, I have seen worse but I still think it is a rather average romantic-comedy and it is not really worth a look, even if you love the genre like I do.

Every time a successful TV show ends, there is a big discussion whether they should adapt it on the big screen or not. For ‘Sex and the City’, it seemed to be a no-brainer but still, it took them a while to get the first installment made and many wonder if actually anyone would care for it. Eventually, it was a smash hit and, suddenly, a whole new market seemed to be discovered by the Hollywood producers. Of course, since it was a success, they rapidly made a sequel. Honestly, the first installment was not bad at all. It was nothing amazing but it remained a decent romantic-comedy with a few interesting ideas. However, they totally blew it on this sequel. My God…. It was boring, obnoxious and lasted forever (around 150 mins!). Basically, there is no real plot but a succession of tedious events and, apparently, you are supposed to care for these annoying rich white middle-aged women. At first, you have a wedding with some terrible gay jokes. Then, you have Carrie Bradshaw who goes to her luxurious apartment with her husband and, suddenly, there is this conflict because, for once, he just wants to spend some quality time with her by watching some movie together on the sofa. Apparently, she’d rather party all night with some random strangers. I mean, which one sounds more romantic to you? Furthermore, they are not 20 anymore. But, above all, does it sound to you like a major conflict? Don’t you think that many couples face some greater challenges such as sickness, unemployment, financial issues, child care, adultery and so on? So, it goes on and on for hours with the terrible drama those women have to face. And then, you have another misguided episode when they go to Abu Dhabi. I mean, in this time of economic crisis, do you think it is really wise to send them to an insanely luxurious hotel when many people struggle to make ends meet? If at least, it had been funny but, no, you just end up with some really misguided jokes about their clash with the Muslim culture. To conclude, they couldn’t have done a worse job, it is pretty bad and not worth a look whatsoever.

Even though I had seen most of the installments starring Sean Connery and a few starring Roger Moore, when I was a kid, I was rather oblivious concerning Timothy Dalton tenure as James Bond. Anyway, 20 years later, I thought it was time to watch his flicks. Personally, I think they made a nice try with him to make the franchise a little darker than it was. Eventually, it was too soon, the audience was just not ready, especially following the fluffiness provided by Roger Moore’ s installments. Furthermore, the makers didn’t really dare to make it too violent or too realistic but this Bond was definitely a precursor to the one portrayed by Daniel Craig 20 years later. Timothy Dalton has been praised as being the closest representation to what Ian Fleming meant with James Bond and also criticized because he managed to make only 2 movies which weren’t really successful and the franchise stopped after him for 6 long years. Personally, I think Dalton did a pretty decent job, I liked the tone of this flick and there were of course some pretty neat action scenes. It was also pretty cool to see a young Benicio Del Toro playing one of the bad guys. Such a fine actor, even here, he did a really good job. Despite being one of the least commercially successful Bond movies, many fans and critics nowadays praises the realism of this movie. I think it is actually a decent installment but I'd rather have Bond on a mission than one of his personal vendettas. To conclude, in spite of its flaws, I still think it is 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 Nick Nolte, I thought I should check it out. First of all, I thought it was kind of hilarious that they started the whole thing with the typical tagline 'inspired by true events'. I mean, the main event channeling the whole story sees the main character waking up at the 3 o'clock at night, goes for a whole walk and in some random gas station, finds his great mentor. Do you seriously expect us to believe that it is really what happened?!? And I won't even tell you how this first encounter ended... Anyway, the rest of the movie is some kind of weak mix between 'The Karate Kid' and 'A Beautiful Mind'. 'The Karate Kid' part is the usual stuff you get from such features (meeting with the wise mentor, training, conflict with trainer, dramatic event, some more training and the final victory). It was rather generic and not really interesting. Then, indeed, it also reminded me of 'A Beautiful Mind' because those meetings with this stranger trainer were so surreal, until the end you were never completely sure if the guy really existed or not. I know, I make it sound as if it was a terrible movie but there was also some good stuff. Take the intro, I thought it was just mind-blowing. Indeed, you have this gymnast doing his routine and, at the end, he lands badly and you literally see his leg shattered into million pieces. It was visually really clever and made me wonder what would happen next. Furthermore, even though the pseudo-philosophy was sometimes some laughable garbage, there were also some valuable and rather thoughthfull bits. Finally, Nick Nolte was just really convincing and could sell any bullshit if he wanted to, all those words sounded like some pearls of wisdom coming from him. To conclude, even though it is really flawed, it remains an intriguing sport flick and I think it is worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Recently, I have seen 'Becket' and Richard Burton completely blew away so I was really eager to watch something else starring this guy. Furthermore, Franco Zeffirelli has made some solid Shakespeare adaptations so I was definitely keen to check this flick. I think it was the first time I saw a classic adaptation of this play and I thought it was indeed pretty good. The thing I loved the most was the juxtaposition of the luxurious costumes and decors with the luducrious manners of the characters, especially Petruchio and Katarina. Basically, the whole thing was a mess and I have probably never seen such a chaotic wedding. Once again, Richard Burton impressed me (after all, he was an experienced Shakesperian and already played roles such as Hamlet, Iago, Edgar, Hotspur and Romeo on stage) and I definitely have to watch more movies with this guy. I still have to make up my mind concerning Elizabeth Taylor but since it is only the 3rd movie I have seen with her (another one being the dreadful 'The Flintstones'), I'm in no position of judging her acting capability at this point. Anyway, those two had some tremendous chemistry, that's for sure. Still, even though I liked this flick, I can't say it was really mind-blowing. I mean, I don't think it is one of Shakespeare's best work and, after a while, I got a little bored by their continuous bickering. Still, it remains a solid adapation and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Even though I'm far from being a fan of Adam Sandler, I still end up watching his movies. To be honest, pretty much like 'Grown Ups', this one was not really that bad. I mean, I'm used now to lower my expectations before watching a Sandler feature and, honestly, he has done worse. Still, who am I kidding? It was still a terribly lame comedy. I mean, right from the start, the whole thing was misguided. For example, like any Sandler feature, even though the humor was really rude and crude, the characters were all actually terribly nice and, as a result, the plot didn't hold up whatsoever. Indeed, Palmer not only has a smoking body, but she seemed to be a very nice girl as well and it is pretty obvious that if, when she discovered the ring, he told her something like 'I used to be married but got hurt and keep this ring as a warning and reminder', I'm sure she would have given a big hug. But no, instead, you get involved in some very convoluted plot where all the characters end up in Hawaii so you can see Brooklyn Decker, Jennifer Anniston and Nicole Kidman in various swimwear. I have to be honest, I did laugh a couple of times, but still, most of the jokes were just really lame and the plot was just terribly idiotic. To conclude, even though it is not the worse movie starring Adam Sandler, it still remains a really weak comedy and it is not really worth a look.

Samuel L. Jackson is a pretty cool actor and, like anyone else, I like his work and I try to watch as many as possible of his movies. But the guy is some kind of workaholic, making about 5 movies a year, and even though I have watched about 60 of his movies already, I still have to see 40 more! As a result, not everything he is involved with is actually really amazing and some of those are obscure and sometimes even rather weird. This movie is a perfect example of his more obscure work. For the second time around, after the acclaimed 'Eve's bayou' (which I still need to watch), Jackson was working again with Kasi Lemmons and it was one of the rare occasion that he was playing the lead. That's is also the main attraction, Jackson's performance. Indeed, he gave a very hearfelt performance of mentally disturbed man, he was completely convincing to watch and quite spellbinding to watch. Unfortunately, they decided to mix this with a rather pedestrian and uninteresting police investigation so you could have some suspence, cliffhangers and other boring theatrics. Furthermore, the directing was decent but nothing really remarkable so, without Samuel L. Jackson the whole thing would have been rather pointless. To conclude, even though it is far from being, I still think it is worth a look, especially if you are interested in Jackson's work.

James Foley is not a really famous director but he has made a few notable flicks such as 'Glengarry Glen Ross' and I always had a weak spot for his work, even though it tends to get a little too generic. This movie is a perfect example. Indeed, it is rather entertaining, the directing and acting were decent but it was honestly a rather pedestrian court-drama. Back in the 90's, John Grisham's books were all best-sellers and they made some pretty successful movies out of those such as 'The Firm' or 'The Pelican Brief'. To be honest, I have never been a fan of those Grisham movies. In my opinion, they are usually fun to watch but the plot is so irrealistic and so preposterous, I always have a hard time to really care about them and the fact that it is actually some shallow entertainment desguised under some morals and serious matters (such as racism in this case) doesn't help much. Anyway, this adaptation is probably the most obscure one I have seen so far and it is John Grisham's least favorite movie adaptation calling the film a "disaster" and a "train wreck from the beginning". Personally, I don't think it was that bad though. I mean, Gene Hackman is a terrific actor and delivered a decent performance as usual and I thought it was midly entertaining. To conclude, I thought it was actually a decent court-drama and I think it is worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Before making the Spider-Man trilogy and becoming one of the most successful mainstream directors, Sam Raimi made this moody super-natural thriller. It is also interesting to point out that Billy Bob Thornton did write this movie (maybe people tends to forget it but Thornton got his breakthrough with his directing and writing and not actually as an actor). Anyway, there are many things to enjoy here. First of all, Raimi knows how to direct a thriller and the whole thing was really a nice moody affair. Then, there was a very nice cast (Cate Blanchett, Giovanni Ribisi, Keanu Reeves, Katie Holmes, Greg Kinnear, Hilary Swank, J.K. Simmons) and they all delivered some solid performances. It was above all pretty neat to see actors such as Keanu Reeves, Hilary Swank or even Katie Holmes to play against type. Still, even though the whole thing was rather entertaining, I was still disappointed by the plot. Basically, it is one of those typical thrillers with a pedestrian plot and some obligatory and annoying twist at the end. It is quite a shame because, the director was good, the actors were good, the whole thing looked terrific, it's just too bad they didn't make sure they had a really terrific story to start with. To conclude, in spite of its flaws, it still remains a decent thriller and I think it is worh a look, especially if you like the genre.

Honestly, I find it rather difficult to judge this movie. Indeed, I have always had a weak spot for John Boorman's work and I wanted to watch this flick for many years. Furthermore, it had built up a decent cult following since its release so my expectations were pretty high up. However, I can't say that the whole thing was mind-blowing though. I mean, I did like this movie but there were many things that also bothered me. For example, the beginning really looked cheesy but it got better after a while, even though I don't agree with Roger Ebert who thought that it was visually amazing (he did write his review 30 years ago so maybe, back then, it was a milestone in this area). And it was the same thing about the cast. Indeed, the cast was pretty impressive (Helen Mirren, Gabriel Byrne, Gabriel Byrne, Patrick Stewart, Ciarán Hinds) but, even though they were usually pretty good, the dialogs were sometimes downright cheesy but, on the other hand, we have no way to know how they talked back in those days. Still, I enjoyed this movie and it is definitely the best version of the Arthurian Tales I have seen so far. Indeed, we are pretty far from Disney here, since the whole thing is drenched in violence, blood, lust and you even have some incest. Basically, the mood and general approach was really dark and gloomy but it was a great way to handle this material. To conclude, even though it wasn't the masterpiece I was hoping for, it still remains a solid medieval feature and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.