Reviews by johanlefourbe

You have probably never heard of him but Pim Fortuyn was one of most notorious Dutch politician from the last 50 years. Indeed, suddenly, masses of people who never cared about Politics before became fanatically infatuated with this guy (my wife is one of those) whereas the other part of the Dutch population really despised him for his demagogic style and the way he manipulated the frustrations of the average Dutch man and woman (I personally belonged to this 2nd group). Basically, back then he was one of the only politicians who said exactly what the people wanted to hear (You are fed up with the foreigners? Let’s get rid off them! You are fed up with the taxes! Let’s get rid off them! You are fed up with schools/hospitals/whatever? Let’ s get rid off them!). In my opinion, the appeal was that he gave some very simple answers to some very complex issues. Anyway, to make things even more dramatic, just before he was about to make an historical victory at the elections and probably become prime minister, the guy was shot. And you thought that such things only happened in the USA… As a result, he became some kind of martyr and we will eventually never find out if he was indeed the new messiah or just full of sh*t. Anyway, this movie is about this fatal day when he was killed and the makers basically developed some conspiracy theories about what might have happened or not. It is obviously quite reminiscent of ‘JFK’ even though it never reaches the level of Oliver Stone’s movie. Indeed, some ideas worked or some others didn’t and there were maybe a little too many sub-plots. The weird thing is that the director of this movie, Theo van Gogh (yeah, the great-grand-son of Vincent’s brother) was also killed in some political execution even before this movie was released… Indeed, those were dark days for the Dutch community. To conclude, even though it is not really amazing, I thought it was a really interesting thriller and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Dutch movies.

I had some rather low expectations about this movie but since I have a weak spot for Jennifer Anniston and Paul Rudd, I still wanted to check it out. Basically, it is one of those ill-advised romantic comedies which tries to convince you that if a gay man or woman gets close enough with a very hot individual from the other sex, they will eventually go straight. Of course, in this case, the gay guy eventually remains gay but they toy with this concept during the whole movie. So, I’m not a huge fan of those stories and this one was especially poorly written and contrived. Indeed, even though the running time was under the two hours, it felt more like three hours. Jennifer Anniston, still in ‘Friends’ back in those days, was quite charming but she pretty much gave her usual performance. On the other hand, I thought that Paul Rudd was actually pretty good as he tried really hard to make his character convincing even though he was not helped by the weak script. A part from them, there were just way to many 2nd characters, a few of them interesting but most of them rather tedious. One of those exceptions was the character played Nigel Hawthorne. Such a fine actor, such a fine performance and such a waste of time for him to even bother showing up for such a short screen time. To conclude, it was not really awful, there were here and there a few good ideas but, all in all, it was a long, boring and misguided romantic comedy and I don’t think it is worth a look, even if you like the genre.

On paper, this movie sounded really awesome. Indeed, a movie dealing with a S.W.A.T. team made of Samuel L. Jackson, Colin Farrell, Jeremy Renner, LL Cool J and Michelle Rodriguez could and should have been really badass. At some point, some directors such as Zach Snyder, Michael Bay, Tony Scott, John Woo, Antoine Fuqua, Rob Cohen, Joel Schumacher, and Michael Mann were all offered the opportunity to direct this flick but they were all too busy and eventually a guy called Clark Johnson took over this project. Never heard of him? Me neither and apparently, he is a rather obscure director who mostly did some TV shows. Anyway, how was the movie actually? It was actually rather entertaining but still nothing amazing though. The main issue is that they chose to go for the standard action stuff instead of a more gritty realistic approach. So, the action scenes were not bad but honestly nothing I haven’t seen 100 times before. Same thing about the story, it was really generic and the characters were hardly developed as well. It is a real shame because with such a cast and such a concept, it could have been a really interesting action flick but they didn’t want to take any risk, that’s pretty obvious. To conclude, I think I’m rather generous with my rating, but the cast was really cool and the whole thing was pretty entertaining so I think it is worth a look, especially if you like the genre, but don’t expect anything really amazing.

A few years back, I saw the remake directed by Sydney Pollack and starring Harrison Ford, Greg Kinnear and Julia Ormond. It was not bad but still nothing amazing and I was really curious to see the real thing which is considered a bonafide classic. Eventually, even though I thought this original version was pretty good and obviously better than the remake, I still can’t say I was really blown away by the whole thing. I don’t know, I really find it rather difficult to relate with those movies they made back then with a very young girl falling in love with a very old guy like in ‘To Catch a Thief’ or ‘Gigi’ (It is pretty much like imagining George Clooney having a relationship with Lily Collins…). Furthermore, even though Audrey Hepburn was quite lovely, I found her character not really irresistible first of all because she keeps obsessing about David Larrabee who was a real douchebag and also the fact that she falls in love with Linus Larrabee within a few days made her character not really reliable either. Still, in spite of these flaws, I did enjoy this movie and it was above all thanks to Humphrey Bogart. Indeed, Bogart who didn’t get along at all with his 2 co-stars, really stole the show here. He played against type as a seasoned businessman and his performance was so subtle, it was quite something. I have to admit it, I haven’t seen many movies starring Bogart but after his impressive turn in ‘The Treasure of the Sierra Madre’, he once again really impressed me. To conclude, even though I don’t think this movie is really amazing, it is and remains a classic and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

After ‘Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels’ and ‘Snatch.’, Guy Ritchie suddenly became one of the most exciting directors at work. Unfortunately, his follow-up ‘Swept Away’ was a terrible disaster, hated by the critics and the audience alike, and it was a huge flop at the box-office. Personally, even though it was definitely a weak effort especially compared to his previous movies, I don’t think it was that bad but it was obviously a huge blow for his promising career. Nowadays, it seems that he has regained some amount of respect but his last features (‘RocknRolla’, ‘Sherlock Holmes’) were not as amazing as everyone seem to think in my opinion. Anyway, between his huge flop and his come-back, Guy Ritchie made this really obscure flick which was barely noticed when it was released. Some people would argue that it is one of the best movies ever made but, honestly, it is not really that good. Basically, Ritchie tried to make his usual gangster flick but this time with some philosophical ideas added to it, some kind of mix between ‘Snatch’ and ‘Inception’. Of course, Ritchie went way over his head here and the whole thing never really worked. The best example is that the movie starts with 4 different quotes! I mean, to start a movie with one single quote is not really interesting but with 4 of them is just really lame, it gives you the feeling that the director doesn’t have any ideas of his own. Eventually, the rest of the movie was not much better, with a terribly murky plot. But don’t misunderstand me, it is not a bad movie at all. Indeed, the kinetic directing was quite awesome with some very neat visual things and Jason Statham really impressed me. Not only he wasn’t bald this time but I really had the feeling that the guy was actually acting for once and, even more surprising, he was really f*cking convincing. Furthermore, I think that the story really had some potential and it could have been indeed a great picture but I guess, they were too ambitious and the whole thing just spun out of control. To conclude, even though it must be the most obscure movie made by Guy Ritchie and even though it is not really good, I still think it is worth a look, especially if you are interested in this director’s work.

Since I’m a huge fan of Alfred Hitchcock, I was really eager to check this flick. Unfortunately, honestly, I thought that the whole thing was slightly disappointing. I mean, I did like it but I was expecting more from it. Indeed, the concept (a renowned but retired thief is accused of stealing some jewels so he intends to catch the real thing) really sounded pretty cool but, unfortunately, the story turned out to be rather dull after all. Apparently, Hitchcock didn’t focus too much on the plot which was rather light and frivolous. Instead, he focused more on the relationship between Cary Grant and Grace Kelly and, fortunately, they had a great chemistry together. Indeed, Cary Grant played here his usual suave charming fellow but he did it so well, he was once again quite irresistible. Even more impressive than Grant, Grace Kelly must have been one of the most ravishing creatures I have ever seen. It was only the second movie starring her that I saw, the first one in color, and she was just so spellbinding to behold. Seriously, it was actually quite distracting and I’m not sure she was acting well or not. The other thing that I enjoyed was the great landscape and cities of South France. Even though I’m French, I have never been there and it looked quite awesome. Eventually, I think it is rather sad that this movie was obviously a minor effort for Alfred Hitchcock but it was still a huge box-office success when it was released when some more thoughtful movies of his would really tank. Anyway, even though it is nothing mind-blowing, it is still a classic, I thought it was still a decent watch and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Hitchcock’s work.

Honestly, beforehand, I had never heard of this movie but since I have a weak spot for François Truffaut, I still wanted to check it out. Apparently, it is one of his more obscure movies which he made after ‘Les deux anglaises et le continent’ which was pretty good and before ‘La nuit américaine’ which was one of his most heralded movies. So, it is not one of his well know movies and, honestly, it is was not really good, I’m afraid. I mean, it is pretty obvious that, this time, Truffaut didn’t intend to make something really deep but was trying to make a light and frivolous picture. Still, I seriously had a hard time to care about the whole thing. Indeed, even though Bernadette Lafont was quite plucky, I thought she and/or her character was rather annoying. The other characters were not really likeable either but it was made on purpose this time but, still, since I didn’t care about the characters and what they were going through, the whole thing was rather tedious to watch. Still, it was not really bad, there was an interesting sarcastic tone and Truffaut remains a really good director, that’s for sure. To conclude, even though it is definitely a minor effort, I still think it is worth a look though, especially if you are interested in François Truffaut’s work.

When I was a kid, I used to watch the TV show and since I was just about 13-14 years old, I didn’t mind the cheesiness and how preposterous the whole thing was and I honestly thought it was pretty good. However, I got older and the idea of making a feature film adaptation sounded quite terrible and when I heard they were making a parody, my expectations were even lower. However, it was a surprise success and I mostly heard good things about this flick and since Nick, my step-son, bought me the DVD for my birthday, I was really eager to check this flick. Eventually, I thought it was pretty good. Indeed, like I said before, the original concept (to infiltrate some cops in a high-school) was actually kind of stupid so the makers actually decided to focus on all those stereotypes and make fun of them and it worked. I have seen other flicks going the same road like ‘The Green Hornet’ which was not bad but still pretty disappointing and ‘Starsky and Hutch’ which was downright awful. Here, they managed to have the right tone and the whole thing was really funny. A couple of neat examples : the cops take some drugs at school with some hilarious effects, the cops throw a house party with drugs, alcohol, again with some hilarious effects and, of course, the awesome cameo by Johnny Depp which was just the cherry on top of the cake. For Channing Tatum, I finally got the feeling that this guy could be the real thing instead of just another dumb pretty face. Of course, some of the jokes didn’t work really well and the whole thing remains pretty dumb but it was supposed to be that way so it is far from being a masterpiece but for a TV show adaptation, it was still pretty damned entertaining. To conclude, if you want to see a buddy cop flick which doesn’t take itself too seriously, you will definitely enjoy this one and I think it is definitely worth a look.

I remember it very well, when I was a kid, the poster for this movie used to really terrify me. Eventually, I finally saw it, twenty years later. Even though it is considered a massive horror classic, I wasn't sure what to expect, especially since I discovered last week that Roger Ebert really hated this flick. Well, for this time, I have to say I didn't agree with good old Roger. Indeed, I thought it was pretty good and Clive Barker managed to create a really unsettling but fascinating world. Indeed, thanks to some pretty impressive special effects, those cenobites looked pretty badass and this concept of extreme pleasure and pain was really interesting, even though it didn't seem that the characters experienced much pleasure or maybe it was some kind of masochist notion, the more pain you get inflected, the more pleasure you get? Unfortunately, they didn't develop this much. Furthermore, except when the cenobites were present, the rest of the movie was not really impressive. Indeed, the directing was average, the acting was really weak and the story didn't make much sense. Still, it remains a really striking nightmarish world and I enjoyed most of it. To conclude, even though it is not really amazing, it is and remains a true horror classic and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Before watching 'Inglourious Basterds', I was really excited because I thought that Tarantino could make something awesome out of this material but, eventually, even though I liked it, it was far from being the masterpiece I heard about. This time, I was equally excited by the idea of Quentin Tarantino tackling this material but I was also more cautious. Eventually, even though I had a good time, pretty much like 'Inglourious Basterd', there were many things I enjoyed but also many things that just puzzled me and, at the end of the day, I can't say that it was really so amazing. Let's start with the good stuff. The first half was really good. Indeed, it was sharp, focused and really really fun with some great dialogues. Furthermore, there was a great cast and they delivered some strong performances. Many people actually criticized Tarantino for constantly using the word 'nigger' and being disrespectful about the sensitive subject of slavery but I thought he handled it actually really well, probably better than the Nazis in 'Inglourious Basterds'. Indeed, the living conditions of the slaves were displayed as really horrible and the slave owners were displayed as stupid morons looking also quite terrible as well. It was just a really f*cked up business and Tarantino didn't sugarcoat the whole thing, that's for sure. So, what went wrong? From the moment that DiCaprio showed up on the screen, the whole thing lost some momentum. Don't get me wrong, DiCaprio was terrific but from this point, you get some very long dialogues involving DiCaprio, Waltz, Foxx and even Samuel L. Jackson who also gave one of his best performances. The problem was that all those actors were just amazing and Django pretty much get upstaged, sitting quiet in a corner while the other actors were really stealing the show. I don't know, the whole thing with the slave deals was also seriously quite murky (let's sell it! What?! You're trying to fool me?!? Let's sell it anyway!) and, precisely like in 'Inglourious Basterds', after this long talk, the whole thing was concluded with a huge shoot-out.... How disappointing... But it didn't stop there, no, Django was sent away and came back again for yet another bloodbath! Why?!? What's the point of this second bloodbath?!? In my opinion, the main issue with this 2nd half is that you had 4 fascinating characters (Django, Dr Schultz, Calvin, Stephen) and you could have made one brilliant movie about each one of them but to put them all together in one single room was just too much to handle for this movie. Eventually, the only solution Tarantino found was to kill all of them, except obviously Django, but it was a rather weak way to solve this predicament. Still, like I said before, the whole thing was still pretty good though and I had a good time watching this. Anyway, to conclude, even though it was for me actually slightly disappointing, it is still a solid Western and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Tarantino's work.