Reviews by johanlefourbe

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.

I already saw this movie but since it was a while back and since I have it on DVD, I was quite eager to check it out again. First of all, if you are not French or Belgian, I don't expect that you have either heard about Jan Kounen, the director of this movie, or about 'Blueberry', the comic book which has inspired this movie. Personally, I have read many of these awesome comic books drawn by the legendary Jean Giraud also known as Moebius. Therefore, since I really loved those, I was obviously really interested in this flick. When I was a teenager, back in France, I also saw Jan Kounen's directing debut 'Dobermann' and since it was a pretty cool flick, I was wondering what he will do next. Apparently, after 'Dobermann', Kounen actually stopped making movies and went to South America to discover mescaline with some shaman. So, instead of making a straightforward adaptation, Kounen chose to make a rather peculiar Western mixed with his shamanic experiences with Vincent Cassel playing once again the main character. Of course, the end result was rather disconcerting and most of the viewers didn't care for it. I have to admit it, I wasn't completely convinced myself but, at least, the Shaman stuff was visually pretty neat. In fact, these scenes turned out to be the most interesting thing about this movie which otherwise was just a rather generic Western with a rather miscast Vincent Cassel, a usually decent actor who gave here a rare poor performance. Anyway, to conclude, in spite of its flaws, only for its wild ending, I still think is worth a look but it is rather likely that a more faithful adaptation would have been more interesting. 

By now, I have seen almost all the movies starring Eddie Murphy and, honestly, he must have had one of the most disappointing careers in Hollywood ever. Back then, in the 80’s, he was one of the biggest stars and a huge box-office draw. Than, in the 90’s, his movies started to get pretty lame but were still successful but since the 2000’s, all his movies are totally lame and usually flop terribly at the box-office. There are some exceptions though and I thought that this movie was one of them. Indeed, I heard some good things about it, even my wife told me it was actually pretty good. Unfortunately, I thought it was yet another disappointing feature starring Murphy. Indeed, even though the whole thing had some potential, I thought it was actually barely entertaining and not really funny. Indeed, Eddie Murphy plays this arrogant womanizer and I thought he was more painfully obnoxious than hilariously funny. One of the few things I enjoyed about this flick was to see a young and charming Halle Berry at the beginning of her career but that’s about it. To be honest, it was not really awful. Indeed, at least, the premise had some potential, especially compared to his moronic recent work but I really had a hard time to care about the whole thing. To conclude, it is a rather average comedy and it is not really worth a look, except maybe if you are die-hard fan of Eddie Murphy.

Even though I’m not a huge fan of Noah Baumbach’s work, I still enjoyed his previous movies so I was really eager to check this flick as well. Apparently, Baumbach has become some kind of specialist on neurotic characters and Roger Greenberg was probably his worst creation so far. To start with, I can understand that many people wouldn’t care for this character. Indeed, like most mental patients, he is a terrible egomaniac wrapped up in his messed up world completely incapable of any form of compassion. Actually, Greenberg reminded me of 2 persons. First of all, he reminded me of Daniel Johnston, a (supposedly) talented song-writer who messed up a couple of record deals and ended up a couple of times in a mental institution. The second person I was reminded of was actually myself. Indeed, his obsessive and erratic behavior was highly recognizable and confrontational for me and there were a couple of times I thought I was hearing myself talking… I don’t think I’m so messed up though. I mean, I have a steady job, a wife and kids but I think I do manage to make the people around me often completely crazy. So, I thought that the main character was really interesting and Ben Stiller really impressed me as he easily gave here one of his best performances. Greta Gerwig was also really good, she gave a very subtle performance and I’m really curious to see her again in something else. Eventually, two characters felt flawed, really real, and were much more interesting than the usual stereotypes provided by Hollywood. Still, I can’t say the whole thing was mind-blowing though. Indeed, to be honest, it is not really funny and, basically, you spend almost 2 hours with a really unlikeable guy and it can be tiresome. Anyway, in spite of its flaws, it was pretty good and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.