Reviews by johanlefourbe

This movie is one of those cases when you expect a masterpiece but eventually, it doesn’t really blow you away. I mean, I kept hearing some very good things about this flick so I had some very high expectations. Don’t misunderstand me, I still think it is a pretty good flick but there was never a single moment when I thought that the whole thing was either hilarious or really brilliant. Basically, it is a rather funny and sad comedy, definitely more interesting than your standard mainstream comedy, but I had a hard time caring about those characters and what they were going through. Apparently, all the profanity was back then a big deal and they thought off removing it completely but 40 years later, there is nothing really shocking about it. It is the only movie directed by Hal Hashby that I have seen so far but I thought that his directing style was pretty good and I will probably watch his other movies such as ‘Being There’ or ‘Harold and Maude’ when I get the opportunity. Concerning Jack Nicholson, I thought he was pretty good but if you don’t like his usual hysterical foul mouthed characters, you won’t like this one either. I don’t know, I really wanted to connect with this movie but it just never happened, maybe I should re-watch it at some point and give it another shot. Anyway, to conclude, even though I thought it was a little bit disappointing, it still remains a solid and original comedy and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Since I’m a huge fan of Alfred Hitchcock, I was really eager to check this movie. It is one of the oldest he has made I have seen so far and, I have to admit, it is not one of his best movies but I still think it was pretty good. It was also nice to see a younger John Gielgud (it was his 4th movie only) and the rest of the cast was pretty good as well, especially the always dependable Peter Lorre. Basically, it is one of those typical spy films made by Hitchcock (check the title… You don’t get more generic than this!). Still, I thought it was really enjoyable. Indeed, even though it is almost 80 years old (!), even though you don’t have gadgets like in the James Bond movies or some awesome action scenes like in the Jason Bourne movies, I thought it was pretty neat as I still have a weak spot for those good old spy features where the focus was on the political intrigues and the dubious characters with several agendas. To conclude, even though it is probably a minor effort, I thoroughly enjoyed this flick and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Alfred Hitchcock’s work.

I wasn’t sure what to expect from this movie but since I have a weak spot for Keira Knightley, I thought I should check it out anyway. I always wonder why she always shows up in costume dramas instead of some more contemporary stories. Anyway, I thought that this one was honestly pretty boring. I mean, you see the main character going on some huge trips first to Africa and then several times to Japan but I never felt any excitement about those travels. Indeed, they kept telling you that those trips were really hazardous but, honestly, really nothing remotely thrilling actually happened. I know, this movie was not supposed to be an adventure flick but a romantic one but even on that level it failed to deliver the goods. In my opinion, even though they tried to give some deep romantic meaning to the proceedings, I thought it was just some typical Western sexual fantasy about a silent and docile Asian woman. Furthermore, I think that Michael Pitt is a decent actor but he is not what you could call ‘leading man’ material. Or maybe it is just that his character was so terribly passive, I don’t know. Still, I make it sounds as if it was a very bad movie but it was definitely not worthless. Indeed, the photography was beautiful, with some very nice shots and the music was pretty good too. Honestly, I think the whole thing had some potential and I was wondering what a director such as Terrence Malick would have done with this material. Anyway, to conclude, even though it was rather weak, it still remains a decent period piece and I think it is worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Honestly, I had never heard of this movie before but since one of my colleagues had the DVD, I thought I should give it a try. To my surprise, I discovered it was based on a fascinating and heartbreaking story, a story which was based on one of the most famous case of feral child called ‘Genie’. Before watching this flick, I had never heard of this girl before but her life story is the proof that you don’t have to look for fiction to find such an unbelievable story. Apparently, I have made some research and the movie seems to be rather faithful to what happened but, honestly, the directing was pretty average and the whole thing was never above the level of your standard made-for-TV-real-life-tale. The only big name actor was Sean Young which has become nowadays a terrible has-been. She gave here a very poor performance which was just way over the top. However, thankfully, she wasn’t the main character. No, the main character was played by Tarra Steele in one hell of a performance. The most intriguing thing is that Steele barely had any acting experience (it was her 2nd movie) and, even more surprising, she has never done another movie afterwards (apparently, she seems even to have recently end up in jail! I told you life is weirder than fiction…). Maybe it is this lack of techniques and acting experience that made her performance really spellbinding to watch, I don’t know. It’s just too bad that the whole thing felt like a rather cheap TV feature. This story was just fascinating and this girl was just great, they both deserved better. To conclude, in spite its flaws, it is actually a really heartbreaking tale and I think it is worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

To be honest, it was actually rather difficult to judge this movie. Indeed, I saw the original French version of this story only 7 months before and it  both movies were terribly similar story wise, so this American version felt yet like another pointless remake. Especially the fact that they remade it only 2 years later was rather puzzling to me. I mean, does the American audience absolutely need some recognizable stars to get into a movie? Eventually, this audience didn’t care anyway for this remake as it was a flop when it was released and it seems that Paul Haggis has a hard time find back his mojo as a director. Indeed, Haggis, who was first known as a screenwriter, suddenly reached stardom by surprisingly winning the Best Picture Academy Award for ‘Crash’ in 2004. His following directing effort ‘In the Valley of Elah’ was a also a flop but I really loved this movie. Anyway, this remake was not really a good strategic choice and, like I said before, it didn’t fare well at the box-office. Still, it turned out to be a decent thriller after all. Indeed, the directing was solid, even slightly better than the original version and, above all, it remains a entertaining story, even if what they added didn’t work very well. For example, the whole detour to the zoo was really not necessary and it was added just to create some fake tension. The near car crash during this detour was even more preposterous. The point was that the original story was already pretty far-fetched so to add even more ludicrous elements actually weakened the story. Concerning the actors, even though Russell Crowe was not bad, in my opinion, he was actually rather miscast. Indeed, to portray this character, this average teacher, you shouldn’t have the same guy who also played Maximus… Indeed, as soon as the action stuff began, the original character completely disappeared and that was too bad. Olivia Wilde was also miscast as a young mother when she was only 26 years old at the time. Indeed, it is always annoying when they cast a much too young girl for such a part just too add some sex-appeal. Still, in spite of it flaws, although it was a rather useless remake, I have a really weak spot for this story, it was still an entertaining thriller and it is worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

I already saw this movie but since it was a while back, I thought I might as well check it out again. To be honest, it is rather difficult to judge this movie so many years later after its release, especially considering the fact that the 4 sequels that followed were so disappointing and, honestly, just some rather expensive garbage. But how was this first installment? Honestly, I didn’t remember that it was so interminable, seriously, they could have easily cut 30 mins or even longer. Still, I thought it was not bad at all, especially since I didn’t have some really high expectations. Indeed, you have to give that to Michael Bay, those robots looked really awesome and the action scenes were really neat. One thing that was great with this movie is that you really had the feeling you were watching something new and quite thrilling, whereas with the sequels, there was a terrible sense of ‘déjà vu’ and the whole gimmick was getting rather tiresome (However, this aspect works much less when you rewatch the damned thing, I’m afraid). Furthermore, I thought that Shia LaBeouf was seriously charismatic and really funny in this. Back then, his career was really exploding but after starring in some of the biggest blockbusters ever made, he decided to do something completely different with his career. So, it was a really fun movie and I enjoyed most of it. Of course, it was far from being a masterpiece though and many elements didn’t work out. For example, to make us believe that someone like Megan Fox’s character would fall for a guy like Sam Witwicky was just rather pathetic. The other major weak point was that they put the focus way too much on the human characters and the robots were just some supporting characters when they should have been central to the story. Of course, since it was a huge box-office success, they decided to make some sequels and I think the mistake they made was to keep Michael Bay as a director. I mean, he did actually a decent job on this first installment but he didn’t even try to make something interesting out of these sequels whereas another director could have bring something new, something fresh to this franchise. Anyway, even though the sequels were terribly weak, this first installment was actually a decent, fun and entertaining blockbuster and it is worth a look.

I wasn’t expecting much from this flick but since I have a weak spot for Richard Gere and Claire Danes, I thought I should give it a try anyway. Honestly, the whole thing had some potential, the material (an overzealous and obsessed public servant follows some sexual offenders) was really interesting and even though it was rather clumsy, the first half was not bad at all. Unfortunately, in the second half, from the moment they went to this ‘House of Pain’, the whole thing just became a pathetic and incoherent mess. Concerning the ‘House of Pain’, how did they get there? How is possible that such place would exist with some registered sexual offender(s) ? Furthermore, the biggest strength of this movie was Babbage's struggle as the guy did this job for far too long and now was clearly losing it. However, in the second half, they chose a path which completely shattered this idea. Indeed, basically, every single hunch Babbage had in the 1st half, happened to become 100% true (about Edmund Grooms, about Viola Frye, about Glenn Curtis). So, instead of being a very troubled man losing his mind, he became a misunderstood crime genius which was just really disappointing. Furthermore, the guy was a public servant, not a g*d*mned cop, it didn’t make any sense to make him/them investigate this case like this. Concerning Richard Gere, honestly, sometimes he can be quite good but, this time, he just gave one of his wooden performances and he was not really convincing. Concerning Claire Danes, I thought she was better than Gere but I thought it was utterly unconvincing to make us believe that such a pretty girl would be the perfect candidate for a job which basically consists of some daily confrontations with some registered sexual offenders. I was really surprised to find out afterwards that the director, Andrew Lau, was the same guy who made ‘Infernal Affairs’, one of my favorite Asian movies. Anyway, to conclude, even though the material was pretty good, the end result was rather disappointing and I don’t think it is really worth a look.

I remember, when I saw the trailer, I seriously thought it could be pretty badass but then I heard only bad things about this flick so I wasn't that enthusiast anymore. Well, it must have been one of the most misleading trailer I have ever seen. I mean, there were a few nice action scenes but nothing remotely badass like I saw in this trailer. Basically, it was some kind of mix between 'Black Hawk Down' and 'War of the World'. The big difference is that Jonathan Liebesman definitely doesn't play in the same league as Ridley Scott and Steven Spielberg, that's for sure. I mean, you could argue that the story was pretty weak concerning 'War of the World' but, at least, Spielberg knew how to create some excitement from this story. Here, you just have a bunch of faceless soldiers going from one point to another without much coherence and, somehow, miraculously, they manage to save the city. I still believe that the concept had some potential but the whole thing was just terribly underwhelming. On the positive side, Aaron Eckhart remains a very dependable actor, probably one of the most underrated actors at work nowadays, and he did what he could with this thankless job (Apparently, he said he never had so much fun in a movie before and he would love to return for a sequel. What a terrible idea...). To conclude, it was yet another piece of evidence that you should never judge a movie by its trailer, it was just a very weak SF feature and it is not really worth a look, even if you love the genre.

Even though Peter Weir is a very highly regarded director, he has made only 2 movies since 'The Truman Show' was released in 1998. I thought that 'Master and Commander' was rather disappointing and even though his last movie was better, I still thought it was rather underwhelming. Indeed, even though this true (which might be a fake) story sounded really amazing on paper, I'm afraid it wasn't so amazing as a film. Basically, you follow those men and this young woman walking for miles and that's about it. Every once in a while, it seems that they will run out of water or food but, in the nick of time, they always find salvation. This pattern was repeated several times and, at some point, it got really tiresome above all since you already knew that they would survive. Nothing much else occurred even when they encounter Saoirse Ronan, they just kept endlessly on walking. The weird thing is that even though there were not so many characters and even though you spend more than 2 hours with them, you never get to really know them at all and, as a result, they were all reduced to some stereotypes (the leader, the old wise man, the cook/artist, the funny guy, the priest, the thief and the innocent girl). Still, it remains an impressive tale, the directing was solid and the cast was pretty good so I more or less enjoyed it but I think I'm rather generous with my rating here. To conclude, it remains a decent flick and I think it is worth a look, especially if you are interested in Peter Weir's work.