Reviews by johanlefourbe

Honestly, I have never cared about this franchise but I was intrigued by the way it really resurrected itself with this 4th installment when, in fact, most of us thought this franchise was pretty much dead and buried, so I was really curious to check if it was as awesome as everyone was saying. Unfortunately, the whole thing turned out to be rather disappointing, I'm afraid. I mean, I have to admit it, the action scenes were pretty neat and it was a little bit better than its predecessors but the improvement was only marginal in my opinion. The worst thing is that the whole thing really had some potential. Basically, you have 2 best friends, one is a cop, the other a thug. The cop is not exactly a hero and the thug is not really that a bad guy and, obviously, they should avoid each other but they keep hanging out together. Eventually, they are torn between their loyalty to their friendship and their loyalty to their own people. Now, that sounds like a good story but, unfortunately, instead we get this terribly tedious story with some pathetic dialogues and with some below average acting. To conclude, it is not really bad but I have seen many more inspired action flicks than this one, I don’t really understand why everybody got so excited by this sequel and I don’t think it is really worth a look, except if you are a die hard fan of this franchise.

Since it is a classic and it has inspired many directors such as Ridley Scott, John Frankenheimer, Tobe Hooper, and John Carpenter, so I was definitely eager to check it out. Honestly, I’m not really knowledgeable about those old horror flicks and except for ‘Nosferatu’, I still have to watch all the following : ‘King Kong’, ‘Frankenstein’, ‘The Bride of Frankenstein’, ‘The Wolfman’, ‘The Fly’,…. Anyway, it is always pretty neat to get acquainted with a new genre and I thought it was a pretty good flick indeed. Back then, they didn’t have monstrous budget (as a matter of fact, it was made with only 40,000 dollars) and they didn’t have such complex special effects or CGI like nowadays. In those days, it was all about the characters and what they were going through. Basically, there were 3 group of characters : the military, the scientists and the press (solely represented by Scotty). Each group had their own reaction towards the ‘thing’ and it was pretty interesting to see them discuss how they should handle the situation. I thought it was also pretty neat that, for a good chunk of the movie, you didn’t see ‘it’ at all, you just had to imagine ‘it’ following the words and the body language of the characters. As soon as the alien (which of course looked rather ridiculous) was displayed, this tale unfortunately lost its edge but, still, for a 60 year old feature, it thought it was pretty solid. I also enjoyed the fact that Nick, my 15 year old step-son, thoroughly enjoyed it. So young and still able to enjoy a very old black and white flick movie without any impressive special effects. I thought it was pretty awesome. Anyway, in spite of its flaws, it is a pretty cool classic and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

I didn’t expect much from this flick but since I have a weak spot for Michelle Pfeiffer, I thought I should check it out anyway. Eventually, I found it really difficult to judge this movie. Indeed, in my opinion, this whole genre of the real-life TV drama is usually pretty dreadful. I know, it is a matter of taste, and my wife, for example, actually enjoys those movies but even though the stories might be true, the way they are told I just terribly tedious. This movie is no exception. Just check the trailer. It is filled with a terribly melodramatic score and the movie is not different. Check the Whoopi Goldberg character. For some reason, her character reveals she’s gay. What the hell has it do with the whole thing?!? Absolutely nothing, it is just a way to to emotionally manipulate the audience with some cheap tricks. Still, in this genre, I have to admit it is one of the best I have seen. Indeed, Treat Williams and, above all, Michelle Pfeiffer gave some very strong performances and the first half was pretty much heartbreaking. The second half was also not bad but it felt too much plot-driven and I wish they investigated more the psychological turmoil lived by the characters. Eventually, it is a pretty standard story, even if it is based on a true story (which is usually the case) or on a best-seller novel (what happened here) but it is some powerful stuff, I’ll give you that. To conclude, against all expectations, it was not bad at all and it is actually 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. Unfortunately, pretty much like ‘Badlands’, this movie never really did fulfill my expectations. I mean, I did like it, that’s for sure, but I can’t say I was really blown away by the whole thing. Indeed, I didn’t really care about the plot (I’m pretty sure Malick didn’t care for the plot either, if there was any) and I also didn’t care much about the characters either. It is probably a results of the choice made by Terrence Malick to have the story told by a young child. Even though it had some interesting aspects (it must be one of the most daunting voice-over I have ever heard), it was also terribly alienating as you never get to know the three main characters. It is actually something quite inherent in Malick’s work, the fact that you are never explicitly told what the characters are exactly thinking or feeling, a more realistic approach than your standard Hollywood feature where everything is explained and dumbed down so I understand and usually appreciate this approach but it was rather frustrating this time. Still, it remains a fascinating picture. Indeed, the directing was just flawless and it is definitely one of the most beautiful movies I have ever seen. Basically, most of the movie is shot outdoors at dusk or dawn, something technically terribly difficult to achieve (how long can you manage to have the right light for example?) but so awe-inspiring to watch. Most of the shots were just so perfectly composed, it was just jaw dropping and, even if you don’t like his movies, you have to admit that the guy is a true artist. Anyway, to conclude, even though it didn’t really blow me away, it is still a classic and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Malick’s work.

Not to be confused with another US president related comedy called ‘The American President’ which was released in the same period. Personally, I enjoyed more ‘The American President’ but this one was not bad either. Basically, it is one of those typical comedy where a decent guy takes the place of a not so decent guy and everybody thinks he is awesome and much better than his predecessor against, of course, all expectations. It was rather entertaining but the whole idea was hardly original (one of the most famous examples is ‘Trading Places’ featuring a star-making performance by Eddie Murphy. I know… A good movie starring Eddie Murphy sounds rather surreal but it really did happen). Anyway, like I said before, they just followed the formula and, unfortunately, they didn’t add much anything to the whole thing. Ivan Reitman is a solid comedy director, he knows his thing, that’s for sure, but I wish they pushed even further into the black humor but it wasn’t meant to be, I’m afraid, and the whole thing remained too gentle for my taste. Kevin Kline did a decent job but I can’t say I’m fan of his, I don’t know, he usually gets on my nerves, especially when he is playing in a comedy. Above all, I really enjoyed Sigourney Weaver who was really good. She tends to get overlooked but she is actually a very good actress with a perfect comedic timing. To conclude, even though it is nothing really amazing, it remains a well made and entertaining comedy and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Even though it was a surprise success at the box-office upon its release, it seems to be nowadays a rather polarizing movie. Indeed, basically, you either love or you hate this flick. Personally, I thought it was pretty good. Indeed, above all I thought it was just visually really impressive. I mean, nowadays, we get a massive overdose of CGI but this movie is a good example that it can definitely enhance the story telling. The Spartans were also pretty awesome, they were totally badass and I thought they were rather believable as some of the deadliest warriors ever. This flick obviously displayed a progression for Zach Znyder from his interesting debut, ‘Dawn of the Dead’, and this progression was confirmed by ‘Watchmen’, his best movie so far which is really underrated in my opinion. Many viewers thought those guys looked really ridiculous in their outfit and, even though they definitely had a point, I thought it fit the ‘historical’ context. Still, even though, I really enjoyed it, I have to admit it was far from being flawless. Indeed, the story was entertaining but rather pedestrian and the political intrigue was really poorly developed (I mean, the bad guy gets killed and look how convenient! He was carrying some enemy coins in his pocket… How corny can you get…) Furthermore, their way of speaking wore me down after a while. I mean, it is like every time they open their mouth, even the most trivial conversation becomes some kind of overblown speech. Still, I thought it was a pretty cool flick and I had a good time watching this. To conclude, even though I’m far from being an action movie fan, I thought this one was really entertaining and I think it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Way before becoming a major player with Pixar and even becoming a successful action movie director with the Mission Impossible franchise, Brad Bird started his career with this little seen animated gem. Since then, it has reached a decent cult following but when it was released, it was unfortunately barely seen, even myself I saw it much later when it was broadcasted on TV. It is one of the hand-drawn animated features which was victim of the obsession towards computer animated movies. Many of those like ‘Spirit’ or ‘The Road to El Dorado’ didn’t managed to get an audience when they were actually not bad at all. Anyway, this directing debut was pretty good. Indeed, the animation was just gorgeous (just too bad they dropped this technic altogether). Still, I must admit that even though it was entertaining enough, the story was rather pedestrian and honestly nothing really mind-blowing. Still, even though it was a flop, thanks to this flick, Brad Bird got noticed by Pixar and the rest is just history. To conclude, even though it is nothing really revolutionary, it is a gorgeous and charming animated feature and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Since I’m not a huge fan of musicals and since I don’t really care about the Beattles, I didn’t seem to be the right audience for this flick but since I kept hearing positive things about it (for example, according to Roger Ebert, it was one of the best movies released in 2007), I was really eager to check it out. Eventually, it was not bad at all. Indeed, the songs were all right and I especially enjoyed their version of ‘I want to hold your hand’. Furthermore, the directing was really solid, with some very nice visual experiments by Julie Taymor. The cast was also pretty good, above all Jim Sturgess and Evan Rachel Wood who had some very good chemistry together. It was also pretty neat to see Joe Cocker and Bono coming along to sing a song. Still, I can’t say that the whole thing was mind-blowing though. Indeed, personally, I thought that the story was rather pedestrian and really unoriginal and I really didn’t care much about it (something I always dread in most of the musicals I see). Furthermore, I found it was a rather odd choice to set the action in the USA in the 60’s. I mean, the 60’s was an obvious choice but why in the USA? Still, it remains a decent flick though. To conclude, if you are a fan of the Beattles, you will probably have a blast watching this but even if you are not, it remains a very well made musical and I still think it is worth a look.

Even though I have seen all the major masterpieces directed by Francis Ford Coppola, I still try to catch his other less known features when I get the opportunity. In this case, Coppola directed this flick back then when he was working with Roger Corman. Indeed, while on location shooting a totally different movie, Corman actually proposed Coppola to shot his own flick in 9 days for $40,000. Even though the whole thing is pretty shabby (above all the opening scene), there was still some quality about it. Indeed, after the very weak introduction, you get involved in some kind of horror-thriller with many Hitchcockian elements and I thought it was not bad at all. Back then, Coppola already displayed some nice directing skills here and it’s a pity he never tried something similar later on during his career. Of course, since it is a Corman production, you had some obligatory sleaze with one of the female characters getting undressed and going for a swim in her undies. All in all, even though I’m not a real fan of this genre, I thought it was a decent exploitation flick and it was just really neat to see where Coppola was coming from. To conclude, even though it is nothing remotely amazing, it is not bad at all and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Even though it tends to be overlooked because of Sally Field's rather embarassing acceptance speech, it is actually a pretty good flick. Indeed, I thought it would be a rather over-sentimental drama but, eventually, it was actually enjoyable. Of course, the story is nothing really original or mind-blowing, the directing was pretty solid and there was a really good cast (Sally Field, Ed Harris, Amy Madigan, John Malkovich, Danny Glover, Terry O'Quinn). Sally Field actually reminds me of Hilary Swank. Indeed, like Swank, Field was nominated twice at the oscars, won twice and did nothing really amazing before or after. Personally, I do like Hilary Swank but I have to recognize that they both had a rather similar career path. Anyway, did Sally Field deserve her academy award? Her performance was pretty good but not really amazing in my opinion. However, if you look at it, the competition was rather weak for that particular year (Judy Davis in 'A Passage to India', Jessica Lange in 'Country', Vanessa Redgrave in 'The Bostonians', Sissy Spacek in 'The River'). To conclude, even though it is nothing really mind-blowing, it is a decent drama and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like Sally Field.