Reviews by johanlefourbe

I wasn’t sure what to expect from this flick but I thought the title was pretty badass so I was rather curious about it. Eventually, I must admit I was pleasantly surprised. For a directing debut, I must admit that Mario Van Peebles did a pretty good job. It was also a financial success and became the highest grossing independent feature of 1991 and it also launched the acting career of Ice T (ok, maybe that wasn’t such a good thing but whatever...). Anyway, I thought it was a really solid gangster feature. It might not be really original but I liked how relentless, dark and violent the whole thing was. Of course, I have no idea if it was realistic or not but it felt pretty genuine. There was also a very solid cast (Wesley Snipes, Ice-T, Chris Rock, Mario Van Peebles, Michael Michele, Judd Nelson, Vanessa Williams) with a badass Wesley Snipes. It was also impressive to see Chris Rock giving a very convincing performance as a crack addict. It is actually too bad that he nowadays only shows up in comedies when he is actually quite talented. To conclude, I thought it was a good gangster flick, one of the best in its genre actually , and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like this kind of movies.

Even though it was a huge flop, I was still curious about this flick. Unfortunately, I must admit it, it was indeed pretty bad, as a matter of fact, it was even worse than I expected. I mean, even though ‘Dances with Wolves’ was a decent movie, I never thought it was really amazing and I was never convinced by Kevin Costner’s directing skills. This movie made it clear I was right. I mean, it is very very long, it even takes Costner 1 hour to finally became the famous ‘Postman’…. Furthermore, I always had a weak spot for post-apocalyptic features but this one must be the least convincing one I have ever seen. I mean, there wasn’t a single moment when I believed in the time and place portrayed. Even though it was supposed to take place in the future, it looked more like a Western, but not a good one. The tonality was also all over the place. I mean, Costner took the same approach as for ‘Dances with Wolves’, in the sense, that you had the good guys on one side and the bad guys on the other, but even though it was not brilliant in ‘Dances…’, it did work, but here, with this genre, it required a much more subtle approach, at least, that’s my opinion. I could point out many other odd things like how the Postman gave guns to some children who just butcher their opponent or how he makes a woman pregnant and, conveniently, her husband gets killed by the bad guys later on. Awkward, awkward,… and it goes on and on like this for 3 hours. Basically, it is a terrible mess and I’m not surprised it was such a flop. Fortunately, Kevin Costner would redeem himself as a director with ‘Open Range’ which turned out to be his best directing effort and is criminally underrated and barely seen. To conclude, this movie was pretty bad, ‘Dances with Wolves’ seems indeed like a masterpiece compared to it, and it is definitely not worth a look.

What a blast! Unlike most of the viewers, I made sure I watched every single Star Trek movies before watching this reboot (I know, I'm a very obsessive person...). To be honest, before watching this, I was actually a little bit worried that this approach would ruin this viewing for me but it was just the opposite. Indeed, if you are familiar with this franchise and those characters, I'm pretty sure it is actually even more enjoyable. I mean, I thought it was mind-blowing to see how much effort they took to create such recognizable and believable younger version of those beloved characters. Furthermore, one thing I really dreaded while watching those Star Trek movies is how really cheesy the whole thing looked, even the installments made in the 90's. Not this time though. Indeed, J.J. Abrams had a huge budget and it clearly shows on the screen and, as a result, there were some massive action scenes and the special effects were finally really neat. Still, was it really such a masterpiece like many pretend it to be? I mean, the story was definitely fun and entertaining but, like all the other Star Trek movies, it was also terribly convoluted and many things barely made sense (the time-travelling, the black holes, the way Kirk ends up being Captain,...). Is it the best Star Trek movie ever made? Yeah, definitely. Is it really such a masterpiece? No way... Still, I had a really good time watching this, it was the perfect way to end up this journey through the Star Trek legacy (I will definitely watch the next installment coming up in 2013) and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Since I'm a huge fan of 'The Nightmare before Christmas', I definitely had high expectations for this one and I was really eager to check it out. Eventually, I thought it was pretty good but I'm afraid it was still nothing amazing. I mean, the whole thing did look gorgeous, absolutely, but I thought that the story was nothing really spellbinding. I mean, I loved the story in 'The Nightmare before Christmas', I thought it was really spellbinding, and the characteres were really fun and interesting, whereas, this time, I didn't care much about the plot or the characters involved. Basically, it was entertaining enough but it felt really just like any other standard Burton story, and I was missing something and expecting more from it. Still, it remains a gorgeous stop-motion feature and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre or if you are interested in Tim Burton's work.

To be honest, I wasn’t sure what to expect from this flick but since it is a huge classic (at least, in France), I was really eager to check it out. This movie features a (very) young Catherine Deneuve and her less famous sister, Francoise Dorleac. Dorleac also had a promising career, she even worked with Roman Polanski in ‘Cul-de-sac’ and Francois Truffaut in ‘La Peau douce’. Unfortunately, she tragically died in a car accident at 25 years old. Anyway, I thought it was pretty awesome to see Catherine Deneuve at such a young age. Indeed, she is a terrific actress and she was already awesome back then, the more movies I watch with her, the more she fascinates me. But what about the movie itself ? Well, it was pretty good, with some nice songs but, to be honest, it was obviously not my thing. I mean, there was barely any plot and, as usual with musicals, the whole thing turned out to be terribly fluffy. I know, it is supposed to be that way but I always find it rather tedious. Still, it is a fun and very well made musical and  Deneuve and her sister were terribly charming, and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Larry Clark is not really a famous director here in Listal but I find his work as a director really interesting. Originally, he was an acclaimed photographer and directors such as Gus Van Sant and Martin Scorsese have stated that they were influenced by Clark's early photography. I must admit that I didn’t like much his directing debut, ‘Kids’ though. I mean, it was a very interesting flick, no doubt, but it was too much focused on being controversial and the characters portrayed were borderline caricatural. Eventually, it took me many years to see his following directing effort. Like ‘Kids’, I thought it was not bad but still nothing mind-blowing though. Even though it is still pretty dark and gloomy, compared to his other movies (‘Kids’, ‘Bully’, ‘Ken Park’), it is actually his most conventional movie so far and maybe that’s why I was a little bit disappointed. I mean, it is not bad at all but it remains a rather standard drug related feature. Still, like most of the movies made by Larry Clark, I really liked the dark tone and James Woods was just awesome as usual. To conclude, like ‘Kids’, even though it is not really satisfying, it is still worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Finally… I’m almost there… Indeed, I spent a good chunk of this year watching everything single Star Trek movie. Anyway, since this movie was a flop and some of my dearest Listal friends told me not to watch it, I wasn’t expecting much from it, but honestly, I don’t think it was so bad at all. One thing that really bothered me with those Star Trek flicks is that they all looked terribly cheesy, even the movies made in the 90’s (the only exception was ‘Star Trek: First Contact’). This movie was no different, I’m afraid. It started with an awesome view of Romulus but that was it and we were back into cheesy SF… Still, even though the story was as usual rather convoluted and under-written, there were many things I enjoyed. I mean, the confrontation between Jean-Luc Picard and his evil clone was pretty neat and it featured a solid performance by a very young Tom Hardy (yeah, the same guy that made his breakthrough 10 years later with ‘Inception’ and ‘The Dark Knight Rises’). I also liked the scene where Picard decides to get a full frontal collision with another spaceship , even though the outcome was honestly rather pointless. To conclude, even though it is far from being one of the best Star Trek vehicles, I found it was not one of the worst either and it is actually worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Since I kept hearing good things about this flick, I really wanted to check it out. Eventually, I thought it was pretty good. Indeed, I have never been a fan of all those dreary dull sugarcoated Christmas features and it was nice to see a movie which chose to show the other side of this jolly celebration. Furthermore, I really enjoyed 'Ghost World', Terry Zwigoff's directing debut, and I thought he was a good choice to direct this flick. And of course, Billy Bob Thornton was pretty awesome. He has always been pretty underrated and unnoticed by the mainstream audience (his two minutes of fame were when he was Angelina Jolie's husband for a few years...). Unfortunately, because this movie was a success and because Thornton was so good in it, he is now kind of stuck in this mode and keeps getting typecast in similar parts ('Bad News Bears', 'School for Scoundrels', 'Mr. Woodcock',...) and that's a real shame because he is a talented actor and shouldn't be limited to this. Furthermore, even though the whole thing was pretty neat, with a nice sarcastic tone, I thought they unfortunately went soft towards the end and I think they should have gone all the way in the nastyness. Still, for a commercial feature, I thought it was pretty good, I enjoyed it 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 thought I might as well check it out again. After watching every single movie directed by Roman Polanski, except for this one, of course, I really had to watch this really bad and it took me many years to finally get my hands on the damned thing. Obviously, it is one of his most obscure movies and it was a flop when it was released but I can't say it was surprising. Indeed, it was basically some kind of very dark and twisted comedy and it is pretty obvious the mainstream audience wouldn't care for something like this. Honestly, even though I thought it was not bad, I must admit it was a really chaotic and also a rather misogynist movie. Indeed, the main character is a cute but completely clueless American girl who spends the whole movie half naked (first the top and then the bottom). In true Polanski fashion, the movie starts up with a failed rape attempt on this girl and right from the start, you never sure if you should laugh or feel embarrassed. The rest of the movie was basically a succession of encounters with some weird characters and I'm afraid the whole thing didn't make much sense. At least, Sydne Rome was really gorgeous and, if only to see her in her full glory, it is actually worth watching the damned thing. Anyway, to conclude, even though it is obviously a minor effort for Roman Polanski, I thought it was still a decent watch and it is worth a look but only if you are really interested in Polanski's work.

Since I am a fan of Naomi Watts and even more of Sean Penn, I definitely had to watch this flick. Apparently, it was a flop when it was released but I thought it was actually pretty good. Indeed, it is a realistic thriller-drama which deals with spies and politics and I thought the whole thing was actually quite fascinating. At first, it reminded me of 'Green Zone' another movie dealing with the fact that the USA went to war for some phony reasons. However, this flick went further than this and it developed some interesting themes such as patriotism, loyalty (to your country but also to your husband/wife) and truth. I almost gave it a higher rating but the whole thing was still not really satisfactory partly because it was too short (about 95 minutes) to really develop such interesting ideas but above all because it was really too much biased. Indeed, Plame and Wilson were only portrayed as poor victims and I thought a more balanced approach would have been more interesting. Still, it remains a fascinating story, with some very good acting and some solid directing by Doug Liman. To conclude, even though it didn't really reach its full potential, I really liked it and I think it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.