Reviews by johanlefourbe

What the hell happened to Neil Marshall?!? Indeed, back in those days, he was one  of the most promising British directors at work and he seemed to have a bright future ahead of him but, nowadays, we don’t hear much from him anymore. It’s too bad because the guy really had some skills and something I really like about his work was the fact that, with each movie, he tried something really different. This time around, he went for a peplum and I must say it, it was definitely his best looking movie so far. Indeed, I really liked the gritty look and you could see that there was no green screens involved which is a seriously overused gimmick nowadays. The fighting scenes were also pretty badass and rather bloody but it was something rather expected from Marshall. Furthemore, Michael Fassbender, Dominic West and Ulrich Thomsen all provided some solid performances, especially Fassbender who was already starting to become one of the most interesting actors around. Still, like most of Marshall's other features, the story was rather underwhelming. I mean, it was not really bad whatsoever, but it was just too pedestrian and it was never really thrilling. Anyway, to conclude, even though  it wasn’t really a great movie,  it was still a decent watch and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you enjoyed Neil Marshall's previous movies.

Nowadays, every time they try to adapt a fantasy novel, the studios involved always hope they will get the next huge franchise like Harry Potter. This, for example, was the first book of a trilogy but I guess we won't see the other books adapted anytime soon, Personally, I would blame Brendan Fraser, but that's me... I mean, the guy is just way too bland to be a lead acto but he still keeps getting starring roles and it just blows my mind. On the other hand, and this was the main reason why I wanted to watch this flick on the first place, there was a really neat supporting cast (Paul Bettany, Helen Mirren, Andy Serkis, Jennifer Connelly, Jim Broadbent) and they all delivered some solid performances. Concerning the story itself, it was at first rather boring and it took really too long to start. But then, finally, when they got to Capricorn's castle, it started to become a little bit more existing and this tale did work quite well then. To conclude, it was a rather standard fantasy feature with nothing really new or original but it was still fairly entertaining so I think it is worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

To be honest, I wasn't expecting much from this flick but since it was starring Bridget Fonda and Kiefer Sutherland, I thought I should give it a try. Well, it bascally started like a rather standard domestic violence related thriller but it got really weird fairly quick. Indeed, you had a deaf woman, her weird crazy mother, two dead bodies, some lost cash and a dog which didn’t add anything to the plot. So, it was definitely a rather strange flick and I have to admit that I was on the edge of my seat during the whole thing wondering what would happen next. Unfortunately, the directing and the acting were just really weak and some of the scenes were rather stupid. I mean, the two (!) scenes during which the main character stole a car were just so ridiculous and there were many more scenes which didn't make much sense either. Still, I couldn't help thinking that a (good) director such as David Lynch could have created a pretty neat dark tale with this material, but it wasn't meant to be, I’m afraid. Anyway, to conclude, even though the damned thing had some potential, it was rather average and, eventually, not really worth a look.

Since I really enjoyed 'Letters to Iwo Jima', I was really eager to watch this flick. Together, they make one of the best depiction of war I have ever seen and it is quite impressive when you think that Clint Eastwood had never made a war movie before. I mean, the battle scenes were really horrific and some of the best I have seen, it almost reached the level of the introduction of 'Saving Private Ryan'. Still, I have to admit that this movie was not as successful as 'Letters to Iwo Jima' was. First of all, in my opinion, the young soldiers were rather miscast, they were either too old (like Ryan Philippe and Paul Walker) or just not good enough (like Jesse Bradford, Adam Beach, Joseph Cross and Scott Eastwood). Furthermore, even though the whole story about the raising of the Flag was interesting, it wasn't really spellbinding, especially compared to the battle itself and I wish they just followed the same story used in  'Letters to Iwo Jima' but dealing with the American side this time around. Eventually, even though 'Letters to Iwo Jima' would be nominated for the Academy Award for the Best Picture, this movie would be ignored but I think it was deserved since it wasn't really amazing. Still, it remains a well made war movie and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Clint Eastwood's work.

To be honest,  it is a really obscure feature (I was in fact the very first Listal member who has rated the damned thing). Indeed, I had never heard about this flick before but since I have a weak spot for Connie Nielsen, I thought I should check it out. Eventually, I must admit that it was not bad at all after all. Basically, it was one of those typical dramas about an orphan looking for a new home. At first, there was some difficulty but then, they just got along fine and at the end, there was of course an obligatory dramatic climax to supposedly keep you on the edge of your seat. You know the drill... So, it was nothing really original and actually quite predictable but I thought it was rather well made and well acted so I must admit that I did care for the characters. Still, why on Earth would they choose a Danish actress to portray an Irish woman ?!? I mean, Connie Nielsen was fine here but there was actually no reason why she should have this part instead of a fine Irish actress. To conclude, all in all, it was a typical drama but I still think it is worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

[Link removed - login to see]For some reasons, I was really eager to watch this movie and it took me about 6 years to finally find it. Indeed, since I have been playing the saxophone alt for maybe 8 years, I obviously really had to check it out. In fact, I did study Charlie Parker's music and it was basically the most difficult thing you could play on a sax. Indeed, even if I would play it 10 times slower than him, it was still really really difficult to handle! Anyway, back to the movie... The music was indeed just awesome and Clint Eastwood really succeeded to show it in all its greatness. Forest Whitaker also gave here his first starring part and he gave many layers to this character. Indeed, you could feel the genius but also all the vulnerability and you also got a good feeling of his demons. Another interesting thing was that, even though Charlie Parker constantly talked about his addiction, you actually never saw him shooting drugs and there was only one scene during which he displayed his tracks on his arm. I think it was actually a very sensitive approach and even though he was a heavy drug addict, it was more interesting to watch him playing his magical music than taking some dope like any other musical biopic. However, even though I really enjoyed this flick, unfortunately, it was still flawed. Indeed, even though the back and forth in the timeline was chosen more or less there to display his confused state of mind, I still thought it was a rather annoying and useless gimmick. Another consequence of this approach was that it was difficult to understand the impact of the other characters in his life. Anyway, in spite of these flaws, it was still a really interesting movie and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Jazz.