Reviews by johanlefourbe

Honestly, I wasn't expecting much from this flick but since my step-son was fond of the cartoon which was broadcasted on TV at the time, I thought we could give it a try. Back in those days, there was not much else to rent at the DVD shop (which has by now closed down ages ago), so we ended up watching this flick. Eventually, I have to admit it, I was actually rather positively surprised. I don't think I ever really paid attention to the TV show but this full length adaptation was quite gorgeous which was something you wouldn't expect from an European production (It might even be a French production but I'm not completely sure). So, it was really beautifully made which made the whole thing quite intriguing but, unfortunately, the story was quite weak and uninteresting and, therefore, I didn't care much for the whole thing and what was going on. It was pretty obvious that the makers were targeting a (very) young audience so there wasn't much to enjoy for the rest of us . Still, in spite of these flaws, it remains a visually intriguing animated feature and I think it is worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Actually, I still have to see 'Flags of our fathers', but I was quite lucky to catch this one already. First of all, it was quite interesting that this movie was Clint Eastwood's actual first 'attempt' to make a war drama but, eventually, you could say that he was quite successful, once again. Indeed, the movie looked great, the story was completely spellbinding and I loved the fact that it was focusing on the 'bad guys' for once, and, in the process, they gave the enemy a human face, a voice and some emotions. I really wonder what the Japanese audience made of this movie, maybe I should check it out some day. Eventually, this flick was praised while 'Flags of our fathers' was deemed rather disappointing. Indeed, this movie was eventually nominated for an Academy Award for Best Picture and this time, Eastwood lost against Scorsese when 3 years before, it was actually the over way around, when Eastwood won with 'Million Dollar Baby' and Scorsese lost with 'The Aviator'. Anyway, I think it is absolutely a great achievement, a very good war flick and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Clint Eastwood's work.

Honestly, I wasn’t sure what to expect from this flick but since I have a weak spot for Drew Barrymore, I thought I should check it out. As you may already know, it is basically a live version of the ever popular fairy tale and I thought it was not bad. It was rather unexpected to see Drew Barrymore in a fairy tale like this one and she was a rather unexpected choice but she was actually pretty good. Anjelica Huston is always dependable when playing the bad guy and she was also pretty good in this. It was also pretty nice to see Jeanne Moreau, the French icon, in an American production like this one. Furthermore, the movie looked quite awesome with some nice sets and costumes. However, somehow, it didn’t really blow me away though. Indeed, I felt a little bit underwhelmed by the story as they didn't add anything new to it or they didn't try to give it a new direction. That’s the problem with this kind of adaptations, you are so familiar with the original tale, if they are too faithful, it becomes rather boring. Still, even though it wasn’t nothing really amazing, it still remain an interesting adaptation and it is worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Since there was Salma Hayek and Colin Farrell together in this flick, I thought it should be interesting and I was really eager to check it out. Unfortunately, in spite its potential, I thought it was seriously a huge disappointment. I mean, the whole thing looked pretty good, the movie was well shot, there was a nice mood but, somehow, it was terribly underwhelming. Above all, I thought the whole thing was just poorly written with a really annoying voice over. Basically, it is obvious that they wanted to create a film noir atmosphere which seemed to be a good idea but the end-result was a failure, at least, that’s my opinion. Honestly, I really had a hard time to care about the story which was terribly pedestrian and the characters involved who were terribly bland. It's too bad because the material was pretty good and the whole thing really had some potential but it just didn't work out. I guess, you get to see Salma Hayek naked (she must have been relieved that almost no one saw this flick) but I’m not sure you should see this movie just for this reason. To conclude, it is not really a bad movie but it was still very average and I don’t think it is really worth a look, even if you are a fan of this genre.

Honestly, I had no idea what to expect from this flick but since I’m a huge fan of Cate Blanchett, I thought I should check it out. Indeed, I think Cate Blanchett is an amazing actress and I would watch anything she's in it. Basically, this time, it was a small Australian drug drama which is rather unknown, probably one of her more obscure features and I think it is actually quite underrated in my opinion or maybe it is just an unknown. Alright, I have to admit it, the story was actually rather standard but I thought it was interesting enough. Furthermore, Blanchett but also Sam Neill and Hugo Weaving all delivered some amazing performances here. On a side note, it was also rather surprising to see Dustin Nguyen (yeah, one of the guys from ‘ 21 Jump Street’, a TV show I used to watch when I was a teenager). It must have been ages since I saw this actor in anything and I didn’t expect to see him in some gritty drug drama like this one but he actually did a decent job. To conclude, even though it is nothing really amazing, in my opinion, it remains a well made drama and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Cate Blanchett's work.

I think that John Waters is a very interesting director and it is the reason why I wanted to watch this flick and, as a matter of fact, I wanted to see this movie for many years already. Still, honestly, when was the last time John Waters has actually directed a good movie? Not so long ago, I also saw his last movie, ‘A Dirty Shame’, and the whole thing was seriously quite pathetic. Anyway, coming back to our main feature, it wasn’t really good either. I mean, the premise was actually not bad and quite promising and Christina Ricci delivered a very good performance as usual. Unfortunately, the whole thing was still rather underwhelming. I mean, like I said before, the plot was at first intriguing but it didn't really go anywhere and, in my opinion, the whole thing was actually rather pointless. On top of that, the lead character was not really interesting and he was rather a wimp, in my opinion. To conclude, this flick definitely had some potential, it was not bad at all but it could have been way better than this but still, it is worth a look, especially if you are interested in John Waters' work.

Honestly, I wasn’t sure what to expect from this flick but since it was rather well received, I thought I should check it out. First of all, I haven't seen the original version so I can't compare both movies. And, to be honest, I'm not a big fan of musicals in generals so I didn't have high expectations for this flick but since there was a rather impressive cast (John Travolta, Michelle Pfeiffer, Christopher Walken, Amanda Bynes, James Marsden, Queen Latifah, Brittany Snow, Zac Efron), I seemed quite interesting. Eventually, I have to admit it, it was not bad at all. Indeed, all the actors involved gave some solid performances (especially the awesome Christopher Walken, this guy could do anything and he is seriously underrated in my opinion) and the songs were alright. Still, I didn't care much about the plot and I find it quite amusing when I hear people saying that it is a deep movie with a message (come on, it is a musical, not 'The Schindler's list'...). After watching this flick, I became really curious about the original version directed by John Waters. To conclude, it is nothing ground-breaking whatsoever but it is still rather entertaining and I think it is worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Even though I’m a huge movie buff and I think that my knowledge of movies is right now pretty extensive, I still have to see the real ‘King Kong’, the original classic but, in the mean time, I managed to see this second version. As a matter of fact, I also re-watched Peter Jackson’s version recently and even though it was a decent flick, rather impressive visually speaking, it was still rather flawed and seriously overlong. Anyway, coming back to the 1976 version, honestly, I think it could have been worse and I was expecting worse but it was actually watchable. Indeed, first of all, I thought Jessica Lange provided a good performance and she was definitely the most positive aspect of this picture. It must have been quite difficult to start her career with such a huge production which turned out to be disappointing, at least, from a critical point of view. A part from that, it is actually quite similar to all the remakes that come out nowadays, in the sense that it has completely no soul, it doesn't add anything to the legacy of its illustrious predecessor and it was solely made to generate a lot of money. To conclude, I have to admit it, it is not really a bad movie but it is still very average and not really worth a look in my opinion.

Honestly, I don't know why exactly but I was really eager to watch this flick. In fact, it is actually a pretty obscure feature but I thought it was pretty good. Indeed, you can definitely feel Tarantino's influence all over it but it didn't bother me though. To be honest, I never really cared much for Thomas Jane and this movie was not different but I thought he was alright. Personally, I especially enjoyed Aaron Eckhart who was quite awesome, as usual. In my opinion, Aaron Eckhart is a fine actor and actually one of the most underrated actors of his generation and it was pretty nice to see him in one of his first acting parts. The rest of the cast (Paulina Porizkova, James Le Gros, Glenn Plummer, Mickey Rourke, Gary Dourdan) was also pretty neat. Of course, I have to admit it though, the plot was rather far-fetched but I thought it was well written and quite entertaining. Eventually, this movie would be Skip Woods only directing credit and he has been mostly written screenplays throughout his career. To conclude, it is actually nothing really original or mind-blowing but I still think it is an enjoyable movie and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Since I kept hearing good things about this flick, I was really eager to check it out. I mean, come on, the whole thing really looked awesome and, in my book, a movie starring Sean Connery and Michael Caine in all their glory, it doesn’t really get better than that... So, it really sounded like heaven to me and, boy, I wasn't disappointed. Indeed, they were both rather awesome and I just loved this adventure flick. It is a rather typical adventure flick featuring 2 rogue soldiers both terribly witty, arrogant and quite charismatic. Of course, you could argue that there was not much depth in this tale but, I thought that the plot was actually really intriguing and just plain entertaining. Not surprisingly, it is Sean Connery’s favorite role and it must be one of the best movies directed by John Huston. Apparently, it took Huston more than 20 years to finally get this movie done and at first he wanted to make it with Clark Gable and Humphrey Bogart, then with Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas, then with Richard Burton and Peter O'Toole and even with Robert Redford and Paul Newman at some point but Newman himself advised him British actors should play the roles. To conclude, I think it is a great adventure flick directed by the great John Huston, it completely deserves its reputation and it is most definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.