Reviews by johanlefourbe

I wasn’t really sure what to expect from this movie but since Roger Ebert really loved it (he even chose it as one of the best movies of 1986), I was really eager to check it out. Eventually, I thought it was pretty good, even though, to be honest, I wasn't as enthousiast as Roger Ebert. Something I quite enjoyed was the fact that Dennis Quaid was trying something else with this flick and he definitely provided a good and refreshing performance. At the time, Ellen Barkin was more of less specialized in this kind of sexy femmes fatales and I thought she had some great chemistry with Dennis Quaid. On top of that, the directing was pretty solid, above all, the mood was very well done and New Orleans was in fact an actual protagonist in this story. Eventually, to be honest, I didn't think the story was really amazing, it was a little bit too pedestrian and predictable for my taste but it was still entertaining enough. To conclude, even though I don’t think it was really a masterpiece, it was still a really solid film noir and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Since it is a rather obscure feature, I wasn’t sure what to expect from this flick but since there was a nice cast, I was quite eager to check it out. Unfortunately, it turned out to be rather disappointing. I mean, sure, there was an interesting cast (Claire Danes, Gabriel Byrne, Lena Olin) and Claire Danes was really charming as usual but it was certainly not enough to save this movie. Eventually, I thought that the directing was rather average and the story was not really entertaining. In my opinion, the biggest mistake they made was to try to create some quirky characters but those characters turned out to be eventually rather obnoxious. Eventually, this movie would be the only directing effort from Theresa Connelly. Apparently, she has a Polish background and she might have thought that she would give a charming portrait of the Polish culture with this movie. Unfortunately, this was pretty much a failure as the Polish (or American Polish) and their supposedly whimsical way of life and thinking either bored or annoyed me. To conclude, even though the whole thing actually had some potential, it was eventually rather underwhelming and I don’t think it is really worth a look.

The other day, I noticed something funny. Indeed, even though I always considered Roger Moore the weakest James Bond, or at least, the least interesting one, I came to realize that I actually didn't really dislike any James Bond installments involving this guy (on the other hand, none of them are among my favorites either). Anyway, coming back to our main feature, to be honest, the best thing about this movie was the title. I’m just kidding, in fact, for a James Bond flick, it was not bad and I thought that it was a decent James Bond flick with the usual tricks and treats. Indeed, there are the usual effects and gimmicks and if you don't expect much before watching it, it is rather entertaining. Back then, Roger Moore was not supposed to come back as James Bond but, the very same year, a competing studio was releasing ‘Never Say Never Again’ starring Sean Connery, the original James Bond performer and they didn’t want to gamble with a new actor so Moore still came back after all. Personally, I preferred ‘Never Say Never Again’ because Sean Connery was just so awesome but their plan did work as ‘Octopussy’ did slightly better at the box-office. Anyway, to conclude, I thought it was a decent installment and it is worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

I wasn’t really sure what to expect from this flick but since there was a pretty cool cast, I was quite eager to check it out. Eventually, there were indeed some good things and some other things which were not so great. The good stuff : the whole thing looked good and I thought it was rather well directed. There was also a nice and competent cast (Michael Douglas, Kiefer Sutherland, Kim Basinger), I especially enjoyed to see Michael Douglas and Kiefer Sutherland together and I thought they made a really interesting duo. Kim Basinger was also a neat choice to play a very charming First Lady. On the other hand, even though it was a nice surprise to see Eva Longoria in a thriller (she just had her breakthrough at the time thanks to ‘Desperate Housewives’), and even though she did her best, I thought that her character was rather poorly developed and I’m not sure if she was really a good choice for this part. On top of that, the story was not really impressive and it was actually rather far-fetched. Still, to conclude, in spite of its flaws, I think it is a rather entertaining thriller and I believe it is worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

I wasn’t really sure what to expect from this flick but since I always had a weak spot for Cate Blanchett, I was really eager to check it out. Cate Blanchett is definitely one of the best actresses at work nowadays and if you're not convinced yet, you should definitely watch this feature. Indeed, she gave a rather impressive performance and she managed to give her character some very interesting layers. Concerning Judi Dench, I wasn’t completely sure, to be honest. I mean, she also delivered a fine performance, no doubt about it and with Blanchett, they provided a very interesting duo on the screen. It’s just that the main character was already going through a lot in this movie and to add this old spinster with some lesbian feelings was a little bit too much to deal with. I mean, you already have to deal with one flawed but very interesting woman so to add another one also with some major issues was maybe too much to handle for a drama like this one. To conclude, in spite of its flaws, it was still a fascinating character study going pretty deep into the human pyschology and I think it is definitely worth a look.

I wasn’t really sure what to expect from this flick but since it has a pretty good reputation, I thought I might as well check it out. To be honest, I have never been a huge fan of Roald Dahl's work and I never really enjoyed the movies adapted from his books. I mean, some of them were pretty good but none of them really blew me away (except 'The Fantastic Mr Fox) and this feature was not an exception. I mean, sure, it's not bad at all and there was indeed an interesting creepy mood, something you wouldn’t expect in a family feature like this one. However, to be honest, I didn't think the story was really entertaining whatsoever and like most of Roald Dahl's stories, I was rather bored during the whole thing. I don’t know, I always had a hard time to connect with his tales but, at least, Nicolas Roeg had an interesting directing style and Angelica Huston was perfectly cast (in fact, Roald Dahl himself was really pleased because she had always been a personal favorite for the role). To conclude, even though I didn’t like it much, it was still an interesting watch and it is worth a look especially if you enjoy Roald Dhal's books more than I do.

Honestly, I’m not really sure how I ended up watching this flick but I think I checked it out because Kenneth Branagh was involved. In fact, Branagh had actually a rather small part and the lead was played by the upcoming young actor Freddie Highmore. Basically, Highmore made this little known movie just between his two breakthrough performances in ‘Finding Neverland’ and ‘Charlie and the Chocolate Factory’. Eventually, even though it was nothing really amazing, I thought it was actually not bad at all and I thought it was fairly enjoyable. In fact, I thought that the concept was actually similar to ‘The Chronicles of Narnia’, it takes place during WWI and some kids are brought to the countryside to be spared from the war and they end up with some fantastic creature. So, obviously, the whole thing was nothing really original and the special effects were honestly rather pathetic but Eddie Izzard gave a very nice performance as the ‘It’ creature and, somehow, it was still a rather decent family feature. To conclude, even though it was not really ground-breaking, I still think it is worth a look, especially if you are looking for something to watch with your young children.

I already saw this movie, I even saw it in the movie theater when it was released but, since it was a while back and since it was available on Disney+, I thought I might as well check it out again. I have to admit it, I never really was a huge fan of Robert Zemeckis’ work but I have to admit that there has always been something intriguing about his movies, at least, some of them. Eventually, from the 3 motion-capture features he had delivered, this one was not as good as ‘Beowulf’ was (it was easily the best of the bunch in my opinion) but it still managed to be better than the creepy ‘The Polar Express’. Anyway, I rather enjoyed this feature after all. Indeed, the animation was quite awesome at the time but, more than 10 years later, it did look terribly dated though. Apparently, I didn’t see it in 3D when it was released and, when I was re-watching it, I actually wished I did because the whole movie was obviously shot to be seen this way.  Concerning the story, it is a classic and it was fairly entertaining but, to be honest, not really much more than that though. Jim Carrey also seemed to have a blast playing Ebenezer Scrooge. Basically, the only real issue I had was the fact that Zemeckis chose not only again another story based on Christmas but also one very old tale which had been told already in so many different versions and, personally, I’m not a huge fan of this classic story. Anyway, since it was already his 3rd underperforming effort using this technology, Robert Zemeckis seems to have dropped this genre (at least for now). To conclude, even though it was nothing really amazing, it was still pretty impressive visually speaking (at least, when it was released) and I think it is worth a look, especially if you are interested in Zemeckis’ work.

At the end of the 70’s, Don Bluth decided to leave Disney and, in the 80’s, he managed to have even more success than his previous employer, especially with ‘An American Tail’. 5 years later, Steven Spielberg decided to produce a sequel but he couldn’t get along this time with Don Bluth, so Bluth was not involved with this sequel and the animation style was distinctly different. On top of that, at the time, Disney was going through one of his greatest reinaissance and this sequel had to compete with ‘Beauty and the Beast’ which was a critical and commercial success so this 2nd installment didn’t get much attention. Eventually, even though it was obviously a step down from the original movie, I thought it was actually still enjoyable. Sure, it might be a little boring for the adults but there is no doubt that it is a nice watch for the kids as they are definitely the target audience here. So, the story was nothing original whatsoever but I thought it was entertaining enough and the animation was pretty good. Anyway, to conclude, in spite of its flaws, I think it is a decent animated feature and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.