Reviews by johanlefourbe

Even though this movie did receive some rather weak reviews, I thought I might check it out anyway. To be honest, I have to admit that I wasn’t familiar with this character at all but I thought that it was a perfect fit for Dwayne Johnson, even if Johnson is not Egyptian at all. On top of that, Black Adam is a really cool complex dark character. So, on paper, this movie definitely had some potential. Unfortunately, as pointed out by the reviewers, the damned thing turned out to be so weak after all and, eventually, after ‘Morbius’ also released this year, it turned out to be another adaptation involving an intriguing darker comic-book character which was completely botched. First of all, it has been a while since I have seen Dwayne Johnson deliver such a weak performance. I mean, I never thought he was actually a bad actor but this character was apparently just too subtle for him. Indeed, Black Adam is certainly not a good  guy, at least, that’s how he was originally designed but, since he was also the main character of this movie, he couldn't be completely evil either so what did Johnson do after all? Well, pretty much nothing actually. Indeed, during most scenes, Johnson just stood there showing no emotion whatsoever as if he had no clue how to play this character. Concerning the rest of the characters involved, well, I had never heard of them before but they all seemed to be some rather cheap knock-offs of some similar MCU characters (the fact that DC might have created these characters actually before Marvel is not relevant). Finally, even if it was shorter than most MCU instalments, it still felt too long because the story was just too derivative and simply not entertaining enough. Anyway, to conclude, it was easily one of the most disappointing movies I have seen this year and I think you should probably avoid it, except maybe if you are a die-hard DC fan. 

I wasn’t really sure what to expect from this movie but since it has a strong reputation, I was quite eager to check it out. Well, to be honest, I have to admit that I was slightly worried while watching the 1^st episode. Indeed, even though the girl playing Carmela, apparently a non-professional and illiterate actress, was fine, the actors playing the American soldiers were just really weak. Fortunately, it didn’t bother me much during the rest of the movie which turned out to be really strong after all. Indeed, I really liked the approach chosen by Roberto Rossellini. Basically, instead of a having a main character, a hero, he gave various episodes, each time focusing on different people involved in various situations but it gave a much more accurate depiction on how war actually works. Indeed, war impacts everyone and it’s never really about the acts of one courageous individual. On top of that, it’s interesting that, even though this episodic approach might make the whole thing seem random, it was actually surprisingly effective. Indeed, there was a clever narrative thread as each parts chronologically followed the historical events that took place during the war (the arrival of the Allies in Sicily, how they progressed in the main land through Naples, Rome and Florence and the final battle in the Po delta a few months before the end of the war). It was also impressive that Rossellini managed to deliver this movie only a few years after the war ended, especially since it was quite ambitious with many characters coming from various countries, with many locations and plenty of army gear and equipment involved. Anyway, to conclude, the damned thing was really good, in fact, it is probably one of the best WWII features I have seen in a long time, and it is definitely worth a look. 

Since I heard some pretty good things about this movie, I was quite eager to check it out. Well, even if it was not bad at all, to be honest, it wasn’t really much more than that after all. First of all, the story had some potential but I never thought it was really fascinating and it was only mildly entertaining. Basically, you had this gang of strippers who drugged out their clients to steal their money which was maybe an effective scheme but I never thought it was brilliant whatsoever. The link with the 2007 financial crisis was also tenuous at best. Indeed, at some point,  they tried to make it seem as if they were taking their revenge from all these Wall-Street hotshots who ruined the country, even the whole world. However, their whole business, way before the actual hustling, was thriving because these guys were making tons of money. Back then, they couldn’t care less where this money was coming from and they wouldn’t have minded if these Wall-Street guys kept on going like this forever. At least, there is no doubt that Constance Wu and Jennifer Lopez both delivered some solid performances. I wondered where I saw Wu before and I was really amazed that she was actually the same girl playing the lead in ‘Crazy Rich Asians’. Seriously, what a range! Concerning Jennifer Lopez, well, it was nice to finally see her getting a juicy character and her stripping and pole dancing scenes were just amazing. And yet, even though Wu and Lopez were fine, I was still missing something regarding their respective characters. Indeed, instead of constantly repeating some similar scenes, they could have developed more these two women because you don’t get to really know them after all. In fact, it was even worse with the rest of the star-studded cast (Keke Palmer, Lili Reinhart, Cardi B, Lizzo, Mercedes Ruehl, Julia Stiles) as they were all wasted with some even more poorly developed characters. Anyway, to conclude, I’m rather surprised that this movie received such strong reviews but I have to admit that it was a decent watch and it is indeed worth a look. 

I wasn’t really sure what to expect from this flick but since it has a really solid reputation, I was eager to check it out. Before watching the damned thing, of course, I heard the legends, that it was supposed to be actually at least 4 hours long (there are even rumors of a whopping 8 hours version) so I was expecting to watch a mutilated masterpiece. Well, to be honest, I was really surprised that the movie worked so well in this shorter version and I have my doubts that this longer version would have been such a huge improvement. Eventually, even if I’m in the minority, I do believe that Erich von Stroheim was actually too pride to recognize that the studio’s decision to drastically cut his movie was the right choice. After all, it is this shorter version which has been hailed as one of the best movies ever made, not any other possible version. Anyway, how was the damned thing after all? I have to admit that, with this title and with the starting scenes, I thought it would be dealing with a greedy gold miner, a little bit like in ‘The Treasure of the Sierra Madre’. However, it was after all about an average guy who became a dentist, got married but it was his wife who really got greedy after winning big at the lottery. It was basically an interesting cautionary tale showing how becoming rich can eventually make you completely miserable. The interesting thing was that their situation became really dramatic after he lost his job as a dentist but I wonder why he didn't just simply close shop temporarily, go to a dentist school, get a degree and reopen his practice. Anyway, it was a rather dark tale and, in fact, none of the characters had really some redeeming features. My favorite one was probably McTeague himself, not exactly a hero and even a rather simple man and, yet, Gibson Gowland was still super charismatic playing this part. Anyway, to conclude, even if it was probably not the movie originally intended by Erich von Stroheim, it is still a massive classic and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre. 

To be honest, I wasn’t really sure what to expect from this flick but since a decent cast was involved, I thought I might as well check it out. First of all, it has been a while since I came across such a weird and mysterious title. Concerning the movie itself, sure, it didn’t get much love when it was released but I thought it definitely had some potential though. What I enjoyed the most was the interesting ideas they developed about the relationship between Art, the artists and the art critics. Indeed, if you would believe this movie, art critics have above all an impact on the art business but, actually, not so much on Art itself and I would tend to agree with this assessment. On top of that, the four main characters were all intriguing and the cast was fine as well (Claes Bang, Elizabeth Debicki, Mick Jagger, Donald Sutherland). Finally, it was visually pretty neat and I really enjoyed the mood created by Giuseppe Capotondi. Unfortunately, even if all the right ingredients seemed to be present, the damned thing still didn’t completely work though. Above all, I think it was too short and, as a result, they didn’t have enough time to properly flesh out the characters and the story. I mean, it was rather impressive how much Mick Jagger and Donald Sutherland managed to do when they only had a couple of scenes but it was rather bewildering that there was no scene involving the two characters. On the other hand, even if I won’t blame Elizabeth Debicki who did what she could with the material she was provided, her character turned out to be rather bland simply because there was just no time to do anything else with this woman after all. Concerning the story, well, it did result with some major plots. For example, how come that nobody thought it was odd that, the very same night that Jerome Debney’s studio burnt down, James Figueras and his girlfriend suddenly left the estate? Of course, you could argue that Joseph Cassidy (probably the most satisfying character played by a pitch-perfect Mick Jagger) foresaw that Figueras would do something terribly drastic to achieve his goal and, since it did align with his own objectives, he didn’t interfere. Finally, the ending during which Figueras needed not one but two attempts to kill this poor girl did seem like a waste of running time which could have been spent on something else. Anyway, to conclude, in spite of it flaws, I have to admit that it was still a decent watch and I think it is worth a look. 

I wasn’t really sure what to expect from this flick but  I thought I might as well check it out. Well, being born in France, I was well aware of Marcel Pagnol’s reputation in my home country but, to be honest, I have to admit that I was surprised by how much I enjoyed the damned thing and it is impressive how much Pagnol managed to get from a such simple tale. Indeed, the action takes place roughly over only 2 days and it deals basically with a baker who can’t believe that his wife left him, not much more than that. And, yet, they delivered such a vivid depiction of a village in the South of France back in the 30’s. Within a few mins, it felt like I travelled through time and, as a result, it felt as if I was right there listening to the endless bickering of these villagers. It also touched me personally because I was myself born in a small French village. Sure, it was in the 80’s and in a complete different region but, still, it all felt so familiar. The other masterstroke was also to create such entertaining and complex characters. Sure, you might first laugh at them but, soon, you realize that they are much more than some laughable fools. Even Aimable, the poor baker, I was first thinking that the guy should get a grip over himself and go back to work but, actually, he was right. What was the point of all this if he had lost the only thing he cared for? It might also seem bewildering that he should probably never trust his wife again but he actually choses to and it did display the complexity involved in this movie. Indeed, he could get rid off of his wife and remain the rest of his days all by myself or he could stay with her and become completely paranoid but, instead, he choses to love her anyway after all that happened which was actually rather profound. Eventually, the only downside was that it was probably slightly too long but it was really a minor issue though. Anyway, to conclude, it turned out to be much stronger than I expected and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre. 

I wasn’t really sure what to expect from this flick but since it was directed by John Huston, I thought I might as well check it out. On top of that, I have to admit that I never read the classic written by Herman Melville (I probably should at some point) and it was pretty cool to finally get acquainted with this famous tale. However, to be honest, I actually had some trouble to really care about the damned thing though. I don’t know, maybe Huston’s approach was too straightforward, but, as far as I was concerned, it felt like a rather basic story after all. The funny thing is that I did enjoy Gregory Peck’s performance but, back then, many thought he was actually miscast (in fact, Peck himself seriously disliked his performance in this movie). Maybe it had to with the fact that, except for Ahab, none of the other characters was really interesting and it was mostly because they were all poorly developed. Concerning the action scenes, it must have been a really difficult shoot (in fact John Huston did admit that it was the most difficult movie he ever made) but, for a movie made more than 70 years ago, I thought the end-result was not bad at all. I also wonder if it was an inspiration for Steven Spielberg when he made ‘Jaws’ as he also had so many technical issues with his fake shark. In fact, Spielberg wanted to include a clip of this movie in ‘Jaws’ but Gregory Peck refused because he disliked so much what he did in this movie. Anyway, to conclude, even if I didn’t care much for it, it was still a decent watch and I guess it is worth look but, if you have the choice, you should probably read the book instead.

Since this movie had a really solid reputation (it is included in the ‘1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die’ list among other things), I was quite eager to check it out. Nowadays, they usually adapt the classic Shakespeare plays with a modern setting but I really did appreciate that Laurence Olivier set the story in the 15^th century like it was in Shakespeare’s original work. I was also impressed to discover that it was actually Olivier’s directorial debut as this lavish production was quite ambitious for a first time effort. Still, to be honest, it has been a while since I have seen such a challenging movie though. Indeed, even if I did watch it with some English subtitles, I still struggled with these 2 hours of non-stop vintage Shakespearean dialogues. Furthermore, is it me or was the story actually super simple? In fact, I actually saw [Link removed - login to see]’s version but it was ages ago and I can’t say I remember much about it though. Anyway, it seemed that Henry V, for some rather dubious reasons at least to me, went to France, kicked their ass, and married the daughter of the French king, Charles VI, but I thought it all seemed rather thin for more than 2 hours of running time. Eventually, the whole point was obviously not the plot but the intricate but still marvelous dialogues written by the Bard. On top of that, it was probably the most faithful adaptation of a Shakespeare’s play I have seen so far. Indeed, Olivier went as far as having the first scenes taking place as an actual play in some theater in 1600 and this approach was unexpected but really neat. The rest of the story was then handled in a much more straightforward way but it still worked though. Anyway, to conclude, even if it was a rather tough watch, it still definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

I really had no idea what to expect from this flick but since it was starring Sally Hawkins and Ethan Hawke, I thought I might as well check it out. Well, I have to admit that I had never heard of Maud Lewis before watching this flick and, to be honest, I can’t say I’m a huge fan of this kind of Naïve paintings. However, this movie didn’t really focus on her Art. Indeed, it turned out to be mostly about her relationship with her husband, Everett Lewis, which wasn’t necessarily a bad idea. However, even in this area, this movie never really became fascinating though. I won’t blame Sally Hawkins as she gave here a really strong performance and completely disappeared in this character. On the other hand, I wasn’t so convinced by Ethan Hawke though. Sure, Hawke is a fine actor but, in this case, especially in his first scenes, it felt like he was pretending to be some grumpy guy but I’m afraid it was never really convincing. It’s too bad because the approach did have some potential. Indeed, it was interesting that these two characters ended up together, not because of love, but above all because they had been rejected by pretty much everyone else around them. However, unfortunately, they didn’t really go deep in this direction and, at some point, both Maud and Everett were eventually professing that they couldn’t live without each other which was maybe cute but it was also terribly derivative and hardly interesting. Eventually, they never displayed what was so special about her paintings or what was so special about her relationship with her husband so you might wonder why you should care at all after all. Anyway, to conclude, in spite of its flaws, thanks to a fine performance by Sally Hawkins, I still think it is worth a look though.