What. The... Huh?!
Lost in translation in more than one way. (Although, did he actually manage to shoot his part for the commercial or did he never get it right?)
Film The Redcafe Movie review thread
- Thread starter golden_blunder
- Start date
What. The... Huh?!
Lost in translation in more than one way. (Although, did he actually manage to shoot his part for the commercial or did he never get it right?)
I watched Funny People tonight on Netflix. A typical Judd Apetow movie: it kinda works, but cinematographically there's nothing to see, and I'm not really into the sex & genitals jokes. Overall, it's another decent watch though, even if 2.5h is really pushing it for the material. I think the film just takes too long to hone in on its actual story; you'd never guess it ends with the big scene with his ex and her husband based on the first bit of the movie. In any case, it's a safe bet if you like similar movies and don't mind Rogen and Sandler doing their usual characters.
Just give them all the Cannes Lions now.
Surely you mean the tapes which Costello (Nicholson) left to Costigan (Di Caprio) as he trusted him more than anyone (suprisingly) to which Costigan handed them to the therapist in case anything happened to him. Costello was an FBI informant so he was recording everything which is what the therapist was listening to before she confronted Sullivan (Matt Damon)
Halloween (1978)
Meh... Fun to see how much from the movie that has been parodied since then. The acting is terrible, though
Meh... Fun to see how much from the movie that has been parodied since then. The acting is terrible, though
That tape she listened to came in the mail. Costigan sent it to Sullivan to let him know he was done. When did Costello give tapes to Costigan? I missed that bit.
I watched They Shall Not Grow Old, Peter Jackson's 2018 documentary about how it was to be an English soldier in World War 1. Not a film, obviously, but I thought it could go here anyway. Fascinating, immersive, and horrifying. It does many things very well, but two things stand out to me.
First, this is not about the war as a whole, or events, or history; it's about how English soldiers experienced it. Therefore, the film is entirely 'told' through quotes from people reflecting on their part in the war. No texts explaining things, no voice-over providing context; just those people in their old age talking about why they signed up, what their days were like, how they lived their lives in the trenches, how the fighting went, and so on - from the declaration of war to their attempts to figure out their lives once they got back home afterwards.
Second, they restored old footage, increasing its resolution, getting the tempo right, and, most importantly adding colour. It's much like the videos discussed in this thread. To me, that's amazing. Many of these films, and that sort of time period in general, I only know through grainy black and white footage (or photos) that's running too fast - and that actually determines my impression of the time. Seeing this same footage restored like this makes it much more real and impactful to me. It's great technology that I am highly appreciative of.
Back to the film's contents - this is not for the faint-hearted or romanticists. Apart from moments of laughter, and the more peaceful beginning and end, it's stark, bleak, unpleasant; in a word: realistic. It's interesting also as you get an insight into what wars used to be like. Well, I suppose WWI was tactically situated a little between what warfare became in the 20th century and what it had been for many centuries beforehand (often entire armies simply marching/running into each other). Apart from D-Day, I don't think there have been many occasions afterwards where entire companies of soldiers were simply sent forward straight into gunfire for the faint hope to maybe make it through and gain a few hundred meters. And I'd never gained this kind of insights into what going to the toilet (what toilet!) was like...
It's thought-provoking also in that sense. WWI was in some ways just a continuation of a centuries-old tradition of regular wars around Europe, often without much purpose behind it (by modern standards, anyway). So all this sacrifice and bloodshed - for what...?!?! Bizarre also that Canada, Australia, and New Zealand (if I'm not mistaken) get part of their national identity/pride out of many of their young men having been sent into this particular war by their colonial overlords to serve as cannon fodder on the front lines.
Anyway, I'm digressing, and a historian of WWI would probably have various issues with all that. But all those things crossed my mind, and together with everything else I said, I thought this was great. I highly recommend it if you're interested in the subject in any kind of way.
First, this is not about the war as a whole, or events, or history; it's about how English soldiers experienced it. Therefore, the film is entirely 'told' through quotes from people reflecting on their part in the war. No texts explaining things, no voice-over providing context; just those people in their old age talking about why they signed up, what their days were like, how they lived their lives in the trenches, how the fighting went, and so on - from the declaration of war to their attempts to figure out their lives once they got back home afterwards.
Second, they restored old footage, increasing its resolution, getting the tempo right, and, most importantly adding colour. It's much like the videos discussed in this thread. To me, that's amazing. Many of these films, and that sort of time period in general, I only know through grainy black and white footage (or photos) that's running too fast - and that actually determines my impression of the time. Seeing this same footage restored like this makes it much more real and impactful to me. It's great technology that I am highly appreciative of.
Back to the film's contents - this is not for the faint-hearted or romanticists. Apart from moments of laughter, and the more peaceful beginning and end, it's stark, bleak, unpleasant; in a word: realistic. It's interesting also as you get an insight into what wars used to be like. Well, I suppose WWI was tactically situated a little between what warfare became in the 20th century and what it had been for many centuries beforehand (often entire armies simply marching/running into each other). Apart from D-Day, I don't think there have been many occasions afterwards where entire companies of soldiers were simply sent forward straight into gunfire for the faint hope to maybe make it through and gain a few hundred meters. And I'd never gained this kind of insights into what going to the toilet (what toilet!) was like...
It's thought-provoking also in that sense. WWI was in some ways just a continuation of a centuries-old tradition of regular wars around Europe, often without much purpose behind it (by modern standards, anyway). So all this sacrifice and bloodshed - for what...?!?! Bizarre also that Canada, Australia, and New Zealand (if I'm not mistaken) get part of their national identity/pride out of many of their young men having been sent into this particular war by their colonial overlords to serve as cannon fodder on the front lines.
Anyway, I'm digressing, and a historian of WWI would probably have various issues with all that. But all those things crossed my mind, and together with everything else I said, I thought this was great. I highly recommend it if you're interested in the subject in any kind of way.
I couldn't look past some of the acts of historical desecration in They Shall Not Grow Old , like putting voice overs on dead people.
Not sure I'm following. When they do that? At no point did I have the impression that the person talking was supposed to be the person we were seeing. To my mind, they were just showing videos and photos of events related to the subject the 'narrators' were talking about at that point.
I watched Filmworker, a doc about Leon Vitali's career as Kubrick's errand boy. A good portrait of the unsung hero of the Kubrick oeuvre, plus the usual smattering of quirky Stanley stories. If you've ever dealt with the fam, or have an interest in the Kubricks then it's not going to illuminate much and if you're not interested you probably aren't watching anyway. But it's fun and Vitali seems a decent guy. It inspired me to go back and watch a few of the films:
First time watching The Shinning yank cut. The additional scenes waffles on and on. They're everything that's bad about modern film and TV. This idea that quantity is a seal of quality, that lore, context and exposition are necessary content, that fan theories and Tvtropes and timelines are artistic engagement. And you are stupid but I am smart. The central tale still holds up, the scenes still impact and the craftsmanship is still evident. The overhead matte of the maze remains one of the most amazing shots in cinema. Credit to the editing job done to extricate the International cut from this level of bloat.
It feels like there's a clear line between Hitchcock, Kubrick and Lynch: masters of form that deploy meticulous technique to lowly horror fare and tap into that uncanny. Any old hack can manufacture 'creepy' but to really mine that Freudian repulsiveness you need someone capable of rendering formal imagery.
Then I watched Barry Lyndon again, which is good with lots of good in it but I'm so over the Picaresque, the voice-over, the immaculate and incessant attention to music; lighting; focus, the entire fecking indulgence. If I had to sit through any more of those smeary images I might have vomited.
The more decrepit I get the more I like the Kubrick ones that you're not supposed to, like The Shining and Full Metal Jacket and the less patience I have with the Barry Lyndons and 2001. Kubrick is great but not god.
First time watching The Shinning yank cut. The additional scenes waffles on and on. They're everything that's bad about modern film and TV. This idea that quantity is a seal of quality, that lore, context and exposition are necessary content, that fan theories and Tvtropes and timelines are artistic engagement. And you are stupid but I am smart. The central tale still holds up, the scenes still impact and the craftsmanship is still evident. The overhead matte of the maze remains one of the most amazing shots in cinema. Credit to the editing job done to extricate the International cut from this level of bloat.
It feels like there's a clear line between Hitchcock, Kubrick and Lynch: masters of form that deploy meticulous technique to lowly horror fare and tap into that uncanny. Any old hack can manufacture 'creepy' but to really mine that Freudian repulsiveness you need someone capable of rendering formal imagery.
Then I watched Barry Lyndon again, which is good with lots of good in it but I'm so over the Picaresque, the voice-over, the immaculate and incessant attention to music; lighting; focus, the entire fecking indulgence. If I had to sit through any more of those smeary images I might have vomited.
The more decrepit I get the more I like the Kubrick ones that you're not supposed to, like The Shining and Full Metal Jacket and the less patience I have with the Barry Lyndons and 2001. Kubrick is great but not god.
Greenbook
Absolutely brilliant road movie / buddy movie starring Viggo Mortensen and Mahershala Ali. Both actors putting in fantastic performances in a movie depicting attitudes towards race and discrimination in the Deep South. There’s a few cliched moments here and there but they don’t detract from what is a really enjoyable and easily watchable film with a great crowd pleasing ending. Based on a true story to boot. Will make you laugh and cry.
9/10
Absolutely brilliant road movie / buddy movie starring Viggo Mortensen and Mahershala Ali. Both actors putting in fantastic performances in a movie depicting attitudes towards race and discrimination in the Deep South. There’s a few cliched moments here and there but they don’t detract from what is a really enjoyable and easily watchable film with a great crowd pleasing ending. Based on a true story to boot. Will make you laugh and cry.
9/10
Ah Green Book, a film where the uneducated white man teaches the educated black man how to be around a load of racist white men and eat chicken so that white men can watch it and feel good about themselves. Truly a wonder.
Costigan explained to Sullivan that Costello’s lawyer gave them to him and Costigan gave them to her in case anything happened to him etc etc as he was going to arrest Sullivan (which she didn’t know)
The envelope in the post I think was Costigan’s story and proof of who he was and maybe to contact Dignam but I don’t think it was explained.
Last edited:
You didn't enjoy it? And your post has somehow made me feel I shouldn't have enjoyed it but I did.
Great film though and I am going to watch it again this week.
I'm only kidding. It was a fun enough film but the racial themes in it were horribly midguided.The Last Dragon 10/10
Cheesy over the top 80s martial arts romp. Watched it last night for the first time in over a decade and loved every minute. I think watching Cobra Kai awakened my love of 80s martial arts films. Give it a go.
Cheesy over the top 80s martial arts romp. Watched it last night for the first time in over a decade and loved every minute. I think watching Cobra Kai awakened my love of 80s martial arts films. Give it a go.
Massively influential but yeah it's not very scary.Halloween (1978)
Meh... Fun to see how much from the movie that has been parodied since then. The acting is terrible, though
Scared the shit out of me still can’t watch it to this day.
Phew! I wondered if I needed some self analysis! Yes, it was definitely 'clumsy' shall we say at times ... enjoyable though! Both lead actors were superb!
I was the same with the awful 90's remake of Night Of The Living Dead for years. Watched it as 10 year old and was terrified, didn't go to film for a long time.
Tbh to Halloween the side walks scene are still quite creepy.
Yeah and the way he disappeared at the end, he’s under your bed
Acting, editing, directing... Nothing is really wrong with the film, except the fact it's a film about racism to make white people feel good about racism. And therefore has some fundamental issues that make it hard to focus mainly on the superb performances by the 2 leads or the enjoyable overall rhythm of the film. It's probably one of the most problematic films of its ilk given that overall it seems to be very good.
No, I get the whole white saviour thing, and I’m not sure the film made me feel good about racism but at its heart I saw a buddy movie where two men from different backgrounds learned about each other and themselves. I enjoyed it even with its inherent clumsiness.
Palmer (2021) - 7.5/10
JT's maybe just a smidgen short of being surly enough, and there are times where you wish for a little bit extra substance to really bite into and chew on, but otherwise, it delivers exactly what it says on the box. +0.5 for the child actor and Juno Temple's performance as a meth addict mom.
JT's maybe just a smidgen short of being surly enough, and there are times where you wish for a little bit extra substance to really bite into and chew on, but otherwise, it delivers exactly what it says on the box. +0.5 for the child actor and Juno Temple's performance as a meth addict mom.
Synchronic
Two New Orleans paramedics' lives are ripped apart after they encounter a series of horrific deaths linked to a designer drug with bizarre, otherworldly effects.
Its not a classic and some plot holes, but all in all very watchable, the acting was decent, story was OK.
6.5/10
Two New Orleans paramedics' lives are ripped apart after they encounter a series of horrific deaths linked to a designer drug with bizarre, otherworldly effects.
Its not a classic and some plot holes, but all in all very watchable, the acting was decent, story was OK.
6.5/10
That the new Benson & Moorhead film? Enjoyed their previous stuff will definitely give this a go
Yes it is , it is a weird film, about a drug that lets you travel in time, I kid you not.
I enjoyed it.
Yeah, same here, looking forward to it.
Yeah sounds about right, they love weird shit.
Ocean Waves (1993) - 3/10
I think this was the only Studio Ghibli movie I had never seen until now and quite frankly it should've stayed that way. Not only is it by far the worst Studio Ghibli movie (yes, worse than Tales from Earthsea), it's also one of the most pointless movies I've ever seen. Almost all of the characters are unlikable and experience no development whatsoever, until the movie sort of tells us that they've grown as people in the end. The viewer wasn't shown any of this growth though. It's disappointing because the tone and slice-of-life approach initially made my think of Only Yesteray, which is one of my favourite Ghibli movies. There's just nothing of substance here. At least I liked the art style.
I think this was the only Studio Ghibli movie I had never seen until now and quite frankly it should've stayed that way. Not only is it by far the worst Studio Ghibli movie (yes, worse than Tales from Earthsea), it's also one of the most pointless movies I've ever seen. Almost all of the characters are unlikable and experience no development whatsoever, until the movie sort of tells us that they've grown as people in the end. The viewer wasn't shown any of this growth though. It's disappointing because the tone and slice-of-life approach initially made my think of Only Yesteray, which is one of my favourite Ghibli movies. There's just nothing of substance here. At least I liked the art style.
I watched First Man tonight (Netflix), the 2018 movie by Damien Chazelle on Neil Armstrong, covering the period of 1961 until his moon landing in 1969.
It's interesting from a historical perspective, but I thought a little flawed as a movie. The flying is depicted in very strong shots, but most of the rest is a little problematic. The cinematography seems very hasty (including lots of unnecessarily shaky hand-held shots), while the story progresses both too slowly (too many asides and thingies) and too quickly (important things skipped through too quickly or simply forgotten). It's a bit like The Irishman to me: either properly work out all the themes so that they can really develop themselves and make this into a short series; or do some cutting and make a more focused film that does one thing very well. (In this case, I think the former is more justified; although the theme of Armstrong's emotional life and its outcome on the moon actually appears to be made up for the film. Sigh.)
I don't think it's a bad film, don't get me wrong; and I'd definitely recommend it if you're into the subject at all. A lot of effort has been put into making the flight experience realistic, and they did a great job on that - making clear how precarious it all was. It's just that, to me, as a whole it's not the film it's been said to be.
It's interesting from a historical perspective, but I thought a little flawed as a movie. The flying is depicted in very strong shots, but most of the rest is a little problematic. The cinematography seems very hasty (including lots of unnecessarily shaky hand-held shots), while the story progresses both too slowly (too many asides and thingies) and too quickly (important things skipped through too quickly or simply forgotten). It's a bit like The Irishman to me: either properly work out all the themes so that they can really develop themselves and make this into a short series; or do some cutting and make a more focused film that does one thing very well. (In this case, I think the former is more justified; although the theme of Armstrong's emotional life and its outcome on the moon actually appears to be made up for the film. Sigh.)
I don't think it's a bad film, don't get me wrong; and I'd definitely recommend it if you're into the subject at all. A lot of effort has been put into making the flight experience realistic, and they did a great job on that - making clear how precarious it all was. It's just that, to me, as a whole it's not the film it's been said to be.
Watched this last night. Really enjoyed it and recommend to anyone. Very tense throughout.
Yea its brilliant. Real hitchcockian film.
Witches
Not awful but bloody hell, Anne Hathaway was beyond shit. It was a fun enough movie. Gateway into horror for my daughter. She enjoyed it 6/10
Not awful but bloody hell, Anne Hathaway was beyond shit. It was a fun enough movie. Gateway into horror for my daughter. She enjoyed it 6/10
I saw that Cobra had been added to Netflix so I had to watch it again as it's one of the best (worst) movies of the 80's. I remember watching this at the cinema and laughing my arse off at the nonsense and it's still mental today. A good breakdown of the awesomeness is here
9mm out of 10
9mm out of 10
I watched Soul yesterday with my niece was kind of hard to understand if you’re are flittering in and out of it but she seemed to enjoy it in her words “it’s pretty good, yeah pretty good”.
About a man that loves music but falls down a tunnel and dies then wants to come back. The ending was nice and you come away from it with a sense of wanting to enjoy life more.
7/10
About a man that loves music but falls down a tunnel and dies then wants to come back. The ending was nice and you come away from it with a sense of wanting to enjoy life more.
7/10
Last edited: