The concept was brilliant but poorly executed. Still watchable though I would say.
Film The Redcafe Movie review thread
- Thread starter golden_blunder
- Start date
WOW!!! This is exactly right.
Orphan: First Kill
Didn't like the original but is a rare sequel that's actually much better than the OG. It's more violent and just more fun, especially from about the mid point onwards 6.5/10
Fast X
Frickin' stupid, plot holes everywhere, dead people coming back to life, a mess of a narrative structure, cheesy... like a superhero film at this stage... yet I absolutely loved it
Think this is the best one since Furious 7. Jason Mamoa was having the time of his life 8/10
Didn't like the original but is a rare sequel that's actually much better than the OG. It's more violent and just more fun, especially from about the mid point onwards 6.5/10
Fast X
Frickin' stupid, plot holes everywhere, dead people coming back to life, a mess of a narrative structure, cheesy... like a superhero film at this stage... yet I absolutely loved it
Think this is the best one since Furious 7. Jason Mamoa was having the time of his life 8/10Pearl (2022)
So good, Mia Goth is talented as feck. Can’t wait for the next one in the series.
8/10
So good, Mia Goth is talented as feck. Can’t wait for the next one in the series.
8/10
Not a review but some amazing factoids in this thread, namely that Cameron tried to buy the rights with his version to star Arnie as Dr. Grant and Bill Paxton as Ian Malcolm, and Spielberg pocketed a cool $250m for the project, a Hollywood record to this day.
Platoon 9/10
Watched it for the first time in ages last night. Think this might actually be my favourite film. Its not perfect and lays everything on a bit thick. The bit at the end where it narrates to you what you're supposed to be reading into the film, rather than letting you make your own mind up (and despite it being obviously rammed in your face the entire way through anyway) struck me as quite dumb this time around, but it doesn't detract from the film over all. Its not like its trying to be too clever or too subtle. Some of the acting is great along with the cinematography. The scene in the village is horrifying and entirely believable. The story from start to finish and the way it genuinely feels like it could have been almost a true account of someone's experience.
Maybe the standard of films these days just makes it seem better by comparison. Everything now feels like its either too dumb or being too clever for its own good.
Watched it for the first time in ages last night. Think this might actually be my favourite film. Its not perfect and lays everything on a bit thick. The bit at the end where it narrates to you what you're supposed to be reading into the film, rather than letting you make your own mind up (and despite it being obviously rammed in your face the entire way through anyway) struck me as quite dumb this time around, but it doesn't detract from the film over all. Its not like its trying to be too clever or too subtle. Some of the acting is great along with the cinematography. The scene in the village is horrifying and entirely believable. The story from start to finish and the way it genuinely feels like it could have been almost a true account of someone's experience.
Maybe the standard of films these days just makes it seem better by comparison. Everything now feels like its either too dumb or being too clever for its own good.
Man With A Movie Camera 1929
A day in a Soviet City. God knows what was in that Stalin commie water but it produced incredible films.
10/10
A day in a Soviet City. God knows what was in that Stalin commie water but it produced incredible films.
10/10
Bed Rest
After nearly having a miscarriage, a woman must be on bed rest for 8 weeks whilst she waits for her due date but things get complicated when she starts seeing the ghost of her previously dead son. I didn't mind the overall plot but it was very by the numbers horror flick relying solely on jump scares and fake jump scares. Instantly forgettable despite a few good scenes 4/10
After nearly having a miscarriage, a woman must be on bed rest for 8 weeks whilst she waits for her due date but things get complicated when she starts seeing the ghost of her previously dead son. I didn't mind the overall plot but it was very by the numbers horror flick relying solely on jump scares and fake jump scares. Instantly forgettable despite a few good scenes 4/10
Extraction II
Taking a break from it to watch some golf, but rather enjoyable first half of the movie. A shame that it was not shown in a theater.
e - decent movie overall, action scenes were above average. Good way to kill two hours. There's defo going to be a third at least.
Taking a break from it to watch some golf, but rather enjoyable first half of the movie. A shame that it was not shown in a theater.
e - decent movie overall, action scenes were above average. Good way to kill two hours. There's defo going to be a third at least.
Last edited:
Extraction 2. So there was like 10 minutes of plot and then he extracted more people than in the first film in a different place and there was a cool single shot scene and Chris Hemsworth fought dudes with his arm on fire and stuff. I do wonder why everyone keeps giving him these jobs though when he gets so many people killed and causes billions of damage getting like 2 nobodies out. Someone should have a word with the director.
It's crazy to me too how well the sfx still hold up today in the original. What a marvel of movie making it truly was and is.
Ironically as the film that basically ushered in the CGI revolution, that’s largely ‘cos it’s the high water mark of practical effects with not really that much CGI in it. There’s only something like 15 minutes of dinosaurs in it, and most of them are giant fecking robots or men in suits, with only the occasional well utilised/directed bit of CGI…. But obviously Hollywood took completely the wrong lesson from that. As always.
Last edited:
The Condemned - perfection, a classic of the crappy action genre
Along with the Terminator II, it's blockbuster filmmaking perfected. A complete thrill ride.
do you have to live quietly so relentlessly, pogue?
Last edited:
I still think Spielbergo should've shared his $250m equally with Goldblum.
I watched The Godfather 2 recently. I was a bit underwhelmed, I have to say. Obviously, the film making is excellent and you can't really fault any of that; but dramatically, I thought it was poorly construed with the two parallel stories. Basically, the prequel bit has no drama to it: yeah, Vito Corleone's story has a rough start, but otherwise, everything basically goes smoothly for him: he calmly rises up and gets his revenge. All the drama is in the sequel, and I can't help but think that the film would have been better without nostalgic quasi-feelgood addition of the prequel.
But even the sequel is just not as interesting as the story of The Godfather. Yes, it's the story of Michael's increasing paranoia and anger in which he pushes everyone away and ends up all alone - but it's all fairly obvious and straightforward. There isn't much tension or surprise, I think. Maybe that's because I had seen the film already, but I just didn't find it very engrossing - again, unlike The Godfather.
But still, as I said, the way this script has been depicted is of course amazing. I was reading about the film afterwards, and found that Roger Ebert wrote two contrasting, one of the after movie came out where he mostly saw its flaws (link), and one a few decades later when he mostly saw its genius (link). I think I can agree with both reviews, and I'd probably give it 4/5.
But even the sequel is just not as interesting as the story of The Godfather. Yes, it's the story of Michael's increasing paranoia and anger in which he pushes everyone away and ends up all alone - but it's all fairly obvious and straightforward. There isn't much tension or surprise, I think. Maybe that's because I had seen the film already, but I just didn't find it very engrossing - again, unlike The Godfather.
But still, as I said, the way this script has been depicted is of course amazing. I was reading about the film afterwards, and found that Roger Ebert wrote two contrasting, one of the after movie came out where he mostly saw its flaws (link), and one a few decades later when he mostly saw its genius (link). I think I can agree with both reviews, and I'd probably give it 4/5.
In a nut shell that’s why I hate Ebert. He’s a pompous oaf, and it’s far easier to criticize than it is to create. A lot of his reviews (like Manohla Dargis’s reviews) were driven by agenda and the film in question became a footnote, which is both intellectually dishonest and a disservice to someone wanting to know if a film deserves to be seen.
Also, agree with your take on The Godfather 2. I think some films have to be seen in context of the era they were made in, or viewed alongside their contemporaries, to fully “get”. The year it came out was a year when action and disaster pics were all the rage (Earthquake, Towering Inferno, Airport 1975, Gone In 60 Seconds) and something quieter and more historical with less spectacle might have felt like counter programming. When you see how fecking ridiculous Al Pacino became, though, you can go back and be amazed by this version of him.
I’d put movies like The Deerhunter and Citizen Kane in this category too: they almost feel like homework. Brilliant, groundbreaking, legendary films, but not enough boobs or spaceships.
One Fine Morning 2022
Super solid film which deals with modern world struggles such as a older family member needing care, single parenthood and the difficulty of trying to start relationships after many years single.
Great main performance from Lea Seydoux(She is pretty much brilliant in everything) and some beautiful shots especially of summer time Paris.
8/10
Super solid film which deals with modern world struggles such as a older family member needing care, single parenthood and the difficulty of trying to start relationships after many years single.
Great main performance from Lea Seydoux(She is pretty much brilliant in everything) and some beautiful shots especially of summer time Paris.
8/10
Well, some old films are just really hard to appreciate now. Like, if you're really not into cinema, Citizen Kane may look very dated in many ways - but if you are, and know a bit about the impact of the film, it's an indisputable masterpiece. It's a bit like homework I suppose, but for your favorite subject.
I don't think The Godfather 2 is really like that though. I think it can easily stand alongside anything made now without requiring much explanation or anything (except if you haven't see Pt 1). And the appreciation really came afterwards: it got lukewarm reviews at first and only rose to stardom some years after. As I said, I get that in terms of film making (and I meant to include acting in that), but the huge praise for the story of Michael Corleone's fall (socially/psychologically) to me is excessive: I don't think it's that strong or powerful. That might be because I've seen too many similar narratives afterwards, but the same goes for the reappraising reviewers. So, yeah.
(I'm not sure anymore whether this at all connects to what you were saying, but anyway!
)Yeah, I've read more of his reviews over the years and it's not someone I'd rely on to figure out what films I might like. I find it interesting to read detailed reviews though; I find out a lot about what I missed in the story, interpretation, and art of films, and those are always good learning moments - even if I disagree. (For example, I thought it was very interesting to read more about Nocturnal Animals after my discussion on here with @oneniltothearsenal about that film - even if I still can't much appreciate the film myself.)
Ebert specifically often provides a lot of context around films, which can be enlightening for me, as it's often US history and sociocultural developments that I was unaware of. But by the same token, his very US-based perspective and contextualization (which I know isn't the same for everyone from the US, in case it seems like I'm implying that) can also be off-putting to me, and I think leads him to appreciate things that I really don't.
I'm triggered all over again!Well, some old films are just really hard to appreciate now. Like, if you're really not into cinema, Citizen Kane may look very dated in many ways - but if you are, and know a bit about the impact of the film, it's an indisputable masterpiece. It's a bit like homework I suppose, but for your favorite subject.
I don't think The Godfather 2 is really like that though. I think it can easily stand alongside anything made now without requiring much explanation or anything (except if you haven't see Pt 1). And the appreciation really came afterwards: it got lukewarm reviews at first and only rose to stardom some years after. As I said, I get that in terms of film making (and I meant to include acting in that), but the huge praise for the story of Michael Corleone's fall (socially/psychologically) to me is excessive: I don't think it's that strong or powerful. That might be because I've seen too many similar narratives afterwards, but the same goes for the reappraising reviewers. So, yeah.
(I'm not sure anymore whether this at all connects to what you were saying, but anyway!
Yeah, I've read more of his reviews over the years and it's not someone I'd rely on to figure out what films I might like. I find it interesting to read detailed reviews though; I find out a lot about what I missed in the story, interpretation, and art of films, and those are always good learning moments - even if I disagree. (For example, I thought it was very interesting to read more about Nocturnal Animals after my discussion on here with @oneniltothearsenal about that film - even if I still can't much appreciate the film myself.)
I remember Ebert championing some really shitty films and filmmakers because they fed into his agenda. Him explaining context to non-US people makes sense, but he was often preachy, which in itself isn't a crime, but I found him to be talking out of both sides of his mouth. Like, he would excuse the excesses and transgressions of certain filmmakers because they ticked a box for him, while he would at the same time haul up others for doing the exact same things.
On a more personal level, Ebert reviewed a friend's film and absolutely slated it for a bunch of things -- that didn't actually happen in the film. It was like he saw the poster and the title and wrote his review without seeing it. He railed about how the film glorified drug use, and there were zero drugs in the film, as an example. He also championed some directors I loathe, so if I checked to see what Ebert thought of a film, if he hated it I knew I'd like it. At the end of the day, he was the writer of some genre stuff with Russ Meyer, but spent his life critiquing people who were actually making films, and sometimes giving everything for their art. When he worked with Gene Siskel I consistently sided with SiSKEL, whom he frequently belittled. Ebert often used his Catholicism as a cudgel or a pulpit, and I found that disingenuous and annoying. I can't remember specifically anymore, because it's been so long, but he plumped for some film that was a total piece of shit and he did it because he wanted to raise the profile of the director.
Ebert was basically Comic Book Guy before Comic Book Guy. I know my loathing of Ebert is not a common opinion, but I actually know the person whom the Simpsons writers based Comic Book Guy on!!
Just watching this now with my kids and totally agree. Zero plot to keep anyone's interest, just a series of moments to remind you of individual Mario games over the last 40 years and bugger all else. They clearly thought emulating the Lego Movie just needed Chris Pratt in the lead role, a dash of Charlie Day and job done.
Job not done. Bob Hoskins turning in his grave. 2/10
I have to say I don't know him that well at all (I've mostly just come across him in the Reception section of Wikipedia articles about films), but I know he's kind of a monument in the US in terms of film criticism, so I suppose you'd be very aware of him - and I can see why you'd dislike him!
“Bumping turtles until the climax” is a different genre of film.
Is Basic Instinct any good really? Might watch it tomorrow.
It's not bad, stay away from the sequel though
It’s very much a product of its time, and it reeks of Joe Eszterhaus’s misogyny. That said, it’s gloriously ridiculous, tawdry fun. A better take on the neo-noir femme fatale trop would be Body Heat, which I fully recommend.
No but its watchable anyway
Watched 2019's Official Secrets. A thriller from the UK starring Keira Knightley and directed by Gavin Hood about Katharine Gun, who leaked a secret memo in 2003 in which the US asked the UK to spy on UN Security Council members, to be able to blackmail them into supporting the US's Iraq war resolution.
Apparently, the whole thing is pretty accurately depicted in the film. It's absolutely messed up (although we knew that for the Iraq war already) and this woman is a hero. Other than that, the film works well: good plot, good acting, good direction. Nothing groundbreaking, but all well done, and especially Knightley is very strong. I suppose parts of the film are more than a little predictable if you already know of the event and its outcome, but I didn't, so the film actually had a few big surprises for me in store. In particular:
4/5
Apparently, the whole thing is pretty accurately depicted in the film. It's absolutely messed up (although we knew that for the Iraq war already) and this woman is a hero. Other than that, the film works well: good plot, good acting, good direction. Nothing groundbreaking, but all well done, and especially Knightley is very strong. I suppose parts of the film are more than a little predictable if you already know of the event and its outcome, but I didn't, so the film actually had a few big surprises for me in store. In particular:
I kept wondering how they were going to fit the entire court case in the final 20 minutes - only of course for her to be acquitted immediately upon appearance before the judge! I had no idea that was going to happen.
I had no idea that was going to happen. I haven't watched it for ages but I preferred it to GF1 (which was great but very slow at times). I probably need to give it another go.
its crap
Yeah I watched Layer Cake instead. That was good.
There Will Be Blood
So...that was quite boring.
So...that was quite boring.
Surrounded (2023)
Interesting storyline but the script sort of failed it -- either through poor editing or writing. It was more like a play than your typical Western movie.
The potential of this story was huge -- with the protagonist that has some deep back story. A freed black woman, a former buffalo soldier who was going West to claim some gold mining plot. Had to dress as a young man for her safety. Middle of the journey her stagecoach gets robbed.
Then the story starts to unfold.
Interesting storyline but the script sort of failed it -- either through poor editing or writing. It was more like a play than your typical Western movie.
The potential of this story was huge -- with the protagonist that has some deep back story. A freed black woman, a former buffalo soldier who was going West to claim some gold mining plot. Had to dress as a young man for her safety. Middle of the journey her stagecoach gets robbed.
Then the story starts to unfold.
Not to mention the overacting of the main ACTOOOR.