One of the best films of this century so far. Pure filmmaking.
Film The Redcafe Movie review thread
- Thread starter golden_blunder
- Start date
Paddington 2
Had a blast watching this with the kids. We were all hooked! 8/10
Had a blast watching this with the kids. We were all hooked! 8/10
What did you like about it?
Everything
It was pure cheese. A vehicle for DDL to show off his over-acting chops. Great actor at one time but unwatchable since the 90s. Although I haven't watched either of his films since There Will Be Blood.
Last edited:
It really wasn't cheese. It was a gorgeous piece on obsession and drive, and says a lot about the US and its ethos. The opposition with religion, and Paul Dano's performance, was also quite wonderful.
I think you're being stingy with only 8/10 to be honest!
I reserve 9s for horror and 10s for Nic Cage, neither of which this one had.
Old Joy
Two slightly estranged friends (Daniel London and Will Oldham/Bonnie 'Prince' Billy) go out into the wilderness on a camping trip to find a hot spring, sharing their personal philosophies along the way and highlighting what has changed between them over the years. Music by Yo La Tengo, which was one of the main reasons I watched this gently meandering mood piece. It was a fine way to spend 76 minutes, if nothing particularly memorable.
6/10
Two slightly estranged friends (Daniel London and Will Oldham/Bonnie 'Prince' Billy) go out into the wilderness on a camping trip to find a hot spring, sharing their personal philosophies along the way and highlighting what has changed between them over the years. Music by Yo La Tengo, which was one of the main reasons I watched this gently meandering mood piece. It was a fine way to spend 76 minutes, if nothing particularly memorable.
6/10
Nic Cage as Paddington would be the crowning achievement of his career
Did you watch it purely because of the way Cage reacts to it in The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent, by any chance?
Indirectly yesDid Nicolas cage suggest you that?
Is it safe to talk about "Lincoln" yet, and what a fecking cinematic crime it was?
The reason I watchedDid Nicolas cage suggest you that?
I marked it too after that movie, I should probably watch it in the next month or two.
It's on my 'never seen but want to' list. Is it not worth it?
Finally got around to watching
ELVIS, (2022), starring Austin Butler, Tom Hanks.
Baz's style is something that you really have to be in the mood for. I remember seeing "Romeo + Juliet" and being both fascinated and repelled by its flourishes and excesses. Loved "Moulin Rouge" when I saw it in theaters but found it exhausting later on home video. I skipped the one with Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman, and have been neutral on him since.
So here we are, a biopic, by an Australian, about a towering figure in American pop culture. I had reservations about BL's vision, but boy was I wrong. The entire 160 minute film is basically put together like a music video, with near-constant movement either by the camera or actors within the frame. Some of the early scenes were mesmerizing. I think there were several difficult things that the movie's success hinged on: the first being making Elvis seem cool to modern audiences (i.e. the kids). The second is transforming R&B so that it felt visceral and kinetic. The third is a framing device that doesn't give us the usual beats in a bio pic, which is usually a dead format. Most importantly, a biopic should work to make the non-fan into a fan, or at least to show the non-fan why others are fans. It should give you everything you need to start liking the subject. I found this not to be the case in "Walk the Line", "Ray", "Respect", "What's Love Got To Do With It", "Miles Ahead" - films that assumed you were already a super fan and took your fandom as given. This movie was like, "show them why Elvis is fecking cool, Baz" and I think it succeeded.
Absolutely blown away by Butler's performance. He sang a lot of the songs, and did it so well I couldn't tell which were his. As usual, BL's production design, camera work, editing, costumes are all top-notch, best in class. I liked that this film didn't try to tell you everything about Elvis. Instead, it showed you how he was "legit" in the black music world (not just stealing their songs, as has been claimed), and explained how Elvis was like an earthquake when he appeared on stage. He was the crack in the dam. The Beatles then completely destroyed the dam, but first, there was Elvis.
Some negatives for me would be Col. Parker's screen time. I think Hanks did a decent job of conveying a weirdo Dutch-Southern accent, his prosthetics mostly looked real, and he was good. My problem is that there was way too much of him. Yes, he is the villain of the piece, and the framing device, but there was more than a pungent whiff of "supporting actor nomination" to his role. Third act felt like it was about 20 minutes too long. They also spent too long on the '68 Comeback section. I get it, they wanted audiences to experience his best songs, but still felt a bit much. For me, the biopic is a movie not unlike a superhero movie. When the young seeker is transformed (into Elvis, into Spider-Man), and wields his new powers (slinging sticky webs, slinging sticky webs), it's intoxicating. The lead up and the conversion. Everything after that is generally not interesting. Sequels to superhero movies are less interesting because the journey has already ended, and now it's just a retread of the powers.
Best scene for me was the charity performance of "Trouble/I'm Evil". Elvis is seen as so tame and anodyne it's important that the film showed he was considered evil incarnate at the time. BL also did a great job of showing the black-white segregation issues without getting preachy about it. Butler was superb in the role. I think it's generally easier for an actor to impersonate an historical figure than it is for an actor to create a character out of whole cloth. Maybe that's why Brendan Fraser won Best Actor, although I think it has more to do with "redemption arc" and Butler being so young the voters know he'll get the statue eventually.
I thought this film was exceptional, but I don't know if I could sit through it again. It might fall apart on second viewing. Austin Butler was amazing. In terms of directing prowess, it was a total flex on BL's part. Rhythm, pacing, kinetic motion, it's almost overwhelming.
8.5/10. Maybe a 9?
ELVIS, (2022), starring Austin Butler, Tom Hanks.
Baz's style is something that you really have to be in the mood for. I remember seeing "Romeo + Juliet" and being both fascinated and repelled by its flourishes and excesses. Loved "Moulin Rouge" when I saw it in theaters but found it exhausting later on home video. I skipped the one with Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman, and have been neutral on him since.
So here we are, a biopic, by an Australian, about a towering figure in American pop culture. I had reservations about BL's vision, but boy was I wrong. The entire 160 minute film is basically put together like a music video, with near-constant movement either by the camera or actors within the frame. Some of the early scenes were mesmerizing. I think there were several difficult things that the movie's success hinged on: the first being making Elvis seem cool to modern audiences (i.e. the kids). The second is transforming R&B so that it felt visceral and kinetic. The third is a framing device that doesn't give us the usual beats in a bio pic, which is usually a dead format. Most importantly, a biopic should work to make the non-fan into a fan, or at least to show the non-fan why others are fans. It should give you everything you need to start liking the subject. I found this not to be the case in "Walk the Line", "Ray", "Respect", "What's Love Got To Do With It", "Miles Ahead" - films that assumed you were already a super fan and took your fandom as given. This movie was like, "show them why Elvis is fecking cool, Baz" and I think it succeeded.
Absolutely blown away by Butler's performance. He sang a lot of the songs, and did it so well I couldn't tell which were his. As usual, BL's production design, camera work, editing, costumes are all top-notch, best in class. I liked that this film didn't try to tell you everything about Elvis. Instead, it showed you how he was "legit" in the black music world (not just stealing their songs, as has been claimed), and explained how Elvis was like an earthquake when he appeared on stage. He was the crack in the dam. The Beatles then completely destroyed the dam, but first, there was Elvis.
Some negatives for me would be Col. Parker's screen time. I think Hanks did a decent job of conveying a weirdo Dutch-Southern accent, his prosthetics mostly looked real, and he was good. My problem is that there was way too much of him. Yes, he is the villain of the piece, and the framing device, but there was more than a pungent whiff of "supporting actor nomination" to his role. Third act felt like it was about 20 minutes too long. They also spent too long on the '68 Comeback section. I get it, they wanted audiences to experience his best songs, but still felt a bit much. For me, the biopic is a movie not unlike a superhero movie. When the young seeker is transformed (into Elvis, into Spider-Man), and wields his new powers (slinging sticky webs, slinging sticky webs), it's intoxicating. The lead up and the conversion. Everything after that is generally not interesting. Sequels to superhero movies are less interesting because the journey has already ended, and now it's just a retread of the powers.
Best scene for me was the charity performance of "Trouble/I'm Evil". Elvis is seen as so tame and anodyne it's important that the film showed he was considered evil incarnate at the time. BL also did a great job of showing the black-white segregation issues without getting preachy about it. Butler was superb in the role. I think it's generally easier for an actor to impersonate an historical figure than it is for an actor to create a character out of whole cloth. Maybe that's why Brendan Fraser won Best Actor, although I think it has more to do with "redemption arc" and Butler being so young the voters know he'll get the statue eventually.
I thought this film was exceptional, but I don't know if I could sit through it again. It might fall apart on second viewing. Austin Butler was amazing. In terms of directing prowess, it was a total flex on BL's part. Rhythm, pacing, kinetic motion, it's almost overwhelming.
8.5/10. Maybe a 9?
Last edited:
It's absolutely horrific. Brain dead, silly, ahistorical, trite.
You have some astronomically awful takes in this thread.
Problem with Hank's portrayal was also that I think the accent was cartoonish. Parker didn't have nearly as strong of an accent at all when you see him in interviews. Which sure, the movie creators said they played up to make him appear even weirder. But the accent didn't even sound like a Dutch accent at all either. It was jarring, and frankly made the movie feel a little cheap.
It was the worst thing about the film, hands down, for me. I guess I've never heard the real person speak, so I didn't have anything to compare it to.
have you seen phantom thread?
No. I have no interest in superhero movies.
I didn't watch it. Last DDL film I braved was There Will Be Blood. Some great films before 2000 of course.
It’s the one where you get to see Darth Vader as a little kid.
Spring Breakers(2009)
Candy vomit of American 21st century culture. Pure masterpiece.
10/10
Candy vomit of American 21st century culture. Pure masterpiece.
10/10
Inception.
10/10.
Seen it before but watched it again tonight and somehow it seemed even better than I remembered. Mal's story in particular hit hard this time around.
Incredibly ambitious filmmaking, and when the concept is so batshit crazy in scope and theory, very rarely does it come together successfully. All the pieces fit, everything from the cast to the score gels perfectly to tell a story that builds and builds amid incredible complexity.
Even if you’ve seen it before, it’s worth watching again.
10/10.
Seen it before but watched it again tonight and somehow it seemed even better than I remembered. Mal's story in particular hit hard this time around.
Incredibly ambitious filmmaking, and when the concept is so batshit crazy in scope and theory, very rarely does it come together successfully. All the pieces fit, everything from the cast to the score gels perfectly to tell a story that builds and builds amid incredible complexity.
Even if you’ve seen it before, it’s worth watching again.
I know someone just like you in real life.
It was pretty great.
That review is (chef’s kiss).
The Flash 3/10
Absolutely terrible, Ezri Miller had 0 resemblance to Barry Allen and came across as very creepy.
Took one of the best comic stories in the last 15 years, gutted it until nothing was recognisable.
Left out Reverse Flash, the person who played a key role in Flashpoint and Barry's mums death and replaced him with a random house burglar.
Cameos were good.
Dreadful movie. I've read every Flash comic made in the last 15 years, watched 9 years of the TV Series, I recognised very little in this trash.
Absolutely terrible, Ezri Miller had 0 resemblance to Barry Allen and came across as very creepy.
Took one of the best comic stories in the last 15 years, gutted it until nothing was recognisable.
Left out Reverse Flash, the person who played a key role in Flashpoint and Barry's mums death and replaced him with a random house burglar.
Cameos were good.
Dreadful movie. I've read every Flash comic made in the last 15 years, watched 9 years of the TV Series, I recognised very little in this trash.
DC can’t catch a break. I loved Cisco and Wells from the series but you are a stronger person than I to have watched all 9 seasons. Once they made Iris some kind of investigative reporter and also had her issuing commands to team Flash, I had enough. Flashpoint was done well in the series, seemed like a gimme to make a decent movie of it.