Bloobry pancakes.
Film The Redcafe Movie review thread
- Thread starter golden_blunder
- Start date
The Beekeeper 3/10
Slightly better than Expend4bles but not up to the level of the better (cough) Statham movies. The fight scenes are fine and Statham does a characteristically good job of playing his usual self. However, the plot is ridiculous and the supporting characters are thinly drawn. The script needs a rewrite and the film needs a director who isn't just phoning it in. On the plus side, it features one of the funniest/laughably bad kills I've seen in a while although I can't tell if it was wit or just poor staging. And WTF is Jeremy Irons doing signing onto this train wreck?
Slightly better than Expend4bles but not up to the level of the better (cough) Statham movies. The fight scenes are fine and Statham does a characteristically good job of playing his usual self. However, the plot is ridiculous and the supporting characters are thinly drawn. The script needs a rewrite and the film needs a director who isn't just phoning it in. On the plus side, it features one of the funniest/laughably bad kills I've seen in a while although I can't tell if it was wit or just poor staging. And WTF is Jeremy Irons doing signing onto this train wreck?
Saltburn
I went into this without reading the plot or anything about the plot, I knew there was a couple of dodgy parts, the bath water
One of the better films I have seen for a while, the story was decent, acting was pretty good overall, I thought Rosamund Pike was the stand out.
Barry Keoghan was very good, very creepy.
I have to admit did not total see the twist coming.
Yeah a decent watch.
7/10
I went into this without reading the plot or anything about the plot, I knew there was a couple of dodgy parts, the bath water
One of the better films I have seen for a while, the story was decent, acting was pretty good overall, I thought Rosamund Pike was the stand out.
Barry Keoghan was very good, very creepy.
I have to admit did not total see the twist coming.
Yeah a decent watch.
7/10
Has anyone watched Colossus: The Forbin Project? Someone recommend it as must watch, How good is it?
I watched Good Grief last night, a new drama-comedy by and with Daniel Levy about a guy who suddenly loses his husband, and then seeks to find a way to get over this loss with the help of his friends - which is then complicated when new information comes to light.
I didn't like it. The comedy parts are quite alright, and sometimes really funny, but the drama is a bore. The serious bits are just tedious and uninteresting, and I didn't much like the main characters (although I thought Ruth Negga was great as usual). 2/5
I also watched Knor (Oink in English) with the family a few days ago. It's a Dutch clay animation film (actual clay, not the CG variant) from 2022 about a young girl who gets a baby pig from her grandfather when he unexpectedly returns from far away - but slowly it becomes clear that granddad might be more interested in the village's famous annual sausage contest than the pig.
That sounds a little menacing, but it's really a very cute and funny film with a lot of heart that was absolutely lovely to watch. I have to admit that I am not sure why they went through the trouble of clay animation, given it's extremely laborious and this film could pretty much have been live action as well - but anyway, it's a great family film. 4/5
I didn't like it. The comedy parts are quite alright, and sometimes really funny, but the drama is a bore. The serious bits are just tedious and uninteresting, and I didn't much like the main characters (although I thought Ruth Negga was great as usual). 2/5
I also watched Knor (Oink in English) with the family a few days ago. It's a Dutch clay animation film (actual clay, not the CG variant) from 2022 about a young girl who gets a baby pig from her grandfather when he unexpectedly returns from far away - but slowly it becomes clear that granddad might be more interested in the village's famous annual sausage contest than the pig.
That sounds a little menacing, but it's really a very cute and funny film with a lot of heart that was absolutely lovely to watch. I have to admit that I am not sure why they went through the trouble of clay animation, given it's extremely laborious and this film could pretty much have been live action as well - but anyway, it's a great family film. 4/5
Jeremy Irons needs to fire his manager. He’s basically the only seasoned English actor who had no involvement in LOTR, and then he signs on to Eragon and the Dungeons & Dragons fiasco. At some point in the last 20 years or so, Jeremy Irons morphed into Michael York.
Last edited:
California Split (1974)
With Elliott Gould, George Segal.
Directed by Robert Altman.
I love 70s films, and hadn't seen this one. This is one of those slice of life portraits of people in the grip of their vices/passions. In this case, they are gamblers. Two gamblers meet at a card club, get mugged, start hanging out with each other full time. Gould lives with two whores. Segal works at a magazine. Both of them live only for the thrill of the win. They go to the horse races, they go to boxing matches, they end up going to Reno and playing in a tournament. After an all night bender and winning the equivalent of $500,000 in today's money, Segal says "there's nothing there, there's no feeling" and decides to go home. The end.
The whole film feels improvised. Even if you're a fan of Altman (I am), you are going to struggle with this. It's weirdly dated in a lot of ways, but Elliott Gould could basically sue Vince Vaughn for bodysnatching. Movie felt really long. It was interesting seeing a movie with virtually no subtext or metaphor. If made today, the director would make something of the unconsummated love between the two male hetero leads. This was billed as a comedy drama, but I didn't find anything funny in the entire film. There are some "bonding" scenes that I think are supposed to be hilarious, but when people pretend to be drunk it's rarely funny. Gould was really watchable, but Segal kinda sucked in this, and I'd say he was miscast.
4/10
With Elliott Gould, George Segal.
Directed by Robert Altman.
I love 70s films, and hadn't seen this one. This is one of those slice of life portraits of people in the grip of their vices/passions. In this case, they are gamblers. Two gamblers meet at a card club, get mugged, start hanging out with each other full time. Gould lives with two whores. Segal works at a magazine. Both of them live only for the thrill of the win. They go to the horse races, they go to boxing matches, they end up going to Reno and playing in a tournament. After an all night bender and winning the equivalent of $500,000 in today's money, Segal says "there's nothing there, there's no feeling" and decides to go home. The end.
The whole film feels improvised. Even if you're a fan of Altman (I am), you are going to struggle with this. It's weirdly dated in a lot of ways, but Elliott Gould could basically sue Vince Vaughn for bodysnatching. Movie felt really long. It was interesting seeing a movie with virtually no subtext or metaphor. If made today, the director would make something of the unconsummated love between the two male hetero leads. This was billed as a comedy drama, but I didn't find anything funny in the entire film. There are some "bonding" scenes that I think are supposed to be hilarious, but when people pretend to be drunk it's rarely funny. Gould was really watchable, but Segal kinda sucked in this, and I'd say he was miscast.
4/10
Last edited:
Please let this beautiful man win the Oscar.
This was the most stupid movie I’ve ever seen in my life.
There’s my review. 1/10, absolutely horrendous.
No idea how I gave it a 2 looking back. Guess I was feeling generous.
The dumbest thing is that you can apparantly jedi mind trick dinasaurs into not killing you by putting up your hand.
"Paul Giamatti, starring as... Paul Giamatti, in a role you've seen him do a thousand times. This time, his eyes point in different directions."
I really enjoyed the movie/thought it was wonderful & I m sure Paul is a lovely man but I kind of agree with you there: its still Paul Giamatti. I more understand nominations for the other actors in it than him.
He seems very likable. Never heard a bad word said about him. However, in this film, they insist on sabotaging the audience's sympathy for him, for no reason. Not only is he wall-eyed (which has no pay off and means nothing), but also he has that condition where he smells like fish by the end of the day because his body can't break down whatever enzyme. Why? Isn't the movie about a rigid, unyielding classics teacher being out of touch with the reality his students face? And then he slowly finds courage? But he's still a wall-eyed, fish-stinking, loser at the end: alone, unloved, no one can get near him literally or figuratively.
Ferrari - 4/10
Compared to Rush or Ford v Ferrari, this film comes across a bit amateur hour.
Firstly, using Driver to play Enzo after his role in House of Gucci was just stupid. It would have been better with Dempsey as the lead. It’s too samey and half the time you’re trying to remind yourself who he’s trying to be.
Secondly, the gore/trauma scenes are awful, distasteful and mostly embarrassing with 3rd rate films doing a better job. Both of the above mentioned films did a far better job of describing the realities of racing during this time without the bullshit. Sometimes less is more and this just reeks of a lack of art direction and ability to make the viewer think.
Thirdly, you can tell Ferrari had a say in how Enzo was portrayed. Instead of the ruthless cnut he was, they’ve tried to make him look ruthless but also like a decent family man at the same time and it just adds to Driver’s inability to define the role. Doing that is so hard. What they needed was/is Al Pacino circa Godfather 2. That is Enzo Ferrari
Just pretty poor and a few cuts/edits could take the tackiness away from the film.
Compared to Rush or Ford v Ferrari, this film comes across a bit amateur hour.
Firstly, using Driver to play Enzo after his role in House of Gucci was just stupid. It would have been better with Dempsey as the lead. It’s too samey and half the time you’re trying to remind yourself who he’s trying to be.
Secondly, the gore/trauma scenes are awful, distasteful and mostly embarrassing with 3rd rate films doing a better job. Both of the above mentioned films did a far better job of describing the realities of racing during this time without the bullshit. Sometimes less is more and this just reeks of a lack of art direction and ability to make the viewer think.
Thirdly, you can tell Ferrari had a say in how Enzo was portrayed. Instead of the ruthless cnut he was, they’ve tried to make him look ruthless but also like a decent family man at the same time and it just adds to Driver’s inability to define the role. Doing that is so hard. What they needed was/is Al Pacino circa Godfather 2. That is Enzo Ferrari
Just pretty poor and a few cuts/edits could take the tackiness away from the film.
Last edited:
On a phone call today with a friend, he randomly threw two movies together as an example of explaining shorthand what a movie would be about. The two he chose would make an interesting movie: Predator meets Pretty Woman. Just imagine the possibilities. With Timothée Chalamet as the Woman, Ryan Reynolds as the Predator, and Daniel Day Lewis as a tree.
Another step back in the cycle from making shoes. Well, if they're wooden shoes.
What was the actual film he was talking about though?
The Breach
Counting down his last days as Chief of Police in the tiny town of Lone Crow, John Hawkins must investigate one last case when a mangled body with uncanny wounds washes up on the shores of the Porcupine River.
Daft from start to finish, with some dreadful acting, pity really because there was a decent story in there, just needed better actors and a bit of money thrown at it.
3/10
Counting down his last days as Chief of Police in the tiny town of Lone Crow, John Hawkins must investigate one last case when a mangled body with uncanny wounds washes up on the shores of the Porcupine River.
Daft from start to finish, with some dreadful acting, pity really because there was a decent story in there, just needed better actors and a bit of money thrown at it.
3/10
Night of the Missing
A secretive small town sheriff gets a visit from a mysterious woman who recounts bizarre stories involving MISSING persons.
A collection of short story, that were neither very good or very scary, first one about the Ice Cream van was the pick of a very poor bunch
3/10
A secretive small town sheriff gets a visit from a mysterious woman who recounts bizarre stories involving MISSING persons.
A collection of short story, that were neither very good or very scary, first one about the Ice Cream van was the pick of a very poor bunch
3/10
He was talking about how someone does that as a thing, not a particular movie, “the whole, Predator-meets-Pretty Woman-thing”.
Are these being recommended to you? Might need a new Netflix profile.
I wonder would a predator see a john picking up hookers as predatory and a legitimate target? Police procedural where they realise Julia Roberts former client list are being bumped off and have to catch the killer. Can have scooby doo reveal at the end where Mr. Smith the apartment block caretaker was a predator all along
For the most part Giamatti plays slightly different types of the same dude. John Adams - Sideways - Saving Private Ryan - American Splendor - The Holdovers but he makes these characters fit perfectly in their historical era. Which imo is incredibly impressive. The Micheal Carrick of actors.
Plus Shoot Em Up and Big Fat Liar are brilliantly performances and very different from his other work.
Or, Predator comes to earth and becomes a prostitute. It falls in love with a rich something or other. Starring Paul Giamatti. As the wall-eyed fish-stinking prostitute. Timothée Chalamet as the rich twat.
Last edited:
Brother Pauldy and I love watching these shitty horror movies because after 99 awful ones, you stumble across one great one.
I think we can all agree that paying to face-feck the predator's mouthvag would be a serious money spinner for its pimp.
That escalated quickly!
I reckon you could just put the predator in Julia Roberts place and leave everything else exactly the same and have a great movie
In Mia's defense, anyone who has ever been anywhere near a film set knows that the overriding urge one has is to kick an extra in the face.
So, Mandy, Nicholas Cage's violent revenge thingy. Pretty much everyone on here and the critics seem to love it, but I didn't see it. The story is nonsense and the utterings of the Jesus freaks (as Cage calls them) pointless gibberish, but then that stuff story anyway doesn't seem to be the point of the film. But: well over an hour is spent on the story to set up the actual revenge part, with significant Jesus freak conversations. And it's not just long, that part is also incredibly slooooooooooooowwwwwww....... The revenge bit is quite good, but the film does shift gears quite a bit (adding a big helping of Tarantino à la Pulp Fiction) when it gets there, although at least it does retain its overall slow pace and great style/visuals. (But it's almost disappointing how quickly the demonic biker gang and cultists are dispatched; did I wait all this time for that...? And that's really the one thing the film absolutely does have going for it: style and visuals. But that alone doesn't make a film worth my time, or at least not this one. 2/5
I'll add that I don't really get why people think the film has a strong 80s vibe. As far as I can remember, apart from short snippet of Reagan speech at the start, possibly some of the snippets on tv, and the lack of cellphones, I thought this could have been set in pretty much every decade since the 70s. I also don't feel the film sets up much of a universe of its own; it just plays in a remote forest and a mine.
Maybe I just missed something another layer that would put everything in a meaningful context (what Reagan actually says in that snippet of speech is definitely ironic in the context), but I just can't think of something.
I'll add that I don't really get why people think the film has a strong 80s vibe. As far as I can remember, apart from short snippet of Reagan speech at the start, possibly some of the snippets on tv, and the lack of cellphones, I thought this could have been set in pretty much every decade since the 70s. I also don't feel the film sets up much of a universe of its own; it just plays in a remote forest and a mine.
Maybe I just missed something another layer that would put everything in a meaningful context (what Reagan actually says in that snippet of speech is definitely ironic in the context), but I just can't think of something.
Last edited:
Nowhere (Netflix)
A really nice Spanish movie. Very relatable characters and never felt boring.
So basically a pregnant woman and a man are fleeing a totalitarian country and got trapped and locked in a container, floating out of the ocean.
So, it's a Netflix production and I was surprised the movie was this good. Usually Netflix movies are a bit underwelming. Must see.
8 out of 10
Society of the Snow (La Sociedad de la Nieve)
Another really enjoyable Spanish speaking movie. I already knew about the story of the Uruguayan 1972 Andes flight disaster, but what makes this movie good is the relationships between the survivors.
This movie is getting rave reviews. However, to be honest I liked the movie 'Alive' (1993) more.
7 out of 10
A really nice Spanish movie. Very relatable characters and never felt boring.
So basically a pregnant woman and a man are fleeing a totalitarian country and got trapped and locked in a container, floating out of the ocean.
So, it's a Netflix production and I was surprised the movie was this good. Usually Netflix movies are a bit underwelming. Must see.
8 out of 10
Society of the Snow (La Sociedad de la Nieve)
Another really enjoyable Spanish speaking movie. I already knew about the story of the Uruguayan 1972 Andes flight disaster, but what makes this movie good is the relationships between the survivors.
This movie is getting rave reviews. However, to be honest I liked the movie 'Alive' (1993) more.
7 out of 10
I think Mandy was so over the top that it impressed people. It's by no means a good movie. I appreciated Cage's total commitment to the character, particularly the scene where he's in his underwear and covered in blood. It's so ridiculous that you have to love Cage for just not giving a single feck what anybody thinks of his acting. The story, such as it was, didn't make any sense to me, and I felt like I was totally high watching it. It's a wild, wacky, b-movie with some John Carpenter/George Romero-esque moments. I wouldn't call it good but it was certainly spicy as feck.
Was thinking that surely I had already seen a movie about it before, just couldn't remember the name. I'll give this new version a watch though. What there anything about this new one that made you like it less than the 90s movie?
I think Society of the Snow is more accurate and detailed, but it's such a slow-burn movie. They were stranded for 72 days in the Andes and to save energy they stayed inside the plane talking about things, but the characters were all too one dimensional, hollow and similar personality-wise. At the end of the movie I was like: meh, good for them!
'Alive' has a better flow and had a better cast in my opinion. Ethan Hawke and the other actors were all great in Alive, even though the movie was in English. The deaths just left me dumbfounded and the ending was great. I was so happy for them.
I should rewatch it, because I haven't seen it for a very long time. I was also very young and that might play a role.
Finally got around to watching Dazed and Confused, so so good. Didn't realise just how similar it was to Everybody Wants Some!!, which was my favourite film of 2016. Glad to finally see the movie that put Linklater on the map.
The amount of future stars that feature is insane. Some suspect acting here and there - mainly from the main freshman, who was apparently hired by the casting director when they saw him walking out of a grocery store - but overall a great ride and no doubt nostalgic as hell for certain folks of that era.
8/10
The amount of future stars that feature is insane. Some suspect acting here and there - mainly from the main freshman, who was apparently hired by the casting director when they saw him walking out of a grocery store - but overall a great ride and no doubt nostalgic as hell for certain folks of that era.
8/10
Yeah, it's definitely all in on its conceptual premise, and so is Cage! That shot you included there is definitely peak maniacal weirdness!
I think Mandy was so over the top that it impressed people. It's by no means a good movie. I appreciated Cage's total commitment to the character, particularly the scene where he's in his underwear and covered in blood. It's so ridiculous that you have to love Cage for just not giving a single feck what anybody thinks of his acting. The story, such as it was, didn't make any sense to me, and I felt like I was totally high watching it. It's a wild, wacky, b-movie with some John Carpenter/George Romero-esque moments. I wouldn't call it good but it was certainly spicy as feck.
I guess I'm mostly unhappy with the film cause it's praised so much, and I just don't see that sort of quality in it.
I really enjoyed it. That shot wing attack plan linked above is seared into my brain years later. I dont know, the 80's horror nostalgia thing was probably fresher at the time. I just liked how it looked mostly I think
Don't think I'd recommend this particular film to you.Cage makes more nonsense? Surely not
saw a decent Cage flick recently called Dream Scenario
I reckon even @Wibble might not completely hate it
I reckon even @Wibble might not completely hate it