It's funny, cause you could basically say the same about most movies. What do they really have to say about the world, or the human condition, or anything that's of wider interest beyond the entertainment value? I guess it's the later, and biopics too often forget to actually tell a satisfying story or make it apply more widely - maybe because one person's life generally doesn't easily lend itself to that. (People don't tend to live lives that are neat stories that are broadly meaningful.)
Film The Redcafe Movie review thread
- Thread starter golden_blunder
- Start date
Nah not necessarily. I find the biopic genre to be particularly lazy.
And I don't think the person's life has to have been so meaningful to many for the film to say something. It can be a director wanting to make a film about depression and taking a specific person where the story particularly applies. It can be many films. It can also be a purely aesthetic film, you're still saying something through audiovisual means. But more often than not, biopics just stick to a chronological approach to telling someone's life. It's a bit boring, from a cinematographic perspective - not necessarily bad films, but infinitely forgettable.
Yeah, sorry, that last bit is kinda what I meant. Most people's lives just don't have much to say if you stick closely to the events as they unfolded. So as you say, you either have to focus on a theme, dramatize things, or pick and choose - and/or do something more artistic (like Refn in Bronson, in my opinion) to make things interesting.
Absolutely - think we agree on this matter in fact!
Ghosted
Ana de Armas and Chris Evans had a great chemistry in this movie. The first 30 minutes were the best.
I like Ana de Armas, I don't think he's a particularly good actress, (maybe she's better in her native language), but she was fun to watch. Chris Evans is just always a really cool guy.
8 out of 10
Ana de Armas and Chris Evans had a great chemistry in this movie. The first 30 minutes were the best.
I like Ana de Armas, I don't think he's a particularly good actress, (maybe she's better in her native language), but she was fun to watch. Chris Evans is just always a really cool guy.
8 out of 10
Crap.Absolutely - think we agree on this matter in fact!
Last edited:
Brother! This bolded bit is the definition I have been scrambling to find. YES. That is exactly what is wrong with this movie and most biopics. I'm not being facetious. I was trying to explain this weekend why Maestro was basically a wankfest, and this nails it.
What's this?
Waiting For Guffman, one of the first "mockumentary" movies after Spinal Tap. Chris Guest, Fred Willard, Eugene Levy, Bob Balaban, Parker Posey, Michael Hitchcock, David Cross, Catherine O'Hara.
Last edited:
Ah okay. Never heard of it. I don't find that scene funny either, but I suppose it works better in the context of the film. Spinal Tap was good though.
We only lasted about 20 mins before stopping watching. Boooooooring.
Is there, like, a joke that comes right after this bit? Cause I missed the funny part.
Trying to do my best tough guy act there - but I honestly didn't find this funny. None of it. It's like Bill Murray's 'So I got that going for me, which is nice' line in Caddyshack. I think it's supposed to be hilarious, but I think it's mildly funny at best. (Which is more than I can say for most of Caddyshack - and this clip here.)
I'm looking forward to Maestro now though.
Hmm. I wonder if it's country-specific. How in hell does someone find Caddyshack not funny? Like, I see people posting Father Ted clips occasionally, and I feel the same way about Father Ted you feel about Waiting For Guffman: I can tell it's supposed to be funny, but it just isn't. Shots fired!
Maybe one had to be a Parker Posey fan? The NYC “it girl” pretending to be a white trash hick from Missouri, grilling a single chicken wing while smoking? I don't know. It's partly the "cringe" type of mockumentary, where people do things that are embarrassing and not slapstick.
Your report on Maestro needs to be two pages, single spaced.
Last edited:
So I saw Poor Things and it was quite a wonderful experience. It's crass, it's not elegant, it's insane, it's different, and it's pure cinema unfolding before our eyes. It's a lot of fun. Enough has been said about everyone's performances (but let's just repeat it - Emma Stone is so fecking good), the music works well in a sort of grating, anxious way at times, it's visually mesmerizing, it's often quite funny, and it's just very very good. Also The General is one of the best villains on screen in a long time. I guess Nolan will get the oscar for best director, and it won't be undeserved, but what Yorgos Lanthimos has done here is nothing short of exceptional.
To take an example, Bohemian Rhapsody, a film I abhor, has nothing to say, isn't daring visually, is edited terribly, the list goes on. Its only merit is to tell the story of Freddie Mercury. But it doesn't even do that very well - it's boring and flat for the most part, and a lot of the drama (the HIV positive test just before Live Aid - it's offensive) is just fabricated.
Yeah that's how I feel about them. And there's nothing wrong, sometimes it's ok to watch a film "just for the story" and find out stuff about these people, but it's not very interesting beyond that. And I guess I'm sometimes made a little bit uncomfortable with the historical liberties that are taken - while I don't believe everything needs to be done with absolute historical rigour, I feel there is a bit of a dichotomy at play when a film only exists for the purpose of telling someone's real-life story, and then just takes liberties with that story when it's convenient.
To take an example, Bohemian Rhapsody, a film I abhor, has nothing to say, isn't daring visually, is edited terribly, the list goes on. Its only merit is to tell the story of Freddie Mercury. But it doesn't even do that very well - it's boring and flat for the most part, and a lot of the drama (the HIV positive test just before Live Aid - it's offensive) is just fabricated.
Must be because I don't find that clip even a tiny bit funny either. And I think cringey mockumentary stuff can be hilarious.
@Cheimoon
Does this clip leave you cold too?
Anyone else seen All Of Us Strangers yet?
An incredibly sad and haunting film that really brings out the best in its four cast members, that's effectively all there is - Scott, Mescal, Bell and Foy.
They are brilliant but don't go in expecting to have fun! It's quite dark and emotional, showing the terrible effects of both loneliness and bereavement.
I'd be interested in the thoughts of anyone else who has caught this at the cinema - I'll give it 7.5/10.
An incredibly sad and haunting film that really brings out the best in its four cast members, that's effectively all there is - Scott, Mescal, Bell and Foy.
They are brilliant but don't go in expecting to have fun! It's quite dark and emotional, showing the terrible effects of both loneliness and bereavement.
I'm annoyed at myself for not predicting the ending - in hindsight it was fairly clear where it was going.
But I thought it was really well done and as soon as he opened the door to find Harry dead my jaw opened as if it was a Eureka moment.
A sad yet powerful way to end a sad and powerful movie.
But I thought it was really well done and as soon as he opened the door to find Harry dead my jaw opened as if it was a Eureka moment.
A sad yet powerful way to end a sad and powerful movie.
I'd be interested in the thoughts of anyone else who has caught this at the cinema - I'll give it 7.5/10.
Hadn't heard about this film before your post, I'll add it to my list if only for that cast!
Yeah, there's definitely a cultural aspect. I obviously do regularly enjoy US comedies, but there's a part of them that just leave me cold. It seems to me it's a kind of college humor but I might be wrong. Either way, this is definitely part of it. I also have no idea who Parker Posey is or was, and I suppose that doesn't help!
Maybe I should something find something typically Dutch and see how you like it. But then it'd have to be subtitled and you wouldn't get any jokes with accents, so I don't think I could make that work for the sake of our deeply scientific experiment here!
You mean 40 posts without anyone cutting into my monologue?
On and off. The boot polishing comment ('well, I guess he does') and how he ends up sitting on the desk when she comes in are funny, none of the rest is for me. I hate anything cringe really, so the whole interview itself I don't enjoy at all, I just want to turn it off.
I enjoyed it because it's Queen (yay, a film about Queen!), but yes, it's poor. As a Queen fan, I also know in some detail how it basically invents every dramatic turn right from the start of the band. (And any I do mean every: they completely mash up (and partly make up) sequences of events for dramatic purposes.) That completely defies the point of making a biopic, since it's not actually about something real anymore.
In the vast majority of cases, a biopic is much better if it were rather a film about a fictional character that's inspired by the real one. At least that allows for a proper film, not some weird lip-service sort of thing.
Another reason why Dewey Cox is the best of the bunch in the musical biopic genre!
Something else I'll have to watch some day!
No idea why but I decided to read a random page of this thread from a few years back, and it had posters discussing Miyazaki films (which at the time I hadn't seen) but more importantly, Wibble defending films like Armageddon and the likes!
Thanks to the internet, I've found someone who shares my views on Bohemian Rhapsody. For a movie about a band who was flamboyant and excessive, and whose singer was an obviously gay man trying to be butch, this film was bloodless. There was nothing wild, uninhibited, or even sexy anywhere in it. They made Freddy about to be a whiny little bitch with an unhealthy attachment to cats, and I really doubt that was his real nature. The filmmakers didn't understand Queen. Or they didn't like Queen. They didn't even use the dichotomy of Brian May being an egghead who kept it in his pants to Freddy being a maniac who never kept it in his pants. Not even one scene of Freddy being Freddy. And I'm sorry, Academy voters, but Rami Malek has zero charisma. You're right too, that HIV test scene was insulting. I kept hearing people saying, that Live Aid concert looked exactly like the real thing, as if verisimilitude is all it takes for an Oscar. Shit film.
Did you guys see Elvis? Skip Tom Hanks for a minute. That film showed the viewer why Elvis was such a lightning rod back then, they made him seem glam and punk at the same time, and his sexuality was all over the film. BaZ should have directed Bohemian Rhapsody.
Yeah it's terrible. It's also quite crazy that a film about a flamboyant 80s gay rock star is so tame - no orgies, no sex, pffft boring.
I much more enjoyed the one on Elton John, Rocket Man, that came out about the same time, despite not being a massive fan of musicals, or of Elton John, beforehand. I felt it was more fun, more inventive, and highlighted Elton John's talent as a showman much better.
Oh I just had a flashback to the scene where they compose "Bohemian Rhapsody" at the farm, that was so bad!
Yeah @esmufc07 was actually not bad. The fact I'd let Austin Butler do naughty things to me probably isn't a stranger to that, but even beyond that, it has an energy and a passion about it that BR lacks for sure. It's a bit overkill and overBazLuhrman at times but it is what it is. I'd rather an imperfect but fun and exhilarating film than a boring one for sure. And they landed the ending so so well.
Not to stray too far from the thread topic, but have you seen his Masters of the Air show on Apple+? He's still doing his "Southern" accent thing, like in Elvis, even though he was born right here in Southern California.
Would be interesting it he were stuck in character for the rest of his career.
Nah I haven't seen that, haven't heard much positive about it in the other thread - what's your thoughts on it?
Yeah, I saw it recently. I thought I also reviewed it here but I can't find my post back. Maybe I forgot. Anyway, it was pretty alright. I'm not a fan of Luhrmann's glittery style, but it's a good fit for Elvis of course. I did think the film tried to do a bit too much though; it kinda fizzled out in the last third or so. Maybe it should have stopped at this Christmas special comeback (with a separate film about the rest). It also should have had a different title, cause it's very much Parker's perspective on Elvis (with a few small exceptions), not just about Elvis more objectively (insofar that's possible, but the film explicitly doesn't go for that approach).
Anyway, not bad as biopics go.
I found this review interesting -
Poor Things Reinvigorates The Prometheus Myth - https://unherd.com/thepost/poor-things-reinvigorates-the-prometheus-myth/
I didn't like Caddyshack much at the time or since. I much preferred Airplane and The Blues Brothers that year.
Last edited:
It's a slow build but gets better the longer you're with them. The show makes it look really cool to fly in a B-17, and mostly avoids WWII cliches.
Drinking Elvis's Blood, a film by "Baz" Luhrman.
That was a pretty good year for American comedies. I remember Blues Brothers being the first thing I'd seen Carrie Fisher in after Star Wars, and not liking how they treated our dear princess. Also couldn't wait to get some epoxy (strong stuff). I didn't particularly dig the music in Blues Brothers, but later on as an adult, I got into the whole Stax sound, so I at least understood what was supposed to be enjoyed. However, HOWEVER, that Cab Calloway shit is poison.
No idea why but I decided to read a random page of this thread from a few years back, and it had posters discussing Miyazaki films (which at the time I hadn't seen) but more importantly, Wibble defending films like Armageddon and the likes!
Nothing wrong with entertaining popcorn action movies (Armagedddon and The Day After Tommorrow type nonsense), not that I have seen many recently. And I like Miyazaki films as well, Spirited Away in particular, although I haven't watched it in years now.
Don't diss Cab.
We are really enjoying it. The only weakness is that it hasn't got any interviews with actual bomber crews for obvious reasons that you can't do anything about.
You're clearly a man of taste.
@Rooney in Paris no doubt agrees. Although we agreed about the Fargo finale. Which is probably disconcerting
That’s the only weakness? I’ve seen the first two episodes and thought it was terrible. It’s not the pacing that’s the problem, I love slow burn shows, it’s the crappy dialogue, the poor acting (basically Elvis is a pilot), lack of character development, and the basic “America good, everyone else dumb” schtik, that lets it down. The only interesting thing about it is the historical content and context, and the flight scenes. Without that, it’s got nothing to offer so far.