Film The Redcafe Movie review thread

The Killing of a Sacred Deer
Seven Psychopaths
Crazy Heart
Horrible Bosses
The Way Back
Ondine
In Bruges
A Home At the End of the World
Tigerland
Damn, forgot Banshees of Innisherin, but that’s a given, isn’t it?
Haven‘t seen a single one from that list and pretty much doubt I will anytime soon. In some sort of movie hiatus. But thank you


That said, watched 1/2 of Chihahitu from Ghibli yesterday with the daughter. mesmerizing
 
feck no. I hate Guy Ritchie movies. It’s more a melancholic black comedy.
Aren‘t the Richie movies marketed as black comedy too though? And highly popular (at least back in the day). Just checking, watching a movie nowadays is some serious commitment for me.

Totally unrelated: you ever watched the (Danish?) Pusher trilogy? Should have been mentioned in the trilogy thread really but what can you expect.
 
Aren‘t the Richie movies marketed as black comedy too though? And highly popular (at least back in the day). Just checking, watching a movie nowadays is some serious commitment for me.

Totally unrelated: you ever watched the (Danish?) Pusher trilogy? Should have been mentioned in the trilogy thread really but what can you expect.
I have seen one of those. I like Refn’s work, even if occasionally it’s complete dross (Only God Forgives). In Bruges is not funny, and stylistically very restrained.
 
I have seen one of those. I like Refn’s work, even if occasionally it’s complete dross (Only God Forgives). In Bruges is not funny, and stylistically very restrained.
Give it a shot then (not literally), think it‘s been one of Mads Mikkelsen‘s first roles. Totally forgot that it‘s directed by Refn. Agreed on Only God Forgives being nonsense but I also didn‘t regret seeing it once. Like his style.

Then it‘s most likely the movie poster of Bruges that put me off.
 
I think he’s definitely more of a supporting player than a lead. Even in In Bruges he had Brendan Gleeson to play off. There’s something that happens when a charming Irish guy loses their accent for some flat, affectless American accent, and it robs them of character. I think when he can use an Irish accent - even if it’s not his natural one - he’s vastly more interesting. Like in Banshees, he was really good. Ultimately I didn’t like that movie but he, Brendan, Barry, Kerry Condon - everyone was great (just hated the story).
Yep. Hated Banshees
 
compelling leads with tons of range. It's basically a love letter to stunt performers. Blunt is great. Gosling is great, possibly the greatest actor of his generation (or any generation). They have great chemistry. Aaron Taylor-Johnson was good as the Matthew McConnnaughey-esque dipshit actor. (Taylor-Johnson was the titular Kick-Ass, and is unrecognizable here).

After all the “range” chat in this thread it’s funny that, while attempting to big up Ryan Gosling for his range (something he lacks) you inadvertently mention an actor who shits all over Gosling for his ability to play a wide range of very different characters.
 
Just watched Society of the Snow and thought it was incredible. But the whole time I was aware that I really had to suspend my disbelief that anyone could survive such a crash, never mind what followed after.

And now I found out it's a bloody true story! Is there any survival story as insane as this??

this one is pretty incredible

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliane_Koepcke

Werner Herzog made a doco about it that's great too

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0249248/
 
I Saw The TV Glow
Two teens bond over a supernatural TV show that mysteriously gets cancelled. Based on what I've read online, I didn't think I'd like this but I actually really enjoyed it. The setting, cinematography, lighting, acting and especially soundtrack was just fantastic. It had a dream like vibe and I was really into that. However, a truly great movie like this would have an excellent story that is amplified by the allegory but this movie is just an allegory and the actual narrative is pretty thin. Also, the pacing is super slow, not helped by there being a 10 second gap between each line of dialogue. However, I much rather fresh films like this get made rather than run of the mill bullshit like Night Swim and Tarot 7/10
 
After all the “range” chat in this thread it’s funny that, while attempting to big up Ryan Gosling for his range (something he lacks) you inadvertently mention an actor who shits all over Gosling for his ability to play a wide range of very different characters.
That’s one of the funniest hot takes most normal things I’ve ever read here. Colin Farrell is an extremely limited actor is not the subject of your observation.
 
Last edited:
I Saw The TV Glow
Two teens bond over a supernatural TV show that mysteriously gets cancelled. Based on what I've read online, I didn't think I'd like this but I actually really enjoyed it. The setting, cinematography, lighting, acting and especially soundtrack was just fantastic. It had a dream like vibe and I was really into that. However, a truly great movie like this would have an excellent story that is amplified by the allegory but this movie is just an allegory and the actual narrative is pretty thin. Also, the pacing is super slow, not helped by there being a 10 second gap between each line of dialogue. However, I much rather fresh films like this get made rather than run of the mill bullshit like Night Swim and Tarot 7/10
It's very dream-like. Funnily enough, I dreamt about it last night.
 
Ryan Gosling one of the greatest actors of any generation?! He's alright. Annoying facial expressions but also obviously a hunk.
 
I have seen one of those. I like Refn’s work, even if occasionally it’s complete dross (Only God Forgives). In Bruges is not funny, and stylistically very restrained.
It’s not a comedy in the traditional sense.
Two very different things. It's got quite a few of hilarious quotes and despite its melancholy is very very funny. It's an Irish comedy basically.
 
Totally unrelated: you ever watched the (Danish?) Pusher trilogy? Should have been mentioned in the trilogy thread really but what can you expect.
Forgot about that one in the trilogy thread. Not one of my favorites, but a trilogy where all of them are quite good. I think I liked Refn back then better, those and Bleeder are all good. His Hollywood films are more uneven, even though Drive is great.
 
Ryan Gosling one of the greatest actors of any generation?! He's alright. Annoying facial expressions but also obviously a hunk.

I reckon someone took him aside in acting school and said look just try not to say too much whilst appearing mysterious and you’ll go far
 
Regarding the Gosling acting range, I think it depends entirely on how you define range. If you look deeper into his filmography he's clearly done a wide array of different characters and as far as I'm concerned done them well. That's range to me, but if you're looking for transformative performers like Bale or Day-Lewis (who came up early in this thread) then clearly Gosling is not it.
 
Regarding the Gosling acting range, I think it depends entirely on how you define range. If you look deeper into his filmography he's clearly done a wide array of different characters and as far as I'm concerned done them well. That's range to me, but if you're looking for transformative performers like Bale or Day-Lewis (who came up early in this thread) then clearly Gosling is not it.
I’m just fecking with people at this point with Gosling and range, as well as the “greatest actor of his generation”. I’m a big fan and I think any fact based assessment of his career would indicate he’s got a lot of range as an actor, but people here don’t accept it. If one can watch Blue Valentine and then Lars and the Real Girl, and then Drive, let’s say, and not think that represents range, I don’t know what to say but it seems we are operating with different understandings of what it means to have range.

Clint Eastwood, as an example, is a movie star I adore, but who has zero range. He is simply not believable in any role that doesnt demand tough guy masculinity.

Brad Pitt, the face that launched a 1,000 ships, in my view also has zero range. Other than 12 Monkeys and Burn After Reading, he’s played a version of a handsome cool guy being super cool. I liked both of those rolls. I loved Pitt in a few things like Fight Club. But he has a very limited range, you simply wouldn’t believe him as a suburban dad, or an astronaut, or a doctor, or a lawyer, or a convict.

Colin Farrell also has been great in a few things, as I said, but he also has very limited range like both Eastwood and Pitt.

Oh well!
 
Last edited:
Two very different things. It's got quite a few of hilarious quotes and despite its melancholy is very very funny. It's an Irish comedy basically.
Children Of Men was very funny and I laughed in it more than in actual comedies, but it wasn’t a comedy. Similar to In Bruges. I really didn’t think it was a comedy, but then again Ive seen Banshees also described as a comedy. If it’s binary and you have to choose comedy or tragedy, maybe. I don’t remember it being something I’d describe as a comedy.
 
Last edited:
Come on now. I’ve even highlighted the name of the actor I was referring to in bold. Plus Colin Farrel wasn’t even in the movie you were talking about!
Somehow I thought you were comparing him to Colin Farrell, but since it’s the other guy, I have to downgrade your comment from hot take to mild observation. The standings will be adjusted accordingly. We apologize for any inconvenience.
 
Last edited:
But it doesn‘t appeal to me for unknown reasons. Is it like one of these Guy Richie movies, not really enjoying those.
Martin McDonagh is worlds away from Guy Ritchie. If you've seen the film 3 billboards outside ebbing, missouri he wrote that.
Most of his films are a mix of comedy and drama with some more drama and some more comedy. In Bruges is just a straight up comedy, more or less every line is a joke. I dont know how you could describe it as anything else.
 
I’m just fecking with people at this point with Gosling and range, as well as the “greatest actor of his generation”. I’m a big fan and I think any fact based assessment of his career would indicate he’s got a lot of range as an actor, but people here don’t accept it. If one can watch Blue Valentine and then Lars and the Real Girl, and then Drive, let’s say, and not think that represents range, I don’t know what to say but it seems we are operating with different understandings of what it means to have range.

Clint Eastwood, as an example, is a movie star I adore, but who has zero range. He is simply not believable in any role that doesnt demand tough guy masculinity.

Brad Pitt, the face that launched a 1,000 ships, in my view also has zero range. Other than 12 Monkeys and Burn After Reading, he’s played a version of a handsome cool guy being super cool. I liked both of those rolls. I loved Pitt in a few things like Fight Club. But he has a very limited range, you simply wouldn’t believe him as a suburban dad, or an astronaut, or a doctor, or a lawyer, or a convict.

Colin Farrell also has been great in a few things, as I said, but he also has very limited range like both Eastwood and Pitt.

Oh well!

 
ryan-gosling-cereal.gif