Film The Redcafe Movie review thread

[Wing Attack Plan R]

Babylon. Damien Chazelle's sprawling 2022 film about the end of the silent era and beginning of the sound era in Hollywood. It follows a star actor, new hit actress, and a guy making career on the business side (as wel as a few other characters) as they navigate the film world during this period.

It's hard to talk about this film, since it's all over the place in style, tone, and narrative. Some bits works well, like the chaos of the opening party (very Luhrman-like and not something I care much for, but I can see the craft in it), the bit where a ton of silent films are being shot together (more controlled chaos, basically), and especially the start of the sound era: the way the first scene on the sound stage starts is amazing - even if it subsequently descends into another wild farce.

But on the other side, I felt a lot of scenes were unnecessarily drawn out (enormously, sometimes), a lot of plot elements were unnecessary (which matters in a 3h film), the tonal shift to a very dark (and strangely bizarre) world in the final third was exaggerated, and the character developments were poorly motivated. I also felt the shift from a naive, free world of silent film, that could progressive and cheeky and provocative, to a much more closed-minded era where the socio-eonomic-cultural elite, criminals, and conservatism entered Hollywood was probably far too black and white - although it seems like the film is heavily inspired by Singing in the Rain, and I never saw that one; I feel that limited my understanding of certain developments in the story. And as much as I understand the film is a kind of dark homage to Hollywood, the final 'history of cinema' sequence seemed tacked on rather pointlessly. (And after a pretty good first half also selected and edited strangely; but maybe that's my lack of understanding of the history.)

So it's good but bad, impressive but dumb, joyful but very dark, everything but far too much of it. 3/5

That's a pretty balanced view of that film. I was supremely disappointed - and extremely bored. It was all over the place, had no idea what kind of story it was trying to tell and ended up feeling like a series of vignettes done in the style of other directors to no effect.

I think the greatest crime of this film was how the director invites you along on this story about three Hollywood strivers, and you have to implicitly trust the director's vision. He then proceeds to do everything possible to betray that trust, offend the viewer, shock the viewer, and uses cheap melodrama instead of pathos. I'm talking things like the elephant shitting at the camera, the fate of Margot Robbie's character, the descent into the demimonde with Tobey Maguire, and as you mentioned, that what the feck montage at the end, like it was an essay for a film class. The director sets up Robbie as the character we are supposed to cherish, and then abandons her (after degrading her). Chazelle is great with actors and great with filming scenes (blocking etc.) but he seems to have forgotten every rule about storytelling on this one.

 

[Cheimoon]

That's a pretty balanced view of that film. I was supremely disappointed - and extremely bored. It was all over the place, had no idea what kind of story it was trying to tell and ended up feeling like a series of vignettes done in the style of other directors to no effect.

I think the greatest crime of this film was how the director invites you along on this story about three Hollywood strivers, and you have to implicitly trust the director's vision. He then proceeds to do everything possible to betray that trust, offend the viewer, shock the viewer, and uses cheap melodrama instead of pathos. I'm talking things like the elephant shitting at the camera, the fate of Margot Robbie's character, the descent into the demimonde with Tobey Maguire, and as you mentioned, that what the feck montage at the end, like it was an essay for a film class. The director sets up Robbie as the character we are supposed to cherish, and then abandons her (after degrading her). Chazelle is great with actors and great with filming scenes (blocking etc.) but he seems to have forgotten every rule about storytelling on this one.

Yeah, the story is bizarre - but there I feel Chazelle somehow felt himself beholden to Singing in the Rain somehow. Again, I haven't see it, but I read it's plot summary afterwards, and there a million similarities. It's almost as if Chazelle thought that Singing in the Rain was excessively sanitized and sugar-coated, and so he took it upon himself to tell the story in all its dark and vulgar detail. Did you see Singing in the Rain? Does this make any sense?

But yeah, there is no reason

Spoiler

why Jack Conrad fails in talkies and his suicide is pathetic rather than dramatic; and LaRoy is an irritating character throughout, then goes into overdrive when it matters (when she has her lethal debt), and then still gets a respectful exit.

I suppose that might be in keeping with certain themes and therefore possibly on purpose; but the film is otherwise very explicit about its themes (and vulgarity), so it's very hard as a viewer to move along with those narrative developments. (I was going to write character developments, but that's incorrect, cause no-one really develops or learns anything. In fact, they oppose that, which is of course a theme of the film, but also hard to sympathize with.)

Anyway, we can go on and on. I think you say it well at the end: Chazelle clearly knows his craft in terms of his work on set (yeah, definitely lots of great shots and scene composition, too); but in terms of storytelling, this is a mess.

 

[Rooney in Paris]

To be fair in this case the guy was a cnut. Admitted to slapping woman in heated arguments, thought homosexuality was against human nature and gays shouldn’t be able to adopt and was into French right wing politics.

Although in true actor style he did regret not getting directed by a woman.

He was a bit of a paradox, or more exactly he saw his career as an actor as completely separate to his personal beliefs.

He worked with Joseph Losey, who was a victim of McCarthysm, and with Visconti, who was a communist.

He was pro-death penalty but gave a vibrant anti-death penalty performance in "Deux hommes dans la ville".

He was homophobic but played the baron Charlus in "Un amour de Swann".

And as you highlighted, he was misogynistic but said one of his big regrets was not working for a female director.

Babylon. Damien Chazelle's sprawling 2022 film about the end of the silent era and beginning of the sound era in Hollywood. It follows a star actor, new hit actress, and a guy making career on the business side (as wel as a few other characters) as they navigate the film world during this period.

It's hard to talk about this film, since it's all over the place in style, tone, and narrative. Some bits work well, like the chaos of the opening party (very Luhrman-like and not something I care much for, but I can see the craft in it), the bit where a ton of silent films are being shot together (more controlled chaos, basically), and especially the start of the sound era: the way the first scene on the sound stage starts is amazing - even if it subsequently descends into another wild farce.

But on the other side, I felt a lot of scenes were unnecessarily drawn out (enormously, sometimes), a lot of plot elements were unnecessary (which matters in a 3h film), the tonal shift to a very dark (and strangely bizarre) world in the final third was exaggerated, and the character developments were poorly motivated. I also felt the shift from a naive, free world of silent film, that could be progressive and cheeky and provocative, to a much more closed-minded era where the socio-eonomic-cultural elite, criminals, and conservatism entered Hollywood was probably far too black and white - although it seems like the film is heavily inspired by Singing in the Rain, and I never saw that one; I feel that limited my understanding of certain developments in the story. And as much as I understand the film is a kind of dark homage to Hollywood, the final 'history of cinema' sequence seemed tacked on rather pointlessly. (And after a pretty good first half also selected and edited strangely; but maybe that's my lack of understanding of the history.)

So it's good but bad, impressive but dumb, joyful but very dark, everything but far too much of it. 3/5

Yeah agree it was all over the place, it was a mess - but a mess I have to say I enjoyed. Some of it dragged, but I enjoyed the performances, I thought the first hour was exhilarating, and as messy and "unsuccessful" as it is ultimately, I'd rather this than most soulless films that grace the screen. It's a glorious mishit.

The final montage was weird. Felt wanky for the sake of being wanky, sort of pulls at your heartstrings in the moment but as soon as you take a step back, it's just weird.

There's a lot to like, a lot to hate, a lot to admire and a lot to criticize in it, but I definitely think it's a fun watch overall.

One question I do have after seeing it though, is that it's meant to be a hommage to cinema, Chazelle's love-letter to film, but when I came out of it, I wondered whether he actually does love cinema or music more.

 

[Vidyoyo]

Goodbye, Dragon Inn

Another masterpiece of slow cinema by god tier director Tsai Ming-liang. The film is set around the last night of a cinema before it’s full closure.

Dragon Inn continues Ming-liang film themes of erotic homosexuality under the surface. The slow style/long takes works brilliantly to highlight the difficult work conditions facing disabled workers. There’s also a very sweet co worker relationship throughout.

A beautiful tribute to cinema which given the current conditions becomes more relevant every year. Get comfy with your drug of choice and vibe out.

10/10

Yeah lovely movie.

Re: Bold. I never thought about how prominent it is until I went to a screening of Rebels of the Neon God as part of a Queer cinema season last year. Now I can't stop seeing it in most of his movies.

 

[SamYourEye]

Babylon. Damien Chazelle's sprawling 2022 film about the end of the silent era and beginning of the sound era in Hollywood. It follows a star actor, new hit actress, and a guy making career on the business side (as wel as a few other characters) as they navigate the film world during this period.

It's hard to talk about this film, since it's all over the place in style, tone, and narrative. Some bits work well, like the chaos of the opening party (very Luhrman-like and not something I care much for, but I can see the craft in it), the bit where a ton of silent films are being shot together (more controlled chaos, basically), and especially the start of the sound era: the way the first scene on the sound stage starts is amazing - even if it subsequently descends into another wild farce.

But on the other side, I felt a lot of scenes were unnecessarily drawn out (enormously, sometimes), a lot of plot elements were unnecessary (which matters in a 3h film), the tonal shift to a very dark (and strangely bizarre) world in the final third was exaggerated, and the character developments were poorly motivated. I also felt the shift from a naive, free world of silent film, that could be progressive and cheeky and provocative, to a much more closed-minded era where the socio-eonomic-cultural elite, criminals, and conservatism entered Hollywood was probably far too black and white - although it seems like the film is heavily inspired by Singing in the Rain, and I never saw that one; I feel that limited my understanding of certain developments in the story. And as much as I understand the film is a kind of dark homage to Hollywood, the final 'history of cinema' sequence seemed tacked on rather pointlessly. (And after a pretty good first half also selected and edited strangely; but maybe that's my lack of understanding of the history.)

So it's good but bad, impressive but dumb, joyful but very dark, everything but far too much of it. 3/5

I absolutely loved this movie but I can completely understand the critiques.

It is a tonal and structural mess but, for me, it was one of those rare cases where all of that mess made it better.

One of the last films that I've seen that I would call genuinely 'great'.

At the same time, it's hard to recommend as I know many people would hate it.

Brilliant.

 

[CoopersDream]

Goodbye, Dragon Inn

Another masterpiece of slow cinema by god tier director Tsai Ming-liang. The film is set around the last night of a cinema before it’s full closure.

Dragon Inn continues Ming-liang film themes of erotic homosexuality under the surface. The slow style/long takes works brilliantly to highlight the difficult work conditions facing disabled workers. There’s also a very sweet co worker relationship throughout.

A beautiful tribute to cinema which given the current conditions becomes more relevant every year. Get comfy with your drug of choice and vibe out.

10/10

I was a bit curious to check out other films by this director after I caught Days (which I disliked quite a bit, mind) the local film festival a few years back. Will check this out.

 

[Cheimoon]

Yeah agree it was all over the place, it was a mess - but a mess I have to say I enjoyed. Some of it dragged, but I enjoyed the performances, I thought the first hour was exhilarating, and as messy and "unsuccessful" as it is ultimately, I'd rather this than most soulless films that grace the screen. It's a glorious mishit.

The final montage was weird. Felt wanky for the sake of being wanky, sort of pulls at your heartstrings in the moment but as soon as you take a step back, it's just weird.

There's a lot to like, a lot to hate, a lot to admire and a lot to criticize in it, but I definitely think it's a fun watch overall.

One question I do have after seeing it though, is that it's meant to be a hommage to cinema, Chazelle's love-letter to film, but when I came out of it, I wondered whether he actually does love cinema or music more.

Yeah, the first hour was glorious chaos, and I think a but longer as well. It's when the negativity starts that the film really starts dragging; once the joy disappears, a lot of the longer scenes just become boring.

But yeah, there's a lot to watch in that first part, despite the mess. There are also some fantastic oners, and so much detail in the part where all the films are being shot.

And I agree, if this is a love letter to Hollywood, it's really only for the silent era; what comes after is depicted terribly. Of course, it's depicted from the perspective of silent film people that have their downfall, but you don't see anything else. Then again, I guess the final cinema montage is supposed to show how film keeps evolving; or at least, its first half has a lot of key scenes in cinema's evolution. So I guess that does.show things as positive change. But you wouldn't have said so from watching the rest of the film.

 

[Rooney in Paris]

Yeah, the first hour was glorious chaos, and I think a but longer as well. It's when the negativity starts that the film really starts dragging; once the joy disappears, a lot of the longer scenes just become boring.

But yeah, there's a lot to watch in that first part, despite the mess. There are also some fantastic oners, and so much detail in the part where all the films are being shot.

And I agree, if this is a love letter to Hollywood, it's really only for the silent era; what comes after is depicted terribly. Of course, it's depicted from the perspective of silent film people that have their downfall, but you don't see anything else. Then again, I guess the final cinema montage is supposed to show how film keeps evolving; or at least, its first half has a lot of key scenes in cinema's evolution. So I guess that does.show things as positive change. But you wouldn't have said so from watching the rest of the film.

For the darker part of the film, I have to say I enjoyed Tobey Maguire's segment - I think it was divisive, but I actually liked it and thought he seemed to be having great fun in it.

 

[Cheimoon]

For the darker part of the film, I have to say I enjoyed Tobey Maguire's segment - I think it was divisive, but I actually liked it and thought he seemed to be having great fun in it.

It was quite something in its own way, and I suppose it was intended exactly this way, for the ultimate contrast with the opening party. It's just so enormously different tonally!

 

[berbatrick]

 

[caid]

Harakiri (1962) 9/10
This is a fantastic movie. Did someone on here review it a couple of months back? I have no idea where i heard about it from and i felt like i'd seen it before a long time ago but that seems unlikely. A disgraced ronin requests the use of a clans courtyard to commit harakiri (ritual suicide). The clan elder meets him and tells the story of the last person to make the request. The movie is told through a series of flashbacks. I think its pretty much a perfect movie. The camera work is amongst the best i've seen, its a beautiful movie.

 

[Sweet Square]

He was a bit of a paradox, or more exactly he saw his career as an actor as completely separate to his personal beliefs.

He worked with Joseph Losey, who was a victim of McCarthysm, and with Visconti, who was a communist.

He was pro-death penalty but gave a vibrant anti-death penalty performance in "Deux hommes dans la ville".

He was homophobic but played the baron Charlus in "Un amour de Swann".

And as you highlighted, he was misogynistic but said one of his big regrets was not working for a female director.

Interesting thanks. I had no idea about this. Tbh I tend to associate being a good actor with the ability to play characters who hold completely different viewpoints.

Yeah lovely movie.

Re: Bold. I never thought about how prominent it is until I went to a screening of Rebels of the Neon God as part of a Queer cinema season last year. Now I can't stop seeing it in most of his movies.

Oh nice. Such a perfectly cool film and probably still my favourite title for any movie.

Yep I was the same until I saw his short film No No Sleep which is about two dudes chilling in a Japanese bath house. The genius is there’s ever really any explicit sex or nudity in his films but all very intentional. Incredible directing work.

I was a bit curious to check out other films by this director after I caught Days (which I disliked quite a bit, mind) the local film festival a few years back. Will check this out.

It’s not as extreme as Days which is really pushing the limit. There’s more of a story and the shots aren’t as long. The story is built around people reactionary the film the cinema is showing. I also forgot to mention in the review Goodbye, Dragon Inn is up on YouTube.

Tbh sometimes I cheat with slow films and add in ambient soundtrack to fill in. Which works surprisingly well at times. I would also recommend films like The Wayward Cloud or The Hole as there is the slow/long take style but some great musical numbers which shake things up as well.

 

[CoopersDream]

It’s not as extreme as Days which is really pushing the limit. There’s more of a story and the shots aren’t as long. The story is built around people reactionary the film the cinema is showing. I also forgot to mention in the review Goodbye, Dragon Inn is up on YouTube.

Yeah, that's what I heard as well, which is what made me curious in the first place. There were aspects I really enjoyed about Days, but it pushed the limit a bit too far for my liking. Good to know it's on YouTube!

 

[Sweet Square]

At first, this new trailer for Francis Ford Coppola’s much-anticipated, decades-in-the-making Megalopolis seemed to be taking a turbo-loaded approach to that latter strategy, going back in time to give us examples of critics hating on Coppola’s earlier masterpieces. And not just any critics: These are quotes from people like Pauline Kael and Andrew Sarris, two of the greatest names in film criticism.

Except that it looks like they might not have said any of this. Pauline Kael, for one, totally adored both The Godfather and The Godfather Part II. She lavished praise on the adaptation, the direction, and the performances, and said of the whole epic, “This is a bicentennial picture that doesn’t insult the intelligence. It’s an epic vision of the corruption of America.” The alleged quote attributed to her in this trailer — that The Godfather is “diminished by its artsiness” — is nowhere to be found in either of her (glowing) reviews of the first two films. (She was less keen on Part III, but that phrase doesn’t appear in that review either.) If anything, Kael felt that Coppola’s refinement and skill — his artistry, in other words — greatly improved Mario Puzo’s admittedly trashy source material.

I know that Sarris, ever the delightful contrarian, was less keen on The Godfather, but that was to be somewhat expected. Still, the quote attributed to him in the trailer (“a sloppy, self-indulgent movie”) is not to be found in his review either. Vincent Canby does not appear to have called Apocalypse Now “hollow at the core.” He was, however, mixed about the film. Rex Reed did in fact pretty much hate Apocalypse Now, but his quote from this trailer doesn’t appear in his review either. And, no, Roger Ebert’s mostly positive review of Bram Stoker’s Dracula does not include the words “a triumph of style over substance.” Instead, he says this: “The movie is an exercise in feverish excess, and for that if for little else, I enjoyed it.” He gave it three stars, which was actually one of the nicer reviews the film received at the time. Is it possible all these quotes are made-up?

Yeah, that's what I heard as well, which is what made me curious in the first place. There were aspects I really enjoyed about Days, but it pushed the limit a bit too far for my liking. Good to know it's on YouTube!

I think Tsai Ming-liang has said in the last few years he sees his films as a mix of films and art installations. Which imo Days fits into.

Hope you enjoy Goodbye, Dragon Inn.

 

[Wing Attack Plan R]

Yeah agree it was all over the place, it was a mess - but a mess I have to say I enjoyed. Some of it dragged, but I enjoyed the performances, I thought the first hour was exhilarating, and as messy and "unsuccessful" as it is ultimately, I'd rather this than most soulless films that grace the screen. It's a glorious mishit.

The final montage was weird. Felt wanky for the sake of being wanky, sort of pulls at your heartstrings in the moment but as soon as you take a step back, it's just weird.

There's a lot to like, a lot to hate, a lot to admire and a lot to criticize in it, but I definitely think it's a fun watch overall.

One question I do have after seeing it though, is that it's meant to be a hommage to cinema, Chazelle's love-letter to film, but when I came out of it, I wondered whether he actually does love cinema or music more.

I absolutely loved this movie but I can completely understand the critiques.

It is a tonal and structural mess but, for me, it was one of those rare cases where all of that mess made it better.

One of the last films that I've seen that I would call genuinely 'great'.

At the same time, it's hard to recommend as I know many people would hate it.

Brilliant.

It was quite something in its own way, and I suppose it was intended exactly this way, for the ultimate contrast with the opening party. It's just so enormously different tonally!

I felt it was pastiche. He starts making a Howard Hawks film, then it becomes Coen Brothers type of comedy drama, then an Elia Kazan tale of struggle, and finally a David Lynch tour of sexual deviance - all as if each section featured a different director. What is homage and what is pastiche and what is mere imitation.

As far as Singin' In The Rain goes, wiki says "The film was only a modest hit when it was first released. Today, however, it is often regarded as the greatest musical film ever and one of the greatest films ever made." I enjoy musicals, but I never liked SITR. It's a similar story of silent film stars trying to make it in talkies but I didn't see anything deeper than that.

 

[berbatrick]

complete support

 

[Cheimoon]

As far as Singin' In The Rain goes, wiki says "The film was only a modest hit when it was first released. Today, however, it is often regarded as the greatest musical film ever and one of the greatest films ever made." I enjoy musicals, but I never liked SITR. It's a similar story of silent film stars trying to make it in talkies but I didn't see anything deeper than that.

Sorry, I didn't mean SITR was deep, just that Babylon seems to take a lot of its narrative cues from SITR, and that knowing SITR might therefore help understand some of the turns that Babylon's story takes.

 

[Cheimoon]

Inside Out 2. Pixar revisits Riley, who is now going to a hockey camp in the summer before switching to high school while she is also entering puberty, leading to another psychological overhaul while she is trying to navigate a new social environment.

Overall, I thought it was again pretty good. The emotions come through well and there is a lot to connect with and recognize. There is a sense of having to top the previous film though, and I think sometimes that leads to loud action chaos, where the first film managed to maintain its pacing and feel better throughout. The real-life story also felt more by the numbers. But again, overall, it's pretty strong. 3.5/5

 

[Cheimoon]

Something else: is it just me or have film trailers really changed? I'm not sure compared to when exactly, and maybe it's a Hollywood thing, but I'm used to trailers giving a sense of the overall story, with a bunch of key narrative scenes and of course some impressive scenes (as fitting for the genre). Lately when I'm watching trailers for new films, though, they seem to be all feel: a jumbled mess of scenes that appear to try and give a sense of the sort of film it is, but provide any sense of the story. I'm not a fan, but I suppose it's what they think the target audience responds to best...?

 

[Wing Attack Plan R]

Sorry, I didn't mean SITR was deep, just that Babylon seems to take a lot of its narrative cues from SITR, and that knowing SITR might therefore help understand some of the turns that Babylon's story takes.

Yeah, I meant, I didn't detect anything in Babylon that was trying to amplify any themes left behind by SITR, and I don't think one needs to have seen SITR to get whatever it was audiences were supposed to get out of Babylon. SITR is played for laughs, maybe Chzelle thought it needed some suicide and turning to drugs and whoring to spice it up? Who knows.

 

[Wing Attack Plan R]

Inside Out 2. Pixar revisits Riley, who is now going to a hockey camp in the summer before switching to high school while she is also entering puberty, leading to another psychological overhaul while she is trying to navigate a new social environment.

Overall, I thought it was again pretty good. The emotions come through well and there is a lot to connect with and recognize. There is a sense of having to top the previous film though, and I think sometimes that leads to loud action chaos, where the first film managed to maintain its pacing and feel better throughout. The real-life story also felt more by the numbers. But again, overall, it's pretty strong. 3.5/5

Did you see this with young people/kids, or did you just go check this out as an adult? Not judging or anything, but every time I've sat through a Pixar film it was to appease the younger members of my family, can't imagine seeing one when not under duress.

 

[Sweet Square]

complete support

 

[Cheimoon]

Did you see this with young people/kids, or did you just go check this out as an adult? Not judging or anything, but every time I've sat through a Pixar film it was to appease the younger members of my family, can't imagine seeing one when not under duress.

We were with our kids, but this is a film I would have liked to see either way. But anything I'd like to see that we think our kids will also enjoy, we try to watch together.

My kids seemed to rate it more than I did, for what it's worth.

 

[Wing Attack Plan R]

Something else: is it just me or have film trailers really changed? I'm not sure compared to when exactly, and maybe it's a Hollywood thing, but I'm used to trailers giving a sense of the overall story, with a bunch of key narrative scenes and of course some impressive scenes (as fitting for the genre). Lately when I'm watching trailers for new films, though, they seem to be all feel: a jumbled mess of scenes that appear to try and give a sense of the sort of film it is, but provide any sense of the story. I'm not a fan, but I suppose it's what they think the target audience responds to best...?

They seem to be making them to be viewed on small screens and not heard at all. A lot of beauty shots and explosions or whatever but those days when they would play some of the movie seems to be deader than the dodo. It's wild if you go back and try and find a trailer from the 70s, where they have narration, so dated. Here's a really hilarious one:
Zabriskie Point trailer

 

[Wing Attack Plan R]

We were with our kids, but this is a film I would have liked to see either way. But anything I'd like to see that we think our kids will also enjoy, we try to watch together.

My kids seemed to rate it more than I did, for what it's worth.

It's weird, 3.5/5 feels like a higher rating than 7/10 but they are the same number. So about a letter grade C.

 

[Cheimoon]

It's weird, 3.5/5 feels like a higher rating than 7/10 but they are the same number. So about a letter grade C.

I have little feel for letter grades, but I think a C would be more like 6/10. Wouldn't 7/10 be more like B-? But for me, 5/10 is sub-par, since it's a fail grade in Dutch school grading.

 

[weetee]

Harakiri (1962) 9/10
This is a fantastic movie. Did someone on here review it a couple of months back? I have no idea where i heard about it from and i felt like i'd seen it before a long time ago but that seems unlikely. A disgraced ronin requests the use of a clans courtyard to commit harakiri (ritual suicide). The clan elder meets him and tells the story of the last person to make the request. The movie is told through a series of flashbacks. I think its pretty much a perfect movie. The camera work is amongst the best i've seen, its a beautiful movie.

Well I didn‘t review it but it‘s one of my favorite movies and I highly recommended it here some time ago. There was a time where I watched and collected lots of wuxia/shaw brothers/Kurosawa movies and it‘s one of the most memorable for me. There are a lot of good movies in that genre/period though imho, so worth some digging if you haven‘t already. I will leave out the Kurosawa ones but from the top of my head there is Touch of Zen, Human Lanterns, Dragon Inn as those that I’ve watched quite often.

Only „flaw“ it has for me is that you have to be in the right mood to really enjoy it because of the slow build up.

 

[Salt Bailly]

Inside Out 2. Pixar revisits Riley, who is now going to a hockey camp in the summer before switching to high school while she is also entering puberty, leading to another psychological overhaul while she is trying to navigate a new social environment.

Overall, I thought it was again pretty good. The emotions come through well and there is a lot to connect with and recognize. There is a sense of having to top the previous film though, and I think sometimes that leads to loud action chaos, where the first film managed to maintain its pacing and feel better throughout. The real-life story also felt more by the numbers. But again, overall, it's pretty strong. 3.5/5

Kinda crazy that this is now the 10th highest grossing film of all time.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Kneecap (2024)

I loved this film. A sort of kind of nearly true origin story of the West Belfast hip hop crew with the members - Naoise Ó Cairealláin (Móglaí Bap), Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh (Mo Chara) and JJ Ó Dochartaigh (DJ Próvaí)- all playing themselves. Plus Michael Fassbender in captivating form as Naoise’s hippy provo dad, Arlo. Most of their lyrics (and most of the film) are as gaeilge with stylised subtitles that add to the comic book energy. It’s a full on Trainspotting style romp. The music is class, the one liners consistently land and the lads all have bags of charisma. You’ll spend most of the movie either laughing or nodding your head to the beats. What more could you want?! It’s not perfect. The villains are a bit one dimensional and the proddy girlfriend with the fenian fetish didn’t really land for me. It is great fun though. And definitely worth watching in the cinema. Partly to enjoy the music on a massive sound system and partly for the shared experience of nationalist pride (if you live in Ireland anyway!)

 

[ThierryHenry]

Saw a tweet today saying his family gave the go ahead to use his face. They said he would have liked the idea.

I think it's more disrespectful to living actors than the families of the dead, who get a big payout. There's no reason why that character had to be recreated like that, when there are tonnes of working actors who could have nailed the role, and taken away the horrible uncanny valley from it. I at least get it with something like Indiana Jones ( though it didn't work there either), this was also just completely unnecessary.

As for the movie, good fun. The two main callbacks (that line and Rook) took me out of it, I thought the cast outside of the two leads were incredibly forgettable, but there were plenty of good scenes, and I thought the first act and final fifteen minutes in particular were great. Shame that the Xenos section of the film was the weakest. A solid 6/10 overall.

 

[ThierryHenry]

I absolutely loved this movie but I can completely understand the critiques.

It is a tonal and structural mess but, for me, it was one of those rare cases where all of that mess made it better.

One of the last films that I've seen that I would call genuinely 'great'.

At the same time, it's hard to recommend as I know many people would hate it.

Brilliant.

Amen. One of my favourite cinema experiences in years.

 

[Sweet Square]

I think it's more disrespectful to living actors than the families of the dead, who get a big payout. There's no reason why that character had to be recreated like that, when there are tonnes of working actors who could have nailed the role, and taken away the horrible uncanny valley from it. I at least get it with something like Indiana Jones ( though it didn't work there either), this was also just completely unnecessary.

Agree. Visually it never works and I can’t imagine the CGI is cheaper than getting in another actor.

 

[weetee]

Interesting I didn’t know it was doing well at the box office. Romulus is probably a great watch for younger people who haven’t seen any of the other Alien films. My guess with the fan services stuff is partly in there to win over a younger audience.

My worry is the unknown fear has gone from the series simply due the amount of movies we’ve had. Agree that it would probably take a big budget to bring any big name on. And yep the Ripley stuff should be dropped.

I did really enjoy Alien Isolation. Although it’s a again remix of Alien 1. The video game elements definitely added something new(Imo it the easily the best Alien thing after 1&2).

There’s is a tv show apparently coming out soon called Alien Earth which focuses more on the corporation side. Hopefully it brings something new.

To be fair in this case the guy was a cnut. Admitted to slapping woman in heated arguments, thought homosexuality was against human nature and gays shouldn’t be able to adopt and was into French right wing politics.

Although in true actor style he did regret not getting directed by a woman.

Isolation was a revelation to me. Shows that a pretty basic concept perfectly executed and set in the right eh setting can be 10/10.

Saw Alien 3 (3/4 of it..) yesterday. Strange movie somehow, parts of it pretty much nail it, basically every scene with Ripley, while other parts feel completely off and quite like some simpleton TV show with budget. Didn‘t know Fincher made it, not sure he had to keep it tame because especially the alien encounters were quite boring. Bit corny overall. Loved the scene with Ripley and Ash(’s head) though.

Thought this was my first alien flic in the cinema but was wrong, Alien 4 it was. Not really keen on revisiting it but maybe it has some good parts in it as well.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

The Tomorrow War
Fairly sure I reviewed this when it was released. Watched it again tonight under duress. Albeit while cooking and cleaning and doing whatever possible to not be in front of the tv. It’s so shit.

On repeat viewing, a few more questions…

30 years into the future, they just drop people in from a height of the Empire State Building*. Most die on arrival. ON WHAT PLANET would people go after returning soldiers tell people that? It’s mental.

To the same point… the movie opens with visitors from the future arriving onto the field of the World Cup final as it guaranteed most simultaneous eye balls. If they could do that, why not do that when they send soldiers?

Finally… it says the global population has dwindled to 500,000. Wut? Why the feck would you not get reports from returning soldiers and just use the global population of 8bn to produce adequate weapons? Make bunkers and strongholds. These things are killable fairly easily.

It’s such a stupid cnut of a movie.
0/10

*We shall just ignore the fact it might be an idea to strap a parachute to every soldier sent. Perhaps. Maybe. Slightly improve the odds.

 

[Sweet Square]

Isolation was a revelation to me. Shows that a pretty basic concept perfectly executed and set in the right eh setting can be 10/10.

Easily the most tense/scariest Alien thing since the original. My favourite part about Isolation isn’t so much the xenomorph but more the atmosphere. The sounds of the machines clicking, the air vents and the particles of dust floating around the space station. It’s so good.

Saw Alien 3 (3/4 of it..) yesterday. Strange movie somehow, parts of it pretty much nail it, basically every scene with Ripley, while other parts feel completely off and quite like some simpleton TV show with budget. Didn‘t know Fincher made it, not sure he had to keep it tame because especially the alien encounters were quite boring. Bit corny overall. Loved the scene with Ripley and Ash(’s head) though.

Agree. It’s real mix bag which at times looks brilliant - I love the orange colours and some of the landscape shots but then for large section it looks cheap. I think Fincher got the gig far too early in his career. It was his first film and there’s never seemed to be a finished script to work from. With conditions like that it’s was always going to fail.

Still killing newt at the start is one of the dumbest ideas possible.

 

[weetee]

Easily the most tense/scariest Alien thing since the original. My favourite part about Isolation isn’t so much the xenomorph but more the atmosphere. The sounds of the machines clicking, the air vents and the particles of dust floating around the space station. It’s so good.


Agree. It’s real mix bag which at times looks brilliant - I love the orange colours and some of the landscape shots but then for large section it looks cheap. I think Fincher got the gig far too early in his career. It was his first film and there’s never seemed to be a finished script to work from. With conditions like that it’s was always going to fail.

Still killing newt at the start is one of the dumbest ideas possible.

Yes, the „props“ in Isolation were fantastic. I mean you were staring at them all the time and listened to every little noise. The relief when hearing the sound of that successful save system / recorder..

Yes, it shows that it‘s an early Finsher work. Weird pacing. Good build ups but falling completely flat etc. And the script took some weird turns too. Not sure if I should watch #4 too for a second time after two decades. You remember it? Has it some nice parts?

 

[Sweet Square]

Yes, the „props“ in Isolation were fantastic. I mean you were staring at them all the time and listened to every little noise. The relief when hearing the sound of that successful save system / recorder..

The save is such a incredible clever and terrifying system.

Not sure if I should watch #4 too for a second time after two decades. You remember it? Has it some nice parts?

I would recommend it but it’s the polar opposite of the original. One scene will have terrible 90’s cgi but a few minutes later there is a beautiful scene of Sigourney Weaver acting like a moth breaking out of her silk cocoon.

Reminds me of David Lynch Dune in that for all the faults I sort of love how unique it is.

 

[Wing Attack Plan R]

Isolation was a revelation to me. Shows that a pretty basic concept perfectly executed and set in the right eh setting can be 10/10.

Saw Alien 3 (3/4 of it..) yesterday. Strange movie somehow, parts of it pretty much nail it, basically every scene with Ripley, while other parts feel completely off and quite like some simpleton TV show with budget. Didn‘t know Fincher made it, not sure he had to keep it tame because especially the alien encounters were quite boring. Bit corny overall. Loved the scene with Ripley and Ash(’s head) though.

Thought this was my first alien flic in the cinema but was wrong, Alien 4 it was. Not really keen on revisiting it but maybe it has some good parts in it as well.

Easily the most tense/scariest Alien thing since the original. My favourite part about Isolation isn’t so much the xenomorph but more the atmosphere. The sounds of the machines clicking, the air vents and the particles of dust floating around the space station. It’s so good.


Agree. It’s real mix bag which at times looks brilliant - I love the orange colours and some of the landscape shots but then for large section it looks cheap. I think Fincher got the gig far too early in his career. It was his first film and there’s never seemed to be a finished script to work from. With conditions like that it’s was always going to fail.

Still killing newt at the start is one of the dumbest ideas possible.

Yes, the „props“ in Isolation were fantastic. I mean you were staring at them all the time and listened to every little noise. The relief when hearing the sound of that successful save system / recorder..

Yes, it shows that it‘s an early Finsher work. Weird pacing. Good build ups but falling completely flat etc. And the script took some weird turns too. Not sure if I should watch #4 too for a second time after two decades. You remember it? Has it some nice parts?

Fincher tried to remove his name from Alien 3, and disowned it afterwards. It was a massively troubled production that was committee’s to death. https://www.slashfilm.com/763846/why-the-alien-3-production-was-such-a-nightmare/

Killing Newt was a massive “feck you” to the audience. Charles “Roc” Dutton said they had no idea what was happening when they were filming, actors literally confused as feck about what was even supposed to be happening, with their stories and parts changed after they’d already done certain set up scenes.

I’ve liked some of Fincher’s work tremendously and then others I’m left cold.

Alien:Isolation was incredible. Such a scary game, and being able to run around the world of Alien was epic.

 

[Wing Attack Plan R]

The save is such a incredible clever and terrifying system.


I would recommend it but it’s the polar opposite of the original. One scene will have terrible 90’s cgi but a few minutes later there is a beautiful scene of Sigourney Weaver acting like a moth breaking out of her silk cocoon.

Reminds me of David Lynch Dune in that for all the faults I sort of love how unique it is.

Lynch’s Dune is both brilliant and ridiculous, often in the same scene.

 

[weetee]

Reminds me of David Lynch Dune in that for all the faults I sort of love how unique it is.

Interesting comparison. Think Lynch distanced himself from Dune pretty much the same as well. Personally, I quite like it despite it‘s faults but I‘ve a weak spot for Lynch.

Having Newt dead right away was irritating but wasn‘t bothering me - sth a franchise like that would never allow nowadays I think so a bit unique and it made way for the autopsy scene which I found one of the very well done and remarkable moments.