Film The Redcafe Movie review thread

Nosferatu

Hmmmmm I'll have to watch it again but initially this is my least favourite of Eggers work. I watched it over 2 nights as well (pretty much half and half) and on doing that it's so much more apparent how gorgeous and sparse the first half is compared to the second. I also have a major problem with the acting in this. I've seen people say it's good but I don't know if some of the cast are doing some kind of homage to early 20th century theatre ham but it pulls me right out of the film. Aaron Taylor-Johnson is by far the worst culprit for this and looks woefully miscast. But yeah, overall looks great as you'd expect but plot and acting just a solid meh. Strong first half followed by a plodding second with Taylor Johnson getting too much screen time.
 
Rooney in Paris said:
It's released tomorrow in Spain, and I'm quite tempted to go to an early screening. I have a business trip next week and if I don't go tomorrow, it's gonna put it off until early Feb and I'm quite impatient to see it...
Click to expand...
Nice I’ve also got a nearly screening. It’s been in the UK at selected cinemas since early January but next Monday is completely free for me so I don’t have to worry anything else. Can just enjoy the film and it’s nearly 4 hour run time.

My screening will also be using a 70mm print version which is cool. Although I’m not a big film tech guy so have no idea if I will see a difference.
 
Sweet Square said:
Nice I’ve also got a nearly screening. It’s been in the UK at selected cinemas since early January but next Monday is completely free for me so I don’t have to worry anything else. Can just enjoy the film and it’s nearly 4 hour run time.

My screening will also be using a 70mm print version which is cool. Although I’m not a big film tech guy so have no idea if I will see a difference.
Click to expand...
Just pretend you do either way, no one will know. If your review doesn't include at least one "the experience was enhanced by the 70mm print version I had the opportunity to see it in", I'll be thoroughly disappointed.
 
Rooney in Paris said:
Just pretend you do either way, no one will know. If your review doesn't include at least one "the experience was enhanced by the 70mm print version I had the opportunity to see it in", I'll be thoroughly disappointed.
Click to expand...
Noted. I mean I already feel like a superior person for having booked the tickets. So far so good!
 
Just saw Eastern Promises

It's a brilliant film, i think on rewatch it felt even more powerful than the first time I saw it

Viggo's performance is so terrifying because it feels so authentic
 
Tarrou said:
Its my own fault but I need to stop watching Guy Ritchie movies

in the Ministry of whatever the feck its called he's taken a genuinely riveting real life story and made the most boring generic action flick

I just found it grating and I know lots of directors do this sorta stuff but still, it’s not for me

He should just stay in his lane and make b-grade gangster films imo
Click to expand...
They need a Surgeon General's warning at the start of every Guy Ritchie movie. I've hated his stuff for years, but the final straw for me was that Sherlock Holmes abomination. It's amazing how one can fail upwards in film.
 
Rooney in Paris said:
Shining is an absolutely perfect film and Nicholson descent into madness is essential to the narrative. The book is ok, as with most King books, but the film is a true masterpiece, as with most Kubrick films.
Click to expand...
Both are masterpieces. Kubrick nailed the tone and dread and created one of the best films of all time. I know King wanted a more sympathetic portrayal so that when he goes nuts there's more of a shift, but Nicholson was perfect as is. I love that damn film.
 
Sweet Square said:
Nice I’ve also got a nearly screening. It’s been in the UK at selected cinemas since early January but next Monday is completely free for me so I don’t have to worry anything else. Can just enjoy the film and it’s nearly 4 hour run time.

My screening will also be using a 70mm print version which is cool. Although I’m not a big film tech guy so have no idea if I will see a difference.
Click to expand...
You will see a difference but it might be hard to put in words that don't make it sound like you're tripping balls. I saw a revival 70mm print of The Wild Bunch and the scenes looked both sharper and more saturated than the video version I'd seen. The actors looked more iconic, the action scenes looked more brutal and spectacular, the landscapes looked more cinematic. It was intense.

There's a weird thing that happens with film that doesn't quite happen with digital, and it's how the lighting and focal depths of field create a painterly look to a scene. In 8K digital, everything is crystal clear, shadows have no color, everything is as sexy as putting your feet in the stirrups for a pap smear. Whereas with film, magic happens. And with 70mm it's twice as magical. For immersion and the sense of seeing something well-crafted and artistic, a 70mm print is going to help make that happen.

Addendum: some transfers of films are done from old answer prints. So when you see something on TV, a majority of older films are created from a physical copy of a film that has been around for decades. All the scratches, dust motes, and yellowing o we time are then baked into what you and up seeing. Sometimes, like when a special edition is made, they go back to the original cut negative and strike new prints, and then go through a color grade final pass. Another way was to take the cut negative and create an Internegative, which is basically a copy that positive prints can be generated from. In theatrically released prints, the studios would make what are called show prints for select markets. These prints were higher quality and had more extensive grading. The majority of prints are struck from the IN and are not as pristine. Most transfers to digital were made from these generic prints, as more of those kind have survived.

When a 70mm print is struck, they go through additional steps, and it’s going to be the best possible way to enjoy the original intent.
 
Last edited:
Wing Attack Plan R said:
You will see a difference but it might be hard to put in words that don't make it sound like you're tripping balls. I saw a revival 70mm print of The Wild Bunch and the scenes looked both sharper and more saturated than the video version I'd seen. The actors looked more iconic, the action scenes looked more brutal and spectacular, the landscapes looked more cinematic. It was intense.

There's a weird thing that happens with film that doesn't quite happen with digital, and it's how the lighting and focal depths of field create a painterly look to a scene. In 8K digital, everything is crystal clear, shadows have no color, everything is as sexy as putting your feet in the stirrups for a pap smear. Whereas with film, magic happens. And with 70mm it's twice as magical. For immersion and the sense of seeing something well-crafted and artistic, a 70mm print is going to help make that happen.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I’ve always heard directors talk about the differences of 70mm vs digital and the importance saving film stock but I didn’t really know how much that was just them nerding out.

So it’s good to know there’s a noticeable difference.
 
Sweet Square said:
Thanks. I’ve always heard directors talk about the differences of 70mm vs digital and the importance saving film stock but I didn’t really know how much that was just them nerding out.

So it’s good to know there’s a noticeable difference.
Click to expand...
I just added a whole bit on the tech side, please re-read! And you are clearly a man of taste and sophistication to have bought a ticket to a 70mm screening.
 
Wing Attack Plan R said:
They need a Surgeon General's warning at the start of every Guy Ritchie movie. I've hated his stuff for years, but the final straw for me was that Sherlock Holmes abomination. It's amazing how one can fail upwards in film.
Click to expand...
Don‘t remind me. Horrible series! (Saw only the first itteration).
 
weetee said:
Don‘t remind me. Horrible series! (Saw only the first itteration).
Click to expand...
His movies are like a Will Smith record. I should also say I never go to the movies to "turn off my brain" as some people phrase it. That's what watching United is for! Guy Ritchie is one of the most egregious examples for taking commercial/TV adverts and turning them into 2 hour movies. I can't stand it. I did like LS&TSB, though, more for its vibe than any filmmaking prowess.
 
Wing Attack Plan R said:
His movies are like a Will Smith record. I should also say I never go to the movies to "turn off my brain" as some people phrase it. That's what watching United is for! Guy Ritchie is one of the most egregious examples for taking commercial/TV adverts and turning them into 2 hour movies. I can't stand it. I did like LS&TSB, though, more for its vibe than any filmmaking prowess.
Click to expand...
? Boom Shake the Room was a banger back in the day!


Don‘t remind me..
 
'Nosferatu' director Robert Eggers is set to direct a sequel to the 1986 classic ‘Labyrinth’.
 
Ahmer Baig said:
'Nosferatu' director Robert Eggers is set to direct a sequel to the 1986 classic ‘Labyrinth’.
Click to expand...
Looking forward to it because i cant imagine it. It'll probably be (have to be?) completely different to the original but it feels like an odd pairing in the best way.
 
Ahmer Baig said:
'Nosferatu' director Robert Eggers is set to direct a sequel to the 1986 classic ‘Labyrinth’.
Click to expand...
I wonder if it'll retain the musical elements?

It's also just been announced that he's making a werewolf movie that'll be released next year.
 
Wing Attack Plan R said:
Both are masterpieces. Kubrick nailed the tone and dread and created one of the best films of all time. I know King wanted a more sympathetic portrayal so that when he goes nuts there's more of a shift, but Nicholson was perfect as is. I love that damn film.
Click to expand...
I was hugely disappointed in the film because I loved the book. Some of the many things I disliked were how far it deviated from the source material to the point where it more or less fundamentally changed the story e.g. the role of the hotel in Jack going mad, not to mention more or less missing out that Jack was a sane loving father at the beginning. In the film there was little or no transition from this to full raving insanity. Wendy was a damp pathetic squib which is very different from the character in the book. It doesn't help that I dislike Kubrick's emotionally empty film making - always style over substance. The ending is also rubbish and the scariest bit of the book - the moving hedge animals in the maze - were totally absent.

King called it a “beautiful car with no engine.” and I seem to remember that he had thought that Kubrick missed the emotional heart (and point) of the book in exchange for technical quality.
 
Wibble said:
I was hugely disappointed in the film because I loved the book. Some of the many things I disliked were how far it deviated from the source material to the point where it more or less fundamentally changed the story e.g. the role of the hotel in Jack going mad, not to mention more or less missing out that Jack was a sane loving father at the beginning. In the film there was little or no transition from this to full raving insanity. Wendy was a damp pathetic squib which is very different from the character in the book. It doesn't help that I dislike Kubrick's emotionally empty film making - always style over substance. The ending is also rubbish and the scariest bit of the book - the moving hedge animals in the maze - were totally absent.

King called it a “beautiful car with no engine.” and I seem to remember that he had thought that Kubrick missed the emotional heart (and point) of the book in exchange for technical quality.
Click to expand...
A loving father who got drunk and broke Danny’s arm, don’t forget.

I think the hedge animals were impossible to do and make look scary, so they came up with a good compromise. King was critical until he directed on his own and realized how hard it was.
 
Wing Attack Plan R said:
A loving father who got drunk and broke Danny’s arm, don’t forget.
Click to expand...
Yes but it was a far far more gradual change with the hotel accelerating or causing his decline. Not instant 1000% peak Nicholson. Which reminds me. Kubrick almost ignored the hotel's role as a player in the plot.
Wing Attack Plan R said:
I think the hedge animals were impossible to do and make look scary, so they came up with a good compromise. King was critical until he directed on his own and realized how hard it was.
Click to expand...
I would have thought they would be well within the technology of the day as (if my memory serves - which it might not) the hedge animals never moved when you were looking at them - only seemingly having moved when you looked back again.
 
Meet Joe Black - peak hollywood cringe, terribly shallow script but Brad Pitt looks amazing. 2/10

I must have completed Netflix
 
Tarrou said:
Meet Joe Black - peak hollywood cringe, terribly shallow script but Brad Pitt looks amazing. 2/10

I must have completed Netflix
Click to expand...

A weird film as there were a number of decent bits, despite Pitt phoning his part in, but as a whole a less than brilliant film, and it hasn't aged that well either. That bit with Pitt speaking patoise (is that the right term?) was especially cringeworthy. The scene would have worked better without the comedy accent.
 
Wibble said:
A weird film as there were a number of decent bits, despite Pitt phoning his part in, but as a whole a less than brilliant film, and it hasn't aged that well either. That bit with Pitt speaking patoise (is that the right term?) was especially cringeworthy. The scene would have worked better without the comedy accent.
Click to expand...

Patois yeah, that part was hilariously bad
 
Wibble said:
A weird film as there were a number of decent bits, despite Pitt phoning his part in, but as a whole a less than brilliant film, and it hasn't aged that well either. That bit with Pitt speaking patoise (is that the right term?) was especially cringeworthy. The scene would have worked better without the comedy accent.
Click to expand...
Are you trying to reignite the Brad Pitt Wars? That’s all he’s capable of doing. Phoning it in or maybe trying to send a fax.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.