I saw there will be blood the other night... not what i expected. The musical score was a bit overwhelming at times but other then that its a movie i really enjoyed... Daniel Day-Lewis... can act.
Film The Redcafe Movie review thread
- Thread starter golden_blunder
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran are here to talk about a frustrating 2 points dropped at Crystal Palace. They then discuss the regeneration of Old Trafford. Finally, Nik is joined by special guest Michael Statham from the Football Oranje podcast - who gives us a more in depth look at our EL opposition FC Twente, and then runs through the (many) Dutch connections currently at United.
Ridiculous pretentitious nonsense, the only authentic bit of the film is Ben's deep love for himself.
SPOILER answer
I think you are correct or at the very least this is being suggested as a distinct possibility in both the book and the film. Although it could also be a bit of both.
I think you are correct or at the very least this is being suggested as a distinct possibility in both the book and the film. Although it could also be a bit of both.
I found the earlier bits more convincing that the second half and the end was a bit silly. On reflection I have given it too high a rating based on the individual performances in the first half of the film which I enjoyed rather than the film as a whole.
If I thought chronologically, then would I really care if he was Austrian or not? Every single person in the world could be affected by the Priklopil/Fritzl -cases. I was simply implying that kidnapping with sexual abuse was an Austrian state of mind. Not that it is, but Austria did get two world-known cases and it kind of labelled Austria, since they've had little world known culture since Mozart, Strauss and Haydn.
I was not really surprised that he isn't Austrian, I knew he was from the Netherlands (and that it was an Australian movie). It was simply a witty remark which didn't seem to land.
Fair enough. Seemed odd thats all.
Hellboy 2 was good. Looked fantastic, I have to say.
That's the one.
Really rate Polanski - excellent body of work in the late 60s and throughout the 70s. Rosemary's Baby, Chinatown etc.
Made a decent thriller in the 80s with Harrison Ford, set in Paris...the name of which escapes me at the moment.
Frantic.
I watched that a few weeks ago when it was on ITV3. Not bad at all. Though I tend to like anything with Emmanuelle Seigner in it. Bitter Moon in particular.
It looked great but bored the crap out of me. Even my 10 year old, who loved the original, hasn't watched it again. A shame IMO because it could have been terrific.
Frantic.
I watched that a few weeks ago when it was on ITV3. Not bad at all. Though I tend to like anything with Emmanuelle Seigner in it. Bitter Moon in particular.
Cheers Steve! And yes, Emmanuelle Seigner was certainly easy on the eye in the film. I do believe Polanski was married to her at the time of making it. Not sure if he still is though...
It was shite.
The only redeeming factor was the visuals (which were awesome), the bad guy and monsters. The rest of it was shite, shite acting, shite gags.
The woman has to be THE worst actress I've ever seen.
I tend to keep away from these types of movies (CGI-fests like Transformers, Iron Man etc.). because of the lack of everything else. It's like watching niche films like porn, the later elvis movies, car movies and the saw-movies. The audience seems happy without a good story and quality acting when their niche gets acknowledged, which in this case is CGI.
Haven't watched the movie so obviously I can't say if that's the case with Hellboy, but all the points lead that way.
Aaah, you may have just solved the riddle for me. Clearly I should've just gone to see the movie for all the CGI etc.
But is it so outrageous for me to hope for some damn substance to match the awesome CGI/visuals?
I quiver when I think of how they could have made Lord of the Rings, and how they can make the Hobbit with todays graphics......... I have a little man-wee in my pants.
Looking forward to the Hobbit
You can't go wrong with Tolkien
You can't go wrong with Tolkien
Same here.
Has there been any official word on it yet? I remember the 'word on the street' was that Jackson was going to start work on it after he completed King Kong.
Now nothing seems to have come of it. I'm thinking noone wants to touch it because they'd really have to leave out so much of the story to create a 3 hour epic, which would rub up a LOT of people the wrong way... (but then again it's not as if they couldn't break it up into two/three parts)
Though I'm tipping most people (like me) would be sat for 6 hours if the movie went for that long! Especially if it included all the fine details!
I know nothing more then the urls below. Hellboy/Pans labyrinth's del Toro is directing and Jackson is working on the script with him.
http://www.empireonline.com/futurefilms/film.asp?id=9834
http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?nid=23103
http://www.empireonline.com/futurefilms/film.asp?id=9834
http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?nid=23103
So it IS official! SWEEEEEEEEEEEEET!
So long as Jackson's around I doubt they'll cock it up, he really seemed to have grasped the whole 'thing' (for want of a much better word!).
Though I don't think as many people will enjoy this one compared to the LOTR series. But then again the kids who enjoyed the LOTR movies (without actually reading any of the books) will have another 5 years on them now, and will hopefully have learnt to be patient concerning Tolkien's works.
Jackson = guaranteed mainstream shite.
So it IS official! SWEEEEEEEEEEEEET!
So long as Jackson's around I doubt they'll cock it up, he really seemed to have grasped the whole 'thing' (for want of a much better word!).
Though I don't think as many people will enjoy this one compared to the LOTR series. But then again the kids who enjoyed the LOTR movies (without actually reading any of the books) will have another 5 years on them now, and will hopefully have learnt to be patient concerning Tolkien's works.
VANTAGE POINT - I watched this film last night, has Dennis Quaid, Mathew Fox and Forest Whittaker involved.
Its basically a plot to kill the US president but shown from a number of peoples perspective.
The idea behind it is quite good, and some parts i would say were excellent. However some aspects seemed predictable and not really fully thought through. I Didn't think it gave too great an insight into the characters and never really explained the motives/backgraounds of some important characters. The killers for example and the guy played by Mathew Fox were never really explained too well.
Its basically a plot to kill the US president but shown from a number of peoples perspective.
The idea behind it is quite good, and some parts i would say were excellent. However some aspects seemed predictable and not really fully thought through. I Didn't think it gave too great an insight into the characters and never really explained the motives/backgraounds of some important characters. The killers for example and the guy played by Mathew Fox were never really explained too well.
What like Heavenly Creatures, Meet the Feebles, Brain Dead?
The only film i'd describe as mainstream shite would be King Kong.
You've seemed to forget ten hours of mainstream wannabe-powerful-footage in between. Just based my opinion on LOTR and King Kong, and I'm probably watching Heavenly Creatures, but I won't change my opinion after the extreme shite he's done since. Like all other weak filmmakers without integrity he sold his soul for money and I reckon he's gone too far on the path to humiliation to ever turn back.
I still think The Fellowship of the Ring is a brilliant film, he lost it a bit with the other 2 and then lost it completely with King Kong which was a horrible bloated mess.
But he earned a reputation as an inventive cult director and I consider Heavenly Creatures to be a masterpiece.
But he earned a reputation as an inventive cult director and I consider Heavenly Creatures to be a masterpiece.
Fair enough. I just can't stand any of the LOTR films. It's got "be amazed!" written all over the characters' foreheads. I personally don't like movies that treat you like a five year old idiot. Couldn't count how many times all the characters lost their jaws in awe of what's in front of them, how many silly black-and-white flashbacks there were, or why only a woman could destroy someone immortal. Silly childrens' story.
King Kong was about an hour too long.
It was about 187 minutes too long.
I'm thinking the books wouldn't make the jaw dropping, the one-liners and the black-and-white flashbacks justified. Or maybe it would? In that case I certainly don't want to read the books either.
And for your information, this thread is called 'The Redcafe Movie review thread'.
Haha, I wasn't having a go at you at all! Though you do come across as a pretentious whiny twat at times.
Anyway I was just asking if you'd read the books, because my inclination was you actually haven't as yet. Which you should, then you'd probably approach the movie from a different angle.
Mind you the books are so far superior to anything else ever written, and there was just SO much left out of the movies that you'd probably pan it some more.
Anyway, concerning all this 'jaw-dropping' nonsense. You seem to have failed to realise that the story is about four young, sheltered, and innocent Hobbits - who have known nothing (a race as a whole) but their Shire - having to embark on THE journey to end all journeys.
Clearly they're going to see some overwhelming things. Then there's the fact they're facing the impossibly huge army, the whole human race is on the decline and the end of times is pretty much upon them. Clearly things are going to happen/be seen that were 'jaw dropping.'
As for the 'flashbacks,' well they HAD to happen as they were EXTREMELY relevant to the story as a whole.
The one-liners = poor. There was some playful banter in the books between Gimli and Legolas, but it wasn't like that in the movies.
I don't quite know where you got that impression from, sounds to me like you just wanted to be different, so decided to hate it because everyone else liked/loved it. But you do seem to know what you're talking about concerning movies, so now I'm half tempted to watch them again and see where you're coming from... Though I fear it may ruin the movies for me, for good.
You think that I would appreciate the films' shitty mainstream elements because the books are better?
Everyone drops their jaw in every fecking scene. It's not like the hobbits have sole rights for it, which they probably should.
The flashbacks had to happen? Oh yeah, the audience would NEVER remember vital scenes from the earlier movie! Not a chance, who can remember details like that?
The first two I saw a long time ago, and even though I was young and stupid I found them really boring and didn't manage to get me involved in any way whatsoever. I plagued myself through the third movie in the theatre. It kept annoying me until the very cheesy end, but I felt I had to sit through it for my friends' sake.
You think that I would appreciate the films' shitty mainstream elements because the books are better?
Everyone drops their jaw in every fecking scene. It's not like the hobbits have sole rights for it, which they probably should.
The flashbacks had to happen? Oh yeah, the audience would NEVER remember vital scenes from the earlier movie! Not a chance, who can remember details like that?
I said you'd approach it from a different angle. Reading the book would help in the respect that you'd know what was coming, and I suppose get caught up in the story - sounds like you were rather detatched when watching the film. And unless you're getting paid as a reviewer, what's the point?
They don't drop their jaws in every bloody scene anyway. And when they do it's because something terrible is facing them. That's what would happen when faced with monsters/huge armies/your impending doom.
As for the Flashbacks - I thought you were refering to the ones where they were re-telling what happened centuries ago in the past. And as far as I can remember there was only one actual repeated scene, which was right at the start of the second movie - which turned out to be an extention of the Gandalf v Balrog duel, which was excellent.
Like I said in the re-edited post above, I think I'll watch the movies again. Because I don't remember
I remember at least three or four b/w flashbacks containing Legolas, Aragorn and the hobbits. And that's not even including the Gandalf scene! I started laughing when they did the third or fourth, was like a Family Guy parody.
Anyway, I'm off to eating my birthday cake. Wouldn't want Jackson to ruin more than the 13 hours he already ruined.
I remember at least three or four b/w flashbacks containing Legolas, Aragorn and the hobbits. And that's not even including the Gandalf scene! I started laughing when they did the third or fourth, was like a Family Guy parody.
Anyway, I'm off to eating my birthday cake. Wouldn't want Jackson to ruin more than the 13 hours he already ruined.
Happy Birthday firstly.
I'm wracking my brain trying to think of the scenes... Ah, one where Aragorn is tracking Merry and Pippin, reads their tracks and recounts how they must have escaped from the orcs (who were being killed by the Riders of Rohan). One where Gandalf explains how he excaped from Saruman's tower.
Nawt wrong with those two, though they weren't repeated scenes anyway...
Cheers.
The death of Sean Bean's character is repeated, If I remember correctly. Accompanied by the cheesiest of scores.
heh.
Cesc you dork how good were the scenes in the Mines of Moria, especially the Balrog
Part of the problem with the trilogy for me is that nothing compared to the suspense or spectacle of those early scenes.Cheers.
The death of Sean Bean's character is repeated, If I remember correctly. Accompanied by the cheesiest of scores.
Yeah I'd typed out 'Boromir dying,' then deleted it because I couldn't remember if it was repeated when they actually re-counted the story to anyone.
Cashback. Check out the trailers. Wierd but thought provoking
heh.
Cesc you dork how good were the scenes in the Mines of Moria, especially the Balrog
Yeah those scenes were massive, they really did well in capturing the whole 'feel' of the book there. And the Balrog was simply sensational, especially those graphics back then... Even now it's still brilliant!
For mine I thought the battles were over too a bit quickly (at the end of the second, and definately the end of the third, ESPECIALLY with the ghosts, it was almost an anti-climax), and some of the sounding/acoustics/audio was poor. I mean when they'd close up on say Legolas, and he's saying something, all the background fighting/screaming etc was pretty much drowned out - where it'd be almost deafening really. That was my main sticking point.
If you really liked those scenes you'd probably love the Hobbit, where it's a more centralised story - a group of travellers, and doesn't branch off into huge wars with ramifications to the whole of mankind etc. It stays central mostly.
I wasn't expecting Godfather or Ran. But it was a decent watch, although not as good as Hellboy. If anything it lacked character development and the plot was a bit simplistic, but it was by no means a bad film. Visually it was stunning.
The extended edition of the Fellowship is excellent. TTT is probably the best of the lot. ROFK is poor and I hate it.