I wonder if our resident homosexual Argie has seen it.
Film The Redcafe Movie review thread
- Thread starter golden_blunder
- Start date
I wonder if our resident homosexual Argie has seen it.
He has. I've been trying to watch it for some time now but something or the other keeps coming in the way.
I watched Damned United the other day. I thought it was a decent watch from a football fan's perspective but overall it was mediocre. It didn't tell us anything about Clough. . .aside from the fact that he was an egotistical bastard, which to be fair he was. But he's one of the greatest managers ever - but you wouldn't have guessed from watching DU. Shame really. He also suffered from alcoholism but there was nothing about it in the film. Too light hearted.
21 Grams - Good cinematography, good acting, annoying characters, average story.
Sanjuro - Yes. Very good with some Mifune awesomeness. I enjoyed it more than Yojimbo.
Underground - Great film. The whole movie was almost like a constant drunken carnival. I thought some parts in the third act could have been excluded but I liked the ending.
Sanjuro - Yes. Very good with some Mifune awesomeness. I enjoyed it more than Yojimbo.
Underground - Great film. The whole movie was almost like a constant drunken carnival. I thought some parts in the third act could have been excluded but I liked the ending.
Yep. I thought it was more enjoyable.
All the Presidents Men
Centered on the Watergate scandal, this movie follows journalists Carl (Dustin Hoffman) and Bob (Robert Redford) as they uncover the conspiracy. It’s based around the initial stages of the investigation rather than the actual breaking of the story and the subsequent drama, I found it a tad overwhelming at parts… there’s a lot of names thrown around and I guess it’s inevitable that a story concerning a real life conspiracy is going to leave you feeling a bit confused, so it did detract from my enjoyment a little. Saying that it’s a well paced movie with an engrossing cinema verite style, 7.5/10 for me.
Centered on the Watergate scandal, this movie follows journalists Carl (Dustin Hoffman) and Bob (Robert Redford) as they uncover the conspiracy. It’s based around the initial stages of the investigation rather than the actual breaking of the story and the subsequent drama, I found it a tad overwhelming at parts… there’s a lot of names thrown around and I guess it’s inevitable that a story concerning a real life conspiracy is going to leave you feeling a bit confused, so it did detract from my enjoyment a little. Saying that it’s a well paced movie with an engrossing cinema verite style, 7.5/10 for me.
Just finishes watching The Hurt Locker.
Very good movie.
8/10
Very good movie.
8/10
XXY - Great film. Will never think about hermaphrodite sexuality in the same way again.
500 Days of Summer Its not that it was bad, but it seems to have this weird smug air about it, as though Annie Hall doesn't exist. I mean, its basically Annie Hall with Garden State's soundtrack. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is good, but I don't rate Deschanel as an actress. 7/10
Up In The Air I think someone in this thread said it was fine until the final act (Spoony, mehro?) I agree with that. The performances were all good though. 7/10
My brother recently bought a bunch of the more well-known anime films of recent years, looking forward to working my way through them.
Up In The Air I think someone in this thread said it was fine until the final act (Spoony, mehro?) I agree with that. The performances were all good though. 7/10
My brother recently bought a bunch of the more well-known anime films of recent years, looking forward to working my way through them.
Sophies Choice
An emotional character piece that centres around 3 characters; Sophie, her partner Nathan, and Stingo who is in love with Sophie. The main narrative is split between Stingos love for Sophie and Sophies past traumatic experiences in a nazi concentration camp. It starts off slowly as we are introduced to the trio, after an initial harsh meeting they soon become good friends and the movie integrates us into their lifes and their past.
Meryl Streep gives an incredibly convincing performance as the sexy but deeply troubled Sophie... really it has to be one of my favourite female performances. 7.5
An emotional character piece that centres around 3 characters; Sophie, her partner Nathan, and Stingo who is in love with Sophie. The main narrative is split between Stingos love for Sophie and Sophies past traumatic experiences in a nazi concentration camp. It starts off slowly as we are introduced to the trio, after an initial harsh meeting they soon become good friends and the movie integrates us into their lifes and their past.
Meryl Streep gives an incredibly convincing performance as the sexy but deeply troubled Sophie... really it has to be one of my favourite female performances. 7.5
PRIMER
First things first, I have always been relatively adept at working out plot lines and unfolding movies as I watch them, much to everyones annoyance, but f**k me did this movie wreck my brain. It is without doubt the most mentally challenging film I have ever seen, and I enjoyed every minute of it.
Plot:
Primer is a 2004 American science fiction/drama film about the accidental discovery of a means of time travel. The film was written, directed, and produced by Shane Carruth, a mathematician and a former engineer, and was completed on a budget of $7,000.[1]
Primer is of note for its extremely low budget, experimental plot structure, philosophical implications, and complex technical dialogue, which Carruth chose not to simplify for the sake of his audience. One reviewer said that "anybody who claims to fully understand what's going on in Primer after seeing it just once is either a savant or a liar." The film collected the Grand Jury Prize at Sundance in 2004 before securing a limited release in US cinemas, and has since gained a cult following.
The principal characters are Aaron (Shane Carruth) and Abe (David Sullivan), two engineers who accidentally create a device which will functionally allow an object or person to travel backward in time. The pair initially test the device by using it to cheat the stock market, but are ultimately unable to resist the temptation of using their machine to meddle with nearly every aspect of their own lives. Through their increasing recklessness, they create proportionally more complex potential paradoxes. Eventually, their newfound power begins to destroy their friendship.
Even to read the website and forum that was set up to discuss it PrimerMovie.com :: View Forum - Movie Discussion will leave you feeling like a scouser on countdown, clueless.
If you want a movie to challenge your brain then you simply must watch this, it will leave you thinking and diluting the plot for days. I have watched it twice already and I enjoyed it more the second time as I meticulously tried to piece it together.
8/10 Its been a while since any film has challenged me, or made me go online to read more.
First things first, I have always been relatively adept at working out plot lines and unfolding movies as I watch them, much to everyones annoyance, but f**k me did this movie wreck my brain. It is without doubt the most mentally challenging film I have ever seen, and I enjoyed every minute of it.
Plot:
Primer is a 2004 American science fiction/drama film about the accidental discovery of a means of time travel. The film was written, directed, and produced by Shane Carruth, a mathematician and a former engineer, and was completed on a budget of $7,000.[1]
Primer is of note for its extremely low budget, experimental plot structure, philosophical implications, and complex technical dialogue, which Carruth chose not to simplify for the sake of his audience. One reviewer said that "anybody who claims to fully understand what's going on in Primer after seeing it just once is either a savant or a liar." The film collected the Grand Jury Prize at Sundance in 2004 before securing a limited release in US cinemas, and has since gained a cult following.
The principal characters are Aaron (Shane Carruth) and Abe (David Sullivan), two engineers who accidentally create a device which will functionally allow an object or person to travel backward in time. The pair initially test the device by using it to cheat the stock market, but are ultimately unable to resist the temptation of using their machine to meddle with nearly every aspect of their own lives. Through their increasing recklessness, they create proportionally more complex potential paradoxes. Eventually, their newfound power begins to destroy their friendship.
Even to read the website and forum that was set up to discuss it PrimerMovie.com :: View Forum - Movie Discussion will leave you feeling like a scouser on countdown, clueless.
If you want a movie to challenge your brain then you simply must watch this, it will leave you thinking and diluting the plot for days. I have watched it twice already and I enjoyed it more the second time as I meticulously tried to piece it together.
8/10 Its been a while since any film has challenged me, or made me go online to read more.
Waltz With Bashir:
It's seen through the eyes of the director as he struggles to remember his involvement in the invasion of Lebanon. As he interviews friends and fellow veterans, he begins to remember events.
Powerful and thought provoking. I would definitely recommend it.
It's seen through the eyes of the director as he struggles to remember his involvement in the invasion of Lebanon. As he interviews friends and fellow veterans, he begins to remember events.
Powerful and thought provoking. I would definitely recommend it.
Bill you know the score, give it a ..er...score.
Is this an animation per chance ?
It's animated, yes.
I want to see Inception, haven't been to a cinema in years though.
I want to see Inception, haven't been to a cinema in years though.
I watched a few movies I've got recommended through here and through real life people today. Note for the film buffs: I have no clue what cinematography means, I love romantic comedies of the cheesy kind and my taste in films has no definition. Keep that in mind.
Up In The Air: I thought Clooney was absolutely terrific in this. A top, top performance and for me he carried the film. The story?
All in all not a bad film at all. 7/10
Death At a Funeral A bit of a farce, really, which isn't my cup of tea I must admit. It wasn't awful but I didn't really like it much either. 5/10
The Lives of Others Yes. Just yes, one of the best films I've seen in a while. Brilliant, absolutely brilliant. 9/10
Up In The Air: I thought Clooney was absolutely terrific in this. A top, top performance and for me he carried the film. The story?
I'm not sure about the ending, I do like the fairytale stuff. Sad
Death At a Funeral A bit of a farce, really, which isn't my cup of tea I must admit. It wasn't awful but I didn't really like it much either. 5/10
The Lives of Others Yes. Just yes, one of the best films I've seen in a while. Brilliant, absolutely brilliant. 9/10
Day of the Jackal (Original)
First off - I loved the book, and although I wanted to see the film version I was a bit hesitant about how the methodical style would translate to cinema. But I think they did it justice.
The Jackal is well cast as a unassuming british man who hides a cold hardness, and the plot ticks along in a well paced manner... large portions of it are simply The Jackal going about his business and the police slowly tracking him down, and a lot of it is built around suspense and tension. Once the police get their break it all starts to crescendo to that one final decisive scene... which once again is perfectly adapted from the novel.
I think that is the films biggest strength but maybe it's biggest weakness to - To have a film focus solely on the 'process' maybe doesn't have the same appeal as it did in writing... it does labour in some parts, whilst other parts unfortunately can't get the attention they did in the book. Still, a great little story and a faithful adaptation get a 7.5/10
First off - I loved the book, and although I wanted to see the film version I was a bit hesitant about how the methodical style would translate to cinema. But I think they did it justice.
The Jackal is well cast as a unassuming british man who hides a cold hardness, and the plot ticks along in a well paced manner... large portions of it are simply The Jackal going about his business and the police slowly tracking him down, and a lot of it is built around suspense and tension. Once the police get their break it all starts to crescendo to that one final decisive scene... which once again is perfectly adapted from the novel.
I think that is the films biggest strength but maybe it's biggest weakness to - To have a film focus solely on the 'process' maybe doesn't have the same appeal as it did in writing... it does labour in some parts, whilst other parts unfortunately can't get the attention they did in the book. Still, a great little story and a faithful adaptation get a 7.5/10
The Secret in Their Eyes
I liked There Will be Blood better than NCFOM
The Kite Runner
I personally think There Will Be Blood is underrated, some people like Wibble our vociferous in their denial of it being a great film and also are even critical of DDL's performance, saying it was overacting. that said I liked Inception better.
I thought you'd given Inception like a 7 or something? Must've been a bad 3 years for film
I agree completely with that list...apart from Four Lions, which I haven't seen, but am sure is good. The others are all easily above 8s for me..
I'd put In Bruges in that list as a wild card and personal favorite.
I think that is including In Bruges is solely impart of your somewhat flawed movie theory about the preceding hype about films.
I think you're probably right....but it was still better than Avatar
I just watched Metropolis, the silent movie. I thought it was a fascinating movie and not a hard watch at all. A timeless masterpiece really.
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Like Wallander but with sex and a better plot. Struggles with typically slow Swedish pacing in parts, but the intricacies of the whodunnit, the locations and a couple of the actors manage to hold the attention. [6/10]
The Girl Who Played with Fire
Like Wallander but with sex. Takes a while to get going and then in fact doesn't really. Flimsy plot and a confusing mish mash ensemble of one-dimensional supporting actors, for instance: the blonde giant oblivious to pain (not sure he even speaks). Drags on until you are wishing you could walk away from it into the bleak Swedish wilderness. [4/10]
Like Wallander but with sex and a better plot. Struggles with typically slow Swedish pacing in parts, but the intricacies of the whodunnit, the locations and a couple of the actors manage to hold the attention. [6/10]
The Girl Who Played with Fire
Like Wallander but with sex. Takes a while to get going and then in fact doesn't really. Flimsy plot and a confusing mish mash ensemble of one-dimensional supporting actors, for instance: the blonde giant oblivious to pain (not sure he even speaks). Drags on until you are wishing you could walk away from it into the bleak Swedish wilderness. [4/10]
Yeah, I thought The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was quite average as well.
There was an advert for The Girl Who Played with Fire before Inception....it looked shocking. ...And like the ad had been made on iMovie by a 14 year old.
I thought you'd given Inception like a 7 or something? Must've been a bad 3 years for film
I agree completely with that list...apart from Four Lions, which I haven't seen, but am sure is good. The others are all easily above 8s for me..
I'd put In Bruges in that list as a wild card and personal favorite.
7's not a bad score, though. To be fair, I've not seen every good film made in the last three years.
Inglourious Basterds, Moon, Let The Right One In, In The Loop, Coraline, WALL-E, Che, The Class, A Prophet. All great movies and that's without going into 2007, which was probably the best year of the decade for truly great movies, off the top of my head, it had 5 films I'd 8+ too, No Country, There Will Be Blood, Zodiac, Jesse James, Ratatouille, Kite Runner, Inland Empire...
Thought those movies were alright but definitely didn't hold a candle to the books. Too many shortcuts were taken to fit everything into a reasonable film length and that's why you end up with all these minor characters in there that don't really seem to have a purpose but to exist. Basically all the typical flaws of a book to movie adaptation. Really only the audiobook readings of the books do the original story any justice as a performance.
Apparently a Hollywood adaptation of the books directed by David Fincher is in the works and Brad Pitt, George Clooney, and Daniel Craig are trying to land the Blomkvist role and Ellen Page and Kristen Stewart having expressed interest in the Salander role. Not sure whether they're still planning to set it in Sweden or not.
I really didn't like the books much (read one and a half of them) so I haven't even bothered with the movies. Too many predictable clichés for my liking.
I can't really believe the success they've had internationally. I guess the Salander character is mostly to thank (or blame) for that.
Was the author's death/being dead used in the marketing at all?
Doesn't seem like it. Most people I talk to that have read the series say they were surprised to find out that Larsson was dead. Even though I enjoyed the books I'm surprised they are as popular as they are. They're definitely character-driven pieces. The plots are alright but like Stove said, they're predictable. At least the endings are. I guess when I read them the intrigue was wanting to know how they were going to connect the pieces in the middle and eventually reach the happy ending. That's where I personally thought the books were rich, but that sort of thing isn't necessarily preserved when the transition to a movie is made.
Yes I can see from the movies that that is what would be interesting about the books. It's not that you can't predict the ending because there are limited possibilities, it's tying it all together that makes you want to find out.
Yeah, to be fair, I should take Inception out. How about there are a few films I've rated 7 but didn't add to my list? I'm sure there are a few decent one's I've missed out. As for Moon, I thought it was good but 2001-lite.
I've decided to be more stingy with my ratings from now on. I'm hoping my ratings' scale will catch on universally and be the norm on every film website.
Judge for yourself.
Damn. The man's losing it. Literally. He can't act without his hair. He's like a thespian version of Samson.
The Green Mile
What an utter utter shit movie! Mindless drivel and that's 3 hours of my life I won't get back. If anyone wants to bore themselves to death with absolute tripe...watch The Green Mile... I went in with such high expectations seeing as it had Tom Hanks, had an 8.4/10 on IMDB, and was written and directed but the same fella who did Shawshawnk...and that is what I get?!
1/10 and I'm being generous!
What an utter utter shit movie! Mindless drivel and that's 3 hours of my life I won't get back. If anyone wants to bore themselves to death with absolute tripe...watch The Green Mile... I went in with such high expectations seeing as it had Tom Hanks, had an 8.4/10 on IMDB, and was written and directed but the same fella who did Shawshawnk...and that is what I get?!
1/10 and I'm being generous!
^ I don't think anyone has ever given The Green Mile a rating of 1. I'm not saying it's the greatest movie made, but what was it that really bothered you about the movie?
Aside from you already stating it was boring of course..
Aside from you already stating it was boring of course..
Cause it just dragged on and on and on with so many wasteful scenes with no head or toe to the storyline....Very very poor.
The movie was about a big giant fella in jail who had the power of healing, and then coughed out the infections, and about a rat called Mr Jingles?!
Mean Streets
Bit rough around the edges compared to Scorsese's other works but I guess that's because his trademark slow-motion shots.. realistic acting.. gritty dialogue etc have been polished over time. Still for one of his first movies it's an obvious sign of things to come. It focuses less on the violent criminal elements of a gangsters life and more on the inner turmoil of the protagonist.. his sins and how he makes up for them. 7/10
Shutter Island
Bit late with this one but thought it was a great movie. It looked fecking amazing in 1080p. As for the story.. it combined elements of mystery/thriller/horror to make for an intriguing film, as for the ending
8/10
Bit rough around the edges compared to Scorsese's other works but I guess that's because his trademark slow-motion shots.. realistic acting.. gritty dialogue etc have been polished over time. Still for one of his first movies it's an obvious sign of things to come. It focuses less on the violent criminal elements of a gangsters life and more on the inner turmoil of the protagonist.. his sins and how he makes up for them. 7/10
Shutter Island
Bit late with this one but thought it was a great movie. It looked fecking amazing in 1080p. As for the story.. it combined elements of mystery/thriller/horror to make for an intriguing film, as for the ending
I think he was insane during the film, but the last line shows he faked his relapse so he could die a good man rather than continue living knowing what he had killed his wife and lost his kids.