I thought Heat was average.
Watched Seconds(Thriller, Mystery) last night. Fantastic film, really enjoyed it. Worked on so many different levels. Another oldie that has influenced a number of films. Yet this one, seems to be a forgotten classic.
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.
I thought Heat was average.
Watched Seconds(Thriller, Mystery) last night. Fantastic film, really enjoyed it. Worked on so many different levels. Another oldie that has influenced a number of films. Yet this one, seems to be a forgotten classic.
Heat is one of my favourite films, of all time. It's incredible. As much as I loved Collateral, it's not better than Heat if you ask me.
Agreed.
Cinc won't agree but Collateral was far worse due to a silly unbelievable plot.
Collateral was shit in my opinion. Haven't seen Heat but will see it soon enough.
Collateral is one of the most beautifully shot movies around, with a great director in top form and a great Jamie Foxx.
Miami Heat on the other hand was disasterous.
If you mean Miami Vice (Miami Heat is a basketball team) then that was officially the worst film I have ever seen in my life. And that is an understatement.
Yeah, I meant that.
feck off, Thaw my friend, you obviously haven't seen many films if you think Miami Vice was bad. It wasn't fantastic, but it was nowhere near as bad as the way people talk about it.
cinc, I loved Collateral, you don't have to worry about that, but Heat is an epic.
Miami Vice looks really awful. I'd rather not even watch it for free.
I still stand by what I say, maybe because I was annoyed at spending a fiver to go watch it and I spent most of the time trying to figure out Farrell's accent but in my opinion it was dreadful.
I shouldn't have described Collateral as shit, it was ok, quite tense and entertaining at times.
It's got classic Mann Characters, and is shot very nicely. There's a decent shoot out which people compare to Heat's shoot out and call it shit. Mann uses a few of the same tricks he's used before, particularlly with lighting, but all in all it's decent if unspectacular. A long way from awful though.
Basically, you're saying that Spammy's got a hard on for the vastly overrated Mann.
I've seen the Aviator, though, which was very good, aesthetically. . . but I think he produced it, and not directed it. He's gay.
I have a hard on for him yes, he's not overrated though. Cnut.
He's not overrated in my housed old. You have to rated to be overrated in the first place.
Oooooh, get you!
I still keep thinking that I've quoted myself, each time, I quote your posts.
Then you read it and realise that I wouldn't be calling LFC2IDIE a tit all the time.
I think I'd only watch Miami Vice if my life depended on it.
I agree with the scouse bastard.
Collateral was good, but Heat was a better movie. I enjoy Heat much more than Collateral.
That scene where Pacino and DeNiro character met for the first time was fantastic.
Collateral was good, but Heat was a better movie. I enjoy Heat much more than Collateral.
That scene where Pacino and DeNiro character met for the first time was fantastic.
Pacino is God.
At World's End
Tried to compensate an extensive screenplay through dialogues which not only made the first half completely theoretical but more importantly compromised on characterisation. The climax is where it probably earns its money
5.5/10
Give me 1 and 2 anyday
Tried to compensate an extensive screenplay through dialogues which not only made the first half completely theoretical but more importantly compromised on characterisation. The climax is where it probably earns its money
5.5/10
Give me 1 and 2 anyday
I dont know if it has already been mentioned on here but one film I saw recently which i thought was excellent was Apocalypto. I was expecting it to be a bit toss to be honest. I had no intention of liking Mel Gibson as a director, but as it turns out I think he is pretty good. That one about Jesus was alright, and then his latest effort was very good. Not the most original of plots, but I loved the originality of the setting. And the cinematography was awesome.
In all, next time Mel brings a film out I will not pre judge and will endevour to watch it quickly.
In all, next time Mel brings a film out I will not pre judge and will endevour to watch it quickly.
Just saw The Fountain. And here's good review I found of it.
Author: warren-10 from San Francisco, CA
This is one half of a review. Some films need to be seen more than once to be fully grasped. This is one of them.
I would like to read Paul Schrader's review of this film. Not because he wrote the screenplay for Taxi Driver, but because he wrote a book about "Transcendental Style in Film" and "The Fountain" is certainly in this category of film-making.
Because of Schrader's book, I've been viewing as many films by Dreyer, Ozu, and Bresson, that I can lay my hands on – especially those by Robert Bresson. There are many parallels between Aronofsky's film and Bresson, and yet their style is completely different – it's like comparing a Tintype photograph with a Van Gogh: Bresson is understated while Aronofsky is over the top. Yet, both directors create films that are best viewed more than once. Both styles leave a lot to the imagination which can be frustrating on the first viewing. I certainly was. This is why I consider this to be one half of a review. I've only seen this film once.
The Fountain has three story lines: one set in the past, one in the present, and one set ostensibly in the future. The three timelines weave in an out of each other like a Chinese puzzle. The past is poetic, the present is realistic, and the future is plausible. Moreover the future be either a real future (as cinematic futures go) or merely a dream of the future. So, this could be a very subjective story that takes place now. It is ambiguous, mysterious, and subject to personal interpretation. In this regard, The Fountain, is very much like the films of Bresson.
Bresson once mentioned that he intentionally avoids the obvious in his film; it is the mystery that propels the viewer's interest forward. Often later scenes reveal the mystery of that earlier enigma. This is a very literary form of film-making. Last night, I was surrounded by people in the audience who wanted every plot detail handed to us on a silver platter. As this was a sneak preview, we all got in for free. Some were probably expecting the extremes of "Requiem for a Dream". A group next to me left early. As I was leaving, I heard a teen say into her cell phone "don't bother to pay for this film – wait for it when it is on TV … for free". And I agree: if you can tolerate a lot of commercial TV and prefer magazines to books, then you may not like this film. If you read some of the reviews, for Bresson, you'll get some of the same impatience. These are films which break with what you'd expect from a film. Forget that you're in a movie theater; this piece will reward an open mind.
The acting in The Fountain is very dynamic but there was not enough breathing room for empathy. There is only one break in the tension when there could have been more. Instead, to serve the three story lines, the tension feels like one continuous climb. A tearful moment, from one storyline, leads to another tearful moment in another storyline. The group next to me – the one that ultimately left – were snickering. It feels like overacting, even though each performance is convincing, on its own. So, I felt my empathy in suspension. A different edit would have added more power to the emotional timbre of the acting. I find myself wishing for another 20 minutes of story to draw me in.
The music blended very well with the story – they never stood apart, which is ideal for a cinematic score. The visuals, however, did break the suspension of disbelief, on a few occasions. In one case, there was a tracking shot that uses a unique point of view that took me out of the story, thinking "wow, cool shot!", instead of thinking "I wonder where he is going". There is a certain amusement ride feel to some of the cinematography and Special Effects which detracts from the story. But, these shots are not gimmicks. They're premonitions and echoes of action in other sequences. They are crazy bold, like Van Gogh's brushstrokes tracing out a landscape. These bold strokes are the first thing that I notice, about "The Fountain". But, upon reflection, they paint a picture that is rather calm.
I look forward to seeing this movie again.
-------------------------------------------
I think I'm going to watch some of Bresson's movies.
Author: warren-10 from San Francisco, CA
This is one half of a review. Some films need to be seen more than once to be fully grasped. This is one of them.
I would like to read Paul Schrader's review of this film. Not because he wrote the screenplay for Taxi Driver, but because he wrote a book about "Transcendental Style in Film" and "The Fountain" is certainly in this category of film-making.
Because of Schrader's book, I've been viewing as many films by Dreyer, Ozu, and Bresson, that I can lay my hands on – especially those by Robert Bresson. There are many parallels between Aronofsky's film and Bresson, and yet their style is completely different – it's like comparing a Tintype photograph with a Van Gogh: Bresson is understated while Aronofsky is over the top. Yet, both directors create films that are best viewed more than once. Both styles leave a lot to the imagination which can be frustrating on the first viewing. I certainly was. This is why I consider this to be one half of a review. I've only seen this film once.
The Fountain has three story lines: one set in the past, one in the present, and one set ostensibly in the future. The three timelines weave in an out of each other like a Chinese puzzle. The past is poetic, the present is realistic, and the future is plausible. Moreover the future be either a real future (as cinematic futures go) or merely a dream of the future. So, this could be a very subjective story that takes place now. It is ambiguous, mysterious, and subject to personal interpretation. In this regard, The Fountain, is very much like the films of Bresson.
Bresson once mentioned that he intentionally avoids the obvious in his film; it is the mystery that propels the viewer's interest forward. Often later scenes reveal the mystery of that earlier enigma. This is a very literary form of film-making. Last night, I was surrounded by people in the audience who wanted every plot detail handed to us on a silver platter. As this was a sneak preview, we all got in for free. Some were probably expecting the extremes of "Requiem for a Dream". A group next to me left early. As I was leaving, I heard a teen say into her cell phone "don't bother to pay for this film – wait for it when it is on TV … for free". And I agree: if you can tolerate a lot of commercial TV and prefer magazines to books, then you may not like this film. If you read some of the reviews, for Bresson, you'll get some of the same impatience. These are films which break with what you'd expect from a film. Forget that you're in a movie theater; this piece will reward an open mind.
The acting in The Fountain is very dynamic but there was not enough breathing room for empathy. There is only one break in the tension when there could have been more. Instead, to serve the three story lines, the tension feels like one continuous climb. A tearful moment, from one storyline, leads to another tearful moment in another storyline. The group next to me – the one that ultimately left – were snickering. It feels like overacting, even though each performance is convincing, on its own. So, I felt my empathy in suspension. A different edit would have added more power to the emotional timbre of the acting. I find myself wishing for another 20 minutes of story to draw me in.
The music blended very well with the story – they never stood apart, which is ideal for a cinematic score. The visuals, however, did break the suspension of disbelief, on a few occasions. In one case, there was a tracking shot that uses a unique point of view that took me out of the story, thinking "wow, cool shot!", instead of thinking "I wonder where he is going". There is a certain amusement ride feel to some of the cinematography and Special Effects which detracts from the story. But, these shots are not gimmicks. They're premonitions and echoes of action in other sequences. They are crazy bold, like Van Gogh's brushstrokes tracing out a landscape. These bold strokes are the first thing that I notice, about "The Fountain". But, upon reflection, they paint a picture that is rather calm.
I look forward to seeing this movie again.
-------------------------------------------
I think I'm going to watch some of Bresson's movies.
I've just downloaded 1984.
300
Exciting movie, but where the feck was the plot?
300 Spartan spazzers go up against 1 million Persians. What else would you expect?
Shit movie. It's laced with lots of slow motion fighting scenes and blood with the constant shouting of "SPAAARRRTTAAANNNS"
What did you guys think of it?
Exciting movie, but where the feck was the plot?
300 Spartan spazzers go up against 1 million Persians. What else would you expect?
Shit movie. It's laced with lots of slow motion fighting scenes and blood with the constant shouting of "SPAAARRRTTAAANNNS"
What did you guys think of it?
first you said it's exciting, then you said it's shit... once you make up your mind i'll tell you my opinion..
I thought it was crap.
I guess, you have to partly blame Herodotus.
As for 1984, I enjoyed it, very thought provoking. No idea if it's a good adaptation, though, as I have never read Orwell's novel.
As for 1984, I enjoyed it, very thought provoking. No idea if it's a good adaptation, though, as I have never read Orwell's novel.
Oh and I watched Over the Hedge, too. I really enjoyed it. Good one for the kids.
Has anyone seem Alejandro Jodorowsky's work??
The Holy Mountain, El Topo and Santa Sangre?
The Holy Mountain, El Topo and Santa Sangre?
Where are Melb Red and Kev???
Oh and I watched In America last night. The film was good, and I enjoyed it, acting was very good, and I didn't realise Samantha Morton had such a fantastic pair of cans (actually come to think of it. . . it's the first time I've seen her). That said, it was very too Hollywoody for my liking, you didn't really need to search, the film spelled it out. . . and sometimes it went over the top. Hana-Bi had a similar storyline(ok, not the same, but it touched on a similar subject), but it was done with more class. . .although, the film is less accessible to the viewer.
Oh and I watched In America last night. The film was good, and I enjoyed it, acting was very good, and I didn't realise Samantha Morton had such a fantastic pair of cans (actually come to think of it. . . it's the first time I've seen her). That said, it was very too Hollywoody for my liking, you didn't really need to search, the film spelled it out. . . and sometimes it went over the top. Hana-Bi had a similar storyline(ok, not the same, but it touched on a similar subject), but it was done with more class. . .although, the film is less accessible to the viewer.
I thought that in America was brilliant but not for the AIDS storyline whihc was a little clumsily dealt with. The children's acting was superb and the Irish illegals in the US part was what I enjoyed.
Was a good film, don't get me wrong. It's funny, but Hana-Bi had a sadder ending but I found the film uplifting, whereas this had the opposite effect.
Music and Lyrics
If you like romantic comedy and Hugh Grant then you will enjoy this one. It is no 4 Weddings and a Funeral but as long as you didn't hate When Harry Met Sally or Sleepless In Seattle then you will be OK with this one. Undemanding, mildly amusing and instantly forgettable but not a bad film to end the week with on a DVD. If you are old enough to look back on the 80's with some affection you will enjoy this one more than those who are younger. 6/10
Flags Of Our Fathers Seemed like nothing new and I fell alseep half way through due to the late hour, beer and boredom. So a bit hard to rate. A war epic too far perhaps.
If you like romantic comedy and Hugh Grant then you will enjoy this one. It is no 4 Weddings and a Funeral but as long as you didn't hate When Harry Met Sally or Sleepless In Seattle then you will be OK with this one. Undemanding, mildly amusing and instantly forgettable but not a bad film to end the week with on a DVD. If you are old enough to look back on the 80's with some affection you will enjoy this one more than those who are younger. 6/10
Flags Of Our Fathers Seemed like nothing new and I fell alseep half way through due to the late hour, beer and boredom. So a bit hard to rate. A war epic too far perhaps.
Not seen that one. I'll try it. I saw In America not knowing a thing about it so it was a pleasant surprise. The opposite of when a good film is built up and you are then disappointed when it turns out to be just OK.
I just got a Lazer Disk version of the original cinematic release of Blade Runner, the one with the cheesy voice-over and I have also scored a hardly used Marantz player for a tenner on eBay
Same thing happened with me. Movie never got going...
Downloaded Thank You For Smoking and watched it this morning and watched Four Brothers on TV two nights ago.
Thank You For Smoking: 7/10 Good film, funny dialogue, interesting characters ,didn't get boring
Four Brothers: 9/10 Excellent. Can't believe I missed it at the movies and on DVD but it's great, watch it if you can..
Thank You For Smoking: 7/10 Good film, funny dialogue, interesting characters ,didn't get boring
Four Brothers: 9/10 Excellent. Can't believe I missed it at the movies and on DVD but it's great, watch it if you can..
Not seen that one. I'll try it. I saw In America not knowing a thing about it so it was a pleasant surprise. The opposite of when a good film is built up and you are then disappointed when it turns out to be just OK.
I just got a Lazer Disk version of the original cinematic release of Blade Runner, the one with the cheesy voice-over and I have also scored a hardly used Marantz player for a tenner on eBay
Which did you prefer, the original or the director's cut? It's astonishing that you can't get both versions on DVD and even more strange is that there's no 5.1 DTS version. I suspect they'll bring out a special box set soon, though.