Hereafter. 6/10 Stunning start and some good acting that just suddenly loses it's way in the final act. The romance angle between Damon and Bryce Dallas Howard is beautifully played out and it's final moments are heart breaking. The young london boy, can physically act but it's ruined when he talks and jars. The French girls performance is solid but with the breath taking opening it never is able to reach those heights again. With it including scenes of the Indian ocean Tsunami London tube bombing, it's quiet human ending just feels like a let down.
Film The Redcafe Movie review thread
- Thread starter golden_blunder
- Start date
It's more than that, but even that way its the worst Kubrick since The Killing. Barry Lyndon is a boring book, so it would have been very hard to make anything unboring out of it.
The natural lighting of Barry Lyndon makes it amazing to look at, one of the the best looking films. Its a shame Kubrick abandoned the Napoleon movie because the Bondarchuk Waterloo movie came out in 1970. It would have been a lot more interesting film.
Very under-rated film. Why is it that films starring 'action' heroes are so often dissed?
One of the 70s finest films.
Clse encounters of the third kind is on channel 5 now in HD!!!
Was bored yesterday evening and ended up watching Skyline.
I knew it was crap, but I started watching it anyway and I found the first 20 minutes or so strangley entertaining. From this point, the film gets gradually worse and worse until the final sequence which contains the most laughably terrible 15 minutes I've seen in a film that didn't go straight to DVD.
It was so bad, I actually found myself pleased that I'd watched it. I have a new benchmark to judge terrible films by.
I knew it was crap, but I started watching it anyway and I found the first 20 minutes or so strangley entertaining. From this point, the film gets gradually worse and worse until the final sequence which contains the most laughably terrible 15 minutes I've seen in a film that didn't go straight to DVD.
It was so bad, I actually found myself pleased that I'd watched it. I have a new benchmark to judge terrible films by.
Watched Taken last night. Should have listened to the critics and not my friends who are idiots.
2/10
2/10
That's stupidly harsh, the film was a lot better than a 2, it's got a 7.9 IMDb rating too.
The London kids ruined it, destroyed it in fact. I have posted my thougts about it in this thread before, Eastwood can't cast kids or atleast his casting agency can't.
And Taken isn't a 2/10 film unless your just basing it on his daughters running style.
Thoroughly rotten among the critics on Rotten Tomatoes. I know who I'm with. It packs every single movie cliche into the first ten minutes with exposition so clumsy it makes the Telletubbies look like a great example of subtext at work. If you like mindless, fine, but I like characters who are more than pencil-drawings.
Yeah Taken is a terrible dimeadozen action aimed towards the people who loved it so they did fine with their target market.....i.e people who generally also like Michael Bay.
I mean it's better than Michael Bay, but it's still pretty bad.
I mean it's better than Michael Bay, but it's still pretty bad.
The thing is ... it must have been REALLY bad, because I actually like a crappy Michael Bay movie as much as any pubescent teen. But it's one step below Commando - and at least that had its tongue stuck firmly in cheek. Maybe that's why I disliked it so much. If it had had Van Damme or Seagal in the lead, no one would have heard of it, they just somehow lucked out and got Neeson which added gravitas to a script which really didn't deserve it.
Apologies to any fans of the film, not trying to start an argument, it did just actually genuinely annoy me!
Incendies - Two twins decides to travel to the Middle East to find their brother which they only just found out about and the father they never met, all according to their mother's will. The story then overlaps with the mother's early life. It's set up for a thriller but is very slow-moving with striking cinematography, and has some powerful scenes. My only gripe really was the decision to include Radiohead songs in a few scenes which sounded a bit out of place.
The ending had me completely stunned, not gonna give anything away though.
The ending had me completely stunned, not gonna give anything away though.
Meh, the same critics who think Citizen Kane is the greatest thing in the universe.
People make fun of Michael Bay but he's in the top 10 of highest grossing directors of all time.
He does what he does, not everyone wants to go to the cinema and watch a 'Memento' (exceptional film btw) some people just want to watch a good old fashioned blockbuster.
Not everyone strolls into a cinema on a high horse surrounded by self generated smug and pretension, not everyone goes in needing to see symbolism, metaphors and depth in character.
Some people just want to relax, watch some cars explode, watch some pretty people (who may be horrendously terrible at their craft) but who cares? they're there just to watch a movie, they wanna see a movie where they won't lose track of the plot for playing on their phone for 5 minutes.
Michael Bay doesn't pretend or try to be something he isn't, he knows how to make a damn good summer blockbuster and good on him.
Except for Pearl Harbour, that was complete and utter garbage from start to finish (except the bit where the Japs blew up the ships).
As a rule I dislike physical comedy but the popcorn scene had me laughing out loud, oh and Graucho is hilarious as usual.
I am going to watch Paranormal Activity 3 this weekend. Its been ages since I've seen a horror film in the theater and I am pretty excited.
No they don't. But some people go in expecting above amateur acting, a tighter script, and actual direction. It's not being pretentious or smug, it's just wanting basic things that are expected of a film. If you enjoy Michael Bay, more power to you, I ain't judging you, but doesn't mean they are good films.
If you go to read a book and you got grammatical errors on every other page, would you also accept that if it had nice pictures on the next page?
They made a third?
Michael Bay's films meet that criteria.
I'm not a fanboy of his by any means but I dont dislike him and I can sit through a few of his films and I can see why his films make money.
And you are judging when you say things like this Yeah Taken is a terrible dimeadozen action aimed towards the people who loved it so they did fine with their target market.....i.e people who generally also like Michael Bay.
I don't see how this ties in with anything.
If it is anything like the other 2 , I would not get that excited.
First one was OK , but the second was just rubbish.
No they don't. Script errors all over the place, shoddy direction and terrible acting from your two "leads" most of the time(I mean he even got bad performances out of Ewan Mcgregor and Scarlett Johnasson somehow despite both being decent actors.)
That's not me judging them....that's just me saying they are the target market, which they are and anyone in the making of that film and the people who marketed it would confirm this to you.
Because you'd be getting a book that is missing basic stuff....just like Bay skips over basic stuff for his films.
I don't dislike him at all, he actually seems a nice guy and pokes great fun at himself. But his films are bad and he knows this since he's actually mocked himself a few times. But they earn him tons of money, just like Simon Cowell makes a ton of money from bad music too.
That's not the same, watching a film and forming an opinion is subjective.
If I sat here and said Diary of a Mad Black Woman was the greatest film of all time, with an exceptional plot, exceptional acting and directing, you could not tell me I was wrong.
With a book, if there's a grammatical error, there's a grammatical error, if 'disturbed' is spelt 'disturberd' it's wrong.
Yeah, but really you weren't saying that, you were saying anyone who liked a "terrible dimeadozen" action movie like 'Taken' must then be a Michael Bay fan, who you've since accused of having movies with script errors, shoddy directing and terrible acting.
So you are judging, you made an assumption, of course you're free to an opinion, but when you start saying things like "You like this shit that I think is shit, therefore you must like this other shit that I think is shit", just makes you look a like a bit of a dick.
A film with a ton of errors and bad basics is a bad film.....just like a book with a ton of erros and bad grammar would be a bad book. Anyone can enjoy it all they want, but it won't change that it's bad. Someone tells me the Godfather is bad film, i tell them they are wrong....not enjoying it fine, that's cool, but that doesn't make it a bad film, it works both ways.
It's cool to enjoy bad things you know, I enjoy plenty of films I don't think are really very good films, or music that isn't very good....but Michael Bay films are simply too bad for me to enjoy, as half the time I'm getting a headache or noticing endless flaws.
It's cool to enjoy bad things you know, I enjoy plenty of films I don't think are really very good films, or music that isn't very good....but Michael Bay films are simply too bad for me to enjoy, as half the time I'm getting a headache or noticing endless flaws.
Have to say I don't really agree with Mockney re: The Third Man music score. It really worked for me, especially as it opened up with the curiosity and intrigue theme which it just fits perfectly, and it added something different to the chase scenes. There was only one real moment when I'm not sure it worked for me - the porter's fear of the unknown figure by the window. It was a bit off-putting. The slanted camera-work was original (in mainstream movies at least) and still as brilliant now as it was back then, the camera-work throughout in fact is admirable irrespective of what's actually happening within the shots. There's something strangely unsatisfying about Welles' movies I've seen but there's an unquestionable air of greatness in each of the three I've seen - this, Touch of Evil and Citizen Kane - and you can't not be impressed by his willingness to be innovative. 9
Jules et Jim - quirky, original, some great lines, some great performances; endlessly watchable. 9
Jules et Jim - quirky, original, some great lines, some great performances; endlessly watchable. 9
I said the same thing about The Third Man score...it works for me. But to say it's a Welles film isn't right. It was directed by Carol Reed. Now Reed definitely lifted some ideas from Citizen Kane, but it's his film not Welles'.
I also noticed that Trevor Howard was the spitting image of David Thewlis.
I also noticed that Trevor Howard was the spitting image of David Thewlis.
The movies didn't really show-off Welles' talent fully; only his theatre work (and arguably his radio work) did that.
Have you seen Shoot the Piano Player yet Brwned? If you like Jules et Jim, I'd imagine you like Shoot.
Welles did a spin-off radio series from The Third Man.
Quick shout out for his last movie F For Fake too. Very entertaining.
Welles was married to Rita Hayworth for a while, which makes him pretty damn cool in my book.
I like Welles, more due to his personality than his film work though. Such an imposing larger than life figure.
If someone ever decides to make a biopic of him then this bloke from Mad Men really needs to play him.
If someone ever decides to make a biopic of him then this bloke from Mad Men really needs to play him.
Stake Land 7/10
Zombie movie from Romero, at first I thought it's a B-zombie flick, but it really turns out quite ok and I like it, although seems to have stretch abit too long imo.
Zombie movie from Romero, at first I thought it's a B-zombie flick, but it really turns out quite ok and I like it, although seems to have stretch abit too long imo.
Cowboys and Alien 4/10
FFS, I admit i was watching it in the bootleg DvD where you stil have people popping around to go to the toilet, but this movie is feckng borefest i skip forward most of it.
Shit. It's not even action
FFS, I admit i was watching it in the bootleg DvD where you stil have people popping around to go to the toilet, but this movie is feckng borefest i skip forward most of it.
Shit. It's not even action
True, I even knew that and completely ignored it! Great cameo from Welles though. I've got F For Fake but I had it in my head it was a documentary.
Nope, never heard of it. Anything other than it and Fahrenheit 451 I should watch by Truffaut? Think I'll go on a Brando-spree for the rest of the week, A Streetcar Named Desire and On the Waterfront in the next couple of days.
I like Welles, more due to his personality than his film work though. Such an imposing larger than life figure.
If someone ever decides to make a biopic of him then this bloke from Mad Men really needs to play him.
He was played by this guy:
Watched the Changeling last night 8/10. A 1978 ghost stoy that has obviously influenced the likes Del Toro and the Japanese ghost stories (Ju-on The ring etc). Whilst not scary the spook factor is superb and I'd reccomend it to everyone.
400 Blows is probably the most obvious one to watch.
Indeed, 'tis why I watched it first (see top of this page)! Nothing else particularly must-see?
Well he had a whole series of films about Antoine Doinel. Also, Confidentially Yours is a decent noir he did in 1983. The Story of Adele H isn't bad. Day for Night would be worth a watch.
I've always been more of a Godard fan than Truffaut fan though.
You don't watch a horror film for the story line or the quality of acting. We know both are only going to be like average. But the sudden excitement or the rush that certain scenes in horror films give is worth going to the theater.