Sure.
Film The Redcafe Movie review thread
- Thread starter golden_blunder
- Start date
Sure.
Excellent
Now we're just missing Spammy and Hammer Michael.
any movies out worth seeing?
Thousands.
They don't make animated movies like that anymore.
Cave of Forgotten Dreams - Fascinating stuff, never realised how detailed some of those cave paintings were.
You've inadvertently contradicted yourself there so I'm not quite sure how to respond.
I think with a film like Citizen Kane, you needed to be around at the time of it's release to fully appreciate it.
I'm 23, I couldn't grasp the concept of a decent film until about 10 years ago, I saw Citizen Kane for the first time in 2008, so all the revolutionary cinematographic elements the film was known for don't really register with me, unless I were to sit down and watch every film made pre CK.
I've been studying film for years so I have come to acknowledge CK was hugely influential.
But as a stand alone film and for purely entertainment purposes, it's an absolutely nothing film and I agree with a few others, it's probably the most over rated movie in the history of film.
I can't understand how it has a 8.6 IMDb rating, I cannot see how a regular movie watcher, with no deep knowledge, interest or understanding of the history of film will rate CK so highly.
This leads me to believe the Citizen Kane IMDB rating is a conspiracy.
Don't know who's leading it, could be Welles himself, could be the government, I don't know but there is one.
You really believe Blade Runner was better than Alien?
Nah, we just need a thread where we could leave Leroy to his own devices.
Cinc agreed a few months back. You're slow, Mehro...very slow.
The imdb ratings are a joke, otherwise Shawshank Redemption wouldnt lead the Top 250 list with a 9.2 rating. But on a list where Dark Knight, Inception and the last LOTR movie has an 8.8, Matrix an 8.7, Memento an 8.6 Gladiator an 8.3, and the last Harry Potter has a 8.2 rating, its not Citizen Kane that stands out for me as overrated.
In theaters
It's frequented by kids...I think there was campaign to get SR to number one....which sums the place up. But yeah, what an average movie.
To be honest I dont take much notice of the rating on IMDB or any other site.
I like to make my own decision has to if a film is good or not.
I think liking a film is a very personal thing , one persons good is another persons bad and has shown with Blade Runner one person's classic is another's only average.
Nah, of course there's good and bad. Highlander, for example is shit, Blade Runner on the otherhand is one of the greatest movies ever made. It's like Boss saying Nicki Minaj is brilliant because he likes her stuff, but The Smiths are rubbish because he can't get into their music.
I'm very much a Welles admirer but, while I can appreciate Citizen Kane (and its innovations), I don't care for the film that much. I think part of the reason it's so highly-acclaimed is because it appeals to critics - after all, it's basically a story of the press/media, and how a story (true or false) can be 'framed' or structured. Human beings ceaselessly desire 'narrative' in many things, not just fiction, because life is chaotic, unpredictable and often unfair.
Kane is a far darker movie than it appears; it's the American Dream turned nightmare.
Kane is a far darker movie than it appears; it's the American Dream turned nightmare.
I knew you was going to bring up Highlander.
But is liking or not liking a film a personal thing , I like Highlander because I like the Queen sound track and think the film is good , OK the rest of them are crap I will admit that , but I will still watch them.
I just cant get in Blade Runner , I have tried quite a few times with a few versions another one is Pulp Fiction , parts of it are very good , but I don't like a lot of it so wont watch it , now both films are considered classics.
Kill Bill is another , quite a few of my mates think it is rubbish , but I think both film are great and can watch them and have done many times.
Well no one bloody told me!
Yes, like anything, but that doesn't mean it's good or bad. I used Highlander as an example of a very poor film that's achieved cult status because it's liked by a lot of people - but the film itself is very poor - aside from the Queen soundtrack that is. The poor acting(not sure Conner's accent's Polish or French but it's clearly not Scottish, and Ramirez who's ancient Egyptian and spent the last couple of hundred years of his life in Spain has a Inverness accent for some odd reason), miscast actors and a nonsensical storyline. It's macho though, I mean blokes beheading each other and what not.
Nothing wrong with Shawshank Redemption. Doesn't deserve to be called the best film ever but its a good film.
An excellent film , but like you say there is better to watch.
We're speaking about two totally different things.
Quality can be measured somewhat objectively, but quality doesnt always (or never) correlates with personal preference.
You can like bad or average movies, we all do. I've grown up with Star Wars (Empire Strikes Back was the first film I saw in a Cinema at 3 or 4), I saw those films a few hundred times on VHS tapes on which a single guy dubbed over the Hungarian translation of every line, but I still love them (without watching them much though), but I can clearly see their faults. I even like TPM and AOTC while knowing that they are bad movies.
It's a decently executed film obviously made with the Oscars in mind.
I haven't remotely, I didn't just do the italics because it looks fancy I did it to indicate the emphasis on that word. I meant that it was clearly aimed to bring in average movie-goers first, and admired later. Ridley Scott's very much an average movie-goer maker, he just makes them well enough to have a lasting effect. With Citizen Kane you get the idea it was aimed at people who would appreciate it for its depth first and foremost, while having the entertainment value to make people still enjoy watching it again - i.e. the priorities were reversed. If the movie turned away average movie-goers Welles wouldn't care because it was his movie, saying what he wanted to say and made how he wanted it made.
Orson Welles the actor makes most things worth watching regardless of what else goes on when he's on the screen, from what I've seen...and that's very much the case in Citizen Kane. And it does look great even for those who don't understand the technical expertise to make it so (e.g. me). The narrative style maybe isn't as fresh now since we've seen non-linear narratives taken much further but it's still well made in that sense, 70 years on. There's plenty to like about it, but like everything taste's subjective. There will be people understand it fully from a technical perspective but still don't like it, I'm sure. To say it's a nothing film seems a bit mental to me, though...you've obviously built up a long list of watched movies, what'd be your top 10?
And yeah, I think it's significantly better. I don't think that's a particularly rare opinion either. Unless you take IMDB as a good gauge of popular opinion....
Citizen Kane is the perfect example of a hugely important, great movie that not many people love.
It's use of camera, editing was revolutionary (the opening shot is still mesmerizing), its a much more complex story than most of the american movies were up to that point and had great acting. It was one of the first america auteur-movies too. The fact that this was Welles first movie is pretty astonishing too. And the fact that Welles did it against Hearst makes it one of the ballsiest films not made in the Soviet block.
It's hard to like the movie though, because its distant like Kane himself. (And it not aged well)
It's use of camera, editing was revolutionary (the opening shot is still mesmerizing), its a much more complex story than most of the american movies were up to that point and had great acting. It was one of the first america auteur-movies too. The fact that this was Welles first movie is pretty astonishing too. And the fact that Welles did it against Hearst makes it one of the ballsiest films not made in the Soviet block.
It's hard to like the movie though, because its distant like Kane himself. (And it not aged well)
Exactly. There's no heart at the centre - just as in Kane himself, and Xanadu too, for all its supposed splendour.
Thought it was just boring myself. I love the cinematography of the film but have never managed to watch the whole thing as it's just so godammed boring. Bit like No country for old men.
You should watch both film without interruptions then. No country is one of my favourite films.
Nothing to do with interruptions, they were just boring. No country for old men is another overated bore fest. Which considerng the subject matter surprised me just how fecking boring it was.
De gustibus... I think its one of the best, most absorbing movies of the last decade.
Cinco, what did you think of Inglorious?
I think it's one of the dullest most boring over-rated films of the last decade.
It could have been a great movie, but its a bit too self-absorbed for me, like every Tarantino movie. Its the best of them though and the whole part with Bowie's Cat People is amazing.
I had no idea that Tarantino wrote the story for Natural Born Killers until yesterday.
I was watching an episode of Columbo and decided to read up on it a little. Found out that Steven Speilberg directed the pilot for Columbo. This was before Duel I think. And then after a few clicks I ended up on Natural Born Killers. Dont remember how
I was watching an episode of Columbo and decided to read up on it a little. Found out that Steven Speilberg directed the pilot for Columbo. This was before Duel I think. And then after a few clicks I ended up on Natural Born Killers. Dont remember how
Oh hang on. Thats not how it happened. I was reading FireDoglake and decided to read up on Jane Hamsher. Jane Hamsher used to be a film producer and produced Natural Born Killers.
Just one more thing... where does Columbo enters this train of thought?
I was trying to remember where I read that bit about Tarantino and figured it must have been when I was reading about Columbo since, you know, it's movie related. Jane Hamsher in my mind is the woman behind a liberal blog not a movie producer.
I cant see youtube videos at work 
I cant see youtube videos at work
Its a Columbo clip where he says "Just one more thing..." To which the fat guy from Cheers answers "No, there is no just one more thing".
Hour of the Wolf - Bergman's only horror movie. It contained some great sequences. David Lynch is a fan of it, which doesn't come as a suprise. I can see it being an influence on Shutter Island too.