Film The Redcafe Movie review thread

cinc said:
Mockney I just cant understand you. That there are soaps but the books are burned is an essential part of its message.

Bradbury even said that the book is less about state censorship and more about the effect TV has on people.
Click to expand...

Well I'm not critiquing the book. I'm critiquing the film. You're all getting too hung up on the soaps bit here..it was merely one, not the single reason I thought it was shit (in fact I didn't think it was shit, but I do now, just cos you're all being such arses about it) Does the book explain how they'd learnt to read without, erm, reading?

Flounce about with literalism and interpretism all you want. It was a naff, up itself, dated film with dodgy acting and silly hats...I maintain staunchly that if it was made now by a mainstream director you'd delight in picking it apart.
 
cinc said:
Read this:

Ray Bradbury: Fahrenheit 451 Misinterpreted - Page 1 - News - Los Angeles - LA Weekly
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link. :)

The obvious plot hole in F451 though, is that the people are not responsible for the shaping of their opinions - the state and its media outlets are; and who controls those outlets? The state and/or its sponsors. So it's rather short-sighted to blame (or lionise) the people for their opposition to, say, the supposedly racist elements in Uncle Tom's Cabin and the like.
 
Truffaut's film clearly tackles the issue of the state controlling the people using TV as a form of soma. I've read the book but that was all a long time ago (and unusually I didn't think it was as good as the film - Bradbury has interesting ideas but they're not explored or given great characterisation in general - he's a short sci-fi story writer)
 
Yes, I thought the bits with Christie's wife were some of the better bits. The pills, the Big Brother style state seriousness, it was just the root point of banning all books not being carried out to it's rational conclusions. How could they read? How come the head fireman knew all about these books? How come reading actually did make them all more depressed? My lasting impression of the book people for example, was of the little boy being forced into the responsibility of memorising this stupid book, and then live in a restricted society of weirdo nomads. Surely that's child cruelty? It just all seemed very silly. Some films can get away with being very silly of course, but this one seemed to want me to take it incredibly seriously. And I simply couldn't.

It was entirely humourless, Werner was a bit of dick and ....silly hats.

I was expecting something far more profound. The potential was wasted IMO. I find it interesting someone who disliked Inception for all the potential it missed can love this because he liked the feel. It's alright. Which is the first thing I said. Well, after poncy film buffs.
 
Inception totally spoonfed the viewer, it was... here fellow, I know you're stupid so I'll spell everything out for you. Inception was a matchday thread with dates, badges and silly pictures. A great movie doesn't have to spell everything out, just like abstract pieces of art work don't( in fact any piece of art - in which movies and books are included). In fact, look at some of those posters that we linked...most of them were liked by your dear self. And your point about it being made by a French New Wave director being the sole reason why it was liked by many on here was a presumptuous thing to say. I dislike Godard's work for example and he's probably the most famous and highly respected French New Wave director.
 
Well we know each other's generally decent tastes in things full well and are just sniping for the sake of internet lolz. But that's not the point.

Spelling it out, and not being logical aren't the same thing IMO. Transformers left nonsensical gaps in the story, I doubt either of us would claim it's brilliance was that it didn't spell it out for you. There's nothing confusing about F451, it's very clear what it's about. I just found it silly. The setting, the conceit, the acting and the hats. The silly, silly hats.
 
cinc said:
Rise of the Planet of the Apes: now that's a pretentious nonsensical crap sci-fi. Thats 6300 seconds I will never get back.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what was so pretentious about it. It was a silly action movie franchise they tried to give the Batman Begins treatment, sure, but there was very little way to do that without being a little po faced in places. I think they did a good job considering. It certainly got good reviews too so I'd say there are millions of films more worthy of the "there's time I'll never get back" treatment...My only problem with it was the human actors were crap and the Alzheimers angle seemed rather hackneyed.

It interestingly has exactly the same score on Rotten Tomatoes as F451.
 
Mockney said:
I'm not sure what was so pretentious about it. It was a silly action movie franchise they tried to give the Batman Begins treatment.
Click to expand...


So then it is pretentious. Lithgow's portayal of an Alzheimer patient was shocking and for someone who cared for his suffering grandmother for 3 years a little bit disturbing too. The apes werent that good either, nothing we havenr seen since Gollum. "They" overplayed their parts 10 folds. We would laugh if a human "acted" like that.


The science behind is laughable. When it started to talk I laughed a lot. I thought they will go there, but hoped they will not.

I dont like the new Batman series either. Its imaginative at places, but to make movies about comics with their heads so far up their asses is laughable. Tim Burton's 1989 Batman was by far a better film than either of Nolan's. Even the second was is better with the fecking Penguin.
 
Fair enough, that's your taste. I also had a Grandparent who died from Alzheimers and I didn't find it offensive for what it's worth. Horses for courses.
 
Well what would be a key component of any real life equivalent scenario but is signally missing from the movie?
 
I just watched Departures, a film about Japanese undertakers. From what I gathered, the profession is really looked down upon in that culture (a few notches below toilet cleaner) and the film is about a cellist who is made redundant from his orchestra and he answers an ad in the paper for someone to help with 'departues'. He thinks it's a job as a travel agent, but it turns out it was a typo and should've read 'someone to help with the departed'. His wife isn't happy when she finds out, so leaves him, and the film shows how respectful and dedicated these guys are when it comes to preparing the dead before they're cremated/buried.


It's not exactly humourous, but it isn't dark either. I think it's just a good film that most people would enjoy. 8/10 for me.
 
Rise of the Planet of the Apes - to be fair, the source material was sketchy, so I'm not sure more could've been in terms of plot. Perhaps they could've completely rewritten the history of the franchise instead incorportating the weak backstory into a prequel but I'm sure fans would've complained. But anyway, let's get straight to the good parts... Caesar's 'I'm the daddy now!' moment did make me chuckle, and I did like the apes swinging through the trees. However the brutal truth, well in my opinion, is this film need not've been made...in fact it shouldn't have been made.

Oh...and humans didn't exactly come across as lovely people did they. I suppose if this film was pretentious....we'd be saying they were emphasising slaves and slavers or something.

Maybe not.
 
The cgi was great though, if only they could cgi some acting onto James Franco's face.
 
Nah, we didn't even see any naked female chimps either. The film was clearly contrived, much like the SW prequels....personally, I would've had more mindless action.
 
I don't want to watch it as I hate seeing anything about animals being experimented on. It really saddens me though I know why they do it. I can't imagine how anybody could cause pain and suffering to another living thing like that.
 
Grinner said:
I don't want to watch it as I hate seeing anything about animals being experimented on. It really saddens me though I know why they do it. I can't imagine how anybody could cause pain and suffering to another living thing like that.
Click to expand...

I have the answer, but dont want to derail the thread. I added the topic to the Debate Cup.
 
cinc said:
And they were trying to tell something about medical research and testing on animals/humans.
Click to expand...

I don't think they really were. It was an action film, and the most logical way to make this story work. If the humans weren't being needlessly cruel to the chimps, then why the hell would they rebel? It's a needed part of the story. Which was essentially just to get them all going ape-shit by the end.
 
Mockney said:
I don't think they really were. It was an action film, and the most logical way to make this story work. If the humans weren't being needlessly cruel to the chimps, then why the hell would they rebel? It's a needed part of the story. Which was essentially just to get them all going ape-shit by the end.
Click to expand...

We"ve only seen one chimp on whom there were test performed on. He had to solve logical puzzles , I should add.
 
Mockney said:
I don't think they really were. It was an action film, and the most logical way to make this story work. If the humans weren't being needlessly cruel to the chimps, then why the hell would they rebel? It's a needed part of the story. Which was essentially just to get them all going ape-shit by the end.
Click to expand...

To be fair, no one actually knew the real history behind rise of the planet of the apes. I'm not sure how the likes of Dr Zaisus could've known...what decades? centuries? millenia? after the emancipation of our distant cousins. It'd have been a kin to reading and believing Genesis for the truth/history of our existence. Which leads me to believe they perhaps should've completely rewritten the prequel story....although in that case we may not have seen naction flick. But anyway, we needed more action scenes. Oh and more apes swinging through trees. Ahhh and apes raping humans - well done Grinner, for that idea.
 
Badunk said:
I just watched Departures, a film about Japanese undertakers. From what I gathered, the profession is really looked down upon in that culture (a few notches below toilet cleaner) and the film is about a cellist who is made redundant from his orchestra and he answers an ad in the paper for someone to help with 'departues'. He thinks it's a job as a travel agent, but it turns out it was a typo and should've read 'someone to help with the departed'. His wife isn't happy when she finds out, so leaves him, and the film shows how respectful and dedicated these guys are when it comes to preparing the dead before they're cremated/buried.


It's not exactly humourous, but it isn't dark either. I think it's just a good film that most people would enjoy. 8/10 for me.
Click to expand...

Very good film that.
 
Spoony Youngblood said:
To be fair, no one actually knew the real history behind rise of the planet of the apes. I'm not sure how the likes of Dr Zaisus could've known...what decades? centuries? millenia? after the emancipation of our distant cousins. It'd have been a kin to reading and believing Genesis for the truth/history of our existence. Which leads me to believe they perhaps should've completely rewritten the prequel story....although in that case we may not have seen naction flick. But anyway, we needed more action scenes. Oh and more apes swinging through trees. Ahhh and apes raping humans - well done Grinner, for that idea.
Click to expand...

You forgot throwing poo too. Apes are always fecking and throwing poo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.