Film The Redcafe Movie review thread

Super Tanker

A weapon of mass destruction is made from a meteor that landed in the 60's , it is of such power that it would cause a nuclear winter for 1000 years , they decide it is too dangerous so bury it deep in the ice, 40 years later somebody gets just a gram of it and wipes out a 10 square mile area , so they decide to remove it and sink it deep in the ocean.

What can I say this film has it all.

The worst story , the worst acting and by a long way the worst special effects I have ever seen in a film.

But I love it , it is so bad you have to watch to the end.

4/10
 
Not quite understanding the love for The Warrior other than from the Irish posters. A pretty average film by all accounts.

The only thing it proved was that Hardy can do a passable "Nu York" accent. Apart from that not really much more than a 6/10 at best from me.
 
BAMSOLA said:
Not quite understanding the love for The Warrior other than from the Irish posters. A pretty average film by all accounts.

The only thing it proved was that Hardy can do a passable "Nu York" accent. Apart from that not really much more than a 6/10 at best from me.
Click to expand...

what?

They're from Pittsburgh, by the way, not New York.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
what?

They're from Pittsburgh, by the way, not New York.
Click to expand...

I'm aware where they are from in the movie.

Tom Hardy himself mentions in an interview for the movie that its not a Pittsburg accent he was trained for by his dialect coach as they thought he couldn't handle it in such a short space of time so they went for a "non specific" to the east coast american accent.

What he ended up with is clearly a stereotypical "nu york" accent.

As for the Irish posters comment its not meant to be offensive in any way and I get it in much the same way as Italians and the whole Rocky genre.

The fact that the brothers are Irish americans has probably meant that alot on here have found it easy to embrace the movies strengths whilst overlooking the glaring flaws(Clichéd plot, some ripe dialogue, plot points that go nowhere and a frankly crap finale).

I see this overlooking of the movies flaws among some of my Irish friends(I have about 2 so hardly a representative sample admittedly).

It really isn't anything to write home about, just a very average movie.
 
BAMSOLA said:
I'm aware where they are from in the movie.

Tom Hardy himself mentions in an interview for the movie that its not a Pittsburg accent he was trained for by his dialect coach as they thought he couldn't handle it in such a short space of time so they went for a "non specific" to the east coast american accent.

What he ended up with is clearly a stereotypical "nu york" accent.

As for the Irish posters comment its not meant to be offensive in any way and I get it in much the same way as Italians and the whole Rocky genre.

The fact that the brothers are Irish americans has probably meant that alot on here have found it easy to embrace the movies strengths whilst overlooking the glaring flaws(Clichéd plot, some ripe dialogue, plot points that go nowhere and a frankly crap finale).

I see this overlooking of the movies flaws among some of my Irish friends(I have about 2 so hardly a representative sample admittedly).

It really isn't anything to write home about, just a very average movie.
Click to expand...

I see where you're coming from, and I agree that, by the looks of it, it's a very formulaic and clichéd plot. But, for fear of sounding elitist, I think I can claim to have seen more sports movies than most (though perhaps not on this forum), and "Warrior" hit me like none other have, at least not since Friday Night Lights (the movie). I think it may have, more than anything, to do with the androgenic undertones of the film. There's just something there which I think most males can relate to in a rather unattestable way. Something that, in our modern society, has been suppressed and undermined.

This is not a film that will hit home with (most) females, but the male relationships and their implications in the film seem to strike a certain note within the male psyche that is difficult to explain, but impossible to deny. I can't claim to speak for everyone, of course, and I don't mean to suggest that you're in any way any less of a man than the average person, or in any way deficient in any of the hormones which combined constitute a man, but I would allege that there is a reason why the majority of the people who seem to enjoy the film are males, and that that reason has something to do with the male impulse, if you will.

Now, I may have drunk a bit more than I should have, and some of the stuff I've written in this post may not make any sense whatsoever, but, drunk as I may be, I stand by my opinion, and if you don't like it, you can feck off.
 
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (Fincher) - 4.5/10

Fincher is a very talented man, but lately he's doing bad to mediocre movies. (Zodiac being the worst among them and the Facebook movie the best, but it lacked any sort of narrative).

This one has a great cast, style, but it doesnt have rhythm and the story itself is utterly shallow, formulaic and boring. I havent read the books (nor do I intend to after this), but in this interpretation its just horribly unoriginal.
 
Zodiac and Social Network brilliant films agreed. Finchers two best.
 
War Horse

Beautifully shot, decent acting, and entertained me throughout - but only because I didn't let the many flaws bother me.

The trench scenes were horrible. Made me thank God that I wasn't born a man who was eligible to fight in this war. Also that I wasn't around to give birth to cannon fodder. Just horrendous.

And don't get me started on the horses. :(
 
BAMSOLA said:
I'm aware where they are from in the movie.

Tom Hardy himself mentions in an interview for the movie that its not a Pittsburg accent he was trained for by his dialect coach as they thought he couldn't handle it in such a short space of time so they went for a "non specific" to the east coast american accent.

What he ended up with is clearly a stereotypical "nu york" accent.

As for the Irish posters comment its not meant to be offensive in any way and I get it in much the same way as Italians and the whole Rocky genre.

The fact that the brothers are Irish americans has probably meant that alot on here have found it easy to embrace the movies strengths whilst overlooking the glaring flaws(Clichéd plot, some ripe dialogue, plot points that go nowhere and a frankly crap finale).

I see this overlooking of the movies flaws among some of my Irish friends(I have about 2 so hardly a representative sample admittedly).

It really isn't anything to write home about, just a very average movie.
Click to expand...


I didn't know you had to be Italian to enjoy Rocky. You live and learn.

As for Warrior. It actually reminded me of Rocky a lot. A good balance between telling a character-driven story and silly over the top action. Not many flicks get that balance right any more. It was very formuaic, of course, even including a text-book training montage but was unusual in movies of this genre in avoiding a "goodie vs baddy" final show-down. All of which meant this is the first time in ages I was able to sit back and enjoy a testosterone-fuelled, dumb as nuts bloke movie without knowing exactly what was going to happen in advance.

Some quality acting too. Tom Hardy has got phenomenal screen presence and some of his scenes with Nick Nolte were quite touching.

The fighting was great too. I watch a fair bit MMA and was surprised at how well they choreographed it for the big screen. At times it seemed like you were watching a real fight (which was helped by the cameos from current UFC fighters)

All in all, the best movie aimed at teenage boys I've watched in ages. And, let's be honest, we've all still got a bit of teenage boy inside us somewhere.
 
A Separation - 8.5/10

:( Thing this the first movie since Come and See that really got to me. Some of the scenes were way too heavy for me.

Some scenes with the little girl really had me pondering about the state of life in a lot of countries around the world and for that matter my own. Scenes with her and her mother were really heartbreaking at times.

The story with the poor couple also resonated with me since I have seen a few poor pool act like that guy did due to almost the same circumstances he was in with respect to his job etc.
 
Other Movies I watched recently


Midnight in Paris - 7.5/10 - Best W.Allen movie for some time. I love Paris myself so enjoyed it even more. Kudos to Owen Wilson, he was really able to pull off a Woody Allen like persona in the movie. A really good light feel-good movie.

Money Ball- 6/10- solid screenplay but it never really got a strong hold of me. I liked Pitt's character's scene with his daughter the most.

The Descendants- 6/10- Good movie albeit a bit predictable when it came to the plot but it was never about that. Clooney acted well and the actress playing older daughter was really well. But it seems that it has been a weak year for actors since nothing in Clooney's performance screamed Oscar to me and he seems to be the favourite for it.

The Hangover 2- 3/10. Found it really poor. I think I only laughed at most 2-3 times in the whole movie. I enjoyed the first one for what it was but this was rubbish and waste of time.

---

Next on the list

The Skin I live in and Warrior
 
A Dangerous Method - Viggo Mortensen was great as Freud...Fassbender was good, Knightley sexy and made me constantly ponder whether or not her acting in this was good or bad. Cassel stole every scene he was in but was highly underused. All in all it's only an alright but a very interesting film.
 
Bad Boys was on TV last night so I figured i'd give it a re-watch. It's easily Bay's best film in my book. The Camera isn't all over the place, the action looks gritty and real, and the comedy is great... well least to my ears.

On a scale of Wild Wild West to Independence Day, I'd give it a Bad Boys.
 
RockNRolla - 5/10 . Did not like it, Ritchie should have just named it Snatch 2. I wanted to strangle the narrator in the first third of the movie, very annoying.
 
I thought Kiera Knightly was absolutely beyond horrid, there are literally no words to describe the absolute pants performance she gave, I've never seen such an over-the-top hammy performance like it, even if the rest of the movie had of been good - which it wasn't - she most definitely would have spoiled it.

A movie about the friendship and subsequent break-up between Jung and Freud was something I was really looking forward to for a long time, and with Viggo M playing Freud, had me salivating in anticipation

I'm struggling to find any redeeming qualities from the movie aside from Viggos decent performance - though I didn't find him all that compelling to be honest, how did that happen? Jung was portrayed as a somewhat "bumbling idiot" I mean feck me, he is one of the greatest thinkers of modern times, how did they get this movie so wrong?

I struggle to give it 1/10....... the biggest disappointment of the last few years, I will never watch another movie with Knightly in it, I'll permanently have a vision of her sticking her her chin out (I mean what the feck was that) trying to act crazy


R.Nilsson7 said:
A Dangerous Method - Viggo Mortensen was great as Freud...Fassbender was good, Knightley sexy and made me constantly ponder whether or not her acting in this was good or bad. Cassel stole every scene he was in but was highly underused. All in all it's only an alright but a very interesting film.
Click to expand...
 
Dresilved said:
I thought Kiera Knightly was absolutely beyond horrid, there are literally no words to describe the absolute pants performance she gave, I've never seen such an over-the-top hammy performance like it, even if the rest of the movie had of been good - which it wasn't - she most definitely would have spoiled it.

A movie about the friendship and subsequent break-up between Jung and Freud was something I was really looking forward to for a long time, and with Viggo M playing Freud, had me salivating in anticipation

I'm struggling to find any redeeming qualities from the movie aside from Viggos decent performance - though I didn't find him all that compelling to be honest, how did that happen? Jung was portrayed as a somewhat "bumbling idiot" I mean feck me, he is one of the greatest thinkers of modern times, how did they get this movie so wrong?

I struggle to give it 1/10....... the biggest disappointment of the last few years, I will never watch another movie with Knightly in it, I'll permanently have a vision of her sticking her her chin out (I mean what the feck was that) trying to act crazy
Click to expand...

Yeah, I could see how someone who knows about the subject could have been let down. Knightley's performance was fairly easy to despise as well.
 
R.Nilsson7 said:
Yeah, I could see how someone who knows about the subject could have been let down. Knightley's performance was fairly easy to despise as well.
Click to expand...

Its not so much me to be honest, the wife has done a fair bit of reading on the subject, but she's talked about Jung and his ideas a lot to me, so I sort of feel like I know a bit
This is a snippet from our library
 
Raging Bull (1980) - 9

Magnificent. Much preferred it to Taxi Driver.
 
Unknown - 1/10

Okay, so I watched this as it was recommended to me by a mate on the basis that it was like the Bourne movies, which are exceptions to the rule that I don't like action movies. It was shit. The only similarity was the fact they nicked the 'assassin loses his memory but finds his conscience' plot they lifted right from the Bourne Movies.

The story is nonsensical, the acting beyond hammy (is January Jones actually an actress, or just someone that has a face?) and the pace was bizarre. Not a lot happened, albeit in excruciating detail, then they crammed the body of the plot into around fifteen really poor minutes at the end. There were vague allusions to some sort of worldwide plot but really it made no sense at all. Despite suffering from amnesia he remembered things just in time to save his life at least thirty eight times in the course of the nine hours the movie ran for (though it may have been longer).

The film had the worst, most shoe-horned in ending I've seen in a long time. Thankfully January Jones, the highly trained assassin died by trying to disarm a bomb but couldn't, as he fingers weren't long enough to reach into a wall. Honestly. That happened.

Awful. Avoid like the plague wearing a Liverpool shirt.

EDIT: I forgot the best bit. He's an assassin who had amnesia. But they end the film as if that amnesia made him a different person. He's still a despicable human being, you feck nuts. He had amnesia, not a lobotomy.
 
Chronicle 6.5/10

Decent concept and good that the plot didn't escalate into overproduced Hollywood crap too quickly. Loses marks because I was sat second row from the front, and as a result of ~70% of the movie having a shaky "handheld camera" effect, I got terrible motion sickness and 2/3 of the way through had to step out to vomit.
 
JezChan said:
Chronicle 6.5/10

Decent concept and good that the plot didn't escalate into overproduced Hollywood crap too quickly. Loses marks because I was sat second row from the front, and as a result of ~70% of the movie having a shaky "handheld camera" effect, I got terrible motion sickness and 2/3 of the way through had to step out to vomit.
Click to expand...

I suppose that qualifies as not just a case of too much information, but as a warning to anyone with the same problem.

Thank you for sharing...
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Anyone seen the remake of The Thing?

I'm a big fan of the original, I'm guessing this latest offering is an abomination?
Click to expand...

I wouldnt recommend it, a reason why i loved the first one (or second given that the 1982 version was a remake of a movie made in the 50's - good viewing in itself) was the suspense and mood created in not knowing what the THing was or who it was immitating but in this new version you get none of that.

Another thing that annoyed me was in the orginal it was established that the alien attacks when alone with its victim because it was vulnerable in the open and would take people over one by one. In the new one we saw it take on multiple people chasing people down hallways which didnt seem right. Something else which annoyed me was in the 1982 version we rarely saw the alien and when we did it was well directed, in the new one we have CGI used to the extreme and every other scene has the alien chasing someone or ripping something appart. Which, while leading to good cgi moments defeated the point of the movie and mood it was trying to go for. I didnt expect I would like it and even after giving it a chance I didnt
 
Chronicle

Chronicle revolves around three guys that find...a thing...underground. What this thing is is never discussed. Other than a bit of "what is that?" dialogue. The thing does stuff to them that gives them superpowers, which you can see in the trailer. Note my fantastic use of technical wording there.

The movie is filmed in the "found footage" style, using a mixture of handheld cameras, CCTV footage etc. This leads to a lot of irritating shaky camera scenes, so if you're one of those people that threw up watching Cloverfield, you might want to think twice about watching this. It also flicks between cameras at an almost manic pace at some points, and it gets maddening at times trying to focus on what's going on.

The pacing of the movie is also really fast. The movie skips forward through the storyline at some points, so at one stage they're getting their powers then in the very next scene they're using them at an already pretty advanced level, then they're using them to move cars. It's like listening to an overexcited five-year-old tell a story about something that happened to them, you just want to grab the movie by the shoulders and yell "BREATHE DAMMIT!"

This wouldn't usually be a problem, and I have to say I like how they tried to keep the story moving quickly without bogging us down with watching the characters practising their powers, or something. However, there's a few pretty big scenes in the movie that are important, and they're just breezed over. The film focuses on them for a bit, then sort of shrugs and goes "ah well," and it's on to the next scene. It's only 83 minutes long, so I think they maybe could have had a bit longer to maybe contemplate those more important moments.

That being said, I did enjoy the film. There's some enjoyable scenes with them just mucking about using the powers, and the big finish is actually really fun to watch. It's similar to In Time in that it has a good concept behind it, but they could have done so much more with it.

I'm going to give Chronicle a 3/5 rating.
 
Thought Warrior was an excellent movie, though the ending was predictable.
 
Michael Shannon is superb in Take Shelter, the film is certainly worth seeing too, actually suprised by how little recognition it seems to have got.
 
Dresilved said:
I thought Kiera Knightly was absolutely beyond horrid, there are literally no words to describe the absolute pants performance she gave, I've never seen such an over-the-top hammy performance like it, even if the rest of the movie had of been good - which it wasn't - she most definitely would have spoiled it.

A movie about the friendship and subsequent break-up between Jung and Freud was something I was really looking forward to for a long time, and with Viggo M playing Freud, had me salivating in anticipation

I'm struggling to find any redeeming qualities from the movie aside from Viggos decent performance - though I didn't find him all that compelling to be honest, how did that happen? Jung was portrayed as a somewhat "bumbling idiot" I mean feck me, he is one of the greatest thinkers of modern times, how did they get this movie so wrong?

I struggle to give it 1/10....... the biggest disappointment of the last few years, I will never watch another movie with Knightly in it, I'll permanently have a vision of her sticking her her chin out (I mean what the feck was that) trying to act crazy
Click to expand...

I have to agree, i was very much looking forward to this film, as i am interested in Freud, but mainly Jung's work. This was dire though and the Knightly women (although i think she was presenting her interpretation of somebody suffering from Hysteria) was poor. It was an opportunity missed, as it didn't seem to delve into Jung's objection's to Freud's theory, or try to explain Jung's alternative approach. I even thought it might be a little controversial being called "a dangerous method, and tackle some of Freud's more bizarre theories and methods of treatment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.