Film The Redcafe Movie review thread

I have tried to watch it a few time but just cant get in to it , I have watched the ending and watched 2010 , but most people I know don't like 2010.

EDIT It was quite a few years since I last watched any of 2001 , I thin I will give it another go
 
2001 is a flawless film, 8 of them really are for me, obviously Tree of Life(hasn't been out long enough for me to even look at it in a "all-time" debate, test of time is key), and La Dolce Vita which I think is dated, good film still, but it's not the 10 it probably once would of been for me.

If you want entertainment value, then yeah, I wouldn't recommend any of them, or probably anything that is probably going to end up being the new S and S top 100.
 
Eh, 2001 isn't the easiest film to watch, some can and do enjoy it and can easily rewatch. But even I think of it as one of the greatest films ever made and I struggle to rewatch it sometimes, really have to be in the right mood for it, which is why I've only seen it in one viewing twice, one of them being a recent blu-ray rewatch, and it's an absolutely glorious blu-ray transfer too.
 
cinc said:
2001 is an absolutely fantastic film.
Click to expand...

One way of gauging how much people enjoy a movie is to monitor when, where and how often it's reshown on TV.

2001 doesn't get as much air time as it's more workmanlike sequel 2010 with Roy Scheider. Which suggests that once people have seen it, they're not lining up to watch it again. That doesn't make it a bad movie of course, but it does mean that, however much they may have praised it afterwards, its audience didn't have a great time.
 
pauldyson1uk said:
:lol: I knew I would get a reaction like this.
Like I said going to watching it again , I must admit it is maybe 10 years since that last time I tried to watch it.
Click to expand...

Twas partly tongue in cheek but yes you should give it another go, and if you own the Pink Floyd song Echoes try playing it during the last 23 mins of the movie.:D
 
cinc said:
Following this thread, watching awful direct-to-dvd action movies is your hobby:)
Click to expand...

again you do have a point , I just think I am a sucker for a bad film.
I really must improve my taste in films , I have got lots of film recommended on here and like them all , Casablanca is the one that surprised me the most , I said for years not my sort of film but watched it after being recommended it and loved it , one of best films I have seen , the same with the Godfather.
 
Will Absolute said:
One way of gauging how much people enjoy a movie is to monitor when, where and how often it's reshown on TV.

2001 doesn't get as much air time as it's more workmanlike sequel 2010 with Roy Scheider. Which suggests that once people have seen it, they're not lining up to watch it again. That doesn't make it a bad movie of course, but it does mean that, however much they may have praised it afterwards, its audience didn't have a great time.
Click to expand...

No, it doesnt mean that. It means that tv didnt buy that film package that features 2001. TVs buy films in packages, and than they repeat all of them on their various channel ad nauseum. Or maybe its not in any package , as the copyright owner sets the rebroadcasting rights too high.
 
Apart from pretension, why would anyone watch a 'great' movie he didn't enjoy? 2 hours of near boredom is far too high a price to pay to get some movie director or screenwriter's insights on life.
 
cinc said:
No, it doesnt mean that. It means that tv didnt buy that film package that features 2001. TVs buy films in packages, and than they repeat all of them on their various channel ad nauseum. Or maybe its not in any package , as the copyright owner sets the rebroadcasting rights too high.
Click to expand...

The market would ensure it was shown if there was demand. The mechanics are irrelevant.

What are you arguing anyway? Some of its admirers above have admitted they find the movie hard to watch.
 
Will Absolute said:
Apart from pretension, why would anyone watch a 'great' movie he didn't enjoy? 2 hours of near boredom is far too high a price to pay to get some movie director or screenwriter's insights on life.
Click to expand...

Enjoyment means different things to different people. I go to watch movies mainly for the emotional experience, not for an adrenalin rush. And I saw films and read books that I loved but wouldnt want to watch/read them again, because they were so emotionally gutting.

Nowadays its action set pieces that bore me to death, if I watch something at home with a 5 minutes car chase or fight, I likely to fast forward it.
 
I thought the tv channels just buy the cheapest films as possible, hence why you never see any great classic films on tv anymore, not even on classic film channels (Might only be like this in Sweden though).
 
R.Nilsson7 said:
I thought the tv channels just buy the cheapest films as possible, hence why you never see any great classic films on tv anymore, not even on classic film channels (Might only be like this in Sweden though).
Click to expand...

They are all in packages, from a 100 piece set, there are maybe 5-10 watchable ones. But they have the rights, so they broadcast the rest as well.
 
tbf, out of all the "classic" films, 2001 probably higher on the shown on tv rate, like I don't think I've caught Citizen Kane on tv.....I've seen 2001 pop up a few times, mostly channel 4 sunday afternoons prior to when they picked up random American teen series and stuff.

But yeah, these films aren't for really for a casual TV film viewer, so they don't show up often to keep their physical sales up.
 
I watched "Diner" again the other night and was a little underwhelmed. I think I've seen it too many times now. First time I watched it I just didn't want it to end. You can never really replicate the joy of seeing a great film for the first time.
 
Will Absolute said:
I've seen 5 of that list - Apocalypse, Citizen, Vita, 2001, Vertigo - and the only one with any entertainment value is the Coppola film. Vertigo is one of Hitchcock's worst. Someone should have taken 'Freud made Simple' away from him before he ever got to read it.
Click to expand...

:wenger:
 
cinc said:
That the frequency of Tv repeats has anything to do with the overall public opinion of a movie.
Click to expand...

Interesting choice of words. 'Opinions' are often conventional or conformist. The real test is arses on couches.

I understand your point by the way. For some watching a film or reading a book is about more than 'entertainment'. I was too harsh in my earlier post when I came close to defining all non-entertainment motives as 'pretension'.
 
I was so bored that I watched episodes 1 & 2 of Star Wars again the other night. I had only seen each of them once when they first ran in the cinema and I wanted to check to see if I was wrong about them being shit.

I wasn't.
 
So the tree of life anygood?
Reading some pretty bad reviews on imdb. Should I try it?
 
Will Absolute said:
Interesting choice of words. 'Opinions' are often conventional or conformist. The real test is arses on couches.

I understand your point by the way. For some watching a film or reading a book is about more than 'entertainment'. I was too harsh in my earlier post when I came close to defining all non-entertainment motives as 'pretension'.
Click to expand...

Again, "arses on couches" regarding real public opinon (that what I mean) is a bad one. The only time it would work between even two films, would be if they were of the same age, were shown on channels with the same penetration, received the same amount and quality promotion and were shown on the same night in the same time.
 
I got the missus to sit down with me to watch Dial M for Murder a few weeks ago. I kept on asking her if she was awake and following what was going on until she got arsey and told me stop bothering her. Sure enough, the film ends and she's fast asleep..."Oh, I missed the last ten minutes...what happened"


Grrrrrrrrrrrrr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.