Film The Redcafe Movie review thread

Wanderlust Could/should have been half decent but wasn't. A couple of minor laughs was it which is far far too little for a whole film. The good cast saved it from being truly terrible but I wouldn't waste my time if I were you. 2.5/10
 
Spoony Kobayashi said:
If you like 1D characters...without an ounce of human nature, if you like black and white...good verses evil, if you like tedious poetry...then go a head...prepare to have your world moved. I felt like slitting my wrists, but I'm gay like that when it comes to tedium.
Click to expand...

What a balanced review...

Seems like the genre wasn't for you. I'm not quite sure what you were expecting, but I'd have thought it was quite evident that the books would revolve around good and evil.

1D characters is a harsh exageration, Gollum, Frodo and Aragorn have multiple facets to their character, but regardless, I think you have missed the point of the books. It isn't supposed to be a character study, that's not the type of book it is. If you want something that explores human nature then read Crime and Punishment or the like.
 
Theon said:
What a balanced review...

Seems like the genre wasn't for you. I'm not quite sure what you were expecting, but I'd have thought it was quite evident that the books would revolve around good and evil.

1D characters is a harsh exageration, Gollum, Frodo and Aragorn have multiple facets to their character, but regardless, I think you have missed the point of the books. It isn't supposed to be a character study, that's not the type of book it is. If you want something that explores human nature then read Crime and Punishment or the like.
Click to expand...

I was expecting more than a tedious and dull story about good versus evil. Then again, it's a kids' book so I deserve what I got. And how are Frodo and Aragorn anything more cardboard characters? As for the genre, and that I don't like it... What a ridiculous assumption, I've enjoyed the far far far superior Game of Thrones... And I've read Crime and Punishment, It's a great book...one not for kids.
 
Not sure how you can like Game of Thrones and hate LOTR. Game of Thrones has just as many 1D, cardboard characters. They're masked well by all the gore and tits though. And the soap opera like plot. Its basically a low brow, more mainstream LOTR.
 
The problem with Game of Thrones is that Martin is a crappy writer. He is the George Lucas of fantasy, he has great ideas for the world he envisioned, but dont let him near a clean sheet of paper.

He is Dan Brown bad.

And he mistakes complex, interesting characters with "everybody is bad, and everybody is hugely frustrated sexually" - which is Jeremy Kyle's/Jerry Springer's level of understanding people.
 
kps88 said:
Not sure how you can like Game of Thrones and hate LOTR. Game of Thrones has just as many 1D, cardboard characters. They're masked well by all the gore and tits though. And the soap opera like plot. Its basically a low brow, more mainstream LOTR.
Click to expand...

Nah, even though it's not perfect regarding the characters, it's clearly a more complex storyline. There's no clear definition of good and bad for starters...unlike the Biblical LOTR....And yes more tits...but at least it's not full of asexual characters living in some mythical puristanland. One's clearly a children's book...the other is aimed at late teens...early 20s. And if GOT is low brow...that doesn't exactly make LOTR Brothers Karamazov does it? It's low brow entertainment too, in fact even lower.
 
cinc said:
The problem with Game of Thrones is that Martin is a crappy writer. He is the George Lucas of fantasy, he has great ideas for the world he envisioned, but dont let him near a clean sheet of paper.

He is Dan Brown bad.

And he mistakes complex, interesting characters with "everybody is bad, and everybody is hugely frustrated sexually" - which is Jeremy Kyle's/Jerry Springer's level of understanding people.
Click to expand...

Well...yes it's a dressed up daytime Yank soap.
 
Spoony Kobayashi said:
Nah, even though it's not perfect regarding the characters, it's clearly a more complex storyline. There's no clear definition of good and bad for starters...unlike the Biblical LOTR....And yes more tits...but at least it's not full of asexual characters living in some mythical puristanland. One's clearly a children's book...the other is aimed at late teens...early 20s. And if GOT is low brow...that doesn't exactly make LOTR Brothers Karamazov does it? It's low brow entertainment too, in fact even lower.
Click to expand...

I don't think LOTR is a children's book, spoony. I've read it several times and enjoyed it each time.
 
Oh wait. I thought we were talking about the movies here, seeing as we're in the movie thread.
 
I agree with that both is "youth literature", the modern day Dumases and Vernes. LOTR borrowed a lot from myths and Wagner, while GOT is - again, I agree - is like Dallas in the Middle Ages with some dragons, gore and sex.

Both are good things to get people interest in real literature started.

But they are not timeless classics by any stretch of the imagination.
 
The themes may be child friendly, but there's no way its a children's book. Find me one kid who enjoys reading them without being bored out of his mind.

The Hobbit is more of a children's book.
 
Guess it depends if you class teens as children I guess. Because it's clearly not a book aimed for people who are still in Primary School unlike say Narnia or Potter, it's more mature than that, but clearly not at the levels of say Song of Ice and Fire series, which is probably the most "adult" of them all.

I'd say it's an early High School series or something. Who cares anyway. Fantasy is mostly just aimed at the fantasy fanboy crowd which people will stay loyal too.
 
cinc said:
The problem with Game of Thrones is that Martin is a crappy writer. He is the George Lucas of fantasy, he has great ideas for the world he envisioned, but dont let him near a clean sheet of paper.

He is Dan Brown bad.

And he mistakes complex, interesting characters with "everybody is bad, and everybody is hugely frustrated sexually" - which is Jeremy Kyle's/Jerry Springer's level of understanding people.
Click to expand...

Surely no one is Dan Brown bad.

One of the funniest comments I've seen regarding GoT called it "Romance of the Three Kingdoms with White People".
 
A Single Man - Firth was fantastic. The style of it was a bit In the Mood for Love-light, a pretty good effort for a first time director but you could sort of notice that he also is a fashion designer.

A History of Violence - A typical Cronenberg film in many ways, the inner turmoil of the characters, a lingering sinister atmosphere in the air, great acting (William Hurt being the standout in this one). Whilst not being blown away by his films I always look back at them with some strange fondess. Really want Eastern Promises 2 to happen!
 
kps88 said:
Not sure how you can like Game of Thrones and hate LOTR. Game of Thrones has just as many 1D, cardboard characters. They're masked well by all the gore and tits though. And the soap opera like plot. Its basically a low brow, more mainstream LOTR.
Click to expand...

You're serious? Tell me, who are they (I'm talking about the main characters).

In fact the part I like most at GOT is that characters are not dimensional, in most cases we don't have purely good characters (like Frodo, Aragarn, Legolas and Gandalf) and expect Joffrey we don't have also purely bad characters (like Sauron). Even here someone could agree that Joffrey is a retarted egocentric kid. In GOT we don't have black vs white, good vs evil and IMO that is a very good thing.

I cannot go as far as to say that GOT is better than LOTR but surely their characters are more complicated and more "multidimensional".
 
cinc said:
Peter Jackson has made one of my favourite movies, Heavenly Creatures, any LOTR fan should watch it. The two girls fantasies are produced mesmerisingly, I'm pretty sure that was the main factor for Peter Jackson's name to be considered for the Tolkien-project.


And Melanie Lynskey is absolutely fantastic in it.
Click to expand...
Great film, now forever associated in my mind with Mario Lanza and the Humming Chorus for that perfect build to the climactic scene. Fantastic use of music.

Amazed me to learn that Lynskey's now married to a McPoyle from Always Sunny.
 
Gabriel (2007)

Suprisingly Andy Whitfield is quite good, and the overall storyline was enjoyable.

Worth a watch, considering it's australian and it only takes 200k Aus to made, and it doesn't contain "BUSHES" or "CROCS" shit.

On the serious side, it's a dark story about Angels (all 7 of the archangels) which comes to purgatory to fight the 7 fallen angels

I'd give it 8/10 for an ausie flick
 
Ismail Elezi said:
You're serious? Tell me, who are they (I'm talking about the main characters).

In fact the part I like most at GOT is that characters are not dimensional, in most cases we don't have purely good characters (like Frodo, Aragarn, Legolas and Gandalf) and expect Joffrey we don't have also purely bad characters (like Sauron). Even here someone could agree that Joffrey is a retarted egocentric kid. In GOT we don't have black vs white, good vs evil and IMO that is a very good thing.

I cannot go as far as to say that GOT is better than LOTR but surely their characters are more complicated and more "multidimensional".
Click to expand...

Just because one is purely EVIL/GOOD doesn't mean they're one dimensional. We can argue we see Aragorn's transformation, from a ranger to a king material.

and vice versa, just because one is bordering on good/evil doesn't mean he/she is an interesting character.

It's the depth of their character, acting that counts. When you can feel the actors emotions transfered to you, then it's a good acting, regardless of what part of the play the actor gets.

A good actor can play someone on life support and still giving emotional vibe.
 
Sky1981 said:
Just because one is purely EVIL/GOOD doesn't mean they're one dimensional. We can argue we see Aragorn's transformation, from a ranger to a king material.

and vice versa, just because one is bordering on good/evil doesn't mean he/she is an interesting character.

It's the depth of their character, acting that counts. When you can feel the actors emotions transfered to you, then it's a good acting, regardless of what part of the play the actor gets.

A good actor can play someone on life support and still giving emotional vibe.
Click to expand...

Pretty much, I hate the trend that every film/book/tv series want to look edgy by only featuring self-interested, shady, unrelatable character. The problem is they are mostly dime a dozen, boring and uninteresting.

Its very lazy.

It can be pulled off well (eg.: The Wire), but mostly its horrible wrong,
 
Mysteries of Lisbon

272 minutes long, originally released as a mini series but felt more like something that should be viewed as a cinematic experience. Beautifully shot, with great camera work and long takes, many scenes looked like 19th century paintings, had a terrific score too. Set in 19th century aristocracy, mostly in Lisbon but also in France and Italy, spanning through three generations. It's an engrossing story first centered around a bastard Portuguese orphan wanting to know about his origins but then spirals into an epic tale with a spider web of connected characters, some of them with changing names and identities, all very playfully and skillfully done by the director. Stories within stories, characters reveal their mysterious, dark backstories that are masterfully woven together. The running length felt justified and it never really got dull.

It's definitely one of the most unique film experiences I've had in a while. It might not be to the liking of people who dislike historical costume melodrama of the ilk of Barry Lyndon (which it shared many things with, the visual brilliance and etc, but this was a much more complex film with multiple narratives and likable characters). Raul Ruiz passed away last year and what a way to bow out with this being his final big work. One of the greatest films of the 2010's so far.
 
Last edited:
Dark City: Was expecting it to be good after seeing the imdb ratings. Music was terrible, acting was poor, no logic. It wasn't a terrible movie, decent enough idea behind the whole movie, was dark as well.
6/10
 
cinc said:
I've downloaded Mysteries of Lisbon a long time ago, but the sheer size of it deterred me so far from watching it. Until now, thank Nils!
Click to expand...

I watched it in almost one sitting and it ended up really hitting home, love it when epic length films do that, doubt I'd have enjoyed it as much if it hadn't been so massive. I'm considering watching another one of similiar length. I've drawn up a list consisting of 1900, Fanny and Alexander (TV version), Satantango, The Human Condition, Berlin Alexanderplatz, The Decalogue, The Best of Youth. So, one of them.
 
R.Nilsson7 said:
I watched it in almost one sitting and it ended up really hitting home, love it when epic length films do that, doubt I'd have enjoyed it as much if it hadn't been so massive. I'm considering watching another one of similiar length. I've drawn up a list of 1900, Fanny and Alexander (TV version), Satantango, The Human Condition, Berlin Alexanderplatz, The Decalogue, The Best of Youth. So, one of them.
Click to expand...

Fanny and Alexander, Berlin AlexanderPlatz, Sátántangó and the Decalogue are all fantastic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.