That you wrote the review. Ignore the cravat wearing gimps Liam.
Film The Redcafe Movie review thread
- Thread starter golden_blunder
- Start date
That you wrote the review. Ignore the cravat wearing gimps Liam.
Seething
I don't understand why some people have so much problem with film criticism. I'd doubt you'd find many people who watch films just to 'critique'.
Steady on. Why are you dividing everyone into fans of Taken or pretentious art-house tossers? I'm no great lover of art-house cinema and the last two movies I reviewed on here were Oracle and Warrior, which are both mainstream as feck. The reason people are taking the piss out of Laim is because he's talking about a nuts and bolts action thriller as "faultless" and "10/10" i.e. one of the greatest movies ever made. You don't need to be a film ponce to know he's getting a bit carried away.
I'll admit to that, but that's most likely in part to me not being a film fan in the slightest. I only happened to watch Taken by chance, so unlike most of you, I don't have as many films to compare it by. When you see these lists of 100 films to watch before you die etc. I'll probably have seen roughly 15 of them. But watching the film I felt thoroughly entertained. Bryan Mills is an excellent character, unlike in Children of Men where, like I said, I couldn't give two shits what happened to him.
But as I said before, the main issue will be that I don't have the same library of films to compare it with, like most of you will. The list of 'brilliant' films that I've not seen is damn-near endless.
I hated Taken. Probably because the lead was very clearly a xenophobic, mysoginistic paedophile. I'm not even convinced that was his daughter but a girl he was stalking.
Well, I suggest that you watch a few more films. Taken was enjoyable, but it's never a 10/10, even for its genre. Still, I'm glad you enjoyed it. I love being blown away by a film!
Taken was good fun but pretty much forgettable, Children of Men was a hell of a lot better.
Why are we comparing the 2?
Why are we comparing the 2?
Exactly, and that's what it was. I did enjoy it. There'll be loads of people who'll tell me that: The Gofather 1 & 2, LOTR Trilogy, Independence Day, Armageddon, Die Hard, Sixth Sense, Gladiator, Star Wars, Saving Private Ryan, Rambo, Green Mile, Avatar, King Kong plus many others that I've never seen were better than Taken, and that's fair enough, but if I've not seen them, I can only go by what I have seen, no?
We Need to Talk about Kevin
I enjoyed it, Tilda Swinton is a great actress but she makes me feel like killing myself after a while.
7/10
I enjoyed it, Tilda Swinton is a great actress but she makes me feel like killing myself after a while.
7/10
A bit unrealistic though that one lad and a bow and arrow could kill so many.
Independence Day and Armageddon are both far, far worse than Taken
It's only really me that is, because my mate told me it's one of the best films he's ever seen. The concept behind it is good, but for me they didn't go anywhere with it.
I'm sure there's people who'll say the opening scene was brilliant with the explosion, but it didn't do anything for me.
Taken is a highly forgettable revenge thriller by the numbers. Saved from being shit by Neeson who just saves it from the dimwitted "nasty foreigners will kidnap your daughter if she goes to Europe for a week" plot. Very odd film to rate so highly.
I like how (after Neeson had explained just how dangerous Europe is) she gets kidnapped by literally... literally the first person she has a proper conversation with.
That Europe aye? Nasty fecking place...
For what its worth, as far as daft action/thrillers go, I enjoy Taken a hell of a lot... but largely because it's so ridiculous.
That Europe aye? Nasty fecking place...
For what its worth, as far as daft action/thrillers go, I enjoy Taken a hell of a lot... but largely because it's so ridiculous.
It wasn't terrible I didn't think, but for a braindead action movie it was pretty joyless.
I've had it on my Sky planner for a week or two but I can't bring myself to watch it yet. I sat down and rewatched Batman Begins and Alien instead. I'll have to force myself!
You don't have to have seen Sunset Blvd. to know that Taken's just a fun action flick with very little depth to it. I do like it though.
American History X - 8/10 - A very good movie with a good concept behind it and also a deep story too. I liked it pretty much.
Really it was a below average movie. Liam Neeson killed everybody. I joked with my friends after I watched it, that after Neeson's girl was kidnapped, Neeson nuked France, Iran and Albania.
I agree with you that many things on it were ridiculous although I enjoyed the action scenes on it.
I think it's an excellent film. For some reason though, quite a few Cafites dislike it (can't recall why).
Are they nazi racists? I know them lot tend to hate it.
Could be, Mr H. 
Shit, I haven't brought your god damn book yet!
On it now.
On it now.
Very unsettling movie. Still like Lynn Ramsey's Rat Catcher style of film making better. Thought both her and Tilda Swildon got down well the American-ness of We Need to Talk about Kevin. In what bothered you in the spoiler (which I would agree to to a certain extent) . . . take that and multiply it by 3000 to the Liam Neeson bollocks of Taken.
Hectic said:
I can get you a free ebook copy from the publisher, if you'd rather that?
No! I'd rather pay for it thanks Steve, and as I've been told by two members so far it's very well worth it. Thanks for the pm as well, I need to really get a few things worked out myself and get my mind in order before I ask you for any possible guidance.
No problem, mate. And thanks very much.
We were made to watch it 3 times during my school years and I had already seen it beforehand. It seemed to be the standard film to pick when they wanted to show a film that also was a bit educational.
I don't think it's a bad film but I'd rather be forcibly eaten by an alligator than to be forced to sit through that film again.
Fair enough, mate.
When can we expect a film adaptation of your book, and who will get the task of directing it?
It'd be a very short film. The adverts would be longer, in fact.
It'd be a very short film. The adverts would be longer, in fact.
The director of The Raid is Welsh I believe. I reckon it would be a great fit, Martial Arts and Gothic Horror, now that's a crossover with potential.
I'm not sure it would really make a good film...even though I saw it (in my mind's eye) in a very cinematic way, which made it easy to write. I just wish I'd made it novel-length or, at least, longer than 73 pages.
I rate it as among the top 10 best ever movies I've watched in my life.Norton is supply stunning in that movie
Sounds legit...perfectly reasonable material for kids at school.
We were teenagers tbf.
Jackie Brown - Couldn't get into it. A bit unengaging and felt overly long. I enjoyed De Niro's bumbling deadpan character though.
Wild at Heart - Run-of-the-mill Lynch unfortunately. It had a few great moments though.
Jackie Brown - Couldn't get into it. A bit unengaging and felt overly long. I enjoyed De Niro's bumbling deadpan character though.
Wild at Heart - Run-of-the-mill Lynch unfortunately. It had a few great moments though.
I loved Wild at Heart, certainly more than the critics did anyway.
Seething
I don't understand why some people have so much problem with film criticism. I'd doubt you'd find many people who watch films just to 'critique'.
Whoosh!
I originally planned for the review that immediately followed that rant to be a very in depth review of the film commenting on everything, but then I couldn't be bothered.
I do like Taken though. Thoroughly entertaining.
The Green Lantern
Pretty bad overall... way too much CG, and most of it was really badly done. To say they spent $200 million on it... well where the feck did all the money go?! The actors did their best to elevate it all I thought, especially considering how much must have been green screen acting. I quite liked Sarsgaard, thought he was good and Blake Lively looked good... so that's a bonus.
Still it held my attention for an evening and kept me somewhat entertained. So that's something.
Pretty bad overall... way too much CG, and most of it was really badly done. To say they spent $200 million on it... well where the feck did all the money go?! The actors did their best to elevate it all I thought, especially considering how much must have been green screen acting. I quite liked Sarsgaard, thought he was good and Blake Lively looked good... so that's a bonus.
Still it held my attention for an evening and kept me somewhat entertained. So that's something.
I've just seen this and I think it gave me a concussion. Action from start to finish. If I'd have to nitpick I'd even say the amount of action gets in the way for it to be a great film, still very good mind you.