Not that I've seen the film, but one can overact despite the character being an eccentric, crazy bastard.
Film The Redcafe Movie review thread
- Thread starter golden_blunder
- Start date
Not that I've seen the film, but one can overact despite the character being an eccentric, crazy bastard.
He wasn't overacting though it was just a brilliant performance IMO
It's possible. Not sure if it's a unique mother-daughter relationship though.
Fake from start to finish, a bravura luvvie excess. Bleuurggh.
His performance could be viewed like that, for sure. For me, it was one of the few times that an actor succeeded in nearly convincing me that he actually was the character.
Yeah but the fact that it was ridiculous bravura (especially the ending) means that it was deliberate...which must mean something, I assume, to the film-maker.
We've all seen great actors 'kid' roles, especially in poor movies, but - unless there was a point to be made - overacting had no place in this particular film.
We've all seen great actors 'kid' roles, especially in poor movies, but - unless there was a point to be made - overacting had no place in this particular film.
The film is pretty good. There's this haunting sequence of a young girl alone in color while all others are in black and white. I eyes well up every time I see the movie.
When you realise it all happened, makes your mind boggle.
It's a very good film but difficult to watch unless you have a heart of stone...or you're Cider, which is basically the same thing.
More seriously, Liam Neeson & Ben Kingsley are very good in it, but Ralph Fiennes is incredible.
In the mood for something like Raise the Red Lantern...any suggestions?
Can't really think of many films that are similiar to it, here's some very vaguely similar-ish ones:
Hero
Cries & Whispers
Sympathy for Lady Vengeance
Chris Marker has passed away at the age of 91. Do yourselves a favour and watch his post-apocalyptic short La jetée, which served as the inspiration for Terry Gilliam's 12 Monkeys.
Chopper - Decent Aussie crime film carried by an electrifying, intense performance from Eric Bana. I really should have watched it with subtitles but meh...I also thought it could have been a bit longer.
Distant Voices, Still Lives - Unlike any other British film I've ever seen. It used a non-linear narrative and is about childhood and life in the 1950's working class Liverpool. Accomplishedly shot but the constant pub signing got on my nerves after a while. It might have hit home harder if I could have related more to the content of the film, but as it is it was a very light weight English version of Zerkalo or a more coherent and less fancy The Tree of Life.
Saw TED yesterday, meh was ok, a solid 7/10 - funniest bits are in the trailer
I've just erm, acquired Ted, I've not actually paid any attention to the trailer so I hope to have a few laughs when I watch it. I quite like Marky Mark so it should be OK.
Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo displaces Citizen Kane as the number one film of all time in Sight and Sound's new poll:
http://www.bfi.org.uk/news/50-greatest-films-all-time
http://www.bfi.org.uk/news/50-greatest-films-all-time
Couldn't believe that was trending on twitter yesterday, maybe theres hope left in culture.
But I don't agree, and I certainly don't agree with it being better than Tokyo Story. But alas, not much in it really. In The Mood for Love and Mulholland Drive are two new additions, and I'm very happy with those.
But I don't agree, and I certainly don't agree with it being better than Tokyo Story. But alas, not much in it really. In The Mood for Love and Mulholland Drive are two new additions, and I'm very happy with those.
La Règle du jeu and The Searchers are unbelievably overrated, especially Searchers.
Director's Top 10 films:
1. Tokyo Story (Ozu, 1953)
2= 2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick, 1968)
2= Citizen Kane (Welles, 1941)
4. 8 ½ (Fellini, 1963)
5. Taxi Driver (Scorsese, 1976)
6. Apocalypse Now (Coppola, 1979)
7= The Godfather (Coppola, 1972)
7= Vertigo (Hitchcock, 1958)
9. Mirror (Tarkovsky, 1974)
10. Bicycle Thieves (De Sica, 1948)
This is such bullshit. It's as if no movies have been made in the last 30 years. The best way to turn off young potential movie buffs and artists is to make lists like this of way out of fashion, limited, slow as feck old films, and have them run out to see them. The same happens with literature. Best way to kill a youth's love for literature is make them read the supposed "classics." I hate this retrograde way of thinking. Movies are precisely better today because of all the brilliant influence they've had from past masters and technological advances, that these same masters could not avail themselves of. Obviously there are examples of pre 80 films that should be considered on "the list," but not one film after 1980 . . . feck off, pretentious twunts.
Many of the old films on the list are still enjoyable today but I agree that there should be more newer ones on the list. Films aren't better today because of the technology and the influence though, there were more auteurs 30 years ago for an example. The fact that there's a lack of sure shot modern classics that everyone would vote for might play against them, especially since the voters in the poll most likely consists of older critics and directors. The most obvious ones, In The Mood for Love and Mulholland Drive made the top 50 at least.
Yeah I think the generational age and influence comes into play a lot. For example the Godfather only made the Sight & Sound list in 2002, and 2001 in 92. So it's not as if they came out and everyone went "Oh, it's the greatest thing ever"...It took a few decades of appreciation for them to reach that status. So it's not impossible (though less likely) for a Dark Knight or a Lord of The Rings to be on these kind of lists in 30 years time, when they've influenced the next generation of film makers and cemented their iconic status amongst critics.
That said I agree to a certain extent with the idea that some of them are still there purely through high falutin reputation. Modern films take a while to become fashionable to claim as GOATS. Which isn't a bad thing really, as it reduces the hype factor and helps sort the wheat from the chaff in many cases. It's still pretty unbalanced though, with a lot of nostalgia bias.
That said I agree to a certain extent with the idea that some of them are still there purely through high falutin reputation. Modern films take a while to become fashionable to claim as GOATS. Which isn't a bad thing really, as it reduces the hype factor and helps sort the wheat from the chaff in many cases. It's still pretty unbalanced though, with a lot of nostalgia bias.
I would disagree fully in that films aren't better today because of influence and technology from past masters. So many things have already been done, it forces new auteurs to push limits of creativity and continue to keep pushing the envelope, and with new technologies, especially that of digital, directors are able to use so many more resources at lower costs, using and affording much more, loads more themes and events, so we're seeing so much more creative stuff going on than an Orson Wells could never dream of. And now there are so many more film schools, better teachers, more sophisticated theories and instruments . . . and the massive information that internet gives us and computerized editing et al. Bigger film population as well to choose from.
And look at this list for fecks sakes; not one Scandanavian, not one Irani, nothing Latin American, not even a French movie for fecks sakes! Yet two Coppolas and so many tired 40s, 50s and 60s movies. A massive fecking joke. It's twisting my melon. De Sica and not even Bertolucci. feck!!!
'Tokoyo Story' is an odd one for me, I thought it unremarkable, painfully slow and probably not really understood by non-Japanese.
Most of the movies I have watched are from the last 15-20 years, but I agree that nowadays movies are much more creative and less original then before, and of course have better special effects which I think shouldn't be an important factor for valuing a movie. So I agree that movies were better before.
Anyway I agree with you that it's a joke how in the list isn't even a single movie from the last 20 years while I think that The Matrix, Pulp Fiction, Fight Club, The Shawnshank Redemption and possibly The Return of The King and A Beautiful Mind should have been in Top 50 (although critics would never agree for at least The Matrix, Pulp Fiction and The Return of The King). Maybe in that way old movies are a little overrated but in general I think that they better than movies of twenty first century.
About the literature, I think that you are completely and utterly wrong. Like every other art literature today is much more commercial than those 'classics' and so worse than literature of those days. For example comparing a nowadays bestseller like Dan Brown's book to classics of Dostoyevsky or Tolstoi is like comparing Lady Gaga to Michael Jackson.
But since the increase of studio control most of the creativity has disappeared from mainstream cinema. I think it was Bergman who said that film-makers today are more talented and brilliant than ever, but they have nothing to say. It's like The Beatles, they were first and have been hard to better.
If you mean that top 10, I think it's pretty alright. Citizen Kane is obviously overrated, 8½ is adored by directors since it's about directing a film, Bicycle Thieves is a brilliant film and Mirror is greatest film of all-time imo.
Mind-numbingly slow, yes. But I think it's depiction of family was pretty universal. I wouldn't recommend anyone to watch any of Ozu's other films though as they're all pretty much the same but with Tokyo Story being the most accessible one for Western audiences and his masterpiece.
I'm not sure studio control is the same. The Hollywood studios of the 40s 50s and 60s were legendary for their control. And it was wayyyyyy for expensive to make a film back then, relatively. Look how many indie directors are out there making decent movies for under $50,000. I think especially with the advent of Von Trier's dogma schtick, there's been a sort of rock n roll/punk rock explosion of DYI-ers and the digital revolution along with computers are creating 1000s of indie directors.
Your point about the Beatles is well taken and valid, and I can feel that way about them not being matched, even today, but I'm not even close to giving a comparable status to Ozu, Wells, De Sica or even Coppola when there's so much incredible cinematic work out there. I guess it's me, but De Sica isn't fit to shine Kiarostami's shoes, nor is Ozu even in the same ballpark as Kurosawa, and Coppola is a a Hollywood stiff compared to David Lynch. And still, not one French film in the top ten, and two Coppolas???? Nah.
All my opinion of course.
I think the general opinion during the 50's and 60's was that it was some pretty weak decades for Hollywood and most people turned their attentions to Europe and Asia at the time. I think there's a lot of good indie directors out there today but not in the spot light unfortunately, and most of them belong to World Cinema. Not sure they're making classics in such a ratio as before though.
There's a shocking lack of Kurosawa I agree. I would have thought Spoony would've been in here already grieving over the omission of Ran. There's lots of French films in the Critics top 50 though. A disturbing amount of Godard, The 400 Blows, a dull Bresson film, Tati, Marker, one I've never even heard of before and L’Atalante which mostly has a big reputation for being adored by the New Wave directors I'd imagine. There's even a Kiarostami flick there!
I totally agree. It made the film almost unwatchable. Which is a shame because DDL used to be a great and subtle actor.
God, it's worse than I could've ever imagined - only 5 post 1980 movies. Mulholland Dr, which isn't even in the same class as Blue Velvet; Close up, which I don't consider Kiarostami's second or even third best; Satantango, which I agree (if you've got the time for it), a Claude Lanzmann movie I've never seen, and City Lights by Godard which I haven't seen either.
To sum it up . . . Gillo Ponte-fecking-corvo and no Bertolucci - I rest my case!
*There Will Be Blood - Bill the butcher as oilman. Tedious and overrated is an understatement. The bowling alley schtick was cool, though
There's still a lot of sensible choices, but with many duds I admit.The Battle of Algiers is really good though! What Bertolucci films would you rate that highly, Last Tango, The Conformist? What is your top 10 btw?
The Battle of Algiers is really good though! What Bertolucci films would you rate that highly, Last Tango, The Conformist? What is your top 10 btw?
Down on Pontecorvo cause he made a movie with Brando (The Burning) in my city and it's got to be the up there with the worst movies I've ever seen. Admit I haven't seen Battle of Algiers though.
Other Bertolucci movies I rate quite highly are, Luna, Beseiged (the piano concert for the children was one of the most beautiful scenes ever in cinema, imo), The Dreamers, Sheltering Sky, 1900 . . . basically everything except Little Buddah, and I liked Last Emperor, but not quite as much as others. And didn't like The Conformist all that much either, maybe having read Moravia's original master book made me like it less. Stealing Beauty was good/ok. There's a couple I haven't seen. To be honest, I'm a massive Bertolucci groupie.
As far as a top ten, I couldn't fathom making one, there'd be about 50 movies in it. Mohsen Makhmalbaf's The Silence would probably be #1. I chance upon a special movie about once every three months that seems like it's the best I've ever seen.
I never watched any Eastern European films before this one, but I really like it. Felt very real and intense, especially in the second half of the movie where
they meet with the abortion doctor
That kind of list won't put off Sight and Sounds target market at all, people who read that magazine know exactly what list they are going to get with the odd tweaks every 10 years, and they get new readers all the time. It's a magazine for budding film scholars, not film fans, big difference in tastes, if you want a more generic entertainment/modern based list, then Empire is your go to mag.
I wonder if a list from any respected football magazine would ever make a list of the 50 greatest players ever and only put only five post 1980 footballers on it. It would be absolutely ridiculous.
I've seen The Conformist which looked great but I couldn't get into it. I find the success The Last Emperor had pretty odd, it was rather ordinary imo. I want to watch more of his films though.
Fair enough.
Fair assessment.
Last edited:
On the Road - Making a film adaptation of this book was always going to be a big ask, and it never really captured the essence of the book and felt a bit empty, but I thought it was an admirable effort. The accuracy of the casting was a bit off, though I imagine this is what the characters would look today in the modern world, which I didn't mind and it was very well-acted. I thought Hedlund did Dean Moriarty full justice. So yeah, it looked great and was an enjoyable enough film, that never really got dull, the 137 minutes pretty much roared by.