Film The Redcafe Movie review thread

The Wolverine 3/10
I thought it was crap from start to finish and like one caftard in the corresponding, best thing about the movie was the bed the old man was on. The fight scenes were poor, the CGI was average and the story was plain shit.

Surprised about that fight scenes comment... The stuff on the bullet train was bloody fantastic I thought, best action scene I've seen all year, and both the fight with the main girls dad (the bloke from Sunshine) and the scene in the village with all the rope arrows (just before the film takes a nose dive) were both really well done. Overall, I found the ideas and the visuals of Wolverine fighting non-humans far more entertaining and a refreshing change from the typical people with power vs. people with powers fights.

But then I was a big fan of the film overall.
 
:lol:

I actually hadn't realised it was the same director until I looked it up just now! Everything makes sense now. I actually think he's really good though; he seems to know how to get the best out of actors and his films are incredibly well shot but... the end product is really cold. You can only get away with that if you're being as innovative as Kubrick was, for example. I've only seen two of his films so far though, and the other ones sound interesting so I'll be checking them out!

He's definitely one of the better directors out there!

Brilliant director, average writer.
 
Pitch Perfect - 7/10

Surprisingly good. Definitely worth a watch if you're not afraid of your manhood being challenged.

Also, "Sandler vs. Washington" reminds me: IIRC Denzel has by far the worst B.O. return out of the "Top Billed Actors, Male" in Hollywood.

Tried to find the source but my memory is not what it used to be. All I remember is Tom Hanks was number one and Harrison Ford was second and there were eleven actors on the list and at the time I thought it had a lot to do with race at the overseas B.O.
 
Pitch Perfect - 7/10

Surprisingly good. Definitely worth a watch if you're not afraid of your manhood being challenged.

Also, "Sandler vs. Washington" reminds me: IIRC Denzel has by far the worst B.O. return out of the "Top Billed Actors, Male" in Hollywood.

Tried to find the source but my memory is not what it used to be. All I remember is Tom Hanks was number one and Harrison Ford was second and there were eleven actors on the list and at the time I thought it had a lot to do with race at the overseas B.O.

I don't think that's true...

http://www.businessweek.com/article...l-washington-is-hollywoods-most-bankable-star
http://atlantablackstar.com/2012/12/31/denzel-washington-named-top-bankable-star-in-2012/
 
The Goonies
Watched this at a pop-up cinema and damn it's every bit as good as I remember. I can't believe I waited 15 years to watch this only for the second time, but it was all kept fresh as I forgot many of the jokes. Absolutely brilliant! 9/10

Into The Mirror
I saw the American remake of this (starring Kiether Sutherland) a few years ago and this was lying around in my hard drive but I never wanted to watch it as I didn't really like the remake and wanted to forget it before watching this. Surprisingly, this was even worse. The acting was awful, the plot trod along too slowly, it was not scary in the slightest and the ending was fecking retarded. Yawned my way through this. Had a few good scenes but all in all it was very disappointing. 4/10
 

Careful. Think you missed out on the "in-2012" there at the end of one of those links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_actors_by_total_box-office_gross

While the above link isn't the reference I mentioned earlier, it does give one the general lay of the land.

Again, the reference I mentioned earlier only counted top billing. Also FWIW I'm almost positive it was charting average profit-per-picture and not total/average gross like in that wiki article.

Denzel's numbers were very, very low: heck, it's the reason it stuck in my memory enough for the discussion in this thread to bring it up. Basically "Surely that can't be right, can it?" level.
 
Careful. Think you missed out on the "in-2012" there at the end of one of those links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_actors_by_total_box-office_gross

While the above link isn't the reference I mentioned earlier, it does give one the general lay of the land.

Again, the reference I mentioned earlier only counted top billing. Also FWIW I'm almost positive it was charting average profit-per-picture and not total/average gross like in that wiki article.

Denzel's numbers were very, very low: heck, it's the reason it stuck in my memory enough for the discussion in this thread to bring it up. Basically "Surely that can't be right, can it?" level.

But numbers mean little in film. Natalie Portman is ranked as the most successful actor based on ROI (which takes into account their fee) and Denzel probably hasn't made a film for 20 years that has lost money (I'm guessing...too lazy to Google). In fact, all the Potter and Twilight stars are currently considered to offer the strongest BO compared to their cut. In the list you quote, Eddie Murphy is in there purely on the basis of films earlier in his career. He's been BO death for years now. So. In short. There's really little value in these lists. M Night is box office gold, even though his movies that turn a profit are hated by everyone (The Last Airbender, The Happening and After Earth all made a healthy profit despite being to film making what Adam Sandler is to comedy).
 
Boondock Saints Quite enjoyable and has some very quotable dialogue, not as good as I'd been led to believe though 7/10

Warm Bodies Zombie romantic comedy which isn't all that funny and is inconsistent with its zombie rules. Where it does succeed is the romance which tells a sweet story although the not too subtle allegorical nature of the whole film is distracting. I probably would have loved it when I was a teenager though. 5/10
 
Got around to watching The Hobbit and it was much better than I thought it would be. I personally liked the lighter tone of the film and the buffoonery, which reminded me at times of Labyrinth. It had a few too many accentuated references to the LOTR films and the Gandalf ex machina is getting a bit tiring after 4 films. I'll definitely watch the next two films.
 
Kick Ass 2: Good sequel to the first that makes better use of both leads in terms of plot but doesn't quite have the same shock value of the original (it was never gonna now that Chloe Grace Moretz is older) or the high level of black humor. Still a very good sequel that's very watchable as well as funny. Also took me about half an hour into the movie until I figured out who Jim Carey was playing despite his character having been on screen for a good 10-15 mins. Good solid entertainment let down only slightly by some cheap CGI/camera work for Hit Girl's action scenes.

7/10
 
Kick Ass 2 - It's good! My memory of the first one is a bit patchy but I think I might have liked this one more, though I think the first 20 minutes or so isn't great. I can understand Jim Carey's stance about the violence better having seen the film. The bodies start falling half way through and they don't stop. I couldn't pay attention to a word Iain Glen was saying, all I know is none of them were Khaleesi.
 
Zero Dark Thirty - What is Kathryn Bigelow doing that everyone see's that I simply cannot? After the average (and I'm being kind) Hurt Locker that people loved, for reasons I don't know... I sit down to watch this - a film I was really looking forward too actually - and it's just meh. It's just a long dull blur of names, abbreviations, torture and explosions... all which leads to an end result that you already know previously. I have no idea why Jessica Chastain got so much praise for her performance either... she's so uninteresting and uncaptivating, she basically just spends half the movie staring (hey, if staring = acting, then she's doing a fine job) often into space, sometimes at people, but a lot of staring... Gosling himself would be proud. Sometimes she shouts though... and swears too... and people do tend to like that, so maybe I'm wrong. (it doesn't help that her character is a bit of a cnut either)

There's nothing particularly interesting about the direction, the sound design is pretty good, but that's the only thing that stands out. It's just a big bag of meh. Highly disappointing.
 
I guarantee Denzel has made films that didn't make profit in the last 10 years, forget 20.....probably that one he did with Travolta which cost like $100m for no reason whatsoever or the Manchurian Candidate remake.

You generally have to make about 2.5x the actual budget to profit, sometimes it can 3 times your budget, but I doubt either of those had extravagant advertising campaigns to push their margins so high. The generic action films he's been doing probably make a small profit otherwise they wouldn't continually get offered to .
 
I guarantee Denzel has made films that didn't make profit in the last 10 years, forget 20.....probably that one he did with Travolta which cost like $100m for no reason whatsoever or the Manchurian Candidate remake.

You generally have to make about 2.5x the actual budget to profit, sometimes it can 3 times your budget, but I doubt either of those had extravagant advertising campaigns to push their margins so high. The generic action films he's been doing probably make a small profit otherwise they wouldn't continually get offered to .

I'm fairly sure it's 2.5x/3x profit to justify making a sequel. To make a profit, you just have to make your budget back, plus something extra for marketing (and the cost of that could vary).
 
2.5 to 3 times was a pretty vague rounded number really.....but some need like 5 times their budget(Avengers didn't start hitting profits until AFTER it made $1.1b), some less, but given that cinemas take about 40%-60%(depending on first weekend or some dodgy shit), and pay back marketing costs.....it's always going to be slightly above twice as much, but mostly more.

Hollywood very secure about their figures because they don't want the general public to know so many films are actually not making much profit. Which is odd, because releasing that stuff might make people feel guilty about downloading and actually go -_-
 
I think it's also due to global box office, because abroad, studios only get something like 40% of the gross, and even less in China if I remember correctly.

(check out Cracked's article '4 reasons 2015 could be the movie industry's worst year ever', can't copy a link cos Cracked is blocked at work but it explains quite a bit)
 
Now I may not be a R7 or a Spoony but I've managed to get a review published on a site that isn't run by me so that has to count for something. It's a review of An American Werewolf in London and may turn into a regular feature where I review films that were released on that day in history. Please check out my first review here: http://filmfixx.com/today-in-film-history-an-american-werewolf-in-london/

32 years ago today saw the release of a classic for all fans of things that howl at the full moon. Now Horror/Comedy as a genre can be tricky. You realise you have a campy, ridiculous script with a living doll or zombie strippers or whatever, that your actors are all sub-par and your special effects are so fake looking you’d be better off holding children’s drawings in front of the camera instead. In situations such as these, all a director can do is throw their hands in the air and say ‘Oh, it was meant to look bad. It’s a comedy horror!” In the right hands however, it can produce something really entertaining and a fine example is a film back in 1981, An American Werewolf in London.

Like many a classic horror, much of the plot of An American Werewolf in London can be gleamed from the title. Don’t be surprised to learn it isn’t about a Hungarian Mummy in Newcastle. Two American backpackers, David (David Kessler) and Jack (Griffin Dunne) are travelling through the north of England. For some reason unnerved by the poor reception they receive in the local pub or the pentagram carved into its wall, they go walking through the moors, whereupon they are attacked by a werewolf. Jack is brutally killed, while David wakes up in a hospital in London, where he begins to get close with his nurse, Alex (Jennifer Agutter). But his death scene is not the last we see of Jack in the film, and the scarred David starts to go through some changes…

Director John Landis (whose son Max currently bounds around Hollywood, writing movies like Chronicle and behaving like an excited child who’s just inhaled a whole bag of sugar) is more known for his comedy work but here demonstrates an adept sensibility for horror. He understands that less is more and that fleeting glimpses of your monster allow audiences to fill in the blanks and do your work for you as they scare themselves. Interestingly, he occasionally lets us see victims from the werewolf’s eyes, using the same shaky POV camera technique that would be made famous by Sam Raimi’s Evil Dead, released in the same year as An American Werewolf in London. The dream sequences of the film are surreal and shocking enough to create a real feeling of unease. The comedy that occasionally creeps into the film helps to alleviate tension and makes the film a more accessible movie-going experience (or rather, movie-watching-at-home-on-Netflix experience for us in the modern day).

The light touch of the comedy prevents it from damaging the tone. Humour arises from the strange circumstances that pop up in horror films and the natural chemistry that exists between the actors. The male leads Kessler and Dunne come across like wisecracking sitcom buddies, the kind you see on DVD boxes standing back to back and making “Get a load of this guy!” faces. Possibly one will be pointing at the other with his thumb. While the film doesn’t take itself entirely seriously, the comedy never overpowers to the point that it treats itself as a total joke either.

The film won an Oscar for Best Makeup and Hairstyling and you can see why. Werewolves are notoriously difficult to put on-screen without them looking ridiculous, especially when compared to showing vampires, where all you need to do is put out a casting call for a sexy actor and break out some pale make-up. The little we see of the werewolf looks good. The gore effects look real enough to make them slightly uncomfortable to look at. Not to give away too much, but there are other creepy things to see in the film besides werewolves and the effects there are striking too. I really recommend that you have a look for An American Werewolf in London. It’s got some good scares, the occasional laugh and a soundtrack that manages to be enjoyable despite being on-the-nose enough to feature what seems like every song in history with the word ‘moon’ in the title. So go on, watch it. Sure do you have anything better to be doing? Didn’t think so.
 
tl;dr

(seriously though, congrat WP, I'll give it a read when I have a moment!)

Ms. RiP doesn't want to go to the pictures to see The Conjuring, she's afraid it's going to be too scary. :( How do I convince her?
 
tl;dr

(seriously though, congrat WP, I'll give it a read when I have a moment!)

Ms. RiP doesn't want to go to the pictures to see The Conjuring, she's afraid it's going to be too scary. :( How do I convince her?

I saw it the other day, I thought it was good overall. It'll make her jump and it's got it's creepy moments... but really I don't think there is anything truly "scary" in there that will stay with you for a long time afterwards.
 
tl;dr

(seriously though, congrat WP, I'll give it a read when I have a moment!)

Ms. RiP doesn't want to go to the pictures to see The Conjuring, she's afraid it's going to be too scary. :( How do I convince her?

Trick her into thinking she's saying something else. Like the Smurfs 2.
 
Chasing Ice Documentary about photographer James Balog who records glacial erosion over time. It's only an hour and a quarter long and they sometimes can't work out whether they want to focus on the story of the man or the story of the science which is a little annoying but it is worth it for some of the footage that he and his team captured. Breathtaking at times.
 
This Is England I didn't realize it was going to be this heavy. It's a great film. 9/10

Now I need something to cheer me up.
 
This Is England I didn't realize it was going to be this heavy. It's a great film. 9/10

Now I need something to cheer me up.

Try Grave of the Fireflies, a jaunty animated film. Like Aladdin
only with less musical numbers and more children dying of starvation.
 
When is This Is England 90 out? And also, enough already Shane Meadows. Let's move on, as good as they are.


I agree with the moving on. He's become a bit too attached to the characters. I felt 88 was a bit rushed and indulgent personally. Which seem like two completely contradictory things I realise, but it makes sense in my head. Though it had some great bits early on (the bit where Woody & Milky meet in particular was very well done) '86 was brilliant, but harrowing. It took the film's bleakness and ramped it up to 11.

'90 was supposed to be out last year but he put it on hold for the Stone Roses film. Apparently early next year rather than this according to Stephen Graham (who's very in demand now, so I suppose it'll have to work around his schedule)

I'm amazed Vicky McClure hasn't been in more stuff since. I've only seen her in a minor bit part in Broadchurch. She was the stand out for me in the spin offs. Her & Gilgun were a really powerful screen couple [/poncy]