Film The Redcafe Movie review thread

Donaldo said:
Anyone seen Odd Thomas? Seems an interesting movie.

Stephen Sommers can be irritatingly good sometime...unfortunately only sometimes...this is his next venture http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0455856/
Click to expand...

I have seen it this is what I posted.

Odd Thomas

I have never read the books or even heard of them, so I did not know what to expected, but I really enjoyed it.
It had a bit of everything in it, horror only very mild though, laughter some mystery and some great sadness.
Anton Yelchin has Odd, Willam Defoe and Addison Timlin has Odd's rather tasty girl friend were all excellent.
The story was pretty good and I had no idea of the twist at the end.

7/10​
 
Pain & Gain
Very strange film. It tackles a load of horrible real life events but tells the tale in a comedic way. I thought that made for an interesting take but the problem was that it was mostly not funny. There were a few funny bits but overall the film was too long and boring. I was struggling to watch it till the end. The start is promising but then it seems the writers of the screenplay just wanted to include more and more where to the point it was definitely a case of more is less. I watched until the end because I wanted to know how these criminals eventually got caught but the film was a major let down. 5.5/10
 
Dirty Schwein said:
Pain & Gain
Very strange film. It tackles a load of horrible real life events but tells the tale in a comedic way. I thought that made for an interesting take but the problem was that it was mostly not funny. There were a few funny bits but overall the film was too long and boring. I was struggling to watch it till the end. The start is promising but then it seems the writers of the screenplay just wanted to include more and more where to the point it was definitely a case of more is less. I watched until the end because I wanted to know how these criminals eventually got caught but the film was a major let down. 5.5/10
Click to expand...

It was also far too long... like by about 30-40minutes.
 
Annihilate Now! said:
It was also far too long... like by about 30-40minutes.
Click to expand...
Yes they should have removed the scene:

where The Rock attacks the cops and gets his toes cut off

This event never took place and should have been edited out. I bet many films end up like this on the cutting room floor before studios get the directors to edit it down. This film seems more like a directors cut rather, which is a mistake
 
Laurence Anyways - Really good, visually striking, fantastically acted film about a mans transformation into a woman and his relationship with his partner along the way. I thought there some unecessary stylistic choices and it was perhaps a bit overlong but overall a remarkably accomplished work by a 24 year old director.
 
Dirty Schwein said:
World War Z
A lot better than I thought, maybe because of my low expectations from critic reviews I read before watching it. There was quite a few tense scenes, the zombies running at full pelt in masses was really pleasing visually and the 'turn' in to Zombies was amazing. It was a film where the zombies seemed threatening, which I prefer to the slow dumbass zombies in something like Walking Dead. Ending seemed a but rushed though. 7/10
Click to expand...


RDCR07 said:
World War Z. Was not bad. Some people on here berated it like it was the shittiest movie ever. It was suspenseful and that was helped due to the fact that the zombies were fast because its harder to kill them. A lot of bullshit but again what do you expect in a zombie movie. 7/10
Click to expand...

Agree with both of these reviews. From reading some earlier accounts I was expecting something akin to Brad Pitt curling one out on screen but it really was quite an entertaining couple of hours.
 
CassiusClaymore said:
Agree with both of these reviews. From reading some earlier accounts I was expecting something akin to Brad Pitt curling one out on screen but it really was quite an entertaining couple of hours.
Click to expand...

But there's no blood or zombies getting shot in the face! It may as well have been about a worldwide herpes outbreak.
 
Star Trek:Into the Darkness.

I am a massive Trek fan and I did enjoy the film , but I was still disappointed with it.
The acting was good Pine as Kirk and Urban as Bone stood out for me, I thought Cumberbatch stole the show he made an excellent Kahn.
I just felt the story was lacking and predictable in many place, when Kirk lost his command you knew something would happen for him to get it back, likewise when Scotty resigned.
The ending for me was just silly and again predictable.
It is a must watch for an Trek fan, but it could of been better, I hope they do a better job with film 3.

6/10 I wanted to give it more but I could not.
 
Concur on the Star Trek sequel. Cumberbatch definitely was the main attraction and his absence in scenes saw the quality drop, for me. Ultimately though, a poor story, IMHO.

Just saw The World's End. Enjoyed it but then I'm a fan of Pegg & Frost - story was less compelling than say Hot Fuzz but no shortage of good lines, I thought. Everything was pretty enjoyable until the Sci-Fi angle reared it's head and the story deteriorated. Still, a 7/10, for me.


Nobby style said:
No One Knows About Persian Cats - Bahman Ghobadi (2009)


9 cocks up
Click to expand...

Great film/documentary. Stark contrast to how Iranians are often demonized in the media.
 
pauldyson1uk said:
Star Trek:Into the Darkness.

I am a massive Trek fan and I did enjoy the film , but I was still disappointed with it.
The acting was good Pine as Kirk and Urban as Bone stood out for me, I thought Cumberbatch stole the show he made an excellent Kahn.
I just felt the story was lacking and predictable in many place, when Kirk lost his command you knew something would happen for him to get it back, likewise when Scotty resigned.
The ending for me was just silly and again predictable.
It is a must watch for an Trek fan, but it could of been better, I hope they do a better job with film 3.

6/10 I wanted to give it more but I could not.
Click to expand...

massive trek fan too, but don't completely agree. For the record I thought the first reboot was a terrible film with the director butchering it with lens flare.

This film was a lot better but still had its drawbacks. I see what you mean about the predictability of what happened with Kirk and scotty, but predictability and star trek have always gone together hand in hand, especially when it's a prequel of sorts. For the Kirk thing, I thought it enables them to address one of my (and many people's') gripes with the first one in that it was silly how quickly Kirk got the command.
The Scotty thing was a necessary tool for the plot, although could have been done better I.e have him made the decision over a few more issues rather than the one.
My two major gripes with this film:

The pretty blonde science officer. It was just pathetic, she was annoying, very Hollywood and served little to no purpose. No purpose another crew member could not have done.

*That* scene towards the end. You know which one I mean. It was one of those occasions where the link between the old and new timeline come 'together'. I like that idea, that some things are just fate 'ie the main adversary of this film (perhaps you should not name it here) always going to be an enemy of kirk. However, *that* scene was dreadful and almost ruined the film. It was a hark back to what was one of the most pivitol scenes in star trek Canon. It is so famous. But it worked because of the characters and actors doing it. It worked because the friendship between the two characters was so long and deep. A friendship fans had seen develop over 20 years. With this one, it didn't work. With the reboot it made it impossible for*that* scene to make sense. It was meant to be a wink to star trek old fans, but it was more of a punch in the face.
Other than that, and the somewhat dubious and cliched mitive behind the bad (older) guy I thought was pretty good. Really really good visual effects. .. even if there was still far too much lens flare
 
Dracula said:
massive trek fan too, but don't completely agree. For the record I thought the first reboot was a terrible film with the director butchering it with lens flare.

This film was a lot better but still had its drawbacks. I see what you mean about the predictability of what happened with Kirk and scotty, but predictability and star trek have always gone together hand in hand, especially when it's a prequel of sorts. For the Kirk thing, I thought it enables them to address one of my (and many people's') gripes with the first one in that it was silly how quickly Kirk got the command.
The Scotty thing was a necessary tool for the plot, although could have been done better I.e have him made the decision over a few more issues rather than the one.
My two major gripes with this film:

The pretty blonde science officer. It was just pathetic, she was annoying, very Hollywood and served little to no purpose. No purpose another crew member could not have done.

*That* scene towards the end. You know which one I mean. It was one of those occasions where the link between the old and new timeline come 'together'. I like that idea, that some things are just fate 'ie the main adversary of this film (perhaps you should not name it here) always going to be an enemy of kirk. However, *that* scene was dreadful and almost ruined the film. It was a hark back to what was one of the most pivitol scenes in star trek Canon. It is so famous. But it worked because of the characters and actors doing it. It worked because the friendship between the two characters was so long and deep. A friendship fans had seen develop over 20 years. With this one, it didn't work. With the reboot it made it impossible for*that* scene to make sense. It was meant to be a wink to star trek old fans, but it was more of a punch in the face.
Other than that, and the somewhat dubious and cliched mitive behind the bad (older) guy I thought was pretty good. Really really good visual effects. .. even if there was still far too much lens flare
Click to expand...


I agree with you about THAT scene it was my main problem with the film and for me just did not work and very nearly spoilt the whole film.
Like you say another crew member could of done it, but then you would not of got the last 15 mins of the film, which was just dreadful for me.
The blonde I agree 100% agree, she did not add to the story, but she was nice to look at with a cracking pair of legs.
 
Come and See (1985) - 9/10

One of the most devastating films I've ever seen. The child actor's performance affected me the most. It really should receive much more recognition that this. I can't believe he was only 14 when he acted in the movie. The film took on some really difficult and controversial subjects but the boy gave us a stunning and matured performance. Towards the end you'd notice he hardly ever spoke a word, everything he wanted to tell us was already spoken through that delirious, pained expression.
 
thepolice123 said:
Come and See (1985) - 9/10

One of the most devastating films I've ever seen. The child actor's performance affected me the most. It really should receive much more recognition that this. I can't believe he was only 14 when he acted in the movie. The film took on some really difficult and controversial subjects but the boy gave us a stunning and matured performance. Towards the end you'd notice he hardly ever spoke a word, everything he wanted to tell us was already spoken through that delirious, pained expression.
Click to expand...
Good, this is next in my watchlist.
 
Iron Man 3

Story was crap some of the acting was dreadful.
WTF was Ben Kingsley doing playing such a crap role, he should of played the villain he is excellent at those parts, he is much better than this film , all I can think is he was paid a shed load of money to be in it.
Pearse was OK has Killian.
Downey and Paltrow stopped the film being unwatchable.
The ending was OK, but the twist was dreadful and came far to early in the film
This should of been a cracking film but it was just meh.

4/10
 
Dracula said:
massive trek fan too, but don't completely agree. For the record I thought the first reboot was a terrible film with the director butchering it with lens flare.
Click to expand...

A 'terrible' film... really? I can only assume you mean for much more then the lens flare.... as if that's the only drawback I can't see it being terrible!

I think the first one is great - it's exactly what a Star Trek reboot needed to be, a fun, non-complex film that is high on action and low on methology. It's also a really well put together film - hardly a scene is wasted and Abrams does a good job with it. I rewatched Into Darkness this week and, whilst there is still a lot of fun to be had, it's not quite on the level of that first one.
 
Annihilate Now! said:
A 'terrible' film... really? I can only assume you mean for much more then the lens flare.... as if that's the only drawback I can't see it being terrible!

I think the first one is great - it's exactly what a Star Trek reboot needed to be, a fun, non-complex film that is high on action and low on methology. It's also a really well put together film - hardly a scene is wasted and Abrams does a good job with it. I rewatched Into Darkness this week and, whilst there is still a lot of fun to be had, it's not quite on the level of that first one.
Click to expand...

The first one was cracking, enjoyed it a lot.
 
pauldyson1uk said:
Iron Man 3

Story was crap some of the acting was dreadful.
WTF was Ben Kingsley doing playing such a crap role, he should of played the villain he is excellent at those parts, he is much better than this film , all I can think is he was paid a shed load of money to be in it.
Pearse was OK has Killian.
Downey and Paltrow stopped the film being unwatchable.
The ending was OK, but the twist was dreadful and came far to early in the film
This should of been a cracking film but it was just meh.

4/10
Click to expand...

Kingsley will appear in any role, no matter how bad, as long as he gets paid.
 
R.N7 said:
Spring Breakers - Great film. A dreamy, vibrant, crude, critique on a generation. James Franco put in a really good performance.
Click to expand...

Vato1979 said:
Nope, but I've not seen you rate these kind of films much. Also the score on RT and imdb isn't very good, that's why I found it even more weird.
Click to expand...

It was more or less advertised as a teen movie about springbreak and some girls doing a heist or whatever, but it's not that at all. As Nilsson said, it's a film about a generation (more specifically, this American generation), it's very surprising and refreshing. It's a harsh film though, with a very dark message, but it definitely affected me much more than I'd expected it to. Very good film, completely mis-advertised and very misunderstood considering what I've read about it here and there, but really worth a watch.

I thought the whole cast was very good, but I agree Franco was the standout performer, he was excellent.
 
Yeah, and I knew it was a Harmony Korine film so I also knew I was in for something genuine. Most of his films have similiar ratings on imdb but in this case it was because of false advertising.
 
R.N7 said:
Yeah, and I knew it was a Harmony Korine film so I also knew I was in for something genuine. Most of his films have similiar ratings on imdb but in this case it was because of false advertising.
Click to expand...
I can't stand Harmony Korine but I didn't mind Spring Breakers. I think it was a better film than The Bling Ring, which dealt with a similar topic, but without any subtlety or empathy.
 
Red Dreams said:


12 years a slave. must watch this when it comes out.
Click to expand...




Brad Pitt is starting to resemble a monkey.

This weekend I watched Bastards Of The Party which was a very interesting explanation of the emergence of black street gangs in Los Angeles. You got to understand how outside forces beyond their control shaped the modern scene and that attempts at unity were ultimately futile considering the forces against them that were only interested in maintaining the staus quo.

Also saw We Were Here which was an incredibly moving account of the AIDS epidemic that hit San Francisco in the 70s/80s. Watching survivors talk about losing all of their friends and partners, sometimes in a matter of days, was disturbing. The humanity of those who did what they could to help was inspiring and uplifting.
 
Rooney in Paris said:
Did you get to see it at the pictures by any chance? Cos a few of the people I know that have seen it at home in shitty rip versions have been disappointed, it's hard to be engrossed in such a film when the quality is poor.

Apart from that:
- I wouldn't say it's refreshing, there's absolutely nothing new about it (then again, none of those that liked it have said it did anything new, we just pointed out it takes a formula that has existed for donkey years and makes it work, the latter part being subject to each and everyone's own subjective view of course);
- The Exorcist is a classic in that at the time it was made, it was definitely new, and set down all the codes for the genre;
- even though it ends like that, I wouldn't compare it to the exorcism sub-genre, it's more in the vein of Poltergeist, Amytiville, Insidious, haunted house movies; in any case, I enjoyed it more than Emily Rose, which I didn't find scary at all, but then again fear is so subjective...

I maintain that it's an excellent haunted house movie that uses all the tricks of the genre successfully, and brings a few scares. I also think it's well shot and well acted which makes for an enjoyable ride.
Click to expand...


No we watched it on the laptop so yeah, I can appreciate that a lot of the impact is lost. I wouldn't say it was a bad movie, just nowhere near as scary as I thought it would be
 
Kinky Melinky said:
No we watched it on the laptop so yeah, I can appreciate that a lot of the impact is lost. I wouldn't say it was a bad movie, just nowhere near as scary as I thought it would be
Click to expand...
I admit that the advertising along the lines 'scariest film of all time', 'you won't be able to sleep again' etc. was ridiculous. It wasn't that frightening and nowhere near the scariest film I've ever seen, but it did have its moments and built an atmosphere quite efficiently I thought, thanks to music, photography and the filming which was quite 'classical' for want of a better word. I liked the overall film, its aesthetic qualities, the acting, the directing, etc. which is why I thought it was a really good film. But I wouldn't judge it on 'fear factor criteria' alone, it would come up short.
 
Rooney in Paris said:
I admit that the advertising along the lines 'scariest film of all time', 'you won't be able to sleep again' etc. was ridiculous. It wasn't that frightening and nowhere near the scariest film I've ever seen, but it did have its moments and built an atmosphere quite efficiently I thought, thanks to music, photography and the filming which was quite 'classical' for want of a better word. I liked the overall film, its aesthetic qualities, the acting, the directing, etc. which is why I thought it was a really good film. But I wouldn't judge it on 'fear factor criteria' alone, it would come up short.
Click to expand...

Yes. For a horror film, this was a change. I am usually left disappointed by acting performances from horror films but this was definitely refreshing. The actors did a great job and the director did an amazing job making the characters believable in their roles. Gonna see Insidious 2 on Saturday. Can't freaking wait!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.