Film The Redcafe Movie review thread

Day of the Dead (2008)

Had not seen this remake before. Whereas I enjoyed the remake of Dawn of the Dead, this felt much lower budget. Again it made the zombies more rage virus-style, ie fast (and able to jump out of third storey windows in ridiculously sped-up footage), but the effects were so weak it looked lame.
Ving Rhames had a cameo- maybe a nod to Dawn- but there is a reason this film was less feted. Easy to guess who dies and overall pretty dull.

4/10.
 
Cabin Fever
I watched it years ago and fell asleep and so I gave it another shot. It wasnt that bad actually. The idea of a virus being the culprit of a cabin trip gone wrong was quite gut-wrenching as my mate got a skin virus in Thailand and hit home a little. There were some scares and the comedy worked ok, mainly due to bad dialogue and dodgy acting (which was obviously unintentional). Still, it was pretty short and never bored me this time around 6.5/10

Prisoners
Really really enjoyed this. Gets you questioning moral decisions with how it plays out. Superb acting by Hugh Jackman and Jake Gyllenhal, it was quite long but didnt feel it. Really good thriller with decent story and amazing execution. Loved it, one of my favourite films this year 8.5/10
 
The Wild Child - A great little film about a historical feral child that covers his capture, education and progress. Simple, gentle and captivating stuff. The abrupt ending was a bit strange though.
 
Jippy said:
Day of the Dead (2008)

Had not seen this remake before. Whereas I enjoyed the remake of Dawn of the Dead, this felt much lower budget. Again it made the zombies more rage virus-style, ie fast (and able to jump out of third storey windows in ridiculously sped-up footage), but the effects were so weak it looked lame.
Ving Rhames had a cameo- maybe a nod to Dawn- but there is a reason this film was less feted. Easy to guess who dies and overall pretty dull.

4/10.
Click to expand...
What I didn't get about this one, it's not a remake as it has a completely different story. So why make a movie that has nothing to do with the original (apart from Zombies being in it) and give it the same name?
 
The Duellists - Ridley Scott's debut film. It tried really hard to be Barry Lyndon which could be a bit distracting at times but it was overall a pretty compelling film, largely due to the performances of the angry face of Keitel and the irked Carradine.
 
Gravity -- Best use of 3D in any modern movie so far. Story is okay, but it's the 3D which makes it a must-see in theatres.
 
Loon said:
Gravity -- Best use of 3D in any modern movie so far. Story is okay, but it's the 3D which makes it a must-see in theatres.
Click to expand...

meh, it failed to draw me in, thought it was too lightweight but the special effects are amazing and should pull in huge audiences :angel:
 
Prisoners

This film actually made me angry.

Primarily because it started off pretty well. There's a surprisingly decent central performance from Jackman and Gyllenhaal plays a combo version of his Zodiac and End of Watch characters to decent effect. The story pulls you in and you have the makings of a genuinely good drama but it completely loses it's way in the last third.

Basically it becomes fecking stupid and without revealing any spoilers it racks up implausibility after implausibility in the final act that completely detract from the fairly decent premise it had laid out in the first half. It desperately wanted to be 'The Pledge' but it wasn't.

And Terence Howard. What was the actual point of this character and his family? Talk about a nothing role. What did this actually add to the film? I assume the intention was for him to be the voice of reason to Jackmans obsessive stop at nothing desperate father but that only works if you give the guy more than 5 lines in the script.

An odd film that looks like it was put together by 2 different people. Shame the guy that directed the first half couldn't be arsed to finish it.
 
CassiusClaymore said:
Prisoners

This film actually made me angry.

Primarily because it started off pretty well. There's a surprisingly decent central performance from Jackman and Gyllenhaal plays a combo version of his Zodiac and End of Watch characters to decent effect. The story pulls you in and you have the makings of a genuinely good drama but it completely loses it's way in the last third.

Basically it becomes fecking stupid and without revealing any spoilers it racks up implausibility after implausibility in the final act that completely detract from the fairly decent premise it had laid out in the first half. It desperately wanted to be 'The Pledge' but it wasn't.

And Terence Howard. What was the actual point of this character and his family? Talk about a nothing role. What did this actually add to the film? I assume the intention was for him to be the voice of reason to Jackmans obsessive stop at nothing desperate father but that only works if you give the guy more than 5 lines in the script.

An odd film that looks like it was put together by 2 different people. Shame the guy that directed the first half couldn't be arsed to finish it.
Click to expand...
I completely agree, it's basically a film about the worst police investigation of all time.
 
CassiusClaymore said:
Prisoners

This film actually made me angry.

Primarily because it started off pretty well. There's a surprisingly decent central performance from Jackman and Gyllenhaal plays a combo version of his Zodiac and End of Watch characters to decent effect. The story pulls you in and you have the makings of a genuinely good drama but it completely loses it's way in the last third.

Basically it becomes fecking stupid and without revealing any spoilers it racks up implausibility after implausibility in the final act that completely detract from the fairly decent premise it had laid out in the first half. It desperately wanted to be 'The Pledge' but it wasn't.

And Terence Howard. What was the actual point of this character and his family? Talk about a nothing role. What did this actually add to the film? I assume the intention was for him to be the voice of reason to Jackmans obsessive stop at nothing desperate father but that only works if you give the guy more than 5 lines in the script.

An odd film that looks like it was put together by 2 different people. Shame the guy that directed the first half couldn't be arsed to finish it.
Click to expand...


I didn't find it that implausible. I did find one scene in particular towards the end a little hard to believe but overall it was well made without being too clever or too stupid either. Howard's role was small but as you said it did offer a different view of how somebody would react, I certainly don't think he took anything away from the film anyway. One of the better thrillers I've scene in recent times. Jackman and Gyllenhaal were great.
 
I don't really get what you're saying. If your daughter was kidnapped you're certain you'd be rational enough just leave it to the police because you have - feck all resources?

What do you mean it would be too late? The police wouldn't let you?
They tried to stop Jackman but as your man said, they didn't have the funds to have surveillance on him 24/7.
 
It's not because of rationale, it's because I would be entirely powerless - perhaps highlighting lack of resources was wrong of me, but I'd be so out of my depth I'd be completely lost. This is something the film never really addressed, for the most part it felt as though Jackman's character was on the completely right path and in control of the situation.

And the police were completely useless throughout the film - especially when you consider how convenient everything was.

I mean, are we honestly expected to believe that they wouldn't have thoroughly searched the location where the kids were being kept? It's not like it was even a clever kidnapping, they were taken by their neighbor and kept in the first place the police looked. It was just stupid.

The kidnapper telling him that he had the kids pretty much from the get go didn't exactly help either.

It was basically the film Taken, but less entertaining and with it's attempt at drama falling flat on its face.
 
Silva said:
It's not because of rationale, it's because I would be entirely powerless - perhaps highlighting lack of resources was wrong of me, but I'd be so out of my depth I'd be completely lost. This is something the film never really addressed, for the most part it felt as though Jackman's character was on the completely right path and in control of the situation.

And the police were completely useless throughout the film - especially when you consider how convenient everything was.

I mean, are we honestly expected to believe that they wouldn't have thoroughly searched the location where the kids were being kept? It's not like it was even a clever kidnapping, they were taken by their neighbor and kept in the first place the police looked. It was just stupid.

The kidnapper telling him that he had the kids pretty much from the get go didn't exactly help either.

It was basically the film Taken, but less entertaining and with it's attempt at drama falling flat on its face.
Click to expand...


There are real life examples of neighbours kidnapping kids and getting away with it for much longer. Just look at Ariel Castro in America. This film was based over no more than a couple of weeks if I'm not mistaken which is hardly an exorbitant amount of time for police to be still investing without finding anyone!

Comparing it to Taken is very harsh imo. I thought Prisoners was engrossing from start to finish.
 
Paranoia
I dont know how films like this get the green light and get heavyweight actors to participate (Harrison Ford and Gary Oldman in this case). Cliched film and unoriginal. the dialogue is very pedantic, the character development is non-existent and Amber Heard doesn't show tits. The film plods along without really drawing you in and is a film that is ok when watching but you are guaranteed to forget it the minute the credits roll 4/10
 
Cedric said:
What I didn't get about this one, it's not a remake as it has a completely different story. So why make a movie that has nothing to do with the original (apart from Zombies being in it) and give it the same name?
Click to expand...


I know what you mean- they were similar in that you have the 'friendly' zombie so it had theme that they could be 'tamed' as it were, but they just seemed to want to make it more high octane I guess. I think the original was the weakest link in the series. Dawn will always be my favourite.

I probably wouldn't have watched it if it didn't carry the Day of the Dead name, so Twigg may well have a point.
 
Jippy said:
I know what you mean- they were similar in that you have the 'friendly' zombie so it had theme that they could be 'tamed' as it were, but they just seemed to want to make it more high octane I guess. I think the original was the weakest link in the series. Dawn will always be my favourite.

I probably wouldn't have watched it if it didn't carry the Day of the Dead name, so Twigg may well have a point.
Click to expand...



That awful one in the tower block with the fireworks truck was the worst one. I think Romero got lucky twice but really isn't much of a film-maker. I'll never tire of watching Dawn.
 
Grinner said:
That awful one in the tower block with the fireworks truck was the worst one. I think Romero got lucky twice but really isn't much of a film-maker. I'll never tire of watching Dawn.
Click to expand...

I think Martin is a really good film. The Crazies is also worth seeing.
 
Keenst said:
Comparing it to Taken is very harsh imo. I thought Prisoners was engrossing from start to finish.
Click to expand...

Speaking of Taken, the sequel is up there with the worst sequels in cinema history. A guy with numerous connections to intel agencies around the world and only his daughter can save him and his ex-wife... stupid plot. The ending was garbage as well.

And speaking of similar movies, Olympus Has Fallen (have seen, was alright) and White House Down (have not and will not watch because I've seen it (OHF)). I don't get how two exact movies are produced and released in the same fecking year.
 
Grinner said:
That awful one in the tower block with the fireworks truck was the worst one. I think Romero got lucky twice but really isn't much of a film-maker. I'll never tire of watching Dawn.
Click to expand...


Land of the Dead. Oh feck, I forgot about that crap. Yep, he should have stopped at Dawn. Have you seen Diary of the Dead- it really has been a case of diminishing returns from the series.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0848557/

As for Romero, the one thing that gets me is so-called satirical bite. In Dawn the zombies go to the mall because we of our rampant consumerism (er, and that's as cutting as it gets). Ditto with Day and the science theme and Diary and people's obsession with filming/blogging everything.
 
Rammbock: Berlin Undead
One of the better Zombie films I have seen. Clocking in at only 64mins, this is film definitely is bang for your buck (or bandwidth) as it packs in more in that time than a lot of films manage to do in double the length. The film follows a group of people stuck in an apartment block as it gets taken over by zombies. It's gritty and emotive and uses zombies as the backdrop for a story about love, loyalty and betrayal. Would highly recommend to all film lovers, especially zombie flick fans who want something a little different. This was my second viewing of it and enjoyed it just as much as the first time around 8.5/10
 
Once Upon a time In Anatolia: Turkish drama about a police search to find a dead body. Shot over the course of a couple of days as they take the two main suspects around various different sites. This is a really patient, well observed, beautifully shot and often poetic film that takes a while to get going and takes a lot of patience but is rewarding. I though I might have to watch this in two sittings as it takes about an hour to really pull you in. The pacing for me could be a little less serene but the script is beautifully well observed and should eventually pull you in. Engrossing and absorbing in equal measure but takes quite a bit of patience, I'd recommend it to any fans of foreign cinema but not one for the causal watcher.

7.5/10
 
Gravity 3D

Seen it last night. Thoroughly enjoyed it. Completely agree with those that say it wouldn't be much of a film in 2D, but as a spectacle it's brilliant. The 3D is ridiculously impressive and all in all, it's a solid film.

8/10
 
pauldyson1uk said:
anybody watched Black Christmas? it is a horror film from 1974, reading some excellent reviews for it, there is a remake and the reviews of that are not so good.
Click to expand...

Saw the remake, was not good. The original I hear is amazing. Let me know if you decide to see it and how good it is!
 
Gravity:

I urge you all to watch this at the Cinema in 3D. It's one of those films that wouldn't seem half as good viewed any other way. The whole cinema 3D thing allowed me to immerse myself in the experience, and some of the shots just drew me right in. This was helped by the fact that the effects were stunning, apart from one little space shuttle shot at the very beginning which looked a bit naff.

They managed to keep the tension high for the duration of the film and that made it easy to forgive Bullock's cheesy back story and Clooney's too cool for Space schtick. I only had one problem with the film

There was no need to let Clooney go and sacrifice himself. A simple tug on the tether would have been enough to bring him back to the space station. Bearing in mind that bullock could propel herself around space with a C02 extinguisher!
An Astronaut even confirmed as much. http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2013/10/17/what-does-a-real-astronaut-think-of-gravity/
That was a minor quibble really, as it didn't ruin the film for me and I think they had to do it to move the plot along and enhance the danger element. They just could have done it in a less stupid/less cheesy way.

A very good film, but only at the cinema in 3D!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.