New X-Men is absolute garbage.
Film The Redcafe Movie review thread
- Thread starter golden_blunder
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) are here to discuss Amad saving our blushes in a win against Southampton as well as our now annual loss at home to Brighton. They discuss Amorim's post-match comments, revisit how mid-table we may or may not be, and discuss some transfer news.
Is that the one on a train? I remember there was one film he did where some lass from Baywatch got her baps out, so it had redeeming feature at least.
Nah the train one is Under Siege 2: Dark Territory. On Deadly Ground is set in Alaska, it has the environmentalist bullshit he loves, it's about an oil platform being built and killing esquimos or something. Michael Caine is the baddie in it.
Wow, that's an impressive knowledge of his back catalogue. They all kind of blur into one. My word, Michael Caine has done some bad films. Who the feck ever thought any of his films warranted a sequel?
I had a phase in uni where a friend and I were fascinated by anything Seagal did, so I watched quite a few of them. On Deadly Ground is the one that sticks in mind the best, it has a drug trip in the middle where he talks to an eagle I think. And a really long and tedious eco friendly monologue at the end. It's top notch.
He so desperately wants to be a native American with his tassled suede jackets and the like. I'm sure I probably saw it years ago.We should do a thread on the best 80's and 90's action flicks.
Get on it Bill
Do it. It is my favourite genre together with 80\90's horror.
I have sat through most of Seagal's stuff but eventually had to give up. I remember Exit Wounds with DMX and I remember watching The Glimmer Man when I was in Toronto.
But there was this absolute garbage film where one of the detectives had a big tattoo on his neck. Unfortunately, it looked quite hot when filming and whatever they used for the tattoo kept running and fading. They couldn't even be arsed to touch it up. It was really bad. Gave up after about 20 mins. That with Seagal's weird-looking hairline, expanding waistline and costume choices was a bit too much to take.
Still he keeps churning them out.
That Seagull film where he stabs the bloke in the neck with the pool cue is the best. But then again the one with the Jamaicans is pretty fecking good too.
Last edited:
Has anyone seen Bang Gang (A Modern Love Story)? French film.
@Rooney in Paris
@Rooney in Paris
That's Out for Justice, one of the Greats as well. It's really non stop violence from beginning to end.
Second Conjuring wasn't that bad. But it also is a lot "in your face" so to say, no great tension like in first half of the first movie, not much scares. They've just shown too much.
I like the movie as it is though, good characters, actors.
I like the movie as it is though, good characters, actors.
Mate of mine bodyguarded the great man when he was in London for Under Siege and we got tix to go to the premiere.
Why does he need a bodyguard if he's so hard?
He was probably a reverse bodyguard, protecting the great unwashed from Seagal's wrath. A hero, basically.
Meh everybody knows that predator wins this anyway.
Don't Breathe (2016)
So I watched this at Odeon Cinema today. Not particularly scary but quite tense throughout with a couple of jump in your seat moments and one particularly gross-out moment, which I won't spoil for anyone. Some decent performances by the main actors to make the most of an extremely implausible plot. I did quite enjoy it to be fair but it's one of those films that just makes you groan and scream at the telly shouting "don't go in there!" and "finish him, finish him!" etc., etc. Why do they keep doing that?? You just know who is going to get offed in the movie and it's quite predictable in that respect. Still, it didn't ruin the enjoyment too much and it's also quite short with a running time of just under 90 minutes. One poor lady in the cinema got a little disorientated when returning from the loo so I had to re-direct her to her seat. The room wasn't that big either but it was very dark I suppose. Ha ha, a bit ironic considering the film we were watching.
I'm giving this a 6/10.
So I watched this at Odeon Cinema today. Not particularly scary but quite tense throughout with a couple of jump in your seat moments and one particularly gross-out moment, which I won't spoil for anyone. Some decent performances by the main actors to make the most of an extremely implausible plot. I did quite enjoy it to be fair but it's one of those films that just makes you groan and scream at the telly shouting "don't go in there!" and "finish him, finish him!" etc., etc. Why do they keep doing that?? You just know who is going to get offed in the movie and it's quite predictable in that respect. Still, it didn't ruin the enjoyment too much and it's also quite short with a running time of just under 90 minutes. One poor lady in the cinema got a little disorientated when returning from the loo so I had to re-direct her to her seat. The room wasn't that big either but it was very dark I suppose. Ha ha, a bit ironic considering the film we were watching.
I'm giving this a 6/10.
Don't laugh Steve, this is serious stuff about... eskimos and shit.
That poor eagle's movie career is over now that he's starred with Seagal.
The devil rides out
Occult hokum with Christopher Lee (playing a goodie for a change, albeit an edgy one with pointy facial hair).
Someone I vaguely remember from some '70s/80s TV shite or other is trying to summon the dark lord. Lee steps in to help the hapless Paul Eddington rescue his son from their clutches and his kid's bird, who he seems a bit too fond of.
There's heavy name-dropping of obscure demons and clunky dialogue in the vein of 'I expel thee, goat of Azoleth', all delivered stoically by a po-faced Lee.
Bit too try hard and the effects have dated badly. Stick with 'To the devil a dughter'. Nastassja Kinski's first film and she goes full frontal.
3/10
Occult hokum with Christopher Lee (playing a goodie for a change, albeit an edgy one with pointy facial hair).
Someone I vaguely remember from some '70s/80s TV shite or other is trying to summon the dark lord. Lee steps in to help the hapless Paul Eddington rescue his son from their clutches and his kid's bird, who he seems a bit too fond of.
There's heavy name-dropping of obscure demons and clunky dialogue in the vein of 'I expel thee, goat of Azoleth', all delivered stoically by a po-faced Lee.
Bit too try hard and the effects have dated badly. Stick with 'To the devil a dughter'. Nastassja Kinski's first film and she goes full frontal.
3/10
F*cking shameful way to treat a World Cup-winning captain.
I expel thee, ghost of LVG. Take my sacrifice of £8.5m and be gone.
I watched Big Trouble Little China yesterday and it was fecking excellent.
Sausage Party
Yeah it's exactly as you would expect and I'm sure 10 times funnier when you're high. I did 'lol' at the start and end sequences which were gloriously ott but apart from that not as much as I'd have liked to.
Also for some reason I sort of skim watched Kickboxer : Vengeance last night and obviously it's terrible but @ them dubbing JCVD voice about a third of the way into the movie. Did they think "oh it's not too bad at the start but after this scene you can't understand a word he says"? And a bonus for him keeping his sunnies on for the duration of the movie, presumably to cover up as much of his ridiculously botoxed face as possible. Or did he get an actual black eye during filming? Intrigued into the thought process behind this wardrobe decision...
Yeah it's exactly as you would expect and I'm sure 10 times funnier when you're high. I did 'lol' at the start and end sequences which were gloriously ott but apart from that not as much as I'd have liked to.
Also for some reason I sort of skim watched Kickboxer : Vengeance last night and obviously it's terrible but
@ them dubbing JCVD voice about a third of the way into the movie. Did they think "oh it's not too bad at the start but after this scene you can't understand a word he says"? And a bonus for him keeping his sunnies on for the duration of the movie, presumably to cover up as much of his ridiculously botoxed face as possible. Or did he get an actual black eye during filming? Intrigued into the thought process behind this wardrobe decision...I read the Dennis Wheatley books when I was growing up, the haunting of Toby Jugg and all that, and was a fan. Seriously though, Lee's explanations for everything reads like some occultist showing off his obscure knowledge. 'They've sent the angel of death himself! Don't look him in the eye!' To the devil a daughter is defo better.
Amazing filmaking. Makes me wanna watch it again.
Me too, fantastic fun.
Lee hamming it brilliantly: "Oriel Seraphim, Eo Potesta, Zati Zata, Galatim, Galatah!"
Ben Hur
I was so excited going into this: an amazing storyline from the original legendary movie from 1959, some brilliant characters and inter relationships, licence for some wonderful panaromaics and some legendary action sequences for the worlds best stuntmen and CGI technician to go wild with.
Sadly despite spending the cash, they messed it up.
It starts with poor casting: Jack Huston who plays Ben Hur is simply not angry enough about the tragedy he has to endure.
Then we come to some very poor direction: this story hinges around the relationship between the Jewish Ben Hur and his adopted brother, Roman tribune Messala. The key moment of the story is when this relationship breaks down, and sadly in the version, its lukewarm, unconvincing and forgettable moment and makes all the subsequent vindictiveness from Messala seem unfounded and excessive. Likewise Ben Hur does not convincingly express his subsequent contempt or pain. The storyline simply lacks credibility.
Likewise the sub plot involving prophet Jesus is badly acted and not properly woven into the main story and so comes across as a disjointed afterthought. Truly a wasted opportunity as it could have provided some iconic modern day imagery of this great man in human history.
Thankfully all that money is not totally wasted as the panoramic scenery and costumes are amazing. And the epic ship battle and chariot race scenes are exhilarating, technology advanced and a joy to watch. For that reason alone it's worth watching in a 3d cinema.
I left the cinema totally frustrated. With a little more thought and care in direction, this could have been better the original. But sadly it ends up being a weak imitation: the 1959 original will remain iconic whilst this version will be quickly forgotten.
5/10
I was so excited going into this: an amazing storyline from the original legendary movie from 1959, some brilliant characters and inter relationships, licence for some wonderful panaromaics and some legendary action sequences for the worlds best stuntmen and CGI technician to go wild with.
Sadly despite spending the cash, they messed it up.
It starts with poor casting: Jack Huston who plays Ben Hur is simply not angry enough about the tragedy he has to endure.
Then we come to some very poor direction: this story hinges around the relationship between the Jewish Ben Hur and his adopted brother, Roman tribune Messala. The key moment of the story is when this relationship breaks down, and sadly in the version, its lukewarm, unconvincing and forgettable moment and makes all the subsequent vindictiveness from Messala seem unfounded and excessive. Likewise Ben Hur does not convincingly express his subsequent contempt or pain. The storyline simply lacks credibility.
Likewise the sub plot involving prophet Jesus is badly acted and not properly woven into the main story and so comes across as a disjointed afterthought. Truly a wasted opportunity as it could have provided some iconic modern day imagery of this great man in human history.
Thankfully all that money is not totally wasted as the panoramic scenery and costumes are amazing. And the epic ship battle and chariot race scenes are exhilarating, technology advanced and a joy to watch. For that reason alone it's worth watching in a 3d cinema.
I left the cinema totally frustrated. With a little more thought and care in direction, this could have been better the original. But sadly it ends up being a weak imitation: the 1959 original will remain iconic whilst this version will be quickly forgotten.
5/10
Last edited:
https://www.theguardian.com/film/20...review-toronto-film-festival-sigourney-weaver
This sounds absolutely amazing. As if Pauldy and Dirty Schwein gave up posting on redcafe and decided to make their perfect Friday night film. Some quotes from the review;
This sounds absolutely amazing. As if Pauldy and Dirty Schwein gave up posting on redcafe and decided to make their perfect Friday night film. Some quotes from the review;
Amazing really.
One of the comments from youtube "many vehicles were harmed in the making of this movie"
So I'm watching the new Bourne movie. It's alright. Bit sick of Greengrass' trademark wobbly camera-work tbh but ho hum. There's one thing that's really bothering me, though. Why do all the undercover dudes trying to intercept Bourne have those earpieces with the wiggly wire going into their collars?
I mean, it couldn't be more obvious they're up to something. They compound this by bringing their hand up to their mouth every time they talk into their radio. What the feck, like? Why can't the FBI just kit them out with a pair of normal looking head-phones with a built-in mic? Like 90% of the random punters they're mingling with.
So what's going on? Crap research by the film-maker? Or are the "intelligence" services really that incapable of going incognito? Or is it a deliberate inaccuracy to spoon feed the idiots watching the movie whose minds would be blown without those tell-tale wiggly wire bad guy identifiers?
I mean, it couldn't be more obvious they're up to something. They compound this by bringing their hand up to their mouth every time they talk into their radio. What the feck, like? Why can't the FBI just kit them out with a pair of normal looking head-phones with a built-in mic? Like 90% of the random punters they're mingling with.
So what's going on? Crap research by the film-maker? Or are the "intelligence" services really that incapable of going incognito? Or is it a deliberate inaccuracy to spoon feed the idiots watching the movie whose minds would be blown without those tell-tale wiggly wire bad guy identifiers?