I think I know his answer, will wait until he gives it though.
Film The Redcafe Movie review thread
- Thread starter golden_blunder
- Start date
@Sigma start with The Royal Tenenbaums. You'll hate it at first but that is normal reaction for first timers.
I enjoyed it. Well worth a watch.
Just looked a bit heavy-going for my mood/tiredness last night. Can't say rape movies is a genre I'm most enamoured with- still scarred from that scene in Irreversible.
There's no sexual violence on-screen. In terms of violence meted out to women it's nowhere near as bad as a whole bunch of other movies I could think of. I think that poker bird is a bit over the top in her rant tbh. Her main beef seems to be that something nasty which happens doesn't look as nasty as she thinks it should look. Hardly worthy of the hatchet job it provokes IMO. Which I'd advise you not to read as it has major spoilers.
Spiderman Homecoming - Tom Holland was excellent portraying Peter Parker. Not a big fan of the whole force the Avengers in every Marvel movie but despite that, it was still an excellent Spiderman movie.
Just see it for yourself, i won't spoil it for you
I mean the PC thing. Is that a spoiler?
He's on about race, that's why he won't say it. There is a chick in the movie who is black instead of white.
Tbh, I only skimmed the first couple of pars, as it was heading down the spoiler route. It's a weird argument if you want a rape to look more brutal in one sense, but I get the not wanting it romanticised either.
It's no Straw Dogs, put it that way.
Totally forgot there was rape in Nocturnal Animals since it wasn't on screen. Didn't read the article but saw the posts about rape and was confused.
Thanks for ruining it.
Ah. It's not the first place I've read that, so I was wondering if that was what he was getting at or something that actually made sense.
I think I'm having trouble understanding people's issue with it, but maybe that's because I get the 'hardcore PC' tram to work every day. I'm sure the rest of them only have white people on them, but someone down at Metrolink obviously makes sure mine has the proper quotas of minority groups on them or something.
I think it's because when someone other than a white person is cast in something that was a white role or white character in the past they automatically jump to the non-white person being cast to be pc rather than because they were the best actor to audition.
I have no trouble with it either tbh, there's too much to worry about in life to be worrying about the colour or sex of characters in books, tv and movies.
I'm a fan of The Room (well, you know...) but not of the Rogan/Franco/Apatow mob so I'm in two minds with this one, but I expect I'll take a look.
I too have no problem with any colors in the movie, and I'm not white either. But iconic roles that are created as white shouldn't be casted with other colors, just to meet the quota of having one.
This has been done to death with so many pros and cons, i wont derail the thread anymore. Just that imho they're overdoing it.
I can't think of more than one or two examples and of the characters in Spider-man, only Flash is a character who was originally drawn as a white kid is played by a black actor. I don't think Stan Lee or Steve Ditko would insist that he could only be represented as a white guy though. His character was never really fleshed out as anything more than "stereotypical American Jock". His previous film incarnations have been completely one-dimentional, so it's good that they decided to try something different with the character this time. He's been a peripheral character in the comics for 50 years until the recent agent venom stuff anyway.
I think all this talk of there being politically correct "quotas" is complete bullshit to be honest. The casting now reflects real life in a major city in the current day. Back in 1961, I'm sure the comics were broadly representative of how things were then, but times change. It's not political correctness, it's the modern world.
Also if you're on about the character I think you're on about, it isn't even the same character
just shares her initials
http://www.teenvogue.com/story/zendaya-spider-man-homecoming-character-name-meaning
http://www.teenvogue.com/story/zendaya-spider-man-homecoming-character-name-meaning
My issue (perhaps Coren's too) is one of framing rather than content. Elle has a far more explicit scene of violence than anything in NA but crucially it's not shot as a vogue spread by a salacious bimbo. It's not even violence per se; I rarely have an issue with films shot in the Expolitation tradition, films like Psycho, Peeping Tom (quasi perhaps?) or even schlock like Blood Feast.
Each to their own though, it was just one of those rare films that I genuinely hated.
War for the Planet of The Apes
First of a double-header this afternoon and by far the best of the two. Not what I expected in terms of the title of the movie but an excellent example of great story telling with plenty of soul and grit. A film where the apes take centre stage with characters so well developed and portraying human traits so well, you lose yourself in the fact that you're watching a bunch of primates doing their thing. So much emotion portrayed without even saying a word most of the time sucks you right in and gets you believing in the characters and rooting for them. I loved the minimal dialogue and how the film portrayed the apes behaviour as they get to grips with their new-found human qualities and intelligence, whilst at the same time not forgetting who they are. Adding the elements of courage, loyalty, betrayal, remorse and redemption made for a damn fine watch.
I was expecting an all out war movie, pretty much carrying on where the second instalment (easily the best of the three) left off, but instead you get a slow burner focusing on the struggles of the apes led by the enigmatic Caesar as he bids to free them the shackles of human oppression once and for all. The ape effects are near flawless and their portrayal firmly put Tim Burton/Mark Walhberg's lame effort to shame. Really enjoyed it. One day films like this will get the Oscar nods they deserve.
I'm giving this a 8.5/10.
First of a double-header this afternoon and by far the best of the two. Not what I expected in terms of the title of the movie but an excellent example of great story telling with plenty of soul and grit. A film where the apes take centre stage with characters so well developed and portraying human traits so well, you lose yourself in the fact that you're watching a bunch of primates doing their thing. So much emotion portrayed without even saying a word most of the time sucks you right in and gets you believing in the characters and rooting for them. I loved the minimal dialogue and how the film portrayed the apes behaviour as they get to grips with their new-found human qualities and intelligence, whilst at the same time not forgetting who they are. Adding the elements of courage, loyalty, betrayal, remorse and redemption made for a damn fine watch.
I was expecting an all out war movie, pretty much carrying on where the second instalment (easily the best of the three) left off, but instead you get a slow burner focusing on the struggles of the apes led by the enigmatic Caesar as he bids to free them the shackles of human oppression once and for all. The ape effects are near flawless and their portrayal firmly put Tim Burton/Mark Walhberg's lame effort to shame. Really enjoyed it. One day films like this will get the Oscar nods they deserve.
I'm giving this a 8.5/10.
Spider-Man: Homecoming
Second film this afternoon and frankly a disappointing effort. I'm rapidly becoming disillusioned with superhero movies with plot holes so big you can fall right in and the ridiculous suspension of disbelief required to enjoy them at even the most basic of levels. But they're comic book stuff I suppose which is the whole point. Added to the fact that they always have to feature an assortment of irritating characters, they can be a real slog at times. The Iron Man thing is also becoming a little tiresome now with his conveniently created gadgets that always just happen to be required for the current prevailing threat in the latest movie. Why he appeared during the ship peril but was nowhere to be seen in the final showdown was a bit baffling but I suppose it wasn't his movie so time for Spider-Man to shine.
I thought Spider-Man was great in his cameo appearance during Civil War and was really looking forward to this second reboot. I don't know...I still think the Tobey Maguire/Kirsten Dunst versions were the best. I just felt a little underwhelmed with this film and of all his arch-enemies have only really enjoyed his tussles with the Sandman and to a lesser extent Doc Ock. Action was a bit messy at times but it was ok. Still, not a patch on the awesome Wonder Woman but I suppose some will enjoy it.
I'm giving this a 6/10.
Second film this afternoon and frankly a disappointing effort. I'm rapidly becoming disillusioned with superhero movies with plot holes so big you can fall right in and the ridiculous suspension of disbelief required to enjoy them at even the most basic of levels. But they're comic book stuff I suppose which is the whole point. Added to the fact that they always have to feature an assortment of irritating characters, they can be a real slog at times. The Iron Man thing is also becoming a little tiresome now with his conveniently created gadgets that always just happen to be required for the current prevailing threat in the latest movie. Why he appeared during the ship peril but was nowhere to be seen in the final showdown was a bit baffling but I suppose it wasn't his movie so time for Spider-Man to shine.
I thought Spider-Man was great in his cameo appearance during Civil War and was really looking forward to this second reboot. I don't know...I still think the Tobey Maguire/Kirsten Dunst versions were the best. I just felt a little underwhelmed with this film and of all his arch-enemies have only really enjoyed his tussles with the Sandman and to a lesser extent Doc Ock. Action was a bit messy at times but it was ok. Still, not a patch on the awesome Wonder Woman but I suppose some will enjoy it.
I'm giving this a 6/10.
This film defo seems to divide opinion. Have you seen Audition or Antichrist out of interest?
Yeah both wonderful films. Von Trier might actually be a great comparison. In my view his films consider the fear and hatred of women in contemplative, creative and exploitative ways - As well as just expressing outright misogyny at times. He doesn't get a pass for being a sexist but he does have my admiration for his work. In the same way I'm a huge fan of Robert Crumb and his depictions of all manner of sexist and racist things as a part of his creative expression.
I possibly am guilty of tolerating, to an extent, the unpleasant views of great artists in the appreciation of their work. I'd probably defend that position too.
I possibly am guilty of tolerating, to an extent, the unpleasant views of great artists in the appreciation of their work. I'd probably defend that position too.
Is Psycho really Exploitation? For me, it's way ahead of its time, and above that genre (despite appearances).
Quasi-exploitation whatever that means to you. I'd say it's certainly in the style of, and Hitchcock is not averse to using the female sex and violence as visual gratification. Saul Bass elevates the shower scene beyond accusations of exploitation though and into the realms of essential art. But no I wouldn't classify it as an Exploitation film above say a thriller. Semantics shemantics.
Be Afraid
A supernatural force haunts a family through sleep paralysis. The sleep paralysis angle hooked me into watching this but that was a big mistake as it doesn't really explore this at all, just uses it as a vehicle to create a few jump scares. The film does nothing original and it spends over half the movie in that old cliche of characters not believing what's going on, even when they experience supernatural forces themselves. The ending was unoriginal and flat. The entire thing was a let down 2/10
A supernatural force haunts a family through sleep paralysis. The sleep paralysis angle hooked me into watching this but that was a big mistake as it doesn't really explore this at all, just uses it as a vehicle to create a few jump scares. The film does nothing original and it spends over half the movie in that old cliche of characters not believing what's going on, even when they experience supernatural forces themselves. The ending was unoriginal and flat. The entire thing was a let down 2/10
So when a woman is brutally murdered on camera that's ok, because it's artfully shot. But if the aftermath of a woman bejng murdered is artfully shot then that's problematic because it's artfully shot?
Not having a go at you, specifically, here but that does seem to be Coren Mitchell's problem.
It's fine, you can have a go if you like.
I think this might simply be a mixture of her arguments in the article and my subsequent comments. I would go with the broad conclusion in the article as far as I read it; that the depiction of violence in the film is obscene or pornographic - or some other disapproving word to express faux-outrage.
Coren might be arguing from the position that the film looks great (unless she is being ironic in her use of the terms beautiful and elegant), that's not really my starting position. She may also rail against fictional depictions of violence against women regardless of the content or context it's not clear, I mentioned that I personaly feel that context is important.
If I thought that NA's violence (or the work as a whole) had any aesthetic or analytical value, or it tapped any of my other biases then I might use my powers of sophistry to attempt to justify it. It didn't, I didn't. And we all lived happily ever after.
Tune in next week when I tell the Game of Thrones thread why they are wrong.
I think this might simply be a mixture of her arguments in the article and my subsequent comments. I would go with the broad conclusion in the article as far as I read it; that the depiction of violence in the film is obscene or pornographic - or some other disapproving word to express faux-outrage.
Coren might be arguing from the position that the film looks great (unless she is being ironic in her use of the terms beautiful and elegant), that's not really my starting position. She may also rail against fictional depictions of violence against women regardless of the content or context it's not clear, I mentioned that I personaly feel that context is important.
If I thought that NA's violence (or the work as a whole) had any aesthetic or analytical value, or it tapped any of my other biases then I might use my powers of sophistry to attempt to justify it. It didn't, I didn't. And we all lived happily ever after.
Tune in next week when I tell the Game of Thrones thread why they are wrong.
Hovering Over the Water - A very pretty picture, really liked the loose feel of it, though I found the dialogue to pretty tumescent at times and not as deep as the writer probably thought it was. Also, the film poster is one the prettiest posters I've seen in a while. @Peyroteo you've seen it?
More - A druggy 60's Ibiza fare. Gorgeous locations and soundtrack by Pink Floyd but the rest was rather insufferable, largely due to the amateurish actors with English as their second language. La vallée was a way more accomplished effort from Schroeder. Both glorifying and taking digs at the hippie lifestyle at the same time. Bulle Ogier was very easy on the eye too.
They Live - Tbh, the only thing I could focus on was that denim, shirt and mullet combo. Horrifyingly hypnotic.
More - A druggy 60's Ibiza fare. Gorgeous locations and soundtrack by Pink Floyd but the rest was rather insufferable, largely due to the amateurish actors with English as their second language. La vallée was a way more accomplished effort from Schroeder. Both glorifying and taking digs at the hippie lifestyle at the same time. Bulle Ogier was very easy on the eye too.
They Live - Tbh, the only thing I could focus on was that denim, shirt and mullet combo. Horrifyingly hypnotic.
Hovering Over the Water - A very pretty picture, really liked the loose feel of it, though I found the dialogue to pretty tumescent at times and not as deep as the writer probably thought it was. Also, the film poster is one the prettiest posters I've seen in a while. @Peyroteo you've seen it?
Yup. I just saw it a few weeks ago and loved everything about it. I'll watch it again one day for Teresa Villaverde alone, that was a beautiful performance that deserves a second viewing. I didn't have any problems with the dialogue either. You might want to check out Recordações da Casa amarela too, that's another great movie by João César Monteiro.
I do wonder if the quality of the subtitles might have been a reason for some of the stiltedness.
I'll check it out!
TouchéI actually thought NA had a really great aesthetic. I thought it was beautifully shot. Whether that be distant desert landscapes, or an extreme close-up of Amy Adams putting on a pair of reading glasses. If you didn't find the film good to look at then I can see why it didn't work for you. Or Victoria Coren.
My main issue with her critique is that it's somehow misogynystic to frame an image of dead women in a way that is elegant and visually striking. She seems to be implying that if they'd been lying in a bloody heap, legs akimbo, it would be truer to life and therefore more acceptable. Beautiful images of dead/dying woman have been been common in art for centuries. And, whether she likes it or not, cinema is a form of art. When it comes to portraying sexual violence in cinema, the approach Ford took was actually unusually restrained IMO. It was all off camera and we only heard about it being described after the fact. Really isn't the type of film that should be pilloried for its misogyny. It just seems as though the imagery in the opening scenes wound her up and she became determined to find a way to slag the movie off. I don't think her issues with that scene hold much water.
As far as the aesthetic goes my opinion is clearly in the minority - and perhaps why I had to appeal to the host of Balderdash and Piffle (no diss) to back me up, which she does only in part. The rest we can put down to differing opinions, if only to put an end to my mansplaining the views I've appropriated from an abscent woman. Fecking minefield.
Wonder Woman
I went in tothis not reading a single review, thought it was really good.
Gal Gadot was excellent played her part well, has was Chris Pine.
Well worth watching.
7/10
I went in tothis not reading a single review, thought it was really good.
Gal Gadot was excellent played her part well, has was Chris Pine.
Well worth watching.
7/10
The Belko Experiment.
In a twisted social experiment, 80 Americans are locked in their high-rise corporate office in Bogotá, Colombia and ordered by an unknown voice coming from the company's intercom system to participate in a deadly game of kill or be killed.
It was decent enough, plenty of gore and people acting like dicks just because they had guns, some of the deaths very bloody.
The ending sets it up for the next one.
5/10
In a twisted social experiment, 80 Americans are locked in their high-rise corporate office in Bogotá, Colombia and ordered by an unknown voice coming from the company's intercom system to participate in a deadly game of kill or be killed.
It was decent enough, plenty of gore and people acting like dicks just because they had guns, some of the deaths very bloody.
The ending sets it up for the next one.
5/10
[QUOTE="R.N7, post: 21209067, member: ]
They Live - Tbh, the only thing I could focus on was that denim, shirt and mullet combo. Horrifyingly hypnotic.[/QUOTE]
Love that movie! I've come here to chew gum and kick ass. I'm all outta gum
They Live - Tbh, the only thing I could focus on was that denim, shirt and mullet combo. Horrifyingly hypnotic.[/QUOTE]
Love that movie! I've come here to chew gum and kick ass. I'm all outta gum
Love that movie! I've come here to chew gum and kick ass. I'm all outta gum[/QUOTE]
Is that the alien/special sunglasses movie?
It is, indeed.