Film The Redcafe Movie review thread

The Monster

A mother and daughter must confront a terrifying monster when they break down on a deserted road.
Kathy is the alcoholic and smoking addicted mother of the young, but mature teenager Lizzy. They live together since Kathy's husband Roy left her, and she neglects her daughter. Kathy is supposed to drive Lizzy to her father's home in the morning, but she sleeps until late afternoon and they have to travel during a rainy night.

Pretty slow going this, more to do with the relationship between mother and daughter than the monster, never really got going for me , even when the monster was around.
Yet another film with a bad ending, the only bright spot was Ella Ballentine who played Lizzy, she was excellent.

4/10
 
Their Finest Pleasing but low ambition BBC film set in wartime London mainly. Good casting and a pleasant enough way to while away a couple of hours but also quite forgettable. 6/10
 
Dunkirk
Directed by Christopher Nolan, this tells the very graphic story of the British evacuation at Dunkirk in May 1940, after an initial unsuccessful campaign against the GermAn army.

With very little ammunition left and surrounded by the advancing German army, it's a race against time to evacuate 400,000 personnel.

Nolans movie is loud, graphic and has some amazing water and air scenes.

I loved it. Do yourself a favour and see it on the big screen

9/10

As an aside my wife had 3 uncles who survived Dunkirk as troops. They are dead now but this really opened my eyes as to what they would have experienced
 
Raoul said:
Dunkirk 5/10

I'm a huge Nolan fan...have been since The Following and Memento, but this was definitely his least impressive work to date. No discernable protagonist, no discernable antagonist...just a conflicting cocktail of footage and sound that flatters to deceive. Anyone on the fence about going to see this should probably think twice before going.
Click to expand...
Huh? Wowzers!
 
I've now seen 5 good to great films in a row at the cinema. Baby Driver, The Big Sick, Spiderman, Planet of The Apes and Dunkirk. Can't remember the last time that happened. What's even more encouraging is that 3 out of the 5 are original films.
 
Are any of the Harry Potter kids any good at acting (I haven't seen the HP films or even read the books)? I ask because, having only seen one of their performances, Radcliffe made Dick van Dyke seem like Laurence Olivier.
 
Martin - Seeing as George Romero died the other week I decided to give this one some added priority on my watchlist. I was really surprised, seeing as I snoozed my way through the Dawn and Night of the Dead films, t'was really good and much more interesting than those films.
 
Speaking of the Circle, all I could think of really is that shitfest is likely gonna be the last memory of Paxton, unless Jim does get one of his endless Avatar sequels done and obviously changes the game again by re-animating his mate for another show stealing support role.

I'm not sure it had any redeeming factors, maybe that it did have something in there, it was just awful. Clear proof that no actor can redeem a shit script, yet a good script can make any scrub actor seem like an actor for at least a few minutes!
 
pauldyson1uk said:
The Monster

A mother and daughter must confront a terrifying monster when they break down on a deserted road.
Kathy is the alcoholic and smoking addicted mother of the young, but mature teenager Lizzy. They live together since Kathy's husband Roy left her, and she neglects her daughter. Kathy is supposed to drive Lizzy to her father's home in the morning, but she sleeps until late afternoon and they have to travel during a rainy night.

Pretty slow going this, more to do with the relationship between mother and daughter than the monster, never really got going for me , even when the monster was around.
Yet another film with a bad ending, the only bright spot was Ella Ballentine who played Lizzy, she was excellent.

4/10
Click to expand...
Felt similar towards this. Some good moments in there but I sense they were trying to be the next Babadook or It Follows with the symbolism but didn't get near to pulling it off.
 
ThierryHenry said:
Free Fire - :lol: Lots of fun. Reservoir Dogs if every character was Tim Roth and stuck in the warehouse, with many, many more guns. Finally an easy to watch, fun film from Ben Wheatley, who can hopefully make more like this now. The whole cast was great, but I particularly liked Jack Reynor after seeing him in Sing St earlier in the year. Convinced he's going to go on to big things. 8/10
Click to expand...

I'll go with this. Fun film, odd characters, satisfying ending.
 
VorZakone said:
When I'm looking for a movie to watch I usually end up watching movies from before 2010. I'm not gonna say this is a bad decade, it's just not for me. I am not a comic fan so you can imagine how annoyed I am with all the comic movies. For others however it's fantastic.

Anyone else having this issue?
Click to expand...

Count me in. This decade is too nerdy for my taste. What's funny is the green creatures with superpowers discussing girlfriend problems or some other day-to-day issue like that.
 
SteveJ said:
Are any of the Harry Potter kids any good at acting (I haven't seen the HP films or even read the books)? I ask because, having only seen one of their performances, Radcliffe made Dick van Dyke seem like Laurence Olivier.
Click to expand...

Watch Swiss Army Man mate.
 
Dirty Schwein said:
Blade Runner
Watched this as a kid and didn't understand it but now revisiting it, I realize there wasnt much to understand. For a sci fi that's so highly regarded, it felt very simple. Nevertheless, still had a fun time watching it and probably would have enjoyed it more had i seen it when it came out but if I was also a bit older 6.5/10
Click to expand...

I remember it having philosophical undertones (which all great sci-fi movies usually have). Will rewatch it now I guess.
 
War for the Planet of the Apes - I forgot these films have subtitles and the cinema I was at only showed them in Hebrew so I got half a silent film. I was able to keep up with the story surprisingly so props to Reeves for making a successfully visual film. Still didn't like it though. The ape CGI is out of this world though.
 
Dirty Schwein said:
War Dogs
Been looking forward to this for a while and finally saw it. Whilst the two leads were great and it was a pretty decent film, it just seemed to be missing something. I can't really remember any stand out scenes from it at all. Maybe I was just not in the right mood 6/10

Blade Runner
Watched this as a kid and didn't understand it but now revisiting it, I realize there wasnt much to understand. For a sci fi that's so highly regarded, it felt very simple. Nevertheless, still had a fun time watching it and probably would have enjoyed it more had i seen it when it came out but if I was also a bit older 6.5/10

Back To The Future
I might be 32 years late but man did this film live up to the hype. Really had a blast watching this and can't wait for to watch parts 2 and 3. Such a good movie 8.5/10
Click to expand...
Back to the Future is a classic , I have watched it many times and will watch it many times more. I also have to watch all three cant just watch one on its own.
Blade Runner , cant get into it , I have tried but just dont like it.
War Dogs not seen it.
 
Saw The Beguiled at the weekend, which I went into knowing very little about. Definitely a pleasant surprise, I loved it. Hilarious performances from the small cast, and Coppola's great at getting the tension (in more than one sense) to build and build before the obvious pop. The last half an hour isn't as strong as the rest of the film but I'd still recommend it, good small-scale watch compared to some of the bigger names out at the moment.

8/10
 
SteveJ said:
Are any of the Harry Potter kids any good at acting (I haven't seen the HP films or even read the books)? I ask because, having only seen one of their performances, Radcliffe made Dick van Dyke seem like Laurence Olivier.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen all of the HP movies myself, but watching one of the later films, I thought Emma Watson was the only one of the original trio who might have been cast if the choice was made when they were teenagers.

Like many child actors, Radcliffe grew, or failed to grow, into a virtual dwarf, which, regardless of acting ability, limited his possibilities as an adult star. But even without being vertically challenged, he's not the stuff of leading men. Actually, considering his assets - 5 foot nothing, ordinary looking, with mediocre acting skills - he's made a good fist of his career.
 
SteveJ said:
Are any of the Harry Potter kids any good at acting (I haven't seen the HP films or even read the books)? I ask because, having only seen one of their performances, Radcliffe made Dick van Dyke seem like Laurence Olivier.
Click to expand...
I saw Daniel Radcliffe in Rosencratz and Guildernstern must die at the Old Vic. He overacts horribly, but then again so do most actors in plays- Kenneth Branagh being a prime example.
 
Saw Dunkirk last night and this will definitely be polarising. Will end up in the overrated thread. I liked it though.
 
ThierryHenry said:
Saw The Beguiled at the weekend, which I went into knowing very little about. Definitely a pleasant surprise, I loved it. Hilarious performances from the small cast, and Coppola's great at getting the tension (in more than one sense) to build and build before the obvious pop. The last half an hour isn't as strong as the rest of the film but I'd still recommend it, good small-scale watch compared to some of the bigger names out at the moment.

8/10
Click to expand...

Have you seen the original ? Only ask as I've seen a couple of people mentioned that Coppola version is very weak compared to it(Although from I've heard the original looks like a difficult watch). Also what did you think of the claims of white washing, it seems Coppola has completely written out the black female character from her version, which is sort fecked as Coppola already has a record of writing out people of colour in her movies.

@Archie Leach I might be wrong but didn't you review this as well ?
 
Sweet Square said:
Have you seen the original ? Only ask as I've seen a couple of people mentioned that Coppola version is very weak compared to it(Although from I've heard the original looks like a difficult watch). Also what did you think of the claims of white washing, it seems Coppola has completely written out the black female character from her version, which is sort fecked as Coppola already has a record of writing out people of colour in her movies.

@Archie Leach I might be wrong but didn't you review this as well ?
Click to expand...
Yes. I didn't like it, it felt slight and frankly, lacked atmosphere and intrigue. I basically felt sorry for Colin Farrell.

As for the whitewashing, there's two ways I think to look at it and the kinder of the two is that, things are not going well for the South, their slaves have left, these women are left to look after themselves and things aren't going well. It's a vision of the decaying Antebellum era.

The removal of the only black character is a noticeable thing to do and surely even Coppola isn't that lacking in self awareness.

Nothing surprises me though.
 
SteveJ said:
Are any of the Harry Potter kids any good at acting (I haven't seen the HP films or even read the books)? I ask because, having only seen one of their performances, Radcliffe made Dick van Dyke seem like Laurence Olivier.
Click to expand...
I really like Radcliffe as an actor but more so as a person.
 
SteveJ said:
Are any of the Harry Potter kids any good at acting (I haven't seen the HP films or even read the books)? I ask because, having only seen one of their performances, Radcliffe made Dick van Dyke seem like Laurence Olivier.
Click to expand...
In the Potter Films , I think they are excellent, you have watched them grow up and their acting improved.
Ratcliffe has not been that good outside them , although I did like The Women in Black.
 
Kong: Skull Island

Good concept, but let down by insipid plot and weak characterization. The plot just meanders pointlessly and none of the characters except John C Reilly make any impression. Sam L Jackson plays his usual role. I doubt he changes his style irrespective of whether he's playing hero or villain.

There's also this Chinese chick who turns up at odd moments all clean and neat, when the rest of cast are disheveled by running through the jungle. She then disappears till next interlude. I presume she's there because movie has a Chinese production company.

Let down.

5/10
 
Archie Leach said:
Yes. I didn't like it, it felt slight and frankly, lacked atmosphere and intrigue. I basically felt sorry for Colin Farrell.

As for the whitewashing, there's two ways I think to look at it and the kinder of the two is that, things are not going well for the South, their slaves have left, these women are left to look after themselves and things aren't going well. It's a vision of the decaying Antebellum era.

The removal of the only black character is a noticeable thing to do and surely even Coppola isn't that lacking in self awareness.

Nothing surprises me though.
Click to expand...
Cheers. Yeah I think it might just be worth watching the original.

Don't want to derail the thread but the whitewashing thing is so fecked, normally if happens once you can put it down to a lack of self awareness but I read in a recent article that Coppola last film Bling Ring she did the same thing with a Mexican immigrate. Seems she really loves doing films about very rich white people.
 
kps88 said:
I've now seen 5 good to great films in a row at the cinema. Baby Driver, The Big Sick, Spiderman, Planet of The Apes and Dunkirk. Can't remember the last time that happened. What's even more encouraging is that 3 out of the 5 are original films.
Click to expand...
3? Which ones?
 
kps88 said:
I've now seen 5 good to great films in a row at the cinema. Baby Driver, The Big Sick, Spiderman, Planet of The Apes and Dunkirk. Can't remember the last time that happened. What's even more encouraging is that 3 out of the 5 are original films.
Click to expand...

I think I'm turning into a right miserable bastard, I've seen 3 of those (Baby Driver, Apes, Dunkirk) and whilst I had a good time with all 3, all disappointed me in someway. I also watched It Comes At Night too which has got some pretty rave reviews in places, but again, whilst I enjoyed it (though more at a concept level then anything) it again wasn't as great as I was hoping.

Seeing the Big Sick next week, hopefully that'll be the one I love along with everyone else.
 
kps88 said:
I've now seen 5 good to great films in a row at the cinema. Baby Driver, The Big Sick, Spiderman, Planet of The Apes and Dunkirk. Can't remember the last time that happened. What's even more encouraging is that 3 out of the 5 are original films.
Click to expand...
Its been a decent summer for blockbusters, have seen 4 of the 5 and the one remaining (The Big Sick) I am looking forward to. Probably the first time in years that there's been a run of weeks with something worth seeing in the cinema.
 
SteveJ said:
Are any of the Harry Potter kids any good at acting (I haven't seen the HP films or even read the books)? I ask because, having only seen one of their performances, Radcliffe made Dick van Dyke seem like Laurence Olivier.
Click to expand...
I've seen Ron Weasley in a couple of other films an thought he was pretty good.
 
Sweet Square said:
Cheers. Yeah I think it might just be worth watching the original.

Don't want to derail the thread but the whitewashing thing is so fecked, normally if happens once you can put it down to a lack of self awareness but I read in a recent article that Coppola last film Bling Ring she did the same thing with a Mexican immigrate. Seems she really loves doing films about very rich white people.
Click to expand...

But what's wrong with that? Basic advice to aspiring novelists is 'write about what you know.'

Presumably Coppola didn't want the audience of Beguiled to be distracted with irrelevant thoughts about slavery when that wasn't the story she wanted to tell. The introduction of a black character in such a setting would have made that inevitable.
 
Will Absolute said:
But what's wrong with that? Basic advice to aspiring novelists is 'write about what you know.'

Presumably Coppola didn't want the audience of Beguiled to be distracted with irrelevant thoughts about slavery when that wasn't the story she wanted to tell. The introduction of a black character in such a setting would have made that inevitable.
Click to expand...
I got it slightly wrong Coppola also turned a mixed raced character from the book into a white teacher. The point is if Coopla is so desperate to make movies about white wealthily women, then she should stop using literature and movies that includes people of colour and just write her own script.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.