Film The Redcafe Movie review thread

Frankie & Alice (2010)

Available on Sky Cinema/NOW TV. Not too heavy drama set in the 70s starring Halle Berry as a woman dealing with her multiple personalities. With a running time of just over 90 minutes, the film gets straight into the drama as the extent of Berry's multiple characters and the effects these have on her and the people around her are unravelled. In addition to her primary persona 'Frankie', a go-go dancer in a sleazy club, we also get to meet 'Genius' an innocent 12-year old with an IQ of 156 and 'Alice', a precocious white southern racist at odds with her own black main identity. The story unfolds through a series of flashbacks, mostly during treatment by her psychiatrist who takes her under his wing, played by Stellan Skarsgard.

Not quite as intensive or absorbing as Girl, Interrupted or One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, the film lacks sufficient depth to leave a lasting impression on the viewer but Halle Berry's performance is still nonetheless compelling, moving and on a par with her Monster's Ball Oscar-winning turn. In fact, she almost sounds like Leticia from that movie in this one too. She is such a great actress and smokingly hot even when not intending to be. The film whilst dealing with multiple personality disorders doesn't really delve into the medical science of this condition but is more about Frankie's attempts to understand and control this condition that she has. As a consequence it steers away from the sensationalism, exaggeration and caricatures that these types of movies can portray. This was based on a true story apparently, which probably explains why. A decent watch in the end.

I'm giving this a 7/10.
 
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...

Simple? You could write a pHD these on any one of 5 or more themes from this film. The fact Scott hung them on a fairly straightforward narrative made it better still.

There is the use and subversion of the Noir and Cyberpunk genres if you are a film student type which tie in to many gender role discussions - femme fatals, "recreation" model female replicants, assassin model female replicants "disguised" as helpless females etc etc

Then there are themes relating to mortality, what constitutes memory, consciousness and reality. Most of all there is the theme of what constitute being human - they even detect replicants by asking them questions that provoke an emotional response yet it is the fact that they respond to ethical dilemmas that humans would ignore/compartmentalise/rationalise that gives them away.

Then there are things like environmental issues, globalisation and racism etc. They use classical literary themes and references from things as diverse as William Blake, the bible and classical Greek literature. Then there are things like genetic engineering (linked to many of the other themes by the repeated use of images of the eye) and religion symbology added to the mix.

You could keep going as there is so much to look at and discuss. You can find new bits every time you view the film. Is Deckard a replicant? If so why was he a Blade Runner and then allowed to roam free? Or was that an implanted memory.

If you haven't seen it yet watch the remastered and edited Final Cut (not the Director's Cut) on a huge good quality TV from a Blu Ray.
 
Last edited:
Wibble said:
Simple? You could write a pHD these on any one of 5 or more themes from this film. The fact Scott hung them on a fairly straightforward narrative made it better still.

There is the use and subversion of the Noir and Cyberpunk genres if you are a film student type which tie in to many gender role discussions - femme fatals, "recreation" model female replicants, assassin model female replicants "disguised" as helpless females etc etc

Then there are themes relating to mortality, what constitutes memory, consciousness and reality. Most of all there is the theme of what constitute being human - they even detect replicants by asking them questions that provoke an emotional response yet it is the fact that they respond to ethical dilemmas that humans would ignore/compartmentalise/rationalise that gives them away.

Then there are things like environmental issues, globalisation and racism etc. They use classical literary themes and references from things as diverse as William Blake, the bible and classical Greek literature. Then there are things like genetic engineering (linked to many of the other themes by the repeated use of images of the eye) and religion symbology added to the mix.

You could keep going as there is so much to look at and discuss. You can find new bits every time you view the film. Is Deckard a replicant? If so why was he a Blade Runner and then allowed to roam free? Or was that an implanted memory.

If you haven't seen it yet watch the remastered and edited Final Cut (not the Director's Cut) on a huge good quality TV from a Blu Ray.
Click to expand...
Nailed it.
 
Wibble said:
Simple? You could write a pHD these on any one of 5 or more themes from this film. The fact Scott hung them on a fairly straightforward narrative made it better still.

There is the use and subversion of the Noir and Cyberpunk genres if you are a film student type which tie in to many gender role discussions - femme fatals, "recreation" model female replicants, assassin model female replicants "disguised" as helpless females etc etc

Then there are themes relating to mortality, what constitutes memory, consciousness and reality. Most of all there is the theme of what constitute being human - they even detect replicants by asking them questions that provoke an emotional response yet it is the fact that they respond to ethical dilemmas that humans would ignore/compartmentalise/rationalise that gives them away.

Then there are things like environmental issues, globalisation and racism etc. They use classical literary themes and references from things as diverse as William Blake, the bible and classical Greek literature. Then there are things like genetic engineering (linked to many of the other themes by the repeated use of images of the eye) and religion symbology added to the mix.

You could keep going as there is so much to look at and discuss. You can find new bits every time you view the film. Is Deckard a replicant? If so why was he a Blade Runner and then allowed to roam free? Or was that an implanted memory.

If you haven't seen it yet watch the remastered and edited Final Cut (not the Director's Cut) on a huge good quality TV from a Blu Ray.
Click to expand...
Wow. Fair enough. I guess packaging around an easy to follow narrative makes people think there's less to it than there actually is.
 
Wibble said:
Simple? You could write a pHD these on any one of 5 or more themes from this film. The fact Scott hung them on a fairly straightforward narrative made it better still.

There is the use and subversion of the Noir and Cyberpunk genres if you are a film student type which tie in to many gender role discussions - femme fatals, "recreation" model female replicants, assassin model female replicants "disguised" as helpless females etc etc

Then there are themes relating to mortality, what constitutes memory, consciousness and reality. Most of all there is the theme of what constitute being human - they even detect replicants by asking them questions that provoke an emotional response yet it is the fact that they respond to ethical dilemmas that humans would ignore/compartmentalise/rationalise that gives them away.

Then there are things like environmental issues, globalisation and racism etc. They use classical literary themes and references from things as diverse as William Blake, the bible and classical Greek literature. Then there are things like genetic engineering (linked to many of the other themes by the repeated use of images of the eye) and religion symbology added to the mix.

You could keep going as there is so much to look at and discuss. You can find new bits every time you view the film. Is Deckard a replicant? If so why was he a Blade Runner and then allowed to roam free? Or was that an implanted memory.

If you haven't seen it yet watch the remastered and edited Final Cut (not the Director's Cut) on a huge good quality TV from a Blu Ray.
Click to expand...
Wasn't that just something Scott threw in at the last minute(The Unicorn footage is from another Scott film). The implanted memory idea is really interesting but if its just simply Deckard being a replicant than it makes no sense whatsoever.

Anyway great post.
 
Wibble said:
Is Deckard a replicant? If so why was he a Blade Runner and then allowed to roam free? Or was that an implanted memory.
Click to expand...
I think the film contains the implication that humans have become inferior (in a moral sense) to replicants through arrogance, irresponsibility and decadence. Deckard is the equivalent of Jewish prisoners forced or seduced into actively working against their own kind; a sort of corruption-by-association as employed by Nazis in WWII.

There's so much about Blade Runner that's open to interpretation that we're almost spoiled.
 
Sweet Square said:
Wasn't that just something Scott threw in at the last minute(The Unicorn footage is from another Scott film). The implanted memory idea is really interesting but if its just simply Deckard being a replicant than it makes no sense whatsoever.

Anyway great post.
Click to expand...

The unicorn footage was from Legend I think but the origami unicorn was intended as far as I know (Scott love unicorns) and he just then used the already filmed footage in the Director's/Final Cut to match what he originally intended. I think the is he/isn't he a replicant was meant to be a key feature and due to the original editing was largely absent from the original. That said people were still debating this before the Director's Cut came out and made it more possible/debatable.

As for Deckard being a replicant making no sense, I'm not so sure. I think the whole film was really set around the idea that once you can implant memories nobody really knows what is real or invented. I think the Unicorn origami at the end is the biggest hint that he is a replicant because it implies others have knowledge of his dreams but there are other hints e.g. have you taken the test yourself? That said I think it is far from certain either way. Why he would be a replicant and not know it is open to interpretation but given that Rachael is a replicant who didn't know it at first makes it quite possible. I'd like the new film to address it at least to some degree but without totally fecking it up.
 
SteveJ said:
I think the film contains the implication that humans have become inferior (in a moral sense) to replicants through arrogance, irresponsibility and decadence. Deckard is the equivalent of Jewish prisoners forced or seduced into actively working against their own kind; a sort of corruption-by-association as employed by Nazis in WWII.

There's so much about Blade Runner that's open to interpretation that we're almost spoiled.
Click to expand...

Never thought of it like that but that is quite plausible and there are so many layers to this film that it could well be.
 
Dirty Schwein said:
Wow. Fair enough. I guess packaging around an easy to follow narrative makes people think there's less to it than there actually is.
Click to expand...

I also love Blade Runner like a child. An especially gifted child who will look after me in my old age. So I might be biased ;)

I saw this at the cinema never having even heard of it when it originally came out after whatever I went to see being full and remember being blow away with it. I still think the Tears in Rain monologue is a cinematic masterpiece. They make me blub every time.

I love this film so much I even watched the original last week with the ludicrous Sam Spade voiceover and really enjoyed it - much nostalgia was involved. That said I have just started watching the Final Cut tonight in response to this thread and it is a hugely superior film and despite the age of the effects a beautiful cinematic experience enhanced by the remastering for Blu Ray.
 
Last edited:
Scott is a master craftsman but a famously hacky story teller, who wanted to end Alien by having the Alien bite off Ripley's head and radio a distress call in her voice. He's great with a great script, but a liability when indulged in his own ideas. The fact people are still trying to retroactively philosophise something he whacked in, party from another film, and against the wishes of the screenwriter and star, just 'cos he thought it was cool, is film school overthinking 101.

Regardless of whether you can make it make sense or not, it still essentially makes the film about a robot, falling in with another robot, whilst chasing a gang of robots, which kinda makes it all a bit empty. Though Ford and Young do admittedly have about as much chemistry as robots, so at least that's plausible.

Still a great film, but one frequently imbued with more depth than it deserves IMO. It's world building is infinitely more interesting than it's story. Which is where Scott's talent lies.
 
I absolutely love reading too much into books & films I enjoy. :D But it is perilous, certainly. However, here's a defence I've used before, for Citizen Kane and other films: the hollowness at the heart of Blade Runner is the whole point.
 
I studied media at college and our tutor waned us to look for symbolism in films which for me is often a lot of nonsense. I picked Die Hard and he tried to tell me that when Holly turned the picture of her and John McClane down on her desk it was symbolic of the breaking up of his family. The reality is it was a plot device for Hans Gruber to find out who he was later in the film. He still wasn't convinced. In short people will find anything they want if they look hard enough.
 
SteveJ said:
I absolutely love reading too much into books & films I enjoy. :D But it is perilous, certainly. However, here's a defence I've used before, for Citizen Kane and other films: the hollowness at the heart of Blade Runner is the whole point.
Click to expand...

But there's a difference between the hollowness of the world, or the bleakness of the atmosphere, and a Shamylan-esque twist that retroactively renders everyone robots, and everything kinda pointless. It doesn't add anything to the film. It takes away if anything. We already empathise with replicants through Batty, and would through Rachel if Sean Young could act, we don't need an extra surprise replicant to get that they're people too. Batty's whole famous speech is delivered (and written) as a replicant talking to a human, because that's the moment Deckard learns to truly see them as worthy of life. It's growth. If it's just a scene where two robots talk to each other about some stuff, it doesn't have nearly the same impact. The whole "replicants are just as human as humans" motif only works if a human learns it. It's compromised if everyone's just a robot. For all we know there could be some humans just off screen giggling that "stupid robots, they think they're people"

A film about a human whose spent his life hunting robots but learns to respect and even fall in love with them is infinitely more interesting than a film about a guy who learns to respect robots because he's a robot. In one he learns a lesson, the other a fact. Even if you made Batty a human & Deckard a replicant it'd make more sense, because at least you'd have the human element, and some kind of actual difference to pin the importance of the similarities against. That's why it was written like that by the acclaimed author of the short story, and the acclaimed screenwriter of the film, and only changed by a director whose weakest trait is famously his hacky story ideas. It's really studenty. "Oooh, what if at the end, we learn he's a replicant too!" Stop it Ridders. Stick to the sets.

But because the film is so great in other areas, and so aesthetically groundbreaking, people who love it have spent decades doubling down on the idea it's actually genius, to compensate for the fact it's a glaring fault. It's like people who pretend the Matrix sequels are actually great if you really think about them, because they worry they reflect badly on the original
 
Good points, Mr M, but I still prefer my stoopid mysterioso version! :D Even if it is a load of cobblers and entirely the product of my tendency to see 'depth' in everything I like. For me, then, there's a thread connecting The Hollow Men, The Waste Land, Heart of Darkness, Citizen Kane, 2001 and Blade Runner: the emptiness of the human experience and the futility of our quest for meaning.
 
Mockney said:
Scott is a master craftsman but a famously hacky story teller, who wanted to end Alien by having the Alien bite off Ripley's head and radio a distress call in her voice. He's great with a great script, but a liability when indulged in his own ideas. The fact people are still trying to retroactively philosophise something he whacked in, party from another film, and against the wishes of the screenwriter and star, just 'cos he thought it was cool, is film school overthinking 101.

Regardless of whether you can make it make sense or not, it still essentially makes the film about a robot, falling in with another robot, whilst chasing a gang of robots, which kinda makes it all a bit empty. Though Ford and Young do admittedly have about as much chemistry as robots, so at least that's plausible.

Still a great film, but one frequently imbued with more depth than it deserves IMO. It's world building is infinitely more interesting than it's story. Which is where Scott's talent lies.
Click to expand...
This was my original feeling towards it.
 
Grimsby

What the hell have I just watched, a bad film full bad smutty jokes and OMG the Elephant scene.
I thought Mark Strong was the only good think about it, how did he keep a straight face.
My 13 year old son loved it , he laughed all the way though.
It did have quite a few funny bits in .

4/10
 
I am not a Serial Killer and I watched the film with that name. Frustratingly close to being very good but it didn't quite bring it's disparate elements together to create a coherent whole. I liked the end but it came to late for me. Christopher Lloyd and the main kid were great.

It's the closest a film has got to the feeling I had reading Michel Faber's Under the Skin though - more so than the Glazer film adaptation, which is a different beast.
 
acnumber9 said:
I studied media at college and our tutor waned us to look for symbolism in films which for me is often a lot of nonsense. I picked Die Hard and he tried to tell me that when Holly turned the picture of her and John McClane down on her desk it was symbolic of the breaking up of his family. The reality is it was a plot device for Hans Gruber to find out who he was later in the film. He still wasn't convinced. In short people will find anything they want if they look hard enough.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you were doing the right course. Surely it was both?
 
pauldyson1uk said:
Grimsby

What the hell have I just watched, a bad film full bad smutty jokes and OMG the Elephant scene.
I thought Mark Strong was the only good think about it, how did he keep a straight face.
My 13 year old son loved it , he laughed all the way though.
It did have quite a few funny bits in .

4/10
Click to expand...

3 too many surely? Not that there wasn't the occasional gross out laugh but it really was a terrible film.
 
Mockney said:
Scott is a master craftsman but a famously hacky story teller, who wanted to end Alien by having the Alien bite off Ripley's head and radio a distress call in her voice.
Click to expand...

Not her voice but the point remains. The main down side of that end is that we wouldn't have got Aliens. The up side is we wouldn't have got the rubbish that followed. I also don't think it is that terrible an end TBH, well maybe the Alien speaking in a human voice could have been very silly if not done very well. At least we wouldn't have had the hollywood happy ending with a miraculous escape at the end of each film.
 
Wibble said:
I'm not sure you were doing the right course. Surely it was both?
Click to expand...
No it was definitely the course I signed up for. There were even a few pretentious twats scattered around who look for meaning in any old shite. I'm pretty sure it was just a plot device. It wouldn't have been in the film where it not needed for the finale.
 
Dead Awake

A young woman must save herself and her friends from an ancient evil that stalks its victims through the real-life phenomenon of sleep paralysis.
It was not dreadful, well not has dreadful as I expected , there is a good film in the story, but this is not it.
The acting was poor to mediocre at best.
Very Blah movie. Would not recommend it to anyone looking for a good horror film or a good scare. Not going to get any with this one, well I did jump once, the first time I saw the "entity" appear.
The ending was very predictable.

3.5/10
 
pauldyson1uk said:
Grimsby

What the hell have I just watched, a bad film full bad smutty jokes and OMG the Elephant scene.
I thought Mark Strong was the only good think about it, how did he keep a straight face.
My 13 year old son loved it , he laughed all the way though.
It did have quite a few funny bits in .

4/10
Click to expand...
pauldyson1uk said:
Awaken the Shadowman.

After the mysterious disappearance of their mother, estranged brothers reunite and discover an unknown supernatural force.
Dreadful film , bad acting, no real, story dont bother.

2/10
Click to expand...
pauldyson1uk said:
Dead Awake

A young woman must save herself and her friends from an ancient evil that stalks its victims through the real-life phenomenon of sleep paralysis.
It was not dreadful, well not has dreadful as I expected , there is a good film in the story, but this is not it.
The acting was poor to mediocre at best.
Very Blah movie. Would not recommend it to anyone looking for a good horror film or a good scare. Not going to get any with this one, well I did jump once, the first time I saw the "entity" appear.
The ending was very predictable.

3.5/10
Click to expand...
You're on a bit of a shitty run here.
 
Dunkirk
So there's a lot of hype surrounding this film... From a technical viewpoint and taking in filmmaking techniques, this was great. Some gorgeous cinematography, mind blowing sound design, one of the best scores I've heard in a long while and as an experience, it really immerses you. The atmosphere is fantastic. Only technical thing I didn't like was the editing, it felt quite bizarre when I was watching it, and not in a good way. However, I need my films to have at least a minimal level of characterization and story arcs so I can connect to the characters. It had zero of this. I get why people love it but personally, to me, it felt like it was missing a lot, mainly due to lack of ingredients that you expect to find in a film. But I'm glad there's a director out there who is trying different things... 7/10

The Meddler
Susan Sarandon is a widow who moves in with her daughter (Rose Byrne) and can't help but get too involved in the lives of everyone around her. I thought this was a hidden gem of a film. Both actresses and J.K. Simmons were great and it is one of those film you can take your mother to see and you will both have a great time 7/10

Predators
Saw this again and felt exactly the same as the first time. Took a while to get used to Adrian Brody but he's ok in it. Needed more predators. The steup was amazing, got you right into the film from the get go but completely loses it's way by the final act 5.5/10

Boss Baby
People been hating on this but I found it funny. The thing that bugged me was that the rules weren't established. E.g. In Toy Story, it's set from the start that toys have to be still when humans are around yet in this, adults are carrying around this baby who's wearing a fecking suit and it's normal? Crazy. But I laughed a few times and had a fun time 6/10

Nerve
A high school student participates in an online game of truth or dare (without the truth option) and things get amped up after each successful task, putting the lives of the players at risk. Very similar to 13 sins but less violent and more for the social age of today. I thought it was quite good, intense and something I can actually see happen in real life. Only issue was that the girl could have just stopped playing the game at any point as her reasons didn't warrant her to do the crazy things that were asked of her. This one detail really spoiled the film 6.5/10
 
Dirty Schwein said:
Nerve
A high school student participates in an online game of truth or dare (without the truth option) and things get amped up after each successful task, putting the lives of the players at risk. Very similar to 13 sins but less violent and more for the social age of today. I thought it was quite good, intense and something I can actually see happen in real life. Only issue was that the girl could have just stopped playing the game at any point as her reasons didn't warrant her to do the crazy things that were asked of her. This one detail really spoiled the film 6.5/10
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Whale_(game)
 
3688.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.