Godzilla?
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 three 1-1 draws.
The first got us knocked out of the FA Cup, the next puts us in a good position in our Round of 16 Europa League game, and the latest was an actual decent performance against Arsenal at Old Trafford.
All hopes for the season now rest on the Europa League - does Amorim have the squad to win it?
Which one's the big grasshopper?
Sin City: A Dame to Kill For - Saw it yesterday in cinema, and while I liked it, still it wasn't near the quality of the first one. The art on the movie was excellent, Jessica Alba and Eva Green were nice but otherwise the movie wasn't that great. I thought that the plot was relatively poor.
I have watched the original movie only once (more than 5 years ago) so I don't remember the details but:
Good, but not great 7/10
I have watched the original movie only once (more than 5 years ago) so I don't remember the details but:
Why Mickey Rourke was alive? Does that mean that his story ark on the first movie happened later than this one? Which means that the cardinal (senator's brother) and his cannibal were alive on this movie?
Was Dwight the same character as the one played by Clive Owen on the first one. Why on Earth they changed the actor (Owen is one of my favorite actors).
Was Dwight the same character as the one played by Clive Owen on the first one. Why on Earth they changed the actor (Owen is one of my favorite actors).
Good, but not great 7/10
You've liked this, so I highly recommend The Thirteenth Floor. A similar topic, which is king od strange considering that these two movies and The Matrix were released on a short period of time.
Cina's mum.
Camile Claudel 1915 (2014): Biopic based on the part of the French sculptress’ life spent in an asylum. This is a sober and thought provoking watch that does a very good job of telling an affecting story without attaching total blame to any one side involved in the forced incarceration of the artist. Has a brilliant, captivating and occasionally painful to watch (for the right reasons) performance at its heart from Juliet Binoche, however the sobriety of the film’s style makes it occasionally slightly more difficult to engage with as a whole at times when Binoche herself is not raging against the perceived injustices of her circumstances or noticeably struggling with the disordered and stifling nature of her surroundings. An interesting watch even at times where events appear to have stalled a little in terms of interest, this is a film that works mostly because of the captivating performance at its heart from Binoche, however the sober style of film making on display here and the subsequent sedate pace that most events (which are quite sparse anyway) move at might not be for everyone. A worthwhile watch if not an essential one.
7/10
7/10
The Canal
A horror film about a man who is suspected of murdering his cheating wife but he believes it to be a murderer who owned his house in the 1920's. He therefore descends into darkness trying to prove this whilst also looking after his young son, who is being threatened by the murdering demon.
This was a decent film but could have been a bit better. It's not your typical horror film and for that alone it is worth watching. The visuals and imagery in general is really good and the sound design is absolutely superb as is the score. There are many unpredictable elements and makes you really feel tense.
On the other hand, the acting (except the lead protagonist) is dreadful, which is probably because the dialogue is totally atrocious. The story sets up well but slowly loses wind during the last third and falls slightly into genre cliche territory with an ending that doesn't have the 'bang' to make use of the slower pacing of the first two thirds of the film.
So I'm not too sure how I felt about this film. It was really good in some ways and a big let down in others. At least it tried to be different and will probably become a cult hit in the future. Would recommend to horror fans 6.5/10
@pauldyson1uk Have a watch if you can. Would like to get your opinion on this one
A horror film about a man who is suspected of murdering his cheating wife but he believes it to be a murderer who owned his house in the 1920's. He therefore descends into darkness trying to prove this whilst also looking after his young son, who is being threatened by the murdering demon.
This was a decent film but could have been a bit better. It's not your typical horror film and for that alone it is worth watching. The visuals and imagery in general is really good and the sound design is absolutely superb as is the score. There are many unpredictable elements and makes you really feel tense.
On the other hand, the acting (except the lead protagonist) is dreadful, which is probably because the dialogue is totally atrocious. The story sets up well but slowly loses wind during the last third and falls slightly into genre cliche territory with an ending that doesn't have the 'bang' to make use of the slower pacing of the first two thirds of the film.
So I'm not too sure how I felt about this film. It was really good in some ways and a big let down in others. At least it tried to be different and will probably become a cult hit in the future. Would recommend to horror fans 6.5/10
@pauldyson1uk Have a watch if you can. Would like to get your opinion on this one
Not yet, I have it sat on my HDD , I have d/l quite a few horrors the past few days, will be having a horror fest on my next set of nights.
Not movie review but thought it was worth posting.
But my main question is 'Do underrate film scores ?'
Just to get a taste about how shite this idea is.
Instead of this
Your going to get this
Now I know this is just a a big gimmick to try to get more viewer for BBC3 and I image they've been a near perfect soundtrack to piss people off and get them talking(Which going by this post has clearly worked
). Also by the sounds of things this isn't going to be a one off either(Let's hope the do the Alien soundtrack as what was clearly miss from the movie was some poorly produced instrumental Hip Hop).
The idea that you can throw in a few of your favourite songs and think that somehow will work(Which is the idea here). Is vastly underrating the difficulty of producing a film score and also the importance it brings to the movie(The score is highlight of the Drive). It big reason why I can never get really stuck into Tarantino's movies as it really feels like someone just picking their records to show off to everyone with no real regard towards the movie.
Also fecking with the films score while might be interesting to a certain degree so is watch the movie backwards. The fact is why watch a different movie to the one the director intend to make. Or maybe more importantly why put it on the telly?
Anyway back to the question 'Do underrate film scores ?'
I loved the original score and soundtrack and clearly this new one is going to be awful.
But my main question is 'Do underrate film scores ?'
Just to get a taste about how shite this idea is.
Instead of this
Your going to get this
Now I know this is just a a big gimmick to try to get more viewer for BBC3 and I image they've been a near perfect soundtrack to piss people off and get them talking(Which going by this post has clearly worked
). Also by the sounds of things this isn't going to be a one off either(Let's hope the do the Alien soundtrack as what was clearly miss from the movie was some poorly produced instrumental Hip Hop).The idea that you can throw in a few of your favourite songs and think that somehow will work(Which is the idea here). Is vastly underrating the difficulty of producing a film score and also the importance it brings to the movie(The score is highlight of the Drive). It big reason why I can never get really stuck into Tarantino's movies as it really feels like someone just picking their records to show off to everyone with no real regard towards the movie.
Also fecking with the films score while might be interesting to a certain degree so is watch the movie backwards. The fact is why watch a different movie to the one the director intend to make. Or maybe more importantly why put it on the telly?
Anyway back to the question 'Do underrate film scores ?'
Last edited:
Film scores that consist mostly of Kavinsky's fairly straight forward house/ electro-pop are not underrated. It suits the film but I don't think the new score will be a complete disaster because it'll be roughly the same if it's the likes of SBTRKT. It's extraordinarily pointless though.
If you replaced Jonny Greenwood's There Will Be Blood Score with Tom Jones songs, well that might jar a bit.
If you replaced Jonny Greenwood's There Will Be Blood Score with Tom Jones songs, well that might jar a bit.
Bolded bit, basically.
As for the last sentence... I'd be curious to see that. Do it Archie!
Think your being a bit harsh there's at best 2 of those electro pop songs in the entire film. The Cliff Martinez score of the movie(Which is 90 % of the movie) is excellent(Although it's just personal taste).
My main point wasn't that the Drive score is underrated but do do people underrate the role that score/soundtracks play in movies.
Not if it's Drive's, no.
You're right, they do. In fact every aspect of a film that isn't acting or directing is grossly underrated. Writing, editing, sound design etc are so so crucial. I often hear people whinge when someone compliments cinematography, because apparently it's wanky to appreciate the visual aspect of a highly visual medium.
A lot of people just assume the Director does the cinematography.
Speaking of that, I've always wondered how involved in the editing process the director is. Surely he/she would be heavily involved, as the editing is going to affect the narrative of a film quite dramatically, no?
Depends on the director, and how much trust the studio has in them. Generally speaking, the higher regarded they are the more they get to control.
Yeah, some Directors write, produce and edit their films (Coens for example) whereas some just shout at the actors a lot.
As you say though @Rooney in Dublin editing is a similarly crucial part of a film, that most layman just assume is also the director's job. Sometimes it's not. That's why you get Director's Cuts.
Directors get almost all the credit for films (which is a double edged sword tbf), and almost none for TV. Whereas writers have it the other way around. I've never quite understood why that is.
As you say though @Rooney in Dublin editing is a similarly crucial part of a film, that most layman just assume is also the director's job. Sometimes it's not. That's why you get Director's Cuts.
Directors get almost all the credit for films (which is a double edged sword tbf), and almost none for TV. Whereas writers have it the other way around. I've never quite understood why that is.
You do get outliers like Charlie Kaufman, though they're obviously in the minority. I reckon it's because of the French and their little auteur theory. Louis Malle (or a director with a similar name) compared the directors job with conducting an orchestra, which I quite like.
Taking a dig at the French ffs!
Thanks for the answers guys.
Thanks for the answers guys.
You don't even like French films, weirdo.
They're shit.
You wouldn't rate him if his name was Stéphane Soderberghé.
You know there's a French version of Jeremy Renner? Jérémy Rénier!
True story.
True story.
Michel Gondry's french.
A lot of directors 'oversee' the edit process but they tend to have a trusted editor to actually assembly and eventually fine tune the edit. If it were upto directors solely, most films would be twice as long as they probably want to use pretty much every scene they film but an editor can tell them what moves the story forward from a different perspective.
Like @Rooney in Dublin.
Belgium is France, so I do not understand your point cokehead.
Mockers makes a good point, I quite like Gondry. Except when he goes too Gondry. Moderate Gondry is cool.
What's moderate Gondry? Spotless Mind?...or Be Kind Rewind?
Wonderful film, just wonderful.
For me, Spotless Mind hits all the right notes. Be Kind Rewind is just Gondry indulging himself in his Gondry world. Highly subjective of course, but I think the balance between "accessible to most people" and "real personal universe and identity" is absolutely perfect in Spotless Mind.
I agree that Spotless Mind is brilliant.
Incidentally Charlie Kaufman's filmography is one of my favorite things on the internet. Specifically it's last full entry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Kaufman#Filmography
Incidentally Charlie Kaufman's filmography is one of my favorite things on the internet. Specifically it's last full entry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Kaufman#Filmography
That's great.Rounds it off nicely I think.
I think it's generally accepted that Be Kind Rewind was shit.
A load of Gonadry (shit hipster + TV ad/pop video aesthetics).
Very coherent.
Annabelle - it's actually a half decent horror movie even if it's some way behind The Conjuring which it was supposed to be similar to. Has a few jumps, the plot is quite basic but it's a decent watch without being groundbreaking in any aspect. 5/10
Gone Girl - having read the book only a couple of weeks prior to seeing it in a theatre I had high hopes and Fincher delivered. Very well made with dense atmosphere, would have probably made an even bigger impression on me had I not read the book and known the ending. 8.5/10.
Gone Girl - having read the book only a couple of weeks prior to seeing it in a theatre I had high hopes and Fincher delivered. Very well made with dense atmosphere, would have probably made an even bigger impression on me had I not read the book and known the ending. 8.5/10.