Argo - The best bit about the movie was the casting. Jingoistic, a little too contrived and just about decent otherwise.
Film The Redcafe Movie review thread
- Thread starter golden_blunder
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) was joined by comedian Ali Woods to look back at the best and worst moments of a rollercoaster season with the annual United Hour Awards.
Has Ten Hag been sacked yet? We're not sure and we hope not, but it's looking more likely as the days pass.
Who should replace him and why is it taking so long to make a decision?
Cancel all your weekend plans. The entire criterion collection is available in Hulu for the next 3 days. Unfortunately I have also lots of work to do. But I'll sure be watching a couple.
http://www.hulu.com/movies/criterion
http://www.hulu.com/movies/criterion
Going to rewatch La Haine right now, thanks for the tip mehro.
Oh God...Danny Dyer has a new film out.
Clip from Run for your Wife:
The reviews aren't exactly five-star:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2013/feb/14/run-for-your-wife-review
Anyway, I hadn't seen this DD parody before now; made me laugh:
Clip from Run for your Wife:
The reviews aren't exactly five-star:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2013/feb/14/run-for-your-wife-review
Anyway, I hadn't seen this DD parody before now; made me laugh:
Martyrs
WOW that was a hard film to watch, the level of gore and brutally is something else.
The parts where the big guy is kicking the crap out of the women, are really hard to watch.
I agree with Rooney in Paris that the gore and brutality has a place in the film, it is an integral part of the plot and not just gore for the sake of it.
I did not enjoy the film, I dont think you can enjoy a film like this, you just watch it like I did in disbelief.
It is not a film I could or even want to watch again, but it is worth a watch, if you are a horror fan and like gore.
6.5/10
WOW that was a hard film to watch, the level of gore and brutally is something else.
The parts where the big guy is kicking the crap out of the women, are really hard to watch.
I agree with Rooney in Paris that the gore and brutality has a place in the film, it is an integral part of the plot and not just gore for the sake of it.
I did not enjoy the film, I dont think you can enjoy a film like this, you just watch it like I did in disbelief.
It is not a film I could or even want to watch again, but it is worth a watch, if you are a horror fan and like gore.
6.5/10
Take Shelter - A excellent drama-thriller, building an increasingly ominous atmosphere throughout, almost horror like. A terrific performance from Michael Shannon (should have got a best lead actor nomination for this) as a man who starts experiencing haunting visions and hallucinations that could signal the onset of schizophrenia which runs in his family, or of an oncoming apocolypse. His wife played by Jessica Chastain is superb as well.
9/10 - Thoroughly recommended.
9/10 - Thoroughly recommended.
I recently watched Mr Brooks a film starring Kevin Costner and Demi Moore.It's about a serial killer who has a successful life as a father and businesman.Costner's performance in that movie really impressed me, didn't really like Demi (as an actress in general) as a homicide detective.
8/10 for me
8/10 for me
Atlas Shrugged: Part I
The only reason I watched this was because it was billed has a Sci-fi film, I dont think it was but still I enjoyed it.
It is about a women trying to keep he business afloat during a recession, she finds tha plans of an invention that could change the world and has to find the inventor, there is a back story about people going missing, that is not really touched on and the question " Who is John Galt" is asked quite a few times.
The acting is a bit ropey at times but the story is solid and keeps you watching.
6/10
The only reason I watched this was because it was billed has a Sci-fi film, I dont think it was but still I enjoyed it.
It is about a women trying to keep he business afloat during a recession, she finds tha plans of an invention that could change the world and has to find the inventor, there is a back story about people going missing, that is not really touched on and the question " Who is John Galt" is asked quite a few times.
The acting is a bit ropey at times but the story is solid and keeps you watching.
6/10
.Danny Dyer robbing from the Simpsons? New low.
At 3am on a very quite night shift it was OK, OK I will admit that it was not great and maybe 6 was to high, I am going to watch part 2 later, but not holding out much hope, I just want to see how the story progresses.
Surely this is impossible. Was it not a minus 6? Or even -600/10
Is 6/10 now the maximum combined score for parts 1 and 2?
Source Code: 8/10.
A good sci-fi film. A few plot holes but I really enjoyed it, and Jake Gyllenhall (or however you spell his name) was very good in the lead role.
A good sci-fi film. A few plot holes but I really enjoyed it, and Jake Gyllenhall (or however you spell his name) was very good in the lead role.
could well be.Didn't even know there was an adaptation of Atlas Shrugged.
Who was it directed by? Anyone famous in it?
Who was it directed by? Anyone famous in it?
Director: Paul Johansson
and only person in it I have seen before is Matthew Marsden from Coronation Street and Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.
His part in the second film was taken by Patrick Fabian.
Sounds great.
Watched Hiroshima, Mon Amour today. No idea what to say about it other than I was pretty much in awe from the word go. Can't find the words to describe it. What a magnificent opening sequence.
Life of Pi
Great film, the acting was very good. The story was amazing in the sense that you knew what was going to happen but still didn't believe it could happen. The connection at the end was really great, it made the movie.
7/10
The Dark Knight Rises
Again a great film, but the story had some missing parts.
But overall, a great film, I especially liked the ending.
8/10
Great film, the acting was very good. The story was amazing in the sense that you knew what was going to happen but still didn't believe it could happen. The connection at the end was really great, it made the movie.
7/10
The Dark Knight Rises
Again a great film, but the story had some missing parts.
Like when Gordon and his men (and talia) are sentenced to death by exile. They are sentenced mid-day but when they are out, it's night. What happened between mid-day and night and why was there a delay. Also, the beginning plane scene looked really rushed.
But overall, a great film, I especially liked the ending.
I really liked the twist with Talia in the end, but her death was really rushed, so was Bane's death. I thought his death should have been much more spectacular and received more time.
8/10
Where did you see that? I'm intrigued, is it on Netflix?
Just downloaded it, you'll see it in any of the usual places. Should mention it's from the late 50s in case that puts you off! It still looks fresh in every way except the strange kissing scenes though. If you're at all interested I'd recommend watching Nuit et Brouillard too, it's something else.
Getting them now, about time I broadened my horizons.
I saw it again recently and was pretty gobsmacked by the opening minutes, like the drive through the city, was too young when I saw it the first time so it felt like a new experience. Sensational film.
Good man Goose. Hiroshima, Mon Amour won't be for everyone but if you like it you'll be blown away like Nils said. Night and Fog is just a startling piece of work.
Blood Simple (1984) - 7
Good little film this. Not as polished as the majority of other Coens bros. films but had the same nuanced characters and quirky humour mixed in with some tense drama and classic horror in a neat neo-noir package. Really liked it.
Blood Simple (1984) - 7
Good little film this. Not as polished as the majority of other Coens bros. films but had the same nuanced characters and quirky humour mixed in with some tense drama and classic horror in a neat neo-noir package. Really liked it.
I reckon Blood Simple and Miller's Crossing are the most underrated films in their filmography.
Atlas Shrugged 2
Well it progressed the story along.
Most of the acting was dreadful and the story was dreadful in parts, but it was just watch able, only because I had seen part 1.
I know the books are a trilogy so I will have to wait for the next film or just buy the book..
3.5/10
Well it progressed the story along.
Most of the acting was dreadful and the story was dreadful in parts, but it was just watch able, only because I had seen part 1.
I know the books are a trilogy so I will have to wait for the next film or just buy the book..
3.5/10
Don't buy the book. Easily the worst book ever written and insanely long to boot.
OK , film it is then, that's if it gets made.
If it does I will watch it, just to see what happens.
"Worst book ever written"
It's not pauldy, some people hate it for its ideas, which is understandable, but it's by no means the worst book ever written.
It's not pauldy, some people hate it for its ideas, which is understandable, but it's by no means the worst book ever written.
A Good Day To Die Hard - Awful. Just awful. The worst film I've seen at the cinema since... well, since Taken 2, but that was also a horrible, horrible movie.
This film makes Die Hard 4.0 seem like a masterpiece.
John McClane should be a street smart, everyman, stuck in horrible / dangerous/ high-stakes sitatuions with an immediate threat to him/others/civilisation/the internet(?), and he does what he can to set things right. In this film he's a bumbling idiot, who has no clue what is going on, or what he's doing at any given point. He's there to shoot things. And thats it.
He also clearly has no regard for Russian people's property, or indeed life... watch as he "heroically" drives his 4x4 (well, it looks like a 4x4, but it has the properties of a tank) off a bridge by driving/rolling over/crushing other cars on the way down... and he doesn't even know the reason why. Some people are chasing his son (who 5 minutes earlier pointed a gun at his head - the sign of a good guy in films of course), he doesn't know whether he's a good guy or a bad guy, but feck, I'll chase after him and kill everyone in my way. The man is such an idiot in this film that, in a scene where something fishy is going on, John identifies that something isn't right, but does feck all about it, and so ends up getting captured (not for long of course).
He's also now totally invincible, because the older you get, the more resistant you are to long falls and bullets. This film doesn't even have the courtesy at one point to make sure he falls from a great height into water in order to survive (though it does remedy this at the end), Nope, he just falls off a Sky Scraper, hits a million things on the way down and comes up with a bust lip. His younger, fitter, spy trained son is of course injured, but not our wise-cracking John McClane. Actually, I take wise-cracking back... because that would imply humour, but in actuality, nothing John McClane says in this film is funny... or smart, or witty, in fact, I'm pretty sure it shouldn't class as dialogue. He just moans about being on vacation (joke - he isn't) and his father/son relationship (joke - he was a terrible father)...
Anyway, enough about the hero, onto the actually movie itself, which is a bit of an abortion. The action scenes are long and dull and totally uninteresting. Nothing new is brought to the table, nothing exciting happens, nothing feels real (thanks to a complete over use of CGI) it's all just long and dull. The plot is a bag of shit... and so pointlessly convoluted that you just won't be arsed to pay it any attention at all. The thing about all the other Die Hard movies (even 4.0) was that a) it had a prevelant bad guy and b) he was unleashing an imminent and dangerous threat. This film has neither of those things. It has about 3 villains, none of whom are interesting or good, and whose threat is somewhat future based then anything actually going on in there here and now (spoiler: it revolves around Nukes, option 3 in the go to villain plots that also consist of money, weapons and/or tyranny). If there are any stakes in this movie, you certainly never feel them.
Finally, at one point in this film, John McClane and Son set off from Moscow at night and seemingly arrive in Chernobyl in the same night. That's Moscow (Russia) to Chernobyl (Ukraine) in one night... as if it's a quick jaunt downt he road. This is an idiotic movie, made by idiots, for idiots. Avoid.
This film makes Die Hard 4.0 seem like a masterpiece.
John McClane should be a street smart, everyman, stuck in horrible / dangerous/ high-stakes sitatuions with an immediate threat to him/others/civilisation/the internet(?), and he does what he can to set things right. In this film he's a bumbling idiot, who has no clue what is going on, or what he's doing at any given point. He's there to shoot things. And thats it.
He also clearly has no regard for Russian people's property, or indeed life... watch as he "heroically" drives his 4x4 (well, it looks like a 4x4, but it has the properties of a tank) off a bridge by driving/rolling over/crushing other cars on the way down... and he doesn't even know the reason why. Some people are chasing his son (who 5 minutes earlier pointed a gun at his head - the sign of a good guy in films of course), he doesn't know whether he's a good guy or a bad guy, but feck, I'll chase after him and kill everyone in my way. The man is such an idiot in this film that, in a scene where something fishy is going on, John identifies that something isn't right, but does feck all about it, and so ends up getting captured (not for long of course).
He's also now totally invincible, because the older you get, the more resistant you are to long falls and bullets. This film doesn't even have the courtesy at one point to make sure he falls from a great height into water in order to survive (though it does remedy this at the end), Nope, he just falls off a Sky Scraper, hits a million things on the way down and comes up with a bust lip. His younger, fitter, spy trained son is of course injured, but not our wise-cracking John McClane. Actually, I take wise-cracking back... because that would imply humour, but in actuality, nothing John McClane says in this film is funny... or smart, or witty, in fact, I'm pretty sure it shouldn't class as dialogue. He just moans about being on vacation (joke - he isn't) and his father/son relationship (joke - he was a terrible father)...
Anyway, enough about the hero, onto the actually movie itself, which is a bit of an abortion. The action scenes are long and dull and totally uninteresting. Nothing new is brought to the table, nothing exciting happens, nothing feels real (thanks to a complete over use of CGI) it's all just long and dull. The plot is a bag of shit... and so pointlessly convoluted that you just won't be arsed to pay it any attention at all. The thing about all the other Die Hard movies (even 4.0) was that a) it had a prevelant bad guy and b) he was unleashing an imminent and dangerous threat. This film has neither of those things. It has about 3 villains, none of whom are interesting or good, and whose threat is somewhat future based then anything actually going on in there here and now (spoiler: it revolves around Nukes, option 3 in the go to villain plots that also consist of money, weapons and/or tyranny). If there are any stakes in this movie, you certainly never feel them.
Finally, at one point in this film, John McClane and Son set off from Moscow at night and seemingly arrive in Chernobyl in the same night. That's Moscow (Russia) to Chernobyl (Ukraine) in one night... as if it's a quick jaunt downt he road. This is an idiotic movie, made by idiots, for idiots. Avoid.
Moscow and Chernobyl aren't all that far away from each other, are they?
Only about a 12 hour drive...
I reckon Top Gear could do it.
Django Unchained - Quentin Tarantino (2012)
Quenty shows off plenty of his usual cinematic genius in quirks with curious dialogues, situations and assorted other underhanded creative takes, but also as usual, it turns into an inane unbelievable story getting all genre geeky with the heroic overly gory shootouts where the hero survives a million to one chance while taking out a plenty 'o bad guys - and in the process makes him out as kind of a dickhead in the midst of the very real gun violence plaguing the US.
Thought he did a good job of illustrating the absolute abomination of slavery and good slap in the gob of the sizeable conservative American population who would agree with Right Wing hero Ted Nugent in that maybe it would've been better had the south won the civil war
7 cocks up
Quenty shows off plenty of his usual cinematic genius in quirks with curious dialogues, situations and assorted other underhanded creative takes, but also as usual, it turns into an inane unbelievable story getting all genre geeky with the heroic overly gory shootouts where the hero survives a million to one chance while taking out a plenty 'o bad guys - and in the process makes him out as kind of a dickhead in the midst of the very real gun violence plaguing the US.
Thought he did a good job of illustrating the absolute abomination of slavery and good slap in the gob of the sizeable conservative American population who would agree with Right Wing hero Ted Nugent in that maybe it would've been better had the south won the civil war
7 cocks up
On one tank of fuel.
My mate wants to go and see Die Hard 5 tomorrow. Everything, literally everything, I've read about it makes me not want to see it, but it's probably going to happen.
I'd agree with this, wasn't expecting much but pleasantly surprised. Didnt expect it to be as much about addiction as it was either. Probably Washington's best performance I've seen aswell.
What book is worse? Fifty pages monologues, obvious caricatures with no grey areas, thinly veiled propaganda, deus ex machinas, and the worst sex scenes ever."Worst book ever written"
It's not pauldy, some people hate it for its ideas, which is understandable, but it's by no means the worst book ever written.
I don't know what this new Die Hard film you all talk of is......pretty baldist to consider any film with Bruce Willis in a Die Hard film imo. He's playing James McClair in this new "A Good Day" film of him.
What book is worse? Are you serious? Are you saying there's not thousands of books that are dreadful, badly written, with no ideas whatsoever in them? Come on, I know it's hated by quite a few people, but "worst book ever written" is just plain stupid.