Film The Redcafe Movie review thread

Films of a sexual nature sometimes get a low score, like Stoker, Crash...and mainstream arthouse films, like The Tree of Life, The New World

The Room has a 3.4, disgrace!
 
Annihilate Now! - lets make the cut off 6.5 shall we? Apart from Southland Tales (which is awful, though fair enough it doesn't mean you can't enjoy it of course) the others you said were pretty close to a 7.

I'm not saying that you can't enjoy films that are poorly rated or appreciate them for different reasons than perhaps the mainstream - especially comedies. But, in general, the majority of films below 7 are pretty poor. Make the cut-off 6 and you could confidently say that practically all are.

I was just asking the question - don't you check ratings, or you do but you don't care and want to make your own mind up? Personally, it's just one of a number of things I consider - I would be lying if I said that I hadn't been 'put off' watching a film because of how it was received by others, especially when there's so many films out there I'm yet to see. If it's something I have interest in anyway (from trailers, or the story, or the actors/director) then I can be more forgiving of the rating.
 
Anyone seen Judgement Night?

6.6 on imdb, cheesy as feck but highly entertaining, imo!

Tonnes of worthwhile sub 7 films on there. A few years ago I'd rarely watch something poorly rated on IMDB, but lately I take much less notice. I probably draw the line at 6 instead of 7, unless there's a specific reason I wanted to watch it.
 
I use Metacritic as a guide, it's method is better than Rotten Tomatoes. feck IMDB user ratings, Shawshank is number one.

Edit: the only genre I'll take user reviews over critic is horror, because generally speaking critics are unable to wrap their heads around horror.
 
How many really take notice of the ratings on any of the sites, I never do.
Yes I watch some rubbish, I accept that, but somebody's rubbish is another's good film
Take Shawshank, I love it would be in my top 5 , but others think it is utter rubbish.
 
There are plenty of films I can respect but don't necessarily like. It's all a matter of opinion at the end of the day. Art is subjective.
 
pauldyson1uk said:
How many really take notice of the ratings on any of the sites, I never do.
Yes I watch some rubbish, I accept that, but somebody's rubbish is another's good film
Take Shawshank, I love it would be in my top 5 , but others think it is utter rubbish.
Click to expand...

I probably do a little, especially IMDB, but you are right it's not necessarily a good thing to do and you often just have to make your own mind up.
I suppose it's the same for reviews on many things.
 
I think the only time you can trust IMDB is when something gets below 4. That means its probably shit on production as a good production tends to most of the time get a film to the 5s and above. But sometimes these films are so shit that they're amazing
 
Primer - Shane Carruth (2004)

Decent enough attempt at making an indie-ish sci fi film on a shoestring budget and some creative film making, but all in all it devolves into a gobbledygook of tech babble and incomprehensible "goings on" weighted down by too much dialogue.

5 cocks up
 
R.N7 said:
Film critic Armond White has been in the news lately for heckling Steve McQueen at an award ceremony. He branded 12 Years Slave as torture porn designed for white people to feel good about their own guilt. He's got some strange contrarian views but he's an interesting read and I often read his reviews for a different perspective on a film.

Some quotes:

Toy Story 3
"Toy Story 3 is so besotted with brand names and product-placement that it stops being about the innocent pleasures of imagination -- the usefulness of toys -- and strictly celebrates consumerism."

Inception
“Christopher Nolan doesn’t have a born filmmaker’s natural gift for detail, composition and movement, but on the evidence of his fussily constructed mind-game movies—Following, Memento, Insomnia and the new Inception—he’s definitely a born con artist. Who else could rook Warner Bros. out of $200 million to make Hollywood’s most elaborate video-game movie and slap on a puzzling, unappealing title?”

Synecdoche New York
"Pity those nerds and fashion-sheep who'll waste time trying to connect Kaufman’s symbols, cite the many David Lynch references and puzzle for ways to use 'synecdoche' in daily conversation."

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
“Why waste spleen on Michael Bay? He’s a real visionary—perhaps mindless in some ways (he’s never bothered filming a good script), but Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is more proof he has a great eye for scale and a gift for visceral amazement. Bay’s ability to shoot spectacle makes the Ridley-Tony-Jake Scott family look like cavemen.

There Will Be Blood
"'No!' is the first word spoken in There Will Be Blood, and it should be the last said in response to Paul Thomas Anderson's latest pretend epic."

(500) Days of Summer
"It is so annoyingly cute about the smartness of middle-class young white people in love that one quickly realizes it is only about that - not love nor passion as everyone experiences it."

Grown Ups
"Sandler’s reckless comedy pokes fun at his clique’s immaturity. He doesn’t pretend to create character studies; rather, he satirizes their common silliness as they revisit adolescent pranks and attitudes. One ploy of Sandler and Fred Wolf’s screenplay is to democratize humor—spread affectionate derision all around—by repeating jokes that grow into an appreciation of our full humanity."

Avatar
"The corniest movie ever made about the white man's need to lose his identity and assuage racial, political, sexual and historical guilt."

Little Man
"Does the Wayans family realize that the concept behind Little Man, their latest collective project, makes it a near-classic comedy? Director Keenen Ivory Wayans and his performing brothers Marlon and Shawn are notorious for childish impudence and sarcasm in such hits as Scary Movie and White Chicks. But in Little Man, dealing with their habitual irrepressible immaturity unleashes something poignant. It makes this silly, lightweight film almost deep."
Click to expand...

That's abit weird. I don't see any torture porn materials there. The torture were distasteful and not the sort of torture porn genre, plus without any disrespect Patsy is far from attractive, they're not making it like she's voluptuous and tortured for the sake of having some porn, she clearly describes a suffering female slave to me.

And I don't know much about history of slavery, but I suspect rapes and sex harrasment is normal around that era, since they're virtually treated as live stocks.

If any, IMO some of the treatment Solomon received are quite fair by that era's standard.
 
Rigor Mortis (by Juno Mak, a HK Film)

Watched this in DVD, at first I thought it was a crappy HK B movies, but my oh my, it was a powerful gem. Themed around an aging movie star filled with regrets coming to an eerie apartment complex to hang himself, only to be saved by a taoist monk and the twist starts from there. Juno's making a good movie, picking up the hopping Zombie era in the 80s and turning in a very very classy film that befits the modern Era.

The fights, the spiritual depiction, the atmosphere and the acting by the "has been" collections of HK old movie star is top notch.

I really really enjoy this movie.

8.5/10 Cocks up
 
Stranded
From the creative genius who brought you Battlefield Earth, comes another pile of dog shit. I know Christian Slater has been in some crap but this is by far and beyond his worst. I only switched it on for it to be background distraction but I kept an eye on it and man one of the worst film ever with some of the worst dialogue written. How does shit like this get produced? 0.5/10

Haunter
Suprisingly, this was a decent slow burn horror film with absolutely no gore but some decent scares and builds up suspense quite well. The main actress was a little annoying but the story was slightly more thought out than most low budget horror films. Sadly, it spirals out of control a little in the final act but definitely worth a watch if you're stuck looking for a film 6/10
 
R.N7 said:
Films of a sexual nature sometimes get a low score, like Stoker, Crash...and mainstream arthouse films, like The Tree of Life, The New World

The Room has a 3.4, disgrace!
Click to expand...
Related?
Archie Leach said:
I use Metacritic as a guide, it's method is better than Rotten Tomatoes. feck IMDB user ratings, Shawshank is number one.

Edit: the only genre I'll take user reviews over critic is horror, because generally speaking critics are unable to wrap their heads around horror.
Click to expand...
Agree with you, especially the second part about the horror genre. Luckily over here we have a cinema magazine "L'Ecran Fantastique" which deals with the 'cinéma fantastique' genre (seen very widely, includes horror and all its sub categories) that's almost a magazine made by fans for fans, it's not high brow or anything and they usually unearth little gems that are worth seeing. But I'll almost never trust a 'mainstream' cinema critic for a horror film.
Sky1981 said:
That's abit weird. I don't see any torture porn materials there. The torture were distasteful and not the sort of torture porn genre, plus without any disrespect Patsy is far from attractive, they're not making it like she's voluptuous and tortured for the sake of having some porn, she clearly describes a suffering female slave to me.

And I don't know much about history of slavery, but I suspect rapes and sex harrasment is normal around that era, since they're virtually treated as live stocks.

If any, IMO some of the treatment Solomon received are quite fair by that era's standard.
Click to expand...
I found the stuff quoted by Nilsson rather weird, seems like that critic enjoys being contrarian for the sake of it. I mean some of it is understandable, but I couldn't help but chuckle when I read the Michael Bay part! :lol:
 
Rooney in Paris said:
Related?

Agree with you, especially the second part about the horror genre. Luckily over here we have a cinema magazine "L'Ecran Fantastique" which deals with the 'cinéma fantastique' genre (seen very widely, includes horror and all its sub categories) that's almost a magazine made by fans for fans, it's not high brow or anything and they usually unearth little gems that are worth seeing. But I'll almost never trust a 'mainstream' cinema critic for a horror film.

I found the stuff quoted by Nilsson rather weird, seems like that critic enjoys being contrarian for the sake of it. I mean some of it is understandable, but I couldn't help but chuckle when I read the Michael Bay part! :lol:
Click to expand...

Tommy Wiseau himself probably thought he created a new A Streetcar Named Desire, but nah.

White's a black, gay, republican christian. It's bound to affect his reviews.
 
13 Eerie

Watched this knowing nothing about it, did not even read a review.
It started of OK, Six forensic undergrads embark on a scientific expedition to a remote island that was once used as illegal biological testing grounds for life-term prisoners.
You could see something was going to happen, something did happen , it turned into a crappy zombie film and zombie films are not really my bag, there was plenty of gore and blood, but nothing else, it was you basic run away they catch and eat you zombie film.
The ending was dreadful.
If you like Zombie films you might like this, I dont.

2/10
 
White may have a point about film critics in general but seriously they guy is a massive troll. He is just WUMing all the time -

here is his Jack and Jill review -

Adam Sandler’s comedies are not “dumb fun”; maybe that’s why they’re not in critics’ favor. Sandler’s hilarious new film Jack and Jill (in which he portrays both male and female fraternal twins), brings to mind the great line that Ernst Lubitsch’s classic 1946 female plumber comedy Cluny Brown “upset people who didn’t like to admit they have plumbing.”

In Jack and Jill, Sandler looks at sibling rivalry without that acrid love of dysfunction now so popular on TV and Broadway. It’s obvious that Los Angeles ad exec Jack and his hefty, homely, still unmarried sister Jill who visits from New York will mend their rift but the fun is in watching the healing process. The film’s comedy (as in adult petulance and coach potato behavior) shows the depths of kinship—similarities siblings can’t help sharing but learn to accept in themselves. And Sandler’s always protective—as when Jack insults Jill but warns “I can say that because I’m her twin.”

All Sandler’s best comedies (Grown Ups, Bedtime Stories, I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry and the greatSpanglish) are really love stories. He explores affection without the class and gender guilt Judd Apatow hides behind (such distraction scuttled Apatow’s grandiose Funny People). Sandler’s willingness to appear “dumb” is what makes his films so cathartic. He thrives on being unembarrassed—the key to classic comedy going back to the Greeks.

Sandler, of course, always goes back to Jewishness. He may be the least ethnically abashed Jewish film comic outside the Borscht Belt which is Jack and Jill’s natural strength. Jack’s self-consciousness about Jill is rooted in Jewish comics’ proverbial self-deprecation (that’s why the twinship premise). Jill’s large features, gaucheness, petulance and unsophisticated ways are not anti-Jewish traits but the qualities that insecure, social-climbing ethnic groups usually evade.

In Jill drag, Sandler looks like young women you see on the subway; she’s a homely archetype Fanny Brice, Judy Canova and Martha Raye made popular. (Eddie Murphy also mastered this comic affection in The Klumpsand Norbit.) Credit Sandler’s subtle feminine caricature—especially in dancing and athleticism—that avoids making Jill a clownish grotesque like Tyler Perry’s Madea. Perry’s drag is based in parodying ethnic shame. InJack and Jill Sandler embraces rude, crude and earthy in ways that Tyler Perry wouldn’t dare. Or will he ever?

Sandler’s real dare is to defend ethnicity—not piously but through comedy that has social and political effect: When Jack’s WASP assistant (Nick Swardson) boasts that he’s almost Jewish because “I’m an atheist,” Jack looks nonplussed. Yet, Sandler isn’t. His comic introspection has a moral core. Appreciation of roots and background is what gives the film’s overlong but uproarious Al Pacino subplot its basis—it’s both crazily romantic and a professional salute. That’s because Sandler knows how our plumbing works.
Click to expand...

:lol: I mean seriously, how it obvious it can be.
 
Some film critics must lead such a sad life. Or perhaps I just think they're boring, and they think I am. But writing about films, and I swear some of them just pretend to like many films out of some warped feeling of cultural importance, as opposed to just enjoying them. It must suck all of the fun out of it.

I like some shit films. I laugh at White Chicks. The critics probably do, but they've got agendas to follow, reputations to maintain, and have to appreciate arty farty brilliance of many films that just bore the absolute feck out of you in the upkeep of them. I'm still irritated at The Master, and I watched it months ago!

A good film is a good film, whether that be Schinlder's List, Toy Story or something daft like Con Air. I love writing, but I couldn't think of anything worse than being a film critic.
 
The Wolf of Wall Street-9/10

Thought this was a brilliant watch with some great performances. Funny too despite often managing to be serious when need be. Even though it was arguably a bit over-length and over the top at times, I can't remember the last time I watched a movie where I was as thoroughly entertained as I was with this. It's a cliche, I know, but it was one of those 3 hour films that didn't feel like it was 3 hours. Was a bit gutted McConaghey's role was only brief, although it was very good nevertheless.
 
The Grand Budapest Hotel-8/10

Guys you might not know this but Wes Anderson kind of likes exploring the relationship between eccentrics and their father-figures. Since he's been making slight variations on the same film for his entire career you either like Anderson or you don't, I like him so I enjoyed this. Beautiful to look at and Fiennes is surprisingly funny in it. Proper review here: http://mistercinecal.blogspot.ie/2014/03/check-in-to-grand-budapest-hotel-or.html
 
Jet Stream.

You all know I like cheesey disaster films but FFS this was bad, very possible the worst I have ever seen.A TV weatherman tries to prove his theory that a series of unexplained catastrophes are the result of powerful winds found in the upper atmosphere coming down to ground level. It turns out this weatherman is really a brainbox who previous project has been turned in to weapon and is threatening to destroy the planet.
Stupid story, massive plot holes, some of the worst acting you will ever see.
I dont recommend anybody watches this EVER.

-5/10
 
Non-Stop
Really enjoyed this. It has some great action scenes and the plot is dumb enough to switch off your brain but you wont be able to as you keep trying to guess who the terrorist is and I think the film hides the culprit really well. Much much better than I had expected 8/10

Haunting Of Helena
Slow burn horror that has some great cinematography. Builds really well and has some genuinely scary moments but trails off towards the end when the plot holes reveal themselves. Not bad though considering the budget 6/10

The Bag Man
I saw that this had John Cusack, Robert De Niro, Crispin Glover and Linc the Sink from Prison Break so I thought why not (despite it having the worst trailer ever). Was hugely disappointed. Has a film noir look, with low key lighting and pretty offbeat characters but the plot is complete nonsense and by the end, you dont give a shit what's in the bag. Decent last 10 minutes but it would be unlikely that you will last that long. Such a let down considering the talent on board 3/10

Odd Thomas
Quite enjoyed this. Has elements of horror, thriller, romance, comedy and the rest. Has some decent special effects and the lead (Anton Yelchin) was perfectly cast. The film has an interesting way of telling its narrative and some may not like the way it does this but I was hooked. Very entertaining 7.15/10
 
Barfly - There was a theatricality about Rourke's performance that I just couldn't get over, Dunaway was fantastic though. Good at times but the publisher bit felt weak and it felt like it all could have been pulled off a little bit better.
 
Last edited:
R.N7 said:
Barfly - There was a theatricality about Rourke's performance that I just couldn't get over, Dunaway was fantastic though. Good at times but the publisher bit felt weak and it felt like it all could have been pulled off a little bit better.
Click to expand...
Did you watch Roadhouse too?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.