Film The Redcafe Movie review thread

The Amazing Spiderman 2
Hated it. Probably one of my least favourite superhero films since Spiderman 3 by Raimi. They had 3 villains yet the film had no action and just focused on a boring love story then crammed all the action in maybe 40 minutes run time. I was bored throughout. The action looked nice due to a good use of graphics but overall, it was a complete let down. I could excuse the first one for being a little slow due to the re-telling of his origin but this was just garbage 4/10

Locke
Amazing minimalist film with a great performance by Tom Hardy. shows how you can make an entertaining film without throwing money at special effects and non-sense, but just concentrating on a good idea, a good script narrative excellently directed with pure finesse. Against Spiderman's £200m+ budget, this probably had a tenth of that but 10 times more engrossing 8/10
 
R.N7 said:
We Are The Best! - Lukas Moodysson returns to familiar territories with an endearing coming of age tale. It's far from being up there with his best work but is a sweet and simple enough nostalgia fest.
Click to expand...
It's on at the Cornerhouse, worth a watch or should I see The Double instead? Watched Locke yesterday, I enjoyed it...then again anything beats Spidey 2.
 
Transcendence: A movie with very high minded ideas on the surface that lacks even a decent script or intelligent/creative directing to back it up. The ideas should have been there but they aren't, there are also far too many obvious plot contrivances and cases of character acting in ways that go against conventional human thinking to suit the plot. The budget for the movie also seems to have been swallowed up by the CGI (which is good but not overly impressive) as the film seems to be lacking in on screen actors which becomes especially apparent when the action starts (this features one of the most undermanned and under supplied armies/forces I have seen in quite some time considering the threat they are up against). Having based a movie on such a far reaching concept (nano technology and artificial intelligence) it is really hard to see how they could have come up with a movie so lacking in scope of ideas or interesting dialogue or themes. I’m beginning to think that Nolan’s involvement in this confirms that he is a terrible producer, a lazy producer (just in name) or a really Machiavellian director, whatever the case this stupid movie is not worth your time.


3/10
 
BAMSOLA said:
Transcendence: A movie with very high minded ideas on the surface that lacks even a decent script or intelligent/creative directing to back it up. The ideas should have been there but they aren’t, there are also far too many obvious plot contrivances and cases of character acting in ways that go against conventional human thinking to suit the plot. The budget for the movie also seems to have been swallowed up by the CGI (which is good but not overly impressive) as the film seems to be lacking in on screen actors which becomes especially apparent when the action starts (this features one of the most undermanned and undersupplied army’s I’ve seen in quite some time considering the threat they are up against). Having based a movie on such a far reaching concept (nano technology and artificial intelligence) it is really hard to see how they could have come up with a movie so lacking in scope of ideas or interesting dialogue or themes. I’m beginning to think that Nolan’s involvement in this confirms that he is a terrible producer, a lazy producer (just in name) or a really Machiavellian director, whatever the case this stupid movie is not worth your time.


3/10
Click to expand...
Only 3/10 I was really looking forward to this one.
 
stretford_oslo said:
Just googled evil dead, the old one from 1981 looks creepy enough. Might see that, thanks!
Click to expand...

Oooh, you're in for a treat.

The Evil Dead was "serious" enough, but if you don't mind some great humour as well in your ED movies, certainly catch Evil Dead II and Army of Darkness. Charismatic Bruce Campbell and energetic directing of Sam Raimi make those truly classics of the genre. Horror of course included. :cool:

aylOlui.jpg
 
Spoony said:
It's on at the Cornerhouse, worth a watch or should I see The Double instead? Watched Locke yesterday, I enjoyed it...then again anything beats Spidey 2.
Click to expand...

It's a neat film but I'm not sure if it's worth the effort. I liked it mostly for the Swedish nostalgia.

Spoony said:
How about Inside Lewyn Davis?
Click to expand...
I reckon you'd like it.
 
Last edited:
BAMSOLA said:
Transcendence: A movie with very high minded ideas on the surface that lacks even a decent script or intelligent/creative directing to back it up. The ideas should have been there but they aren't, there are also far too many obvious plot contrivances and cases of character acting in ways that go against conventional human thinking to suit the plot. The budget for the movie also seems to have been swallowed up by the CGI (which is good but not overly impressive) as the film seems to be lacking in on screen actors which becomes especially apparent when the action starts (this features one of the most undermanned and under supplied armies/forces I have seen in quite some time considering the threat they are up against). Having based a movie on such a far reaching concept (nano technology and artificial intelligence) it is really hard to see how they could have come up with a movie so lacking in scope of ideas or interesting dialogue or themes. I’m beginning to think that Nolan’s involvement in this confirms that he is a terrible producer, a lazy producer (just in name) or a really Machiavellian director, whatever the case this stupid movie is not worth your time.


3/10
Click to expand...
Thats a disappointing review, I was looking forward to this, looks good on the trailers.
 
BAMSOLA said:
Transcendence: A movie with very high minded ideas on the surface that lacks even a decent script or intelligent/creative directing to back it up. The ideas should have been there but they aren't, there are also far too many obvious plot contrivances and cases of character acting in ways that go against conventional human thinking to suit the plot. The budget for the movie also seems to have been swallowed up by the CGI (which is good but not overly impressive) as the film seems to be lacking in on screen actors which becomes especially apparent when the action starts (this features one of the most undermanned and under supplied armies/forces I have seen in quite some time considering the threat they are up against). Having based a movie on such a far reaching concept (nano technology and artificial intelligence) it is really hard to see how they could have come up with a movie so lacking in scope of ideas or interesting dialogue or themes. I’m beginning to think that Nolan’s involvement in this confirms that he is a terrible producer, a lazy producer (just in name) or a really Machiavellian director, whatever the case this stupid movie is not worth your time.


3/10
Click to expand...
I believe the film is called "Inception", not "Transcendence"...
 
'Modern Times'

As a huge fan of Charlie Chaplin (in my mind the greatest actor of all time), I knew what themes to expect from this movie. One of the greatest tragedies of the populist film-making culture is the pervading caricature of Chaplin as a slapstick comedian. A film that sees the legendary performer high on cocaine and leading a workers revolt with slogans of 'liberty or death' should have achieved more than it has in dissolving that perception, but alas, most modern day film lovers will avoid 'Modern Times' on the basis of their prejudice.

Of course, slapstick is present throughout. One scene shows the protagonist being fed by a machine designed to improve productivity in the workplace by eliminating the need for lunch breaks. Predictably, a malfunction leads to humorous (or not, depending on your taste) consequences, but the pitiful message of factory owners attempting to squeeze every inch of worth from its workers stays with you long after the laughter has subsided.

The movie is a social commentary on the hopelessness of life in post-industrialist capitalist nations for the majority; we see Chaplin constantly in and out of prison through no fault of his own, a victim of his circumstances, and it's humbling to see sympathy for those in such a situation (one wonders how he managed to get these films made at all). "We ain't burglars - we're hungry".

The ultimate portrayal of the working man as being churned through society's machine, as reflected with striking imagery early in the piece, is really the most fundamental description here. There is no doubt Chaplin achieved in realising this vision.

modern_times_11.jpg




@R.N7 - my first movie review!
 
Last edited:
Silent_Running said:
'Modern Times'

As a huge fan of Charlie Chaplin (in my mind the greatest actor of all time), I knew what themes to expect from this movie. One of the greatest tragedies of the populist film-making culture is the pervading caricature of Chaplin as a slapstick comedian. A film that sees the legendary performer high on cocaine and leading a workers revolt with slogans of 'liberty or death' should have achieved more than it has in dissolving that perception, but alas, most modern day film lovers will avoid 'Modern Times' on the basis of their prejudice.

Of course, slapstick is present throughout. One scene shows the protagonist being fed by a machine designed to improve productivity in the workplace by eliminating the need for lunch breaks. Predictably, a malfunction leads to humorous (or not, depending on your taste) consequences, but the pitiful message of factory owners attempting to squeeze every inch of worth from its workers stays with you long after the laughter has subsided.

The movie is a social commentary on the hopelessness of life in post-industrialist capitalist nations for the majority; we see Chaplin constantly in and out of prison through no fault of his own, a victim of his circumstances, and it's humbling to see such a sympathy for those in such a situation (one wonders how he managed to get these films made at all). "We ain't burglars - we're hungry".

The ultimate portrayal of the working man as being churned through society's machine, as reflected with striking imagery early in the piece, is really the most fundamental description here. There is no doubt Chaplin achieved in realising this vision.

modern_times_11.jpg




@R.N7 - my first movie review!
Click to expand...

I love modern times. I got it free from iTunes in their 12days of christmas freebie giveaway a few years back. Best free gift ever!
 
R.N7 said:
Well in, Modern Times is my favourite Chaplin film.


It was a humorous, trolling snipe at the expense of "Inception".
Click to expand...

City Lights is my favourite. But yeah Modern Times is a great film.
 
Yet another disappointment for Johnny Depp.

I don't have high hopes for Amazing Spiderman 2, but I will still watch the film thanks to Emma Stone being in it. :drool:
 
Raid 2: Very different in scope from the first film, yet they still manage to throw in some extreme violence and some stunningly choreographed fight scenes.
Some fans of the original might find it a bit slow, yet I thoroughly enjoyed it.

The Lone Ranger: I've seen far worse films given far better reviews. Overall it was an enjoyable romp and parts of the final sequence reminded me a little of Buster Keaton's The General, or maybe it was just the trains? I've not seen any of the original Lone Ranger stuff, so perhaps critics thought it departed too much, maybe they couldn't get over the issues of Depp playing a Native American, or maybe bits of it went a bit too weird and/or dark for them?

It was too long, it had some dark undertones, a touch of weirdness and some of the stunts were well over the top, but I don't think it was anywhere near the disaster it's often made out to be.

The killer rabbits were strange, the slaughter of the natives and the treatment of the Chinese Labour were quite dark for a family film and the organ eating bad guy was a bit weird.
 
http://filmfixx.com/today-film-history-bride-frankenstein/

Frankenstein tries to put everything behind him with his new wife Elizabeth, but mad scientist Doctor Pretorius recruits him to create a bride for his monster so that they can make lots of undead babies somehow.
Click to expand...

Short version: Inevitably it's dated and the scene with the tiny people in jars was bizarre but it's entertaining enough and Karloff is really good. 7/10
 
Bill.s.preston said:
Raid 2: Very different in scope from the first film, yet they still manage to throw in some extreme violence and some stunningly choreographed fight scenes.
Some fans of the original might find it a bit slow, yet I thoroughly enjoyed it.

The Lone Ranger: I've seen far worse films given far better reviews. Overall it was an enjoyable romp and parts of the final sequence reminded me a little of Buster Keaton's The General, or maybe it was just the trains? I've not seen any of the original Lone Ranger stuff, so perhaps critics thought it departed too much, maybe they couldn't get over the issues of Depp playing a Native American, or maybe bits of it went a bit too weird and/or dark for them?

It was too long, it had some dark undertones, a touch of weirdness and some of the stunts were well over the top, but I don't think it was anywhere near the disaster it's often made out to be.

The killer rabbits were strange, the slaughter of the natives and the treatment of the Chinese Labour were quite dark for a family film and the organ eating bad guy was a bit weird.
Click to expand...

Lone Ranger was some of the best mindless fun I had at the cinema last year... in fact, it was probably my favourite of all the "blockbuster" releases.

And aye, Raid 2 is great.
 
Yeah I'd third that opinion on Lone Ranger. It wasn't great but it certainly wasn't awful. The money and the hype made people give it a much harder time than it deserved. It was better than any of the Pirates sequels for a start.
 
Rocky Balbo

I am shocked that I have not watched this before, I am huge Rocky fan, I simply forgot about it.
An ageing Rocky takes one last fight against the undefeated Champion and takes him 10 rounds.
I thought this was every bit up there with the best out of the Rocky films, very bittersweet and delved al lot in to the previous film

7.5/10
 
pauldyson1uk said:
Rocky Balbo

I am shocked that I have not watched this before, I am huge Rocky fan, I simply forgot about it.
An ageing Rocky takes one last fight against the undefeated Champion and takes him 10 rounds.
I thought this was every bit up there with the best out of the Rocky films, very bittersweet and delved al lot in to the previous film

7.5/10
Click to expand...

Ya, I can't believe I literally wanted to watch it and goes to watch it on its first day showing.

Off course it's still as absurd as the first, but somehow this one got a warmth feeling and we kinda root for Rocky. Nothing over the top (thank goodness they didn't make him fight for the money) but a simple good sports drama
 
Mrs Smoker said:
Oooh, you're in for a treat.

The Evil Dead was "serious" enough, but if you don't mind some great humour as well in your ED movies, certainly catch Evil Dead II and Army of Darkness. Charismatic Bruce Campbell and energetic directing of Sam Raimi make those truly classics of the genre. Horror of course included. :cool:

aylOlui.jpg
Click to expand...

The original Evil Deads are hilarious. Love them.
 
The Crying Dead
I am not a huge fan of 'found footage' films but have to admit, there are a few good ones but this is definitely not one of them. It had a similar plot to grave Encounters (which I enjoyed a lot) so have been waiting a while to get my hands on it but was left hugely disappointed. It just seemed like a much weaker version of Grave Encounters. It had some ok acting and some funny comedy but the scares were not imaginative and didn't spook me at all. The use of cheap effects didn't help and the film just plodded along too much without building any suspense. Was quite a poor effort 4/10
 
Terminal Invasion

A film about Aliens in human disguise that commandeer a rural airport during a snowstorm. To survive, the people trapped inside must determine which of their own is not of this Earth.
It has Bruce Campbell of the original Evil Dead, he was OK nothing special.

There is some terrible plot holes, I was expecting nothing from the film, but it was OK.

5/10
 
Amazing Spider-Man 2 - Decent enough... and far better then the previous Spider-Man film, mainly because it doesn't have to get bogged down in a origins story (which for that film, was wholly uninteresting and wasn't far removed from the origins story we saw in a Spiderman film not so long ago - and that one was done better) and so can actually get on with being a Spider-Man film. It's way too long (Why do films insist on being 2 and a half hours these days?) and there are probably too many plot threads on the go at once, but it kept me interested enough (bar a usual lul in the middle) until what turned out to be a pretty decent climax all things considered.
 
Nebraska - fairly entertaining especially Bruce Dern in the main role. I would give it a 7.5/10 mainly for its landscape and black/white feel of the movie
 
Devils Due
Expected to hate it but didn't hate it as much as I'd expected. It was too slow and not scary, but I dont think the film aimed to jump scare, but make the viewer feel uneasy. I liked that the acting was above the usual found footage films' standards and the camera wasn't as shaky as they usually are. Also, it didn't try to depict itself as footage that has been found, rather just using the format as a mode of storytelling. It really needed to bring in the final act at least 20 mins sooner though and I can see why a lot of people got bored watching this. It is basically a modern day re-telling (badly) of Rosemary's Baby 5/10
 
Dirty Schwein said:
Devils Due
Expected to hate it but didn't hate it as much as I'd expected. It was too slow and not scary, but I dont think the film aimed to jump scare, but make the viewer feel uneasy. I liked that the acting was above the usual found footage films' standards and the camera wasn't as shaky as they usually are. Also, it didn't try to depict itself as footage that has been found, rather just using the format as a mode of storytelling. It really needed to bring in the final act at least 20 mins sooner though and I can see why a lot of people got bored watching this. It is basically a modern day re-telling (badly) of Rosemary's Baby 5/10
Click to expand...

You liked it better than I did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.