Film The Redcafe Movie review thread

R.Nilsson7 said:
Terrence Malick apparently has three upcoming films in the works. It took him almost 40 years to release just 4 films and now he's about to equal it in just a couple of years. I wonder if he's gone mad.
Click to expand...

Probably gathering a retirement fund.
 
Adventures of Tintin are already released in Europe? It does not release in the US till Dec. 21.
 
yes, already released in certain countries. Asia countries will be next week. Can't wait for this movie since i read these comics as a kid and still have a full collection of it
 
Spielberg releasing both of his films in America in back to back weeks over the festive season will either be genius or kind of flop on him...

I got tickets to see 50/50 later, not sure whether I'll go or not, they were free thanks to Sky rewards, just don't if I can be bothered going -_-
 
Zen said:
Spielberg releasing both of his films in America in back to back weeks over the festive season will either be genius or kind of flop on him...

I got tickets to see 50/50 later, not sure whether I'll go or not, they were free thanks to Sky rewards, just don't if I can be bothered going -_-
Click to expand...

Did you see this in the end? It's pretty damn good.
 
Suspiria - I can't be the only one who really didn't get into this? I thought it was just completely ridiculous, absurdity taken to a new extreme. It's undeniably stylish, and some of the camera- and lighting-work is very well done, but I never thought that made it unsettling at all. The unforgettable music was unsettling...but irritating too. Less said about the acting the better of course. Can understand it's appeal of course and it's surely an acquired taste, but it's just so flawed. I actually stopped watching it halfway through because it had that very distinct style that I just wasn't getting into, but decided a couple of days later I had to finish it off...definitely regretted that, given the even more ridiculous ending.

Bonnie and Clyde - good fun, surprisingly brutal at times, but as a standalone movie I just didn't think much of it, iconic and influential as it is...

Withnail and I - brilliant.

On the Waterfront - hard to think of anything about this movie other than Brando's iconic performance, it just overshadows everything...in a great way, of course. Only seen Lee J. Cobb in this and 12 Angry Men but I really like him.

A Streetcar Named Desire - likewise, really, except in this case it includes Vivian Leigh too. So good I almost want to watch Gone With the Wind...almost. Kim Hunter and Karl Malden of course very good in their own understated way.

Is it wrong that I thought Streetcar was even better than On the Waterfront?
 
Oh, watched Double Life of Veronique too. I just find Kieslowski movies endlessly watchable. Shame he didn't do more.
 
Yeah, I didn't like Suspiria that much either. Picnic at Hanging Rock is a better 70's atmospherical, soundtrack heavy, art-horror set in and around an all-girls school...albeit not that much of a horror.

Mean Streets - Wasn't majorly impressed. Nice soundtrack though.
 
Donkey Punch........I can't believe I got roped into watching that. Second time my mate has seen it and still maintains it is good, bit of a cnut.
 
Just flew over to Miami the other day so saw a few films on the plane.

X-Men first whatever- Not bad, but found the young professor X character annoying and not as you'd want or expect him to be. Magneto probably carried it tbh. Good but not exceptional.

Thor: Pretty crap. At best a hungover sunday afternoon film. Couple of vaguely amusing parts, but fairly risible plot and lame, predictable 'twists'.

Tranformers 3: Oh god. How did someone watch that last cut of the movie and think 'yes, we have got it'? Just don't bother.
 
The Rum Diary - Amber Heard is ridiculously hot and that is the only thing worth mentioning about this movie. Nothing much happens except, as the title suggests, people drink a lot. But most of it is pointless, sitting around and drinking which just made me want to leave the movie and get myself a drink. There are a few funny scenes but they aren't worth the price of a movie ticket. you'd get more laughs watching a single episode of any decent comedy show.

Amber Heard with real life girlfriend

http://www4.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Amber+Heard+Vanity+Fair+Campaign+Hollywood+uC3PqA7evLgl.jpg
 
mehro said:
The Rum Diary - Amber Heard is ridiculously hot and that is the only thing worth mentioning about this movie. Nothing much happens except, as the title suggests, people drink a lot. But most of it is pointless, sitting around and drinking which just made me want to leave the movie and get myself a drink. There are a few funny scenes but they aren't worth the price of a movie ticket. you'd get more laughs watching a single episode of any decent comedy show.

Amber Heard with real life girlfriend

http://www4.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Amber+Heard+Vanity+Fair+Campaign+Hollywood+uC3PqA7evLgl.jpg
Click to expand...

Its a great book though, worth reading for anyone with journalistic ambitions.
 
Spoony Youngblood said:
YYou ought to see Fahrenheit 451(Truffuat), I think it's a fantastic film.
Click to expand...

peterstorey said:
'Les Quatre Cent Coups' and 'Fahrenheit 451' are the shit.
Click to expand...

Spoony Youngblood said:
Pete's right, F451 is brilliant, you ought to give it another try.
Click to expand...


Poncy film buffs.

It's alright. It's pretty silly. It's a ludicrous premise for a start with a number of illogicalities. All books are banned but they can all seemingly read. How does that work? Are stories banned? Clearly not because of the book people (:lol: The book people) but even reading one to some woman makes her burst into tears. That's just a story. How come Julie Christie watches soap operas? Is it just written words? But they can read? and why is one of the books a Dali picture book. Is art also banned? Is it just stories that elicit emotion? I realise these are probably problems inherent in the book, but they haven't translated well into film.

Oskar Werner's acting is all over the place too. He's not bad but being relatively inexperienced at acting in English he puts inflections in the oddest places in sentences which just makes him sound completely spaced out all the time. The helmets and stuff are all super naff too. It also rather bizarrely ends up promoting the message it's supposedly trying to fight. That books make everyone's life worse. The book people look like having miserable fecking lives. feck that for a laugh and a picnic.

It's not as clever as it thinks it is and it's far sillier. Minority Report is a better film about an offical hunter becoming the hunted in a dystopian future. But it's not made by a French New Wave director with silly hats.

The music's good though. As is that train/tram thing & it's well shot. It's not bad, but I just found it pretty silly. The scene with them flying over a lake to search for him near the end is one of the funniest things I've ever seen. It's straight out of Garth Marenghi's Darkplace.
 
MR is shite, I really think you ought to kick yourself in the bollocks.

I have no idea when books were outlawed, but it was probably by the current goverment, I dunno...I'll have to read Bradbury's novel. The movie's about book burning, censorship and totalitarism. And what are you saying? Soaps and TV programmes should've been banned and all?
 
No I'm saying it's naff. I'm well aware it's about book burning and censorship, but dealt with illogically and in a playground manner. They say early on that "Fireman have always burned books" when Julie Christie asks whether it's true that once in the olden days they put out fires. So how do they teach people to read Spoons? Not from books, obviously? I reckon you've ignored glaring gaffs, silly scenes and conveniences that you'd notice jarringly in films you don't like.

I'm also saying if books are burned, why not all stories? (like her soaps) why just written word? It makes no sense rationally. It's just a lofty idea someone thought of. "Yeah, Fireman burning all books" but then never thought it through, and all the little ramifications that would entail. Plus it's not very well acted. You were obviously enchanted by all the silly hats.

Whack a lofty theme and some accents into a 60s movie and you'll go bananas. I like a lot of classic films, this one was beyond naff. If it were made today it'd get torn apart.
 
Mockney said:
No I'm saying it's naff. I'm well aware it's about book burning and censorship, but dealt with illogically and in a playground manner. Plus it's not very well acted.

Whack a lofty theme and some accents into a 60s movie and you'll go bananas. I like a lot of classic films, this one was beyond naff. If it were made today it'd get torn apart.
Click to expand...

It's about stopping independant thinking, the best way to control people is via media, so it'd make no sense to ban soaps and the like - words or no words. As for the bad acting, I presume you mean Werner's? I think he was meant to be partially dehumanised. Basically, your beef is they should've explained when the goverment seized power and illegalised books.
 
No, my beef was that it was a silly film that had loads of glaringly silly bits that weren't thought through, that you'd have noticed instantly if you weren't so enchanted by the cool 60s glaze and the silly hats. It's an incredibly naff film. Just because it has lofty themes about independent thinking doesn't automatically make it important and good.
 
Well I've explained Werner's acting, and why soaps weren't banned. I can't defend the hats... which basically means you didn't like it because it lacked SFX.

I liked, I also loved the feel of the film.
 
No you haven't explained why soaps aren't banned. What's the difference between a novel and a story? What's the rationale behind books causing sadness and spoken stories, or music, not? You initially claimed books were probably banned at the beginning of this regime, but it's made explicitly clear from very early on that it's been this way for as long as they can remember...So how can they read Spoons? How does the Captain know why Robinson Crusoe and Nietzsche were banned? Which he gives a lecture on?

You seem to think these are trivial points but they aren't, they're big ideological plot holes that you're only happy to cover up and ignore because you "liked the look of it" The SFX are immaterial. If anything I liked the one they did have (the train).. Trying to dismiss me as only liking SFX Sci Fi is a cheap trick you know full well to be false. I like many ideological films, if anything I really tried to like this. I thought this was beyond naff though.

Poncy film buff.
 
Mockney said:
I'm also saying if books are burned, why not all stories? (like her soaps) why just written word? It makes no sense rationally.
Click to expand...


I haven't seen the film, so this is just a general comment: perhaps books are burnt because:

a) Truly visual culture (cinema, tv etc) cannot compare with the imaginative scope of literature, Besides, it's far easier to shape 'narrative' in film, thus presenting a fait accompli for the viewer's imagination. Soaps, movies and the like are a poor reflection of literature's essence.

b) The book-burning, as of old, is a typically Northern European passion: along with religious iconoclasm, the burning speaks of, at once, a contempt for civilisation and for sophisticated behaviour (introspection, the appreciation of beauty etc. Of course, the 'educated elite' (the governing authority/the priesthood etc) will still have access to books, I should imagine.
 
Is a good way of looking at it. But the film doesn't even attempt to delve into anything remotely like this. It's just a parade of people saying very silly things in very silly hats. But it looks cool, and it's made by a French New Wave director, so it's clearly genius.
 
SteveJ said:
I haven't seen the film, so this is just a general comment: perhaps books are burnt because:

a) Truly visual culture (cinema, tv etc) cannot compare with the imaginative scope of literature, Besides, it's far easier to shape 'narrative' in film, thus presenting a fait accompli for the viewer's imagination. Soaps, movies and the like are a poor reflection of literature's essence.b) The book-burning, as of old, is a typically Northern European passion: along with religious iconoclasm, the burning speaks of, at once, a contempt for civilisation and for sophisticated behaviour (introspection, the appreciation of beauty etc. Of course, the 'educated elite' (the governing authority/the priesthood etc) will still have access to books, I should imagine.
Click to expand...

the people were being media spoonfed - a form of control. I think the book burning thing was on the back of WW2 and Nazism, and I'm not completely sure but it affected the States during the same period, which influenced Bradbury's novel. I'll have a scan if I can find an article on it. (It also touches on the role of media and censorship in the States during the 40s.)
 
Mockney said:
No you haven't explained why soaps aren't banned. What's the difference between a novel and a story? What's the rationale behind books causing sadness and spoken stories, or music, not? You initially claimed books were probably banned at the beginning of this regime, but it's made explicitly clear from very early on that it's been this way for as long as they can remember...So how can they read Spoons? How does the Captain know why Robinson Crusoe and Nietzsche were banned? Which he gives a lecture on?

You seem to think these are trivial points but they aren't, they're big ideological plot holes that you're only happy to cover up and ignore because you "liked the look of it" The SFX are immaterial. If anything I liked the one they did have (the train).. Trying to dismiss me as only liking SFX Sci Fi is a cheap trick you know full well to be false. I like many ideological films, if anything I really tried to like this. I thought this was beyond naff though.Poncy film buff.
Click to expand...


:lol:

I knew you'd bite.
 
Just out of interest, why was Nietzsche's work burned? I can imagine why, but it's years since I read the book, so I'd rather get it straight from someone who actually knows the reason.
 
Mockney I just cant understand you. That there are soaps but the books are burned is an essential part of its message.

Bradbury even said that the book is less about state censorship and more about the effect TV has on people.
 
Just read this on Wikipedia:

Bradbury went even further to elaborate his meaning, saying specifically that the culprit in Fahrenheit 451 is not the state - it is the people.
Click to expand...

I'm both amazed and appalled by that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.