Film The Redcafe Movie review thread

Rooney in Paris said:
It's not a shit genre, you have a ton of comedies that are real classics, Strangelove being a very good example of it. A lot of comedies can, just like Strangelove, be more than 'just a comedy' as you put it. They can have elements of satire, for example, which will serve to elevate them. It's an obtuse way to look at the genre.

Brainless action, I can understand, as it is, well, "brainless". But you should be able to rate an action film very well if it hits all the right notes.

Deciding a film of a certain genre can't have a certain ranking because of its genre is one of the main reasons I don't like marks, it makes absolutely no sense.
Click to expand...
Of course, for that I mentioned Strangelove. Cause, it is far more than a comedy, it is a satire with black humour of the political clusterfeck situation which was in the sixties.

But a comedy that is made just to make people laugh, cannot be such a great movie. Some that are really good at it (first Hangover, some Jim Carrey good ones) might be an 8/10 in my scale, but there are just a few of them. I find most of comedies shit to be fair, so nowadays rarely watch them. Adam Sandler is maybe the best example what is wrong with them.

Same with brainless action movies. They may have good action scense, be entertaining, have good effects but if they lack a good script (like most of them), then by default they can't be 9/10 or even 8/10 movies.
 
Any film, to achieve a 10/10 ranking (to be considered basically perfect) needs something that elevates it above the constructs of its genre, it's not specific to comedies.
 
Rooney in Paris said:
Any film, to achieve a 10/10 ranking (to be considered basically perfect) needs something that elevates it above the constructs of its genre, it's not specific to comedies.
Click to expand...
Sure, but I was talking even for lesser grades like 8/10 (a very good movie), or 9/10 (an almost perfect, excellent movie).

10/10 obviously are for movies that you think are the best in their genre and some of the best ever. Like, White Chicks for example.
Berbaclass said:
Watching The Martian in a couple of hours, very excited :D

Hope they do the book justice!
Click to expand...
Already out? Holy shit, completely forgot about it.

Very interesting to see how it'll get translated for the big screen.
 
Rooney in Paris said:
Any film, to achieve a 10/10 ranking (to be considered basically perfect) needs something that elevates it above the constructs of its genre, it's not specific to comedies.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. Hate it when I look at an average film's page on IMDb and see loads of reviews giving it 10/10

Zombieland, Beverly Hills Cop 2 and Quantum of Solace have all had user reviews giving them 10/10. If this is what people think is a perfect movie I weep for humanity.
 
And while I'm in here:

Eternal Sunshine in a Spotless Mind - 9/10

Fantastic film.
 
JamesB__ said:
I agree with this. Hate it when I look at an average film's page on IMDb and see loads of reviews giving it 10/10

Zombieland, Beverly Hills Cop 2 and Quantum of Solace have all had user reviews giving them 10/10. If this is what people think is a perfect movie I weep for humanity.
Click to expand...

Ratings aren't an exact science, so you just have to take them with a pinch of salt. Everyone rates films in their own way. While I rate films based on numerous elements (script, cinematography, acting etc) others just rate them based on the overall experience. Which is why something like The Dark Knight rates so highly. I have an 18 year old son who genuinely thinks Independence Day is perfect. It's a 10/10 for him. Aside from the fact that I have clearly fathered a retard, I can't argue with his love of ID, because it's his opinion.
 
The Martian - 9/10

I thought it was a very faithful and true adaptation of the book and overall a very fun movie. Numerous laugh out loud moments and seeing Watney and co brought to life was a great experience for me as I adore the book.

I really came out feeling very satisfied that Scott had done the book justice. Matt Damon deserves a mention too also IMO. He nailed the role quite simply and was a great MW. Also enjoyed Mara and Chastain as Johansson and Lewis respectively.

There are a couple of things though:
I didn't like the way that they just pretty much skipped over the majority of his travelling in the rover. Although I will accept that there is a limited amount of stuff you can do with scenes like that.

They left out Mark's crash when travelling down into the Schiparelli Crater for some reason, I considered that to be a 'major' event in the book and I'd have liked to have seen that in there. To me thats the only glaring thing that they cut out from the book (although it's been a while since I read it)

Didn't like the Zero-G scenes on the Hermes, they just didn't look good :lol:

The ending scene I liked, though I think they completely made that up as I don't remember that in the book at all
 
Prophet_of_Doom said:
Ratings aren't an exact science, so you just have to take them with a pinch of salt. Everyone rates films in their own way. While I rate films based on numerous elements (script, cinematography, acting etc) others just rate them based on the overall experience. Which is why something like The Dark Knight rates so highly. I have an 18 year old son who genuinely thinks Independence Day is perfect. It's a 10/10 for him. Aside from the fact that I have clearly fathered a retard, I can't argue with his love of ID, because it's his opinion.
Click to expand...
No but you can sure beat it out of him.
 
JamesB__ said:
I agree with this. Hate it when I look at an average film's page on IMDb and see loads of reviews giving it 10/10

Zombieland, Beverly Hills Cop 2 and Quantum of Solace have all had user reviews giving them 10/10. If this is what people think is a perfect movie I weep for humanity.
Click to expand...

They cancel one another though, there are other bunch of hate extremist logging on multiple account so they can give a 1 rating, the imdb rating for blockbuster movies are often inflated or deflated, but for the majority of the movie they're giving us a good indicator of a movie. I'd watch anything above 7, and not watching anything below 6. Anything in between is fair game, I'm just giving it a larger margin of error
 
Just watched The Man From Earth (2007). I quite liked it, I'd give it a 3.5/5. I wish they didn't make the religious character so cliche, and the ending was kinda rubbish, but it's an interesting enough concept tackled in quite a unique way (as far as cinema goes anyway).

Got 3 movies lined up this weekend: The Intern, The Martian, and Sicario. Should be fun.
 
Slightly disappointed by Sicario. It was very (very!) well made, but I was hoping for more than that. The plot didn't ever really grip me (or go anywhere particularly meaningful), and the characters never felt like much more than 2-D caricatures. It was more of a series of brilliantly tense action scenes than a full film, though still worth seeing. Definitely preferred Villeneuve's last two.

7/10
 
Berbaclass said:
The Martian - 9/10

I thought it was a very faithful and true adaptation of the book and overall a very fun movie. Numerous laugh out loud moments and seeing Watney and co brought to life was a great experience for me as I adore the book.

I really came out feeling very satisfied that Scott had done the book justice. Matt Damon deserves a mention too also IMO. He nailed the role quite simply and was a great MW. Also enjoyed Mara and Chastain as Johansson and Lewis respectively.

There are a couple of things though:
I didn't like the way that they just pretty much skipped over the majority of his travelling in the rover. Although I will accept that there is a limited amount of stuff you can do with scenes like that.

They left out Mark's crash when travelling down into the Schiparelli Crater for some reason, I considered that to be a 'major' event in the book and I'd have liked to have seen that in there. To me thats the only glaring thing that they cut out from the book (although it's been a while since I read it)

Didn't like the Zero-G scenes on the Hermes, they just didn't look good :lol:

The ending scene I liked, though I think they completely made that up as I don't remember that in the book at all
Click to expand...

I enjoyed the movie as a whole, but I thought the ending felt a little rushed and unsatisfying.

I haven't read the book so not sure how it compares but
I could have done without the scenes back on Earth and a little more on his reintroduction to his colleagues and the journey home. I just thought they built the whole story so well, got you completely invested in this guy making it back to his mates, but then gave us feck all time to soak in the big end game.
 
Tomorrowland (2015)

"Bound by a shared destiny, a teen bursting with scientific curiosity and a former boy-genius inventor embark on a mission to unearth the secrets of a place somewhere in time and space that exists in their collective memory."

Wasn't expecting much, but damm i was wrong. Brilliant movie.

8/10
 
diarm said:
I enjoyed the movie as a whole, but I thought the ending felt a little rushed and unsatisfying.

I haven't read the book so not sure how it compares but
I could have done without the scenes back on Earth and a little more on his reintroduction to his colleagues and the journey home. I just thought they built the whole story so well, got you completely invested in this guy making it back to his mates, but then gave us feck all time to soak in the big end game.
Click to expand...

In the book that scene doesn't exist IIRC so they literally just made it up.
 
Berbaclass said:
In the book that scene doesn't exist IIRC so they literally just made it up.
Click to expand...

Is the book worth a read? Would it be ruined for me now having watched the movie or is there enough good stuff they left out?
 
ThierryHenry said:
Slightly disappointed by Sicario. It was very (very!) well made, but I was hoping for more than that. The plot didn't ever really grip me (or go anywhere particularly meaningful), and the characters never felt like much more than 2-D caricatures. It was more of a series of brilliantly tense action scenes than a full film, though still worth seeing. Definitely preferred Villeneuve's last two.

7/10
Click to expand...
Couldn't disagree more. Both Blunt and del Toro's characters were rich and conplex and Blunt especially played against type.
 
I just watched Gattaca with the rest of my class- genetics phd students.
It was hilarious. There's a scene when seconds after the guy putting in a bit of spit, she gets a fecking printout of the (3 billion) DNA bases of the hero, she glances at them, and knows something about him. We were all in splits.
 
Scrolled through the last 10 pages and couldn't find a review on this one yet.

Black Mass

Johnny Depp is back to acting for the sake of the role and not the money. He's great in it. Apparently it's his favorite role and one of the few times he's watched his own movie. He's portraying the infamous Boston crime Lord James "Whitey" Bulger. If you don't know who that is then the story will probably be even better.
The pacing was great, the story held on the whole time but the best part of the film was the acting. Spearheaded by Depp it had and excellent Edgerton who arguably steals half of the limelight (Warrior, Zero Dark Thirty), no-adjectives-needed Cumberbatch (Your best one), Jesse Plemons (red head from Breaking Bad) really sold his role as did the relatively unknown Rory Cochrane. On top of that there were very good performances from Kevin Bacon, Juno Temple, Peter Sarsgaard, Adam Scott and even (yes even) Dakota Johnson. Whoever cast this movie deserves some plaudit because these people really took on their roles no matter how big or small. Usually I don't remember the names of the characters but these people sold it.

If my fluff writing doesn't sell it then I can tell you that it's a gangster FBI crooked cops and people movie with emphasis on Whitey (the prick). One of those movies that you really enjoy watching and it will get some nominations but probably not win anything.

My score of 8/10 is basically the same as it's getting anywhere else.
 
Her - best AI movie since AI: Artificial Intelligence. Phoenix had a fantastic performance, while Johanssen might have given her best ever performance despite that she never saw her face (or her tits) in the movie. 8/10
 
berbatrick said:
I just watched Gattaca with the rest of my class- genetics phd students.
It was hilarious. There's a scene when seconds after the guy putting in a bit of spit, she gets a fecking printout of the (3 billion) DNA bases of the hero, she glances at them, and knows something about him. We were all in splits.
Click to expand...
I remember seeing it listed as the most scientifically accurate sci-fi film. I don't know shit about science but I was surprised.
 
Jurassic Park is realistic? When can I visit? I'd love to see a T-Rex in real.
 
Spaceballs

Things that were shit:

  • The acting
  • The story
  • The CGI
  • The characters
  • The characters' names
  • The script
  • The fact it wasn't funny
Things that were good:

  • The princess is incredibly hot

2/10
 
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1 - Good God, this movie was awful. Haven't watched a worse movie in years. 3/10
 
Archie Leach said:
http://news.moviefone.com/2011/01/0...istic-and-unrealistic-sci-fi-films-of-all-ti/

According to NASA no less.
Click to expand...

Archie Leach said:
I remember seeing it listed as the most scientifically accurate sci-fi film. I don't know shit about science but I was surprised.
Click to expand...

BAMSOLA said:
I don't remember seeing anything in Gattaca that was too far fetched in terms of Sci-fi especially considering it is based in the future and not present day.
Click to expand...


Those stupid astronomers know nothing :p

Anyway, this article shows a few of the issues, and I'll add to it (sorry if my rant gets too boring/technical, I have a feeling it does):

There is indeed a large amount of variation that can be obtained by looking at all the sperm of the father (eggs are more difficult to look at en masse). But the 2 brothers they make are so different, from the same parents, that was implausible. Unless (and this wasn't mentioned), they are introducing new genes artificially into the sperm library.


A bigger problem is the fact that almost all "traits" including many diseases are the result of not just several genes with very complicated interactions but also different heritable factors (collectively called epigenetic). An even bigger (and fairly obvious) one is that things like propensity to violence are not strongly heritable.


So, in 1997, when the movie was made, the human genome hadn't yet been sequenced. It was completed in 2003, after 15 years and a billion dollars. In the movie they sequence everyone's genome several times a day. Granted that sequencing is much much faster now, but that speed is quite unthinkable, since it's not just a question of computer power, the chemical reactions needed to identify 3 BILLION bases will take some time. Even if instead of the whole genome they do something like what the police do nowadays and focus on "mutation hotspots" of diversity within the genome ("DNA fingerprints"). (personally with such strong selection for genes across the gnome, I think some of these hotspots won't have quite so much diversity)


Now, the point where we burst out laughing (btw the link I posted was happy with this, they assumed the print out has the interpretation not the sequence):
In one scene the girl gets a print-out (WHY A PRINT OUT??? why not look at a screen? It's going to be a really really long printout) and knows exactly what is wrong with the man. To realise how ridiculous this is, this is what the sequence of a single bacterial gene (these are much much smaller than ours) looks like. It's like Neo looking at the 1s and 0s of the Matrix and transcending it (except DNA is a 4-letter code), that's how good she has to be to be able to understand anything.
 
Valley of the Dolls (1967)
Bad adaptation of the enormously successful book. Uninspired acting (e.g. Sharon Tate), strange alternative ending, average musical interludes, doesn't convey the drama of the book. Miss. 2/10
 
Solace (2014)
Watched this yesterday in the cinema. It was okay, had its moments and generally kept me engaged all throughout. It seemed to struggle with its identity though, not holding the suspense enough and keeping its twists to be a thriller, not really being confusing enough to be a psychological sci fi. The acting is pretty naff in places and decent in others. All the drama it tried to induce was killed by the casual performance of two of its three main characters. The best scenes were by far when Anthony Hopkins and Colin Farrell are sharing scenes which is no coincidence. It also played backing music at ridiculous moments.

6/10
 
You must log in or register to reply here.