Film The Redcafe Movie review thread

Irwinwastheking said:
I watched The Godfather last night again for probably the fifth time. It really is a masterpiece. Without a doubt one of the most beautiful movies ever filmed. I just love how understated the acting is. Now to see if I can get hold of the other two this week.
Click to expand...

The acting in part one and part two is absolutely brilliant. Every single character, from the main actors to the background guys, is immense and has a story behind him/her. Consider Rocco or Al Neri, two hitmen/bodyguards who have remained in the background but are remembered very fondly by the audience.

The first and second parts were on an equal scale of excellence, the third one though, the less said about it the better. It lacked any character development (Vincent, Mary, Anthony). The acting for these characters was atrocious as well, Mary and Anthony were nothing but annoying character, whereas Vincent saved his character by truly acting like Sonny's son (although he doesn't hold a candle next to Sonny's character). It was just another mob film. If I had to rate them, it would be in the following manner:

Godfather 1 and 2: Two of the best films of all time. 10/10

Godfather 3: 7/10, watchable just for the amazing prequels.



I also watched "The Shining" a few weeks back, good psychological thriller with some suspense. I loved how the ghosts came into the movie, slowly and not "in your face" like most modern movies.
 
The Thing (1982) - Watched it for the first time in about 15 years, and really had no recollection as to how good it is. Watched it in a small, cold cinema, which added to the experience as well. One of the finest horror films ever made in my book.

Bourne Identity - Got the trilogy on Blu-Ray so figured I'd see how well they transfered. The film is obviously superb (probably my favourite for the three?) but the blu-ray didn't strike me as being anything spectacular. Visual and Audio quality were obviously improved, but it's not the best transfer i've ever seen.

Rushmore - Brilliant. Bloody love Bill Murray in this film... I really need to get round to watching Moonrise Kingdom sooner rather then later.
 
Quiet City - Aaron Katz (2007)

One of those films of 20 somethings in Brooklyn and their relationships with so much being suggested as opposed to defined . . . kind of like how life is. No special effect bollocks or hero crap or unbelievable feats and coincidences, just sort of a day in the life with understated, subtle bits of cinematic poetry that are anything but transcendental. Great film for such a young director with a shoestring budget, who also plays a supporting role in it.

8 1/2 cocks up.
 
Slevs said:
The acting in part one and part two is absolutely brilliant. Every single character, from the main actors to the background guys, is immense and has a story behind him/her. Consider Rocco or Al Neri, two hitmen/bodyguards who have remained in the background but are remembered very fondly by the audience.

The first and second parts were on an equal scale of excellence, the third one though, the less said about it the better. It lacked any character development (Vincent, Mary, Anthony). The acting for these characters was atrocious as well, Mary and Anthony were nothing but annoying character, whereas Vincent saved his character by truly acting like Sonny's son (although he doesn't hold a candle next to Sonny's character). It was just another mob film. If I had to rate them, it would be in the following manner:

Godfather 1 and 2: Two of the best films of all time. 10/10

Godfather 3: 7/10, watchable just for the amazing prequels.



I also watched "The Shining" a few weeks back, good psychological thriller with some suspense. I loved how the ghosts came into the movie, slowly and not "in your face" like most modern movies.
Click to expand...

You're right about so many of the minor characters having a lot of depth; I love that sort of thing. As much as it's difficult to create a memorable main character, it can be even more difficult to add depth to some of those smaller characters who barely feature. There's a great bit in the book about Neri and his rise into the family which I enjoyed.

You're correct about the third one as well.

Vincent's character was decent, but the way they built him up was poor and they did him no favours. It would've made some sense for him to perhaps be like he was, but already in a respectable role within the family; possibly even the same way Sonny was. Then, an eventual ascent to Don would've been believeable. As it is though, he's just the annoying family member who turns up at an event and causes trouble, starts to get involved, and then ends up as Don because there's no one else to do it. His character is developed; it's just done poorly. The less said about Michael's kids the better.

What would've been better would've been to use a kid from the family involved previously. I'd have brought the kid from the baptism from the 1st one into it. Now into his 20s, he's a normal kid but learns the truth about his dead father. This sets him against his uncle, with Connie having to choose sides. It would have a sort of symbolic reference too because Michael is actually his Godfather. Would've preferred something like that to a bunch of random gangsters made up just to suit the film and generally had no relevance to the previous films.

And they should've got back Duvall too.
 
R.N7 said:
Of Gods of Men - A brotherhood of French monks in Algeria must decide whether to flee their monastery and community or stand their ground and face certain death. A reserved, harrowing, contemplative 'real' drama. Great film.
Click to expand...
As good a movie as I've seen in the last few years. The actor who plays the abbot plays an imam in 'Les hommes libres' which is not as good but worth a watch.
 
There's been a bit of a trend lately to say the Godfather III is actually quite good, or that if you just ignore that it's a Godfather film, it's actually a really good stand alone.

But you can't ignore that it's a Godfather film. It's a continuation of the same story, and a story you need to know in order to understand it (though not the Vatican subplot bit, which nobody understands) Plus they're playing all the same characters.

Except they're not. Talia Shire is playing a sort of pantomime witch drag queen, Al Pacino is playing about 3 different characters he's played before, none of which are Michael Corleone, Andy Garcia is playing the sort of super Sonny alpha that would appear in fan fiction, George Hamilton is playing Tom Hagen if Tom Hagen was a character in a porno parody of a daytime soap opera which itself was a parody of the Godfather, and Sofia Coppola is playing a girl in the background of scene 17 who's mistakenly been given some lines.

Even if they weren't mangling characters from, or with connections to the first films, it would still include a scene where a Helicopter tries to assassinate a room, and the lines:

"I love him
- But he's your first cousin!
Then I love him first!"

It's pretty meh by most standards. By Godfather standards it's God awful.
 
I need to go back and watch it sometime. I don't mind III myself, but if I watched it back to notice the flaws I'd probably pick up a lot more. Every time I mean to watch it back, I or II end up in my DVD player instead. I mean, if you're going to spend time watching a Godfather film, why would it be this one instead of them?

It's strange how much Pacino aged though. From II to III over 16 years, you could understand that change, but even in Scarface about only 8 years before he looked nothing at all like that. Some mid-life crisis the man had!

Perhaps III should've just been 3 hours of clips of Al Neri vs Luca Brasi, as they see who can pull of more hits in a really cool fashion. Even if non-canon, that'd have been kind of cool.

Then there's that line, "our true enemy has not yet shown his face", which makes no sense. At least it's better than all the cringey stuff his daughter comes out with though.
 
Nah, Pacino changed dramatically post Scarface. He even seemed to change ethnically too. He's sort of a growly voiced, sunken eyed shouty loony hispanic with manic hair now. Whereas prime era Al was a soft spoken, light voiced, clean cut, fresh faced lil italian with great hair. And when he smiled he didn't look like the devil was trying to climb out of his teeth. He lost his hair and started smoking at 9 so it's not like it was conscious (even the odd colouring is probably just cos he lives in LA now) but it caught up with him very suddenly.

He's also been a victim of his own talent for erupting into rage, to the point everyone gets him to do it now. It was brilliant when he was this aforementioned clean cut looking softly spoken guy who'd suddenly erupt...Now you know he's only 3 lines away from shouting just by looking at him.

I actually quite like Cheesy's idea of a plot for III. It's certainly a better idea thematically. You're probably right about Garcia too, he's not bad, but his character prominence and rise was ridiculous. It's like they'd seen all the bad ass gangster films made in the wake of the Godfather, and how everyone liked Sonny from the first, and thought "yeah, lets put a short tempered, hot headed angry bad ass in a leather jacket as the new, main guy...people will love that!" but Sonny was derided by Vito in the first as being a bad Don precisely for those reasons.

So then they thought "Well, we'll make him a bit more calculated like Michael by the end...you know, we'll put him in a suit, and he wont shout as much. That'll work"

It's like Francis didn't even watch the old ones before making this, because everyone's characters are all over the shop. I'm convinced Talia Shire just said "I want to be a gangster in this one too bro" and he just went "feck it, I've already put my daughter in it, why not let my sister feck with her character? Who gives a shit at this point?

Also they tried to get Duvall back. They wouldn't pay him enough.
 
Mockney said:
There's been a bit of a trend lately to say the Godfather III is actually quite good, or that if you just ignore that it's a Godfather film, it's actually a really good stand alone.

But you can't ignore that it's a Godfather film. It's a continuation of the same story, and a story you need to know in order to understand it (though not the Vatican subplot bit, which nobody understands) Plus they're playing all the same characters.

Except they're not. Talia Shire is playing a sort of pantomime witch drag queen, Al Pacino is playing about 3 different characters he's played before, none of which are Michael Corleone, Andy Garcia is playing the sort of super Sonny alpha that would appear in fan fiction, George Hamilton is playing Tom Hagen if Tom Hagen was a character in a porno parody of a daytime soap opera which itself was a parody of the Godfather, and Sofia Coppola is playing a girl in the background of scene 17 who's mistakenly been given some lines.

Even if they weren't mangling characters from, or with connections to the first films, it would still include a scene where a Helicopter tries to assassinate a room, and the lines:

"I love him
- But he's your first cousin!
Then I love him first!"

It's pretty meh by most standards. By Godfather standards it's God awful.
Click to expand...

I dont think you do. There is nothing particularly complicated about the plot. It is a continuation of the same story but after such a big lurch forward in time it might as well be a clean break, in terms of plot development.

Really good as a standalone film is overstating it tho. Perfectly OK is probably about right, which is only one notch above "meh", and I have no fundamental objection to that classification either.

In fact, I dont really disagree with anything else you said. I think it is passable as a standalone film, and as you said it isnt a standalone film. But then that is the thing about hypotheticals, they are not reality.
 
The Calvi/Marcinkus/Vatican Bank/JP I riff in Godfather III was so badly done; a waste of everyone's time.
 
How could Ebert give it the same as part II, I mean really? I don't hate it by any means but it's not on the same level as the other two. They're not even on the same building Part I and II are at the top of the Empire States building, and part III is a pancake which has been squashed again for good measure. There's just no comparing.

As I said, if they wanted a third part, they should've left the De Niro part out of II and went back to it in the late 70s, giving II more time to develop Michael's storyline, and more time to develop De Niro so they could go from his earlier days until the 30s. Basically from a normal Italian American to the Godfather himself. You'd have bits of Sonny's rise too and Luca Brasi possibly. I'd have liked that.

I'd never want them to do that now though since they'd probably give Di Caprio the title role, and honestly, I'd rather see it be Seagal or Steve Martin over him.
 
Killer Joe. 7/10
Liked it. The KFC scene has got to be one of the best dark comedy moments ever.
 
Indie-game - A movie about indie game developers and their journey in making of their games. This movie being about the creators of Super Meat Boy and Fez. Great watch. Very genuinely done.

7/10.
 
He pretty much shouts every line he has and swears a lot... I'd hardly class that as "great"

I've never really got the praise he recieved for that film.
 
I remember cringing at Nicholson at the end. That's the most vivid thing I can remember about it along with the added, pointless elements that weren't in the orginal film.
 
Annihilate Now! said:
He pretty much shouts every line he has and swears a lot... I'd hardly class that as "great"

I've never really got the praise he recieved for that film.
Click to expand...

Yeah he's playing a role.

Not sure about this shouting you are imagining though.

Wasn't surprised at the praise or award nominations he got, he clearly played it well IMO.
 
L' Enfant Sauvage (the Wild Child) - Francois Truffaut (1970)

Had always avoided this film thinking it would be impossible to make a proper movie on a feral child schtick, and didn't want to be disappointed by one of my cinema idols, Truffaut. Wrong I was. This film was really well done and believable, and holds up perfectly 40 years later.

I guess it was based on a feral child discovery in Southern France in the 18th century, and was pretty believably documented as opposed to so many myths and stories of "feral child" finds. The little feral kid was really well acted and scripted. But most fascinating was the whole scientific look into it that included behavior, language acquisition, educational and theoretical concepts that Truffaut handled masterfully.

He showed himself to be a competent actor as well. I think it was his first role in front of the camera. What was interesting is that he chose to take the role of the doctor and guardian so he could direct the feral youth in front of the camera, and it worked almost perfectly. Great film.

9 cocks up.


*just saw there's some British woman coming out with a book that claims she was raised by "monkeys for 5 years in Colombia, found by hunters who traded her to a brothel for a parrot . . ."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/woman-claims-raised-monkeys-article-1.1189372
 
Theon said:
Yeah he's playing a role.

Not sure about this shouting you are imagining though.

Wasn't surprised at the praise or award nominations he got, he clearly played it well IMO.
Click to expand...

Yeah, he's playing a one note role.

I'm pretty sure before each scene, Scorcese said "Alright Mark... give me... Angry" as it is pretty much the only emotion/mood he shows through the entire film.
 
Annihilate Now! said:
Yeah, he's playing a one note role.

I'm pretty sure before each scene, Scorcese said "Alright Mark... give me... Angry" as it is pretty much the only emotion/mood he shows through the entire film.
Click to expand...

I don't think he's angry at all, he's just a dick and a wind up.

Well he was only playing a supporting actor role so you aren't going to see a wide range of emotions or moods, that's not what his character is there for.
 
I didn't mind the Departed at first but it was when I heard about IA and thought back more on the movie itself I realised it was a bit meh.

I don't hate Di Caprio but don't particularly think he's brilliant either, Damon's okay but they dumbed down his character from IA, Nicholson is good at times but overacts at other points and Wahlberg just shouts all the time and was just added in again to dumb it down for the audience. I do like Martin Sheen though and think he played his part really well. Plus I then watched more Scorsese films I hadn't seen after it and realised how much better some of the others were.
 
The Departed suffers massively in comparison to IA. Marky Mark is responsible for one of the dumbest additional elements in the whole thing. The cack handed bullshit metaphor ending.
 
Mockney said:
The Departed suffers massively in comparison to IA. Marky Mark is responsible for one of the dumbest additional elements in the whole thing. The cack handed bullshit metaphor ending.
Click to expand...

It's funny, I was reading back in this thread just a couple of weeks ago, a previous rant of yours on this subject. I was deliberating whether to watch IA3 and went back to see what caftards thought of it.

Agree with you that IA is better. Tho I do like The Departed as well.
 
Yeah I like the occasional rant. I set up a blog for it once, but then I got bored of it and the registration ran out. I do that quite a lot too. I haven't seen either of the IA sequels. Is IA 3 the one that's a whole film based on the flashbacks from the first one?
 
Mockney said:
The Departed suffers massively in comparison to IA. Marky Mark is responsible for one of the dumbest additional elements in the whole thing. The cack handed bullshit metaphor ending.
Click to expand...

I don't even think it holds up on its own though. I genuinely found it comically awful. Dialogue that was pseudo Mamet. Half a dozen fight scenes so poorly choreographed that you could clearly see fist and face were about a foot apart. Dozens of completely pointless scenes (and characters) which could have been removed without impacting on the film whatsoever (well, apart from positively). Law enforcement so incompetent they made Chief Wiggum look like Poirot. Gangsters so unmenacing they made Chief Wiggum look like Scarface. Characters that make absolutely no sense. I just didn't get it. Any of it. It is just the kind of film that makes me wonder if I'm insane because of its critical acclaim. 93% on Rotten Tomatoes for crying out loud!

Rant over ... and all imo of course.
 
Prophet_of_Doom said:
I don't even think it holds up on its own though. I genuinely found it comically awful. Dialogue that was pseudo Mamet. Half a dozen fight scenes so poorly choreographed that you could clearly see fist and face were about a foot apart. Dozens of completely pointless scenes (and characters) which could have been removed without impacting on the film whatsoever (well, apart from positively). Law enforcement so incompetent they made Chief Wiggum look like Poirot. Gangsters so unmenacing they made Chief Wiggum look like Scarface. Characters that make absolutely no sense. I just didn't get it. Any of it. It is just the kind of film that makes me wonder if I'm insane because of its critical acclaim. 93% on Rotten Tomatoes for crying out loud!

Rant over ... and all imo of course.
Click to expand...

:lol: And a Best Picture Oscar.

Film can be very subjective, you're always gonna get different views. In general I think it earned it's praise, I found it entertaining and well acted particularly Di Caprio.

Did you watch IA first? Because if you did then you might have been comparing it to IA, rather than just watching it as it's own film.
 
It's hard to give it it's merits as it's own film when all the things that are good about it are ripped from IA (at some points, almost shot for shot) and all the bad things added in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.