I loved Pulp Fiction, Inglourious and Reservoir Dogs. I wouldn't say any of those films are average. Kill Bill 1 and 2 were enjoyable, but not great. I didn't like Jackie Brown and Death Proof was dire.
I disagree with your conclusion.
Film The Redcafe Movie review thread
- Thread starter golden_blunder
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
I loved Pulp Fiction, Inglourious and Reservoir Dogs. I wouldn't say any of those films are average. Kill Bill 1 and 2 were enjoyable, but not great. I didn't like Jackie Brown and Death Proof was dire.
I disagree with your conclusion.
Yes, his casting was a bit shit.
Plech, for example, would've been much better.
According to wikipedia, he wanted Adam Sandler to play that role, which would have been... interesting.
Life of Pi
Haven't read the book myself so this was uncharted territory for me and I'd no idea what I was getting myself into.
Anyway, the story isn't overly special, but Ang Lee makes the film absolutely beautiful to watch, it's definitely something worth going to see in the cinema. I think the first act is brilliant, but the second drags on a little and it's a bit too cheesily religious at times for my liking.
Still, very entertaining and worth a view.
7.5/10
Haven't read the book myself so this was uncharted territory for me and I'd no idea what I was getting myself into.
Anyway, the story isn't overly special, but Ang Lee makes the film absolutely beautiful to watch, it's definitely something worth going to see in the cinema. I think the first act is brilliant, but the second drags on a little and it's a bit too cheesily religious at times for my liking.
Still, very entertaining and worth a view.
7.5/10
I'm glad I'm wrong in this case. It's just that from personal experience, people always seem to love every single film he does and proclaim them to be amazing, while I'm trying to provide some balance. I quite like his films, but don't think they are the masterpieces people keep saying they are.
Especially Kill Bill 2 and Inglorious Basterds, which I thought were quite poor films.
Yes interesting is the word. I agree Roth was very mediocre in the part though, he lacks any subtetly. Which is saying a lot as the part he was playing wasn't exactly the most subtle one.
By the end though, I thought it
basically said religion is just made up stories that sound better then the actual truth - thus people prefer to believe them
Thats what I got anyway...
Well he wasn't intimidating, which is a shame because that's the only thing the role required him to be.
He came across as less a feared, mythical assassin, more like a guy who'd sniff your mum's pants.
I think that must have been intentional, making a comment about how rumours get exaggerated.. or something.
They can't have built up the Bear Jew to be this fecking gigantic monster of a bloke, and then think Roth matched that description. I'd fancy Pitt to knock him out.
Oh the fact he wasn't that impressive was definitely intentional, the scene when he first appears, with the build up of him coming down the tunnel, the music, etc. made it fairly obvious. I wasn't so much criticizing that aspect, I just think that Roth as an actor is pretty terrible. Basically, he's like Tarantino in that he hasn't got any acting talent but loves actors and is just too glad to be on screen with them. The problem is that it's too visible in the film.
Michael Madsen would've been good. They could've maybe Jewed him up 20% with some ringlets, or a Kippah.
Yeah, but it was definitely the case with this film. The contribution of other countries were deliberately diminshed just so we could bathe in cheesy American glory, t'was so unnecessary. The scene when Affleck and his wife embrace each other with the flag waving in the background was so laughable that you might have suspected it was a spoof.
Travolta's part in Pulp Fiction was written for Madsen. Madsen pulled out at the last minute! Travolta has never looked back, whilst Madsen is doing reality tv to pay the bills
I've seen Life of Pi twice now and both times I thought it was great. The art work on the animals and seascapes is extremely impressive. Beneath the Turner watercolour surfaces, animated monsters of the deep flow and contort like Disney's pink Elephants. One silhouetted sequence on the boat, in particular, is extraordinary.
The story itself is a lovely flight of fancy about a boy and a tiger, that harks back to the likes of Little Black Sambo, Maurice Sendak's Wild trilogy and The Tiger that Came to Tea.. It has thrills, emotion and great acting, I loved it.
The 3d was great the first time but seemed rather superfluous and slightly distracting when I saw it again.
Life of Pi is not really concerned with 'the truth', it is a tale (or 2) within a tale after all. It's about stories and the telling of them, about the nature of truth, belief and faith, all presented with a Kierkegaardian slant. It's designed to provoke both the religious and the atheist, with a stick of existential enquiry. It's about zoos (more so in the book than the film), nature, man and evolutionary provinces. As with the book, I found the film to be more subversive and capable of working on more levels than some give it credit for: Regardless of the claims by the character Mamaji, asking Life of Pi to 'make you believe in god', (see Peter Bradshaw's obtuse review in the Guardian) and criticising it for coming up short, entirely misses the point of the film.
The second tale, that people often have a problem with, is in part what Life of Pi is about. The Rashomon-esque distortion of truth and the frustration that this elusiveness brings, is all part of the game "and so it goes with God". To me, the balance of credence between the stories felt slightly better in the book. The lasting impression I was left with, with regards to the stories, is that one or the other, both and neither are 'true'. I don't think that the second story should necessarily be accepted, simply because it appears a more grounded, plausible story. After all it is the insurance company who stipulate what story Pi should tell them.
But all these allegorical flourishes and philisophical musings would quickly become tiresome if the film didn't have a good story.
The second tale, that people often have a problem with, is in part what Life of Pi is about. The Rashomon-esque distortion of truth and the frustration that this elusiveness brings, is all part of the game "and so it goes with God". To me, the balance of credence between the stories felt slightly better in the book. The lasting impression I was left with, with regards to the stories, is that one or the other, both and neither are 'true'. I don't think that the second story should necessarily be accepted, simply because it appears a more grounded, plausible story. After all it is the insurance company who stipulate what story Pi should tell them.
But all these allegorical flourishes and philisophical musings would quickly become tiresome if the film didn't have a good story.
The 3d was great the first time but seemed rather superfluous and slightly distracting when I saw it again.
Though the scene with the flag was too much and shouldn't have been in the film, I don't feel Argo was a huge "America feck yeah" movie, and I thought it did pretty well to avoid that. As for the other countries involvment, it was voluntarily taken out because it wasn't possible to address every point of the real story without making it too convoluted (every single 'based on real facts' film has to make choices for the clarity of narration). It really didn't bother me anyway.
It's ok everyone. It's the name of a book and also before racism was bad.
And I've also come to the conclusion that there are two types of people in the world. One group who likes to think that everything is either black or white and a second group that recognises the various shades of grey in between.
I myself am in the latter. Clearly.
I've cone to the conclusion that you are both weirdos.
Gangster Squad
Pretty average. Can't even be arsed giving a synopsis and Sean Penn's prosthetics made him look ridiculously cartoonish. He was like a Batman villain, ffs.
5/10
Pretty average. Can't even be arsed giving a synopsis and Sean Penn's prosthetics made him look ridiculously cartoonish. He was like a Batman villain, ffs.
5/10
Life of Pi - Meh. Pretty looking but fairly pointless. 5/10
The Impossible - Decent. It's a film about the tsunami so you know what you're getting really.
Naomi Watts is very good, Ewan McGregor is alright and only one of the three kids is annoying. From the director of The Orphanage.
There's a few gory moments that caught me by surprise. Other than that, what you'd expect, a girl a couple of rows down was in tears for half the film ffs.
6.24/10
Naomi Watts is very good, Ewan McGregor is alright and only one of the three kids is annoying. From the director of The Orphanage.
There's a few gory moments that caught me by surprise. Other than that, what you'd expect, a girl a couple of rows down was in tears for half the film ffs.
6.24/10
Les Miserables - 8/10
I went to see the West End show in London earlier this year. It wouldn't normally be my thing but a friend starred in it as Marius, and he has a semi-decent part in the movie too. I really enjoyed the stage show, so wanted to see the movie adaptation. Only go see it if you've seen the stage show and you think you'll enjoy it as it is well over 2 and a half hours long.
Hugh Jackman is superb as Valjean. Anne Hathaway is deservedly tipped for an Oscar for her portrayal of Fantine. Russell Crowe has got a lot of flak for his portrayal of Javert, and even though I'm sure someone could have sung his part better, I think he's cast well. Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter play the Thénardiers, adding good laughs to what is a very grim storyline. Visually it's stunning and the score is amongst the best you'll hear. Proper cinematic experience.
I went to see the West End show in London earlier this year. It wouldn't normally be my thing but a friend starred in it as Marius, and he has a semi-decent part in the movie too. I really enjoyed the stage show, so wanted to see the movie adaptation. Only go see it if you've seen the stage show and you think you'll enjoy it as it is well over 2 and a half hours long.
Hugh Jackman is superb as Valjean. Anne Hathaway is deservedly tipped for an Oscar for her portrayal of Fantine. Russell Crowe has got a lot of flak for his portrayal of Javert, and even though I'm sure someone could have sung his part better, I think he's cast well. Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter play the Thénardiers, adding good laughs to what is a very grim storyline. Visually it's stunning and the score is amongst the best you'll hear. Proper cinematic experience.
The Godfather Trilogy 1901-1980
Got a hold of this which is a Fan Edit.
Clocking in at almost 10 hours. with all the deleted scenes tagged on. 5 dvds
Done in chronological order.
Superb.
I have all 3 version . The DVD collection, the DVD Restoration and the Blu-Ray Restoration.
But the Fan Edit version in chronological order is also great.
10/10 for both the Director's version and the Fab Edit versions.
Got a hold of this which is a Fan Edit.
Clocking in at almost 10 hours. with all the deleted scenes tagged on. 5 dvds
Done in chronological order.
Superb.
I have all 3 version . The DVD collection, the DVD Restoration and the Blu-Ray Restoration.
But the Fan Edit version in chronological order is also great.
10/10 for both the Director's version and the Fab Edit versions.
I just watched The Fountain and really liked it. I was digging the whole Princess Bride vibe. I found the tale of loss and the acceptance of loss touching. Hugh Jackman is very good and the central relationship feels authentic. Not too sure what was happening with the flying Buddah but even when I didn't understand what was going on, which was often, it still kept my attention. It's really well put together. Given the disparate strands that have to be woven together, I was impressed with the way the film effortlessly flows. It never jars and feels tonally consistent.
I find that Pi, Requiem for a Dream and Black Swan, perhaps deliberately, lack emotional resonance. Their efforts seem largely focused on cold narrative mechanics (this works for Pi and Black Swan to an extent and doesn't work with Requiem). Yet The Wrestler and now The fountain have really moved me on an emotional level.
I was pleasantly suprised by The Fountain, considering the way it gets kicked about. I'm really starting to like Aronofsky as a director.
I find that Pi, Requiem for a Dream and Black Swan, perhaps deliberately, lack emotional resonance. Their efforts seem largely focused on cold narrative mechanics (this works for Pi and Black Swan to an extent and doesn't work with Requiem). Yet The Wrestler and now The fountain have really moved me on an emotional level.
I was pleasantly suprised by The Fountain, considering the way it gets kicked about. I'm really starting to like Aronofsky as a director.
Watched Running Scared last night. Good movie, I'd say. They had an interesting story line, but go around in a weird way depicting it, with so many plots and sub plots intertwined with each other. I have no idea why they showed what they did in the end though. Seemed like a typical movie ending.
Cosmopolis - I usually quite like Cronenberg's stuff, but I just did not get this movie. It's about rich/smart Robert Pattinson driving around in the back of a limo and having really dense (See: prententious) coversations with people about grand ideas/themes/society, most of which don't matter or effect anything at all... but I had no problem with folliwng that, I just didn't get it. I don't get what the film was trying to say, what it wanted to be, what it's messages were, or even what Pattinson's character was.
Not good.
Not good.
A film I also like very much.
(in the following paragraphs, I'm going to address some of the themes of the film, you might not want to read if you haven't seen it)
The idea is actually that each story represents 3 different dimensions: the physical dimension, the dream dimension and the spiritual dimension.
The physical dimension is the one set in the present day, with its everyday pain, the refusal of death, the question of human condition...
The dream world is the one in Izzy's book, with different values such as bravery and heroics.
Finally, the spiritual dimension is of course the one in the 'bubble' with a character that adopts several postures that could relate to spiritual and/or religious beliefs. It's the research of an ideal, of an absolute, that is addressed in this universe.
And the two major themes that are addressed throughout the film are love and death, of course. You understand that love is the fuel for everything in each dimension, whereas death has a different resonance in each universe: in the physical world, it's presented as something you can't escape, something quite somber, more or less the same in the dreamworld (even though it's more magnificient and Izzy's story tries to give it meaning). However, death in the spiritual world, fuelled by love, is seen as something positive which blossoms into new life. It's not seen as a fatality at all.
I think it's an incredibly profound film that you get something out of everytime you watch it, but you have to be in the right frame of mind. On top of that, you have Clint Mansell's excellent score and some beautiful images.
Probably not for everyone, but a very rich film which wasn't always interpreted correctly in my opinion.
Chinatown - 9/10
I bet Polanski wishes he didn't make Cross so similar to himself.
I bet Polanski wishes he didn't make Cross so similar to himself.
Silver Linings Playbook - 8/10
Lawless - 7.5/10
Pretty good movie imo,pity there wasn't more of Gary Oldman in it.
Pretty good movie imo,pity there wasn't more of Gary Oldman in it.
Gangster Squad - 5/10
Disappointed in this film. When I first saw the trailer, I was pretty excited to see how this would turn out. Avg movie at best. Decent way to kill two hours of your time. Typical formulated Hollywood movie we've all seen before. You know what happens before it happens. It seemed rushed and too hastily put together. No character development.
Disappointed in this film. When I first saw the trailer, I was pretty excited to see how this would turn out. Avg movie at best. Decent way to kill two hours of your time. Typical formulated Hollywood movie we've all seen before. You know what happens before it happens. It seemed rushed and too hastily put together. No character development.
Stand Up Guys
just watched it and although it wasn't a great movie, it was a very enjoyable, with some great moments between Pacino and Walken.
8/10
just watched it and although it wasn't a great movie, it was a very enjoyable, with some great moments between Pacino and Walken.
8/10
No he wasn't. He was the guy that said "I know" to Django at the bar in Candies mansion when Django told him the D was silent.
Shit film buff you are Vato.
Yeah my bad, though I could swear he was listed on imdb as bartender before and they changed it.
The Impossible - Pretty awful film, that annoyed the shit out of me at times. Namely these two things
They were the main things, there were other smalelr things as well, for example the main child actor, who was hit and miss in terms of acting ability, but always a hit in terms of being able to annoy me.
In the good column though, the Tsunami itself looked great, and all the water/devestation effects looked very real and were very well done. The film only fleetingly touched upon the wider devestation of the Tsunami away from this families peril... I realise it is their story, but perhaps the pain of others could have been more apparent?
Finally, I have no idea why Naomi Watts has been nominated for an Oscar. She barely does anything at all... she screams a lot during the Tsuname, and then spends half of the film pretty much comatosed. That's not to say she's bad at any point... just that she doesn't actually do anything. It is a completely bizarre nomination.
Crank - I fecking love Crank.
First, when they all kept "nearly missing" each other in the hospital just before they reunite... urgh, it's such a annoying movie short-cut to create suspense/drama. Bugs the shit out of me.
Second, What is the point of this film? Why, to see this family reunite of course... why then does this film manage to find reason to continue for a good 20 minutes after this point? I know I should care about the mother nearly dying, but feck, you've given me the pay-off now, after which, even if she did die, at least she got to see her family again, so it's not even as "sad" as it would have been.
Second, What is the point of this film? Why, to see this family reunite of course... why then does this film manage to find reason to continue for a good 20 minutes after this point? I know I should care about the mother nearly dying, but feck, you've given me the pay-off now, after which, even if she did die, at least she got to see her family again, so it's not even as "sad" as it would have been.
They were the main things, there were other smalelr things as well, for example the main child actor, who was hit and miss in terms of acting ability, but always a hit in terms of being able to annoy me.
In the good column though, the Tsunami itself looked great, and all the water/devestation effects looked very real and were very well done. The film only fleetingly touched upon the wider devestation of the Tsunami away from this families peril... I realise it is their story, but perhaps the pain of others could have been more apparent?
Finally, I have no idea why Naomi Watts has been nominated for an Oscar. She barely does anything at all... she screams a lot during the Tsuname, and then spends half of the film pretty much comatosed. That's not to say she's bad at any point... just that she doesn't actually do anything. It is a completely bizarre nomination.
Crank - I fecking love Crank.
What's Crank? Is it the one where Statham has to get his heart pumping quicker and quicker?
Yeah, that's the one. Ridiculous action/comedy film... that's totally implausible, a bit mental, and quite offensive... and as I said, I love it.
EDIT: And the sequel is just as good, if not better... as it turns the mental factor up by about Cabbage.
EDIT: And the sequel is just as good, if not better... as it turns the mental factor up by about Cabbage.
Shit, there's a sequel! I have to see that!
I enjoyed Crank actually, it was absolutely ridiculous and should've, by all standards, been crap, but there's something fascinating about it and its over the topness.
I enjoyed Crank actually, it was absolutely ridiculous and should've, by all standards, been crap, but there's something fascinating about it and its over the topness.
I loved Crank, it was so over the top and absurd. I thought Crank 2 was awful though. If you watch it, approach it with low expectations.