Film The Redcafe Movie review thread

Has anyone here seen 47 Ronin? It's offensively bad. Cast of Japanese people in a film set in Japan, speaking English. Keanu Reeves is there for some reason. Every time someone said something Japanese they translated it straight away. A lot of unnecessary CGI. It's even worse than The Last Samurai.

Wut? Last Samurai was quite a good movie. What was wrong with that? Absolutely in a different level to 47 Ronin.
 
I love the Last Samurai - it's a bloody beautiful looking film.

Bad Neighbours - Bleh, am I the only one who is getting a bit tired of dick jokes? Didn't find it parricularly clever or funny for that matter - some of the physical comedy was okay, but most of that was in the trailer...

Pompeii - As a serious film it's rubbish. As a bit of unintentional comedy to watch with friends, it's a delight. I'm fairly sure this film came about when someone pitched a film idea - that sounded far too much like Gladiator - so the powers-that-be decided they best chuck in a Volcano... as there definitely wasn't a Volcano in Gladiator.
 
Anyone seen The Double? Apparently it's Kafkaesque...and transcends into a Terry Gilliam's Brazil type world.
 
Dark Floors

A film written by and starring Lordi. As in the band that won Eurovision. Them in the monster costumes. This meant that I went into the film with fairly low expectations, and sadly the film failed to meet any of them. I think it's supposed to be a horror, but it failed to make me jump (or give me the anticipation of a jump) even once. I'm usually too much of a wimp to even watch scary films, so for this to not even faze me can't be a good thing for it. The actors (one of whom was in Aliens once) failed to react to anything with sufficient fear, so if what was happening didn't scare them why should it scare me? There was also a clear lack of effort from them, although one of them did look quite nice. I think I'd have enjoyed it more if the band were featured more. They've obviously gone to some effort to make characters for themselves, so why not explore that? Be much more interesting than focusing on Generic Hero, Generic Douchebag, Generic Hot Chick and Generic Security Guard.

I don't even know why I bothered watching this.
 
Did anyone enjoy Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters? While it was a typical OTT action thriller, I did enjoy watching on Netflix. There were four versions made in 2013 bearing the Hansel and Gretel name http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hansel_and_Gretel#Adaptations.

I sat down and watched Point Break the other night. My goodness, I never realized how shitty the acting had been and how terrible the story writing was. There is a remake in the works, apparently http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/07/showbiz/movies/gerard-butler-point-break-ew/.
 
Glengarry Glen Ross
Can't believe it has taken me this long to watch this amazing film. It's probably one of the best ensemble performances I have seen, great how they got a bunch of heavyweights all to be in the same film and perform equally. Some of the best dialogue I have heard in a while, really quick, witty and funny. Should be on the list of everyone who hasn't seen it 8.5/10
 
Frank: It was good! It gets a little sloggy in the second half (mostly because the need to amp up drama takes precedence over laughs) but funny, very well acted and interesting story. Fassbender is excellent but Domhnall Gleeson and his character stood out to me a lot. The film deconstructs its point-of-view character and straight man, making the 'only sane man' among eccentrics into a toxic influence. Contrary to most films of this type, Gleeson does NOT find a place to belong in the misfit crowd. Ultimately he has no business in art. Not the wacky ironic movie it appears at first glance, definitely worth seeing. 4 papier-mâché heads out of 5.
Excellent review on Frank, explained perfectly how I felt about the film myself. I really wasn't expecting the dramatic change in pace over the second half of the film, especially how dark it went after the rather funny - yet quite odd - first hour of the movie. I think the trailers could easily mis-lead people into watching this film, but none the less it's worth the watch.
 
Glengarry Glen Ross
Can't believe it has taken me this long to watch this amazing film. It's probably one of the best ensemble performances I have seen, great how they got a bunch of heavyweights all to be in the same film and perform equally. Some of the best dialogue I have heard in a while, really quick, witty and funny. Should be on the list of everyone who hasn't seen it 8.5/10

Yes, very good film.
 
You're becoming a right film hipster Nilsson!
I can't stand neurotic actors/characters, one of the reasons I don't care for Woody Allen's films that much. I remember sitting through The Squid and the Whale and absolutely hating Eisenberg but enjoying Jeff Daniels' performance, it was like two worlds colliding there and I never did warm to that film.
 
Scott Piligrim Vs the world - 8/10

Enjoyed rewatching this the other day. One of the best comic book adaptations IMO. A 22 yr old Scott Piligrim begins dating a highshooler but he soon gets obsessed with the girl of his dreams, Ramona Flowers. As soon as he begins dating Ramona he is faced with battling each of her seven evil ex boy friends.

I actually prefer this film to any of the cornetto trilogy films.
 
Glengarry Glen Ross
Can't believe it has taken me this long to watch this amazing film. It's probably one of the best ensemble performances I have seen, great how they got a bunch of heavyweights all to be in the same film and perform equally. Some of the best dialogue I have heard in a while, really quick, witty and funny. Should be on the list of everyone who hasn't seen it 8.5/10
Mamet's dialogue never rings true to me. Clever but inauthentic.
 
:lol:

Sorry but that's one of the most bizarre criticisms I've ever heard.

The script is the play/film. Whether it's natural or not is irrelevant.

If it was they'd be very little to watch.
 
Mamet's dialogue never rings true to me. Clever but inauthentic.

For me it is more to do with the fact that it is almost as if they just took a camera into a theater and filmed the stage play. Everyone is trying to be a stage thesp - and actooor. If it had been filmed better it could have been great. But it wasn't.
 
For me it is more to do with the fact that it is almost as if they just took a camera into a theater and filmed the stage play. Everyone is trying to be a stage thesp - and actooor. If it had been filmed better it could have been great. But it wasn't.

A lot of plays to film suffer from that. Roman Polanski's Carnage and the adaptation of the History Boys been two recent examples.
 
Agreed. I think Glengarry Glen Ross because there were so many actooors trying to out Pacino each other.
 
Pacino didn't shout nearly as much as I expected him to do, a remarkably restrained performance from him, I mean, it was a glorious opportunity for him to really ham it up.
 
A lot of plays to film suffer from that. Roman Polanski's Carnage and the adaptation of the History Boys been two recent examples.

Not to mention any film adaptation of Shakespeare ever made.

I think people are missing the point. It's supposed to be a showcase for acting and razor sharp dialogue and in that respect it's untouchable.

The plot itself isn't enough to warrant a movie.
 
Anna
Decent film. Nothing more nothing less. Mark Strong was good as usual and is very underrated. The film centres on Mark Strong, a mind detective who goes into people's memories to solve crimes but meets his match against Taissa Farmiga, who is a troubled genius teen. Starts better than it ends, and ultimately feels a little rushed. Not bad if you don't have much else to watch 5/10
 
Frank: It was good! It gets a little sloggy in the second half (mostly because the need to amp up drama takes precedence over laughs) but funny, very well acted and interesting story. Fassbender is excellent but Domhnall Gleeson and his character stood out to me a lot. The film deconstructs its point-of-view character and straight man, making the 'only sane man' among eccentrics into a toxic influence. Contrary to most films of this type, Gleeson does NOT find a place to belong in the misfit crowd. Ultimately he has no business in art. Not the wacky ironic movie it appears at first glance, definitely worth seeing. 4 papier-mâché heads out of 5.
Not a massive amount I can add to this review really. As the film rattled along I was getting worried that there was going to be some sort of happy ending, but thankfully they didn't do that, or at least not in the sense that some of the audience would have wanted. As WP has said, the most striking this is that Gleeson's character isn't given that redemption at the end. Essentially he becomes a documentary maker who attempts to restore what was in place before he stepped out from behind the camera and interfered.
 
Not to mention any film adaptation of Shakespeare ever made.

I think people are missing the point. It's supposed to be a showcase for acting and razor sharp dialogue and in that respect it's untouchable.

The plot itself isn't enough to warrant a movie.

Surely it's meant to be a film?

And Romeo + Juliet did a good job of not merely being a recorded stage play.