Film The Redcafe Movie review thread

Whiplash (2014)

Young nerdy guy passionate about drums joins an elite college band only to discover the professor in charge is a complete nutcase. Very good plot which prove a point. I was quite surprised by the finish but i guess it's much better this way. A pleasant memory this movie.

8/10
 
Gol123 said:
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
Click to expand...
Apparently they were gonna call this film EIGHT and make it the sequel to Se7en
 
Revan said:
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
Click to expand...


Cant believe this film gets so much praise on here...thought it was shit with the only redeeming factors being the performances of Phoenix and the video game character.
 
Balu said:
Jurassic Park is realistic? When can I visit? I'd love to see a T-Rex in real.
Click to expand...
What about it isn't realistic? We can use fossilized DNA if preserved well. We can clone animals. It's all about having the source material at hand.
 
berbatrick said:
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.
Click to expand...
The stupid things you were laughing at are just typical tropes. Same with every cop TV/movie. Tests take way longer in real life. People usually don't figure things out instantly. In the shows/movies they do because how else are you going to move the plot along. Have a bunch of stuff happen while they wait for the lab results? Do a Spongebob and have multiple "10 hours later" type intervals?
 
Mad Max: Fury Road

What's the Caf consensus on this one?

I'm not a fan of the original, Road Warrior is alright and Beyond Thunderdome is silly. This one was alright and silly. I seem to remember people going apeshit over how awesome this movie was. Well, it wasn't. I assume those people are what's keeping the Fast and the Furious franchise so popular. There were so many things that made little sense, even within the context of the movie.
Characters weren't special. Max wasn't even the main character in this, maybe he wasn't supposed to be. Don't know what was the deal with the intentional looking dubbing. Max sounded like Tom Hardy dubbing the movie whilst doing an impression of himself.

This movie looked good and was well made. Can't fault that. Had some very good action scenes in it and the pacing was fine. Acting was also fine besides that weird Khaleesi chick.

6/10
 
Snow said:
Mad Max: Fury Road

What's the Caf consensus on this one?

I'm not a fan of the original, Road Warrior is alright and Beyond Thunderdome is silly. This one was alright and silly. I seem to remember people going apeshit over how awesome this movie was. Well, it wasn't. I assume those people are what's keeping the Fast and the Furious franchise so popular. There were so many things that made little sense, even within the context of the movie.
Characters weren't special. Max wasn't even the main character in this, maybe he wasn't supposed to be. Don't know what was the deal with the intentional looking dubbing. Max sounded like Tom Hardy dubbing the movie whilst doing an impression of himself.

This movie looked good and was well made. Can't fault that. Had some very good action scenes in it and the pacing was fine. Acting was also fine besides that weird Khaleesi chick.

6/10
Click to expand...
Did you watch it at the cinema or at home?
 
Snow said:
Mad Max: Fury Road

What's the Caf consensus on this one?

I'm not a fan of the original, Road Warrior is alright and Beyond Thunderdome is silly. This one was alright and silly. I seem to remember people going apeshit over how awesome this movie was. Well, it wasn't. I assume those people are what's keeping the Fast and the Furious franchise so popular. There were so many things that made little sense, even within the context of the movie.
Characters weren't special. Max wasn't even the main character in this, maybe he wasn't supposed to be. Don't know what was the deal with the intentional looking dubbing. Max sounded like Tom Hardy dubbing the movie whilst doing an impression of himself.

This movie looked good and was well made. Can't fault that. Had some very good action scenes in it and the pacing was fine. Acting was also fine besides that weird Khaleesi chick.

6/10
Click to expand...

I think the F&F films are shit, yet I loved Fury Road.

some of your criticisms about the characters are quite valid, but the film was essentially a long chase movie and the action took precedence over everything else. The grotesque and eccentic characters were just part of the spectacle, and I guess that made the "normal" characters even less interesting? It was very good on the big screen. I'd imagine it lost a bit of impact on a smaller screen if that's how you experienced it?

Still, you already claim to have not been overly impressed with the very similar Mad Max 2, so perhaps it's just not for you.
 
Pay The Ghost
Nic Cage stars as a lecturer who loses his son on Halloween night and goes through whatever means necessary to find him again. All the scare moments were jump scares with loud sounds and were quite hit and miss. Couple of the jump moments worked really well but had Nic Cage not been in the film, i would have enjoyed it less so it gets extra 2 points 7/10

San Andreas
Run of the mill disaster film where The Rock teams up with helicopters, cars and boats to find and rescue his daughter during an earthquake that hits Cali. Adds nothing new to the genre but is a pretty fun popcorn flick 6/10
 
Keenst said:
50/50 is such a great film. For a film which is about a young man with cancer it manages to be funny and uplifting without making the issue seem trivial and without getting too sentimental, it felt real and heartfelt. I was getting pretty emotional towards the end which rarely happens to me watching a film but credit to Gordon-Levitt and Rogen, they're both great in this and I really connected with Levitt's character. 9/10
Click to expand...
I loved the movie. Excellent acting all around. I got damn emotional when Joseph Gordon-Levitt was being wheeled into surgery (god-damn ninjas cutting onions in the room). The song in the background also added to it. A really well made movie and recommend to all.
 
Rick88 said:
I loved the movie. Excellent acting all around. I got damn emotional when Joseph Gordon-Levitt was being wheeled into surgery (god-damn ninjas cutting onions in the room). The song in the background also added to it. A really well made movie and recommend to all.
Click to expand...

Yep that scene got me too, I was fighting back the tears!

Edit: Don't know what happened with the double quote..
 
Last edited:
Just back from seeing Everest. Fascinating story and a gripping watch with incredible visuals and sound. They pretty much told the story exactly as it happened, so it wasn't the most rounded of storylines if you're used to Hollywood beginnings, middles and endings, but the scenes on the mountain are brilliantly put together. I was actively tensing and moving in my seat with some of the sound and camera work. I've been home for half an hour and my legs are still a bit wobbly!
 
Pogue Mahone said:
If ever a movie needs to be watched in a cinema, this one does. Completely wasted on a small screen.
Click to expand...
This isn't Everest. I also don't think it's a huge compliment for a movie that if you don't watch it in a theater it isn't very good because of it.
 
Snow said:
This isn't Everest. I also don't think it's a huge compliment for a movie that if you don't watch it in a theater it isn't very good because of it.
Click to expand...

No idea why you mentioned Everest.

All movies are better watched on a cinema than on television, some more so than others. If they're not, then the film-maker is doing something wrong.
 
Snow said:
This isn't Everest. I also don't think it's a huge compliment for a movie that if you don't watch it in a theater it isn't very good because of it.
Click to expand...
Nah, loads of movies are more fun on the big screen in a crowded room. It's not necessarily a criticism, just the way they're best viewed.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
No idea why you mentioned Everest.

All movies are better watched on a cinema than on television, some more so than others. If they're not, then the film-maker is doing something wrong.
Click to expand...

ThierryHenry said:
Nah, loads of movies are more fun on the big screen in a crowded room. It's not necessarily a criticism, just the way they're best viewed.
Click to expand...
Of course it's better to watch on a bigger screen (assuming the seats are comfortable and people around you aren't annoying) but if a movie is only relying on how good it looks in the movies then it's doing something wrong imo. I can still watch Schwarzenegger in Total Recall, despite the CGI being outdated, and enjoy it but I can't imagine myself re-watching Mad Max: Fury Road.
 
Snow said:
Of course it's better to watch on a bigger screen (assuming the seats are comfortable and people around you aren't annoying) but if a movie is only relying on how good it looks in the movies then it's doing something wrong imo. I can still watch Schwarzenegger in Total Recall, despite the CGI being outdated, and enjoy it but I can't imagine myself re-watching Mad Max: Fury Road.
Click to expand...

It's not only relying on being watched in a cinema, though. It's obviously not your cup of tea but even your review above mentions a lot of positives:

"This movie looked good and was well made. Can't fault that. Had some very good action scenes in it and the pacing was fine. Acting was also fine..."
Click to expand...

The action scenes were the best thing about this movie and they would be considerably improved by watching them in the cinema. The whole thing is basically one long action scene.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
It's not only relying on being watched in a cinema, though. It's obviously not your cup of tea but even your review above mentions a lot of positives:



The action scenes were the best thing about this movie and they would be considerably improved by watching them in the cinema. The whole thing is basically one long action scene.
Click to expand...
I didn't think the movie was shit. I gave it a 6 because the story was almost non-existent and it had no character that was worth its salt. The movie was well acted, Hardy and Theron are both very good actors, but they didn't get much to work with. Had there been more charismatic characters it probably would have gotten a higher score. I just didn't think they were interesting, the dialogue was bizarre at times and thus I didn't much care for what happened in the movie.

I don't feel I missed out by not seeing it in a cinema. The cinema has gotten so expensive that you really have to see something really entertaining as to not feel cheated. I also get so annoyed by other people. Teenagers are bad enough but without them you've got a lot of coughing and sneezing and snorting during the fall and winter months here and that frankly doesn't add to the movie score or dialogue.
 
I watched Fury Road and Jurassic World on the small screen recently, both of which I loved at the cinema. They were both a bit meh in truth. Still fun, but a good few notches down on my original rating.
 
Mockney said:
I watched Fury Road and Jurassic World on the small screen recently, both of which I loved at the cinema. They were both a bit meh in truth. Still fun, but a good few notches down on my original rating.
Click to expand...

Could this not have anything to do with the fact you'd already seen them? Aside from your favourite films of all time, surely there aren't many that could be enjoyed as much as when you first watch them?
 
JamesB__ said:
Could this not have anything to do with the fact you'd already seen them? Aside from your favourite films of all time, surely there aren't many that could be enjoyed as much as when you first watch them?
Click to expand...

To an extent, yeah. Though this wasn't so much about enjoyment, as noticing that they weren't actually as good as I'd previously thought. There were a lot of stupid things I'd forgiven in the midst of a big screen adrenaline rush. I still like them both, tbf.
 
Snow said:
I didn't think the movie was shit. I gave it a 6 because the story was almost non-existent and it had no character that was worth its salt. The movie was well acted, Hardy and Theron are both very good actors, but they didn't get much to work with. Had there been more charismatic characters it probably would have gotten a higher score. I just didn't think they were interesting, the dialogue was bizarre at times and thus I didn't much care for what happened in the movie.

I don't feel I missed out by not seeing it in a cinema. The cinema has gotten so expensive that you really have to see something really entertaining as to not feel cheated. I also get so annoyed by other people. Teenagers are bad enough but without them you've got a lot of coughing and sneezing and snorting during the fall and winter months here and that frankly doesn't add to the movie score or dialogue.
Click to expand...
You did though. Films like this one, or Gravity, are a notch above when seen on big screen.
 
Furiosa and Immortan Joe were both great characters. All this hand wringing about character development and plot in Mad Max strike me as missing the point. Like lamenting the lack of a big musical number in the middle of The Deer Hunter.
 
I also expected more from Mad Max. At some moment the action scenes don't excite me anymore because there is too much of it. But besides the action scenes the movie doesn't offer anything at all, empty dialogues and hardly an interesting plot for me.
 
I went to see Everest... Football Weekly / Italia 90's James Richardson reviews it much better then I ever could:

 
Mad Max: Fury Road is a classic in how to do action movies to perfection. Keep the storyline simple, lots of absolutely amazing action scenes, as little CGI and special effects as possible, beautiful cinematography and a high pace throughout with blood pumping epic music to go with it. I agree that the dialogue was poor and the storyline was as basic as possible (Which fitted in with the anarchic style of the film) but I thought the characters were great and George Miller wasn't afraid to develop his characters in this.

It is also one of the only movies where a woman is empowered without having to belittle a man's contribution. Too many films will try to push a woman as a lead and make them do ridiculous things that a woman couldn't physically do and also try to prove why she is so much better then men but this movie was so organic with its storyline and its heroine and her journey that I actually believed and felt that she really could do all of this stuff. It also touches on a lot of other deeper topics without having to spell every message out to you (Cough* Christopher Nolan Cough*) using visuals to tell the story.

I actually liked that Max wasn't the main drive of the plot. It sort of fitted his character arc within the film. Also, Miller's use of camera shots to direct your eyes to where he wants you to look is absolutely brilliant, you should really check it out.

This film would definitely get an 8 or a 9 for me and is definitely a cinema going experience.
 
Gol123 said:
It is also one of the only movies where a woman is empowered without having to belittle a man's contribution. Too many films will try to push a woman as a lead and make them do ridiculous things that a woman couldn't physically do and also try to prove why she is so much better then men but this movie was so organic with its storyline and its heroine and her journey that I actually believed and felt that she really could do all of this stuff.
Click to expand...
I totally agree with this, it was one of the strong points of the film for me. Furiosa was a lovely character.
It also touches on a lot of other deeper topics without having to spell every message out to you (Cough* Christopher Nolan Cough*) using visuals to tell the story.
Click to expand...
Don't agree with this though (and don't really understand why the dig at Nolan was necessary), not sure what 'deeper topics' you're referring to. Ecology? Place of the woman in society? I don't really feel those topics are dealt with in the film really, nor do I think Miller intended to.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.