I am watching this in 2 hours. Very hyped, to be honest. Not because of the original though. But because of me being a sci-fi fan and a fan of most people involved in the project. Sicario was a fucking fantastic movie.
Anyway. The original Blade Runner. I respect its impact on cinema and culture, and I do believe in 1982 it might have been a well paced and thought-provoking piece. All that remains though is the style - and even that was copied everywhere, so we simply can't imagine how it would have been to see that movie on launch day. Having said all that, the movie is a boring, superficial kitsch with good style, and one good line by today's standards. Time has simply moved on, and the themes discussed by this movie have been discussed much better in latter movies.
sar·casm | \ ˈsär-ˌka-zəm \
1: a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
2a: a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual
b: the use or language of sarcasm
Dont know what you guys been watching. Blade Runner is a great movie anyway you look at it (one of the best IMO).
This follows close to the original, so do watch the first before.
I am watching this in 2 hours. Very hyped, to be honest. Not because of the original though. But because of me being a sci-fi fan and a fan of most people involved in the project. Sicario was a fucking fantastic movie.
Anyway. The original Blade Runner. I respect its impact on cinema and culture, and I do believe in 1982 it might have been a well paced and thought-provoking piece. All that remains though is the style - and even that was copied everywhere, so we simply can't imagine how it would have been to see that movie on launch day. Having said all that, the movie is a boring, superficial kitsch with good style, and one good line by today's standards. Time has simply moved on, and the themes discussed by this movie have been discussed much better in latter movies.
This is a difficult problem imo. Should i judge an old movie negatively which was the first movie to do something because a newer movie has done the same thing better? At the same time, it's hard not to.
That doesn't change the fact that all the characters are shitty and harrison ford was completely weird during the last part of the movie. We were given no insight into his thought process. He is this badass robot hunter, going to kill that boss robot and found out it wasn't as easy as he thought. Why did he start that super awkward escape?
First off, hats off. To the people, who made the trailers. They didn't spoil a thing. Conversations as they happen in the trailer are not in the movie. So, where do I start.
When I came out of the theatre, I didn't know whether I liked it or not. So a masterpiece it is not. Neither is it as good as Denis' movies usually. And I am very certain, that it will not stand the test of time.
The reason is simple. It wanted to be all the sci-fi movies. All of them and the best of them. Thematically I didn't find its focus. It had good themes, it even explored them halfway decently, but it also wanted to show you the world in detail, so none of the themes got any true depth. It was a great documentary and social commentary on the world of Blade Runner '49.
I enjoyed it. I liked being there in that world. I liked the dilemmas. I loved the cinematography. But it wasn't greater than the sum of its parts, and that's a damn shame.
Strange as it might sound ... there's a lot that can be improved on the editing table with this one. But somehow, I think the goal was to do a ... wide instead of deep look. The scope was too broad.
Still beats 95% of modern sci-fis, no doubt. Go see it. It does grow on you.
We were given no insight into his thought process. He is this badass robot hunter, going to kill that boss robot and found out it wasn't as easy as he thought. Why did he start that super awkward escape?
He wanted to survive? Would you say "come at me bro" when a combat model robot in his tight underpants comes for you?
Saw it on friday and i loved it. But i knew it would not do well back then since most of the ppl that were there, were complaining about it afterwards. Shit like "bla bla bla boring", "too slow" and"no action" came up. I never hated humans so much in that moment :/.
True enough 2049 seems to follow the original in that aspect aswell
Kudos to the financiers giving it such a big budget in the first place for such a risky movie, insiders peg it at $170-185M rather than the officially reported $150M budget, which is already way too high for anything but hyped comic book films. (You should go with $100M tops if you are making a serious rated R film. There's a reason eg Logan was given such a "low" budget (although in the end it ended up printing money).)
This is clearly a film only for the fans. Under 25 audiences were just 14% of the total, probably no one knows what Blade Runner is, they saw an old Harrison Ford starring and thought "sorry grandpa, I'd rather go and see the scary clown movie instead".
Looks like WB will come unscathed out of this, perhaps Sony too if it makes money oversees. Alcon though.. oh boy.
TWIN PEAKS is "something of a miracle."
"...like nothing else on television."
"a phenomenon."
"A tangled tale of sex, violence, power, junk food..."
"Like Nothing On Earth"
Saw it a few days ago. It's a pretty much safe and perfect sequel, so I'd give it 9/10
However it doesn't click with the general audience and it's so freaking long. Around 3hrs I think. Even though I enjoyed the movie, et felt as a real drag with some scenes and pans.
Corrected general score would be something along 6,5/10
Saw it a few days ago. It's a pretty much safe and perfect sequel, so I'd give it 9/10
However it doesn't click with the general audience and it's so freaking long. Around 3hrs I think. Even though I enjoyed the movie, et felt as a real drag with some scenes and pans.
Corrected general score would be something along 6,5/10
how much tits and ass are we gonna see from ana d armas
It was great as a scifi movie, has great production values, but it is average as Blade Runner. Everything is safe and by the books. This is exactly what someone with a lot of money and a will to recreate Blade Runner would do. Yes it's good, but it's also too simplistic and stale. The story can be summed up in two sentences, it has an unnecessary and crappy twist, some scenes have ominous loud music while zilch is actually happening. I appreciate what they tried to do and I also appreciate they didn't go for full action, but being long just to be long isn't the right way to do it. Past the halfway point I was thinking "yeah right we get it just move along" more and more. Yes the original was slow, but every scene seemed to have some purpose in the grand picture. This one could've been half an hour shorter easily.
The initial stages of the movie seem to be hinting at something excellent coming, but eventually it degrades into simpleness and rehashed philosophy. I needed to watch the original two times to understand all the details, this one is as simple as it gets (though it tries to fake depth).
7/10
PS. best thing about this movie is Ana de Armas. The woman is gorgeous and she can actually act.
Went to see it with a friend on Thursday in Central Europe, in an almost empty theatre. We both felt that the movie tried too hard to be as fascinating as the original, using the soundscapes and sequences from the original as an unnecessary fan service. It was visually stunning as expected, but for all its effort to feel authentic, I thought that the movie was... I don't know... Conventionaly made?
The story had little to no emotional impact and felt overly complicated just for the sake of emulating philosophical depth. I get that there were many symbolic references throughout the movie, but I felt that the director might have done a better job at motivating the viewer to look for them in the mediocre script.
Spoiler:
Lastly I may be a bit biased, but I'm not sure Gossling was a right cast for K/Joe - I find him to be a bit too "sweet" for this kind of role. While his character had the reason to be emotionally flat, I found his good looks and extremely minimalist performance to hurt the immersion.
Watched the 3d version, great experience, wonderful scenery.. not sure it's a movie you watch twice though, not that interesting. For sci-fi nerds 8/10
The story had little to no emotional impact and felt overly complicated just for the sake of emulating philosophical depth. I get that there were many symbolic references throughout the movie, but I felt that the director might have done a better job at motivating the viewer to look for them in the mediocre script.
Spoiler:
Lastly I may be a bit biased, but I'm not sure Gossling was a right cast for K/Joe - I find him to be a bit too "sweet" for this kind of role. While his character had the reason to be emotionally flat, I found his good looks and extremely minimalist performance to hurt the immersion.
Spoiler:
This movie clearly pushed a little bit more on the investigation part: more to do and less to think, also to establish an actual difference from the first one, as you correctly said.
Having said that, I don't necessarily see that as a defection, since this needed to be seen and felt quite different from the first one, maintaining a certain parallelism.
Villenueve did a good job, especially because he made well his homeworks, plus adding something of his.
Course something could have be done better: some panorama shots are too long (movie could've been easily about 15-20 minutes shorter, for its sake), the relationship between K and the hologal could've been dug a bit more, especially in the end, when the hologal nature is exploited. Also Wallace character is not explained enough: shouldn't he be the villain?
Gosling is a good choice, imho, also considering his handsome factor is not so used as he's often covered in dirt and blood. His capacity for inexpression instead is well used (as it was in other movies, like Drive).
Overall, a good movie, for sure.
If I will remember it in 30 years?
Probably not as much as the original, but surely more than the last Alien movies.
Edit: fun fact.
Rachel did not have green eyes in the first movie (I didn't remember, I had to check).
The story had little to no emotional impact and felt overly complicated just for the sake of emulating philosophical depth. I get that there were many symbolic references throughout the movie, but I felt that the director might have done a better job at motivating the viewer to look for them in the mediocre script.
Spoiler:
Lastly I may be a bit biased, but I'm not sure Gossling was a right cast for K/Joe - I find him to be a bit too "sweet" for this kind of role. While his character had the reason to be emotionally flat, I found his good looks and extremely minimalist performance to hurt the immersion.
Spoiler:
This movie clearly pushed a little bit more on the investigation part: more to do and less to think, also to establish an actual difference from the first one, as you correctly said.
Having said that, I don't necessarily see that as a defection, since this needed to be seen and felt quite different from the first one, maintaining a certain parallelism.
Villenueve did a good job, especially because he made well his homeworks, plus adding something of his.
Course something could have be done better: some panorama shots are too long (movie could've been easily about 15-20 minutes shorter, for its sake), the relationship between K and the hologal could've been dug a bit more, especially in the end, when the hologal nature is exploited. Also Wallace character is not explained enough: shouldn't he be the villain?
Gosling is a good choice, imho, also considering his handsome factor is not so used as he's often covered in dirt and blood. His capacity for inexpression instead is well used (as it was in other movies, like Drive).
Overall, a good movie, for sure.
If I will remember it in 30 years?
Probably not as much as the original, but surely more than the last Alien movies.
Edit: fun fact.
Rachel did not have green eyes in the first movie (I didn't remember, I had to check).
For Wallace
Spoiler:
He is a grey area character. He himself has a god complex which is when you think about it pretty heavy handed. He creates angels: his replicants are perfect beings but unable to reproduce and lack free will, like you know biblical angels. But to achieve true godhood he needs to create a human, a being able to reproduce by its own.
On more solid ground, we don't know how much of a genius Wallace is, everything points out that he is better at programming the replicants and all his knowladge about production process is based upon Tyrell's knowledge.
Also just found probably a major plot hole. The replicants are well gen modified clones, basically. Why Wallace couldn't just found the DNA abnormality in database like K did and make a clone?
Also just found probably a major plot hole. The replicants are well gen modified clones, basically. Why Wallace couldn't just found the DNA abnormality in database like K did and make a clone?
Spoiler:
If you're referring to its DNA, identical to the female one in the movie which was messed up by Deckard, purposely: I don't think people waste time on check crossreferencing millions of DNA strands, and that's what Deckard was betting on.
Also just found probably a major plot hole. The replicants are well gen modified clones, basically. Why Wallace couldn't just found the DNA abnormality in database like K did and make a clone?
Spoiler:
If you're referring to its DNA, identical to the female one in the movie which was messed up by Deckard, purposely: I don't think people waste time on check crossreferencing millions of DNA strands, and that's what Deckard was betting on.
Spoiler:
They'd stolen the bones of Rachel. Full of sweet, sweet DNA. They even fucking clone her
Signature/Avatar nuking: none (can be changed in your profile)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
thanks
these kids
(I didn't remember, I had to check).
