This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Saw it today and was not disappointed. The story was good but not as good as Arrival. Similar with for the acting, good but not outstanding. Slightly disappointed that one the actors I really wanted to see, Dave Bautista as Sapper, only had a very small part.
But the main strengths of the film were the visuals and the sound. I saw it at an IMAX theatre and no doubt that enhanced these effects considerably. The sound in particular was literally awesome, extremely dark and moody ambient, industrial soundscapes, so deep and powerful it made the seat vibrate at times. Tempted to see it again if I get the chance as films this good are a rarity and I know it just won't be the same on a small screen.
But the main strengths of the film were the visuals and the sound. I saw it at an IMAX theatre and no doubt that enhanced these effects considerably. The sound in particular was literally awesome, extremely dark and moody ambient, industrial soundscapes, so deep and powerful it made the seat vibrate at times. Tempted to see it again if I get the chance as films this good are a rarity and I know it just won't be the same on a small screen.
9
In reply to stp:
I actually thought there WAS some outstanding acting. You could argue that some of it was a bit theatrical but I think Gosling and Ford did some great "facial acting" stuff where feelings are conveyed with no dialogue.
I also thought Ana de Armas was good in an intriguing and complex role that was sadly not as fully developed (screenplay-wise) as I'd have liked.
The only weaker note in the acting was the usually excellent Robin Wright and actually she was fine but just saddled with the thinnest dialogue
I actually thought there WAS some outstanding acting. You could argue that some of it was a bit theatrical but I think Gosling and Ford did some great "facial acting" stuff where feelings are conveyed with no dialogue.
I also thought Ana de Armas was good in an intriguing and complex role that was sadly not as fully developed (screenplay-wise) as I'd have liked.
The only weaker note in the acting was the usually excellent Robin Wright and actually she was fine but just saddled with the thinnest dialogue
In reply to stp:
If I wasn't fussed about the original, it having seemed like impressive but tediously unengaging action involving characters I couldn't relate to, is there any hope of the remake being worth seeing?
If I wasn't fussed about the original, it having seemed like impressive but tediously unengaging action involving characters I couldn't relate to, is there any hope of the remake being worth seeing?
3
1
1
In reply to john arran:
Hm. Not sure. I *loved* it, but I loved the original too. It's very long, might drag a bit if you're not into it.
It's not a remake though, refreshingly, nor a "reboot" (however that is different). It's a proper sequel, set thirty years later. Much has changed, and a lot hasn't.
> .. is there any hope of the remake being worth seeing?
Hm. Not sure. I *loved* it, but I loved the original too. It's very long, might drag a bit if you're not into it.
It's not a remake though, refreshingly, nor a "reboot" (however that is different). It's a proper sequel, set thirty years later. Much has changed, and a lot hasn't.
In reply to john arran:
In your case it may be worth treating it as an audio-visual spectacular given your comments about the original.
To explain that, I'll say that for example when I went to see "Gravity" (also as my first 3D IMAX experience), I approached it as a "theme park ride" rather than a proper narrative, and I therefore wasn't disappointed with that film's cheese factor
Leaving aside characters and story, the new Bladerunner 2049 is a beautiful work of art and can be enjoyed at that level.
In your case it may be worth treating it as an audio-visual spectacular given your comments about the original.
To explain that, I'll say that for example when I went to see "Gravity" (also as my first 3D IMAX experience), I approached it as a "theme park ride" rather than a proper narrative, and I therefore wasn't disappointed with that film's cheese factor
Leaving aside characters and story, the new Bladerunner 2049 is a beautiful work of art and can be enjoyed at that level.
6
In reply to john arran:
I thought the original was one of the best films I've ever seen. Still, each to their own.
Mick
> If I wasn't fussed about the original, it having seemed like impressive but tediously unengaging action involving characters I couldn't relate to, is there any hope of the remake being worth seeing?
I thought the original was one of the best films I've ever seen. Still, each to their own.
Mick
5
In reply to Mick Ward:
I must be a bit strange like that, Mick. Other films I haven't been able to sit through include Lord of the Rings and Reservoir Dogs, both of which bafflingly (to me anyway) seem to have become modern classics. Although when it comes to Titanic, I'm holding to my guns and insisting it isn't me that's the odd one for detesting it.
I must be a bit strange like that, Mick. Other films I haven't been able to sit through include Lord of the Rings and Reservoir Dogs, both of which bafflingly (to me anyway) seem to have become modern classics. Although when it comes to Titanic, I'm holding to my guns and insisting it isn't me that's the odd one for detesting it.
7
In reply to john arran:
Even people who love The Lord of the Rings films will admit that they do go on a bit.
The original Bladerunner film from 1982 is a bit of a muddle but it is loved for its concepts and its style and atmosphere (it really does create a believable universe) rather than for a pacey narrative or deep characterisation.
Even people who love The Lord of the Rings films will admit that they do go on a bit.
The original Bladerunner film from 1982 is a bit of a muddle but it is loved for its concepts and its style and atmosphere (it really does create a believable universe) rather than for a pacey narrative or deep characterisation.
2
In reply to john arran:
Haven't seen Lord of the Rings (but very much doubt it's my cup of tea), thought Titanic was massively over-blown (felt there was a brilliant film in there somewhere but that certainly wasn't it). Reservoir Dogs - if they couldn't sort out breakfast, what chance of a successful heist? All the macho posturing - such a turn-off, total bollox.
I suppose if I stand back outside the original Blade Runner and look squarely at it, it is all a bit arty-farty. But (for me) something just happened and I was in it and it tore at my heart.
So we're agreed on two (probably three) out of four. That's not so bad!
Mick
Haven't seen Lord of the Rings (but very much doubt it's my cup of tea), thought Titanic was massively over-blown (felt there was a brilliant film in there somewhere but that certainly wasn't it). Reservoir Dogs - if they couldn't sort out breakfast, what chance of a successful heist? All the macho posturing - such a turn-off, total bollox.
I suppose if I stand back outside the original Blade Runner and look squarely at it, it is all a bit arty-farty. But (for me) something just happened and I was in it and it tore at my heart.
So we're agreed on two (probably three) out of four. That's not so bad!
Mick
2
In reply to stp:
Been today . Well where do you start. Mind blown seriously mind blowing.
The visual and audio side of it are just far beyond any film I've ever seen before.
It sits in with the first film very well.
Anyone into films must go and see it at the cinema . Its one of those films that make following films have to up their game.
10/10
Been today . Well where do you start. Mind blown seriously mind blowing.
The visual and audio side of it are just far beyond any film I've ever seen before.
It sits in with the first film very well.
Anyone into films must go and see it at the cinema . Its one of those films that make following films have to up their game.
10/10
8
In reply to john arran:
You're pushing at an open door there I suspect.
> Although when it comes to Titanic, I'm holding to my guns and insisting it isn't me that's the odd one for detesting it.
You're pushing at an open door there I suspect.
1
In reply to john arran:
Whoever said Lord of the Rings was a modern classic? It's great when there are lots of Viking-type men on horseback, doing just fine without magic or CGI, but otherwise it's a yawn, best suited to 10 year olds, as I was when I read and was captivated by it.
Life is too short for me to sit through the entirety of most films, let alone football matches. I haven't seen Reservoir Dogs, or much of any Tarantino film, being put off by their reputation for violence but can watch the dance scene in Pulp Fiction over and over again.
Whoever said Lord of the Rings was a modern classic? It's great when there are lots of Viking-type men on horseback, doing just fine without magic or CGI, but otherwise it's a yawn, best suited to 10 year olds, as I was when I read and was captivated by it.
Life is too short for me to sit through the entirety of most films, let alone football matches. I haven't seen Reservoir Dogs, or much of any Tarantino film, being put off by their reputation for violence but can watch the dance scene in Pulp Fiction over and over again.
3
In reply to stp:
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the trio of shorts, black out 2022, 2036: Nexus Dawn and 2048: Nowhere to run. All well worth a look if you fancy a nerd out. I went to see it last night, sixth of the tenth for full nerd points. I was surprised how empty the cinema was to be honest. Brilliant film though
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the trio of shorts, black out 2022, 2036: Nexus Dawn and 2048: Nowhere to run. All well worth a look if you fancy a nerd out. I went to see it last night, sixth of the tenth for full nerd points. I was surprised how empty the cinema was to be honest. Brilliant film though
Post edited at 20:18
2
In reply to tspoon1981:
They were mentioned in a different thread early last week
Frankly I was surprised at how FULL the cinema was! The box office analysis tallies with my expectations for this film. Regardless of its actual merits as a piece of cinematic art, it is doomed to "not make much money" - there is a lot stacked against it.
Most cinemagoers are "young". Most people who love Bladerunner to the extent that it is infused into them, are in their 40s, and this is not a big demographic for cinema. It's not like it is part of a franchise that "young" people have grown up with (see: Harry Potter / Fantastic Beasts; Transformers; The Fast and the Furious; even to some extent Aliens).
The film is nearly 3 hours long which a) limits its screenings and b) deters people. The stars, whilst big names, are not actually guaranteed box office draws. The marketing doesn't give much away and doesn't make it look like an entertaining night out.
I think that like the original, it will count as a box office flop (even if it eventually claws its way to profit) which raises the question of whether they will make another. Of course, if it wins four Oscars next year that MIGHT change things. Mad Max: Fury Road is a good comparison - that one was a return to a franchise rather than a sequel to a single film, but the gap of thirty years is comparable. It was made with passion, involving the original creators, BUT a lot of audiences complained that not much really happens in the film - clearly they were unfamiliar with the first three films in which actually not much happens and that despite some nifty action sequences, Max himself is kind of a passive story element rather than an active protagonist. Fury Road did win SIX(!) Oscars but I don't know if it made enough money for the franchise to be guaranteed another $150 million budget for a sequel
I think that audiences who aren't "fluent" in Bladerunner (1982) are already moaning that Bladerunner 2049 is "a bit slow"....
> I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the trio of shorts, black out 2022, 2036: Nexus Dawn and 2048: Nowhere to run. All well worth a look if you fancy a nerd out.
They were mentioned in a different thread early last week
> I went to see it last night, sixth of the tenth for full nerd points. I was surprised how empty the cinema was to be honest. Brilliant film though
Frankly I was surprised at how FULL the cinema was! The box office analysis tallies with my expectations for this film. Regardless of its actual merits as a piece of cinematic art, it is doomed to "not make much money" - there is a lot stacked against it.
Most cinemagoers are "young". Most people who love Bladerunner to the extent that it is infused into them, are in their 40s, and this is not a big demographic for cinema. It's not like it is part of a franchise that "young" people have grown up with (see: Harry Potter / Fantastic Beasts; Transformers; The Fast and the Furious; even to some extent Aliens).
The film is nearly 3 hours long which a) limits its screenings and b) deters people. The stars, whilst big names, are not actually guaranteed box office draws. The marketing doesn't give much away and doesn't make it look like an entertaining night out.
I think that like the original, it will count as a box office flop (even if it eventually claws its way to profit) which raises the question of whether they will make another. Of course, if it wins four Oscars next year that MIGHT change things. Mad Max: Fury Road is a good comparison - that one was a return to a franchise rather than a sequel to a single film, but the gap of thirty years is comparable. It was made with passion, involving the original creators, BUT a lot of audiences complained that not much really happens in the film - clearly they were unfamiliar with the first three films in which actually not much happens and that despite some nifty action sequences, Max himself is kind of a passive story element rather than an active protagonist. Fury Road did win SIX(!) Oscars but I don't know if it made enough money for the franchise to be guaranteed another $150 million budget for a sequel
I think that audiences who aren't "fluent" in Bladerunner (1982) are already moaning that Bladerunner 2049 is "a bit slow"....
Post edited at 20:47
4
In reply to mbh:
Of all the Tarantino films, Reservoir Dogs is the "best" one in terms of violence because it treats pain seriously - it's not casual at all. The flashback structure of it means that we spend a lot of time feeling the pain of a man with a serious gun wound to the stomach. It's "responsible" violence, as opposed to "comic" violence that we see in Pulp Fiction.
It's also quite a short film (Reservoir Dogs)
Of all the Tarantino films, Reservoir Dogs is the "best" one in terms of violence because it treats pain seriously - it's not casual at all. The flashback structure of it means that we spend a lot of time feeling the pain of a man with a serious gun wound to the stomach. It's "responsible" violence, as opposed to "comic" violence that we see in Pulp Fiction.
It's also quite a short film (Reservoir Dogs)
3
In reply to mbh:
Just to be clear - it IS graphically violent and if you are truly sensitive to that, it might be a bit much.
I was just reminiscing about the furore around its home video release in 1993 or 1994. The BBFC would not grant it a certificate for home video even though it passed with an 18 for the cinema with no cuts required, because of a single scene that the imaginative bods at the BBFC worried would have idiots rewinding and rewatching again and again. At the same time they passed the Belgian serial-killer black comedy mockumentary "Man Bites Dog" (a good film but a VERY hard watch - I tried watching it a second time a few years ago and had to turn it off) with no problem, citing "different markets", which was just intellectual snobbery. AND at the same time, ITV was regularly showing Brian DePalma's "The Untouchables" in which a lot of the violence exists purely for style (e.g. the overhead shot of the dining table where Capone brains someone with a baseball bat)
This is why I defend the violence in Reservoir Dogs.
Just to be clear - it IS graphically violent and if you are truly sensitive to that, it might be a bit much.
I was just reminiscing about the furore around its home video release in 1993 or 1994. The BBFC would not grant it a certificate for home video even though it passed with an 18 for the cinema with no cuts required, because of a single scene that the imaginative bods at the BBFC worried would have idiots rewinding and rewatching again and again. At the same time they passed the Belgian serial-killer black comedy mockumentary "Man Bites Dog" (a good film but a VERY hard watch - I tried watching it a second time a few years ago and had to turn it off) with no problem, citing "different markets", which was just intellectual snobbery. AND at the same time, ITV was regularly showing Brian DePalma's "The Untouchables" in which a lot of the violence exists purely for style (e.g. the overhead shot of the dining table where Capone brains someone with a baseball bat)
This is why I defend the violence in Reservoir Dogs.
1
1
In reply to Blue Straggler:
Sold out in all my nearby cinemas for most of the weekend. Guess it depends how many screen it but if that continues it won't flop.
My 2 pennies on the first - thought it was amazing - asked earlier on the thread - because it is about what is means to be human and have self-determination, which underpins most concepts of humanity today (North Korea, women in Saudi, IS are a few exceptions)
>
> I think that like the original, it will count as a box office flop (even if it eventually claws its way to profit)
Sold out in all my nearby cinemas for most of the weekend. Guess it depends how many screen it but if that continues it won't flop.
My 2 pennies on the first - thought it was amazing - asked earlier on the thread - because it is about what is means to be human and have self-determination, which underpins most concepts of humanity today (North Korea, women in Saudi, IS are a few exceptions)
In reply to ClimberEd:
Globally it is on for a sub-$40 million opening weekend which for a major film with a $150-170 million budget, is not a good sign. But hey. Even Waterworld eventually turned a profit
And possibly the Asian market might salvage Bladerunner 2049.
My screen was about 80% full; based on timings I'll assume that it was on 3 screens out of 8 at my local multiplex (2 2D and one 3D).
The Fate of the Furious ran on five screens all in 2D, and being 30 minutes shorter probably allowed it at least one more screening per day ON EACH SCREEN, than Bladerunner 2049. And it was part 8 of a franchise that has been "live" for 16 years. That's how you make half a billion worldwide in a weekend :-o
> Sold out in all my nearby cinemas for most of the weekend. Guess it depends how many screen it but if that continues it won't flop.
Globally it is on for a sub-$40 million opening weekend which for a major film with a $150-170 million budget, is not a good sign. But hey. Even Waterworld eventually turned a profit
And possibly the Asian market might salvage Bladerunner 2049.
My screen was about 80% full; based on timings I'll assume that it was on 3 screens out of 8 at my local multiplex (2 2D and one 3D).
The Fate of the Furious ran on five screens all in 2D, and being 30 minutes shorter probably allowed it at least one more screening per day ON EACH SCREEN, than Bladerunner 2049. And it was part 8 of a franchise that has been "live" for 16 years. That's how you make half a billion worldwide in a weekend :-o
In reply to stp:
Intrigued by this film. Too long since I've seen Blade Runner and the girlfriend has never seen it so it'll be getting revisited soon. I don't like Ryan Gosling as an actor but willing to give this a go I think.
Intrigued by this film. Too long since I've seen Blade Runner and the girlfriend has never seen it so it'll be getting revisited soon. I don't like Ryan Gosling as an actor but willing to give this a go I think.
In reply to nathan79:
You don't think mouth-breathing while evoking a rotting haddock with his lifeless eyes is a remarkable talent?
> I don't like Ryan Gosling as an actor but willing to give this a go I think.
You don't think mouth-breathing while evoking a rotting haddock with his lifeless eyes is a remarkable talent?
6
In reply to john arran:
If you weren’t fussed by the original, then I wouldn’t bother with the sequel. It had it’s good bits, but overall I was a bit disappointed
On the other hand it is thought provoking- the whole question of being human, having memories and free will and where AI will take us - that I would have thought might interest you.
If you weren’t fussed by the original, then I wouldn’t bother with the sequel. It had it’s good bits, but overall I was a bit disappointed
On the other hand it is thought provoking- the whole question of being human, having memories and free will and where AI will take us - that I would have thought might interest you.
In reply to Blue Straggler:
Friday evening at the Showroom in Sheffield and around 10% full. Ok it’s probably on at loads of places but I was really surprised at that.
I rarely watch action films and even I thought it was “a bit slow”
> They were mentioned in a different thread early last week
> Frankly I was surprised at how FULL the cinema was!
Friday evening at the Showroom in Sheffield and around 10% full. Ok it’s probably on at loads of places but I was really surprised at that.
> I think that audiences who aren't "fluent" in Bladerunner (1982) are already moaning that Bladerunner 2049 is "a bit slow"....
I rarely watch action films and even I thought it was “a bit slow”
In reply to Blue Straggler:
complaining about slowness is a sign of an unsophisticated audient - only satiated by constant noisy or exciting stimuli. Incapable of enjoying a stage play on account of lack of believable special effects
complaining about slowness is a sign of an unsophisticated audient - only satiated by constant noisy or exciting stimuli. Incapable of enjoying a stage play on account of lack of believable special effects
9
In reply to Chris the Tall:
"slow" or perhaps indulgent? The return of Star Trek in cinema form in The Motion Picture was a bit of an indulgence for past fans and people who just like the visual side of science fiction films - I suppose 2001 could be thought very slow by modern standards but it's definitely a visual feast.
"slow" or perhaps indulgent? The return of Star Trek in cinema form in The Motion Picture was a bit of an indulgence for past fans and people who just like the visual side of science fiction films - I suppose 2001 could be thought very slow by modern standards but it's definitely a visual feast.
2
In reply to stp:
Well, fresh back from seeing it. As has been said, visually stunning and great soundtrack. But too long, would improve a lot by cutting it down to a sub 2 hrs. It does explore some ideas about what makes a 'person' etc. but could do so more succinctly without sacrificing integrity. Think of a haiku VS a Yes concept album.
BTW Blade Runner is one of my favourites movies.
Well, fresh back from seeing it. As has been said, visually stunning and great soundtrack. But too long, would improve a lot by cutting it down to a sub 2 hrs. It does explore some ideas about what makes a 'person' etc. but could do so more succinctly without sacrificing integrity. Think of a haiku VS a Yes concept album.
BTW Blade Runner is one of my favourites movies.
In reply to stp:
I watched it last night on France's cultural channel ARTE. As you say, it really needs to be seen on a big screen and I guess visually it is truly awesome on IMAX. You either have a taste for these slow, thought prevoking movies or not, if not, the 2 hours must feel like an eternity ! The thing that worries me most is that there are no limits to what A.I is or will be capable of doing.
I watched it last night on France's cultural channel ARTE. As you say, it really needs to be seen on a big screen and I guess visually it is truly awesome on IMAX. You either have a taste for these slow, thought prevoking movies or not, if not, the 2 hours must feel like an eternity ! The thing that worries me most is that there are no limits to what A.I is or will be capable of doing.
In reply to wercat:
perhaps I should have said "can be" rather than "is"
> complaining about slowness is a sign of an unsophisticated audient -
perhaps I should have said "can be" rather than "is"
1
In reply to stp:
Saw it last night. Wow! just wow
as visually stunning as the first time you see Avatar. Fantastic musical score that becomes part of the movie rather than just an add on.
10 people on the cinema including us, rather like the first that i saw aged 13 on an art house type cinema in Derby.
lots of little homages to the original. loved the concept of Joes 'virtual' girlfriend (siri/alexta?) and her clear plastic mac worn by Pris in the first.
It helped a lot for us by watching 1982 directors cut again last week
Saw it last night. Wow! just wow
as visually stunning as the first time you see Avatar. Fantastic musical score that becomes part of the movie rather than just an add on.
10 people on the cinema including us, rather like the first that i saw aged 13 on an art house type cinema in Derby.
lots of little homages to the original. loved the concept of Joes 'virtual' girlfriend (siri/alexta?) and her clear plastic mac worn by Pris in the first.
It helped a lot for us by watching 1982 directors cut again last week
2
In reply to wilkie14c:
Is there any consensus on which version of the original film is 'best'? I've not seen it yet, and it sounds like it'd be best to before going to the second film
> watching 1982 directors cut again last week
Is there any consensus on which version of the original film is 'best'? I've not seen it yet, and it sounds like it'd be best to before going to the second film
In reply to wilkie14c:
Whilst the scene where the virtual girlfriend tracks the movements of the other girl was very clever, I kept on expecting there to be a knock on the door and one of the characters to morph into Whoopi Goldberg......
This seems quite common, but we watched "the Final Cut" and my mate watched the "Theatrical version" and you suddenly get confused as to which is which !
As I said earlier, I thought it was disappointing to watch, but very thought provoking, and there have been details that have been coming back to me over the weekend
For example:
K is routinely receives abuse at work - "skinjob" - but knows he will lose his job, possibly his life, if he reacts. In fact he is constantly tested to ensure he is still totally subservient and compliant.
We were also discussing how a replicant would deal with a Myers-Briggs test - probably by getting angry at being asked similar questions over and over under their circuits overloaded. In which case it appears that I'm probably a replicant!
> lots of little homages to the original. loved the concept of Joes 'virtual' girlfriend (siri/alexta?) and her clear plastic mac worn by Pris in the first.
Whilst the scene where the virtual girlfriend tracks the movements of the other girl was very clever, I kept on expecting there to be a knock on the door and one of the characters to morph into Whoopi Goldberg......
> It helped a lot for us by watching 1982 directors cut again last week
This seems quite common, but we watched "the Final Cut" and my mate watched the "Theatrical version" and you suddenly get confused as to which is which !
As I said earlier, I thought it was disappointing to watch, but very thought provoking, and there have been details that have been coming back to me over the weekend
For example:
K is routinely receives abuse at work - "skinjob" - but knows he will lose his job, possibly his life, if he reacts. In fact he is constantly tested to ensure he is still totally subservient and compliant.
We were also discussing how a replicant would deal with a Myers-Briggs test - probably by getting angry at being asked similar questions over and over under their circuits overloaded. In which case it appears that I'm probably a replicant!
1
In reply to nufkin:
directors cut is said to tidy up loose ends in the theatrical version. Exactly what i don't know?!
directors cut is said to tidy up loose ends in the theatrical version. Exactly what i don't know?!
In reply to nufkin:
I'd personally go for the most recent Final Cut, it's apparently the definitive version, it's also been digitally remastered so visually it stands the test of time. I tried rewatcning the theatrical version and it just looks quite flat in comparison
I'd personally go for the most recent Final Cut, it's apparently the definitive version, it's also been digitally remastered so visually it stands the test of time. I tried rewatcning the theatrical version and it just looks quite flat in comparison
In reply to stp:
I was not expecting much after the bland live action version of Ghost in the Shell convinced me that blockbusters and impressive, philosophical scifi aren't meant to go together. Bladerunner 2049 proved me wrong. The script was not as impressive as I had hoped, although I found it to be much, much, more engaging than that of Arrival (which imo suffered from shallow, unlikable characters, over the top sentimentality, and annoying plot holes).
There was some good acting, but the slow pacing (i.e. loads of world building), cinematics and sound effects are truly where it's at. Utterly mind-blowing and an instant classic in my book.
I was not expecting much after the bland live action version of Ghost in the Shell convinced me that blockbusters and impressive, philosophical scifi aren't meant to go together. Bladerunner 2049 proved me wrong. The script was not as impressive as I had hoped, although I found it to be much, much, more engaging than that of Arrival (which imo suffered from shallow, unlikable characters, over the top sentimentality, and annoying plot holes).
There was some good acting, but the slow pacing (i.e. loads of world building), cinematics and sound effects are truly where it's at. Utterly mind-blowing and an instant classic in my book.
6
In reply to stp:
Visually and sonically stunning (saw it on IMAX 3D). A good plot, thought provoking, ties into the original very well and seems in keeping. Good acting.
Maybe it is a little long and slow paced at times but, again, it's in keeping with the original. Maybe not helped by being very tired when I went to see it.
4/5
Visually and sonically stunning (saw it on IMAX 3D). A good plot, thought provoking, ties into the original very well and seems in keeping. Good acting.
Maybe it is a little long and slow paced at times but, again, it's in keeping with the original. Maybe not helped by being very tired when I went to see it.
4/5
In reply to Skyfall:
About half an hour too long and too loud for too long towards the end for me. But worth a watch for all that.
T.
About half an hour too long and too loud for too long towards the end for me. But worth a watch for all that.
T.
In reply to wilkie14c:
The music/sound ruined the film for me.
Zimmer will earn plaudits from it, I know, but for me cinema is primarily a visual experience and when the sound starts to dominate/ domineer the overall experience the balance has been spoiled.
The music/sound ruined the film for me.
Zimmer will earn plaudits from it, I know, but for me cinema is primarily a visual experience and when the sound starts to dominate/ domineer the overall experience the balance has been spoiled.
2
2
In reply to Tom Valentine:
I thought that Dunkirk (2017) was massively enhanced by its oppressive sound - from what you write here, I would guess that you felt it was domineering and spoiled the balance. I'd be interested to hear whether my assumption there (regarding your enjoyment or lack thereof of Dunkirk (2017)) is incorrect.
I thought that Dunkirk (2017) was massively enhanced by its oppressive sound - from what you write here, I would guess that you felt it was domineering and spoiled the balance. I'd be interested to hear whether my assumption there (regarding your enjoyment or lack thereof of Dunkirk (2017)) is incorrect.
1
In reply to Skyfall:
The original was 117 minutes. I think this sequel would have benefited from keeping to a similar lenght.
Leave the extra bits for an extended director's release.
The original was 117 minutes. I think this sequel would have benefited from keeping to a similar lenght.
Leave the extra bits for an extended director's release.
In reply to Tom Valentine:
I thought the music was ok; obviously paying homage to the original Vangelis score, but that's no bad thing. The sound though...too loud, fingers in the ears loud, for too long.
T.
I thought the music was ok; obviously paying homage to the original Vangelis score, but that's no bad thing. The sound though...too loud, fingers in the ears loud, for too long.
T.
In reply to Blue Straggler:
I don't remember the sound in Dunkirk being as overpowering as that in Bladerunner. I definitely didn't walk out of the cinema thinking the film had been spoiled for me.
I don't remember the sound in Dunkirk being as overpowering as that in Bladerunner. I definitely didn't walk out of the cinema thinking the film had been spoiled for me.
In reply to stp:
Saw it today and was very impressed: a 9 or 10/10 for me. As many have commented found it visually and sonically stunning: my mouth literally dropped open during the opening scene and it was a few minutes before I came to myself and closed it. Managed to avoid any undignified dribbling, fortunately. Speaking as an enormous PKD fan with an almost complete collection of his stuff, I also thought it was pretty true to his spirit, although the plot twists and reality shifts were perhaps more predictable. I certainly didn't find it too slow-paced and thought the length was appropriate to its epic nature. Textually, nothing as memorable as Roy's "Time to die" valediction from the original (a very high bar!) but it picked up and ran with key themes and images very well.
Saw it today and was very impressed: a 9 or 10/10 for me. As many have commented found it visually and sonically stunning: my mouth literally dropped open during the opening scene and it was a few minutes before I came to myself and closed it. Managed to avoid any undignified dribbling, fortunately. Speaking as an enormous PKD fan with an almost complete collection of his stuff, I also thought it was pretty true to his spirit, although the plot twists and reality shifts were perhaps more predictable. I certainly didn't find it too slow-paced and thought the length was appropriate to its epic nature. Textually, nothing as memorable as Roy's "Time to die" valediction from the original (a very high bar!) but it picked up and ran with key themes and images very well.
6
In reply to stp:
for fans of the whole concept of 'can a machine have a soul' type bunkham, I can't recommend these highly enough:
Ex-Machina (movie)
Westworld (remade in TV series)
as you were chaps
for fans of the whole concept of 'can a machine have a soul' type bunkham, I can't recommend these highly enough:
Ex-Machina (movie)
Westworld (remade in TV series)
as you were chaps
In reply to wilkie14c:
A different kind of film to most sci-fi, 'Her' (2013) also has a quite original take on the AI thing.
(And, I suspect, was a bit of an influence on some of the 'non-corporeal girlfriend' aspects of the new Bladerunner.)
A different kind of film to most sci-fi, 'Her' (2013) also has a quite original take on the AI thing.
(And, I suspect, was a bit of an influence on some of the 'non-corporeal girlfriend' aspects of the new Bladerunner.)
In reply to stp:
I love the original and I thought the new film was fantastic and really rather beautiful at times. The acting? Dave Bautista's short appearance was surprisingly great, Harrison was Harrison, Ryan Reynolds I've never seen before, adequate but he's not really very good is he? No-one's mentioned Jared Leto. Wow that was some spectacular overacting! And OK we overlook plot holes in films we like, but...why was Joe left alive when Deckard was taken?
I love the original and I thought the new film was fantastic and really rather beautiful at times. The acting? Dave Bautista's short appearance was surprisingly great, Harrison was Harrison, Ryan Reynolds I've never seen before, adequate but he's not really very good is he? No-one's mentioned Jared Leto. Wow that was some spectacular overacting! And OK we overlook plot holes in films we like, but...why was Joe left alive when Deckard was taken?
In reply to mbh:
I think life is too short to watch the same bits of films over and over again so I just tend to watch them in their entirety
I think life is too short to watch the same bits of films over and over again so I just tend to watch them in their entirety
In reply to aln:
Ryan Reynolds? Don't you mean Ryan (one facial expression) Gosling?. Reynolds can actually act =)
Ryan Reynolds? Don't you mean Ryan (one facial expression) Gosling?. Reynolds can actually act =)
2
In reply to Andy Clarke:
Agree totally. Irrespective of the merits of the acting (which I thought was fine btw), I also thought that the artistic direction took the film to another level entirely. I thought it was totally incredible throughout and the imaginative sets - such as the casino in Vegas - were honestly like nothing I've ever seen before. If it doesn't win an Academy Award for Best Cinematography or Best Visual Effects then I'll be very surprised. As for the very loud soundtrack, it seemed totally fitting, exactly matching the mood/ atmosphere created visually.
The most visually stunning film I've ever seen? Yes, definitely.
> Saw it today and was very impressed: a 9 or 10/10 for me. As many have commented found it visually and sonically stunning: my mouth literally dropped open during the opening scene and it was a few minutes before I came to myself and closed it. Managed to avoid any undignified dribbling, fortunately.
Agree totally. Irrespective of the merits of the acting (which I thought was fine btw), I also thought that the artistic direction took the film to another level entirely. I thought it was totally incredible throughout and the imaginative sets - such as the casino in Vegas - were honestly like nothing I've ever seen before. If it doesn't win an Academy Award for Best Cinematography or Best Visual Effects then I'll be very surprised. As for the very loud soundtrack, it seemed totally fitting, exactly matching the mood/ atmosphere created visually.
The most visually stunning film I've ever seen? Yes, definitely.
4
In reply to mack:
Oh FFS yes I did mean the young goose. Thanks for pointing out my horrible mistake.
> Ryan Reynolds? Don't you mean Ryan (one facial expression) Gosling?
Oh FFS yes I did mean the young goose. Thanks for pointing out my horrible mistake.
In reply to Andy Clarke:
same here,i was just stunned by the sound and vision as bowie says.
I have never seen a film so visually epic.
roys speech is up there in the greatest lines in film.
I don't buy films as my daughter jammed 3 pepper pig dvds in the player at once and it broke, I will be buying this and a new blue ray player.
same here,i was just stunned by the sound and vision as bowie says.
I have never seen a film so visually epic.
roys speech is up there in the greatest lines in film.
I don't buy films as my daughter jammed 3 pepper pig dvds in the player at once and it broke, I will be buying this and a new blue ray player.
1
In reply to stp:
very good movie
Especially the cinematography (and editing). Roger Deakins is a hero. The best I have seen in a long time and by itself already a reason too watch this again and again.
The pacing was very good as well, some scenes could have been slower/longer.
Nagging about details:
I did not like the music that much. It was effective at times and annoying at others. (I always think Zimmer's musics is too bombastic...)
I did not care that much for the main character. same in the original actually, though to a lesser degree, but there it does not matter, because:
Roy Batty is not in this movie.
Some of the side characters's acting was very good.
Less depth compared to the original (maybe this changes if I see it more often). E.g., why didn't the Jesus figure die for the sins of the replicants?
The plot was slightly too easy to foresee.
Hans
PS: Verdict:
2049 8/10
final cut 10/10
very good movie
Especially the cinematography (and editing). Roger Deakins is a hero. The best I have seen in a long time and by itself already a reason too watch this again and again.
The pacing was very good as well, some scenes could have been slower/longer.
Nagging about details:
I did not like the music that much. It was effective at times and annoying at others. (I always think Zimmer's musics is too bombastic...)
I did not care that much for the main character. same in the original actually, though to a lesser degree, but there it does not matter, because:
Roy Batty is not in this movie.
Some of the side characters's acting was very good.
Less depth compared to the original (maybe this changes if I see it more often). E.g., why didn't the Jesus figure die for the sins of the replicants?
The plot was slightly too easy to foresee.
Hans
PS: Verdict:
2049 8/10
final cut 10/10
1
In reply to stp:
Too long
Too slow
and I have rarely seen a movie that has had less of an emotional connection with the characters and plot than this did. I just didn't care about anyone or anything in the film....that makes it not a good experience for me
Too long
Too slow
and I have rarely seen a movie that has had less of an emotional connection with the characters and plot than this did. I just didn't care about anyone or anything in the film....that makes it not a good experience for me
1
10
In reply to Kimono:
Fixed that for you.
Let's not generalise. I thought it was fantastic. Although as an (almost!) middle aged man who loved the first one and likes arty movies I am the pin point of the target audience.
> Too long
> Too slow
> and I have rarely seen a movie where I have had less of an emotional connection with the characters and plot than this did. I just didn't care about anyone or anything in the film....that makes it not a good experience for me
Fixed that for you.
Let's not generalise. I thought it was fantastic. Although as an (almost!) middle aged man who loved the first one and likes arty movies I am the pin point of the target audience.
2
In reply to nufkin:
Really? I saw this recently (after my son going on about it for ages) and really liked it. It's all tongue in cheek and rather clever. Lots of asides to the audience and specific jokes about 4th wall breaks, so maybe there isn't the total suspension of disbelief you are looking for?
I'd rather see Deadpool again than the original Bladerunner. Great concept and actors, and I'm a massive sci-fi fan, but there's something oddly distant about it to me. The version with the noir voice-over works better. I saw the director's cut last week and it felt dated and the music just didn't fit. It felt like someone had just left the radio on in the background.
> Not according to Deadpool he can't
Really? I saw this recently (after my son going on about it for ages) and really liked it. It's all tongue in cheek and rather clever. Lots of asides to the audience and specific jokes about 4th wall breaks, so maybe there isn't the total suspension of disbelief you are looking for?
I'd rather see Deadpool again than the original Bladerunner. Great concept and actors, and I'm a massive sci-fi fan, but there's something oddly distant about it to me. The version with the noir voice-over works better. I saw the director's cut last week and it felt dated and the music just didn't fit. It felt like someone had just left the radio on in the background.
Post edited at 11:00
In reply to stp:
Very very very mild spoiler alert at the bottom of this.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Posted on the other thread to say that I watched Bladerunner 2049 for a second time, on Saturday just gone (15 days after first viewing). An interesting experience - when you know what is coming in terms of story, you get to notice other aspects in greater detail, arguably enriching the experience. I stand by my score of 8/10 and other comments.
One thing that grabbed me on second viewing, is that K is the closest thing in this film to a Roy Batty character. He's a reluctant/unhappy and knowing slave with great physical skills, who wistfully wants some sort of better life and even pretty much fantasises about perhaps not even being a normal replicant (all a bit Pinocchio), and shows interest in a rebellion. I'll say no more as I don't want to post spoilers. This is discussed in better detail by far better analysts than I, on various blogs. The one on screenrant is very good.
Very very very mild spoiler alert at the bottom of this.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Posted on the other thread to say that I watched Bladerunner 2049 for a second time, on Saturday just gone (15 days after first viewing). An interesting experience - when you know what is coming in terms of story, you get to notice other aspects in greater detail, arguably enriching the experience. I stand by my score of 8/10 and other comments.
One thing that grabbed me on second viewing, is that K is the closest thing in this film to a Roy Batty character. He's a reluctant/unhappy and knowing slave with great physical skills, who wistfully wants some sort of better life and even pretty much fantasises about perhaps not even being a normal replicant (all a bit Pinocchio), and shows interest in a rebellion. I'll say no more as I don't want to post spoilers. This is discussed in better detail by far better analysts than I, on various blogs. The one on screenrant is very good.
1
In reply to stp:
Went to see it in 4DX - bear in mind this is a film which is nearly 3 hours long. 4dx provides .... wind, rain, lighting effects, smoke and seat movements. And Bladerunner is probably the wettest film of the year. It was bloody hard work ! The seat punches you when there are fights. How many scenes involve water or rain ? This was all in 3d with glasses too, so the continual squirt of water from the seat in front got wearing after a while.
If you can afford nigh on £20 for the pleasure it is one hell of an experience.
Went to see it in 4DX - bear in mind this is a film which is nearly 3 hours long. 4dx provides .... wind, rain, lighting effects, smoke and seat movements. And Bladerunner is probably the wettest film of the year. It was bloody hard work ! The seat punches you when there are fights. How many scenes involve water or rain ? This was all in 3d with glasses too, so the continual squirt of water from the seat in front got wearing after a while.
If you can afford nigh on £20 for the pleasure it is one hell of an experience.
4
In reply to stp:
Saw it on the weekend on a normal cinema screen, visually stunning and the right length for the type of film it is. Thought the music was excellent and not overpowering as some have said. Will definitely be watching again when it's available to stream..
One of the best things I've seen in a cinema for a while. The last thing I enjoyed that much was the Mad Max remake
Saw it on the weekend on a normal cinema screen, visually stunning and the right length for the type of film it is. Thought the music was excellent and not overpowering as some have said. Will definitely be watching again when it's available to stream..
One of the best things I've seen in a cinema for a while. The last thing I enjoyed that much was the Mad Max remake
4
In reply to womblingfree:
Bit harsh calling Fury Road a "remake" given that the whole Mad Max franchise is basically one big desert car chase ????
Bit harsh calling Fury Road a "remake" given that the whole Mad Max franchise is basically one big desert car chase ????
2
1
4
In reply to Tom Valentine:
Ronin does seem to be unbeatable but To Live and Die In LA comes a very close second and is arguably better just for the "what the hell is going on" nature of it (and the terrible handling of those awful 1980s "not-built-for-the-job" cars ). I have yet to see Fear is the Key, which is also said to one of the very best.
Ronin does seem to be unbeatable but To Live and Die In LA comes a very close second and is arguably better just for the "what the hell is going on" nature of it (and the terrible handling of those awful 1980s "not-built-for-the-job" cars ). I have yet to see Fear is the Key, which is also said to one of the very best.
1
In reply to Blue Straggler:
TLADILA is mainly famous / notorious for the ridiculously camp 1980s erotic dancing with shit music!
Agree with the car chase, though.
CB
TLADILA is mainly famous / notorious for the ridiculously camp 1980s erotic dancing with shit music!
Agree with the car chase, though.
CB
In reply to cb294:
Didn't remember that! I have just bought it on DVD so I'll keep an eye out for it.
It's an interesting film in that the "maverick cop who breaks all the rules" actually screws up EVERYTHING, going against the genre convention.
> TLADILA is mainly famous / notorious for the ridiculously camp 1980s erotic dancing with shit music!
Didn't remember that! I have just bought it on DVD so I'll keep an eye out for it.
It's an interesting film in that the "maverick cop who breaks all the rules" actually screws up EVERYTHING, going against the genre convention.
In reply to Blue Straggler:
Yes, I had not seen it in years, but it was on the telly last weekend and I had a brief look. There is a scene in a club half an hour or so in that is so cringeworthy you don't know whether to laugh or gouge our your eyes!
Despite that it is IMO one of the best crime films ever.
CB
Yes, I had not seen it in years, but it was on the telly last weekend and I had a brief look. There is a scene in a club half an hour or so in that is so cringeworthy you don't know whether to laugh or gouge our your eyes!
Despite that it is IMO one of the best crime films ever.
CB
In reply to Tom Valentine:
There is the Blues Brothers. And the then rest. Admittedly the approach is different.
There is the Blues Brothers. And the then rest. Admittedly the approach is different.
1
1
In reply to steveboote:
'So choose your last words
this is the last time
'cause you and I
we were born to die...'
(Lana del Rey)
Mick
'So choose your last words
this is the last time
'cause you and I
we were born to die...'
(Lana del Rey)
Mick
1
In reply to Tom Valentine:
I was being a bit of a dick. There was a 2-part made-for-TV film or miniseries of The Bourne Identity some time in the late 1980s, starring Richard Chamberlain and Jaclyn Smith. I doubt that it actually had an exhilarating car chase.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094791/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_34
I was being a bit of a dick. There was a 2-part made-for-TV film or miniseries of The Bourne Identity some time in the late 1980s, starring Richard Chamberlain and Jaclyn Smith. I doubt that it actually had an exhilarating car chase.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094791/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_34
In reply to stp:
Finally got round to seeing it last night having put it off as I wasn't sure if I wanted to see it (the original is one of my favourite films ever). Incidentally, the screening was full, even though it's the 3rd week.
Overall, they made a much better job of it than I'd feared they might, even the annoying product placements were made slightly more tolerable by including one for Pan Am. I can't imagine wanting to see it again though.
But the main question I had after seeing it (and still have now) is, why did they bother? The original didn't need a sequel, and the sequel doesn't really add anything. Is it just the need to make money, and the assumption that the best way to make money is to find something successful and provide more of the same?
Finally got round to seeing it last night having put it off as I wasn't sure if I wanted to see it (the original is one of my favourite films ever). Incidentally, the screening was full, even though it's the 3rd week.
Overall, they made a much better job of it than I'd feared they might, even the annoying product placements were made slightly more tolerable by including one for Pan Am. I can't imagine wanting to see it again though.
But the main question I had after seeing it (and still have now) is, why did they bother? The original didn't need a sequel, and the sequel doesn't really add anything. Is it just the need to make money, and the assumption that the best way to make money is to find something successful and provide more of the same?
1
In reply to Simon Caldwell:
Good question about "why bother" especially because - to address your final point - they didn't exactly make this sequel as an obvious commercial venture (indeed it almost designed to lose money!). I almost wonder if it was a case of the right people in power deciding that they did want a continuing story and they wanted certain people involved (i.e. Denis Villeneuve as director and Hampton Fancher to do the story) and they wanted it to be smart intelligent sci-fi regardless of money. I'd never considered the "why bother" aspect before.
Also very interesting that the screening was full, given that it had a poor opening weekend. I saw it on Fri 6th October, basically opening night (OK I know it had started on the Thursday) and the cinema was maybe 35% filled.
Did you not also notice the Atari product placement, in there to also raise a wry smile (but also to tell us that this is a universe in which Pan Am and Atari existed in 2019)
Other than that, Sony and Peugeot were the only "intrusions" that I noticed, and Peugeot was slightly ironic given that French cars are often mocked for their dodgy electrics, and in one scene a Peugeot is downed by frying its electrics
Good question about "why bother" especially because - to address your final point - they didn't exactly make this sequel as an obvious commercial venture (indeed it almost designed to lose money!). I almost wonder if it was a case of the right people in power deciding that they did want a continuing story and they wanted certain people involved (i.e. Denis Villeneuve as director and Hampton Fancher to do the story) and they wanted it to be smart intelligent sci-fi regardless of money. I'd never considered the "why bother" aspect before.
Also very interesting that the screening was full, given that it had a poor opening weekend. I saw it on Fri 6th October, basically opening night (OK I know it had started on the Thursday) and the cinema was maybe 35% filled.
Did you not also notice the Atari product placement, in there to also raise a wry smile (but also to tell us that this is a universe in which Pan Am and Atari existed in 2019)
Other than that, Sony and Peugeot were the only "intrusions" that I noticed, and Peugeot was slightly ironic given that French cars are often mocked for their dodgy electrics, and in one scene a Peugeot is downed by frying its electrics
In reply to Blue Straggler:
Well it was the smallest screen in our local independent, but still quite unusual to be full after this long. And yes now you mention it I did see the Atari ad. There was also one for Coca Cola quite early on.
Well it was the smallest screen in our local independent, but still quite unusual to be full after this long. And yes now you mention it I did see the Atari ad. There was also one for Coca Cola quite early on.
In reply to Simon Caldwell:
Further to this - if I were tasked by a studio to "find something successful" I probably wouldn't use Bladerunner! It was not exactly a runaway box office hit.
> Is it just the need to make money, and the assumption that the best way to make money is to find something successful and provide more of the same?
Further to this - if I were tasked by a studio to "find something successful" I probably wouldn't use Bladerunner! It was not exactly a runaway box office hit.
In reply to Simon Caldwell:
Yep but 40-somethings, the obvious target demographic, don't put bums on seats in the cinema. I can't imagine the executives at Warners and Columbia rubbing their hands with glee looking at the screenplay and thinking "ker-chingggg!"
Maybe some sort of longer game going on, involving building prestige product and bagging Oscar nominations for key people like cinematographer Roger Deakins, which in turn keeps him happy and therefore willing to do another film under them instead of taking his talents elsewhere.
> True - but it has stood the test of time
Yep but 40-somethings, the obvious target demographic, don't put bums on seats in the cinema. I can't imagine the executives at Warners and Columbia rubbing their hands with glee looking at the screenplay and thinking "ker-chingggg!"
Maybe some sort of longer game going on, involving building prestige product and bagging Oscar nominations for key people like cinematographer Roger Deakins, which in turn keeps him happy and therefore willing to do another film under them instead of taking his talents elsewhere.
In reply to Blue Straggler:
I don't care, I loved it, after mentally puking over so many films recently
I don't care, I loved it, after mentally puking over so many films recently
In reply to Simon Caldwell:
I watched it Saturday afternoon just gone and the place was 2 3rds full. Maybe grown ups ain't in such a rush to see something on the opening weekends
I thought the product placements and adverts added to the dystopian vibe, after everything that happens the big brands (well, most of em) still survive
I watched it Saturday afternoon just gone and the place was 2 3rds full. Maybe grown ups ain't in such a rush to see something on the opening weekends
I thought the product placements and adverts added to the dystopian vibe, after everything that happens the big brands (well, most of em) still survive
In reply to stp:
Just been to see Bladerunner 2049. Shite, 3 hours of post apocalyptic dystopian rainy cliche that I won’t get back. Not a patch on the Director’s cut of the original
Just been to see Bladerunner 2049. Shite, 3 hours of post apocalyptic dystopian rainy cliche that I won’t get back. Not a patch on the Director’s cut of the original
4
7
In reply to kevin stephens:
The Director's Cut wasn't really The Director's Cut though, if you mean the one that was released circa 1992 and called The Director's Cut.
The Final Cut is the one to watch.
The Director's Cut wasn't really The Director's Cut though, if you mean the one that was released circa 1992 and called The Director's Cut.
The Final Cut is the one to watch.
2
1
In reply to kevin stephens:
No but if you play the Pink Floyd album of the same name all the scene changes match the music.
No but if you play the Pink Floyd album of the same name all the scene changes match the music.
In reply to stp:
The music is really absorbing. After watching the film, I downloaded the music and have been listening to it pretty much on loop.
The music is really absorbing. After watching the film, I downloaded the music and have been listening to it pretty much on loop.
In reply to Dave Garnett:
I liked it too (though not as much as I was hoping), and his performances generally - I was referring to one of his asides where Deadpool mocks the 'Ryan Reynolds acting method' (or similar)
> Really? I saw this recently (after my son going on about it for ages) and really liked it. It's all tongue in cheek and rather clever. Lots of asides to the audience and specific jokes about 4th wall breaks
I liked it too (though not as much as I was hoping), and his performances generally - I was referring to one of his asides where Deadpool mocks the 'Ryan Reynolds acting method' (or similar)
In reply to Blue Straggler:
Saw it last night and there was one for Jack Daniels too - when they are drinking whisky in the casino, Harrison very obviously puts the bottle down with the label facing out but what the hell, I don't care as I funkin loved it. Like a fantastic dish in a restaurant I savoured every eyefull. Beautiful cinematography, beautiful (?) score, beautiful sets and costumes. Wow. Just fabulous.
I think the word is getting out round the 40 something demographic that it is something special, the seats are still getting full. We were in an almost full cinema last night in Bristol.
Interestingly my wife who barely knows the original loved it too.
Saw it last night and there was one for Jack Daniels too - when they are drinking whisky in the casino, Harrison very obviously puts the bottle down with the label facing out but what the hell, I don't care as I funkin loved it. Like a fantastic dish in a restaurant I savoured every eyefull. Beautiful cinematography, beautiful (?) score, beautiful sets and costumes. Wow. Just fabulous.
I think the word is getting out round the 40 something demographic that it is something special, the seats are still getting full. We were in an almost full cinema last night in Bristol.
Interestingly my wife who barely knows the original loved it too.
2
In reply to Bobling:
Glad to hear it.
That score is interesting - apart from when they use a bit of the original, is there ever any actual melody? I mostly remember monotonal sounds (Hans Zummer found the "Alpenhorn" button on his Bontempi , only joking, I did really like how the "score" almost wove itself into the film as a character in itself)
Glad to hear it.
That score is interesting - apart from when they use a bit of the original, is there ever any actual melody? I mostly remember monotonal sounds (Hans Zummer found the "Alpenhorn" button on his Bontempi , only joking, I did really like how the "score" almost wove itself into the film as a character in itself)
1
In reply to Blue Straggler:
I finally got round to seeing it. I like a slowly burning plot but, to me, the film felt like an exercise for the visual artist and little more. You could say the same thing about 2001 but that film reinvented cinema. This one merely rehashes it.
The hologrammic playmate Joi was an interesting invention that raised some fascinating questions, however.
I finally got round to seeing it. I like a slowly burning plot but, to me, the film felt like an exercise for the visual artist and little more. You could say the same thing about 2001 but that film reinvented cinema. This one merely rehashes it.
The hologrammic playmate Joi was an interesting invention that raised some fascinating questions, however.
4
1
In reply to stp:
Went to see it on Monday, our local cinema being a bit slow on releases!
Wonderful visual and audible feast. Enjoyed it more than I expected as a big fan of the original.
The scene as K flies into LA for the first time had me grinning while at the same time shivering.
Went to see it on Monday, our local cinema being a bit slow on releases!
Wonderful visual and audible feast. Enjoyed it more than I expected as a big fan of the original.
The scene as K flies into LA for the first time had me grinning while at the same time shivering.
2
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...