Blade Runner 2049

[Nick1Ø66 4,687]

8 minutes ago, BloodBoal said:

Nick1066 is a genius. Slap me if I ever argue with him.

 

Quoted for future reference.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

9 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

BloodBoal is a genius. Slap me if I ever argue with him.

 

Quoted for future reference.

[Nick1Ø66 4,687]

[Brundlefly 2,385]

51 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

Is there anyone here who has said they "hate" Arrival?

 

"Hating", "not liking", "not appreciating"... I don't care...

[KK 3,307]

30 minutes ago, Fancyarcher said:

Will see. I still think it has a strong chance of winning director at least.

 

 

 

Doubt it. Dunkirk didn't make that kind of splash. Most of the potential winning directors will start popping up now for awards season. And you have a new PTA film coming up this year too.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

1 minute ago, KK said:

Doubt it. Dunkirk didn't make that kind of splash.

 

Quoted for future reference.

[Fancyarcher 350]

1 minute ago, KK said:

 

Doubt it. Dunkirk didn't make that kind of splash. Most of the potential winning directors will start popping up now for awards season. And you have a new PTA film coming up this year too.

 

Dunkirk is likely going to make more money then most of the best picture noms (not that, it always matters mind you), and Nolan's direction has been universal praise. If he isn't winning, he's at least very close, in terms of the number of votes. We still have months to go though. 

[Nick1Ø66 4,687]

I'll go on record now as saying that I think it's entirely possible Dunkirk will win though I'm not 100% sure and wouldn't be surprised if it didn't but I think it very well may (not).

 

You can quote me on that.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

Just now, Nick1066 said:

You can quote me on that.

 

Done.

[King Mark 3,624]

so RT is at 97% now

[BloodBoal 7,538]

People need to stop bringing up RT scores every time a big movie is released, especially even before said movie has been released.

[KK 3,307]

18 minutes ago, Fancyarcher said:

 

Dunkirk is likely going to make more money then most of the best picture noms (not that, it always matters mind you), and Nolan's direction has been universal praise. If he isn't winning, he's at least very close, in terms of the number of votes. We still have months to go though. 

 

Nolan's movies have always made money. And he's gotten nothing from the Academy as of yet.

 

There is no real correlation between box office performance and who gets Best Director/Picture. 

 

And you're right, we do have some months to go. And the year's best movies (at least critics' favourites) will only start to come out in the upcoming months.

 

22 minutes ago, BloodBoal said:

 

Quoted for future reference.

 

If Nolan wins, you can have Stiff's post count.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

Just now, KK said:

If Nolan wins, you can have Stiff's post count.

 

Duly noted!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Ummm.... I dunno about this?

[BloodBoal 7,538]

I'm sorry to inform you that you don't have a say in the matter.

[Fancyarcher 350]

28 minutes ago, KK said:

 

Nolan's movies have always made money. And he's gotten nothing from the Academy as of yet.

 

There is no real correlation between box office performance and who gets Best Director/Picture. 

 

No, but aside from The Dark Knight (which isn't really the kind of film that the academy goes for), his movies haven't gotten exactly gotten same acclaim that Dunkirk has. There's always a first for any director after all, but yes we've got months to go. Anything can happen. 

[Nick1Ø66 4,687]

 

48 minutes ago, Brundlefly said:

"Hating", "not liking", "not appreciating"... I don't care...

2 hours ago, Brundlefly said:

I have to mention that my former statement:

was by no means intended to be offensive or to claim that everyone who did not like the movie is dumb. I simply wanted to say that the ones who hated it should give it at least a second watch, since there is really no reason to depreciate it. Even if the stunning audiovisual style and the slowly paced process of exploring the creatures did not confince you, there is much more in it than many might think. The whole movie is an important essay on language and especially narration in movies, as the usual narrative rules are completely broken in this case: The theory of the movie is that language and narration always depends on a perpective, which becomes more and more clear within the course of the movie - until we, the viewers, find out that our perspective was always deceived: In the first scene Amy Adams loses her son, in the second scene she is initially just walking with a very stern face. The viewer interprets that as frustration and sadness because of her loss, but later we find out that she did not even have a son at that time - so there is not much to interpret in that facial expression. The scene feels much more important when we see it the first time. Scene number 1 makes scene number 2 and a lot more scenes look sadder than it is. Like a poorly written review can make a movie sound stupid and a linguisticly elaborated and comprehensive review can make a movie sound extremely complex and intelligent - it is still the same movie. Arrival, however, breaks one crucial aspect of the medium film: the time. Not that the time does not exist anymore, no, it does not have a course anymore. And the viewers can just be confused, since they are all human beings who cannot see more than one single tiny spot of the timeline at once. The viewers are infinitely bonded to their perspective and the perspective is as important as the language itself for communication. This is what Amy Adams has to learn, gradually, until she is able to fully communicate with the creatures.

In short, it is really an interesting and intelligent movie, not just in a physical-philosophic way. Either you like or not, if course, but there is much to admire about it, so I also recommend it to those who have already seen it but who did not really take pleasure in it.

 

The thing is, I think it's possible that everyone here can have recognised all the things you listed about this film...at least recognised what the film was attempting to do...and still come away finding it to be an overall unsatisfactory cinematic experience.

 

I do give credit for ambition, definitely. I like and respect when directors try to do something different, especially in the current cinematic environment (and Villeneuve has certainly done that).  But points for trying only go so far.  It's not enough to make something different, the different still has to work as a film. I don't want to have to rationalise why a film I think isn't effective actually is. It either works, or it doesn't.  What you're describing is essentially saying..."look at all the clever things the director is doing to subvert our expectations...marvel in his cleverness!."  I get it, I really do. I understand and appreciate everything you're saying about the film, but it didn't work for me. 

 

That's not to say I didn't find things to appreciate about it, because I did. But it wasn't a masterpiece (IMO). I will say this...it's not a genre film, not really. So perhaps it's not best to approach it that way. I actually think Villeneuve is trying to subvert the genre. So in that way the comparisons to films like Contact and Interstellar are inapt (though to be fair the film was marketde as a genre film along those lines).  

 

But at the end of the day, what am I supposed to come away with after watching this? That Villeneuve is a clever director? Well, fair enough. But the film didn't teach me anything, and frankly didn't make me feel much. I did think about it, but only in terms of Villeneuve's style, not the content of the film itself. 

 

Though I do respect your opinion and your passion about a film you clearly love!

[publicist 4,643]

That he went with that Richter piece in the main and end titles was the worst offense. The rest was perfectly OK.

[publicist 4,643]

Reviews...one good, one so-so

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2017/09/29/review-blade-runner-2049-is-an-overlong-and-underwhelming-sequel/#1e2eaea32fce

http://variety.com/2017/film/reviews/blade-runner-2049-review-1202576220/

[Romão 2,274]

To be fair, Scott Mendelson of Forbes was never a fan of the original movie to start with

[A24 4,326]

 Why only these two reviews when you can have them all?

 

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/blade_runner_2049/

[publicist 4,643]

Jeez, who reads 40 reviews just because he plans to watch a movie?

[BloodBoal 7,538]

But.. but the RT score! RT is life. RT is love.

[publicist 4,643]

There are positive reviews for Supergirl, after all!

[Naïve Old Fart 9,489]

Positive reviews for SUPERGIRL?!

Holy...cow!

[Brundlefly 2,385]

9 hours ago, Nick1066 said:

Though I do respect your opinion and your passion about a film you clearly love!

Ironically, I personally do not really love it. I appreciate it and can enjoy it, but surprisingly it is far away from being one of my favorite movies. By using the word "appreciate" I refer to a successful attempt to do something, so if I think the director did not reach his goal, that is not enough. To make a great movie, a great idea must be successfully realized. (Just wanted to point that out.)

[Koray Savas 2,251]

9 hours ago, BloodBoal said:

 

Quoted for future reference.

Quoted for future reference. 

[BloodBoal 7,538]

2 hours ago, Koray Savas said:

Quoted for future reference. 

 

Quoted for past reference.

[KK 3,307]

17 minutes ago, BloodBoal said:

 

Quoted for past reference.

 

Quoted for p--

 

This was more fun with the old quote system...

 

[BloodBoal 7,538]

It's annoying, isn't it?

 

Not sure why they thought it was a good idea not to include the quote(s) within a post you quote, for whatever reason. It often creates confusing posts.

[Brundlefly 2,385]

11 minutes ago, BloodBoal said:

It's annoying, isn't it?

 

Not sure why they thought it was a good idea not to include the quote(s) within a post you quote, for whatever reason. It often creates confusing posts.

This!

[Quintus 5,399]

See, this positive but proportional  review,  with its pragmatic final word, is the sort of write-up I can get behind, and one that is more likely to get me to go see a film like this. 

 

"Whether it matches Ridley Scott’s original is almost irrelevant. No movie can truly live up to 35 years of expectations, and it will take another 35 years before we definitively know whether Villeneuve’s film will have the same kind of impact as the original. (Though I’m extremely confident in saying it won’t.) But going back to that question of why a sequel to Blade Runner should exist, perhaps it’s not about riffing on the original film’s themes, or trying to match it. Perhaps the best reason for it to exist is to just remind us that we should expect more from our big movies. It helps us recall a time when even epic films could be challenging, and forces us to think a little deeper than what we’ve grown used to. I’d rather watch a movie that tries to do that and comes up short than one that never tries at all."

 

Where that fits in on your RT meta, you can leave that off-putting consensus hyperbole to the Alex Cremers of the world to worry about. 

[crocodile 7,977]

Bought a ticket for Thursday night showing. Haven't read any reviews or even watched trailers (well, just one). I'm simply not expecting much - going in with the Prometheus/Covenant in mind.

 

Karol

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

10 hours ago, Quintus said:

See, this positive but proportional  review,  with its pragmatic final word, is the sort of write-up I can get behind, and one that is more likely to get me to go see a film like this. 

 

"Whether it matches Ridley Scott’s original is almost irrelevant. No movie can truly live up to 35 years of expectations, and it will take another 35 years before we definitively know whether Villeneuve’s film will have the same kind of impact as the original. (Though I’m extremely confident in saying it won’t.) But going back to that question of why a sequel to Blade Runner should exist, perhaps it’s not about riffing on the original film’s themes, or trying to match it. Perhaps the best reason for it to exist is to just remind us that we should expect more from our big movies. It helps us recall a time when even epic films could be challenging, and forces us to think a little deeper than what we’ve grown used to. I’d rather watch a movie that tries to do that and comes up short than one that never tries at all."

 

Where that fits in on your RT meta, you can leave that off-putting consensus hyperbole to the Alex Cremers of the world to worry about. 

 

Alex doesn't trust reviews, only aggregate numbers and statistics.

[Wojo 2,453]

Does Alex realize that 42.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot? 

[Nick1Ø66 4,687]

The average statistic joke is just plain mean.

[Brundlefly 2,385]

12 hours ago, Quintus said:

See, this positive but proportional  review,  with its pragmatic final word, is the sort of write-up I can get behind, and one that is more likely to get me to go see a film like this. 

 

"Whether it matches Ridley Scott’s original is almost irrelevant. No movie can truly live up to 35 years of expectations, and it will take another 35 years before we definitively know whether Villeneuve’s film will have the same kind of impact as the original. (Though I’m extremely confident in saying it won’t.) But going back to that question of why a sequel to Blade Runner should exist, perhaps it’s not about riffing on the original film’s themes, or trying to match it. Perhaps the best reason for it to exist is to just remind us that we should expect more from our big movies. It helps us recall a time when even epic films could be challenging, and forces us to think a little deeper than what we’ve grown used to. I’d rather watch a movie that tries to do that and comes up short than one that never tries at all."

 

Where that fits in on your RT meta, you can leave that off-putting consensus hyperbole to the Alex Cremers of the world to worry about. 

I am very confident Denis Villeneuve's movie will go a little deeper than what we've grown used to. But the movie does not necessarily become such a cult classic as the original. No matter, whether it deserves to be or not.

[publicist 4,643]

I'm more than happy if it doesn't bore me for 155 minutes.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

So it's brilliant? Cinema is saved? Alex?

[crocodile 7,977]

There is hope for Nolan 2.0.

 

Karol

[KK 3,307]

 

9 minutes ago, crocodile said:

There is hope for Nolan 2.0.

 

Karol

He will be better!

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

But....but don't forget all the great and famous Kanadian Directors!

 

Ummm....Cronenberg and ummmm...

[BloodBoal 7,538]

James Cameron is from that part of the world, apparently. Not sure what he's doing here. Maybe he's here by mistake?

[Brundlefly 2,385]

1 hour ago, Stefancos said:

But....but don't forget all the great and famous Kanadian Directors!

 

Ummm....Cronenberg and ummmm...

...Denis Villeneuve.

[KK 3,307]

8 hours ago, BloodBoal said:

James Cameron is from that part of the world, apparently. Not sure what he's doing here. Maybe he's here by mistake?

 

Indeed! And you might count Paul Haggis, or rising star Xavier Dolan.

 

And we gifted you with Howard Shore, you ingrates!

[BloodBoal 7,538]

1 hour ago, KK said:

Indeed! And you might count Paul Haggis

 

Sounds Scottish.

 

1 hour ago, KK said:

or rising star Xavier Dolan.

 

Christopher Dolan is British, KK...

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

5 hours ago, KK said:

 

Indeed! And you might count Paul Haggis, or rising star Xavier Dolan.

 

And we gifted you with Howard Shore, you ingrates!

 

Paul Haggis, brilliant? Hmmm....Koray?

 

I'll give you Cameron though 

[A24 4,326]

Maybe KK stands for Koray Koray?

[KK 3,307]

I'm not a fan of Haggis, nor do I consider him brilliant. But some do, so I suggested him.

 

But yes, we have one of Hollywood's largest titans on our side.

 

8 hours ago, BloodBoal said:

 

Sounds Scottish.

 

 

Christopher Dolan is British, KK...

 

Half the country belongs to either of those groups anyway. Still Kanadian!