Jump to content

Hlao-roo

Recommended Posts

Woops, should have read all the posts before posting that.

 

Yea, time for me to create a spoilers-allowed thread for everyone to discuss it openly!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Thor said:

OK, so came back from the movie a couple of hours ago. I'm not quite sure what to make of it, to be honest. There are things I like very much, and other things that didn't really trigger me. I think I need some time to digest it, and I need to see it more times. Don't expect this to be as consistent as the original BLADE RUNNER. We move to very different locales, with very different visual looks, so it doesn't have the all-engrossing, visceral experience of the original. Also, much of the subtext is more literal than in the original.

 

I'm not going to mention any spoilers here; I assume most of you are seeing this tomorrow or Friday? But there are definitely things to discuss -- both in terms of narrative, topic, visuals, music, sound design, qualities and things that are not so impressive.

 

I'll post my thoughts on the Zimmer score in the other thread.

 

Personally I think this is 2010 all over again, trying to do what 2001 did but had to answer too many unanswered questions, almost spoon feeding us

Why make sequels anymore if we ruin the original intent with, let e explain further. Alien Covenant is a perfect example of what I think ruins the original intent of Alien, as did Prometheus

Less is more sometimes. I might go view the film today, the fact I said "might" shows my lack of enthusiasm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At last he can finally catch up on his sleep. 

 

15 hours ago, BloodBoal said:

Now that Thor didn't love it, all bets are off!

 

No, I'm inspirited by his reaction. 

 

Films like this don't tend to have real potential unless they truly divide opinions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Thor said:

Also, much of the subtext is more literal than in the original.

 

Villeneuve probably didn't want to take any chances and wait 10 years before people say it's a misunderstood masterpiece.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Snake Plissken said:

 

Personally I think this is 2010 all over again, trying to do what 2001 did but had to answer too many unanswered questions, almost spoon feeding us

 

Have you seen the movie?
 

What am I asking, of course you have. Why else would you come on here saying such things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/10/2017 at 9:49 PM, TheGreyPilgrim said:

 

Why do they need vision? Racist! Disgusting terrestrial evolution privilege!

 

Independent evolution of eyes seems to be common if there's avalaible light.

 

Well I mean eyes or EYES or ""eyes"", I'd hardly call a layer of cells that detect where light comes from and that's it and eye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is odd because he hated promoting the first one.

 

 

I want the glass!

 

 

I can see another Ford-Gosling collaboration in the near future!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He turned around on it though!  After the Director's Cut he gave it 4 stars and added it to his Great Movies pantheon!

 

Also, the "Ebert reviewing films even though he's dead" jokes about RogerEbert.com were old 3 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea. But I think it's reasonable to get excited if your favourite reviewer, whose recommendations you trust, raves about a certain film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Precisely!  Which is why I said I wish that Zoller Seitz (EIC of the Ebert site) had reviewed it because I've been reading him since I was a teenager so I'm familiar with his taste and POV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stefancos said:

Read something before throwing around your judgement. that's all I'm saying.

 

? My remark was a response to Alex's and DiscoStu's comments. I didn't go on a tour of Google to verify what I read after that, so what? Are you massive Ebert fan or something? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, KK said:

Yea. But I think it's reasonable to get excited if your favourite reviewer, whose recommendations you trust, raves about a certain film.

 

Sure, but it's something I can't quite relate to, since I don't have what one calls "a favourite reviewer". I have reviewers I like reading, but none that I agree with on most films, so there are none with which a review could make me more or less excited about a film (plus, I generally read reviews AFTER I've watched the film, so there is that). At best, it could make me curious about a film I had no interest in watching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BloodBoal said:

 

Sure, but it's something I can't quite relate to, since I don't have what one calls "a favourite reviewer". I have reviewers I like reading, but none that I agree with on most films, so there are none with which a review could make me more or less excited about a film (plus, I generally read reviews AFTER I've watched the film, so there is that). At best, it could make me curious about a film I had no interest in watching.

 

I'm the same. I don't have a favourite reviewer, and certainly not someone I would choose to see, or not see, a film based on their opinion.

 

However, I am pretty adept at reading a range of reviews and in the aggregate getting a pretty good idea of whether I'm going to like a film or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BloodBoal said:

 

Sure, but it's something I can't quite relate to, since I don't have what one calls "a favourite reviewer". I have reviewers I like reading, but none that I agree with on most films, so there are none with which a review could make me more or less excited about a film (plus, I generally read reviews AFTER I've watched the film, so there is that). At best, it could make me curious about a film I had no interest in watching.

 

This is the case for me as well. But I can understand others' heightened enthusiasm for positive reviews from certain critics. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So. It was a really good Blade Runner movie with some reservations that mainly concern the third act. But the world Scott created in 1982 is intact and elaborated upon and , most importantly, the pace is a big fuck you to the ADHS generation - it is slooooow! But that's how you want your BR movies.

 

I could've done without the baddie chick and some other stuff i can't spoiler right now but on the whole, it certainly was a 2017 highlight for me. Score was mostly irrelevant sound design without much purpose. But with Villeneuve, it at least doesn't come as a surprise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't 'dislike' the Wallfisch/Zimmer, either, but generally this director belongs to the music stay the fuck out of my picture-filmmakers ('Arrival' was much more inventive and relevant to the story, though).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, publicist said:

So. It was a really good Blade Runner movie with some reservations that mainly concern the third act. But the world Scott created in 1982 is intact and elaborated upon and , most importantly, the pace is a big fuck you to the ADHS generation - it is slooooow! But that's how you want your BR movies.

 

I could've done without the baddie chick and some other stuff i can't spoiler right now but on the whole, it certainly was a 2017 highlight for me.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EDIT: Woops! Wrong thread.

 

Solid film, good sequel, but disappointing. Might be Villeneuve's weakest film.

 

Still, in the era of Marvel/Disney conglomeration, it's good to see films like this finding mainstream success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.