What Is The Last Film You Watched? (Newer Films)

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

11 minutes ago, Hurmm said:

It still feels like an impressive picture, and it's utterly unthinkable that a major studio funded this for mainstream release.

 

That's nothing new for films like this, right?

[Hurmm 91]

Not for this level of crazy and complete disregard for paying customers' expectations. This was a wide release too. 

[Bilbo 3,709]

Kingsmen: The Golden Circle.

 

It was more of the same but probably not as good as the first. There were some genuinely laugh out loud moments though and overall it was a nice way to pass a Sunday evening. 

 

 

[Not Mr. Big 4,639]

Finally got around to watching It.  It was surprisingly pretty good, I appreciated Its Stand by Me-esque "coming of age" story and Its creative visual-effect driven scares.  The score was... ok??  Granted, there wasn't much room for the score to breathe in the film's frantic pacing but there had to be something better than the "electronic stomping sound effects with generic 20-second 2010's Hollywood Fantasy Music interludes.  They should have gotten John Williams to do it!

 

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Sleepwalking in Suburbia (2017)

 

You know, sometimes these made for tele midday movies have surprisingly good sex scenes. There was one at the beginning that made me go "whoa!"

 

Anyhoo, decent thriller about a pretty blonde shiela who has sexomnia and sleepwalks into men's houses and roots them. Imagine if that really happened!

[A24 4,326]

Good sex scenes? They always bore me to death.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I thought Drax didn't like seeing people in their nuddy?

[crocodile 7,984]

Blade Runner 2049. It was good, had strong visuals and often offered thoughtful content. It certainly doesn't repeat the first film's narrative, which is great, and finds way to expand the world without feeling too redundant. But for all its ambition and often sublime execution, I still feel somewhat indifferent. Still can''t see why it was necessary to make this (beyond the financial reasons, of course). In terms of message, it doesn't really ever say much new. The original has already addressed those themes. The special effects are good but don't feels as impressive anymore when you know they were achieved by computer graphics. All that aside, I wouldn't discourage anyone from watching it on big screen. it was not an embarrassing attempt or anything. In terms of sequels to old classics, this one fares quite well. But I'm not sure if it will be as interesting to rewatch over and over again. I liked it...but didn't love it.

 

Karol

[Fancyarcher 350]

American Made - It's a very serious story, but the film as the trailers might suggest, is actually really fun and awesome. It's cool to see Cruise doing something different from his usual action roles, and Liman's direction, along with even Beck's "rocking" score contribute to helping the overall film. I also quite like Gleeson in the movie, he had some good lines, and scenes. It's solid. 7.5 / 10 

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

8 hours ago, Stefancos said:

I thought Drax didn't like seeing people in their nuddy?

 

Not true. But you never saw dicks or fannies on TV while I was growing up, but now it's become normalised, which is just weird.

 

But in this movie, the sex scenes were brief and served the story.

[Matt C 452]

Blade Runner: The Final Cut -- The atmosphere, production design, music, and editing really come together as a hypnotic and intoxicating experience. The themes presented are woven deeply into the script and there's something new to discover with each viewing. Acting is pretty solid overall, although Sean Young still comes off pretty stiff and the action scenes are nothing to write home about. Still, it's no wonder it became a cult classic.

 

Blade Runner 2049 -- Still processing and thinking about it. To Dennis Villeneuve's credit, he does not copy the structure of the first film nor make it too visually similar to the original. There are a few callbacks, but production designer Dennis Gassner and DP Roger Deakins smartly go their own way. Despite Harrison Ford getting second billing, this is Ryan Gosling's show all the way through (Deckard is more of a supporting character). The film expands upon the themes from the original while presenting new ones to the forefront. Gosling is fantastic here, as is Ford, with an impressive supporting cast (especially Mackenzie Davis and Dave Bautista). However, the pacing is even slower than the original and the pacing could've been tightened in a few places. But the biggest failing of the film is Benjamin Wallfisch and Hans Zimmer's score, which is wildly intrusive in places, overmixed in the film, and lacks the grace and subtlety of Vangelis' original score (one cue is used near the end of the film). I would love to hear Jóhann Jóhannsson's rejected score for this.

 

 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,500]

14 hours ago, Alexcremers said:

Good sex scenes? They always bore me to death.

 

Even DON'T LOOK NOW?

[publicist 4,643]

7 hours ago, crocodile said:

Blade Runner 2049. ,...Still can''t see why it was necessary to make this (beyond the financial reasons, of course). In terms of message, it doesn't really ever say much new. The original has already addressed those themes.

 

I think the exploration of K's relation to Joi was a quite interesting addition to the Blade Runner universe. It was, i think, the core of his story, eventually (if you think about the story in reverse). The 'message' - i don't think they ever tried for one, because Villeneuve/Scott probably realized that they couldn't match the dimensions of the poetic demise of Rutger Hauer in whatever direction they steered this story, so they ended it at a logical point where they could get closest. 

 

One minor complaint was 

Spoiler

the inclusion of the replicant 'army' which felt like an awful blockbuster idea and brought nothing to the story and the Matrix fistfight at the end with the Irina-chick (a character nuisance)

 

but apart from that i think the film will be fondly remembered in years to come.

[crocodile 7,984]

Oh yes, if you are going to make a sequel this isn't a bad way to do this. And, as I said, there is a lot of solid material in there. I just wish that I felt something while watching it. But hey, at least for once we get a sequel directed by someone who knows what the hell they're doing.

Spoiler

 

The fight scene you mentioned is easily the worst thing about this movie. So unimaginative visually.

 

Speaking of side stories, have you noticed how some plotlines just sort of never get resolved at all? Wallace? The replicant army?

 

 

Karol

[publicist 4,643]

5 minutes ago, crocodile said:

Oh yes, if you are going to make a sequel this isn't a bad way to do this. And, as I said, there is a lot of solid material in there. I just wish that I felt something while watching it. But hey, at least for once we get a sequel directed by someone who knows what the hell they're doing.

  Hide contents

 

The fight scene you mentioned is easily the worst thing about this movie. So unimaginative visually.

 

Speaking of side stories, have you noticed how some plotlines just sort of never get resolved at all? Wallace? The replicant army?

 

 

Karol

 

I think a lot of people felt like this about the original BR in the summer of 'E.T.' 1982. The plotlines you mention are not only irrelevant, they kind of work against what is essentially a one-character story. Seems like Sony or whoever mandated the usual bad studio ideas to ensure popular SUCCESS!, ironically in a repeat of 1982's happy end and Deckard voiceover. There are also two or three brief scenes where a character explains what they have just seen which no way grew in Villeneuve's backyard. Maybe Scott wanted them in, since he basically believes the audience is a moron.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

Is there a narration? Because I'm afraid I won't understand what's going on if there's no narration.

[A24 4,326]

9 hours ago, crocodile said:

Blade Runner 2049. Still can''t see why it was necessary to make this (beyond the financial reasons, of course).

 

The production company basically said it was out of respect for Ridley Scott's movie. The sequel/prequel rights were suddenly up for grabs so a follow-up became inevitable. Alcon Entertainment (Prisoners) said anyone (read Michael Bay, Uwe Boll, ...) could buy it a make a sequel and they didn't want that to happen. They said they understood the legacy of Blade Runner, that it was an art movie and that they would treat the follow-up in the same way.

 

 

Hope this helps,

 

 

Alex

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

So it was a pre-emptive sequel? New concept to me but it makes sense.

[publicist 4,643]

53 minutes ago, BloodBoal said:

Is there a narration? Because I'm afraid I won't understand what's going on if there's no narration.

 

'Are you saying he's a replicant, too?'

'That's exactly what i'm saying'

[BloodBoal 7,538]

Nice!

[Incanus 5,713]

1 hour ago, BloodBoal said:

Is there a narration? Because I'm afraid I won't understand what's going on if there's no narration.

Hopefully there will be explication commentary on future BDs of all movies where a dry analytical voice dissects every scene and explains everything so that no one misunderstands or misses any dramatic beats or references to other scenes etc. in films. Because it would be too strenuous to do some thinking or pay attention to the film.

[publicist 4,643]

Sir Ridley does just fine.

[crocodile 7,984]

2 hours ago, Alexcremers said:

 

The production company basically said it was out of respect for Ridley Scott's movie. The sequel/prequel rights were suddenly up for grabs so a follow-up became inevitable. Alcon Entertainment (Prisoners) said anyone (read Michael Bay, Uwe Boll, ...) could buy it a make a sequel and they didn't want that to happen. They said they understood the legacy of Blade Runner, that it was an art movie and that they would treat the follow-up in the same way.

 

 

Hope this helps,

 

 

Alex

How is making a sign of respect?

 

Karol

[A24 4,326]

I thought I explained it, crocs. 

[crocodile 7,984]

2 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

I thought I explained it, crocs. 

So what if Uwe Boll makes a shitty BR film? You can just ignore it.

 

Karol

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

5 minutes ago, crocodile said:

So what if Uwe Boll makes a shitty BR film? You can just ignore it.

 

Karol

 

Yeah like Independence Day Resurgence!

[A24 4,326]

15 minutes ago, crocodile said:

So what if Uwe Boll makes a shitty BR film? You can just ignore it.

 

Karol

 

You have seen the movie, crocs.  Did Villeneuve not show respect? As far as I can tell, the BR crowd seems to be impressed, much to their surprise.

[crocodile 7,984]

1 hour ago, Alexcremers said:

 

You have seen the movie, crocs.  Did Villeneuve not show respect? As far as I can tell, the BR crowd seems to be impressed, much to their surprise.

It's a solid film but doesn't feel necessary or important. It does what it possibly can to make itself interesting, I'll give it that. But I have no real desire to revisit it.

 

Karol

[publicist 4,643]

It's much more than solid (and i'm not talking about simple things like story dynamics which weren't much better in the original movie). But i think it shares the same fate of that older movie: you cannot truly rate it one day after you've seen it. 

[Jay 37,288]

There's an entire spoilers-allowed thread for BR2049 so you guys don't have to use spoiler tags

 

http://www.jwfan.com/forums/index.php?/topic/27794-spoiler-talk-blade-runner-2049-denis-villeneuve-2017/

[KK 3,307]

 

Blade Runer 2049

 

Hmmm. Not entirely sure how I feel about this one. It's a good sequel. It follows up on the original's themes well. The world-building is fantastic, with some great sequences and usual Villeneuve flair. But I can't help feel disappointed with it. I think I essentially have a problem with the story itself. There are neat ideas at play here, but it reeks of "franchise syndrome", and an annoying third act that felt very much at odds with the first (which effectively felt like watching Sicario set in the Blade Runner world).

 

As others have mentioned here, its much more literal than the first film. Which is something we all expected, but the narrative doesn't really do much to sustain Villeneuve/Deakin's grand, hallucinogenic visuals. It felt like Villeneuve trying to make a Villeneuve film out of a screenplay that wasn't really him. And I didn't mind the slow pace (though my friend couldn't stand it), but the dramatic beats felt off after the first half. It's a long movie.

 

Again, I think it does its job as a sequel well. Probably better than we cold have hoped. But its probably Villeneuve's weakest film.

 

Oh and Wallfisch/Zimmer's score was serviceable but only ever shines when it either impersonates Vangelis ("Tears in the Rain"), or funny enough, Johannsson (one scene felt very temp tracked with Arrival/Sicario).

 

 

[A24 4,326]

So how is Gosling performing? Is he okay? Some people worry about that.

[Brónach 1,301]

It sounds like I might like it. Maybe on Sunday.

[KK 3,307]

3 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

So how is Gosling performing? Is he okay?

 

Ryan Gosling is Ryan Gosling in this movie. And it works.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Emotionless and humourless? Why hasn't Nolan cast him?

[BloodBoal 7,538]

It should have been Gyllenhaal! IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GYLLENHAAL!

[A24 4,326]

Maybe he hasn't been programmed with emotion or humour?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

But Deckard had it. An inferior model?

[A24 4,326]

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Cool jacket!

[Brónach 1,301]

4 minutes ago, BloodBoal said:

It should have been Gyllenhaal! IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GYLLENHAAL!

 

I love that guy.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

He looks weird!

[Brónach 1,301]

He's hilarious in Okja

[Naïve Old Fart 9,500]

Its probably a still taken from NIGHTCRAWLER (but I'm sure you know that).

[Hurmm 91]

Honestly Gyllenhaal would have made a better blade runner. Gosling is too much of a pretty boy to be in the BR world. Not nearly gruff enough. I felt that way since the first trailer and the movie didn't change my mind. He's one of the weaker aspects of the film.

 

And I usually like Gosling. But this is not his type. Want to do Ocean's Fourteen? Sure, hire him and he'll be slick and fun as shit in that. 

[A24 4,326]

I thought Villeneuve & Gyllenhaal were a tandem like Scorsese & Leo. Gyllenhaal should have been a no-brainer for the Blade Runner part. I guess Villeneuve or Scott saw it differently.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[A24 4,326]

2 out of 5 movies when you exclude the early French movies. And I thought that when they made Prisoners and Enemy ... 

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[A24 4,326]

Arrival would have been better too if they replaced Renner with Gyllenhaal.

 

Renner is simply not a scientist.