Page 192 of 192 FirstFirst ... 92142182190191192
Results 2,866 to 2,879 of 2879

Thread: Films you've seen recently and would unreservedly recommend:

  1. #2866
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    755

    Default

    Bladerunner was pretty much THE 1980s movie regarding it's aesthetics/music/style. It was far more a 1982 time capsule than a sci fi movie - like many sci fi flicks tell way more bout the time the movie was done than the actual - usually future - setting.

    I'll watch the new one on monday now instead.

  2. #2867

  3. #2868
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,415

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by craner View Post
    Reminded me a lot of The Force Awakens: got the original tone perfect, but was ultimately hollow. Because the originals started with a story, ideas, and characters. The new films start with history, a template, a feel, a visual language. The whole thing is tied up with recreating that.
    i remember my heart sinking as i was watching it, realising it was just a tacky redo with ham fisted references to the original. i'd disagree that it managed to capture the tone, as i remember it (i only saw it that one time) it was devoid of any kind of mood or aesthetic or emotion; it was like reading the synopsis of episode 4 on wikipedia.

    rogue one was wicked though.

  4. #2869
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,235

    Default

    hated BR2049. gosling is barely acting, ford looked bored and like he would rather be anywhere else. amazing sets, music, ambience, and cool retro vehicles and hot hologram women, but just another lazy, safe AF retro nostalgia exercise like the force awakens. it even does that 'get an original character and summon them with CGI' thing as they did with carrie lucas in the last star wars film (also crap btw). if this is what gets critics and audiences excited for being an 'intelligent blockbuster' in 2019, then something is wrong. what a con.

    no new ideas, and no new concepts, so fails as sci fi as it has absolutely nothing to say about anything. basically a film to please BR fan boys and cinema snobs who seem to believe 'arthouse blockbusters' are a good thing, rather than a dull way to spend an evening. then again, i never liked the first BR film either, as i felt it was dramatically inert and IIRC reviewers at the time had the same feeling about that film, so i guess this is the perfect sequel. but at least that one was of its time. this one seems like it just wants to pretend it is still 1982. in 2049 are we really to believe that technology has in fact gone BACKWARDS? ridiculous

    On the whole it was a dead, empty, silly film stuffed with amazing ideas that kept me awake last night.
    genuine q: what amazing ideas?
    Last edited by rubberdingyrapids; 16-10-2017 at 11:51 AM.

  5. #2870
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    2,060

    Default

    [QUOTE=rubberdingyrapids;340624in 2049 are we really to believe that technology has in fact gone BACKWARDS? ridiculous[/QUOTE]

    Well we're at the point here that this movie, this universe (and if we're being cynical, this franchise) has its own history, timeline, progression. You can't ask a world that has its own time to burrow and develop (which it cannot judging from its climate, in the way people say our own world is failing to further develop in the constipation of capitalism) in a way akin to ours when its stagnation had already been defined. Hell, we do not look like Blade Runner in our Dystopia (if you want to argue we're in one) so why should its dystopia reflect our trajectory?

    w/r/t Gosling I liked how little he acted; its a big thing to not ham here and the fact is, he's supposed to be someone who's disconnected from his humanity, not allowed to feel, permanently disassociated. His performance is solid imo because he does so very little at first and slowly the ice thaws under the continuous pressure he places on himself and the frustration allows itself to manifest. I'd take it over the say, the ALWAYS READY TO EXPLODE style that's developed in a lot of actors in his age or older in the wake to try and convey drama.

  6. #2871

    Default

    genuine q: what amazing ideas?
    Holographic threesome.

  7. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to craner For This Useful Post:


  8. #2872
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,235

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CrowleyHead View Post
    Well we're at the point here that this movie, this universe (and if we're being cynical, this franchise) has its own history, timeline, progression. You can't ask a world that has its own time to burrow and develop (which it cannot judging from its climate, in the way people say our own world is failing to further develop in the constipation of capitalism) in a way akin to ours when its stagnation had already been defined. Hell, we do not look like Blade Runner in our Dystopia (if you want to argue we're in one) so why should its dystopia reflect our trajectory?
    maybe i am not invested enough in the BR 'world'. i get ppl these days are all into 'world building' etc etc (which basically just means 'creating a believable, well ordered, fully formed setting'), but this world is more or less meaningless to anything or anyone outside it. i know some people think this is asking questions about humanity, and what makes us human, but a) its not a new question b) it does not try to answer this in an esp novel fashion c) those who think the film is doing this are likely a little less human than the rest of us.

  9. #2873
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    2,060

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rubberdingyrapids View Post
    maybe i am not invested enough in the BR 'world'. i get ppl these days are all into 'world building' etc etc (which basically just means 'creating a believable, well ordered, fully formed setting'), but this world is more or less meaningless to anything or anyone outside it.
    Well like I said if we're being more cynical its a franchise and you have to appeal to the 'fandom' and if anybody redesigned it from the original 'feel' so many would be up in arms. Its like getting the rights to the name Star Wars, and all of the little iconographic trinkets are gone. (Merchandizing Gods Wept)

    But its also reflecting on the idea of an alternate history, which is another obsession of the modern world that I'm not overly infatuated with but the modern audience thinks is deep; "what if we had to evolve as a species/society if we never invented the phone, or it came late" and what have you. There's a ton of bad work made in this field but when one hits you have to sort of be beholden to keeping this order up, you can't simply WIPE a fantasy world and restart, you have to behold yourself to its trajectory if you're obligating yourself to working in someone else's

    *Meant to post this yesterday but the site crashed on me, also didn't realize we have a 'drafts' function on this board now. Bless this board*

  10. #2874

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CrowleyHead View Post
    Well like I said if we're being more cynical its a franchise and you have to appeal to the 'fandom' and if anybody redesigned it from the original 'feel' so many would be up in arms. Its like getting the rights to the name Star Wars, and all of the little iconographic trinkets are gone. (Merchandizing Gods Wept)

    But its also reflecting on the idea of an alternate history, which is another obsession of the modern world that I'm not overly infatuated with but the modern audience thinks is deep; "what if we had to evolve as a species/society if we never invented the phone, or it came late" and what have you. There's a ton of bad work made in this field but when one hits you have to sort of be beholden to keeping this order up, you can't simply WIPE a fantasy world and restart, you have to behold yourself to its trajectory if you're obligating yourself to working in someone else's

    *Meant to post this yesterday but the site crashed on me, also didn't realize we have a 'drafts' function on this board now. Bless this board*
    I don't think it felt all that much like the original. The scenes were too quiet, brutalist and empty to feel like the original cramped setting. So it fell short on that point.

    But I despise this excusing tone that people often employ to defend TV and film - 'oh, but it HAS to' for the fans/because it's american/because of funding etc. This inbuilt defence of film and TV must stop, excusing it for an inherent handicap. Mad Max: Fury Road totally broke from the original films (that were never that good) and it was wonderful. Perhaps the best action film of the year. BR 2049 should've quit navel gazing and just focused on being a good film in its own right.

  11. #2875
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,235

    Default

    villeneuve is a really good craftsman as a director but his hollywood stuff doesnt really ever have anything to say for itself (i should see his earlier stuff to see if its the same).

  12. #2876
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    2,060

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by you View Post
    Mad Max: Fury Road totally broke from the original films (that were never that good) and it was wonderful.
    lol no it didn't. Just because it was good and 2049 is more overtly flawed doesn't mean it didn't holistically break from the concept, its a Mad Max after all. The idea that somehow 2049 wasn't going to be saddlebagged with someone dealing with the fact there was already a Blade Runner with all its gravitas (deserved or no) and that a huge amount of people come in with that expectation isn't an EXCUSE, its a fact of undermining in making a damned Blade Runner sequel. Ultimately the moment you revisit something thematically in Hollywood, you stop making it a standalone and you inevitably treat it as a series, something to build off on and expound; fan-fiction, the sequel, the 'missing chapters', etc. And because in the modern age you merchandise this (as opposed to say, a literary universe allowing multiple takes on a 'thematic world' independently and just having them as communications among each other) you have to cash in not on the themes and ideas of Blade Runner, but the THING THAT IS Blade Runner. Its why nobody acknowledges say, PWSA's Soldier who has one of the screenwriters for the original Blade Runner on its team.

    Fury Road is a Mad Max and that's all it can be, and 2049 was a Blade Runner and that's all it can be. There are no BREAKS without willingly disheveling the name and actively trying to feel in between similarity and difference and sorry, Fury Road is not that by any stretch just because it's much better.

    Anyway the idea that it didn't feel much like the original as a film is agreeable but so many people have shit ideas as to what Blade Runner feels like, their memories create this alternate film that doesn't actually exist. It was bound to happen.

  13. #2877
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    11,324

    Default



    cant wait for pat tate story to come out

  14. #2878
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    15,042

    Default

    I saw it yesterday. It's... quiiiite good?

    First off, it looks and sounds amazing, but then of course it does. It couldn't possible fail to, with that much expectation and cash behind it. Aside from the SFX, though, I thought that aesthetically it was a step forward and a step back at the same time. Whereas the first film did the 1980s-does-the-1920s thing so well, the look of the sets in the new one reminded me of nothing so much as 2001, or at least, a very 1960s idea of The Future. Then again, the abandoned industrial areas really reminded me of the proletarian underworld in Metropolis, from the actual 1920s. On the soundtrack side, Hans Zimmer does a great job in setting the mood and following Vangelis's lead without actually ripping him off, I think, and the heavy farty dubstep sub-bass is great. Punchiest gunshots I've ever heard (and felt), too.

    But I broadly have to agree with craner. It has nothing like the intimacy and emotional content of the original. The bit near the end where K/Joe is considering doing himself in made me think I wouldn't really care whether he did or not, which is surely not a good sign in a film. It's got none of the mythopoeic potency of the original, all the Promethean-Faustian-Nietzschean God-and-Adam stuff - the nearest it came to references of that sort was the line about K being a "real boy" after all, wasn't it? Another great thing about the older film is the way it avoids the simplistic moral binary and doesn't even really have a villain as such; Deckard is simply doing his job, while the rogue replicants just want to survive and answer questions about their origins, and failing that to get some revenge on the men who created them as disposable slaves and the man who's trying to rob them of the even the meagre bit of life they've been allotted. Even Tyrell isn't actually malicious, he's just an amoral technocapitalist Frankenstein enthralled to his own brilliance. Contrast that with the new feature, with the ludicrous Wallace who is so obviously a Villain-with-a-capital-V that we have to see him gratuitously stab a newly hatched replicant to death while giving a self-aggrandizing monologue just to rub in that this is One Really Bad Dude.

    So, I dunno really. Not a bad effort but it can't help but pale next to the original. Good cast for the most part, including the excellent Robin Wright, a.k.a. 'Cate Blanchett's lesbian evil twin' from House of Cards. I also think the hologram girlfriend should have had a shiny letter 'H' on her forehead.
    Doin' the Lambeth Warp New: DISSENSUS - THE NOVEL - PM me your email address and I'll add you

  15. #2879
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    15,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CrowleyHead View Post
    Anyway the idea that it didn't feel much like the original as a film is agreeable but so many people have shit ideas as to what Blade Runner feels like, their memories create this alternate film that doesn't actually exist. It was bound to happen.
    Well the new one was never going to top the scene where Deckard steals the gold idol and then uses it to blow up the Death Star, that's for sure.

    But there are actually seven versions of the original, which may go some way to explain it.
    Doin' the Lambeth Warp New: DISSENSUS - THE NOVEL - PM me your email address and I'll add you

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •