|
|
Post by Tweek on Sept 30, 2017 13:12:34 GMT -6
The early reviews are good  |
|
Woll
rock pile disturber
Posts: 176 
|
Post by Woll on Oct 1, 2017 13:58:05 GMT -6
I've not seen a Denis Villeneuve movie yet, but I've heard nothing but good things about his work.
I'll believe it when I see it. And I will see it. Because I have no self-control.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tweek on Oct 6, 2017 18:15:11 GMT -6
Thinking of checking this out tomorrow
|
|
|
|
Post by Tweek on Oct 7, 2017 14:20:25 GMT -6
Twenty five bucks?! The matinee here is $8. Where are you paying that much?
|
|
|
|
Post by BlackHillsHermit on Oct 7, 2017 14:30:06 GMT -6
I guess no pepsi or poopcorn for Tweek. I always bring my own drink and snacks. They don't even care at the theater I go to, cause they see us walk in with it and don't bat an eye. |
|
|
|
Post by Tweek on Oct 7, 2017 14:32:25 GMT -6
Nope. I saw this today and passed on the 4 dollar bottled water. Not that thirsty. Ever.
Wanna know what I thought of it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Tweek on Oct 7, 2017 14:54:18 GMT -6
Didn't love it. Was it worth watching? Yes. As good as the first one? No. Didn't think it would be. On the positives, it's a beautiful-looking film. Nice to see that world again. Sound design is good as well. Very loud explosions and such. We learn a lot about the fates of Deckard and Rachel. And the Tyrell Corporation. And the Nexus program. The baddie replicant (Luv) is pretty bad-ass.
Now the negatives. It's overly long. The story really drags in places. Not enough Deckard. Not a fan of the main actor and he's in quite a lot of this by himself. It's a basic detective story that happens to have replicants. While the first film left some things ambiguous (i.e. was Deckard a replicant?), this one explains EVERYTHING. Scott really should have directed this himself. The score is mostly forgettable. A few hints of Vangelis here and there, but mostly just meh.
It's a pale imitation of the original. A lovely facade with very little behind it. Expectations were probably too high. I enjoyed it but saying I "loved it" is a stretch. It was Ok.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tweek on Oct 7, 2017 15:55:49 GMT -6
I never saw much interesting in the original: Blade Runner 2019 (yes, blasphemy) |
|
|
|
Post by Tweek on Oct 7, 2017 16:02:53 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Tweek on Oct 8, 2017 16:32:09 GMT -6
Number one movie this weekend but it didn't make a great deal of $$$. 35 million or so. Wonder why? There were about 10 people in the theater when I saw it (including me). We're talking Blair Witch-size crowds here. And this baby cost $150 million to make. They'll be lucky to break even. The original did poorly at the box office too. But over time it gained fans. Maybe the same with this one?
|
|
|
|
Post by Tweek on Oct 11, 2017 16:09:27 GMT -6
I have some issues with the whole replicants procreating thing. I thought they were robots? Built on an assembly line or something. If they are grown/cloned/whatever and are living beings then using them as slave labor is wrong. That would make them a species. Was it just Rachel that was capable of this (an experimental model) or all replicants? Why would Tyrell design a replicant with a functioning reproductive system? Why include such thing? Is Deckard a human and the child is a hybrid? It seems in this movie that the Tyrell motto has come to pass. "More Human Than Human". The replicants have found their humanity and the people left on Earth seem to be losing theirs. Wallace seems more robotic than human. And Luv seems more the psychopath. I found the most interesting relationship in the film between K and Joi, the holographic "girlfriend" AI in his apartment. And I liked the way we see bits of the hologram billboard for the Joi program all over the city but never see the full sign until after she is killed/destroyed. That raises the question did she actually "love" K or is that part of the program. The ad says "everything you want" and all that. I'm guessing it adapts to the owner. And that weird scene with the hooker just confused me. Need to watch again. |
|
|
|
Post by Tweek on Oct 11, 2017 21:01:16 GMT -6
I prefer the Final Cut. Without narration.
You're cheating yourself watching a cam version. This movie is quite beautiful. Wish there was an IMAX theater near me. That would have been best.
Got the original on blu-ray and will be getting this one when available.
|
|
Woll
rock pile disturber
Posts: 176
|
Post by Woll on Oct 12, 2017 2:52:48 GMT -6
Whoa. Calm down on the Blu desire man. I plan to buy Blade Runner 2049 on Bluray myself. I hope you can sleep at night knowing that. Blade Runner was one of those movies that always wasn't very good that people later decided was great. That's the kind of crap that I hate. It's because Harrison Ford had just came off of doing the first two Star Wars movies and the first Indiana Jones movie. So suddenly Blade Runner ended up being awesome. That's crap mentality. It's bulls--t.That is most definitely a bulls--it mentality as I can think of no one whos ever said that Blade Runner was good because Harrison Ford. Amazing production design. Philosophical questions the film asked. People's interest in the future. Must be because of one actor. The actor for arguably the least interesting character in the movie. This isn't the 30s, 40s or 50s anymore. Watched the original with narration twice. That's why I hate these movies. You're supposed to figure this s--t out all by yourself. They don't tell you crap. For 35 years nobody seemed to know what replicants really are. I had to figure that out on my own. They're not robots. They're not Androids. They're created from synthetic bioengineered human DNA. Not actual human DNA. Not clones of living people. God forbid a movie make you think, not treat you like a child and not spoonfeed you everything. Not that the movie did that as it explains they're bioengineered in the first place. How is it the film's fault you're incapable of following along? Didn't love it. Was it worth watching? Yes. As good as the first one? No. Didn't think it would be. On the positives, it's a beautiful-looking film. Nice to see that world again. Sound design is good as well. Very loud explosions and such. We learn a lot about the fates of Deckard and Rachel. And the Tyrell Corporation. And the Nexus program. The baddie replicant (Luv) is pretty bad-ass. Now the negatives. It's overly long. The story really drags in places. Not enough Deckard. Not a fan of the main actor and he's in quite a lot of this by himself. It's a basic detective story that happens to have replicants. While the first film left some things ambiguous (i.e. was Deckard a replicant?), this one explains EVERYTHING. Scott really should have directed this himself. The score is mostly forgettable. A few hints of Vangelis here and there, but mostly just meh. It's a pale imitation of the original. A lovely facade with very little behind it. Expectations were probably too high. I enjoyed it but saying I "loved it" is a stretch. It was Ok. I didn't think it was overly long at all, I thought I would, but the movie went by so fast, and I just wanted to see more. It's film noir, it's supposed to be a detective story. I'd say it does what Blade Runner set out to do better. As in there's maybe two scenes in which Deckard was actually a detective in the original movie. I was scared Gosling would be bad too, but I thought he was solid in this movie. It didn't answer the the Deckard replicant question in this definitively either. I think it's more likely Wallace was just mentally screwing with Deckard. I think it's the most worthy sequel to an old dead series in a long time. It's actually a sequel, wasn't turned into a dumb action movie to make more money, though I'm sure the studio wishes it was. Put succinctly I have no problem saying I loved Blade Runner 2049. And that was a pleasant surprise. Saw it yesterday, and plan to see it again today. It's a shame this movie isn't and likely won't be making more money. Most visually and narratively interesting movie I've seen in a long while. And god do I wish David Bowie could have stayed alive long enough to play Wallace, but I thought Jared Leto did a fine job, which is another surprising thing I find myself saying. |
|
|
|
Post by Tweek on Oct 12, 2017 16:53:47 GMT -6
Got my pre-order in with Amazon. Can't wait to watch at home and pour over it frame-by-frame. Search for Easter eggs. See things that I missed the first time. Hours of fun for the whole family!  |
|
|
|
Post by Tweek on Dec 31, 2017 6:50:27 GMT -6
Now I've only watched the one time so I'm working from (poor) memory here. I'll try to answer as best I can:
1. I don't remember that being stated. They say that the older models were too independent and didn't always obey. New models were sent out to find and destroy the older models. As KD6 was doing at the start of the movie. I assume the 4 year lifespan thing was abandoned, otherwise they wouldn't have to hunt them. They would just go offline after a while.
2. Correct
3. Correct again. The date of Rachel's death and the daughter's birth. The child is the woman they go see at the end of the movie.
4. The memory doctor works for Wallace, implanting false memories into replicants to better control them. As Tyrell explained in the first film. She also implanted some of her own real memories into some replicants. These are the "Rebellion" members. The toy horse memory is one of those.
5. They don't answer that one.
6. It's left vague. I think that he died at the end. But maybe not. |
|
|
|
Post by Tweek on Dec 31, 2017 18:01:17 GMT -6
The blu will be out in January. Then I will be able to verify this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tweek on Dec 31, 2017 18:09:02 GMT -6
Digital copy is already available with perfect subtitles. I suppose I could go that route. If I wanted. |
|
|
|
Post by Tweek on Dec 31, 2017 18:45:13 GMT -6
Nope. You misread the opening text. The part you refer to says:
WALLACE ACQUIRED THE REMAINS OF TYRELL CORP AND CREATED A NEW LINE OF REPLICANTS WHO OBEY
End of sentence. |
|
|
|
Post by Tweek on Jan 1, 2018 17:28:29 GMT -6
6. The same music plays as when Roy died in the original. The "tears in rain" theme. He's dead. Listen when he's on the steps looking up at the sky.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tweek on Jan 9, 2018 19:07:11 GMT -6
FATALITY!
|
|
|
|
Post by Tweek on Jan 9, 2018 19:27:21 GMT -6
|
|
