|
That was good. This is a movie I'll most probably watch.
|
#
¿
May 8, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 08:27 |
|
|
Fellatio del Toro posted:Why is there a 5 second trailer to the trailer before the trailer? I've noticed that on most trailers on Youtube lately. Not sure what they're trying to achieve.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
Has anyone else pointed out how disgustingly awful the posters for this are? It looks like a straight to DVD cover.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
I really enjoyed this until Harrison Ford showed up then it lost me a bit. It reminded me of A.I. at times. I love A.I..
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
Ooh gently caress. The audio in my screening was weirdly echoey. I think it's because they have an IMAX size screen/room but lack the audio equipment to fill it properly. But I totally misheard Leto's speech near the beginning and thought he revealed himself to be a Replicant with the aim of reproducing the species in order to wipe out humans. So I was really loving confused when the Resistance showed up. I should rewatch this movie...
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2017 00:49
|
|
|
It was quite a few pages back but the talk of the Resistance scene being sequel bait is super dumb. The fact that the Resistance exists and were in the middle of achieving their goals felt like a literary device rather than a hook for the next film. Unless someone involved has already said a third film is in the works I very much doubt there'll be one any time soon. That scene was there to give context to what K was doing, but the film is in no way, shape or form about the Resistance, it's about K's arc. Just like the offworld colonies it's a part of this universe that constantly looms in the background, but it's not the focus of the narrative. It's enough for us to know that the Resistance is a thing and that it's inevitable. Did it need to explicitly be shown on screen? Probably not, but I don't think doing so harmed the film.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2017 13:45
|
|
|
  A.I. was one of those films that I absolutely could not force from my head and I think this will be too. I'm really starting to think this was more of a visual and thematic follow up to A.I. than it was to the original Blade Runner. Some of the imagery is super Kubrickian too.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2017 22:45
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:I understand where they're coming from, compared to the original Blade Runner this movie had way more shots where 100% of the shot's point was "make sure we can linger on this hot woman's rear end." Compare to when Deckard is chatting with Zhora in the original. I might be horribly mis-remembering but the only rear end shots I can think of were just before the woman was gutted and the giant JOI. The first one was about as far from sexualised as you can get and the second was a grotesque parody of sexualisation.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
Syllables posted:I watched it last night with some friends, in 3D. Seeing it in 3D probably didn't help with that. Film was really colourful.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2017 11:08
|
|
|
I can see an argument for swapping the shots around, but the last shot is super relevant to K's arc and I don't see why it should be cut.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
Sinding Johansson posted:On further thought I really wish movies had intermissions. I remember when I saw The Hateful Eight with an intermission. There was something really refreshing about it. It'd only make sense for packed out opening weekend screenings though. Breaking a film for 15 minutes so the 10 people in the audience can go for a piss would be silly.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
BarronsArtGallery posted:also the long runtime does something to your brain that makes the climax more effective imo. That's why Apocalypse Now Redux has this charming effect on me that makes me appreciate all the added scenes. I can only describe it as feeling like I'm going crazier and crazier just like Cpt. Willard. By the end of the film you kinda understand how Col. Kurtz completely lost his poo poo because you're exhausted from all the horrifying stuff that goes on. The scene with the playboy bunnies is downright freaky because it's basically rape but it comes after murdering two entire villages of people so you're just numb during it. I know what you mean, it certainly wouldn't work for all long films. Your point brings to mind films that cover long periods of time. If a film covers the whole life of the main character and is trying to portray the passage of time over the course of three hours, a break would shatter that illusion. It also applies to films like A.I. where the characters go on long odysseys. In that case covering centuries.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 08:27 |
|
|
I really don't get that. The score isn't Vangelis but by any other comparison it's about as far from Hollywood as Hollywood scores have gotten in the last few decades.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2017 09:44
|
|