You know it's high tech, low life, when the Protag's ride is a Peugeot.
Film Blade Runner 2049
- Thread starter CassiusClaymore
- Start date
Cinematography was great but I found it really really dull and tedious.
Regarding the bold bit, DV was being given the benefit of the doubt, but by now he's rapidly being found out as sort of a one-trick pony.
Regarding the vaguely unsatisfied feeling that you and a lot of other people are reporting; it's the poor writing. Just within the framework of their own setup the two most easily addressed issues would be first that they never show the audience the stakes of a potential war, and second, Deckard is very passive (one solution would be to have him discover K's motivations). Neither of those takes up any more screen time if written into the current scene structure. Both can be used to explore and enrich the current themes.
There's a reason it feels like a serialized episode set in the same universe. It never establishes any real stakes.
Pretty much all been said already - huge scope with great respect shown to the original, but too long with extraneous sections, primarily the stuff with Leto the 'rebels'. And Rachael in cgi completely took me out of the scene, that should never have got near making it in.
But, somebody mentioned earlier that it was as good as could have been hoped for at this stage (it was probably Mockney), which is basically what I thought as I left.
But, somebody mentioned earlier that it was as good as could have been hoped for at this stage (it was probably Mockney), which is basically what I thought as I left.
Saw it on Friday and wanted to wait to give my response after some thought.
I'm a massive fan of Arrival and of the original film and overall think this is a very good film.
People are forgetting how the original film is actually quite slow paced, reminiscent of 1940's noir films where the emphasis was on mood and this is similar in pacing. It's moody, thoughtful and reflective with occasional shocks of violent action.
I think it could lose around 10 minutes in the middle and the sex scene is quite dull and there are a few scenes where we linger a little too long.
The cinematography is sumptuous. The villain of the piece is great. Not getting why people hating on Leto - think he does a good job and it has an interesting mix of female roles.
The sound mix is the star of the film for me - not so much the music but the ambient sounds, baseline check scenes and the moments of violence feel gut wrenching, physical and immersive.
Zimmer's musical score is reflective of the original but offers something new without being too dominant as he sometimes becomes.
My only immediate criticism, other than being 10-15 minutes too long, is the lack of key dialogue at certain plot points that made the original so quotable....
Bladerunner became a cult hit from repeated late night video showings so maybe this needs some time and repeated viewings to fully assess it.
I'm a massive fan of Arrival and of the original film and overall think this is a very good film.
People are forgetting how the original film is actually quite slow paced, reminiscent of 1940's noir films where the emphasis was on mood and this is similar in pacing. It's moody, thoughtful and reflective with occasional shocks of violent action.
I think it could lose around 10 minutes in the middle and the sex scene is quite dull and there are a few scenes where we linger a little too long.
Just show the merge...door closes like a 40's noir - that would be enough
The cinematography is sumptuous. The villain of the piece is great. Not getting why people hating on Leto - think he does a good job and it has an interesting mix of female roles.
The sound mix is the star of the film for me - not so much the music but the ambient sounds, baseline check scenes and the moments of violence feel gut wrenching, physical and immersive.
Zimmer's musical score is reflective of the original but offers something new without being too dominant as he sometimes becomes.
My only immediate criticism, other than being 10-15 minutes too long, is the lack of key dialogue at certain plot points that made the original so quotable....
as he lay on the stairs with the snow falling we had the musical motif from the original film and i was wanting some final words like "time to die" but they did not come. Am i being too literal here? I don't know yet
Bladerunner became a cult hit from repeated late night video showings so maybe this needs some time and repeated viewings to fully assess it.
They cudda cut an hour from that movie if they just took out the shots of Gosling staring off into space.
Good film, though.
Good film, though.
Saw it yesterday; pretty pretty pretty pretty good
Gosling was born to play the role of a robot in an existential crisis. His entire career has been a preparation for that.
I would say that's unfair, He's pretty great in The Nice Guys, The Big Short, The Ides of March and Lars and The Real Girl.
Director had the same problem in Sicario. That film is 95% Emily Blunt staring into space.
Don't think that she had twins - K said the genomes were identical and that wouldn't happen with twins of different genders - it was just a copied record. Unless replicants are odd like that. That said, I may have lost track of things around that point as Ana De Armas was distracting.
So when Gosling's character went to find Deckard and he wouldn't fight back against him, it's cos he thought Decker was his father, right?
Ya that's what i thought too..
[spoiler/] I'd sort of zoned out by the end of it, but the way I saw it was she implanted her memories in loads of replicants and Gosling just so happened to be the one who managed to figure out it was a real memory. So although it was a coincidence, it wasn't *that* coincidental, but moreover, given the scale involved rather inevitable at some point. Might well be wrong, though.
You should check out The Believer. Great movie where he plays a neo nazi. Sadly it never got much attention and afaik it may not be available in HD.
Yeah the trailer looked quite good although I think you might be right it seems quite hard to find a HD version. Gosling to sort of to blame as after Drive he seem to have a trilogy of silent looking into camera movies.
No, that's what I thought too.
There was only ever 1 kid. Also didn't they discover the corpse due to the flower on the ground? That's why they analysed the area around the tree, to see how it had grown. Which was never really answered AFAIK? Or maybe it was to discover the reason why the farmer had deliberately tried to encourage flowers to grow in that one spot?
Or none of those things....Maybe I need to watch it again.
Or none of those things....Maybe I need to watch it again.
A futuristic slow burner eh? A Better Call Saul with spaceships? Excellent I am definitely going to see it now thanks for the recommendation.
Very slow burner indeed. If an emotionless Ryan Gosling meandering through the melancholy beauty of a dystopian near future is your bag, then you are quids in
I didn't read too much into the flower thing. I presumed it was just the way someone (Deckard?) had chosen to mark her "grave". Obviously a big floral wreath would have been a bit much but a subtle little flower and the date she died carved into the tree was just a memorial, of sorts.
But this is a dystopian future where things like flowers and trees don't really grow or even exist, right? So a yellow flower in the middle of a dead land was something of note and an unusual thing worth investigating.
It was and that was why he investigated it. That also explains why the "memorial" was as subtle as possible. Pure bad luck that such a tiny flower got spotted.
sounds like a winner
I think this is similar to why the bees were put in - it showed life other than humans thriving on their own efforts. The question would be whether they were organic or synthetic (so goes the main theme of the film), but either way would be a leap forward (organic life returning on one hand, synthetic life reproducing on the other).
Could also say it's an allusion to a hive mind/collective intelligence that was also hinted at with the little and large versions of Ana De Armas, but that may be more of a stretch.
Or they're just there to be bees.
Could also say it's an allusion to a hive mind/collective intelligence that was also hinted at with the little and large versions of Ana De Armas, but that may be more of a stretch.
Or they're just there to be bees.
Finally got round to editing that thread title and removing that offensive spelling mistake (not mine I must add).
The bees thing was kind of baffling tbh. I’ve even read an interview with Villeneuve where he specifically mentions them but it’s still very wooly. I kind of think stuff like the bees and the flowers were almost more about emotions than any kind of critical plot point. Glimpses of nature/beauty as symbols of hope emerging from a hellish industrial landscape.
here's my tuppence....
The bees and the flower would point to some sort of a renewal - they refer to a dirty bomb having gone off in the area. this could have been used as a useful excuse to close down the area or be reali. Either way i think it means the radiation is now clearing and nature is returning - mirroring Rachel's fertility. the road near the bees is the road from the end of the original film that we see them Rachel and Deckard speeding off into. At that point it is green and different from the urban chaos. - Great point about the hive mind also! - that had not struck me at the time but yes, the memory was implanted in all the replicants but Gosling is some sort of mutation , a new Queen bee perhaps to make all the connections and create a new lifecycle.
For me it just needed a stronger scriptwriter as others have mentioned.
I think it was just because K recognised Deckard was an old man and, without a gun, any fist fight would have resulted in Deckard getting flattened and basically unable to answer any questions.
He used to be a good actor. The dull eyes and lack of emotion bores the hell out of me.
He's great in The Nice Guys. Got to admit though, I'm a sucker for the other films he's in too.
Oh yeah, decent movie.
It's not like it was a natural bees nest or anything like that tho. It was a honey farm wasn't it? I was thinking 'who's tending to these bees?' and then I figured it was Deckard.
Yeah, I remain unconvinced by Villeneuve as a director. Hardly seems to have any distinguishing features, aside from Deakins and the sepia tones.
2049 is nothing but an ephemeral blockbuster in the end.
All bees nests are "honey farms", surely? The hanging things were bee feeders, apparently. That was the main difference from a "natural" bee hive, where they could buzz round and feed themselves from flowers.
Guess I'm one of the few guys on here that loved la la land.
Guess I'm one of the few guys on here that loved la la land.
I've not seen it yet!
Go do. Probably my favorite musical alongside Across the Universe. ^^
Yeah that's what I mean, so I never read it as 'life' in the way some of you did. I just looked at it like you would a field of wheat, and shifted to who might be tending it.
Just saw Roger Deakins at the palace hotel. I think I can die peacefully now.