Blade Runner 2049

[keg in kc]

(Yeah I know the thread is a q but I ain't bumping anything wendler...)

(That's what she said)

[ShiftyEyedWaterboy]

Originally Posted by sully1983

Villeneuve is flat out legit. He is unstoppable at this point imo (he's been directing a film every damn year since 2013, thats insane) . Plus all of them are pretty damn good. (Enemy being his least accessible film but still interesting) . Sicario was dope as hell.

He's starting to get a pretty good rep. I think he's the next big thing.

[BigRedChief]

It was way too long. Every scene dragged out for no reason. Just actors staring. It has its moments. It's worth the $5 but I'm not seeing this groundbreaking special movie some people are saying they saw.

[JD10367]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

It was way too long. Every scene dragged out for no reason. Just actors staring. It has its moments. It's worth the $5 but I'm not seeing this groundbreaking special movie some people are saying they saw.

That's exactly what I thought. No need for 3 hours. For example, the scene where he first enters the old Vegas casino, there's a scene of him slowly walking through a dark cluttered area. He's approaching the camera. I swear it takes a full 2 minutes, him just slowly walking though this area. I stick to my time-honored belief: the original "Star Wars" was almost exactly 2 hours long. If you can tell that story in 2 hours, you can tell any story in 2 hours. Shit, I remember when "Gandhi" came out in the theaters, they had to put an intermission in it because people weren't used to 3 hour movies. Now, thanks mostly to Peter Jackson and his 153 hours of "LOTR", people think 3 hours is a perfectly reasonable length of time for a movie.

[-King-]

Originally Posted by JD10367

That's exactly what I thought. No need for 3 hours. For example, the scene where he first enters the old Vegas casino, there's a scene of him slowly walking through a dark cluttered area. He's approaching the camera. I swear it takes a full 2 minutes, him just slowly walking though this area. I stick to my time-honored belief: the original "Star Wars" was almost exactly 2 hours long. If you can tell that story in 2 hours, you can tell any story in 2 hours. Shit, I remember when "Gandhi" came out in the theaters, they had to put an intermission in it because people weren't used to 3 hour movies. Now, thanks mostly to Peter Jackson and his 153 hours of "LOTR", people think 3 hours is a perfectly reasonable length of time for a movie.

I swear half of the movie is the characters walking somewhere. I get that they wanted to show the world around him and get us more emersed in the movie, but it was just ridiculous.
Posted via Mobile Device

[BlackOp]

People are being indoctrinated into thinking terrible, shallow movies set the standard...and when they see something that challenges them, they gravitate back to what they are conditioned to and compare.

I thought is was the first "real" movie I've seen in over a decade...reminded me of when going to the theater meant something.

It wasn't perfect...but I still remember the vibe in the theater during Full Metal Jacket and the private's suicide. The tension in the room was real..the energy. This wasn't close to that level...but gave me hope.

[Mennonite]

...and it's gone from my local theater. But we now have "Saw part VIII" and "Boo 2! A Madea Halloween.'' Awesome!


Much like with their politicians, Americans get the movies they deserve.

[-King-]

Originally Posted by BlackOp

People are being indoctrinated into thinking terrible, shallow movies set the standard...and when they see something that challenges them, they gravitate back to what they are conditioned to and compare.

I thought is was the first "real" movie I've seen in over a decade...reminded me of when going to the theater meant something.

It wasn't perfect...but I still remember the vibe in the theater during Full Metal Jacket and the private's suicide. The tension in the room was real..the energy. This wasn't close to that level...but gave me hope.

Yeah man! People don't appreciate true art! Us nuanced film fans can appreciate this masterpiece without needing a bunch of splosions!! I had to remove my monocle for a second just do I could wipe the tear from my eye after leaving the cinema.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Mennonite]

For people who liked the movie: what were your thoughts on Ex Machina (2015)?

[|Zach|]

Grabbed this book the other day about the art of BR2049 and what went into making it. It is a really interesting dive into the look and feel of the movie. Huge book.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...?ie=UTF8&psc=1

[KC_Connection]

This was great.

[BlackOp]

Originally Posted by Mennonite

For people who liked the movie: what were your thoughts on Ex Machina (2015)?

I liked it...it wasn't as existential as BR 2049. It's was a lot more approachable for the masses. The direction of BR smoked it....not even in the same class of film. I wasn't crazy about the last 15 minutes of 2049...it could have ended 100 different ways and didn't really like the water scene. It seemed forced a bit and reminded me I was watching a movie. The suspension of disbelief faded...

Seems like the internet generation has lost touch with things that arent spelled out for them...and left to interpretation. They need to be told...and prodded.

I would imagine they hate the ending of Kubrick's 2001 too...just not fast enough. (FTR the ending of that movie is brilliant...IMO. No ****s were given if the audience understood what it meant.)

[-King-]

Originally Posted by Mennonite

For people who liked the movie: what were your thoughts on Ex Machina (2015)?

I didn't like blade runner buy ex machina is one of my favorite movies that came out the past few years.
Posted via Mobile Device

[unlurking]

Originally Posted by Mennonite

For people who liked the movie: what were your thoughts on Ex Machina (2015)?

Loved it. Saw it with very low expectations but was very happily surprised.

[unlurking]

Originally Posted by BlackOp

I liked it...it wasn't as existential as BR 2049. It's was a lot more approachable for the masses. The direction of BR smoked it....not even in the same class of film. I wasn't crazy about the last 15 minutes of 2049...it could have ended 100 different ways and didn't really like the water scene. It seemed forced a bit and reminded me I was watching a movie. The suspension of disbelief faded...

Seems like the internet generation has lost touch with things that arent spelled out for them...and left to interpretation. They need to be told...and prodded.

I would imagine they hate the ending of Kubrick's 2001 too...just not fast enough. (FTR the ending of that movie is brilliant...IMO. No ****s were given if the audience understood what it meant.)

Not likely they make it through the first 30 minutes of 2001 before walking out and complaining that it's too slow.

[BlackOp]

Originally Posted by unlurking

Loved it. Saw it with very low expectations but was very happily surprised.

Have you seen Her...directed by Spike Jonze? I felt the concept of Ex-Mechina borrowed a bit from it.

Director of Ex-Mechina has a new film coming out...looks promising.