Hivemind
We're Touched
The one thing I will say about length is that if you're not actually prepared for a movie of that length, it can detract from your theater viewing experience.
Full bladders suck
Full bladders suck
Saw it this weekend without having seeing the original. Thought it was a great movie at the length it was.
Tkachuk4MVP
32 Years of Fail
GlassesJacketShirt
Registered User
So I just saw it, 18 days after it was released. To think, the most anticipated film in my life, and I waited almost three damn weeks to see it. Ugh.....at least they still had it available in IMAX.
Two moments I felt were missteps. Firstly, the reveal of the underground movement felt like it came out of a different film, including the army showing up right on cue during the leader's speech. Second one was the Bautista callback, felt like it was trying to pander to the audience.
Otherwise, I'll give it a bit more time to process. Feeling like a pretty good 9 at the moment. Not saying every blockbuster has to be like this, but I sure wish more of them gave me this sort of feeling as I left the screen.
Two moments I felt were missteps. Firstly, the reveal of the underground movement felt like it came out of a different film, including the army showing up right on cue during the leader's speech. Second one was the Bautista callback, felt like it was trying to pander to the audience.
Otherwise, I'll give it a bit more time to process. Feeling like a pretty good 9 at the moment. Not saying every blockbuster has to be like this, but I sure wish more of them gave me this sort of feeling as I left the screen.
It conveyed that
K isn't isolated and that these rebellions will keep happening because replicants will eventually develop their own thoughts and ideas. Whether or not that is due to Ana's illegal memories being implanted as a siren song is an interesting question.
The callbacks were a bit heavy handed but that felt like a minor concession for general audiences. I'd take them out for the home release.
GlassesJacketShirt
Registered User
I understand what it was trying to convey, I was moreso criticizing the way it was presented. The scene felt heavy handed and slightly rushed to me, like it was plot point that they wanted to skip through as quickly and directly as possible. Did not jive, at least not for me, with the rest of the presentation.
Freysa was shown several times in the movie prior to that. It's already a pretty long movie. I don't know if dedicating more time to something K isn't aware of for most of the movie is a good move.
PullHard
☂
- Jul 18, 2007
- 28,409
- 2,492
Astounding technical artistry on display. The production values are off the chart.
I was hoping for a little bit more in terms of plot, I feel like the first one left the audience with a little more to think about when it ended, but I still thoroughly enjoyed this one.
I was hoping for a little bit more in terms of plot, I feel like the first one left the audience with a little more to think about when it ended, but I still thoroughly enjoyed this one.
GlassesJacketShirt
Registered User
Went to see it again last night, and I think I'll check it out again tomorrow. I have this sinking feeling that I won't see another film quite like this one for a longggggggggggg time (at least, not in theaters), so I might as well soak it in as much as possible.
Saw it tonight.
Also watched the (Final Cut version) original last night after only having seen the theatrical release in a film studies class years ago. First thought regarding the original. I remember being fairly unimpressed when I first saw it in my film studies class. Was hoping the "official" Ridley Scott version would be better since this movie has such a following. Was fairly unimpressed again.
But, I am a massive Denis Villeneuve fan, so I still went into the new one with high expectations. New one certainly lived up to those high expectations. Villeneuve once again proving anything he makes is must see cinema. Not too interested in writing a long review, but I was thoroughly impressed. In particular regarding the visuals. My god is this movie gorgeous.
Also, was anyone else genuinely amazed that Harrison Ford was actually really good in this movie? He actually showed some emotional range for gods sake. It was remarkable considering how much it seems like he's mailed it in in recent years, in particular movies where he brings back decades old characters.
Also watched the (Final Cut version) original last night after only having seen the theatrical release in a film studies class years ago. First thought regarding the original. I remember being fairly unimpressed when I first saw it in my film studies class. Was hoping the "official" Ridley Scott version would be better since this movie has such a following. Was fairly unimpressed again.
But, I am a massive Denis Villeneuve fan, so I still went into the new one with high expectations. New one certainly lived up to those high expectations. Villeneuve once again proving anything he makes is must see cinema. Not too interested in writing a long review, but I was thoroughly impressed. In particular regarding the visuals. My god is this movie gorgeous.
Also, was anyone else genuinely amazed that Harrison Ford was actually really good in this movie? He actually showed some emotional range for gods sake. It was remarkable considering how much it seems like he's mailed it in in recent years, in particular movies where he brings back decades old characters.
This was a passion project for him because he liked the script so much. Wasn't just a payday.
dogbazinho
Registered User
My wife only went to the bathroom once so it wasn't THAT long. I had to SHH her when she came back.
Unaffiliated
Registered User
Harrison Ford has been mailing it in the past many many years, easy to forget he is a legitimate actor.
Edo
The Mightiest Club
I'm surprised that this many people are raving about it. Not a lot of dialogue or substance to it. Visuals were stunning. The score really started to get obnoxious towards the end. The original had everything and was great.
It's a little strange to me that something like Prometheus was trashed while this has the total opposite reaction.
It's a little strange to me that something like Prometheus was trashed while this has the total opposite reaction.
Finlandia WOAT
js7.4x8fnmcf5070124
- May 23, 2010
- 24,191
- 23,868
Beautifully shot movie. The score whacks you in the face and I love it.
Eh story. I'm a sucker for Spielberg, so I prefer to have movies with a one singular theme/message rather than 3 or 4, then it comes off as uneven and I'm left to try and piece together the overall point of the thing (to be fair this is a criticism I had with the original).
For example.....
SPOILERS (for a movie released months ago)
So Ryan Gosling turns down three women who want some sort of "meaningful connection". I don't mean that entirely ironically, I mean, they're obviously coming on to him, but it's clearly not "OMG Ryan Gosling, he's hot, let me have your replicant babies!". Love is trying to establish a connection in that one scene, replicant to replicant (so I was expecting some sort of subtext in the final fight, and voila), it's revealed the robo-hooker really is trying to get a read on him, etc. Meanwhile Gosling attempts to connect with a Companion AI who tells him whatever he wants to hear, and therefore can not possibly form a "real" connection (and that is rammed home when he learns that "Joe" is just her programming) which is contrasted with Harrison Ford's "I can tell what's real" and then his immediate rejection of the "fake" Rachel. Those two had a connection that can't be................created again. Theme understood, Ryan Gosling's "need" is a connection with someone, similar to the OG which is built around Deckard's relationship with Rachel. This is also why Gosling is immediately revealed as a replicant who hunts his own kind- he belongs nowhere. Regular society hates him for being a replicant, replicants are afraid of him.
Sooo....
What does that exactly have to do with the overall trajectory of the story?
Gosling isn't gonna go after Ford, he learns that Joi was just a program, so he what? Decides to exercise his free will and do something meaningful? What about the build up about making meaningful connections and relationships with people? Note that there are ways to make this work (for example, he brought Ford and his daughter together, so he forged their connection and is thus now immortal to them, in the sense that do'ers of great deeds live on in the memories of those they affect), but that the way it was intended to work wasn't clear, in fact that random theory I threw out is only applicable because there isn't an answer. If anything, the theme was forgotten in the 3rd half of the film (bring on the 4 hour cut).
EDIT: Look at the construction of that theme. We're introduced to Joi when he purchases the emitter and it's obvious he's trying to build something with her. They try to have an emotional moment, but it's broken by a work call. Alright- Gosling wants a meaningful connection, but work and the fact she is an AI get in the way. Got it.
Buuuuutt....then he rejects the three other characters who try to establish a connection? Alright, why? I can't figure out what this specific contradiction says about Gosling's character. Does he want a relationship that only he can control? I don't think that was the point...
That's not to say the story was bad either. But DV is such a master of tone that the story feels like a failure simply because it turns marvelous filmmaking into that point. More like, what point? Kinda like putting an Outback Steakhouse in a Gothic Cathedral. The ending was pretty good, even! The themes the movie brings up earlier aren't consistently paid off later.
Anyway, other thoughts....
--It makes sense there's a four hour cut, they cast Jared Leto as the villain, give him a unique design and over-the-top characterization, and then do jack all with him. He was in two scenes. Two scenes! You could have cut him entirely.
--Dave Bautista is amazing, I didn't realize that was him.
--Actually, all the actors were amazing. Good casting.
--It wouldn't have been too difficult to make this PG-13, methinks.
--There's someone, somewhere, who noted all the Biblical allusions. Ryan Gosling sure did get stabbed in the side a lot, heh heh heh.
Eh story. I'm a sucker for Spielberg, so I prefer to have movies with a one singular theme/message rather than 3 or 4, then it comes off as uneven and I'm left to try and piece together the overall point of the thing (to be fair this is a criticism I had with the original).
For example.....
SPOILERS (for a movie released months ago)
So Ryan Gosling turns down three women who want some sort of "meaningful connection". I don't mean that entirely ironically, I mean, they're obviously coming on to him, but it's clearly not "OMG Ryan Gosling, he's hot, let me have your replicant babies!". Love is trying to establish a connection in that one scene, replicant to replicant (so I was expecting some sort of subtext in the final fight, and voila), it's revealed the robo-hooker really is trying to get a read on him, etc. Meanwhile Gosling attempts to connect with a Companion AI who tells him whatever he wants to hear, and therefore can not possibly form a "real" connection (and that is rammed home when he learns that "Joe" is just her programming) which is contrasted with Harrison Ford's "I can tell what's real" and then his immediate rejection of the "fake" Rachel. Those two had a connection that can't be................created again. Theme understood, Ryan Gosling's "need" is a connection with someone, similar to the OG which is built around Deckard's relationship with Rachel. This is also why Gosling is immediately revealed as a replicant who hunts his own kind- he belongs nowhere. Regular society hates him for being a replicant, replicants are afraid of him.
Sooo....
What does that exactly have to do with the overall trajectory of the story?
Gosling isn't gonna go after Ford, he learns that Joi was just a program, so he what? Decides to exercise his free will and do something meaningful? What about the build up about making meaningful connections and relationships with people? Note that there are ways to make this work (for example, he brought Ford and his daughter together, so he forged their connection and is thus now immortal to them, in the sense that do'ers of great deeds live on in the memories of those they affect), but that the way it was intended to work wasn't clear, in fact that random theory I threw out is only applicable because there isn't an answer. If anything, the theme was forgotten in the 3rd half of the film (bring on the 4 hour cut).
EDIT: Look at the construction of that theme. We're introduced to Joi when he purchases the emitter and it's obvious he's trying to build something with her. They try to have an emotional moment, but it's broken by a work call. Alright- Gosling wants a meaningful connection, but work and the fact she is an AI get in the way. Got it.
Buuuuutt....then he rejects the three other characters who try to establish a connection? Alright, why? I can't figure out what this specific contradiction says about Gosling's character. Does he want a relationship that only he can control? I don't think that was the point...
That's not to say the story was bad either. But DV is such a master of tone that the story feels like a failure simply because it turns marvelous filmmaking into that point. More like, what point? Kinda like putting an Outback Steakhouse in a Gothic Cathedral. The ending was pretty good, even! The themes the movie brings up earlier aren't consistently paid off later.
Anyway, other thoughts....
--It makes sense there's a four hour cut, they cast Jared Leto as the villain, give him a unique design and over-the-top characterization, and then do jack all with him. He was in two scenes. Two scenes! You could have cut him entirely.
--Dave Bautista is amazing, I didn't realize that was him.
--Actually, all the actors were amazing. Good casting.
--It wouldn't have been too difficult to make this PG-13, methinks.
--There's someone, somewhere, who noted all the Biblical allusions. Ryan Gosling sure did get stabbed in the side a lot, heh heh heh.
Last edited:
NyQuil
Big F$&*in Q
NyQuil
Big F$&*in Q
What's interesting is that Eldon Tyrell was only in two scenes in the original Blade Runner IIRC.
The Voight-Kampff test scene involving Rachel and the confrontation between Batty and his "creator".
Tkachuk4MVP
32 Years of Fail
Yup, side characters like that don't need a ton of screen time to be interesting and/or compelling. In the case of Tyrell it even served to make him a little more mysterious. I think it was more what Leto's character said (or didn't say) that left people a little cold, as opposed to his limited screen time. Plus the fact that it was an actor of Leto's caliber made people feel that he was somewhat "wasted."
Finlandia WOAT
js7.4x8fnmcf5070124
- May 23, 2010
- 24,191
- 23,868
He's wasted because all he does (story wise) is 1) order Love to find the child because reasons 2) re-introduce Decker to "Rachel" and 3) talk with Decker and then order him to be tortured when he's non-compliant. Everything else is just noise. Maybe if he actually did something that noise would be pleasant.
2 is mildly interesting, but it's still B plot. Compare against Tyrell's second scene, which is Roy Batty fulfilling his goal plus fitting into the theme of man meeting his Creator. Beyond thematically it fits into the story outside "We need an antagonist because stories often have those", it's part of Roy Batty's character arc. Heck, the "Rachel" was interesting, but honestly you could have cut that since it has little to nothing to do with Ryan Gosling.
Basically the real antagonist of this film was Love who is actually involved directly in the plot and poses the immediate threat to Gosling.
Also I thought Ridley Scott came out and said that Decker is a replicant?
2 is mildly interesting, but it's still B plot. Compare against Tyrell's second scene, which is Roy Batty fulfilling his goal plus fitting into the theme of man meeting his Creator. Beyond thematically it fits into the story outside "We need an antagonist because stories often have those", it's part of Roy Batty's character arc. Heck, the "Rachel" was interesting, but honestly you could have cut that since it has little to nothing to do with Ryan Gosling.
Basically the real antagonist of this film was Love who is actually involved directly in the plot and poses the immediate threat to Gosling.
Also I thought Ridley Scott came out and said that Decker is a replicant?
- Aug 24, 2011
- 27,546
- 11,983
Spring in Fialta
A malign star kept him
Yeah, I don't know if that's where you're aiming at, but he's not a replicant in the book. I don't think Ridley Scott gets to change that in an ambiguous ending.
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
Confirmed with Link: The Penguins sign goaltender Filip Larsson to a two-year contract.- Latest: The Great Mighty Poo
