I remember reading a review of Mary Reilly (1996) that said "It's like a painting...only slower."
I don't mind a slow pace if it serves a purpose, but i can't help but think some "artsy" movies have glacial paces just so snobs can say "you just don't get it!" when you complain. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mennonite:
I remember reading a review of Mary Reilly (1996) that said "It's like a painting...only slower."
I don't mind a slow pace if it serves a purpose, but i can't help but think some "artsy" movies have glacial paces just so snobs can say "you just don't get it!" when you complain.
Some of my favorite films in the last few years include BR 2049, Deadpool, and Kung Fury. I don't think I or BR 2049 fall into the "snob / artsy" category. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Frazod:
To me it's kind of like the Beatles. While I appreciate its influence on the much better stuff that came later, I personally have no use for it.
Finally got a round to seeing this. I loved the original movie. Rutger Hauer was fantastic in it even (if not especially ) up to his last lines. I really enjoyed this sequel. At first I was instantly put off by the opening description doing some world building. I think that's a cheap way to tell a story. Not cheap by budget, I mean that it's cheap in creative effort. Let the story tell itself through the settings, the actions, the script, and the actors. No need for shortcuts in a long movie like this. And it was long. And I didn't mind how long it was. I wasn't bored, I was interested and invested throughout the entire movie. I think fans of the original would like this. [Reply]
Roy Batty dies. (And instead of that awesome speech, his last line is, "Crap.") Deckard drags himself to his car and goes home to find Rachael. They get in Deckard's car and drive out to the countryside, while Deckard's voiceover talks about how they had a lovely day and he taught her a song about monkeys and elephants. And then Deckard takes her out in the snow and shoots her in the head. If he hadn't done it himself, they would have done it, his voice-over explains. But now Deckard can't go back to the city, and he's no longer sure what's really real. Maybe nothing is. He drives off. The end.
Originally Posted by listopencil:
Finally got a round to seeing this. I loved the original movie. Rutger Hauer was fantastic in it even (if not especially ) up to his last lines.
Originally Posted by listopencil:
Finally got a round to seeing this. I loved the original movie. Rutger Hauer was fantastic in it even (if not especially ) up to his last lines. I really enjoyed this sequel. At first I was instantly put off by the opening description doing some world building. I think that's a cheap way to tell a story. Not cheap by budget, I mean that it's cheap in creative effort. Let the story tell itself through the settings, the actions, the script, and the actors. No need for shortcuts in a long movie like this. And it was long. And I didn't mind how long it was. I wasn't bored, I was interested and invested throughout the entire movie. I think fans of the original would like this.
This is big for me: show - don't tell.
Don't have a scene and then preach to me how I should feel about it.
I do plan on seeing this and hopefully it delivers. I'm not one to judge a film based on reviews or rotten tomatoes... [Reply]
I think he's just talking about the opening scrawl that sets the scene. I have no problem with this when it's done in moderation like in both Bladerunner flicks.
I watched a Uwe Boll movie a few years ago that had an insanely long stretch of text at the beginning. There was enough plot for a half dozen bad movies in that text. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mennonite:
I think he's just talking about the opening scrawl that sets the scene. I have no problem with this when it's done in moderation like in both Bladerunner flicks.
I watched a Uwe Boll movie a few years ago that had an insanely long stretch of text at the beginning. There was enough plot for a half dozen bad movies in that text.
This. Scrawl was no worse than a Star Wars film.
This movie is insanely beautiful. Best visuals I've seen in years. Had such a short run at the regular theater, but I'm thinking about seeing it again at the local dollar theater. Haven't been in years, hope it's not a sticky shithole. [Reply]
Yes, I was talking about the opening bit. I realize that I am nit picking but certain things will annoy me when I am watching a movie. I enjoy the process of world building in this particular medium and chunks of text take me out of the moment. I got over it because the movie (IMO) was really good. [Reply]
Haven't read the comments yet because I want to be surprised, but I saw the original 34 year old Blade Runner. As I expected, wasn't great, but I've never really been impressed with any movie I've ever seen that is older than me. Was much better than the old Westworld movie, though. Still excited about Blade Runner 2049 because I feel there is so much more story and special effects that can be added to the original.
Kind of pissed I have to wait a month to be able to rent it. Can't watch in theaters, can't rent it. That's how they get you to buy em I guess. [Reply]
