Blade runner 2049
Discussion
Guvernator said:
Cold said:
Finally got around to seeing this tonight. Good grief, I came extremely close to nodding off part way through - and that's not a throwaway comment for comedy effect. I had to properly shuffle in my seat in the run up to K going to see Deckard as my eyes started to get properly heavy.
It just didn't seem to do anything. I'm quite disappointed.
Finally someone else agrees with me, it’s a 90 minute film at best, stretched to 3 hours. Some interesting themes certainly but diluted by the directors insistence on trying to make the most brooding film in the world.It just didn't seem to do anything. I'm quite disappointed.
I didn't hate the film, it was good, but it just wasn't gripping enough and compared to the first one it lacked flow and atmosphere. Has a directors cut version of a film ever been shorter? This one needs to be.
Interesting that some people found it too long.
It was long.
I loved every minute...I felt that they gave their story enough time to tell it without it becoming confusing...
I think that maybe it is a cult movie masquerading as a blockbuster. (With a blockbuster budget). I'm clearly a cult member....
It was long.
I loved every minute...I felt that they gave their story enough time to tell it without it becoming confusing...
I think that maybe it is a cult movie masquerading as a blockbuster. (With a blockbuster budget). I'm clearly a cult member....
I thought it was great, it was so loud the entire cinema was shaking. I was worried that 2hr40 or whatever was way too long (having sat through some of the later Pirates of the Caribbean movies ugh) but I found it totally engaging. TBH a lot of the time I didn't really know what was going on but the music and sound just made it so 80s I was loving it. The original Blade Runner is a pretty slow film also so I got exactly what I was hoping for.
The only bit I didn't like was that Rachael's cgi face was a bit off, it reminded me of the fake Jeff Bridges in Tron Legacy.
The only bit I didn't like was that Rachael's cgi face was a bit off, it reminded me of the fake Jeff Bridges in Tron Legacy.
JimSuperSix said:
I thought it was great, it was so loud the entire cinema was shaking. I was worried that 2hr40 or whatever was way too long (having sat through some of the later Pirates of the Caribbean movies ugh)...
It was these films that actually stopped me going to the cinema for a while, utter rubbish! As for Bladerunner 2049? Oh my god I loved it, 10/10
I love the original, and yet this film managed to tip it's hat to the og, and at the same time, be a great stand alone film of 2017.
Bloody depressing that films like this are few and far between. Stick the Marvel lot together and it's bums on seats, and dollar bills galore.
JimSuperSix said:
I
The only bit I didn't like was that Rachael's cgi face was a bit off, it reminded me of the fake Jeff Bridges in Tron Legacy.
Was it CGI? I just assumed it was a different actress made up to look like Rachael - her eyebrow line wasn't right amongst other things.The only bit I didn't like was that Rachael's cgi face was a bit off, it reminded me of the fake Jeff Bridges in Tron Legacy.
Went to see this at the IMAX in Manchester - the only way to do a film like this if you can.
Bloody loved it, and was absorbed for every minute. It's like an art film on a massive budget and scale, and I love it for that. But then I've always been a fan of the original. I can't decide if it might actually edge the original for me - I'll have to see it a few more times. The only thing I would say is that I found the characters a little less interesting and engaging than 2019, but then Hannah and Hauer probably make that film.
Just got back.
It was an epic film on a huge scale - the scenery, effects - all fantastic, the great vistas with the (nod to Vangelis) thudding braaaaaaps!
Neither I nor the OH thought that the pace was slow either, I was quite surprised at how quickly it went. I don’t think it’s long because it’s slow; it’s long because there’s a lot in. Agree with the previous poster that characters weren’t as well developed. Luv: eye wood.
Liked all of the little nods to the original very much, also the bleak vision of the future - it just looked grimy.
Soundtrack comparison with the Vangelis score - you can’t compare as it doesn’t actually have one in my opinion.
Gosling was excellent - well cast. Without wanting to give anything away the futility of his character was very sad.
How do I rate it against the original? Ultimately it had possibly the toughest act ever to follow and I’m not sure it is as good, but it’s not a direct comparison as it is it’s own film and too different. A superb effort though and worth the wait. I couldn’t even get up for a wee!
It was an epic film on a huge scale - the scenery, effects - all fantastic, the great vistas with the (nod to Vangelis) thudding braaaaaaps!
Neither I nor the OH thought that the pace was slow either, I was quite surprised at how quickly it went. I don’t think it’s long because it’s slow; it’s long because there’s a lot in. Agree with the previous poster that characters weren’t as well developed. Luv: eye wood.
Liked all of the little nods to the original very much, also the bleak vision of the future - it just looked grimy.
Soundtrack comparison with the Vangelis score - you can’t compare as it doesn’t actually have one in my opinion.
Gosling was excellent - well cast. Without wanting to give anything away the futility of his character was very sad.
How do I rate it against the original? Ultimately it had possibly the toughest act ever to follow and I’m not sure it is as good, but it’s not a direct comparison as it is it’s own film and too different. A superb effort though and worth the wait. I couldn’t even get up for a wee!
poing said:
Guvernator said:
Cold said:
Finally got around to seeing this tonight. Good grief, I came extremely close to nodding off part way through - and that's not a throwaway comment for comedy effect. I had to properly shuffle in my seat in the run up to K going to see Deckard as my eyes started to get properly heavy.
It just didn't seem to do anything. I'm quite disappointed.
Finally someone else agrees with me, it’s a 90 minute film at best, stretched to 3 hours. Some interesting themes certainly but diluted by the directors insistence on trying to make the most brooding film in the world.It just didn't seem to do anything. I'm quite disappointed.
I didn't hate the film, it was good, but it just wasn't gripping enough and compared to the first one it lacked flow and atmosphere. Has a directors cut version of a film ever been shorter? This one needs to be.
I felt underwhelmed by it. The story was good but I thought the music was really lacking, I found myself playing the original music in my head to some scenes.
GCH said:
I have been listening to the soundtrack this morning....it is awesome, and as a result I am going to go to the imax again for a second viewing 
I'm going to see it again. I saw it at my local Odeon in "normal" 2D. No interest in 3D - however I have never seen an Imax film. I might try that.Dog Star said:
GCH said:
I have been listening to the soundtrack this morning....it is awesome, and as a result I am going to go to the imax again for a second viewing
I'm going to see it again. I saw it at my local Odeon in "normal" 2D. No interest in 3D - however I have never seen an Imax film. I might try that.We had back row seats right in the middle, which are the ones to go for - much lower down and you're craning your neck. Acres of legroom and pretty much the middle of the screen both horizontally and vertically.
Swervin_Mervin said:
I see you're in Lancs. If you can, get yer bum down to the Printworks in Manchester, appreciating that might be a schlep depending on where in Lancs you are. It's a proper big screen Imax - largest outside London.
We had back row seats right in the middle, which are the ones to go for - much lower down and you're craning your neck. Acres of legroom and pretty much the middle of the screen both horizontally and vertically.
Cheers, Mervin! I’ll try and sort that with my sister and her bf. thanks for the tipWe had back row seats right in the middle, which are the ones to go for - much lower down and you're craning your neck. Acres of legroom and pretty much the middle of the screen both horizontally and vertically.
Now seen it for the third time, still spotting new stuff. This time went to see it in 3D, which was a mistake. The scenes with the spinner are nicely done but there's very little else particularly noticeable and the whole film is turned into a dark, muddy mess by the lower light levels and glasses. Absolutely nothing in the 3D that really added to it anyway.
Swervin_Mervin said:
JimSuperSix said:
I
The only bit I didn't like was that Rachael's cgi face was a bit off, it reminded me of the fake Jeff Bridges in Tron Legacy.
Was it CGI? I just assumed it was a different actress made up to look like Rachael - her eyebrow line wasn't right amongst other things.The only bit I didn't like was that Rachael's cgi face was a bit off, it reminded me of the fake Jeff Bridges in Tron Legacy.
Edit - looks like cgi over another actress's face:
http://ew.com/movies/blade-runner-2049-rachael-sea...
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 21st October 13:00
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff