Sergio Leone Web Board
Other/Miscellaneous => Off-Topic Discussion => Topic started by: dave jenkins on September 13, 2015, 06:52:23 AM
-
http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/roger-deakins-to-shoot-denis-villeneuves-blade-runner-sequel-20150520
http://collider.com/blade-runner-2-director-denis-villeneuve-talks-sci-fi-sequel-harrison-ford/
-
I first hated the idea but good news cannot stop coming from this project. Villeneuves + Deakins is a winning combination for this. If we're lucky, it could become Villeneuves' maturity film. Apart from a terrific script (of course), what I need now is Deakins being more Deakinesque than Villeneuvesque.
-
Ryan Gosling joins the project.
-
"We’re just treating the new one as what it is; it’s an entirely separate movie that will stand by itself. I mean obviously it has elements that connect it to the original. But it’s going to stand alone by itself as a movie." - Roger Deakins
http://overmental.com/content/how-will-blade-runner-2-connect-to-the-original-40358
-
http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/blade-runner-sequel-release-date-moves-up-to-2017-20160420
-
Can't say I can't wait.
-
I can say I can't wait:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haXvp8M9Cog
-
Looks interesting.
-
Looks crappy. Each shot a quotation.
-
You're crappy.
-
They got Hampton Francher to come back on? That's pretty interesting to see. Anyone else see the documentary about the first film, Dangerous Days ? Here's a Shorten Version (https://youtu.be/-vF1IIssv4s) of it that was broadcast for the BBC. Favorite part is the discussion about the adding of the voice over for the theatrical release.
Edit: Also, with the inclusion of Ford's character in the trailer. It is sad to see that he wasn't a replicate all this time.
-
Edit: Also, with the inclusion of Ford's character in the trailer. It is sad to see that he wasn't a replicate all this time.
They already stated they're not answering this question (in any way) in the new film, which is probably for the best.
-
It didn't quite convince me...
-
They got Hampton Francher to come back on? That's pretty interesting to see. Anyone else see the documentary about the first film, Dangerous Days ? Here's a Shorten Version (https://youtu.be/-vF1IIssv4s) of it that was broadcast for the BBC. Favorite part is the discussion about the adding of the voice over for the theatrical release.
Edit: Also, with the inclusion of Ford's character in the trailer. It is sad to see that he wasn't a replicate all this time.
Excellent documentary! O0
-
They got Hampton Francher to come back on? That's pretty interesting to see. Anyone else see the documentary about the first film, Dangerous Days ? Here's a Shorten Version (https://youtu.be/-vF1IIssv4s) of it that was broadcast for the BBC. Favorite part is the discussion about the adding of the voice over for the theatrical release.
Edit: Also, with the inclusion of Ford's character in the trailer. It is sad to see that he wasn't a replicate all this time.
Ford was definitely no replicant in the original film. He suffers a lot, and has none of the supernatural abilities of the ones he kills/destroys. I can understand that they liked the idea of him being a replicant too, but it doesn't make any sense in the actual film. The adding of the unicorn scene in later versions wasn't a good idea.
Hampton Fancher was btw fired after Scott began to work on the film. And later hired again to rewrite some dialogues while shooting was nearing its end.
Fancher wrote the original screenplay, but Scott changed the stuff a lot to get his own vision of the material.
-
Ford was definitely no replicant in the original film. He suffers a lot, and has none of the supernatural abilities of the ones he kills/destroys.
I understand not how your claim parallels the explanation.
I can understand that they liked the idea of him being a replicant too, but it doesn't make any sense in the actual film. The adding of the unicorn scene in later versions wasn't a good idea.
It certainly does not subtract anyhing from the movie, au contraire. Not to mention the unicorn fits very well in the logic of his relation with Gaff, and hence the theory of him being a replicant.
Hampton Fancher was btw fired after Scott began to work on the film. And later hired again to rewrite some dialogues while shooting was nearing its end.
Fancher wrote the original screenplay, but Scott changed the stuff a lot to get his own vision of the material.
From their own words Fancher was fired at a certain point after he grew tired and frustrated of having to re-write/re-fit/re-imagine endless times his original idea, following Scott's advices/thoughts. I know it does not make it right, to change and fuc* around with the idea of the writer, but I think it resulted in a better movie, in the end.
-
I understand not how your claim parallels the explanation.
Ehhh ... what explanation? That he feels pain and is not strong?
From their own words Fancher was fired at a certain point after he grew tired and frustrated of having to re-write/re-fit/re-imagine endless times his original idea, following Scott's advices/thoughts. I know it does not make it right, to change and fuc* around with the idea of the writer, but I think it resulted in a better movie, in the end.
Producer Michael Deeley writes that Fancher had to learn that even a co-producer credit cannot protect a screenplay-writer to get fired from what he thinks is his own film.
-
The others also feel different types of pain: the more advanced, secretary type Rachael undoubtedly feels emotional pain in a spectum of negative human emotions, and actually seems dominated by them after she is exposed to the toxic truth. She starts as an apparently self-confident, strong-willed, well-balanced and fast-witted young woman rising through the ranks of the corporation - which turns out to be just a thin mask, as she has to confront her true nature. The two male replicants also feel emotional pain vis-à-vis love, fear of lifelong imprisonment/hardship and finally - death. Being combat/hardwork type models they seem more resilient to body damage, however in the last scene with Deckard and Batty it is obvious it functions more as a reflex, an act of rebellion and perhaps, a manifestation of wille zum leben. Something Deckard isn't forced to deal with in such short times, which is why he in the end only gets away with a Pyrrhic victory, and a female fast-typing dishwasher to re-think it all over. Him being a tragic figure, or better more specialized/narrower/dumber model, certainly does not excuse him from being a replicant.
-
It didn't quite convince me...
::)
The others also feel different types of pain: the more advanced, secretary type Rachael undoubtedly feels emotional pain in a spectum of negative human emotions, and actually seems dominated by them after she is exposed to the toxic truth. She starts as an apparently self-confident, strong-willed, well-balanced and fast-witted young woman rising through the ranks of the corporation - which turns out to be just a thin mask, as she has to confront her true nature. The two male replicants also feel emotional pain vis-à-vis love, fear of lifelong imprisonment/hardship and finally - death. Being combat/hardwork type models they seem more resilient to body damage, however in the last scene with Deckard and Batty it is obvious it functions more as a reflex, an act of rebellion and perhaps, a manifestation of wille zum leben. Something Deckard isn't forced to deal with in such short times, which is why he in the end only gets away with a Pyrrhic victory, and a female fast-typing dishwasher to re-think it all over. Him being a tragic figure, or better more specialized/narrower/dumber model, certainly does not excuse him from being a replicant.
See? You can be smart when you want.
-
They got Hampton Francher to come back on? That's pretty interesting to see. Anyone else see the documentary about the first film, Dangerous Days ? Here's a Shorten Version (https://youtu.be/-vF1IIssv4s) of it that was broadcast for the BBC. Favorite part is the discussion about the adding of the voice over for the theatrical release.
Edit: Also, with the inclusion of Ford's character in the trailer. It is sad to see that he wasn't a replicate all this time.
Thanks, I'm watching this documentary right now, it is a very good one.
-
The others also feel different types of pain: the more advanced, secretary type Rachael undoubtedly feels emotional pain in a spectum of negative human emotions, and actually seems dominated by them after she is exposed to the toxic truth. She starts as an apparently self-confident, strong-willed, well-balanced and fast-witted young woman rising through the ranks of the corporation - which turns out to be just a thin mask, as she has to confront her true nature. The two male replicants also feel emotional pain vis-à-vis love, fear of lifelong imprisonment/hardship and finally - death. Being combat/hardwork type models they seem more resilient to body damage, however in the last scene with Deckard and Batty it is obvious it functions more as a reflex, an act of rebellion and perhaps, a manifestation of wille zum leben. Something Deckard isn't forced to deal with in such short times, which is why he in the end only gets away with a Pyrrhic victory, and a female fast-typing dishwasher to re-think it all over. Him being a tragic figure, or better more specialized/narrower/dumber model, certainly does not excuse him from being a replicant.
That the replicants begin to have emotions, that they begin to get aware of their momentariness, that they begin to reflect about their existence, that the machines become human, that is what the film is about. But they still can't feel pain and they are extremely strong, and all this is Deckart not. (Still there is that nail scene at the end in which Batty makes himself feeling pain, which seems wrong to me too. Seems to me like a conceptual mistake, not done on purpose to tell us something about Batty)
If Deckart is a replicant, than he was made for the purpose to hunt down other replicants, but it wouldn't make much sense to create a replicant hunter which is physically inferior to those he shall destroy.
Rachel on the other hand seems to be a new type of replicants, one which does think it is human.
According to Deeley the idea of Deckart being a replicant too, began to fascinate Scott while they were already shooting, what maybe explains why this idea remains muddled. The unicorn scene was btw also not part of the work print, which was shown here and there in the late 80s, but first appeared in the so called DC of the early 90s,, which was not prepared by Scott despite it being labelled as DC.
-
That the replicants begin to have emotions, that they begin to get aware of their momentariness, that they begin to reflect about their existence, that the machines become human, that is what the film is about. But they still can't feel pain and they are extremely strong, and all this is Deckart not. (Still there is that nail scene at the end in which Batty makes himself feeling pain, which seems wrong to me too. Seems to me like a conceptual mistake, not done on purpose to tell us something about Batty)
If Deckart is a replicant, than he was made for the purpose to hunt down other replicants, but it wouldn't make much sense to create a replicant hunter which is physically inferior to those he shall destroy.
Rachel on the other hand seems to be a new type of replicants, one which does think it is human.
According to Deeley the idea of Deckart being a replicant too, began to fascinate Scott while they were already shooting, what maybe explains why this idea remains muddled. The unicorn scene was btw also not part of the work print, which was shown here and there in the late 80s, but first appeared in the so called DC of the early 90s,, which was not prepared by Scott despite it being labelled as DC.
Still, with the unicorn scene in, Deckart is a replicant.
-
Thanks, I'm watching this documentary right now, it is a very good one.
You should give the entire documentary a watch sometime. Its around 3 1/2 hours long and goes into it even more so than the linked one.
-
I've seen blade runner once, years ago. Really really liked it. Can't remember which cut it was (probably directors, since it was 10 years ago and i dont think theatrical or final were readily available then). And I've never returned to it, because there's TOO MANY FUCKING CUTS!!!!
noodles - what's the one and only one to watch? and don't say watch all of them...I ain't got no time for that!
-
Still, with the unicorn scene in, Deckart is a replicant.
And with Deckart feeling pain he's none. It's muddled.
Blade Runner is an overrated film anyway. It is a good one, but not a real great one. For me still in the 8/10 part of this world.
-
I've seen blade runner once, years ago. Really really liked it. Can't remember which cut it was (probably directors, since it was 10 years ago and i dont think theatrical or final were readily available then). And I've never returned to it, because there's TOO MANY FUCKING CUTS!!!!
noodles - what's the one and only one to watch? and don't say watch all of them...I ain't got no time for that!
You mean which Blade Runner version of the 5 existing ones? Then the so called Final Cut, which is the real DC. But in the end all 5 versions are not that different.
-
I've seen blade runner once, years ago. Really really liked it. Can't remember which cut it was (probably directors, since it was 10 years ago and i dont think theatrical or final were readily available then). And I've never returned to it, because there's TOO MANY FUCKING CUTS!!!!
noodles - what's the one and only one to watch? and don't say watch all of them...I ain't got no time for that!
The version with the unicorn.
-
Just watch The Final Cut. The wikipedia about the different versions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Versions_of_Blade_Runner) is interesting to look at though.
-
The FC is the DC as it should have been - it is the version to watch.
I personally stand with what I always said: I care less about technicalities (and versions, for that matter) as I care if the movie is overall good on all levels. BUT, after all the butchered/spoiled versions of BR that I watched, and after all the times I thoroughly enjoyed the movie even as such, I must honestly say the FC/DC is by far the superior of them all. By far. The unicorn has nothing to do with it.
I think it's fair to say that for a director such as RS, who was, at least at the time, much more concerned with the story and visuals than actually directing the actors, trusting his vision is the way to go. There are countless angles, lightings, +/- 1 - 2 sec cuts that I noticed even on the first watch, that improved the movie experience on all levels - drastically.
-
And about the unicorn: the unicorn appears ''in person'' for the first time in Deckard's dream-like sequence (not originally included in the cut(s)), but it also appears indirectly - as an origami folded figurine made by Gaff. Not only that, his origami figurines appear throughout the movie and not without significance: 1) when Deckard is either beaten up and nearly strangled by Zhora, or saved from Leon by Rachael (I can not remember at this point) - Gaff folds a chicken origami, 2) when Deckards starts falling for Rachael - Gaff folds an origami of a man with an erection, and finally 3) in the end scene before Deckard runs away with Rachael - Gaff already was in front of his apartment (knowing Rachael's inside) and he folds him a unicorn that Deckard finds in front of his appartment later when he arrives. This ties very well with the ''Deckard is a replicant'' theory, as it implies that Gaff knows very well what Deckard is thinking, or what he's gonna think. Just like Deckard knows most if not all Rachael's memory implants (''spider with the orange body and green legs'' etc.).
Gaff also treats Deckard as somewhat inferior to him and highly predictable, in the end he mocks him with the line ''You've done a man's job sir.'' (it sounds more like ''You've done a man's job son.'', but I won't stretch this too much). And so on and so on, there's much more to the ''replicant hunting replicants'' theory than a few seconds of one unidentified white unicorn.
I was more inclined to discuss what the unicorn means, as the first two origami are easy to decipher. But perhaps some other time.
-
See? You can be smart when you want.
I'm (still) praying for a positive effect on you. :-*
-
I'm (still) praying for a positive effect on you. :-*
The FC is the DC as it should have been - it is the version to watch.
I personally stand with what I always said: I care less about technicalities (and versions, for that matter) as I care if the movie is overall good on all levels. BUT, after all the butchered/spoiled versions of BR that I watched, and after all the times I thoroughly enjoyed the movie even as such, I must honestly say the FC/DC is by far the superior of them all. By far. The unicorn has nothing to do with it.
I think it's fair to say that for a director such as RS, who was, at least at the time, much more concerned with the story and visuals than actually directing the actors, trusting his vision is the way to go. There are countless angles, lightings, +/- 1 - 2 sec cuts that I noticed even on the first watch, that improved the movie experience on all levels - drastically.
YES YES YES
I'm beginning to think I'm having a positive effect on you.
-
What would make the sequel be worthwhile to watch for you Dust Devil?
-
What would make the sequel be worthwhile to watch for you Dust Devil?
Well to tell you the truth amigo I do not know. :-\
I always thought of it as a sequelless movie.
-
YES YES YES
I'm beginning to think I'm having a positive effect on you.
Joyeux Noël, mon ami.
-
I'd personally be happy with it as long as it successfully tells something about human condition (which isn't easy since the first one told pretty much everything you need to know) in some kind of scifi noirish atmosphere.
-
I'd personally be happy with it as long as it successfully tells something about human condition (which isn't easy since the first one told pretty much everything you need to know)
Huh? The first told us something about the android condition, certainly; since there were no significant human characters in the film, I can't imagine what your parenthetical comment is referring to.
-
Huh? The first told us something about the android condition, certainly; since there were no significant human characters in the film, I can't imagine what your parenthetical comment is referring to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QefqJ7YhbWQ
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QefqJ7YhbWQ
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion.
Gibberish.
-
Gibberish.
:o
You just failed a Voight-Kampff test, and it was an easy one.
-
You failed the Siskel-Ebert test, the easiest one going.
-
There is also, unfortunately, Leone's inability to call it quits. The movie stretches on for nearly three hours, with intermission, and provides two false alarms before it finally ends. In between, we're given a plot complex enough for Antonioni, involving killers, land rights, railroads, long-delayed revenge, mistaken identity, love triangles, double-crosses and shoot-outs. We're well into the second hour of the movie before the plot becomes quite clear. These difficulties notwithstanding, "Once Upon a Time in the West" is good fun
Roger Ebert
DJ you traitor
-
Oops. I meant the Kael-Sarris test, of course.
-
Dust Devil, you ever check out any of the other films by Denis Villeneuve? I've only gotten around to seeing Prisoners and Sicario . I guess the hype got the better of me because I didn't see what everyone else was seeing. Especially in Sicario where everyone seemed to make a big fuss that Emily Blunt wouldn't be in the sequel where she is the least interesting character in the film. But he does manage to make Benicio Del Toro the most interesting character to watch and he hardly speaks. Which gives me some relief seeing Gosling in the lead being that he hardly ever says anything in films these days.
-
No, I have yet to see any movie of his. Not that I avoided them intentionally, it's just that they didn't come my way (yet). Also, I'm not very eager to pay to see any new movie nowadays, to be honest. I was able to strategically escape going to the cinema the last (at least) 5 - 7 times. :) I might check Sicario soon, though. ;)
-
I used to think Gosling was an interesting young actor back in the days, don't know now. He's probably been in a lot of nonsense since, I presume. :-X
-
I used to think Gosling was an interesting young actor back in the days, don't know now. He's probably been in a lot of nonsense since, I presume. :-X
Depends. I enjoy Drive and Only God Forgives and those are perfect examples of his non-talking roles (autistic savant is another way to describe). I know he has dialogue in Gangster Squad but I can't recommend the movie just because he speaks. I think Blue Valentine, Lars and the Real Girl and possible Half Nelson, it's been a long time since I have seen that one, are the ones that are good examples of what he can do. Can't say anything about The Notebook because I never got around to watching it.
-
I used to think Gosling was an interesting young actor back in the days, don't know now. He's probably been in a lot of nonsense since, I presume. :-X
Definitely not.
-
Depends. I enjoy Drive and Only God Forgives and those are perfect examples of his non-talking roles (autistic savant is another way to describe). I know he has dialogue in Gangster Squad but I can't recommend the movie just because he speaks. I think Blue Valentine, Lars and the Real Girl and possible Half Nelson, it's been a long time since I have seen that one, are the ones that are good examples of what he can do. Can't say anything about The Notebook because I never got around to watching it.
I found him particulary bad in Only God Forgives (a film I enjoy). But he's usually good, while rarely great, even in bad movies. Also, when he's at his best, it's because of the mise en scene (Drive)... which gives me high hopes for his performance here.
-
I found him particulary bad in Only God Forgives (a film I enjoy). But he's usually good, while rarely great, even in bad movies. Also, when he's at his best, it's because of the mise en scene (Drive)... which gives me high hopes for his performance here.
Maybe I found him good for bad reasons. Him yelling at his date after the dinner with the mother is always great for a laugh. You ever see Blue Valentine?
-
You ever see Blue Valentine?
Not really. Only a few scenes, and in French :)
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCcx85zbxz4&feature=youtu.be&t=6s
Looks good visually. But what's all that "key to the future" b.s.? Not another Marxian fantasy film! Fuck!
-
It looks stunning. I'm a bit worried by some of the actors.
-
Some?
-
Well, actually, most of them. But "worried" is the key word here: all of them can be great when well directed.
-
Well, actually, most of them. But "worried" is the key word here: all of them can be great when well directed.
I'm rarely worried about actors. Why worrying about cattle?
-
"See it in REAL3D and IMAX." That's good news if it means we're going to get it in flat IMAX.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0kobbjpdUg
-
Thanks looking forward to it.
-
I used to think Gosling was an interesting young actor back in the days, don't know now. He's probably been in a lot of nonsense since, I presume. :-X
Superb actor. Liked him loads from the moment I saw The Believer, and having recently loved and purchased The Nice Guys, I can safely say he's definitely an actor I'm pleased to see on the headline list of any upcoming release.
-
Superb actor. Liked him loads from the moment I saw The Believer, and having recently loved and purchased The Nice Guys, I can safely say he's definitely an actor I'm pleased to see on the headline list of any upcoming release.
I liked The Nice Guys up to a point then it went a bit off the rails and out of Noir territory near the end.
-
I liked The Nice Guys up to a point then it went a bit off the rails and out of Noir territory near the end.
Still funny as fuck though 8)
-
Anime prequel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNVPl3NavWM
-
And the 2 shorts with actors from the movie:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgsS3nhRRzQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZ9Os8cP_gg
-
Ok here is my problem.
Blade Runner 2049, which is getting incredible reviews all over the place (it's even been called a "miracle"), opens tomorrow in France. In Paris, it's only playing at regular 2D/3D theaters OR in IMAX 3D (or even in IMAX 4DX but that's only for future King Kong movies in my book). No regular IMAX.
I'm not an anti 3D bigot like some of you guys but I'm pretty sure this film wasn't created for 3D, but it may very well have been created for IMAX. So what the hell should I do?
-
Thanks all of you, I got my answer by Sir Roger Deakins himself:
We shot the film in 2D and in a wide screen format.
My preferred version is the standard 2D widescreen version. A problem I have with some viewing systems is their use of silvered screens. The image projected on a silvered screen lacks saturation as well as density as it falls off from a hot spot in the center of vision. This may not be so apparent for someone sitting in the optimum viewing seat but it is a compromise in terms of image quality wherever you are seated, though it maybe a compromise worth accepting if you are a fan of 3D.
https://www.rogerdeakins.com/film-talk/blade-runner-2049-3d-conversion/
Anyone who knows me also knows I do not like 3D.
We knew we were going to produce a 3D version down the line so we did have that in mind. But when you shoot in 2D you are trying to create depth when it is called for and also reduce depth when that seems appropriate 3D conversion or not. You could say, and some do, that we should have shot everything on an 18mm lens and with a constantly moving camera but that would have been another film entirely.
https://www.rogerdeakins.com/film-talk/blade-runner-2049-2d-or-3d/
So 2D it will be, whatever that means down the line.
-
Just wait for the Blu-ray. O0
-
I'm not an anti 3D bigot like some of you guys...
yeh... that'd be me.
Thanks all of you, I got my answer by Sir Roger Deakins himself:
For a moment there I thought you had spoken to him personally ;D
Thanks for posting all of that O0. Great to hear from the man himself.
-
Just wait for the Blu-ray. O0
Are you crazy? I'm seeing it this afternoon!
For a moment there I thought you had spoken to him personally ;D
Thanks for posting all of that O0. Great to hear from the man himself.
Yep, it removes any kind of doubt.
-
Well how was it?
-
Are you crazy? I'm seeing it this afternoon!
You are the crazy one.
-
Really, really good. Flawed, just like its predecessor, but also colder (I know it was designed this way, but I would have liked to see a few more close up). It's incredibly well crafted, features some of the best photography I've seen in years: I wasn't convinced by the look of the trailers, but they managed to stay faithful to the aesthetics of Blade Runner in a more modern and Villeneuvesque way. The depth and the thematic of the first Blade Runner are still here, which was really what mattered the most to me. Very good performances all over the place (except for Robin Wright, which is weird since the role seemed like a perfect fit).
I don't know how they managed to get 200 millions dollars to do such a slow and personal movie in this day and age. It's very likely to bomb like the first one... but it's so great to see the studios taking risks these days I just cannot believe it.
Best film of the year by very far, now let's see what it becomes after 10 viewings.
-
Is it true that Ford is really only in one scene?
-
Is it true that Ford is really only in one scene?
It isn't true, but he enters the film much later than the posters and trailers make you think. Also, it isn't a buddy movie. Gosling is alone or with women most of the time.
-
For you, CJ, an interesting twist from classic noir and neo noir lighting in Blade Runner 2049:
From German Expressionism to the 1940 Hollywood film noir, cinematographers have always done some of their best and most showy work when dealing with high-contrast, single-source light with no fill. “Blade Runner 2049” has created a future noir look and one of the remarkable things about it is how Deakins creates a futuristic, halogen-like light source — much different than the direct, hard light source needed to create the classic shadows of noir — for his own twist on genre lighting.
(http://www.indiewire.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/4-future-noir.png?w=780)
http://www.indiewire.com/2017/05/blade-runner-2049-cinematographer-roger-deakins-1201813923/
-
2 hrs. 43 mins? WTF?
-
For you, CJ, an interesting twist from classic noir and neo noir lighting in Blade Runner 2049:
http://www.indiewire.com/2017/05/blade-runner-2049-cinematographer-roger-deakins-1201813923/
Thanks!
-
Blade Runner 2049 (2017) IMAX - Visuals: 10/10. Story: 7/10. Nice faux Vangelis score (Zimmer should forget his own "style" and ape Mr. V every time). Impeccable lighting. Compositions and pacing of Kubrickean magnitude (hence the long runtime). The plot works well until it doesn't. Everything goes to shit at the climax (The baddies are taking Ford where? Gosling is trying to do what with his spinner?) This is also the point where it becomes difficult to follow the action. The ending is trite. Practical FX is very good; the CGI doesn't always work ( e.g. long shots of spinners flying over cityscapes). The best FX was Ana de Armas: she teases for the first two hours; finally we get her 50 ft. holographic nude image--that's entertainment! (But is that her actual T&A, or CGI enhancements?) I never want to watch this again, but I'll be buying the OST CD.
-
Blade Runner 2049 (2017) IMAX - Visuals: 10/10. Story: 7/10. Nice faux Vangelis score (Zimmer should forget his own "style" and ape Mr. V every time). Impeccable lighting. Compositions and pacing of Kubrickean magnitude (hence the long runtime). The plot works well until it doesn't. Everything goes to shit at the climax (The baddies are taking Ford where? Gosling is trying to do what with his spinner?) This is also the point where it becomes difficult to follow the action. The ending is trite. Practical FX is very good; the CGI doesn't always work ( e.g. long shots of spinners flying over cityscapes). The best FX was Ana de Armas: she teases for the first two hours; finally we get her 50 ft. holographic nude image--that's entertainment! (But is that her actual T&A, or CGI enhancements?) I never want to watch this again, but I'll be buying the OST CD.
We agree on most of it. Except I'll watch it over and over. I would go see it again this weekend if I could find an IMAX 2D presentation.
-
I'll be buying the OST CD.
MP3 only? WTF!!!!!
-
MP3 only? WTF!!!!!
MP3 only as of yet, you just have to wait for a couple of weeks I think. It wasn't even available anywhere (not even streaming) before yesterday. I've been listening to it on Spotify since yesterday morning.
-
I've been listening to it on Spotify since yesterday morning.
Oh, right. I'll check it out there.
-
Blade Runner 2049 (2017) IMAX - Visuals: 10/10. Story: 7/10. Nice faux Vangelis score (Zimmer should forget his own "style" and ape Mr. V every time). Impeccable lighting. Compositions and pacing of Kubrickean magnitude (hence the long runtime). The plot works well until it doesn't. Everything goes to shit at the climax (The baddies are taking Ford where? Gosling is trying to do what with his spinner?) This is also the point where it becomes difficult to follow the action. The ending is trite. Practical FX is very good; the CGI doesn't always work ( e.g. long shots of spinners flying over cityscapes). The best FX was Ana de Armas: she teases for the first two hours; finally we get her 50 ft. holographic nude image--that's entertainment! (But is that her actual T&A, or CGI enhancements?) I never want to watch this again, but I'll be buying the OST CD.
Agree pretty much, wasn't all that impressed with anything, and the plot gets lost at the end and how the fuck does Gosling find them at all. I probably won't watch it again either. 7/10
-
There are a few plot points and character motivations that should be explained by a second watch. Some quite important information is only hinted at in lines of dialogues.
Anyway, I didn't think it would happen so quickly but I'm ready for the second watch. It may very well happen next week.
-
I'll probably get the Blu-ray to watch certain scenes again. I liked the Vegas Weekend sequence a lot.
There were a number of visual gags and I can't be sure I spotted them all. The fact that Gosling's spinner is made by Peugeot had me chuckling (my grandma used to own a Peugeot); also, in 2049 the Los Angeles skyscape includes a Pan Am marquee--Ha!
The dumbest thing about the plot is that at the finish you have a character is need of serious medical attention, but that is just ignored so that the big movie ending can go off. This more than anything showed me that the story was in no way important.
-
Kermode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba8OIbWEHQM
-
I'll probably get the Blu-ray to watch certain scenes again. I liked the Vegas Weekend sequence a lot.
There were a number of visual gags and I can't be sure I spotted them all. The fact that Gosling's spinner is made by Peugeot had me chuckling (my grandma used to own a Peugeot); also, in 2049 the Los Angeles skyscape includes a Pan Am marquee--Ha!
I couldn't believe the Peugeot. It may be the very first time Peugeot is featured in an american film. We don't even show Peugeot cars in French films! The ATARI marquee -that was already in the first Blade Runner- was fun too.
SPOILERS AHEAD
There was also a number of visual and audio references to the first film that were not about the plot or nostalgia but used as dramatic devices. The most obvious was of course the use of the Tears in the Rain soliloquy music during Gosling's death (a terrific scene, I don't know why they bothered showing the Deckard meets daughter scene right after, it doesn't have half the same emotional strength). A more subtle one was the fact that Joi was wearing a similar outfit as Zhora/Joanna Cassidy when she's retired by Deckard in Las Vergas. I understood she was going to die right when I spotted the outfit.
I'm sure there are other ones.
-
Production design and cinematography:
http://www.icgmagazine.com/web/humanity-2-0/
-
Saw this at an AMC in a section of the theater entitled 'Dolby Cinema'. Information regarding what I'm talking about (https://www.amctheatres.com/dolby) and it was fantastic. If there is a movie worth seeing in this strange structure, it is this one. I wonder if Dust Devil will give it a watch with all the praise its getting.
-
He should. You don’t get to see such an impressive movie history landmark that often these days.
-
Can't believe people really find a masterpiece in this one. I like the story a lot
but the pace destroys everything. And then I have to defend Antonioni to certain people :).
Sure, great design, visuals, everything, great gags (Soylent Green, USSR, Pan-Am,
VW beetle, Peugot, Elvis etc.)... But I wouldn't want
to see it again without getting paid for it. Why do so many mediocre directors
think they are David Lean or Kubrick?
With 117 minutes it would have been a very good Sci-Fi film.
-
I cannot believe i still have to argue that “thinking they are a Kubrick” is the most beautiful flaw an artist can have. When someone likes such a film, they will say it’s “ambitious”. When someone doesn’t like the same film, they’ll call it “pretentious”. These aren’t the 2 sides of a same coin, they’re characterizing the exact same quality. And if anything we need this quality in many, many more movies.
I really wish I could have had the time to see 2049 once more in theater. I cannot wait for the BRD. I think it’s the most important - I didn't say "my favorite" - film since The Social Network, à title only some PTA films could dispute.
-
I will watch it this evening (in case I don't get in time trouble). And I'm pretty curious after reading so many things about it .
So far I think, in respect of Mike's view, that Villeneuve is a more interesting director than Lean, who will always be for me a better director than filmmaker, which easily makes him for me a pretty overrated director. And as I don't care very much for Scott either, and BR is not a masterpiece for me (but a very enjoyable film though), there's a good chance that I will prefer the sequel.
-
The sequel is more cerebral and clearly more "Villeneuvesque" so you may like it a lot. Chose the right theater (screening conditions - especially the sound system - are critical here, I cannot stress this enough), and let us know!
-
Look at in in terms of Leone. He made A Fistfull Of Dollars, it was good, made money, he made For a Few Dollars More a masterpiece then The Good The Bad And The Ugly another fucking masterpiece. Boom, boom, boom. Especially the way they were released in the U.S.
With Blade Runner 2049, you expect it to surpass the original, it doesn't, it seems to just cover the same ground with cute tweeks. It seems too calculated too formulaic, let's make a SiFi film that quotes all other SiFi films (remember the giant women in the amusement park in A.I.), maybe they just waited too long, too much lag time. It's like Sin City, it was great, then they again waited too long to make the sequel, A Dame To kill For, it had some nice sequences but others sort of fell off.
Maybe just maybe if you wait too long with these things the original becomes so iconic in your mind/the public's mind that a sequel will never measure up in your mind to first.
-
The sequel is more cerebral and clearly more "Villeneuvesque" so you may like it a lot. Chose the right theater (screening conditions - especially the sound system - are critical here, I cannot stress this enough), and let us know!
Actually I don't s´care that much for screening conditions. Good films are good in every format. The most important aspect is that they are uncut. Even a wrong aspect ration cannot really hurt a good film.
I will watch it in 3-D (which I generally try to avoid), after reading some very positive 3-D recommendations for this one. In fact there is no choice for me anyway, as there are no further 2-D screenings this week.
-
Noooooooooooooooooo Deakins said "no 3d"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
About screening conditions: no, good films aren't good in every format. Citizen Kane sucks when watched on an Apple Watch, or if your neighbor keeps talking throughout the movie. Also, some films are good in many formats but MUCH better in the appropriate conditions. You wouldn't watch OUATITW in pan and scan. Blade Runner 2049 is a film that requires a good sound system.
With Blade Runner 2049, you expect it to surpass the original, it doesn't,
I never expected that. I have a bias for Leone, but apart from him, nobody came close to the original BR. You cannot expect anyone to break a 30 years old world record :)
it seems to just cover the same ground with cute tweeks.
I don't think so. The original BR was about mortality, this one is about identity. The original BR was about how trapped we are by the human condition, this one follows existentialism (we are defined by what we do, not where we come from). These are inherently different thematics and the whole films are based upon these (and not on the plot), which gives us 2 very different movies.
Also, the first one is warm and tactile, this one is cold and cerebral. So even the execution comes from a different place.
It seems too calculated too formulaic, let's make a SiFi film that quotes all other SiFi films (remember the giant women in the amusement park in A.I.),
I can understand that feeling. I strongly disagree (I see it as a totally unique and a true landmark in movie history), but I see where you come from here.
Maybe just maybe if you wait too long with these things the original becomes so iconic in your mind/the public's mind that a sequel will never measure up in your mind to first.
Yeah, I think it's very hard to come a few decades after an iconic film. What would could "Brazil 2049" or "GBU 2" be nowadays?
Still, as some critics pintpointed, Villeneuve managed some kind of miracle: his film isn't as good as Blade Runner (but then again, what is?), but it isn't far and it is a great sequel that does what great sequel do (they're stand alone works of art and they make the original deeper).
-
Noooooooooooooooooo Deakins said "no 3d"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Still, I'm curious now, after reading some strong recommendations. And as I said, I most likely won't have the choice anyway. Btw, time killed BR 2049 yesterday, so I still have experience ahead of me.
About screening conditions: no, good films aren't good in every format. Citizen Kane sucks when watched on an Apple Watch,
No it doesn't, it is still a great film. And I have watched OUTW one time in pan & scan, well, it was indeed strange after having watched it before several times in a theatre, but there was still much too enjoy.
Actually my only chance to see many, many great films for many, many years, was to watch them via p&s VHS cassettes, and I loved and enjoyed GBU or The Wild Bunch not a single bit less than I do now. And I preferred easily the p&s VHS of TWB to the cut German theatrical version (with about 18 min missing).
Having experienced this very wrong aspect ratio years, I'm positively sure that I have no real problems with any film, as long as the sound is understandable, and the image is big enough to see the camera movements and the cuts and the faces of the actors (as landscape).
-
This line of though is a bit hard to swallow for people who work on these images and sounds :'( :'( :'( :'(
Of course, OUATITW has more to offer than just the correct aspect ratio. Still, cinema is a mean of expression and you're cutting out huge chunks of the ideas/emotions expressed by choosing to not care about them. This is more of a problem with movies that consciously use sound and image in a very controlled way, just like in BR2049.
Actually, I'm curious about the 3D experience for that film too. Like I said, the most important thing is the sound because the way the photography works in this film is inherently cold; most of the immersive work and the warmth comes from the sound design. You definitely won't have the same experience if you watch it with the wrong sound system (image quality is less of an issue here). I know it for a fact since I saw it with the wrong sound system (and I'm definitely not a sound guy).
-
Noooooooooooooooooo Deakins said "no 3d"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Haven't seen it yet, but I'm with you (and Deakins) here.
About screening conditions: no, good films aren't good in every format.
Gotta disagree here. I'm with Stanton that a good film will still be good regardless of format (within reason of course) - it's the whole "lipstick on a pig" thing. However, in a poor format you simply won't be doing a good film justice.
-
Screening conditions aren't lipstick on a pig. Films and videos are made for a certain kind of experience. Even with the same budget, you don't write, direct, edit, mix and grade the same way depending on the main viewing conditions. Some films and shows are optimized for "most" conditions (ie not a smartwatch, but most decent screens will do). Many aren't.
3D is a good example. You just don't have the same freedom. You cannot use shaky cam in 3D, you cannot edit too fast, you cannot move the camera too fast. The same stays true for a big screen vs a TV. Fast pans that work very well on TV give headaches to a theater audience. Some films are made to be immersive and usually need the best sound system because they were designed for that experience, some aren't. A Leone close up is something that is common and mainstream on TV, but impressive on a big screen. An extended shot framed as a wide shot where the action only takes 10-20% of the frame may work perfectly on a big screen, while it doesn't express the same feeling on TV and is unwatchable on a smartphone. Colors are also hugely significant and will impact the audiences' feelings WAY more than they think. An overly saturated TV won't just make things look "weird", it will make or break certain movies (Inside Llewyn Davis, for instance). If you're streaming a comedy, a misplaced lag can destroy the best joke ever (in my experience, a difference of 3 or 4 frames can destroy a good line).
Some films still hold a lot of quality even when watched in poor conditions, some lose too much, because they don't just loose comfort or lipstick, they lose emotions and meaning. Cinema is a way of expression, just like somebody talking to you. If you have to guess some of the words the guy in front of you is uttering, if you cannot see his eyes or body language, you're sometimes losing 1% of the message, and sometimes 99%.
A film isn't just a bunch of 35mm rolls or a .mp4 file. The screening is part of the work of art. You can watch it "broken" and still enjoy it, but don't think you've seen the real thing.
It reminds me of when people say they don't care if a film is well directed or not: I don't care if you care, but I KNOW that the direction will incredibly impact the way you'll feel during the movie, whether you "care" or not. Same goes for the viewing conditions: you may care, you may don't care, your opinion on the film will widely vary, ESPECIALLY for the first viewing.
In the case of BR2049, you're all free to do whatever you want to do, but as someone who watched it I can tell you the sound was designed a certain way and it brings a quality that was intentionally absent from the visual part. If you lose it, you're losing a lot and the whole films becomes too cold.
-
In the case of BR2049, you're all free to do whatever you want to do, but as someone who watched it I can tell you the sound was designed a certain way and it brings a quality that was intentionally absent from the visual part. If you lose it, you're losing a lot and the whole films becomes too cold.
There were a lot of deep bass effects that the theater in which I saw the film couldn't handle. I understood what I was supposed to feel at those moments and made the mental adjustment necessary, but I shouldn't have had to do that. The sound design for BR2049 is, as Noodles says, an integral part of the whole.
-
It reminds me of when people say they don't care if a film is well directed or not: I don't care if you care, but I KNOW that the direction will incredibly impact the way you'll feel during the movie, whether you "care" or not.
That's the most important aspect for me: how a film is directed, and I think that I see under any worse viewing condition. And even a p&s version can't kill a good film.
It was great to see GBU in a 1,85:1 aspect ratio, after having watched it before only in bad 4:3, and it was of course even better to see it later in its original aspect ratio, but it was the great masterpiece from the beginning on, and watching it in 2,35:1 did not lead to any kind of ohoo effect, only: yes, so had I already imagined it.
And before someone asks stupid questions, of course I try to get films in good copies, preferred in the best possible one, but it must not necessarily be the best one available.
-
You didn't have the choice for GBU. If someone told you "Hey, I have never seen GBU, I'll watch the pan and scan version tonight" I hope you'd try to make him get another version.
Stop arguing, just watch BR2049 with a good sound! >:( >:( >:( >:(
-
You didn't have the choice for GBU. If someone told you "Hey, I have never seen GBU, I'll watch the pan and scan version tonight" I hope you'd try to make him get another version.
By coincidence that just happened yesterday. Unfortunately I followed your earlier advice and sugestged to watch the film without the image, only with the sound. Was that wrong?
-
Only 50%. So less wrong than watching GBU in pan and scan, you philistin.
-
Screening conditions aren't lipstick on a pig.
No they're not necessarily so, although they can be if the film sucks. However, they always are the "icing/frosting on the cake" regardless of the quality of the cake.
I am more than willing to watch a technically well-made film that lacks in plot and acting. Ideally I would want to see it in the best version possible. However, all that technical expertise will still be there under less than ideal screening conditions; it just won't be accentuated to the same degree.
-
I agree with most of it, but apart from the pleasure of arguing about universal rules, on an absolutely non theoretical but utterly pragmatical, factual, impossible to argue level, BR2049 needs a good sound system. I swear. It is just designed that way. On purpose.
Now I've done everything that was in my power to do. I hope they make the right choice :'(
-
I agree with most of it, but apart from the pleasure of arguing about universal rules, on an absolutely non theoretical but utterly pragmatical, factual, impossible to argue level, BR2049 needs a good sound system. I swear. It is just designed that way. On purpose.
Now I've done everything that was in my power to do. I hope they make the right choice :'(
Ok point taken ;D
However, given how my life is right now, I might need to rent it on Blu-ray in a few months instead :(. My sound system at home is the speakers built into my plasma TV... :-\
-
http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=22549
-
Just watched the original again last night, way way better, a masterpiece.
-
Just watched the original again last night, way way better, a masterpiece.
Of course it is! Best non Leone film ever.
-
I'll give both films a 8/10, but Villeneuve's film has the chance to become a 9.
Scott's film has all the usual Scott problems for me.
-
I'll give both films a 8/10, but Villeneuve's film has the chance to become a 9.
Scott's film has all the usual Scott problems for me.
Fuck no, never, the original felt extremely claustrophobic, 2049 didn't have anywhere near that feeling, too many empty landscapes completely different feel, almost too much a post apocalyptic aura whereas the original had that vastly overcrowded planet but still surviving quirky big city zeitgeist.
I'm beginning to think it's you that has the problems ^-^ But I agree about most of Scott's films, this, Alien, and Gladiator are the only films of his that are worth a shit.
-
Thelma and Louise is great (just switch the 80's Zimmer soundtrack off).
The Duelists has its flaws but all in all it's a terrific film.
Black Hawk Down is perfect for what it is.
Then:
Black Rain, American Gangster and even Body of Lies aren't very interesting but they're good pieces of craft.
Legend is a complet failure but we definitely need WAY more ambitious failures nowadays.
Prometheus is a terrible movie because of its script but the craft is impressive.
All in all, about half of his films deserve to be around.
I'd still sleep better if Kingdom of Heaven and Robin Hood had never existed.
-
Thelma and Louise is great (just switch the 80's Zimmer soundtrack off).
The Duelists has its flaws but all in all it's a terrific film.
Black Hawk Down is perfect for what it is.
Then:
Black Rain, American Gangster and even Body of Lies aren't very interesting but they're good pieces of craft.
Legend is a complet failure but we definitely need WAY more ambitious failures nowadays.
Prometheus is a terrible movie because of its script but the craft is impressive.
All in all, about half of his films deserve to be around.
I'd still sleep better if Kingdom of Heaven and Robin Hood had never existed.
I heard/read that Black Rain was a Neo Noir, nahh, a motorcycle chase crap fest (I hate chase films nowadays), so hated it from the get go, couldn't rent it to check it out first, so I had to buy it, money down the drain. American Gangster watched, didn't think much of it, Black Hawk Down was decent.
-
Scott is an empty director, but for an empty director he made some good films. But never a really great one.
His best is Alien, which does not feel like a Scott film for a single second. His only one which gets a 9 from me.
Kingdom of Heaven is one of his best, but only in the DC, and Blade Runner is also a good one, but it hasn't much substance, and the visuals are too superficial, which is the usual problem in most of his films, already in The Duellists. He wants to make stunning looking films, but like in BR he too often overdoes it with all that light coming from everywhere.
For Thelma and Louise he was the wrong choice. The ending is terrible.
-
Scott is an empty director, but for an empty director he made some good films.
Yes
But never a really great one.
No
His best is Alien, which does not feel like a Scott film for a single second. His only one which gets a 9 from me.
Alien is great and doesn't feel like a Scott film. His direction really transcended a weak script filled with a few good ideas.
Kingdom of Heaven is one of his best, but only in the DC,
Lol no it's one of the worst films I've ever seen. Literally. It's laughable from start to finish and is shot like a 2 hours TV news report.
I haven't seen the DC, which may or may not improve the film, but at best it might turn a total turd into an almost watchable turd.
and Blade Runner is also a good one, but it hasn't much substance, and the visuals are too superficial,
No. It has more substance than all the other films on earth combined.
More seriously, I get how the film may connect with some people and not with other ones, but "no substance" isn't a valid criticism on this one. It says everything there is to say about mortality, which means it says everything there is to say about human condition, which means it says everything there is to say.
which is the usual problem in most of his films, already in The Duellists. He wants to make stunning looking films,
Yes.
but like in BR he too often overdoes it with all that light coming from everywhere.
Highly subjective point.
For Thelma and Louise he was the wrong choice.
No he was great. The direction of the actors is terrific and the visuals were amazing at the time. Yes, it aged.
His brother would have been better though.
The ending is terrible.
Ok I had doubts earlier but I'm now 100% convinced Drinkanddestroy stole your password.
-
I rewatched the ending on the tube.
It is not terrible, but still not good. The suicide is a cheap idea, and the way Scott filmed it with these slo mo shots ... arrgh ... nahh, not good.
-
The slow motion shots, as well as the "let's shoot everything with the 200 mm lens" didn't age very well and the frame freeze is the worst. Still, the whole thing works well for me.
Trivia : I've been where they shot that last summer, the place is great (it isn't the Great Canyon at all, it's in Dead Horse Point State Park, next to the Canyonlands National Park entrance in Utah).
-
both the blade running movies stink!
-
Daniel Day-Lewis Called His Likely Final Film ‘Phantom Thread’ A ‘Nightmare’ To Shoot
http://uproxx.com/movies/daniel-day-lewis-phantom-thread-nightmare/
-
but like in BR he too often overdoes it with all that light coming from everywhere.
That complaint is valid. But not so much the light but more the moving lights, The floating billboard ones are great, there are some where there are no reasons for them to be there. But very miniscule in the scheme of things.
-
That complaint is valid. But not so much the light but more the moving lights, The floating billboard ones are great, there are some where there are no reasons for them to be there. But very miniscule in the scheme of things.
The moving lights in BR are awesome and groundbreaking. It took the rest of the american cinema 30 years to catch up with these ones.
-
http://uproxx.com/movies/daniel-day-lewis-phantom-thread-nightmare/
Hah - nice try. I was right there at the advanced screening where he said that. Was clearly being sarcastic.
But yea... both Blade Runners, just not my thing. 5-6ish each. Yaaaawn.
-
The moving lights in BR are awesome and groundbreaking. It took the rest of the american cinema 30 years to catch up with these ones.
Most of them are (groundbreaking) when they seem realistic purposed. The ones in the last scenes at the fight at the Bradbury Building don't seem to have much purpose in the scheme of things in the city, they just feel more gimmicky, but it's just a minute blemish in my opinion.
-
Aren’t the Bradbury Building lights supposed to be regular lights of the city filtered by pals and windows? Moving cars, billboards...
I always took them this way.
-
Aren’t the Bradbury Building lights supposed to be regular lights of the city filtered by pals and windows? Moving cars, billboards...
I always took them this way.
Most of them yes, it's just near the end it looks like they have four spotlights in a vertical row on one pole with swivels right outside a window for no reason other than an effect.
-
Ha, I'll check them out next time I watch it.
That being said, motivated lighting has quickly become the norm in the past 5 years or so. I'm pretty sure the next trend is totally unnatural lighting.
-
Ha, I'll check them out next time I watch it.
That being said, motivated lighting has quickly become the norm in the past 5 years or so. I'm pretty sure the next trend is totally unnatural lighting.
I only noticed them because they seemed to have no purpose in a overcrowded megalopolis where lighting seemed to be rather stingy.
-
I only noticed them because they seemed to have no purpose in a overcrowded megalopolis where lighting seemed to be rather stingy.
;D
The lighting was nonetheless the high point of this movie.
For me it really lacked any of the rawness or lyricism that might have otherwise sustained something of this length. I think that is perhaps was Villeneuve was going for, but I don't think he quite achieved it this time.
-
I was pleasantly surprised with this one, if I may say. While it is not the same (type of) movie the first one was, the effort and dedication put in it by all the crew is above average, and it payed off.
It is visually distinctive and unique, with only bits resembling the first one. I would not call it beautiful, in any way (mainstream or alternative), but it is interesting. Probably the fact that it combines two main visual modes: 1) dark - cold - wet, and 2) light - hot - dry, with the 3) high-biotech, creepy, flesh is weak and spoilable leitmotif (minimalistic, without going into overdrive drooling over it).
The story/plot is overall satisfying. Some parts are stock-predictable, while others manage to almost surprise you. What is really good is that it probably came closer to Philip K. Dick's philosophical, moral and ethical inner/outer quarrels withing the characters and the remnants of the society in which they (co)exist. I think Hampton Fancher finally got what he wanted (deserved), and I say that without diminishing the input of the other screenwriter, which I do not know that well.
I did not like the intro text; thought it was lame and unnecessary.
The soundtrack is OK, good but not special as the first one.
The acting solid. I did not like Leto's performance/character, but I sense that might have been the idea all along; to make him overly theatrical.
Good directing.
8/10
-
Glad you liked it. You aren't completely a lost cause after all.
-
So you say.
-
... two main visual modes: 1) dark - cold - wet, and 2) light - hot - dry...
Yes - that was nice. It certainly wasn't novel to choose two vivid contrasts like that, but it was done well. I suppose Storaro's work on "Little Buddha" gets the award for that.
I did not like the intro text; thought it was lame and unnecessary.
Generally I find intro text and explanatory voice-overs to be annoying - in this case, it was totally unnecessary even if you hadn't seen the original IMO. Having said that, there are cases when it works - the addition of Pacino's voice to "Revolution Revisited" creates quite a haunting effect for example.
-
Check this Noir trailer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=JXFqPzAFv8o (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=JXFqPzAFv8o)
-
Haha it works well
-
O0
-
https://www.indiewire.com/2018/09/denis-villeneuves-editor-looks-back-at-that-four-hour-blade-runner-2049-cut-teases-how-hes-approaching-dune-1202007163/
-
Bought the dvd last sunday (together with another dozen). I had forgotten about this one's existence. Well, the story is solid, though with flaws (especially toward the end, as noted in this thread). But what it doesn't work are basically 2 items: the photography and the protagonist. Gosling, I can't remember if I saw him before (and if I did would tell a lot about his screen presence) but here he is inexpressive and anybody can realize it easily comparing him with Ford. But though the scenography (both real and CGE generated) can be acceptable, the photography replicates the usual monochromy of the Hollywood fare and is unable to convey that impression of dirt which emanated from the original. Still I give it a 8/10because the story, as I said, is solid, at least for 3/4 of the runtime.