Banned
Yet again Hollywood sucks the soul out of an original authentic work. This movie sucked. The script was cheese. Who cares if Villeneuve is a great director. It can't change the fact that the script is weak. Plus, the soundtrack... awful and grating.... the most grating parts didn't seem to match the tone of the film.... like another version of this film was in the composer's mind.
I'm so sick of Hollywood fucking original works.
Active Member
What would you give it out of 10?Originally Posted by cashpiles
Banned
1/10 Same as I would give for Star Wars 7. In my mind the same thought popped out "worst movie I've ever seen"...I felt like walking out...
@valiantseed there was a final battle..with that replicant angel. It wasn't the boss of Wally Corp or whatever the hell it was, but it was still a boss.. they didn't kill the big guy because of course THEY WANT A SEQUEL... HOLLYWOOD....
Last edited by cashpiles (closed); 10-12-2017 at 01:20 AM.
Trollhunter
Is that you, Armond White?
Throbbing Member
Saw it for a second time yesterday, this time in IMAX. Absolutely loved it again. Ryan Gosling and Harrison Ford's performances were absolutely wonderful. Not that his performance as Han Solo was bad or anything, but it really felt like Harrison gave it his all on this one. Really appreciated the score a lot more the second time around as well.
My only real gripes with the film are minor: There are a lot of quieter scenes in the middle without music. I wish in at least some of those scenes there was something playing underneath them to help fill the gaps a little more. Also wish they showed more of the greasy, slummy, dark, claustrophobic, smoky inner city life that we saw in the original. There was some of that in 2049, but I could have done with more. Minor gripe though. What we did get was pretty gorgeous.
Still loved it, though. Definitely a worthy sequel and I can't wait to buy the blu-ray. Picked up the score already. I love Hans Zimmer, and I like drony ambient music, so this is right up my alley.
Last edited by Mr. Blaileen; 10-11-2017 at 09:30 PM.
Stubby Member
I don't understand this criticism at all.
I mean yes, I saw and absolutely loved the film, but I reserve room for anyone not to like it, just not on that premise. This was as original and authentic a film as there could possibly be for a 35 year old sequel.
Take the underlying premise of the original film; what does it mean to be human? Not exactly a new conversation but an interesting philosophical one nonetheless, especially for its time - add in some great sound, visuals, and acting performances, and voila, a very solid sci fi work.
Now take the sequel - which continues to toy with that idea, but also attempts to provide some semblance of an answer. An answer as pretty much non hollywood as you could possibly get.
It takes the premise that we generally all feel that to be human means to feel special, to feel as though you have a purpose, to feel destined for something greater, to be a part of something greater (whether it be through religion or otherwise) - but this films underlying message is that in actuality you are not special, you are not destined for anything, you live out your days doing mundane tasks and then you die. With the only slight sense of optimism provided being that you can contribute something positive that effects another person in your limited window of opportunity if you so choose, despite any bleak circumstances you may have been dealt.
Making a 3 hour sci fi film with limited dialogue, one that doesnt reintroduce Deckard until 3/4 of the way into the film, where the protagonist ends up being a replicant with no greater purpose whatsoever, where there is no climax, end to the war, final villain fight scene, or anything of that sort is the most anti hollywood move you could make.
That kind of bold choice should be celebrated, even if you don't like the idea re-opening a franchise that had been closed for multiple decades.
It's an absolute shame that it bombed, because all that means is likely more of the same formulaic crap coming our way instead.
Critique this film all you want if you must (it's not flawless as much as I may call it a masterpiece) - but it certainly is relatively unique (especially for a "blockbuster") in its thematic nature, and I don't see how you can try to take away from that, outside of just being completely obtuse.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote