Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Spoilers What Movie Are You Watching?
- Thread starter Huntn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Guilty pleasure number 2:
Tom Cruise films. Not all of them mind ya, but a certain few. And that is one of them. I love that film.
I’m interpreting this comment, asuming it involves manure, lol. I like Knight and Day! It’s humorous and tongue’n cheek which forgives the unbelievable aspects, but am not insisting on agreement.
Thank you for sharing your impressions.It very well could be one of the worst films I've ever seen.
And the hate I have/had for USSR and their obtuse, and vengeful type of politics have found a new height.
Interesting story told in such a half ass way that it made it nearly unbearable for me to watch, and Mina Sorvino, who I usually like, was pretty weak in it.
I had the same opinion about this movie.
Taken 3. Last time I watched it I fell asleep!
Not because it's bad, just I'm getting old!
So far it's not as good as the first two, but watchable.
Not because it's bad, just I'm getting old!
So far it's not as good as the first two, but watchable.
I’m interpreting this comment, asuming it involves manure, lol. I like Knight and Day! It’s humorous and tongue’n cheek which forgives the unbelievable aspects, but am not insisting on agreement.
he he he. i really like it ...
Blade Runner 2049 a worth successor to the original. Though it removes some of the uncertainty from the original, it introduces many layers of distorted reality to keep it interesting.
B
B
Guilty pleasure number 2:
Tom Cruise films. Not all of them mind ya, but a certain few. And that is one of them. I love that film.
I like some of his movies. Top Gun, Cocktails, Rain Man, A Few Good Men, Collateral, Jack Reacher, Valkyrie, etc. Though, if I'm honest, I thought you were angling for Cameron Diaz.
I’m interpreting this comment, asuming it involves manure, lol. I like Knight and Day! It’s humorous and tongue’n cheek which forgives the unbelievable aspects, but am not insisting on agreement.
No, LOL, corn fields was the clue. The movie is very corny. Numerous lines will cause you to roll your eyes. I'm honestly surprised at its IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes rating. I guess some people see through the corniness and the typical trope heavy movie. The summer it came out was filled with espionage movies and action thrillers. It was a good movie summer.
Edit: Just realized this was 7 years ago. Crikey.
Not a fan of the first two you meantioned but the rest of those I really liked. Collateral and the Jack Reacher franchise especially.
This is a movie I am interested in watching; it received excellent reviews in the broadsheet press in the UK.
So I just returned from Blade Runner 2049 and I have to say it was hands down the very best movie I’ve seen in many years. Absolutely brilliant piece of score and cinema combined with a great story. It was 3 hours long but it felt more like 3 minutes. The style held true to the first one in every aspect. The acting and dialogue were done with exquisite precision and quite literally had me on the edge of the seat a few times. Wow. Just a great piece of work.
Excellent review, and one that I will pay heed to - as these are the comments of someone whose views (and standards) I respect.
Will make a point of trying to get to see the movie at some stage.
My favorite TC movies: Top Gun, Rainman, the first Mission Impossible, Oblivion, and Knight and Day.
Just back from Blade Runner 2049…
I shall write my thoughts tomorrow.
As a great Blade Runner fan, I am conflicted…
Same here. Went to see it this evening.
I shall write my thoughts tomorrow.
As a great Blade Runner fan, I am conflicted…
Same here, just returned from Blade Runner 2049.
Being also a huge fan of Ridley Scott's Blade Runner (1982.), I have mixed feelings.
It has to be digested. Will share my thoughts later.
Being also a huge fan of Ridley Scott's Blade Runner (1982.), I have mixed feelings.
It has to be digested. Will share my thoughts later.
The Hobbit. Battle of the five armies.
How did you find it?
I read The Hobbit (and loved it) but am not sure that the book merits several movies.
Agree. I've seen it before, but it's an enjoyable trilogy if a little long.
I last read the book at school, so a few decades ago.
The soundtrack is good to.
My impression is the problem if you are a book fan, and if you insist on the content and tempo of the book, is that some amount of Middle Earth related material was injected to the story, (I’ve not seen the third movie) and over the top action sequences were added to plump out, and create climaxes for the movies, and the icing on the cake, a 3hr movie that almost represents an aftermath following Smaug’s demise.
Labyrinth of Lies (2015). It's hard to strike the right balance between earnest quasi-docu and emotionally charged investigation when someone attempts a film about the aftermath of World War II in Germany during the waning days of willful amnesia on the part of German citizens about exactly what the Nazis had been up to. This effort (in German with English subtitles) leans hard towards earnest and comes up a little flat on the outrage. But then that may have been how some, maybe even a lot, of ordinary Germans' reactions actually were in real time.
Just as in Iraq with the Baath party, it's not like there was always a lot of choice if one wanted to maintain a professional career as a party definitely worth loathing rose to power in Germany. The choice came in caring or not caring about what was happening in the roundups and in concentration camps as World War II proceeded. Choosing not to know versus embracing: there's some daylight there but whether it's enough to nurture a soul is the question. And so it should not surprise us that there was reluctance later to confirm and confront what people may have more than suspected went on during the Nazi party's zenith and its eventual descent to ruin. Worth the watch but I might wished for it to cut to the chase already and stick to the investigations and trials, since some of the social scenes struck me as rather contrived if not also somewhat flat.
Just as in Iraq with the Baath party, it's not like there was always a lot of choice if one wanted to maintain a professional career as a party definitely worth loathing rose to power in Germany. The choice came in caring or not caring about what was happening in the roundups and in concentration camps as World War II proceeded. Choosing not to know versus embracing: there's some daylight there but whether it's enough to nurture a soul is the question. And so it should not surprise us that there was reluctance later to confirm and confront what people may have more than suspected went on during the Nazi party's zenith and its eventual descent to ruin. Worth the watch but I might wished for it to cut to the chase already and stick to the investigations and trials, since some of the social scenes struck me as rather contrived if not also somewhat flat.
@LizKat: I don't know whether you have ever read "Albert Speer: His Battle With The Truth" by Gitta Sereny - it covers some of this ground extremelyintelligently - but I recommend it highly.
Saw Blade Runner 2049 yesterday and I rate it a 4/10. The original is a mixed bag for me, in that I watch it frequently despite its enormous flaws in pacing, plot and performances, primarily because the atmosphere, art design and effects are phenomenally good, and the score is beyond iconic.
Unfortunately, the sequel's plot is snail-paced, meandering and painfully telegraphed right from very early in the runtime. The performances, at least out of Gosling and Hoeks, are generally strong and Jared Leto was surprisingly inoffensive despite his continuing method-like insistence on adopting a new vocal tick in every performance. Ford was awake, which anoints this film as his best in since the 2002 Bigelow-helmed K-19: The Widowmaker. Most of the details are nonsensical (California apparently relies on solar energy despite a complete collapse of ecosystems, perpetual haze, and the energy density of photovoltaics being grossly insufficient for the displayed population density) or contradictory to the source material. Deakins' cinematography is sufficiently clean and competent but inappropriate for a tech noir film and consistently fails to meet the quality of the original. The score was middling at best, missing the ethereal majesty of Vangelis' offerings despite aping the cues more than a few times; likwise I knew immediately that Hans Zimmer was involved when I was subjected to the occasional vuvuzela blast.
All told, this film feels exactly like what I expected it to be: a paint-by-numbers detective store couched in the guise of an event film, fashioned and administered by committee, steeped in the accountrement of its intended genre whilst having none of the flavour, and thankfully at least helmed by a far superior director (one of the few points working in the film's favour). Unless you've got some three-hour occasion that needs avoided, wait for the VOD release in ninety days. Hopefully, it'll come with some behind-the-scenes featurettes so that you can know precisely on whom the blame falls and why.
Unfortunately, the sequel's plot is snail-paced, meandering and painfully telegraphed right from very early in the runtime. The performances, at least out of Gosling and Hoeks, are generally strong and Jared Leto was surprisingly inoffensive despite his continuing method-like insistence on adopting a new vocal tick in every performance. Ford was awake, which anoints this film as his best in since the 2002 Bigelow-helmed K-19: The Widowmaker. Most of the details are nonsensical (California apparently relies on solar energy despite a complete collapse of ecosystems, perpetual haze, and the energy density of photovoltaics being grossly insufficient for the displayed population density) or contradictory to the source material. Deakins' cinematography is sufficiently clean and competent but inappropriate for a tech noir film and consistently fails to meet the quality of the original. The score was middling at best, missing the ethereal majesty of Vangelis' offerings despite aping the cues more than a few times; likwise I knew immediately that Hans Zimmer was involved when I was subjected to the occasional vuvuzela blast.
All told, this film feels exactly like what I expected it to be: a paint-by-numbers detective store couched in the guise of an event film, fashioned and administered by committee, steeped in the accountrement of its intended genre whilst having none of the flavour, and thankfully at least helmed by a far superior director (one of the few points working in the film's favour). Unless you've got some three-hour occasion that needs avoided, wait for the VOD release in ninety days. Hopefully, it'll come with some behind-the-scenes featurettes so that you can know precisely on whom the blame falls and why.
Saw Blade Runner 2049 as well.
This may be the curse of Blade Runner. The first movie failed as well, but over the time people came to appreciate it. Yes, the mood of the Blade Runner was dark, philosophical, and noir theme.
What was the difference between BR and 2049?
1) In the original BR, they weren't really relying heavily on CGI. The production was kept at minimal. Ridley Scott and his crew made a movie using props and actual historical buildings like Bradbury building. It was a historical building.
You can sense the mood of that scene. The way they used the lighting was perfect. The way Ridley Scott film the scene was perfect. Mystery. Not too much revealing.
opening scene.
Look at the opening scene. It was poetic. They used the props on those buildings...especially the Tyrell Corporation.
2) Music. In the original movie, listen to the style of the music....it was very emotional.
ALso, from this love scene or whatever, it was natural..meaning no CGI acting. WHen you see the love scene from 2049, it was like homicidal acting. Fake stuff. Some 3d visual theme. too artificial from 2049.
The blade runner blue...the real noir style. This scene and the music...it's like the movie Ridley scott made, "black rain."
THe point? 2049 missed something important....The original Vangelis ost. There were no emotions from Han zimmer guy.
3) Pacing...yes it was not needed. The original BR was about like what...? 1hr 45 minutes?
The point is the story sucked. They forced this philosophical crap onto the audiences. In 2049, that big guy with glassess...forgot his name already...but anyway...he was shoving that philosophical crap as he was about to die.
BR 1 didn't intend to have philosophical be forced in your mouth...it came out naturally, but it came out fluidly.
This BR 2049 was forced....didn't come out naturally.
Some say Wallace was great, but I say he was a poor sap. He tried so hard to be like Tyrell. Tyrell's personality totally fit with the actor and his personality. His wallace guy tried to be all "I'm so clever...take my knowledge and shove it" guy.
Gosling was okay..he was too stiff. he tried to act like Deckard from the 1st movie..."step-by-step" style...systemic movement.
Ford as Deckard: His acting was good for his age, but can never be like his old "self." His younger version of Deckard was more "I don't care" or "alone" type. He had wit and very charismatic in his younger days. The 2049 version was more.....bland. He still performed well, but his age shows that.
4/10
here's one of the ost from 2049.
https://youtu.be/p_DuuCD8wQM
Edit: the movie tried so hard to be sophisticated toward its audiences.
This may be the curse of Blade Runner. The first movie failed as well, but over the time people came to appreciate it. Yes, the mood of the Blade Runner was dark, philosophical, and noir theme.
What was the difference between BR and 2049?
1) In the original BR, they weren't really relying heavily on CGI. The production was kept at minimal. Ridley Scott and his crew made a movie using props and actual historical buildings like Bradbury building. It was a historical building.
You can sense the mood of that scene. The way they used the lighting was perfect. The way Ridley Scott film the scene was perfect. Mystery. Not too much revealing.
opening scene.
Look at the opening scene. It was poetic. They used the props on those buildings...especially the Tyrell Corporation.
2) Music. In the original movie, listen to the style of the music....it was very emotional.
ALso, from this love scene or whatever, it was natural..meaning no CGI acting. WHen you see the love scene from 2049, it was like homicidal acting. Fake stuff. Some 3d visual theme. too artificial from 2049.
The blade runner blue...the real noir style. This scene and the music...it's like the movie Ridley scott made, "black rain."
THe point? 2049 missed something important....The original Vangelis ost. There were no emotions from Han zimmer guy.
3) Pacing...yes it was not needed. The original BR was about like what...? 1hr 45 minutes?
The point is the story sucked. They forced this philosophical crap onto the audiences. In 2049, that big guy with glassess...forgot his name already...but anyway...he was shoving that philosophical crap as he was about to die.
BR 1 didn't intend to have philosophical be forced in your mouth...it came out naturally, but it came out fluidly.
This BR 2049 was forced....didn't come out naturally.
Some say Wallace was great, but I say he was a poor sap. He tried so hard to be like Tyrell. Tyrell's personality totally fit with the actor and his personality. His wallace guy tried to be all "I'm so clever...take my knowledge and shove it" guy.
Gosling was okay..he was too stiff. he tried to act like Deckard from the 1st movie..."step-by-step" style...systemic movement.
Ford as Deckard: His acting was good for his age, but can never be like his old "self." His younger version of Deckard was more "I don't care" or "alone" type. He had wit and very charismatic in his younger days. The 2049 version was more.....bland. He still performed well, but his age shows that.
4/10
here's one of the ost from 2049.
https://youtu.be/p_DuuCD8wQM
Edit: the movie tried so hard to be sophisticated toward its audiences.
Last edited: