Spoilers What Movie Are You Watching?

[arkitect]

So… Blade Runner 2049.

Disclaimer! I am a great Blade Runner fan. All the way from 1982's schmaltzy voice over original release through to the far superior Director's Cut.
So this sequel had to compete against all the preconceptions of my 35 years older self.

Blade Runner 2049, is… a gorgeous film. And I'm going to give it 6/10.

1. The designs and sets are gorgeous. The world of 2049 is horrible. Nature has taken her revenge. And it all looks superb.

2. The future tech is highly believable and completely appropriate. Nothing sticks out and shouts, "Look at us! We think this is a cool gimmick so we thought we'd use it even though it brings nothing to the story."

3. The music is up to date with a nod to the Vangelis score.

4. The allusions to the original are subtle and not over played. And of course the film had to start with a large all seeing eye. Gaff still doing Origami — was the sheep he folded a nod to Philip K. Dick? Who knows. Fun to speculate.

5. Story line? Pretty much believable, and no eye rolling Deus ex Machina moments such as in the god awful Prometheus Alien prequels. Things hang together and make some kind of sense.

6. Acting. You have to love Harrison Ford. Still a helluva attractive man — just a lot more craggy and granite hewn.
Sylvia Hoeks as Luv is smashing (Literally!) Great character.
Ryan Gossling… yeah. Sorry. I just dont get him. Every time he appears in pensive close up (and it is often) I can't help but think he has the narrowest set eyes I have seen. One dimensional. Sure he is a Replicant, but the one -dimensionality of his acting just left me cold.
Ana de Armis - as his hologram girlfriend is the show stealer. She is almost surreally beautiful. She has no soul, and yet, she had the most soulfulness of them all. The "sex scene" is achingly beautiful and sad. I have never found myself tearing up during a sex scene on film. Never. Ever.
Oh and for goodness sakes. Jared Leto. Has he done anything reasonably decent since Requiem for a Dream? *snore*

7. Running time is at least 40 minutes too long.

I am not going to spoil it by revealing any *gasp* "wow! Didn't see that one coming" surprises — only because, well, these red herrings are so damn well lit they may as well have been flashing neon lights.

The storyline hints at so much mythology and then seems to lose nerve and backs off…Blindness galore. Mistaken identities. Oedipus anyone?

I think it plays to a level of audience sophistication that is these days, rather uneducated and uninformed.
Lots of "big words"… spoken… softly… with "thespian intent"… so we the audience should sit there with our hands in our popcorn cartons and turn to one another and nod sagely… "like yeah! Deep man." "That is so … wow… pro-found…" When actually it is nothing of the kind.
It is just verbal stage dressing. Just script writers sitting around making jazz hands and going "woo-woo-woo"

Anyway.
I won't go back to see it again and again like the original.

And I sincerely hope there is NO sequel planned. It is setup for a sequel (if Harrison Ford's body can stand it — because I think he could write any number of 0000s on his paycheck.)

There was nothing like the ending of the first.
The lift door slams shut on the two frightened replicants making their escape. End of story. Cue Vangelis's brilliant music.
Loved it. We wanted to know what the hell happened to Rick and Rachel.

This Blade Runner 2049? Not so much…

 

[derbladerunner]

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.

Agreed. (Obviously, I'm biased, see my user name )

9/10.

Visuals and camera work in BR2049 even better than in original - or at least on par.

Others commented waiting for VOD release. Huge mistake. You need to see this movie on the biggest screen possible (huge 2D screen or even better IMAX).

Only disagree with audio: Soundtrack too bombastic/loud for me. Vangelis in the original BR was a better choice imho.

Won't spoil too much, but a few detail questions:

- Any special meaning for the sheep origami? Couldn't figure it out. Other than a nod to the Dick novel "electric sheep"? Otherwise, the scene doesn't make much sense.

Spoiler: Retirement Home

Other than actor Olmos picking up his pay cheque for the cameo, lol

- Is the child with the short hair in the birthday cake scene (on the right, just visible for a split second) "constructed" by Dr. Ana Stelline played by the same actress as the child in front of the furnace (with wooden toy in hand)? Note Ana's dialogue with K just as images cut to the children.

Spoiler: Orphanage / Children

Note that I used the generic term "child" on purpose, not boy or girl, don't want to spoil too much ;-) Also, as someone with a fine eye for details noted on Reddit:

All the boys in the orphanage have shaved heads, but all the girls have hair. When we see the flashback (toy horse) the child is the only one with hair. Most won't notice at the time, but that's because she's a girl.

- Any hidden meaning for the bee scene? Visually beautiful, Mars-style sandstorm surface or at least Mad Max dystopia. K is gazing at something "real", assuming it's a real bee colony, but other than that I didn't get its purpose in an already very long film. I have a weak explanation in the spoiler below (and much more about that scene...).

Spoiler: Las Vegas

Maybe Deckard has the bee colony to check on radioactivity levels:

https://miningawareness.wordpress.c...ve-contamination-impacts-on-fruit-production/

Also, note the (human ?) goons picking up Deckard wear gas masks. Luv, K and Deckard don't wear masks outside/inside the casino.

Maybe another indicator that Deckard is a replicant? Replicants can handle higher doses of radioactivity than humans?

Also, note the design / color setting on this classic Bechstein piano ad when you watch the casino scenes:

https://imgur.com/gallery/jB1Mt

Finally, the ending was beautiful. Now for the real spoilers towards the end, my third, fourth and fifth question...

Spoiler: Joi / Ending

Joi is fascinating. Is she a spy (as millions of other Jois), a hologram-like Alexa manufactured by Wallace? Can Wallace monitor K using Joi? It looks so when he working on the file archive? Or does Joi become self-aware at one point (when she tells me to break the antenna and thus make life hard(er) for Wallace / Luv to track him)?

Or was Joi hacked by the resistance? After all, she leads the prostitute to K's apartment. Also note how the door was unlocked when the prostitute enters his apartment...did Joi unlock the door on purpose?

Also, does the giant Joi ad (K standing on the bridge) remember who he is and call him "Joe" again? Sort of a personalized advertising for K to get a new Joi?

Joe (Joseph) and K. are interesting names. I see the link to Kafka's famous novel where the protagonist is called Joseph K.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial

But I don't see how the connection further plays out. There are also many allusions to Pinocchio ("real boy") for K.

Final scenes:

Score by Vangelis. Reminiscence of Roy Batty's speech by using the same music. Genius - without trying to one-up a monologue that was perfect in 1982. Score "Tears in Rain" (or this time snowflakes, lol) is enough.

Once again a replicant (this time K) saves Deckard - the very man hunting them down - and sacrifices himself.

- But I'm not sure: Is K really dying on the stairs? Most commenters and reviews think so.

Also, is Ana's illness for real and did she implant the wooden toy memory and 6-10-21 date only into K?

If so, a perfect decoy for her (working for Wallace as a key contractor, basically a mole for the resistance). K was a dummy target with that unique memory implanted - if the secret leaks out, K will be retired (or he dutifully retires himself), saving Ana.

Another theory would be that the process of mating humans and replicants still needs research. Ana was the first "hybrid result" and thus still suffers from immune defects.

Wallace knifing the "new" female replicant could be another such test. He first touches her belly to check if she is pregnant, then kills her in disgust (another failed experiment)?

Also, I love how the sequel still leaves the Deckard human or replicant question open. Was deckard falling for Rachel human love or just code (his dialogue with Wallace just before Rachel appears)?

Also loved how CGI Rachel was done. No uncanny valley here. Close to perfect. Much better than the CGI cameos in Force Awakens.

Finally, as K is dying (or is he, my question above?), he is experiencing real snowflakes. Dr. Ana Stelline, the human, can only experience the fake snowflakes she creates.

- Anything more on the significance of the snowflakes? Is there a special (data) connection between K and Ana - or are the snowflakes just a reference to tears in rain?

I can't be just a coincidence that she's creating snowflakes at the very same moment...

Please only read this final spoiler part if you have seen the movie. I don't want to ruin it for you.

Summary as above: 9/10. Best sequel in ages. On par with T2 and SW Episode V if I stick to Sci-Fi sequels. Even harder to achieve in the case of the Blade Runner after such a long wait and immense anticipation from cult fan base.

Arthouse film visuals with a blockbuster budget. And for anyone complaining about "snail pacing / slow cuts": Same could be said for the original. This is NOT an action flick. This is Blade Runner - sequel stays true to the 1982 original's slow film noir pacing.

Very brave for studio to greenlight the R rating, slow pacing and almost 3 hours of runtime without interference - BR 2049 felt like a directors' cut.

I will go see it again in theaters for sure!

PS: In a tormented twist, fans actually have to hope BR2049 doesn't do too well at the box office (it seems to do a little better than the original, but certainly not a huge hit so far given it's budget). Otherwise, we could get a bad cash grab "BR 3 - Rise of the Replicants" action flick in a few years that destroys the franchise.

 

[JohnGrey]

Summary as above: 9/10. Best sequel in ages. On par with T2 and SW Episode V if I stick to Sci-Fi sequels. Even harder to achieve in the case of the Blade Runner after such a long wait and immense anticipation from cult fan base.

Arthouse film visuals with a blockbuster budget. And for anyone complaining about "snail pacing / slow cuts": Same could be said for the original. This is NOT an action flick. This is Blade Runner - sequel stays true to the a original.

With respect, this is a rubbish statement. All I have heard since the embargo broke was how thought provoking the film is. I've rewatched it twice, just to try to suss out exactly what people were talking about. There's nothing to the film. No questions, no ambiguity. Everything is spelt out in 1000-point font, a fact made all the more irritating since they functionally

Spoiler

retconned the biological dissimilarity between humans and replicants.

. There's no philosophical question to the film any longer; it's become

Spoiler

an absolute bog-standard us-vs-them messiah/redeemer monomyth/Exodus retelling, replete with fevered whispers about miracles. If replicants are just decanted humans, why is everyone so bleeding shocked that they managed to reproduce, even if they never had been able to before, even if they were inhibited by design? If two centuries of Darwinism has taught us anything, it's that any species will always mutate toward fostering reproduction. Conversely, if Wallace's asinine gambit, i.e. that Tyrell intended Deckard and Rachael to meet and breeds replicants capable of reproduction, he was by that same fact dooming the very goal he stated the company had in the first film: commerce. If you want to maintain high margins on a product, and thus make more money, don't make it easier to produce and do not make it capable, even in potential, to be self-perpetuating in the wild. Even if such a replicant were manually sterilised, a Tyrell competitor could buy one and clone a copy whose reproductive capacity is intact.

Don't conflate plotholes with profundity. The original had the exact same problem, it just didn't have to take three bleeding hours to achieve the same affect.

PS: In a tormented twist, fans actually have to hope BR2049 doesn't too well at the box office (it seems to do a little better than the original, but certainly not a huge hit so far given it's budget). Otherwise, we could get a bad cash grab "BR 3 - Rise of the Replicants" action flick in a few years that destroys the franchise.

By all accounts, you're definitely going to get your wish. My hope is that the film flopping will finally kill the remake/belated sequel/adaptation behemoth that has sapped Hollywood of all originality for the past fifteen years.

 

[derbladerunner]

Don't conflate plotholes with profundity. The original had the exact same problem, it just didn't have to take three bleeding hours to achieve the same affect.

Every movie has plot holes if you search for them long enough. But BR is thought-provoking. Both the original and 2049 - the original had a lasting effect on cinema, SF, music videos, anime etc. for decades.

There are very few films that are discussed at university level in various courses. BR is one of them: Architecture, Philosophy, Cinema/Art. Same for scientists in a poll in the UK:

Ridley Scott's Blade Runner is the favourite science fiction film of scientists, according to a poll for the Guardian. Second and third places went to Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey and the first two films of the original Star Wars trilogy.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2004/aug/26/sciencenews.sciencefictionspecial

One of the most interesting SF films along with (if I stick to Western movies) along with Metropolis and 2001. But that's just my opinion.

One either loves the slow pacing of both BR and BR 2049 or doesn't.

By all accounts, you're definitely going to get your wish. My hope is that the film flopping will finally kill the remake/belated sequel/adaptation behemoth that has sapped Hollywood of all originality for the past fifteen years.

9 out of 10 movie critics disagree with you. Rating close to 90% (88% as I write this) on RT:

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/blade_runner_2049

I'm not someone who blindly follows critics or hype (I dislike many cult movies), but just to state a fact: Many people watching movies for a living seem to disagree with your opinion.

I didn't even want to go see BR 2049 until a few weeks ago since I feared another (typical) Hollywood action flick with fast cuts and lots of explosions.

My concern (after watching the trailer) was for another quick cash grab as with most sequels - that is clearly not the case with BR 2049.

That decision alone is worth applauding given the blockbuster budget - the sequel stays true to the original in terms of pace and world-building/attention to visual details, yet innovates on the story.

BR 2049 could indeed meet the same fate as the original BR - loved by (most) movie critics, loved by the dedicated fan base, luke-warm response from mass audience.

I don't care. I got almost 3 hours (more if one counts in the three short stories) after waiting for years and fearing the worst - I'm happy. Very happy.

PS: For anyone who hasn't seen BR 2049. It's worth watching the Final Cut of BR (2007) and the three short films before you watch BR 2049:

(You will find links to the other two shorts on YouTube.)

 

[JohnGrey]

Every movie has plot holes if your search for them long enough. But BR is thought-provoking. Both the original and 2049 - the original had a lasting effect on cinema, SF, music videos, anime etc. for decades.

You say that as though I had to stare very hard at the screen. The holes started at the opening text crawl and didn't stop. By the end of the film, I was practically tripping over them.

There are very few films that are discussed at university level in various courses. BR is one of them: Architecture, Philosophy, Cinema/Art. Same for scientists in a poll in the UK:

One of the most interesting SF films along with (if I stick to Western movies) along with Metropolis and 2001. But that's just my opinion.

There are university courses where they discuss Wiseau's The Room, are we to argue that that makes it a classic as well?

One either loves the slow pacing of both BR and BR 2049 or doesn't.

That's a rather absurd statement because it completely disregards the sustain of the experience. It's why there's an enormous difference in eating a slice of chocolate cake and eating the entire cake in one sitting. The original, despite the places that it impresses, is ponderous and overlong at two hours. Denis Villeneuve managed increase the runtime by 50% despite adding pehaps 10% more 'detective' story. The rest is fan service and visuals. If that's a acceptable way for you to spend an extra hour, brilliant, I'm very glad that it appeals to you. But the faux-intellectual wank that it's somehow this towering feat of post-modern philosophy is akin to pissing on my back and handing me an umbrella whilst we're both in full view of a window showing a sunny day.

But in the interest of fostering rigorous debate instead of letting you regurgitate PR talking points, I reiterate my question: what was thought-provoking about the new one? What did you find mysterious? What did you find profound?

9 out of 10 movie critics disagree with you. Rating close to 90% (88% as I write this) on RT:

The same critics that got it wrong about the original, according to you? Like critics got it wrong about 2001: A Space Odyssey or Ghostbusters 2017 on the flip side of the argument. Because once you admit they're fallible in one instance, they can be at any time. I find it interesting when people are content to use critics as the arbiters of quality only when it suits their argument. As for the public at large, at this point a bit under 1% of the US population saw this film, going by an average $10 ticket cost. We know who those people were and it wasn't John Q. Public. It was the Blade Runner fanbase, tiny as it is, which is why it was rocking a 90% audience score on RT and a CinemaScore of an A-. They were basically 95% of the people that saw it, which is why analysts projected a $50mn open and barely broke $30mn, and why reality is reasserting itself on RT and the audience score has dropped significantly, most probably stabilising in 76 - 81 range. The problem with Blade Runner 2049 is that it's arrived during a truly rubbish time in cinema and thus looks comparatively like a masterpiece, just like the original came out the same year as E.T., Toosie, 48 HRS., The Wrath of Khan, Dark Crystal, Conan The Barbarian, even Tron. It got swallowed. When you average them out, they're two thoroughly middling films on the balance, albeit with some fantastic visuals.

 

[kazmac]

Invincible Fist (1969) - I really like these early Chang Cheh quasi-romantic wu xia and it's great to see Shaw Brothers villain actor Lo Lieh as a good guy who not only gets the girl, but does right by her. Of course David Chiang is also featured as Lo's younger brother and he's showing off some of the charisma, charm and cuteness that would serve him well especially over the subsequent two years.

Good guys defeat bad gang, do their job and get the girl. Cannot go wrong there.

 

[derbladerunner]

You say that as though I had to stare very hard at the screen. The holes started at the opening text crawl and didn't stop. By the end of the film, I was practically tripping over them.
(...)
There are university courses where they discuss Wiseau's The Room, are we to argue that that makes it a classic as well?

You want to seriously compare the influence of The Room (2003 version, that's the only movie I know with that title) to the original Blade Runner versions from 1982 - 2007 (various recuts)?

Blade Runner has spun off courses and influenced creative people (particularly other movies, art work and anime / cyberpunk) all over the world in universities and film schools. The Room? Not aware of any major influence inside the industry or the general public a decade later.

Also, various film critics upgraded their score for the original by the time the Final Cut was released in 2007 (notably Ebert). The film was ahead of its time in 1982, it took time for many viewers (including top critics) to really appreciate it:

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-blade-runner-the-final-cut-1982

Or the attention to detail in visual design that attracts people even today:

https://typesetinthefuture.com/2016/06/19/bladerunner/

Or the Kubrick influence:

(Watch the last link if you have any interested in movies, not just Blade Runner. Great analysis!)

Anyway, to each his own opinion.

I would be more interested in feedback from other readers regarding the spoiler questions I raised earlier for the sequel.

 

[Huntn]

You want to seriously compare the influence of The Room (2003 version, that's the only movie I know with that title) to the original Blade Runner versions from 1982 - 2007 (various recuts)?

Blade Runner has spun off courses and influenced creative people (particularly other movies, art work and anime / cyberpunk) all over the world in universities and film schools. The Room? Not aware of any major influence inside the industry or the general public a decade later.

Also, various film critics upgraded their score for the original by the time the Final Cut was released in 2007 (notably Ebert). The film was ahead of its time in 1982, it took time for many viewers (including top critics) to really appreciate it:

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-blade-runner-the-final-cut-1982

Or the attention to detail in visual design that attracts people even today:

https://typesetinthefuture.com/2016/06/19/bladerunner/

Or the Kubrick influence:

(Watch the last link if you have any interested in movies, not just Blade Runner. Great analysis!)

Anyway, to each his own opinion.

I would be more interested in feedback from other readers regarding the spoiler questions I raised earlier for the sequel.

I like the review link!

 

[Apple fanboy]

Well not yet! But just purchased tickets for opening night!
Will be the highlight of my month.

 

[obeygiant]

I saw Blade Runner 2049. I thought it was fantastic!


That "Joi" hologram.. gotta get me one of those.

 

[Huntn]

Blade Runner 2049- It's one of those movies I'll need to watch again, before I can say I like it. If interested, see my post in the Blade Runner thread.

​

[doublepost=1507673205][/doublepost]

I saw Blade Runner 2049. I thought it was fantastic!


That "Joi" hologram.. gotta get me one of those.

I'll give Joi a big thumbs up!

Blade Runner 2049’ Is a Stylish but Hollow Spectacle

 

[derbladerunner]

Blade Runner 2049- It's one of those movies I'll need to watch again, before I can say I like it. If interested, see my post in the Blade Runner thread

I agree. This movie needs to be watched more than once (if you liked it the first time, otherwise I guess nobody will spend close to 3 hours again, LOL). Will respond with more plot details in the Ford / Blade Runner thread.

As I have written before, this is a 2017 release (like Dunkirk) that begs to be experienced in theaters.

If both Dunkirk and Blade Runner 2049 don't win a ton of audio/visual awards, one can close down all these award shows ;-)

 

[0388631]

Clue (1985)

I'd forgotten how good this movie was.

 

[kazmac]

Revisited The Vengeful Beauty (1978) a semi sequel to The Flying Guillotine. Chen Ping's "Bloody Hibiscus" goes on a rampage against the officials when they deploy the feared weapon against those she loves. She stars alongside Yueh Hua again (they were terrific together), and Lo Lieh, who is great as usual. I prefer this film over the original and its sequel.

And there's some warped sight gags (such as after the Guillotine is used the scene cuts to the Hall of Mental Cultivation... .)

 

[pachyderm]

 

[Huntn]

Baby Driver (2017)- A young man drives the get away car for multiple heists. The driving was good, but Rotten Tomatoes let me down. High critic and audience reviews, but it just did not click for me. I did not like any of the characters and constant music droning in the background.

 

[0388631]

It's going to be a pretty forgettable film in the future.

 

[kazmac]

Baby Driver (2017)- A young man drives the get away car for multiple heists. The driving was good, but Rotten Tomatoes let me down. High critic and audience reviews, but it just did not click for me. I did not like any of the characters and constant music droning in the background.

Politely asking: Why bother with Rotten Tomatoes anyway? Why not go by footage/trailers and your own feelings?

​

Last night, managed to get through my favorite zombie movie again, The Living Dead at the Manchester Morgue (a.k.a. Let Sleeping Corpses Lie, 1974) and it still scares me. Yes, it's a neat youth vs. elder riff on Romero's Night of the Living Dead in color no less (It gets quite graphic in the gore department.)

Anyway, upscale hippies George and Edna meet as a result of her car slamming into his motorcycle at a local gas station. George was about to go on holiday with some friends, but without his bike is stuck with Edna who nervously has to check on in her heroin addled sister in some little remote town.

In the midst of all this, scientists are using a new radiation machine that drives insects insane and makes them kill each other. It works within a mile radius of said remote town and we're told "It works on lesser evolved nervous systems"...well, that includes the newly dead within that mile radius. Soon zombies are making a right awful mess and killing people including Edna's brother-in-law. In comes a fascist police inspector who naturally presumes George and Edna are killing innocent people (because they're hippies.) all this collides with the mounting numbers of undead, and the us versus them of the young couple against the police. It ends with a very Twilight Zone like moment that I think is brilliant, despite not wanting that outcome.

Having seen this a ridiculous amount of times now, it would be many more screenings IF the atmosphere, sound effects and all around dread weren't kicked up to 11. It's interesting that a lot of folks say certain movies wouldn't be scary without sound, music, and I think this film would still qualify because of the amount of dread oozing off the screen during certain sequences. It's official: stick your characters in a crypt and make it creepy, cue my squirming a lot.

 

[Huntn]

Politely asking: Why bother with Rotten Tomatoes anyway? Why not go by footage/trailers and your own feelings?

View attachment 725499​

Last night, managed to get through my favorite zombie movie again, The Living Dead at the Manchester Morgue (a.k.a. Let Sleeping Corpses Lie, 1974) and it still scares me. Yes, it's a neat youth vs. elder riff on Romero's Night of the Living Dead in color no less (It gets quite graphic in the gore department.)

Anyway, upscale hippies George and Edna meet as a result of her car slamming into his motorcycle at a local gas station. George was about to go on holiday with some friends, but without his bike is stuck with Edna who nervously has to check on in her heroin addled sister in some little remote town.

In the midst of all this scientists are using a new radiation machine that drives insects insane and makes them kill each other. It works within a mile radius of said remote town and we're told "It works on lesser evolved nervous systems"...well, that includes the newly dead within that mile radius. Soon zombies are making a right awful mess and killing people including Edna's brother-in-law. In comes a fascist police inspector who of course presumes George and Edna are killing innocent people (because they're hippies.) This all collides with the mounting numbers of undead and the us versus them of the young couple against the police. It ends with a very Twilight Zone like moment that I think is brilliant despite not wanting that outcome.

Having seen this a ridiculous amount of times now, it would be many more screenings IF the atmosphere, sound effects and all around dread weren't kicked up to 11. It's interesting that a lot folks say certain movies wouldn't be scary without sound, music, and I think this film would still qualify because of the amount of dread oozing off the screen during certain sequences. It's official: stick your characters in a crypt and make it creepy, cue my squirming a lot.

I saw trailers for the movie and I do get a feeling when I watch a trailer, while recognizing that trailers are mostly meant to deceive. From the trailer for this movie, I ranked it as a “maybe”. Trailers for me can decide a movie as a “no” for theater viewing, but in most cases, more info is needed and for streaming, less expense, the bar is lower. I use sites such as RT and IMDB to reinforce a decision to watch. It shakes me when a movie gets a 90% favorable, but I end up not liking it.

 

[D.T.]

Baby Driver (2017)- A young man drives the get away car for multiple heists. The driving was good, but Rotten Tomatoes let me down. High critic and audience reviews, but it just did not click for me. I did not like any of the characters and constant music droning in the background.

Totally dug on it.

I'd say people will enjoy if it too, if they're into something that's creative mix of QT-esque dialog, dark comedy, 40s noir, caper films - punctuated by music, in a life-as-a-soundtrack sort of execution - all helmed by the talented Edgar Wright (in fact, I felt it had a super stylized not unlike Scott Pilgrim vs. TW).

 

[Huntn]

Totally dug on it.

I'd say people will enjoy if it too, if they're into something that's creative mix of QT-esque dialog, dark comedy, 40s noir, caper films - punctuated by music, in a life-as-a-soundtrack sort of execution - all helmed by the talented Edgar Wright (in fact, I felt it had a super stylized not unlike Scott Pilgrim vs. TW).

Drowned in music, which was hit and miss. Now that you mention it, too stylized for me.

 

[kazmac]

I saw trailers for the movie and I do get a feeling when I watch a trailer, while recognizing that trailers are mostly meant to deceive. From the trailer for this movie, I ranked it as a “maybe”. Trailers for me can decide a movie as a “no” for theater viewing, but in most cases, more info is needed and for streaming, less expense, the bar is lower. I use sites such as RT and IMDB to reinforce a decision to watch. It shakes me when a movie gets a 90% favorable, but I end up not liking it.

Excellent points, thanks for clarifying. Best case example of misdirect is that current Last Jedi trailer. There have been plenty of movies that have been praised that I wind up not liking. No shame in that.

 

[Huntn]

Excellent points, thanks for clarifying. Best case example of misdirect is that current Last Jedi trailer. There have been plenty of movies that have been praised that I wind up not liking. No shame in that.

Passengers (movie) is a ideal example of a trailer designed to mislead, implying there was intrigue when there was none. It was a relationship movie set in space.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Lord of the Ring:Fellowship of the ring.

 

[kazmac]

Passengers (movie) is a ideal example of a trailer designed to mislead, implying there was intrigue when there was none. It was a relationship movie set in space.

True. Passengers looked boring to me: it was an easy skip because of my Jennifer Lawrence allergy too. But then, given my need for (almost) total escapism when I watch movies that one did not pass the test from the footage I've seen.

Renting Michele Soavi's Stage Fright (a.k.a. The Bloody Bird, Aquarius) right now. Apparently all Blue Underground giallos are .99 to rent @itunes, so it's been a while since I've seen this bit of gory, some what O.T.T. ridiculousness.