Harrison Ford Confirmed For Blade Runner 2

[twonabomber]

I don't care much for Leto. Seems like a lot of bloggers are complaining about Ryan Gosling being in it too.

The Martian was a great looking movie, but it also had a decent story. Story may be the weak part of BR2.

[Seshmeister]

Dunkirk is getting great reviews but again I doubt it's a great story.

[twonabomber]

Just got back from BR2049. Pretty good movie. Looks great. Too long at 2 hours and 43 minutes though.

[Nickdfresh]

Dunkirk is getting great reviews but again I doubt it's a great story.

It wasn't, but I like it anyway...

[twonabomber]

Just got back from BR2049. Pretty good movie. Looks great. Too long at 2 hours and 43 minutes though.

And daylight scenes in a Blade Runner movie...odd.

[vandeleur]

Fuck that is getting Stella reviews ...... even with that chirpy happy Ford in it.

[Seshmeister]

It wasn't, but I like it anyway...

Yeah I posted that before seeing Dunkirk, I thought it was great.

I'll catch the BR movie later in the week, 2 hours 43 sounds too long, with me topping up my cokes with vodka I'll be drunk by the end of it.

[Nickdfresh]

Yeah I posted that before seeing Dunkirk, I thought it was great.

I'll catch the BR movie later in the week, 2 hours 43 sounds too long, with me topping up my cokes with vodka I'll be drunk by the end of it.

LOL at a proper theatre? I was wondering if any are starting to serve liquor, wine, or beer locally. I know it's becoming a trend in some places here...

[Terry]

Just got back from BR2049. Pretty good movie. Looks great. Too long at 2 hours and 43 minutes though.

Yeah, I hadn't realized it was going to be that long, and nearly 3 hours is quite a long time to sit in a theater: once I recline back in the chair, I'll probably end up falling asleep.

I'll probably see it next weekend.

[Nickdfresh]

I really don't mind longer films at all...

Dunkirk for instance wasn't long enough and should have shown so much more than a couple shirker coward douches, and Mad Max flying around in a Spit, as representing the BEF & the French Army during the evacuation. But that's another thread...

[vandeleur]

Biggest compliment I can give it is it didn’t seem that long ... it was good honest

[Terry]

I really don't mind longer films at all...

Dunkirk for instance wasn't long enough and should have shown so much more than a couple shirker coward douches, and Mad Max flying around in a Spit, as representing the BEF & the French Army during the evacuation. But that's another thread...

I don't mind longer films, either, as long as they end up actually being better for having been longer.

[Nickdfresh]

I saw it and enjoyed it. I don't think the actual film not counting credits is two hours, forty-three minutes. The film is beautiful and darkly depressing yet with flashes of ironic humor (I noticed the neon corporate ads get more absurd as the film goes on with Sony and Coca-Cola being replaced by defunct companies like Pan Am and Atari). I did not find anything very complicated about the plot and think people are being lazy in not seeing this film because they might have to work a bit to keep up...

Apparently, despite overwhelming critical and audience approval, it isn't doing very well. I don't think the original did well in theaters either, but wish it was because I'd like to see quality and thoughtfulness rewarded as it's rare in the sea of Hollywood shit. I liked the ending with the parallels, and a muted nod to, Rutger Hauer's soliloquy...

[Terry]

I saw it and enjoyed it. I don't think the actual film not counting credits is two hours, forty-three minutes. The film is beautiful and darkly depressing yet with flashes of ironic humor (I noticed the neon corporate ads get more absurd as the film goes on with Sony and Coca-Cola being replaced by defunct companies like Pan Am and Atari). I did not find anything very complicated about the plot and think people are being lazy in not seeing this film because they might have to work a bit to keep up...

Apparently, despite overwhelming critical and audience approval, it isn't doing very well. I don't think the original did well in theaters either, but wish it was because I'd like to see quality and thoughtfulness rewarded as it's rare in the sea of Hollywood shit. I liked the ending with the parallels, and a muted nod to, Rutger Hauer's soliloquy...

I was happily surprised with it.

I thought it did a very good job of managing a balancing act between whatever expectations hardcore Blade Runner fans may have had and being compelling in its own right. It retained the spirit of the original without being a slavish copy: it built upon the original story rather than submitting to mere mimicry.

I thought the new visuals were interesting on their own terms even with obvious homages to the original being sprinkled throughout the picture. The story had some nice twists to it. Much like the first Blade Runner, I thought some of the more interesting parts had to do with futuristic gadgetry that didn't seem inconceivable in terms of things that a reasonable person could imagine having a realistic chance of being built not too many years from now.

The odd part was that the only clunkiness in the sequel for me started to creep in when Harrison Ford/Deckard came into the story: I think an interesting sequel could have been made without Ford's direct participation as an aged Deckard - perhaps even more interesting, truth be told - but rather with just spoken references to the Deckard character.

While the sequel wasn't the quantum leap in terms of cinematic visuals that the original was, the sequel DID use modern CGI in a very effective way: this sequel didn't feel like ten million other movies I've seen before when watching it.

I think it was about as good as anyone could have reasonably expected given the time elapsed between the original being released 35 years ago and the million + ways this sequel could have went wrong. Yeah, the box office isn't exactly lighting the world on fire in terms of US domestic theatrical gross for the first two weeks. Neither did the original, which my father took me to see in 1982 instead of E.T. (the film I wanted to see but he refused to, mostly because he has never had a tolerance for middle-of-the-road pap). I saw it in non 3-D IMAX today at 11AM in a theater that seats maybe 200 and there were 6 people there including myself. Granted, it was playing in two other theaters in #D IMAX and regular release, but it doesn't have many showings due to length.

It is nearly 3 hours long - perhaps too long for younger audiences to be expected to have their phones turned off - plus the original was made so long ago that despite the cult status of Blade Runner it'd be hard for me to imagine masses of movie audiences under the age of 40 who have even seen it unless it was recently, thus they have no context for how visually stunning the original was in 1982. In addition, it's not non-stop mindless action with Mark Wahlberg or The Rock, where you don't have to remain particularly focused on those types of movies to get what you're gonna get out of them. Quite the opposite, in that the harder you focus on modern action movies, the less you get out of them if you think too hard about what you're watching, whereas with this Blade Runner sequel the more intently you view it the more you get out of it. Most people going to the movies want something mindless that hands the experience to them in an easy-to-digest form that requires no thought at all. That's why so many movies these days seem like they are made for the functionally retarded...because they ARE made for the functionally retarded, and rightfully so, because most people (I am convinced) ARE functionally retarded.

[twonabomber]

I went Thursday night at 8:20 pm, there were five of us in the theater. I figured it wouldn't be busy, with Thursday football and an Indians playoff game on TV. Weather was nice, too.