Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!
vandeleur (01-08-2016)
Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!
I now want a drink of Guinness , obviously
Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!
Anonymous (01-08-2016)
Rutger is less scary as an old lady, but I still wouldn't piss him off.
Yeah, he shows up unexpectedly. First comment of the interview I posted:
Another:Reb3nga 2 months ago
I saw him about ten years ago.
He ordered a coffee at the bar where I was working. I was stunned since I did not expect to see him at that time and place.
He noticed it, winked, smiled and thanked me for the coffee.
Truly a modest and polite man. I can say I'm honoured to have served him.
See? Now tell me that's not scary. You're hanging out, all of a sudden Rutger Hauer is there, looking at you with his cold blue eyes. And you know you have to meet his stare, because if you show weakness, you're dead. But you also know you'll lose. He won't blink or look away first.Marc Swart 4 weeks ago
+Reb3nga I had a similar experience. In 1989 I had bought a new motorbike and went to the dealer to pick it up. Outside stood a big white motorhome.
There where two new bikes outside standing next to eachother; Mine, a full on sports bike and an all white huge Honda Goldwing with all bells and whistles and a little trailer in the same livery.
I stood bend over my new pride and joy looking at all the details when I heard a voice saying 'nice bike you have'. Looking up I directly stared in the face of Rutger Hauer. All I could say was 'you too' (he was a youth hero of mine playing in a tv serie Floris in 1969 so it was a bit of a big deal to meet him). Then we shatted a while about our bikes and his big motorhome (which could store the Goldwing btw). Very friendly gentle man. Very nice to have met him.
Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!
Anonymous (01-08-2016)
I think from memory he improvised a lot of his shit including that famous bit at the end.
Maybe that is a false implanted memory, it's too late on a Friday night to google it...
Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!
What's threatening about a guy who's like 80???? His breath??
Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!
ZahZoo (01-09-2016)
It does seem odd he's signed up for Indiana Jones and Blade Runner sequels.
Like hiring the assisted-living people to look badass...
WTF? I'm people from 1982... we are not laughing.
Just shaking our heads wondering why idiots keep wasting time and money recycling mediocre movie plots that weren't all that great the first time around..? It's time to turn off the recycling machine in Hollywood... enough already!!
Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!
Terry (07-20-2017)
I've stopped watching trailers where possible especially #2s and #3s.
The teaser trailers aren't too bad but then it gets ridiculous with the people selling the movie happy to show the end, all the best lines, anything to make you go spoiling it to fuckery.
I would probably be going to this just based on the directors last 2 films, Blade Runner or not.
Not something you would say about Ridley Scott these days who understandably at 80 seems to have lost some of his powers in the last 10 years...
I thought Prometheus was okay. Alien Covenant a little less so.
Scott hasn't lost much ability far as cinematography and atmospherics goes.
The thing with Blade Runner was that he had that great Philip K. Dick book ('Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?') from which multiple screenplay drafts had been crafted prior to him even signing on to the film as his starting point when he took on Blade Runner. He doesn't have that advantage with this film.
As mentioned in the thread, more than a few films these days suffer from a lack of decent writers/story ideas providing decent input in the pre-production stages. The idea seems to be that if you blow the viewer away with CGI and stunt action, they won't notice things like plot holes, continuity problems with the storyline or trite dialogue chock full of clichés.
From the trailers I have seen, it looks like it will be visually stunning. However, I think I saw Jared Leto in one of them, and that's not necessarily a good sign far as I'm concerned (I think the guy is an overacting ham and a hack).
However, Blade Runner 2 is really the only movie being released this year that I'm making a point of going to see in the theater. I'm going to temper my expectations and not mentally compare and contrast it with the first movie while I'm watching it, and try to enjoy it on its own terms...as much as one can with a sequel, anyway.
Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!
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.
Dunkirk is getting great reviews but again I doubt it's a great story.
Just got back from BR2049. Pretty good movie. Looks great. Too long at 2 hours and 43 minutes though.
Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!
Fuck that is getting Stella reviews ...... even with that chirpy happy Ford in it.
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...
Last edited by Nickdfresh; 10-08-2017 at 02:21 PM.
Biggest compliment I can give it is it didn’t seem that long ... it was good honest
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...
Last edited by Nickdfresh; 10-09-2017 at 11:24 PM.
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.
Nickdfresh (10-15-2017)
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.
its how they made prince, true story
Saw BR 2049. It was good as could be expected. The BladeRunner world was not going to get any better. No sunny skies and happy times, so this movie felt about right.
It is a shame it was not released in IMAX 3D in the US.
But, no matter. Worth seeing on a big screen if you can still catch it.
Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!
It wasn't released in IMAX 3D in the US?
Weird, because I could have sworn it was available in that format at my local AMC multiplex if one wanted to see it in that format. Which isn't to say you're wrong: I could well be mistaken.
I saw it in regular IMAX (not a fan of 3D anyway), and would agree 100% it is totally worth seeing on a big screen. The cinematography is THAT good.
I think overall it turned out well. Quite a bit better than I expected it would. I think from the screenplay to the locations/direction, the makers of the film managed to create something that wasn't a slavish retread of Blade Runner and was very interesting and visually stunning on its own terms.
That the box office for it didn't match whatever 100 million dollar expectations movie critics had in terms of that being the sole metric re: a "success" didn't matter one bit to me. The last time I looked at a list of films over the past decade that broke 100 million on their opening weekend, I found I had no use for virtually every film on the list. Mostly because I have little to no use for Marvel/DC superhero movies or animated "safe for children but funny for adults" flicks.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)