What a pointless, boring, overrated sequel. Even though I really like the first, I'm not going to say I'm a fan, as I know the fan base for the original are proper hardcore fans, but even I feel insulted by this movie.
Firstly, however, it's in no way a poorly directed film. It's stunning, it's competent, that's all fine. There are some scenes that could easily be trimmed, but apart from that, it's fine in that department.
The film doesn't look like the original. As expected, there are a lot of scenes set outside of the city, but even the city scenes didn't feel like the original. Everything seemed much cleaner and much more sterile than the original.
The fan service feels way too forced. Firstly, there's a de aged Sean Young, because, the technology is there, so why not, even if it's unnecessary. Harrison Ford has been brought back, probably because, despite what people say, it's in no way a direct follow up to the original. Deckard is the only major role continued over, but the thing is, there is no required development; every aspect of his development in this film has been created for this film. There's nothing continued from the original, no points that were left unresolved in the original. He's become a father in the meantime, and his whole involvement in this plot could be given to anybody in the universe - the only reason it's happened to Deckard is because he was the main character in the original. There's nothing unresolved from the first film, so there's nothing to be answered here, except for what has been created for this film.
One of the scenes that annoyed me most was the fight between Gosling and Ford. Gosling turns up, says he's only here to ask questions, but Ford starts fighting him. After a while, Ford is punching Gosling, and Gosling isn't fighting back, because he doesn't want to. And then Ford says, "Are we going to do this all day, or should we get a drink?" That doesn't make sense. It's the character who doesn't want to be fighting that should say that line - it doesn't make sense for a character who wants to fight to say this. Ford could have stopped beating up Gosling at any time, yet he asks him this question as if he wants Gosling to stop. It's obviously just a case of not knowing how to end the scene.
Contrary to what anyone will have you to believe, the love interest of Gosling is solely there to give Gosling a reason to go after the bad guy (or should I say woman). His love interest doesn't offer anything to the plot, she doesn't help in anyway, except for convincing Gosling he's the kid, which he quickly ignores anyway. She's there to be killed, to put it bluntly.
Near the end, Gosling's character isn't given any clear motivation for his actions. As a replicant, he's saved by a bunch of other replicants who are trying to start a revolution. They tell him to kill Deckard for some reason, which he seems to agree with, and then, after seeing an advert for his hologram love interest, just decides not to kill Deckard. So Deckard can see his daughter.
Which brings us to the most frustrating ending this movie could have possibly picked. For an hour, I wanted it to end, and then when it does, it needs to carry on. There's no resolution to the overall plot; only the subplot of the kid being Deckard's. Jared Leto's villain is still hanging around, presumably still hunting down Deckard and the kid, but we don't get to see that. It's like if Goldfinger just stopped dead and credits rolled when Oddjob is killed.
Honestly, I can't believe the praise this film is getting. I couldn't believe it.
Currently watching an absolute classic today, The Italian Job.
Not the clumsy remake but the original, Noel Coward as Mr Bridger is brilliantly amusing, the cars, the clothes the soundtrack all fantastic. The low points are that they actually destroyed those beautiful Astons, E types, lamborghini and Maserati.
I actually like the remake but then again, it is the one I grew up with.
The MINI jump looked as cool today as it looked back then.
Fun fact: they actually converted the MINIs to electric motors due to some regulation or something.
It's OK the remake as an actioneer dirty Punker but it misses the feel and vibe of the original, the Italian job is much much more than minis and and a star studded cast imho
I've got it on download, I win credits from the Xperia lounge and use them to buy and download my favourite classic films like this and Kellys heroes, where eagles dare etc.
Without going in to every part, here are a few of my ideas .....
Charlie Croker , played by Daniel Craig
Mr. Bridger , by Ray Winston but as a "Camp" villain. He's so macho, I'm sure he love the chance.
Professor Simon Peach , by Leigh Francis ( Keith Lemon )
Did a quick look at the IMDB page on the Italian Job and thought it funny, that They had to Buy the Minis
as Austin Morris wouldn't give them any, Yet Fiat was happy to supply hundreds of cars, and all the Noël Coward scenes had to be filmed in Dublin for tax reasons.
Did a quick look at the IMDB page on the Italian Job and thought it funny, that They had to Buy the Minis
as Austin Morris wouldn't give them any, Yet Fiat was happy to supply hundreds of cars, and all the Noël Coward scenes had to be filmed in Dublin for tax reasons.
Without going in to every part, here are a few of my ideas .....
Charlie Croker , played by Daniel Craig
Mr. Bridger , by Ray Winston but as a "Camp" villain. He's so macho, I'm sure he love the chance.
Professor Simon Peach , by Leigh Francis ( Keith Lemon )
Did a quick look at the IMDB page on the Italian Job and thought it funny, that They had to Buy the Minis
as Austin Morris wouldn't give them any, Yet Fiat was happy to supply hundreds of cars, and all the Noël Coward scenes had to be filmed in Dublin for tax reasons.
That's some really good idea as - and the only one of them I thought of was Daniel Craig!
It's been a few years since I saw the original, but I think Jamie Bell and Billie Piper might work in a remade.
Last night I watched The Accountant. This really had some potential--Ben Affleck as a severely autistic math genius who has turned to money laundering and assassination. Unfortunately, the story had me asking "huh?" a lot, and the "twist" at the end is so obvious even M. Night Shyamalan wouldn't have dreamed it up.
Yes, the twist was very obvious. I also think Ben Affleck's character got less and less autistic as the movie progressed. I still enjoyed the movie, though.
Hardyboy you're such a killjoy!
I'm currently watching the hobbit the battle of the five armies
I studied Tolkien back in the day and read the books on an almost annual basis, I enjoyed the lotr trilogy, and the hobbit trilogy is more of the same if more cgi reliant and it misses the acting gravitas of the first 3 movies, however good fun and completely entertaining. Ian McKellen would make a terrific bond villain.
Saw BR2049 at Manchester Imax last night. As a fan of the 1982 version and the 2007 Final Cut, I was expecting to be grossly disappointed and let down, but I went with an open mind.
Firstly, I have to say that Vue taking over the Imax is not a good move - the building looks semi-derelict now - far better when Odeon were in charge. However, I'm not impressed by the Odeon Trafford Imax, which isn't really a proper Imax and is barely better than my home cinema (in fact my own sound system is better).
Anyway, the film:
Staggering in its ambition and probably the best movie I've seen in 30 years.
If Villeneuve is in the frame for B25, then as long as he brings Gassner and Deakins along, then it may well be the best Bond ever.
If you've not seen BR2049 in Imax, then you've not really seen it. The scale and pace of the film together with the way the audio flips from delicate to violent can only be fully enjoyed on the biggest of screens and if you're waiting to see it when it comes on blu ray or dvd, then forget it.
The Equalizer, still a great film and The Blitz, a serial killer is shooting police officers in London
and Jason Statham has to catch him. An entertaining thriller.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Carrington VC, called Court Martial in America to avoid connotations with VD.
Stars David Niven, namechecked by Ian Fleming in his novel You Only Live Twice, who also made a 5 second cameo in spy spoof The Road to Hong Kong and of course starred in bona fide Bond film Casino Royale. Also Bond almuni Geoffrey Keen back in the days when he was called upon to really act, and 10 years before Born Free.
Talking Pictures channel is showing these kinds of films a lot, it's a good channel but don't know why the BBC doesn't show this stuff anymore.
This was good stuff, a solid drama. Niven was a good actor but like Hugh Grant there was a hollowness about him that meant he was better when surrounded by other interesting characters rather than somehow carrying a film all by himself.
Dial M for Mash-up
Bizarre 50s film in which Hitchcock cast Roger Moore in this curio, as a playboy former tennis player who decides to bump off his wife Grace Jones, because she insists on playing her ghetto blaster loudly every morning. He runs into Professor Dent quite by chance. 'Didn't I kill you?' purrs Moore. 'No, that was Sean Connery' points out Dent. 'Plus that's in a few years time...' However, when the time comes, it is naturally Grace Jones who garrots Dent with a stocking. That said, she is sent to the gallows because they were all racist back then.
The trailer looked promising and it had a nice feel to it but it did feel a bit clichéd. Guess we'll have to wait and see.
Opinions here on American Made?
Last night I watched The Accountant. This really had some potential--Ben Affleck as a severely autistic math genius who has turned to money laundering and assassination. Unfortunately, the story had me asking "huh?" a lot, and the "twist" at the end is so obvious even M. Night Shyamalan wouldn't have dreamed it up.
Never saw it all the way through but I have got to praise Affleck's performance here.
I forgot to mention that I re-watched my favourite Bourne; Ultimatum.
Well paced but a bit too fast. It felt a bit short by the end of it all.
I also saw Tower Heist quite recently. It's ok.
Not as good as I remembered it to be.
The trailer looked promising and it had a nice feel to it but it did feel a bit clichéd. Guess we'll have to wait and see.
Opinions here on American Made?
I liked it. It was playfull and Tom Cruise plays a human being for once.
Excellent film, but large chunks of it bear a very strong resemblance to Stephen King's Firestarter- I'm wondering if his lawyers have been writing letters.... Anyway, a wonderful performance from Patrick Stewart (of course) and a reassuring change of tone for the superhero movie.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,769Chief of Staff
Early reviews of "The Snowman" after screenings for movie critics here in Norway are bad, very bad.
Hmmm...do you think it’s because Norwegian critics are annoyed it’s been remade with Hollywood(?) money...?...so it’s seen as almost ‘being taken out of Norwegian hands’...?...or just because it’s crap...? )
Comments
What a pointless, boring, overrated sequel. Even though I really like the first, I'm not going to say I'm a fan, as I know the fan base for the original are proper hardcore fans, but even I feel insulted by this movie.
Firstly, however, it's in no way a poorly directed film. It's stunning, it's competent, that's all fine. There are some scenes that could easily be trimmed, but apart from that, it's fine in that department.
The film doesn't look like the original. As expected, there are a lot of scenes set outside of the city, but even the city scenes didn't feel like the original. Everything seemed much cleaner and much more sterile than the original.
The fan service feels way too forced. Firstly, there's a de aged Sean Young, because, the technology is there, so why not, even if it's unnecessary. Harrison Ford has been brought back, probably because, despite what people say, it's in no way a direct follow up to the original. Deckard is the only major role continued over, but the thing is, there is no required development; every aspect of his development in this film has been created for this film. There's nothing continued from the original, no points that were left unresolved in the original. He's become a father in the meantime, and his whole involvement in this plot could be given to anybody in the universe - the only reason it's happened to Deckard is because he was the main character in the original. There's nothing unresolved from the first film, so there's nothing to be answered here, except for what has been created for this film.
One of the scenes that annoyed me most was the fight between Gosling and Ford. Gosling turns up, says he's only here to ask questions, but Ford starts fighting him. After a while, Ford is punching Gosling, and Gosling isn't fighting back, because he doesn't want to. And then Ford says, "Are we going to do this all day, or should we get a drink?" That doesn't make sense. It's the character who doesn't want to be fighting that should say that line - it doesn't make sense for a character who wants to fight to say this. Ford could have stopped beating up Gosling at any time, yet he asks him this question as if he wants Gosling to stop. It's obviously just a case of not knowing how to end the scene.
Contrary to what anyone will have you to believe, the love interest of Gosling is solely there to give Gosling a reason to go after the bad guy (or should I say woman). His love interest doesn't offer anything to the plot, she doesn't help in anyway, except for convincing Gosling he's the kid, which he quickly ignores anyway. She's there to be killed, to put it bluntly.
Near the end, Gosling's character isn't given any clear motivation for his actions. As a replicant, he's saved by a bunch of other replicants who are trying to start a revolution. They tell him to kill Deckard for some reason, which he seems to agree with, and then, after seeing an advert for his hologram love interest, just decides not to kill Deckard. So Deckard can see his daughter.
Which brings us to the most frustrating ending this movie could have possibly picked. For an hour, I wanted it to end, and then when it does, it needs to carry on. There's no resolution to the overall plot; only the subplot of the kid being Deckard's. Jared Leto's villain is still hanging around, presumably still hunting down Deckard and the kid, but we don't get to see that. It's like if Goldfinger just stopped dead and credits rolled when Oddjob is killed.
Honestly, I can't believe the praise this film is getting. I couldn't believe it.
Not the clumsy remake but the original, Noel Coward as Mr Bridger is brilliantly amusing, the cars, the clothes the soundtrack all fantastic. The low points are that they actually destroyed those beautiful Astons, E types, lamborghini and Maserati.
The MINI jump looked as cool today as it looked back then.
Fun fact: they actually converted the MINIs to electric motors due to some regulation or something.
I keep wishing it had been remade as a British comedy/thriller Just think of the cast it could
have had.
Charlie Croker , played by Daniel Craig
Mr. Bridger , by Ray Winston but as a "Camp" villain. He's so macho, I'm sure he love the chance.
Professor Simon Peach , by Leigh Francis ( Keith Lemon )
Did a quick look at the IMDB page on the Italian Job and thought it funny, that They had to Buy the Minis
as Austin Morris wouldn't give them any, Yet Fiat was happy to supply hundreds of cars, and all the Noël Coward scenes had to be filmed in Dublin for tax reasons.
Another fantastic old movie which could be made again, The League of Gentlemen -{
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052997/
:v :v :v
That's some really good idea as - and the only one of them I thought of was Daniel Craig!
It's been a few years since I saw the original, but I think Jamie Bell and Billie Piper might work in a remade.
Last night I watched The Accountant. This really had some potential--Ben Affleck as a severely autistic math genius who has turned to money laundering and assassination. Unfortunately, the story had me asking "huh?" a lot, and the "twist" at the end is so obvious even M. Night Shyamalan wouldn't have dreamed it up.
I'm currently watching the hobbit the battle of the five armies
I studied Tolkien back in the day and read the books on an almost annual basis, I enjoyed the lotr trilogy, and the hobbit trilogy is more of the same if more cgi reliant and it misses the acting gravitas of the first 3 movies, however good fun and completely entertaining. Ian McKellen would make a terrific bond villain.
Firstly, I have to say that Vue taking over the Imax is not a good move - the building looks semi-derelict now - far better when Odeon were in charge. However, I'm not impressed by the Odeon Trafford Imax, which isn't really a proper Imax and is barely better than my home cinema (in fact my own sound system is better).
Anyway, the film:
Staggering in its ambition and probably the best movie I've seen in 30 years.
If Villeneuve is in the frame for B25, then as long as he brings Gassner and Deakins along, then it may well be the best Bond ever.
If you've not seen BR2049 in Imax, then you've not really seen it. The scale and pace of the film together with the way the audio flips from delicate to violent can only be fully enjoyed on the biggest of screens and if you're waiting to see it when it comes on blu ray or dvd, then forget it.
and Jason Statham has to catch him. An entertaining thriller.
Stars David Niven, namechecked by Ian Fleming in his novel You Only Live Twice, who also made a 5 second cameo in spy spoof The Road to Hong Kong and of course starred in bona fide Bond film Casino Royale. Also Bond almuni Geoffrey Keen back in the days when he was called upon to really act, and 10 years before Born Free.
Talking Pictures channel is showing these kinds of films a lot, it's a good channel but don't know why the BBC doesn't show this stuff anymore.
This was good stuff, a solid drama. Niven was a good actor but like Hugh Grant there was a hollowness about him that meant he was better when surrounded by other interesting characters rather than somehow carrying a film all by himself.
Dial M for Mash-up
Bizarre 50s film in which Hitchcock cast Roger Moore in this curio, as a playboy former tennis player who decides to bump off his wife Grace Jones, because she insists on playing her ghetto blaster loudly every morning. He runs into Professor Dent quite by chance. 'Didn't I kill you?' purrs Moore. 'No, that was Sean Connery' points out Dent. 'Plus that's in a few years time...' However, when the time comes, it is naturally Grace Jones who garrots Dent with a stocking. That said, she is sent to the gallows because they were all racist back then.
I do enjoy coming on this site.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Opinions here on American Made?
Damn - had high hopes for this one
I forgot to mention that I re-watched my favourite Bourne; Ultimatum.
Well paced but a bit too fast. It felt a bit short by the end of it all.
I also saw Tower Heist quite recently. It's ok.
Not as good as I remembered it to be.
I liked it. It was playfull and Tom Cruise plays a human being for once.
Excellent film, but large chunks of it bear a very strong resemblance to Stephen King's Firestarter- I'm wondering if his lawyers have been writing letters.... Anyway, a wonderful performance from Patrick Stewart (of course) and a reassuring change of tone for the superhero movie.
Hmmm...do you think it’s because Norwegian critics are annoyed it’s been remade with Hollywood(?) money...?...so it’s seen as almost ‘being taken out of Norwegian hands’...?...or just because it’s crap...?