Search
Nicholas Sparks recommended Dirty Dancing (1987) in Movies (curated)
JT (287 KP) rated Only God Forgives (2013) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Now here is a film that completely split critics. It’s not going to be everyone’s cup of tea and it’s clear to see why. Anyone expecting a well constructed follow up to Winding Refn’s hit Drive are going to be sorely disappointed, as Only God Forgives serves up a mix of beautiful neon visuals, character dreamscapes and minimal dialogue.
Julian (Ryan Gosling) runs a Thai boxing club deep in the heart of Bangkok using it as front for a drug smuggling ring with his brother. Events take a horrific turn when his brother rapes and murders an underage prostitute. Enter retired cop Chang (Vithaya Pansringarm), more well known as the ‘Angel of Vengeance’ who has a unique and almost godlike way of handing out retribution to those who cross his path.
When he allows Julian’s brother to be murdered by the father of the girl he killed, Julian’s mother Crystal and family matriarch heads out to demand that Julian take revenge for his brothers death.
Only God Forgives is a film doused in deep colours that awash the actors on screen and cast them in a variety of different lights. It feels a bit art house and at times arrogant. This must have been the easiest pay cheque that Gosling has ever picked up. He barely speaks and stamps any authority on screen by long drawn out stares of which he is the master.
Scott Thomas is not the mother figure that you would expect to have. Goading Julian into submission in a vile and disgusting manner she belittles him, prompting the question that he is half the man his brother is. She is one of the few standouts. All blonde hair and jewellery along with a arsenal of foul language. However, it will be Chang that leaves the afterthought, as he glides about unleashing his sword on those who stand in his way.
Only God Forgives is violent, and it is certainly not for the faint-hearted, the spilling of blood (particularly one hard to watch scene) is in keeping with the tonal colour of the setting. It doesn’t have Drive’s slickness but does come with an equally pulsating sound track.
There is no arguing that from a cinematography point of view this film his head and shoulders above others. But there is the odd occasion when you really have to question the director and what it was that he set out to achieve?
Julian (Ryan Gosling) runs a Thai boxing club deep in the heart of Bangkok using it as front for a drug smuggling ring with his brother. Events take a horrific turn when his brother rapes and murders an underage prostitute. Enter retired cop Chang (Vithaya Pansringarm), more well known as the ‘Angel of Vengeance’ who has a unique and almost godlike way of handing out retribution to those who cross his path.
When he allows Julian’s brother to be murdered by the father of the girl he killed, Julian’s mother Crystal and family matriarch heads out to demand that Julian take revenge for his brothers death.
Only God Forgives is a film doused in deep colours that awash the actors on screen and cast them in a variety of different lights. It feels a bit art house and at times arrogant. This must have been the easiest pay cheque that Gosling has ever picked up. He barely speaks and stamps any authority on screen by long drawn out stares of which he is the master.
Scott Thomas is not the mother figure that you would expect to have. Goading Julian into submission in a vile and disgusting manner she belittles him, prompting the question that he is half the man his brother is. She is one of the few standouts. All blonde hair and jewellery along with a arsenal of foul language. However, it will be Chang that leaves the afterthought, as he glides about unleashing his sword on those who stand in his way.
Only God Forgives is violent, and it is certainly not for the faint-hearted, the spilling of blood (particularly one hard to watch scene) is in keeping with the tonal colour of the setting. It doesn’t have Drive’s slickness but does come with an equally pulsating sound track.
There is no arguing that from a cinematography point of view this film his head and shoulders above others. But there is the odd occasion when you really have to question the director and what it was that he set out to achieve?
UF
Understanding Film Theory: 2017
Ruth Doughty and Christine Etherington-Wright
Book
Film theory has a reputation for being challenging. Often requiring time and effort to fully grasp...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Blade Runner 2049 (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A Visual Treat
It was always going to be a tricky proposition to craft a sequel to Ridley Scott’s divisive 1982 film, Blade Runner. By divisive, I mean that while it has gained a cult following in the decades since its initial release, the film’s initial box-office run resulted in a gross that many would label ‘disappointing.’
Stuck in development hell for well over 20 years, Blade Runner 2049 as it’s now known entered the hands of sci-fi aficionado Denis Villeneuve since 2015. But has a wait of over three decades been kind to the finished film?
Officer K (Ryan Gosling), a new blade runner tasked with tracking down old replicants for the Los Angeles Police Department, unearths a long-buried secret that has the potential to plunge what’s left of society into chaos. His discovery leads him on a quest to find Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford), a former blade runner who’s been missing for 30 years.
Visually, Blade Runner 2049 is an absolute masterpiece but from the director of the equally stunning Arrival, this was to be expected. Tasked with taking the first film and crafting a worthy sequel was never going to be an easy ride for Villeneuve and he almost makes it out the other side unscathed, almost.
Our cast is one of the film’s strongest suits with Gosling in particular being as magnetic a presence as ever. It’s also nice to see the wonderful Dave Bautista sink his teeth into something a little grittier than his well-worn Drax persona. Unfortunately, despite being an ever-present feature in the trailers, Harrison Ford is disappointingly underused, though he does appear in 2049’s best sequences.
The cinematography is absolutely beautiful, there really is no other word for it. Bizarrely grounded in reality, the year 2049 is a place that doesn’t feel too far away from the world as we know it. Villeneuve’s metropolis’ live and breathe right before our very eyes with a desolate Las Vegas in particular being a highlight, bathed in an eerie orange glow.
The CGI too is staggering and some of the best seen in the genre. Holograms litter the cityscapes and detail pours out of every frame – Blade Runner 2049 has been meticulously crafted to an incredibly high standard by someone who clearly cares about the legacy this film will leave.
Elsewhere, the score by Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch is exquisite. Blending nostalgic tones with a modern edge, the music is one of the film’s high points and couples with each frame almost perfectly.
So, to look at and to listen to, it’s spectacular. But how does the rest of this sequel fare? Well, not too bad at all really. The story feels linked to the first film in a way that doesn’t tread on its toes. Many long-awaited sequels feel it necessary to shred what came before and try far too hard to craft their own paths. Thankfully, 2049 honours its predecessor in more ways than just sickly nostalgia.
Unfortunately, it’s far too long. At 163 minutes, this is a real slog by anyone’s standards and while it’s true the pacing is spot on, there’s no getting away from the fact that this is a long film and feels it. It would’ve been pretty easy to shave a couple of minutes from the run-time here and there, though it’s not too much of an issue.
My only other bugbear is a pretty big one. Ridley Scott’s ’82 masterpiece was a film that had a soul, despite its plot focusing on those to the contrary. Here, the sheen, the glitz and the polish are all super impressive but much like the replicants our blade runner must hunt, it all feels a touch soulless.
Ultimately, Blade Runner 2049 is a fine sequel to a film that’s been crying out for one since 1982. Ryan Gosling and Harrison Ford make a fine pairing despite the latter’s limited screen time but what this film is lacking is heart, and that’s something that can’t be made with stunning cinematography.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/10/06/blade-runner-2049-review/
Stuck in development hell for well over 20 years, Blade Runner 2049 as it’s now known entered the hands of sci-fi aficionado Denis Villeneuve since 2015. But has a wait of over three decades been kind to the finished film?
Officer K (Ryan Gosling), a new blade runner tasked with tracking down old replicants for the Los Angeles Police Department, unearths a long-buried secret that has the potential to plunge what’s left of society into chaos. His discovery leads him on a quest to find Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford), a former blade runner who’s been missing for 30 years.
Visually, Blade Runner 2049 is an absolute masterpiece but from the director of the equally stunning Arrival, this was to be expected. Tasked with taking the first film and crafting a worthy sequel was never going to be an easy ride for Villeneuve and he almost makes it out the other side unscathed, almost.
Our cast is one of the film’s strongest suits with Gosling in particular being as magnetic a presence as ever. It’s also nice to see the wonderful Dave Bautista sink his teeth into something a little grittier than his well-worn Drax persona. Unfortunately, despite being an ever-present feature in the trailers, Harrison Ford is disappointingly underused, though he does appear in 2049’s best sequences.
The cinematography is absolutely beautiful, there really is no other word for it. Bizarrely grounded in reality, the year 2049 is a place that doesn’t feel too far away from the world as we know it. Villeneuve’s metropolis’ live and breathe right before our very eyes with a desolate Las Vegas in particular being a highlight, bathed in an eerie orange glow.
The CGI too is staggering and some of the best seen in the genre. Holograms litter the cityscapes and detail pours out of every frame – Blade Runner 2049 has been meticulously crafted to an incredibly high standard by someone who clearly cares about the legacy this film will leave.
Elsewhere, the score by Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch is exquisite. Blending nostalgic tones with a modern edge, the music is one of the film’s high points and couples with each frame almost perfectly.
So, to look at and to listen to, it’s spectacular. But how does the rest of this sequel fare? Well, not too bad at all really. The story feels linked to the first film in a way that doesn’t tread on its toes. Many long-awaited sequels feel it necessary to shred what came before and try far too hard to craft their own paths. Thankfully, 2049 honours its predecessor in more ways than just sickly nostalgia.
Unfortunately, it’s far too long. At 163 minutes, this is a real slog by anyone’s standards and while it’s true the pacing is spot on, there’s no getting away from the fact that this is a long film and feels it. It would’ve been pretty easy to shave a couple of minutes from the run-time here and there, though it’s not too much of an issue.
My only other bugbear is a pretty big one. Ridley Scott’s ’82 masterpiece was a film that had a soul, despite its plot focusing on those to the contrary. Here, the sheen, the glitz and the polish are all super impressive but much like the replicants our blade runner must hunt, it all feels a touch soulless.
Ultimately, Blade Runner 2049 is a fine sequel to a film that’s been crying out for one since 1982. Ryan Gosling and Harrison Ford make a fine pairing despite the latter’s limited screen time but what this film is lacking is heart, and that’s something that can’t be made with stunning cinematography.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/10/06/blade-runner-2049-review/
MelanieTheresa (997 KP) rated First Man (2018) in Movies
Oct 3, 2018
POV launch sequences (1 more)
Claire Foy
A bit slow (2 more)
A little long
Terrible sound mixing
I love a good space movie.
Everyone knows the story of the first moon landing - who, what, where, when, how - but this movie goes a bit deeper than the history books you've read. I'm not spoiling the ending by telling you they land on the moon; you already know this. What you may not know is what led up to that historical moment: the tests, the failures, the losses, the toll taken on the astronauts and their families during NASA's race to the moon. This movie does well in that respect. Claire Foy does an amazing job of making you feel with her and for her. The POV in the launch sequences is terrific. You almost feel like you're in the cockpit with Armstrong as he's launching into space. Really well done.
Now, the bad.
- It was slow, and probably too long.
- Ryan Gosling has exactly one facial expression throughout the entire movie. He goes through the proper emotions, but his face does not. Even when he's crying over the death of his daughter, the only thing that changes about his face is the added tears.
- The sound mixing was terrible. The effects were turned up far too high and the voices far too low, to the point where I sometimes couldn't hear what was being said, and as a result I definitely missed some partial conversations. This is one of my biggest movie pet peeves.
Overall, I enjoyed the movie, but it's not one I'd need to watch again down the road.
Now, the bad.
- It was slow, and probably too long.
- Ryan Gosling has exactly one facial expression throughout the entire movie. He goes through the proper emotions, but his face does not. Even when he's crying over the death of his daughter, the only thing that changes about his face is the added tears.
- The sound mixing was terrible. The effects were turned up far too high and the voices far too low, to the point where I sometimes couldn't hear what was being said, and as a result I definitely missed some partial conversations. This is one of my biggest movie pet peeves.
Overall, I enjoyed the movie, but it's not one I'd need to watch again down the road.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated First Man (2018) in Movies
Oct 13, 2018
GREAT, Visceral Space Scenes - Boring, Soap-Opera-ish Earth Scenes
Get to the largest screen you can find with the best sound system and check out FIRST MAN. The visceral spectacle of space travel is expertly captured and needs to be seen on the BIG screen while your chair vibrates from the sound. You, the audience, fwill eel like you are in the spaceship with Neil Armstrong on his way to the moon.
Too bad the Earth-bound moments of this film don't go to the same heights.
Directed by Damien Chazelle in his follow-up to his Oscar winning Directorial stint with LA LA LAND, FIRST MAN tells the story of Neil Armstrong in the 1960s, going from test pilot to the First Man who stepped foot on the moon.
As I stated earlier, the times that we are in the space capsule, or flight plane or test simulator with Armstrong are a visceral experience not to be missed. Chazelle puts his camera close in, often times seeing what Armstrong is seeing - most of that time with loud, shimming and shaking noises and shimming and shaking cameras that left me wonder how these Pioneers of Space Flight ever made it to the Moon and back safely. These scenes - and especially the last 1/2 hour of the film when Armstrong & Co. go to the moon - are worth the price of admission alone. Add on top of that a driving, visceral (there's that word again) score by Chazelle's musical collaborator Justin Hurwitz (Oscar winner for the music for LA LA LAND) and your heart will be thumping loudly in your chest during these exhilarating scenes.
And that is good, for Chazelle and screenwriter Josh Singer (SPOTLIGHT) try to squeeze in a Soap-Opera-esque plot and motivation for Armstrong throughout this film that just didn't work for me. They tried too hard to give Armstrong some "personal" motivations for being stoic, pragmatic and driven to his vision.
As for the acting, Ryan Gosling is...well...stoic, pragmatic and driven to his vision as Armstrong. Do you see that look on Gosling/Armstrong's face in the picture that is accompanying this review? You get that 90% of the time with him. Most of the other actors - Jason Clarke, Kyle Chandler, Pablo Schreiber, Ethan Embry, Lukas Haas - all give the same stoic, pragmatic performance, so there is no real personality here. Even the great Ciaran Hinds - who normally can chew scenery with the best of them - was toned way down to stoic, pragmatic proportions.
This made the performance of Corey Stoll as Buzz Aldrin all the more jarring for he bursts into this film at about the halfway point, cracking jokes and having a personality. Unfortunately, this was annoying at this point, rather than refreshing and I ended up thinking what a jerk Aldrin is.
Add to that Claire Foy (THE CROWN) as Armstrong's wife who has a constant pained expression on her face. She will get an Oscar nomination, for she had the big "Oscars" speech as the worried wife and mother - a speech where Gosling/Armstrong looked at her pragmatically and with solid stoicism.
Fortunately, what saves this movie is that these Earth-bound scenes of fairly boring people in cliched situations are quickly wiped away with awe-inspiring action pieces - they really are worth the price of admission - even the higher price you will need to pay to see it in IMAX with a kick-butt sound system.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars - have I mentioned how great the space scenes in this film are?
And you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Too bad the Earth-bound moments of this film don't go to the same heights.
Directed by Damien Chazelle in his follow-up to his Oscar winning Directorial stint with LA LA LAND, FIRST MAN tells the story of Neil Armstrong in the 1960s, going from test pilot to the First Man who stepped foot on the moon.
As I stated earlier, the times that we are in the space capsule, or flight plane or test simulator with Armstrong are a visceral experience not to be missed. Chazelle puts his camera close in, often times seeing what Armstrong is seeing - most of that time with loud, shimming and shaking noises and shimming and shaking cameras that left me wonder how these Pioneers of Space Flight ever made it to the Moon and back safely. These scenes - and especially the last 1/2 hour of the film when Armstrong & Co. go to the moon - are worth the price of admission alone. Add on top of that a driving, visceral (there's that word again) score by Chazelle's musical collaborator Justin Hurwitz (Oscar winner for the music for LA LA LAND) and your heart will be thumping loudly in your chest during these exhilarating scenes.
And that is good, for Chazelle and screenwriter Josh Singer (SPOTLIGHT) try to squeeze in a Soap-Opera-esque plot and motivation for Armstrong throughout this film that just didn't work for me. They tried too hard to give Armstrong some "personal" motivations for being stoic, pragmatic and driven to his vision.
As for the acting, Ryan Gosling is...well...stoic, pragmatic and driven to his vision as Armstrong. Do you see that look on Gosling/Armstrong's face in the picture that is accompanying this review? You get that 90% of the time with him. Most of the other actors - Jason Clarke, Kyle Chandler, Pablo Schreiber, Ethan Embry, Lukas Haas - all give the same stoic, pragmatic performance, so there is no real personality here. Even the great Ciaran Hinds - who normally can chew scenery with the best of them - was toned way down to stoic, pragmatic proportions.
This made the performance of Corey Stoll as Buzz Aldrin all the more jarring for he bursts into this film at about the halfway point, cracking jokes and having a personality. Unfortunately, this was annoying at this point, rather than refreshing and I ended up thinking what a jerk Aldrin is.
Add to that Claire Foy (THE CROWN) as Armstrong's wife who has a constant pained expression on her face. She will get an Oscar nomination, for she had the big "Oscars" speech as the worried wife and mother - a speech where Gosling/Armstrong looked at her pragmatically and with solid stoicism.
Fortunately, what saves this movie is that these Earth-bound scenes of fairly boring people in cliched situations are quickly wiped away with awe-inspiring action pieces - they really are worth the price of admission - even the higher price you will need to pay to see it in IMAX with a kick-butt sound system.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars - have I mentioned how great the space scenes in this film are?
And you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated First Man (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
As a child growing up in the 80’s the space race had already been around for decades. While I had heard the stories of my parents watching Neil Armstrong take his first steps on the moon, at the time I didn’t realize what it really took for those very first steps to occur. Considering we were living in a time full of space shuttles and satellites, it was easy to forget that only twenty years earlier we were still working on how to get a man into space.
First Man by Universal Pictures and directed by Damien Chazelle (La La Land / Whiplash) takes us on the incredible journey of Neil Armstrong (Ryan Gosling) becoming the first man on the moon. The movie covers almost a decade of time, starting with the first scene of Neil Armstrong in a high-altitude test flight in his X-15 to of course the pivotal moment when he first steps foot on the moon. It’s a lot to pack into a film that only runs a bit over 2 hours (138 minutes to be precise) so even though it doesn’t go too deep into any particular event, it shows just enough of the journey to be very captivating.
The cinematography is both beautiful and a bit unsettling at the same time. It’s grainy and shaky, looking as though the film itself was shot in the same era that it portrays. There is a blend of new footage and actual footage that is practically impossible to distinguish from each other. There were many times throughout the film where I questioned whether the footage was actually pulled from original film, or simply filmed to appear that it was. Viewers who are sensitive to shaky camera sequences (where it looks like it is being filmed using an old 8mm handheld movie camera) or for those who prefer a crisper image of grainy footage might be slightly turned off, however I found the mix of both old and new incredibly interesting and it made all of the characters appear as if they were part of an archived documentary, instead of an entirely new film.
The video wasn’t the only mix that is present in the film as there is also a blend of old and new audio footage. They even used the original recording of the moon landing and seamlessly blended Ryan Gosling’s voice in where Neil Armstrong would have originally been heard. The mix of audio footage was done so flawlessly throughout the film that you may even start to believe that that Ryan Gosling and Neil Armstrong are one-in-the-same person.
Since the movie is based on Neil Armstrong himself and not directly on the space race, a lot of other critical events are simply introduced and then gone in a flash. The time jumps in the movie can be a bit confusing as well. For example, there are scenes where his wife Janet (Claire Foy) is pregnant one minute and the very next minute she has a young son running around. Years pass by in minutes in this film, even for crucial events. Another example is when we are introduced to the young astronauts training for the Gemini flights and then a short time later they are ready to complete their missions. Considering these astronauts were an important part of history, it would have been nice to see a little bit more of their development. The best way to describe these hasty time jumps is that they play out a lot like reading a Wikipedia article, the key points are shown and described in detail, but any of the character development (outside of Neil and his wife) is largely missing. That’s not to say that there aren’t other characters in the film that are important, they just aren’t the focus of the film.
If you are looking for a film that is action oriented like Apollo 13 or The Right Stuff, then you may be a bit disappointed in First Man as it is definitely more like a documentary than a Hollywood blockbuster. If you are however interested in the history of Neil Armstrong and his trials and tribulations on his way to the first moon landing, then you will be in for an incredible journey. Even though First Man seems more at home on the History Channel than Netflix, that’s what makes it such an interesting and enjoyable movie. I thoroughly enjoyed First Man and it’s excellent blend of history and personal storytelling makes it a great movie to see with the whole family.
First Man by Universal Pictures and directed by Damien Chazelle (La La Land / Whiplash) takes us on the incredible journey of Neil Armstrong (Ryan Gosling) becoming the first man on the moon. The movie covers almost a decade of time, starting with the first scene of Neil Armstrong in a high-altitude test flight in his X-15 to of course the pivotal moment when he first steps foot on the moon. It’s a lot to pack into a film that only runs a bit over 2 hours (138 minutes to be precise) so even though it doesn’t go too deep into any particular event, it shows just enough of the journey to be very captivating.
The cinematography is both beautiful and a bit unsettling at the same time. It’s grainy and shaky, looking as though the film itself was shot in the same era that it portrays. There is a blend of new footage and actual footage that is practically impossible to distinguish from each other. There were many times throughout the film where I questioned whether the footage was actually pulled from original film, or simply filmed to appear that it was. Viewers who are sensitive to shaky camera sequences (where it looks like it is being filmed using an old 8mm handheld movie camera) or for those who prefer a crisper image of grainy footage might be slightly turned off, however I found the mix of both old and new incredibly interesting and it made all of the characters appear as if they were part of an archived documentary, instead of an entirely new film.
The video wasn’t the only mix that is present in the film as there is also a blend of old and new audio footage. They even used the original recording of the moon landing and seamlessly blended Ryan Gosling’s voice in where Neil Armstrong would have originally been heard. The mix of audio footage was done so flawlessly throughout the film that you may even start to believe that that Ryan Gosling and Neil Armstrong are one-in-the-same person.
Since the movie is based on Neil Armstrong himself and not directly on the space race, a lot of other critical events are simply introduced and then gone in a flash. The time jumps in the movie can be a bit confusing as well. For example, there are scenes where his wife Janet (Claire Foy) is pregnant one minute and the very next minute she has a young son running around. Years pass by in minutes in this film, even for crucial events. Another example is when we are introduced to the young astronauts training for the Gemini flights and then a short time later they are ready to complete their missions. Considering these astronauts were an important part of history, it would have been nice to see a little bit more of their development. The best way to describe these hasty time jumps is that they play out a lot like reading a Wikipedia article, the key points are shown and described in detail, but any of the character development (outside of Neil and his wife) is largely missing. That’s not to say that there aren’t other characters in the film that are important, they just aren’t the focus of the film.
If you are looking for a film that is action oriented like Apollo 13 or The Right Stuff, then you may be a bit disappointed in First Man as it is definitely more like a documentary than a Hollywood blockbuster. If you are however interested in the history of Neil Armstrong and his trials and tribulations on his way to the first moon landing, then you will be in for an incredible journey. Even though First Man seems more at home on the History Channel than Netflix, that’s what makes it such an interesting and enjoyable movie. I thoroughly enjoyed First Man and it’s excellent blend of history and personal storytelling makes it a great movie to see with the whole family.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Blade Runner 2049 (2017) in Movies
Aug 1, 2019
Great Introspection On What it Means to Be Human
Thirty years after the events of the first movie, Blade Runner 2049 follows the story of replicant K (Ryan Gosling) who unearths a secret that could rock the world to its core. I remember watching this for the first time and scoring it high 90’s. While I still think it’s a damn good movie, I feel it falls just out of Masterpiece range.
Acting: 10
Gosling was stellar in his performance as K. Replicants walk the line of being human, but robotic at the same time. In some cases Gosling provides responses that are straight out of the mouth of a program while there are some scenes that require him to capture raw emotion, both unexpected and welcomed by me as a viewer. There were some other memorable performances as well, particularly by Sylvia Hoeks in her role as Luv. I’ll be honest, she frightened the hell out of me, but in a good way. She was calculated and controlled, but you could always sense a rage waiting to surface. I love what she did with this character.
Beginning: 10
The opening scene of this movie sees K tracking down a replicant that’s been trying to fly under the radar. The tension is built slowly before it bubbles over. In the climax of this scene, we get a taste of what is to come for the rest of the movie. That’s what beginnings are all about: Leave us wanting more!
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
While the entire film as a whole may not qualify as a masterpiece, the visuals and cinematography most certainly are. Throughout the movie, you get a chique futuristic feel that’s also dreary and dank at the same time. It’s like you’re watching two worlds collide. I love their play on robotics and weaponry here as well, definitely a step up from the first film.
Conflict: 10
It’s not just about the action here, but also K unravelling a mystery before our eyes. You want him to get to the bottom of everything going on and you’re taken on a wild ride along the way. Between the shootouts with hi-tech guns and the hand-to-hand fights, there is more than enough to keep you entertained.
My favorite scene in particular occurs when K and Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) meet for the first time and square off. They are in some kind of concert hall where holograms are performing. Both are relying on the singing of the holograms to improve their striking position. It really is fun to watch.
Entertainment Value: 9
It doesn’t take you long into this movie to realize you’re watching something special. The time and energy that went into the creation of this movie shows up on screen. Yes, it could have been shortened, but I still had a great experience.
Memorability: 10
There is a scene that sticks out in my head where replicant creator Niander Wallace (Jared Leto) is looking over one of his creations. It’s unsettling to put it lightly and you feel like it’s just an average monologue…until it’s not. There are a number of scenes just like this that press on my brain. I also loved the continued exploration from the last movie of what it means to be human.
Pace: 8
I do appreciate that the story took its time to unfold. However, I do feel like it could have been a smidge faster in spots. There were a few moments where I was thinking, “Man, I got things to do! Let’s go!” Mostly forgivable save for a few instances.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 1
Without giving anything away, I will just say that this is my least favorite part of the movie. To have started so strong only to end like this? Not impressed. I wanted more for K is all I will say.
Overall: 88
There’s nothing like good sci-fi when done well. Blade Runner 2049 will take you on highs and lows while giving you a visual feast in the process. I was not disappointed in the least and you won’t be either.
Acting: 10
Gosling was stellar in his performance as K. Replicants walk the line of being human, but robotic at the same time. In some cases Gosling provides responses that are straight out of the mouth of a program while there are some scenes that require him to capture raw emotion, both unexpected and welcomed by me as a viewer. There were some other memorable performances as well, particularly by Sylvia Hoeks in her role as Luv. I’ll be honest, she frightened the hell out of me, but in a good way. She was calculated and controlled, but you could always sense a rage waiting to surface. I love what she did with this character.
Beginning: 10
The opening scene of this movie sees K tracking down a replicant that’s been trying to fly under the radar. The tension is built slowly before it bubbles over. In the climax of this scene, we get a taste of what is to come for the rest of the movie. That’s what beginnings are all about: Leave us wanting more!
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
While the entire film as a whole may not qualify as a masterpiece, the visuals and cinematography most certainly are. Throughout the movie, you get a chique futuristic feel that’s also dreary and dank at the same time. It’s like you’re watching two worlds collide. I love their play on robotics and weaponry here as well, definitely a step up from the first film.
Conflict: 10
It’s not just about the action here, but also K unravelling a mystery before our eyes. You want him to get to the bottom of everything going on and you’re taken on a wild ride along the way. Between the shootouts with hi-tech guns and the hand-to-hand fights, there is more than enough to keep you entertained.
My favorite scene in particular occurs when K and Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) meet for the first time and square off. They are in some kind of concert hall where holograms are performing. Both are relying on the singing of the holograms to improve their striking position. It really is fun to watch.
Entertainment Value: 9
It doesn’t take you long into this movie to realize you’re watching something special. The time and energy that went into the creation of this movie shows up on screen. Yes, it could have been shortened, but I still had a great experience.
Memorability: 10
There is a scene that sticks out in my head where replicant creator Niander Wallace (Jared Leto) is looking over one of his creations. It’s unsettling to put it lightly and you feel like it’s just an average monologue…until it’s not. There are a number of scenes just like this that press on my brain. I also loved the continued exploration from the last movie of what it means to be human.
Pace: 8
I do appreciate that the story took its time to unfold. However, I do feel like it could have been a smidge faster in spots. There were a few moments where I was thinking, “Man, I got things to do! Let’s go!” Mostly forgivable save for a few instances.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 1
Without giving anything away, I will just say that this is my least favorite part of the movie. To have started so strong only to end like this? Not impressed. I wanted more for K is all I will say.
Overall: 88
There’s nothing like good sci-fi when done well. Blade Runner 2049 will take you on highs and lows while giving you a visual feast in the process. I was not disappointed in the least and you won’t be either.
Darren (1599 KP) rated La La Land (2016) in Movies
Dec 23, 2019
Verdict: Delightful
Story: La La Land starts as we meet jazz singer Sebastian (Gosling) who has always had his own vision of what he wants his music to be which sees him struggle to keep jobs in Hollywood, let alone pay his bills. Mia (Stone) is an aspiring actress that is going through auditions, while working as a coffee shop on the studio lot.
After a couple of chance meetings, the two start a whirlwind romance that sees both their dreams start to come true in Hollywood, only at what price, can success in love and dreams work together?
Thoughts on La La Land
Characters – Sebastian loves jazz music, he has always had his own style when it comes to the music he is expected to play, he doesn’t understand how people don’t like jazz either, he has jumped between jobs because of his style and once he gets involved in a relationship with Mia, he must decide whether to have a secure gig or continue chasing his dreams of opening his own jazz bar. Mia is the aspiring actress that goes to countless auditions without getting much success, working on the studio lot, until she starts to take her own chance with her one person show. These two characters show the fairly tale dream chases that always believe they could make it and with each other in their lives they achieve more than they imagined.
Performances – Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone are truly fantastic in the lead roles of this film, they show us just how easily somebody’s passion can take a toll on their lives.
Story – The story here follows an aspiring musician and an aspiring actress who meet, fall in love right as their careers start to skyrocket in the glitz and glamour of Hollywood. The story does show how dreamers can be led down paths which would see them push people away in their lives, we are left to see how this does feel like a giant fantasy between the two, after one maybe encounter to show how love and careers just take off, which I have always believed is in their heads, rather than in reality. This does have a fairy tale feel to it, which is nice to see and will be you entertained through the film.
Comedy/Musical/Romance – The comedy in the film comes from the natural conversations the pair go through, with the romance showing how we see love being difficult to understand at times. The musical side of the film is the way everybody is willing to sing and dance around town.
Settings – The film is set in Hollywood, which reflects the idea of the dreams that the characters have.
Scene of the Movie – The 5 years.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – We don’t get enough out of the supporting characters.
Final Thoughts – This is a beautiful fairy tale of life in Hollywood, it puts everything out there in a dream like reality of a life we all wish we could live, one that lets us follow our dreams.
Overall: Beautiful Fairy Tale of Hollywood.
Story: La La Land starts as we meet jazz singer Sebastian (Gosling) who has always had his own vision of what he wants his music to be which sees him struggle to keep jobs in Hollywood, let alone pay his bills. Mia (Stone) is an aspiring actress that is going through auditions, while working as a coffee shop on the studio lot.
After a couple of chance meetings, the two start a whirlwind romance that sees both their dreams start to come true in Hollywood, only at what price, can success in love and dreams work together?
Thoughts on La La Land
Characters – Sebastian loves jazz music, he has always had his own style when it comes to the music he is expected to play, he doesn’t understand how people don’t like jazz either, he has jumped between jobs because of his style and once he gets involved in a relationship with Mia, he must decide whether to have a secure gig or continue chasing his dreams of opening his own jazz bar. Mia is the aspiring actress that goes to countless auditions without getting much success, working on the studio lot, until she starts to take her own chance with her one person show. These two characters show the fairly tale dream chases that always believe they could make it and with each other in their lives they achieve more than they imagined.
Performances – Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone are truly fantastic in the lead roles of this film, they show us just how easily somebody’s passion can take a toll on their lives.
Story – The story here follows an aspiring musician and an aspiring actress who meet, fall in love right as their careers start to skyrocket in the glitz and glamour of Hollywood. The story does show how dreamers can be led down paths which would see them push people away in their lives, we are left to see how this does feel like a giant fantasy between the two, after one maybe encounter to show how love and careers just take off, which I have always believed is in their heads, rather than in reality. This does have a fairy tale feel to it, which is nice to see and will be you entertained through the film.
Comedy/Musical/Romance – The comedy in the film comes from the natural conversations the pair go through, with the romance showing how we see love being difficult to understand at times. The musical side of the film is the way everybody is willing to sing and dance around town.
Settings – The film is set in Hollywood, which reflects the idea of the dreams that the characters have.
Scene of the Movie – The 5 years.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – We don’t get enough out of the supporting characters.
Final Thoughts – This is a beautiful fairy tale of life in Hollywood, it puts everything out there in a dream like reality of a life we all wish we could live, one that lets us follow our dreams.
Overall: Beautiful Fairy Tale of Hollywood.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Blade Runner 2049 (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A stunning visual triumph.
I was a sufficient nerd to buy a “Back to the Future” T-shirt to celebrate “future day” from “Back to the Future 2” two-years ago, and I will probably be a sufficient nerd to buy a “Blade Runner” T-shirt in two-years time to celebrate the setting-date for the original film. One thing’s for sure… 2049 is never going to be long enough away to see the world of the new Blade Runner movie come to fruition: so I look forward to ironically buying that T-shirt too (assuming I make it to 88!). But I digress.
I lived in fear of this film since it was announced… having loved the original, a sequel was always going to be a risky prospect. But my fears were slightly quelled when I learned that Denis Villeneuve (“Arrival“) was at the helm. And having now seen it I am pleasantly relieved: this is a memorable film.
In 2049 the first-generation Nexus replicants of the original film are still causing problems, and Ryan Gosling is ‘K’ – a blade runner employed by LAPD lieutenant Joshi (Robin Wright, “Wonder Woman“, “House of Cards”) to track them down and liquidate them. On one of these missions, K uncovers a buried secret that brings the LAPD into a desperate race for a pivotal prize, against replicant-builder Niander Wallace (Jared Leto, “Dallas Buyer’s Club“) and his henchwoman Luv (Sylvia Hoeks). The mission leads to K searching out his illustrious predecessor Deckard (Harrison Ford), who is not keen to be found.
Firstly (and most impressively) this is a spectacle to watch…. “I’ve seen things…”! The visuals are just gorgeous, from the junk-yards of Greater Los Angeles to the radioactive ruins of Las Vegas, vividly glowing amber to glorious effect. Hardly a surprise with Roger Deakins (“Hail Caesar“, “Sicario“) behind the camera, but Adam Heinis (“Rogue One“) and the rest of his special effects team deserve kudos for the effects never feeling overly “CGI-like”.
The music (by Benjamin Wallfisch and Hans Zimmer, via a replaced Johann Johannsson) pays suitable tribute to the spirit of the original Vangelis soundtrack. (It’s curious though that “Tears in the Rain” from the soundtrack is a reworking of the Vangelis original, but Vangelis doesn’t seem to be credited anywhere! Vangelis and Ridley Scott clearly had a SERIOUS falling out!).
On the acting front, Ryan Gosling is his dynamic self as usual! (But here, somewhat justified). Harrison Ford is given very little screen time, but what he does do he does exceptionally well – his best performance in years. It’s some of the supporting parts though that really appeal: Dave Bautista (“Spectre“) is just superb in the opening scenes of the film, and I particularly enjoyed Ana de Armas’s portrayal of K’s holographic girlfriend Joi. I’ve seen comment in other reviews that described this relationship as “laughable” and a downward step for “woman’s rights” compared to Villeneuve’s previous strong female characters (of Louise from “Arrival” and Kate from “Sicario“). But I disagree! I found the relationship truly touching, with Joi’s procurement of a prostitute (Mackenzie Davis) to act as a surrogate body being both loving and giving. And as regards ‘woman’s rights’, come on! Get serious! This is a holographic commercial male companion…. the “Alexa” of the future…. I’m quite sure the male version looks like Ryan Reynolds! Sex still sells, even in 2049!!
My favourite character though was a cameo by Barkhad Abdi (“Captain Phillips“) luxoriating under the name of Doctor Badger!
I was less comfortable with Jared Leto’s dialogue which – for me at least – was barely audible. In general this film is both a challenge for those aurally challenged (with some fuzzy dialogue/effects/music mixes) and those visually challenged (with 8 point font for the on-screen text that was almost impossible to see on the cinema screen, so good luck with the DVD!).
I really wanted to give this film 5-Fads. But I can’t quite get there. The story – while interesting and having emotional depth – is lightweight for a film of this length (a butt-numbing 163 minutes!) and it moves at such a glacial pace that I’m ashamed to say that my mind wandered at times. (Specifically to how many different ways I could imagine harm being done to the American guy in front of me, who was constantly turning on his Apple watch and at one point (to whisperings of very British outrage!) his full-brightness iPhone!) The screenplay was by Hampton Fancher (one of the original Blade Runner writers) and Michael Green (“Logan“, “Alien: Covenant“) but even with this track record, it’s the film’s Achilles heel.
It’s a relief that Blade Runner revisited is not a complete disaster: quite the opposite in fact. It doesn’t quite match C-beams glittering in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate (what could)… but its a damned good attempt.
I lived in fear of this film since it was announced… having loved the original, a sequel was always going to be a risky prospect. But my fears were slightly quelled when I learned that Denis Villeneuve (“Arrival“) was at the helm. And having now seen it I am pleasantly relieved: this is a memorable film.
In 2049 the first-generation Nexus replicants of the original film are still causing problems, and Ryan Gosling is ‘K’ – a blade runner employed by LAPD lieutenant Joshi (Robin Wright, “Wonder Woman“, “House of Cards”) to track them down and liquidate them. On one of these missions, K uncovers a buried secret that brings the LAPD into a desperate race for a pivotal prize, against replicant-builder Niander Wallace (Jared Leto, “Dallas Buyer’s Club“) and his henchwoman Luv (Sylvia Hoeks). The mission leads to K searching out his illustrious predecessor Deckard (Harrison Ford), who is not keen to be found.
Firstly (and most impressively) this is a spectacle to watch…. “I’ve seen things…”! The visuals are just gorgeous, from the junk-yards of Greater Los Angeles to the radioactive ruins of Las Vegas, vividly glowing amber to glorious effect. Hardly a surprise with Roger Deakins (“Hail Caesar“, “Sicario“) behind the camera, but Adam Heinis (“Rogue One“) and the rest of his special effects team deserve kudos for the effects never feeling overly “CGI-like”.
The music (by Benjamin Wallfisch and Hans Zimmer, via a replaced Johann Johannsson) pays suitable tribute to the spirit of the original Vangelis soundtrack. (It’s curious though that “Tears in the Rain” from the soundtrack is a reworking of the Vangelis original, but Vangelis doesn’t seem to be credited anywhere! Vangelis and Ridley Scott clearly had a SERIOUS falling out!).
On the acting front, Ryan Gosling is his dynamic self as usual! (But here, somewhat justified). Harrison Ford is given very little screen time, but what he does do he does exceptionally well – his best performance in years. It’s some of the supporting parts though that really appeal: Dave Bautista (“Spectre“) is just superb in the opening scenes of the film, and I particularly enjoyed Ana de Armas’s portrayal of K’s holographic girlfriend Joi. I’ve seen comment in other reviews that described this relationship as “laughable” and a downward step for “woman’s rights” compared to Villeneuve’s previous strong female characters (of Louise from “Arrival” and Kate from “Sicario“). But I disagree! I found the relationship truly touching, with Joi’s procurement of a prostitute (Mackenzie Davis) to act as a surrogate body being both loving and giving. And as regards ‘woman’s rights’, come on! Get serious! This is a holographic commercial male companion…. the “Alexa” of the future…. I’m quite sure the male version looks like Ryan Reynolds! Sex still sells, even in 2049!!
My favourite character though was a cameo by Barkhad Abdi (“Captain Phillips“) luxoriating under the name of Doctor Badger!
I was less comfortable with Jared Leto’s dialogue which – for me at least – was barely audible. In general this film is both a challenge for those aurally challenged (with some fuzzy dialogue/effects/music mixes) and those visually challenged (with 8 point font for the on-screen text that was almost impossible to see on the cinema screen, so good luck with the DVD!).
I really wanted to give this film 5-Fads. But I can’t quite get there. The story – while interesting and having emotional depth – is lightweight for a film of this length (a butt-numbing 163 minutes!) and it moves at such a glacial pace that I’m ashamed to say that my mind wandered at times. (Specifically to how many different ways I could imagine harm being done to the American guy in front of me, who was constantly turning on his Apple watch and at one point (to whisperings of very British outrage!) his full-brightness iPhone!) The screenplay was by Hampton Fancher (one of the original Blade Runner writers) and Michael Green (“Logan“, “Alien: Covenant“) but even with this track record, it’s the film’s Achilles heel.
It’s a relief that Blade Runner revisited is not a complete disaster: quite the opposite in fact. It doesn’t quite match C-beams glittering in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate (what could)… but its a damned good attempt.