Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 70

Thread: Blade Runner - What am I Missing?

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    6,373
    Feedback Score
    43 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by SteyrAUG View Post
    The sequel was basically unnecessary and ok. I'll probably never watch it again except to maybe look at Ana de Armas.
    She's playing Marilyn Monroe. Kind of a trip a Cuban chick playing an L.A. Blondie.
    The simple fact of the matter is this, America has never not been great.
    - Mark Robinson

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    6,373
    Feedback Score
    43 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by WillBrink View Post
    Great movies hold up no matter when they're made, such as 2001: A Space Odyssey, made in 1968, still holds up.
    That is the most over-rated sci-fi movie ever, IMO.
    The simple fact of the matter is this, America has never not been great.
    - Mark Robinson

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    27,491
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by titsonritz View Post
    That is the most over-rated sci-fi movie ever, IMO.
    Yes and no. Powerful for time and place, but Kubrick movies are always problematic. When he attempts to dramatize something we have no realistic frame of reference for he typically defaults to bizarre imagery. The result is he took a brilliant Arthur C Clarke story and produced a film most people viewed to enhance their LSD experience. The resulting visual effects mostly drowned out the story itself.

    This almost happened with Blade Runner, but there was a lot more going on than glossy visuals. There was more substance to balance it out. Kubrick did the same thing in The Shining with the furry sex creatures or whatever the hell he was trying to give us and he made what should have been one of the best ghost stories ever put on film but instead gave us a large helping of WTF was that?

    By contrast, the 1981 film "Ghost Story" relied on a much simpler story but it almost blew The Shining out of the water. The films were only one year apart, Ghost Story was directed by a Hollywood nobody, yet it succeeded in many of the places Kubrick often fails. It is almost a Kubrick trademark that he usually harms his own films with his weirdo visual ideas which is a shame because otherwise he really is brilliant.

    Kubrick also tackles things many other directors wouldn't even attempt. The problem is if you make a film and it includes aliens and you don't want to go with the usual flying saucer "grey guys" but wish instead to depict an entirely new idea of what intelligent alien life might actually look like, Kubrick actually tries it but he has a bizarre visual sense.

    2001 should have been a perfect film, it had everything it needed to be a perfect film, it actually had several elements of a perfect film but somewhere along the lined Kubrick definitely got lost in the woods. I almost wish the film had been given to Spielberg in the late 90s when he really was hitting his stride. I think he would have held more true to the book and been more successful with the adaptation to film.
    It's hard to be a ACLU hating, philosophically Libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, scientifically grounded, agnostic, porn admiring gun owner who believes in self determination.

    Chuck, we miss ya man.

    كافر

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    4,413
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by SteyrAUG View Post
    Yes and no. Powerful for time and place, but Kubrick movies are always problematic. When he attempts to dramatize something we have no realistic frame of reference for he typically defaults to bizarre imagery. The result is he took a brilliant Arthur C Clarke story and produced a film most people viewed to enhance their LSD experience. The resulting visual effects mostly drowned out the story itself.
    Umm, no. 2001 is the alchemical transformation of man. Both Kubrick and Clarke are Occultists. Failing to understand the message that Hollywood is sending is the root of all WTF moments.

    The apes at the beginning are loaded with Masonic symbols and the obelisk dimensions are also a reference to that. The sun appears over the obelisk showing you that the apes are illuminated by it, just as man is illuminated later in the story by Lucifer, the second sun. The whole movie is so occult referenced it isn’t even fun. Right of Might, snakes, skull and bones, sacred geometry.

    I’m surprised people don’t understand or know this stuff. I guess the eyes are wide shut…
    Last edited by Business_Casual; 09-20-21 at 10:54.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    668
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by FromMyColdDeadHand View Post
    Same for me with ‘Heather’s” and “The Departed”.
    As much as I liked The Departed, the original Hong Kong film Infernal Affairs (on which its based) is a superior film. There’s even pieces of Infernal Affairs II, and Infernal Affairs III rolled into it.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Where the wild beast are
    Posts
    903
    Feedback Score
    21 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by WillBrink View Post
    Are you a big SF fan in general and or major movie buff in general? Virtually every scene in that movie is a visual masterpiece, the Citizen Kane of SF. Cinematography, sets, etc and the score, etc, set a the standard not seen before or since, although I felt Villeneuve did a commendable job of it . The acting, the dialogue, the pace and the action, all put it as the greatest SF of all time, probably top 20 movie in any genre. I lost count how many times I have seen it, I get something from it every time.

    That it was made in 1982, shortly after Star Wars, was also amazing. Saw it on my B day.

    Great movies hold up no matter when they're made, such as 2001: A Space Odyssey, made in 1968, still holds up. Star Wars, which I waited 4 hours on line to see as a kid, and enjoyed the hell out of it, feels very dated when you try to watch it now.

    Some of it does have to be put in context of when it was made, but a great movie, be it The God Father I/II, Cool Hand Luke, Outlaw Josey Wales, etc, are always good and stand the test of time.

    Blade Runner is such a movie.

    BINGO. Well said.
    It is a masterpiece that has been and will forever stand the test of time.

    And yes context is an issue here.
    Consider the year/period it was made - there was nothing even remotely close to it before.
    I know for fact that among DP's and 'camera-guys' there is a 'before BR and after BR'. There definitely was a shift of paradigm.

    Look closely - EVERY scene is complete. Not a moment wasted, not a single element neglected.
    Stylistic it has been copied ad infinum.
    And then there is the other thing we must never forget - it is shot ALL 'in camera'.
    No CGI, nada.

    Jordan Cronenweth was at the top of his game, hands down his masterpiece.

    If you do a search you can find some of my previous observations about this movie, having had some close connections with some of the actors etc.

    Sometimes it all comes together. This was one of those.
    Per Ardua ad Astra.
    STS - gone but not forgotten.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    17,331
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by SteyrAUG View Post
    Yes and no. Powerful for time and place, but Kubrick movies are always problematic. When he attempts to dramatize something we have no realistic frame of reference for he typically defaults to bizarre imagery. The result is he took a brilliant Arthur C Clarke story and produced a film most people viewed to enhance their LSD experience. The resulting visual effects mostly drowned out the story itself.

    This almost happened with Blade Runner, but there was a lot more going on than glossy visuals. There was more substance to balance it out. Kubrick did the same thing in The Shining with the furry sex creatures or whatever the hell he was trying to give us and he made what should have been one of the best ghost stories ever put on film but instead gave us a large helping of WTF was that?

    By contrast, the 1981 film "Ghost Story" relied on a much simpler story but it almost blew The Shining out of the water. The films were only one year apart, Ghost Story was directed by a Hollywood nobody, yet it succeeded in many of the places Kubrick often fails. It is almost a Kubrick trademark that he usually harms his own films with his weirdo visual ideas which is a shame because otherwise he really is brilliant.

    Kubrick also tackles things many other directors wouldn't even attempt. The problem is if you make a film and it includes aliens and you don't want to go with the usual flying saucer "grey guys" but wish instead to depict an entirely new idea of what intelligent alien life might actually look like, Kubrick actually tries it but he has a bizarre visual sense.

    2001 should have been a perfect film, it had everything it needed to be a perfect film, it actually had several elements of a perfect film but somewhere along the lined Kubrick definitely got lost in the woods. I almost wish the film had been given to Spielberg in the late 90s when he really was hitting his stride. I think he would have held more true to the book and been more successful with the adaptation to film.
    I can still watch 2001, still blown away by some of the visuals and scenes, still drawn into the movie, still can't believe it was done with models, etc. It's klunky in parts, but holds up incredibly well for late 60s, and it's the true "thinking mans" SF movie that had not been exceeded until BL.
    - Will

    General Performance/Fitness Advice for all

    www.BrinkZone.com


    “Those who do not view armed self defense as a basic human right, ignore the mass graves of those who died on their knees at the hands of tyrants.”

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    27,491
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by titsonritz View Post
    She's playing Marilyn Monroe. Kind of a trip a Cuban chick playing an L.A. Blondie.
    No worse than Gong Li playing a Cuban in the film Miami Vice. They even managed to make her look not very attractive.
    It's hard to be a ACLU hating, philosophically Libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, scientifically grounded, agnostic, porn admiring gun owner who believes in self determination.

    Chuck, we miss ya man.

    كافر

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    27,491
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Business_Casual View Post
    Umm, no. 2001 is the alchemical transformation of man. Both Kubrick and Clarke are Occultists. Failing to understand the message that Hollywood is sending is the root of all WTF moments.

    The apes at the beginning are loaded with Masonic symbols and the obelisk dimensions are also a reference to that. The sun appears over the obelisk showing you that the apes are illuminated by it, just as man is illuminated later in the story by Lucifer, the second sun. The whole movie is so occult referenced it isn’t even fun. Right of Might, snakes, skull and bones, sacred geometry.

    I’m surprised people don’t understand or know this stuff. I guess the eyes are wide shut…
    And there is tons of supporting evidence that The Shining was an apology by Kubrick for faking the moon landing. But just because you can read this stuff into a film doesn't mean it was actually there.

    Also more than a few guys at JPL were followers of Crowley. Does that mean the actual moon landing was a illuminati / sacred jewel mission? I actually know more than a little about Crowley, Blavatski and others, I just chose to ignore your referenced to this point rather than legitimize the ideas by discussing them.

    We aren't geing duped by Hollywood, most of us see the Easter eggs. It hasn't tricked us into joining his mish / mash of occult ideas wrapped up into the clumsy religion of Thelema.
    It's hard to be a ACLU hating, philosophically Libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, scientifically grounded, agnostic, porn admiring gun owner who believes in self determination.

    Chuck, we miss ya man.

    كافر

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    6,373
    Feedback Score
    43 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by SteyrAUG View Post
    No worse than Gong Li playing a Cuban in the film Miami Vice. They even managed to make her look not very attractive.
    They f'ed the one up, what a disappointment. It should have been great.
    The simple fact of the matter is this, America has never not been great.
    - Mark Robinson

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •