 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jan 18, 2017 - 6:09 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Coco314
(Member)
|
It's not as bad the critics said and clearly not as good as it could have been. A lot of interesting concepts and ideas but none truly shines. This really shows that making a truly good movie is an incredibly difficult task, and having some basic ingredients (screenplay raising interesting questions, good actors, comfortable budget etc.) does not make a good movie, and editing is crucial and it seems odd at critical moments.
Lots of things are touched upon (it's a romance, a survival drama, a critique of consumerism), but it's like none is truly given full resonance (it's not "Titanic", nor "Gravity", nor "Wall-E"). A film with such small cast list deserved better characters. Still, there is a few neat concepts and moments (the pool scene, "Arthur", the technical aspects in general) although the climax resolution was atrocious. Overall a decent missed opportunity.
The score felt like a Thomas Newman Best of. That's fine, I like Thomas Newman and will definitely order the CD  The movie might have used a little less music and the End title song was, indeed, well... "unwelcome"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'll grant you, people love "Blade Runner," but among those people is not me. And believe me, I've tried many times. But that's how opinions work.
A finer movie has not been made...
.. it has to be said though that the "Blade Runner" audiences and critics saw in 1982 was not the same movie that is called "Blade Runner now"... the narration and the "happy end" were studio ad ons, and some vital scenes could not be included, most importantly the Unicorn scene...
I liked the original Blade Runner already when I saw it back in the 80s... but I truly love the movie in it's later incarnation. It went from "good" to "great".
But now back to our regularly scheduled programming, PASSENGERS...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
