Rate the last movie you watched out of 10

[Max Takeshi]

Rewatched Blade Runner for the first time in years.

A diluted consequence of endeavour and storytelling.

I admire it for the technical achievement for its year, but the whole thing just feels so vacant. Like before, Scott takes one genre and plants it into a different period; in this it's a detective noir story which just happens to be set in the (less actually gonna happen) future.

Things feel less focused than they should be, while the plotting feels like it's on autopilot until a resolution comes through like... an empty shell. It's so hard to explain why it just doesn't cut it while it offers such visual (and audio, thank you Vangelis) spectacle. Somethings off about the entire film... quite what that is I really don't know.

Shame, since I'm a bit of a cyberpunk buff.

?/10.

 

[Sy]

Which version did you watch? Theatrical, Directors cut or Final cut?

 

[20thCenturyBoy]

Star Trek: Into Darkness

I noticed at the end during the credits that Damon Lindelof of Prometheus fame was one of the writers and prodcuers. I don't know if he's responsible in this case, but based off Prometheus he seems to base his stories around very obvious and overly used tropes without adding anything new into the mix. The plot just seemed very lazy to me.

A related issue with the plot is that it just isn't very "science-fictional". As already mentioned, there have been extremely similar plot lines used in films but which were set in modern times. That being the case is it really a science fiction story?

If there's something you don't like and Lindelof is involved then you have every right to blame the man. I blame him for Prometheus being just dreadful (his fingerprints were all over so much of that film) and Lost going from being perhaps one of the most captivating shows on TV ever to an absolute drivelling, turgid, wreck of a self sanctimonious show.

For what it's worth though, I personally found there to be little of Lindelof's influence in Star Trek, it's definitely more Orci/Kurtzman script wise, which is also part of the reason its less of an actual sci-fi movie and more just an action flick that happens to have some space and aliens and stuff. Anything that's going to get too sci-fi is considered too much of a risk for studios, they don't really want audiences thinking about things all that much.

Rewatched Blade Runner for the first time in years.

A diluted consequence of endeavour and storytelling.

I admire it for the technical achievement for its year, but the whole thing just feels so vacant. Like before, Scott takes one genre and plants it into a different period; in this it's a detective noir story which just happens to be set in the (less actually gonna happen) future.

Things feel less focused than they should be, while the plotting feels like it's on autopilot until a resolution comes through like... an empty shell. It's so hard to explain why it just doesn't cut it while it offers such visual (and audio, thank you Vangelis) spectacle. Somethings off about the entire film... quite what that is I really don't know.

I only got round to watching Blade Runner for the first time last year (was always one of those "been meaning to watch but just never got round to" films). I was severely underwhelmed by it. I agree it looks absolutely fantastic, but it really drags and meanders around. I'll admit that the ending is good, but a lot of what comes before is either pretty much a non-event or actually just plain bad (the whole rooftop scene with Rutger Hauer was awful I thought). For the record I watched the Super-Duper-Ridley Scott-Final-Say-"Yes, this is really it"-Cut and haven't tried any of the others.

The background/making of the film is probably more interesting than the film itself to me.

Mud

7/10

Didn't manage to be quite as good as Nichols' last film (the awesome Take Shelter, which everyone should watch), but still enjoyed it. McConaughey continues just picking out excellent roles in good films for himself. I would've liked to have seen the supernatural aura of Mud himself played up and the lines really of reality/perception blurred (much like Take Shelter did) between if he is some strange being or just a guy who did some things and now he's on the run.

 

[ayase]

:eople hating on Blade Runner:: :|

the whole rooftop scene with Rutger Hauer was awful I thought

rooftop scene

Rutger Hauer

awful

Words fail me, so I'll just keep this piece of lead pipe handy at all times should we ever meet. Roy's desperate and violent scramble for more life in fear of death, culminating in the realisation that what made life special was it's unique and finite nature and his ultimate peaceful acceptance of death is beautiful and moving, and I don't think anybody could have pulled that speech off in such a believable way as Rutger Hauer does in that scene. Seriously guys, if either of you were in a rock band or a committed relationship with me I'd immediately have to break things off over irreconcilable differences.

 

[20thCenturyBoy]

:eople hating on Blade Runner:: :|
Seriously guys, if either of you were in a rock band or a committed relationship with me I'd immediately have to break things off over irreconcilable differences.

There goes my plans for the AUKN supergroup Soul Reaping Z Fighting Mecha Ninja Pirates From Outerspace

Blade Runner was just one of those films that was ridiculously hyped up so going in it really stood no chance with me. I do need to try and watch it again.

 

[Max Takeshi]

I watched The Final (for now) Cut. Think I saw the one with his awful narration at college once... I... think.

Sorry, Ayase.

I don't HATE it... but neither do I LOVE it... it's just... there.

Some parts are great... the views of the city with Vangelis' music, the compact-blocks-with-a-pattern apartments, and the fact that in this future of human like robots and galaxy travel there's still no mobile phones. But there's that flair, that passion and that world building... and it just feels so normal for something with such grandeur and vision.

I admire it though, and understand why it's so important in the film industry.

 

[Ath]

Heh, the rooftop scene in Blade Runner brings me to tears every single time, one of the most beautiful scenes I've ever seen in film. I've actually never seen the theatrical cut of Blade Runner come to think of it, only the director's cut and final cut. I should get round to watching it for curiosity's sake, I have the 5-disc DVD and it's on there. I do adore the film very much though, it just so brilliantly establishes its world and mood.

Anyway:

Gyakuten Saiban a.k.a. Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney

As a massive fan of the Ace Attorney series, it was always going to be hard to watch this and not compare it to the game it's based on. I was definitely intrigued when Takashi Miike was announced as the director, if nothing else this movie would have style.

I think the movie is flawed, but still very interesting. Compressing the plot of the entire first game into one movie was always going to be potentially problematic, and I think it shows here. I thought the film definitely had pacing issues, it seemed like it was trying to cover a lot of ground but oddly it also felt too slow at times. There were often times where I didn't really feel a sense of momentum during the courtroom scenes.

Hiroki Narimiya was absolutely superb and spot on as Phoenix, he really captured his personality well. Takumi Saito's Edgeworth and Akiyoshi Nakao's Larry were similarly excellent. Mirei Kiritani's Maya was far too serious and didn't work for me though, but I think the script was a big problem there. She never got the chance to *be* the Maya Fey we know and love, with only the scene with the inflatable Steel Samurai at Lake Gourd giving her that opportunity to relax a bit. I imagine she'd be a lot better if given the chance to actually portray Maya the way she is in the games, I'd be interested to hear what her performance in Layton vs Wright was like. Manfred von Karma also seemed way too toned down and not the towering presence I thought he should have been. Also hooray for the Blue Badger!

I thought visually, the film looked great. The way they handled evidence in the courtroom was absolutely brilliant and allowed them to incorporate the OBJECTION!, HOLD IT! and TAKE THAT! elements of the game wonderfully. The original story of the first game is so strong and that did definitely come through here. I did quite like the way they altered the Turnabout Sisters story to more directly tie in with Turnabout Goodbyes. Unfortunately I thought the soundtrack was a crushing disappointment. Even when it incorporated some of the famous themes of the game, the music just felt too stoic and detached when it should have been rousing when the story needed it to be.

On the whole, I'm glad I watched it, and there was a lot to like about it. However, there were definitely flaws in it that detracted from my enjoyment of it, I don't think a movie was the ideal medium for an adaptation of the game.

6/10

 

[Ark]

Blade Runner was just one of those films that was ridiculously hyped up so going in it really stood no chance with me. I do need to try and watch it again.

I've tried to watch Blade Runner three times and only succeeded finishing it on the 3rd. It just isn't very engaging to me. It has geat visuals but in terms of the characterisation, pacing and atmosphere it just feels too barren.

Also, I feel like there are other films (including anime) that have done what Blade Runner was attempting in terms of themes better.

 

[Professor Irony]

For what it's worth, while I think Bladerunner is a great film, I feel it's been lionised to a ridiculous extent during the past few years, and most people seeing it anew probably have unrealistic expectations of it. It's a victim of its own mythos. I think it holds up as a fun exercise in combining film noir with science-fiction, but the sheer lack of chemistry between Ford and Sean Young robs it of the humanity it needed at its core.

 

[Ark]

Evangelion 3.0 You can (not) Redo

Wow. I have to say despite Eva being my favourite anime and science fiction series I really can't bring myself to say anything positive about this film. It is terrible, and despite all the problems I had with Star Trek ID I have to say that I was way more engaged by that than this. It really is the "Prometheus" of the Evangelion franchise.

The main problem with the film is that most of the time is taken up by a series of gimmicks that serve no narrative purpose. The first half hour is the most extreme in this respect but it really lasts throughout the whole film. Just to address one thing that has generally been praised by people who've seen the film, the scenes with Shinji and Kawouru. In the original series Kaowru served a very important role as the straw that breaks the camel's back (ie Shinji's mental state). Touji, Asuka and Rei all get ****ed up and then Shinji is forced to kill the only means to mental deliverance he had, thus leading to his breakdown andclearing the way for his actions in End of Eva. What purpose does he serve in 3.0? He just seems to be there because otherwise there would be no dialogue for half the film.

To be honest this film has actually made me look at the whole Rebuild effort in a very different way. After watching 2.0 more recently, I've started to realise that the excitement it invoked initially was more due to the shock factor for how they replace Touji's role with Asuka. Other than that it's just Eva with the psychological conflcit taken out and replaced with flashy visuals.

 

[Rui]

Bally spoiler/quote bug prevents me from replying in the normal way.

"Evangelion 3.0 You can (not) Redo

The main problem with the film is that most of the time is taken up by a series of gimmicks that serve no narrative purpose. The first half hour is the most extreme in this respect but it really lasts throughout the whole film. Just to address one thing that has generally been praised by people who've seen the film, the scenes with Shinji and Kawouru. In the original series Kaowru served a very important role as the straw that breaks the camel's back (ie Shinji's mental state). Touji, Asuka and Rei all get ****ed up and then Shinji is forced to kill the only means to mental deliverance he had, thus leading to his breakdown andclearing the way for his actions in End of Eva. What purpose does he serve in 3.0? He just seems to be there because otherwise there would be no dialogue for half the film."

I thought that

Spoiler

Kaworu had a very similar role again this time. I'm no psychologist but surely he was there to represent someone who plainly worked hard to earn the trust of the increasingly-damaged Shinji in a rather extreme situation, only to cause him even greater trauma all over again. He even commented on that himself IIRC.

Even though the final scene with them together played out very differently this time around, I don't think it lessened the impact. Shinji has an awful lot to think about from now on.

"Other than that it's just Eva with the psychological conflcit taken out and replaced with flashy visuals."

I more or less agree with this (except flashy, high-octane Eva is still perfectly fine by me). The films certainly do emotionally move me, though, even if they aren't as introspective as the original. Which is more than I can say for most movies, anime or otherwise.

R

 

[Ark]

to earn the trust of the increasingly-damaged Shinji in a rather extreme situation

There's my problem, I just didn't think Shinji came across as very damaged in this film at all. More just confused. Infact, considering his situation I would say he was remarkably calm and unquestioning in the face of all the new circumstances.

 

[Rui]

More Eva 3.33

I interpreted that as him being in a state of raw shock, which was obviously not sustainable. His reaction to the shirt and the way he was when Kaworu was showing him things added weight to this, as did the way Kaworu approached him as though he was a frightened puppy this time. Nobody would tell Shinji anything, and he was obviously really messed up and distrustful by the time Kaworu started letting him in on what happened properly. If anything, I think Rebuild Shinji has even bigger trust issues than TV Shinji.

R

 

[Ark]

You would agree though that the first 3rd of the film is a crap fest?

 

[ayase]

For what it's worth, while I think Bladerunner is a great film, I feel it's been lionised to a ridiculous extent during the past few years, and most people seeing it anew probably have unrealistic expectations of it. It's a victim of its own mythos. I think it holds up as a fun exercise in combining film noir with science-fiction, but the sheer lack of chemistry between Ford and Sean Young robs it of the humanity it needed at its core.

Perhaps it lacks humanity at it's core because none of the main characters are human? The way I interpret the awkward, slightly creepy love scene between Deckard and Rachael is that it's replicants' first date so they're not going to be naturals at the whole romance thing.

The real emotional core of the film for me is Roy anyway, who despite being a replicant is so emotional he's almost child-like at times. All the replicants are in one way or another and that idea is carried throughout the film, from Leon's Voight-Kampf test at the beginning to Pris and Roy entertaining J.F (who despite being human is also similarly child-like) to Deckard and Rachael's clumsy romance to Pris and Roy playing a deadly game with Deckard at the end. It's hardly surprising because in terms of time they've had for their own emotional development, none of them are really any more than four years old.

I love Blade Runner like few other films. I think it's a brilliant, thoughtful, engaging, life-affirming film in a wonderfully realised future setting directed, acted and scored nigh-on perfectly (minus the horrible, done-under-duress voice-over obviously, but these days no-one should be watching the theatrical version). But that's just my two penn'orth.

 

[Rui]

More Eva 3.33.

You would agree though that the first 3rd of the film is a crap fest?

Well...no. I did think some parts were weaker than others like the amount of time spent showing the uninteresting new bridge crew members and the general dithering around to shoehorn characters like Sakura in, but I was generally able to justify most of what happened, and in terms of being a flashy spectacle it was not too different to moments in 2.22. I've seen people complain about the way Shinji is treated, and while I agree with them I think it's completely understandable if you view the characters as people rather than as archetypes; who knows what they have been through and had to come to terms with in the time that passed?

(Are we counting the short movie which plays at the start as being in the first third of the film?)

I genuinely enjoyed Eva 3.0/3.33, enough that after having seen it's original cut I preordered the BD and watched it again the day it arrived. It had everything I really want from an Eva Rebuild movie: phenomenal music, a nostalgic feel, pretentious artsy elements, gorgeous visuals, horrible trauma - and a story which had me discussing it with my other half for hours after watching it. YMMV, of course, but I feel that I got exactly what I was expecting out of it.

R

 

[ilmaestro]

For what it's worth, while I think Bladerunner is a great film, I feel it's been lionised to a ridiculous extent during the past few years, and most people seeing it anew probably have unrealistic expectations of it. It's a victim of its own mythos. I think it holds up as a fun exercise in combining film noir with science-fiction, but the sheer lack of chemistry between Ford and Sean Young robs it of the humanity it needed at its core.

Perhaps it lacks humanity at it's core because none of the main characters are human? The way I interpret the awkward, slightly creepy love scene between Deckard and Rachael is that it's replicants' first date so they're not going to be naturals at the whole romance thing.

The real emotional core of the film for me is Roy anyway, who despite being a replicant is so emotional he's almost child-like at times. All the replicants are in one way or another and that idea is carried throughout the film, from Leon's Voight-Kampf test at the beginning to Pris and Roy entertaining J.F (who despite being human is also similarly child-like) to Deckard and Rachael's clumsy romance to Pris and Roy playing a deadly game with Deckard at the end. It's hardly surprising because in terms of time they've had for their own emotional development, none of them are really any more than four years old.

I love Blade Runner like few other films. I think it's a brilliant, thoughtful, engaging, life-affirming film in a wonderfully realised future setting directed, acted and scored nigh-on perfectly (minus the horrible, done-under-duress voice-over obviously, but these days no-one should be watching the theatrical version). But that's just my two penn'orth.

But bro Deckard isn't a replicant D:

 

[ayase]

But bro Deckard isn't a replicant D:

Even if we disregard all the clues which point to that being the case, according to early script drafts where it was made explicitly clear and Ridley Scott himself, yes he is.

Why are my troll senses tingling?

 

[Professor Irony]

Perhaps it lacks humanity at it's core because none of the main characters are human? The way I interpret the awkward, slightly creepy love scene between Deckard and Rachael is that it's replicants' first date so they're not going to be naturals at the whole romance thing.

I see what you're getting at, but given Roy's considerable joie de vivre, I thought the intention was that the replicants should be more human than the human characters. I dunno. I feel that, compared to Roy & Pris, watching Deckard & Rachael is like staring into the void. Just didn't find it compelling.

But bro Deckard isn't a replicant D:

 

[ilmaestro]

But bro Deckard isn't a replicant D:

Even if we disregard all the clues which point to that being the case, according to early script drafts where it was made explicitly clear and Ridley Scott himself, yes he is.

Why are my troll senses tingling?

Early script drafts aren't the final thing though.

According to industry standard wikipedia:

"The film deliberately leaves ambiguous the answer to the question of whether Deckard is a replicant or a human being"

How can you argue with the facts?


(Spoiler tag added. -R)