Yeah, like I said, I recoiled at the thought of the sequel until I heard that Villaneuve was directing.i'll bite because of the whole production team. Villaneuve directing? Scott producting? Yep, I'll go.
Great to see Han Solo again - but Gosling? In all seriousness, does he have the range for this, or is he just going to sneer and smirk his pretty little face for two hours, cause that would suck for this film.Yeah, like I said, I recoiled at the thought of the sequel until I heard that Villaneuve was directing.
He's going to play the old man version of all his characters? Looking forward to the sequel of American Graffiti where he drives Uber passengers around SoCal.
Gosling is better than most pretty boy A list actors, so he doesn't bother me.Great to see Han Solo again - but Gosling? In all seriousness, does he have the range for this, or is he just going to sneer and smirk his pretty little face for two hours, cause that would suck for this film.
Aesthetics/cinematography , with this team behind it, look like they could be killer.
I don't disagree, Gosling is an odd choice but perhaps there is method to the madness.Great to see Han Solo again - but Gosling? In all seriousness, does he have the range for this, or is he just going to sneer and smirk his pretty little face for two hours, cause that would suck for this film.
Aesthetics/cinematography , with this team behind it, look like they could be killer.
At least he had interesting characters to be the old man version of. Many actors tend to prostitute themselves when they get to his age with far inferior stuffHe's going to play the old man version of all his characters? Looking forward to the sequel of American Graffiti where he drives Uber passengers around SoCal.
It's not that he is a bad actor so much as doesn't seem to bring depth nor range - not that I am a Gosling afficienado, I just think of him in Drive and a bit one note. This movie COULD have so much depth to it if done correctly.Gosling is better than most pretty boy A list actors, so he doesn't bother me.
Whatever that means.So Deckard is still alive, eh?
Not in BR they didn't. The Nexus 6 model had a four year lifespan.Do replicants age?
Gosling was really good in Blue Valentine.It's not that he is a bad actor so much as doesn't seem to bring depth nor range - not that I am a Gosling afficienado, I just think of him in Drive and a bit one note. This movie COULD have so much depth to it if done correctly.
Didn't see it, so admittedly going off what I have, which ain't much.Gosling was really good in Blue Valentine.
The biggest problem I have with Gosling is that he won't eat his cereal.The biggest problem I have with Gosling is that he gets to biblically know Eva Mendes.
He could drive Suzanne Somers to her next shopping network gig. In a convertible of course.NorvilleBarnes said:He's going to play the old man version of all his characters? Looking forward to the sequel of American Graffiti where he drives Uber passengers around SoCal.
It was NorCal, man.NorvilleBarnes said:He's going to play the old man version of all his characters? Looking forward to the sequel of American Graffiti where he drives Uber passengers around SoCal.
If you haven't seen it by now you probably don't like movies very much.So... should I watch the first one?
You don't have to do that. It just got by me. It's pretty good?If you haven't seen it by now you probably don't like movies very much.
Well, it's film noir masquerading as a sci-fi movie. People mistake it for an action movie sometimes and it can come across as "boring" if not watched with the right frame of mind.You don't have to do that. It just got by me. It's pretty good?
#### Yeah! I'm am sooooo in. Saw the original in the theater back in '82. Changed my life. That and The Road Warrior.saintfool said:i'll bite because of the whole production team. Villaneuve directing? Scott producting? Yep, I'll go.
But which version should he watch?Well, it's film noir masquerading as a sci-fi movie. People mistake it for an action movie sometimes and it can come across as "boring" if not watched with the right frame of mind.
And it has to be watched in the right context - it came out in 1982 but has a look way ahead of its time.
In short - yes, it's really good.
It's just really good? Bit disappointed, Dufresne. It is THE seminal sci-fi movie and one of the greatest movies ever made.Well, it's film noir masquerading as a sci-fi movie. People mistake it for an action movie sometimes and it can come across as "boring" if not watched with the right frame of mind.
And it has to be watched in the right context - it came out in 1982 but has a look way ahead of its time.
In short - yes, it's really good.
The Final CutBut which version should he watch?
I vote "no voiceover director's cut"
You gotta, watch all 5 in a row to get the full effect.holy #### guys, there are multiple versions?
Seven different versions of Ridley Scott's 1982 American science fiction film Blade Runner have been shown, either to test audiences or theatrically. The best known are the Workprint, the U.S. Theatrical Cut, the International Cut, the Director's Cut[6] and the Final Cut. These five versions are included in both the 2007 5-disc Ultimate Collectors Edition and 2012 30th-Anniversary Collector's Edition releases. There also exists the San Diego Sneak Preview Cut, which was only shown once at a preview screening and the U.S. Broadcast Cut, which was edited for television broadcast.holy #### guys, there are multiple versions?
Yeahholy #### guys, there are multiple versions?
FYP.You gotta, watch all 5in a rowAT THE SAME TIME to get the full effect.
YOU CAN GO STRAIGHT TO HELLOh and hey...there was a novel too.
I was lucky enough to have seen the Director's Cut before the original release version (was no final cut yet). When I then watched the theatrical release, along with it the narrative, it was terribly underwhelming. Really felt the narrative kinda dumbed the whole thing down, personally.