Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - darnmarr

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 50
16
Film & TV / Re: Last movie watched...
« on: 07 November, 2017, 12:56:19 PM »
As for Scientology stuff, I heartily recommend checking out the episode of the Joe Rogan podcast with outspoken former scientologist Leah Remini. It's a real eye-opener....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ0-VeWMr-A
That was quite fascinating. Thanks for the link.

17
Film & TV / Re: Last movie watched...
« on: 06 November, 2017, 01:27:48 PM »
Agreed.
All the same ; the case is lookin'  bad for Mr Weinstein; she's on tape talking about it at the time- her therapist has records of her account and it's within the NY statute of limitations. It may well be the one they get him for.

18
Film & TV / Re: Last movie watched...
« on: 06 November, 2017, 01:06:35 PM »
The bikini girl, who interrupts filming, is actress 'Paz De La Huerta' who the cops may arrest Harvey Weinstein for raping: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/nov/03/paz-de-la-huerta-accuses-harvey-weinstein-of-sexual-assaulting-her-on-two-occasions-nypd

So um... small world.

'Going Clear' is the better doc... But Theroux is more even-handed.

19
Film & TV / Re: Last movie watched...
« on: 05 November, 2017, 11:08:47 AM »
... they had to completely reshoot every frame in Talinn Estonia...
I believe it was the footage from first half of the film
some sources claim the entire thing was re-shot:
http://people.ucalgary.ca/~tstronds/nostalghia.com/TheTopics/Norton.html
The wikipedia page claims only the outdoor footage was ruined, and that the idea of two-parter idea was a solution to getting the increased budget to finish it (two films for the price of more than one), but the quoted source for that info from the Russian Cinema Council is, despite being all in russian , obviously a blank page.

There's some talk of Johnathan Nolan, one of the creators of Westworld citing it as an influence- but I don't see it anywhere meself. What I would readily believe, is that it influenced someone who worked on the TV series 'Stranger Things' ... That 'toxic-dust in the air' element from the 'Shadow-Vale' feels very Stalker to me...
Whaddya reckon?

20
Film & TV / Re: Last movie watched...
« on: 04 November, 2017, 11:57:24 AM »
... the princess bride ..
Did you go to see it in Cineworld in Dublin?
If so, are you going to see Predator next month?
Alas I'm based in Limerick Citayy and, as-you-know- ' tis a tidy step from Stabsville to the Big Potatoe...
:(

21
Film & TV / Re: Last movie watched...
« on: 03 November, 2017, 09:01:13 PM »
'The Stalker'
Beautifully shot post-apocalypter from 70's Soviet Russia. Much of the existential intellectual elements went over my head, I've no doubt,- and - it moved at at a pace that makes BladeRunner2049 seem comparatively breakneck.
 Looked it up subsequently on wikipedia to discover that all the original footage perished and that they had to completely reshoot every frame in Talinn Estonia... in a place so toxic that a lot of the crew may have died as a result of filming there; nothing like authentic misery to give your post-apocalypse that ' edge'.

 I honestly wasn't surpised.


22
Film & TV / Re: Last movie watched...
« on: 24 October, 2017, 11:42:02 AM »
I too went to see the princess bride and noticed the JD t- shirt for the 1st time. it depicted mc mahon's cover where JD sits on a bullet-riddled CRIME' spelt out in concrete....

see?

23
Film & TV / Re: Blade Runner 2
« on: 11 October, 2017, 06:48:17 PM »
Quote
...not sure where people are finding fault.
Clearly folks are enthusiastic with their opinions on it- one way or another- and that , in and of itself, is a good sign; I, personally, found fault - not in the pacing ( I found Avalon enjoyable) but this film, regarded as it will be, in comparison to the original, contains narrative elements that undermine the world and themes suggested by the first.
 A lot of it will come down to taste; you could be a star wars fan who utterly enjoyed 'the force awakens' or you could be a star wars fan who considered it the equivalent of an Abba-fans night at an Australian Abaa gig; the film we call Blade Runner is not a good story told well- It's loved for other reasons. BR2049 is a good story told well. The appeal of the 1st is, really, the music and the world building and the combination of the simultaneously fascinating and ambiguous.
 I find fault with a plot that nails down, and makes banal, ambiguities that- intentional or otherwise- gave the original depth. I find fault with Mr Leto's performance, and I find fault with multiple 'enhance, enhance' voice-operated graphics interfaces, an I find fault with too many scenes lit by water reflected light.

Which is not to say I didn't enjoy meself, but I spose analysis is often a fault-finding exercise.

24
Film & TV / Re: Blade Runner 2
« on: 10 October, 2017, 05:33:27 PM »
My apologies, I just saw the comment about dialogue and instantly some of Bryant's cheesier lines popped into my head.

25
Film & TV / Re: Blade Runner 2
« on: 09 October, 2017, 09:20:17 PM »
Quote
I also found the occasional line of dialogue a little ropey, and that it veered uncomfortably into hack cliches from time to time - such as the Dr Evil villain

well.......whaddta think of this dialogue?
ahem!
"You could learn from this guy Gaff, he's a god-damn one man slaughterhouse".
or my personal favourite
"Talk about beauty and the beast

— she's both."
(point being; BR was many things, but often not exactly Shakespeare)

26
Film & TV / Re: Blade Runner 2
« on: 09 October, 2017, 08:57:09 PM »
Issues with the script / pacing /  time it's still well worth going to see on the big screen.
this can be said of both the old and the new; and  I agree in both instances.

27
Film & TV / Re: Blade Runner 2
« on: 09 October, 2017, 03:49:20 PM »
Well yes it was an elastic metaphor in the 1982 fillum; but now,  in this story it's more central and concrete because it explicitly provides motivation for the actions of central characters, ¿no?

EDIT: Just re-read your post and realised that by 'the science' you probably meant 'all of the science' and not 'the science of procreation' and Now i feel silly.

29
Film & TV / Re: Blade Runner 2
« on: 09 October, 2017, 01:18:46 PM »
Quote
feels like a safe place to vent here!
;)
Having let the whole thing 'percolate' in my brain a little, i reckon I probbly haven't been vocal enough about all the really positive aspects to this brave and, well-realised project and that maybe I haven't acknowledged the lovely- immersive experience I had while watching it. I have been recommending it. I have.
 I do honestly think that it's both a genuine heartfelt tribute and an innovative and creative expansion at the same time. Gobsmacking. I know I'll watch it again.
 But... as lot's of people continue to beam out the positivity, and this does seem like an excellent place to trash out personal niggles...

here's two more:
A Rachel's secret-magic-Tyrell-implanted ovaries.
 The tech exists to make sophisticated* replicants  and yet,  only Tyrell could figure out this next step of adding a reproductive system? Really? Just that one guy that one time? For no good reason?
- that ability died with him, and in 30 years of scientific endevour it seems universally accepted that nobody else has/could/or ever will?  Whatever the mechanism is for creating and amending replicants, it's not a 'magic' thing is it?- or is this another  thing explained away by being a religious allegory?
*(so sophisticated that they are differentiated from humans not by a blood-sample/x-ray or swab but only by an 'empathy' test)
This means also Deckard's no longer even possibly a replicant, or else Tyrell fitted him with a set of equally rare and magic repli-gonads with no conceivable motive for doing so.



BVoice operated interaction with visual display . It's a certainly more 'cinematic' than using
 a mouse, or a keyboard or a touch-screen but not practical. One time, for one system is a nice callback to a memorable scene in the first movie (made in 1982 when even computer mouse was rare) but used as often as it was here, it felt like silly fan-service, to me.


Also I kinda concur with Ebert's ghost; fair criticism.



30
Film & TV / Re: Blade Runner 2
« on: 07 October, 2017, 09:01:59 PM »
Wow. Bowie, oh how very much better that would have been.!

 Fair points, and there really is much to love in this version. I s'pose the element I found OTT...  Deckard and Rache become adam-and-eve of new replihuman age... it just reminded me a bit of the way Darth Vader changed from film to film (starting first as some sort of brutal imperial underling on a 'leash'  and increasing in importance until by prequel stage he becomes the alpha and omega of everything in the history of the 'verse)  it's like.. just because he is central to 'us', the audience,  he must end up being the centre of  this entire world...
 (Not sure if I'm explaining myself properly here);
 It just reminds me of comic-book fillums where the Fate Of The Universe is always at stake,- for some reason those scenarios don't interest me as much as, say, a kid with a over-optioned spidey-suit (he cant control) foiling a scrap-metal thief. Or a futuristic cop and rookie trapped in a building taking on overwhelming odds floor-by-floor...
I spose what i'm trying to say ..when a film reaches for too much in one bite, it feels, for me a bit prometheusy? prometheusque? promethean (not in the sense of being rebelliously creative and innovative but more in the sense of being like 'Prometheus', the fillum. Which I did not care for and don't think was either).
Sound and vision, the look and feel, the 'style' of the original Blade Runner were so faithfully echoed and expanded upon, (and the story-telling was frankly improved upon  in no small measure) but when the story becomes a story of the most important people EVER (not just on nine planets but the whole universe, mind you) something thematic and fundamental,... something of 'the substance' is  broken with.
I thought was a pity. Doesn't seem to be bothering anyone else mind you so perhaps I'm being just a bit silly.



Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 50