I've not seen Fury Road, and am deliberately holding off until I finish the book. It all sounds utterly bonkers.
It’s as mad as a bag of owls, but as with all the Mad Max based films, it doesn’t matter because of the utterly insane hardware they build, the most resent Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga is great fun, I really like Anya Taylor-Joy, and she’s also great in The Gorge as well.
I like older films, as has been mentioned they have room to tell the story, even star wars tells the tale.
Watched a 2026 film with some well known actors (apex) and it could have been good in a deliverance type way but it was like doomscrolling (some would say fast paced) but by god it snapped from one scenario to the next without warning.
Aliens is the best
The hill I will die on is that Alien is head and shoulders better than every other movie in the franchise. Some of them are good films fo'shure, but by comparison; weaker.
The problem with watching both Alien and Bladerunner now is that every other film since that has an eye to 'gritty future realism' has borrowed from them, so now they look mainstream and stagey by comparison to modern films. Scoot said that the director's cut - is actually shorter than the original cinema release, because in order to add the new scenes, they reduced the length of panning shots as audiences these days, don't like them and it gave them plenty of time to stitch in the extra.
I like both the Blade Runner films and would happily watch them again and again. The original is a better film, maybe losing slightly to the newer one in visuals, but it is still amazingly impressive and the soundtrack! The characters!
2049 is, for me at least, a decent film because of the aesthete. It matches the original and casts an actor with a limited number of expressions as an android with a limited ability to express himself. Compared to a lot of other films, I could, can and will re-watch them both.
Waterworld? Maybe. Mad Max? Not sure.
Blade Runner was ok in its time, but 2049 was awful. Just can’t understand the love it gets every year when a thread comes up.
Wouldn’t rewatch either.
I've not seen Fury Road, and am deliberately holding off until I finish the book. It all sounds utterly bonkers.
It’s as mad as a bag of owls, but as with all the Mad Max based films, it doesn’t matter because of the utterly insane hardware they build, the most resent Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga is great fun, I really like Anya Taylor-Joy, and she’s also great in The Gorge as well.
Yep, I enjoyed both these,you can’t beat physical effects as opposed to overdoing the cgi and bombing around the outback in some whacky mobile is just great 🙂
but 2049 was awful.
Awful in what way?
The visuals and soundtrack on Blade Runner are unparalleled (in my humble opinion) but the story is a bit meh.
but 2049 was awful.
Awful in what way?
If I had to guess I'd say because it's got Jared Leto in it.
My favourite bit is when he parks his FLYING CAR to talk on a landline payphone
Or when he talks to his machine that can see around corners in a photo, and then gets it to print out a hard copy, which is a Polaroid?
I love both Blade Runner films, but both have the same issue. The original is 60 minutes of story crammed into a 120 minute of run time. Blade Runner 2049 has about 90 minutes of story crammed into 150 minutes.
Visually stunning though, and the original holds up remarkably well for a film that nearly 45 years old.
Original Mad Max is a bit dated. Mad Max 2 is better, but Fury Road if you've not seen is an absolute blast.
I love both Blade Runner films, but both have the same issue. The original is 60 minutes of story crammed into a 120 minute of run time. Blade Runner 2049 has about 90 minutes of story crammed into 150 minutes.
I can't comment on 2049 as I've tried to watch it twice and fallen asleep halfway through both times. Which probably confirms your point. 😁
Blade Runner itself though, I mean... it's ok to let a film breathe, y'know? Not every film has to be a Michael Bay jump-cut sugar rush for the ADHD generation. It hasn't stood the tests of time despite its pacing and aesthetics but because of it. It's not an action movie, it's a world-building character movie which has a few action scenes.
Blade Runner's runtime is two hours give or take pocket change which was almost unheard of in 1982 but honestly, does it feel like a long film?
I love both Blade Runner films, but both have the same issue. The original is 60 minutes of story crammed into a 120 minute of run time.
I watched Mean Streets for the first time a few years back on a flight. It's an early Scorsese gangster flick with Harvey Keitel and Robert de Niro. By today's standards, it's extremely slow. It's basically just people standing around talking, with a very short bit of action at the end. It would probably be one subplot from an episode of The Sopranos. Movies used to be much slower paced, they weren't non-stop action back then. (See also Shane and High Noon.)
Both Blade Runner and Alien resulted in my whelm levels being decidedly low. They were okay, I suppose, but I wouldn't make a point of watching them again
Blade Runner itself though, I mean... it's ok to let a film breathe, y'know? Not every film has to be a Michael Bay jump-cut sugar rush for the ADHD generation. It hasn't stood the tests of time despite its pacing and aesthetics but because of it. It's not an action movie, it's a world-building character movie which has a few action scenes.
Hey. I love Blade Runner - I've think I've owned it on every physical format except laser disc, and have different editions on Blu Ray, its not the lack of action that's an issue, the visuals are the action. Its an absolute masterclass of world building, with "Show don't Tell" lack of exposition, the world is all there in the visuals. I just think the story / plot is just a bit thin. Oh, and the Deckard / Rachel romance is a bit weird.
Maybe the pacing is more of a feature than a bug, but Alien (same director) didn't have the same issue.
Maybe the pacing is more of a feature than a bug, but Alien (same director) didn't have the same issue.
Go back and watch the original, the opening panning shot that gets you from the external view of the ship to the crew waking up takes ages...We're about 5 minutes into the film, there are no characters no dialogue, just space, the bridge, a corridor, same thing happens when they decide to go down to the planet- takes ages; 3/4 minutes of off stage voices, some graphics and models, that stuff just wouldn't happen these days.
One Blade Runner.... I was very surprised at how well the sequel works... it's a storyline that is very much about today's concerns (rather than those of the 80s)... yet is in the same world... and plays with the same kind of spacing and pacing, beautifully. Watch them both. Worried about the TV series though...
you can’t beat physical effects as opposed to overdoing the cgi
The plate photography in those films is obviously great, but there's still a shedload of CGI involved.
I've seen Blade Runner. It's good. I've seen all the Mad Max films too. I have, however, never seen The Lion King. (That has zero relevance here, I just felt the need to unburden myself.)
If we are opening up... I've never seen Titanic. Never will. Never want to.
If we are opening up... I've never seen Titanic. Never will. Never want to.
I've never seen any of the LotR or Harry Potter films.
ThunderDome though was a pile of poo!
But Tina Turner was spectacular. The film needed much more Tina Turner!
I've not seen Fury Road, and am deliberately holding off until I finish the book. It all sounds utterly bonkers.
I love the fact that they did minimal CGI and went for the traditional, old school 'lets build loads of absolutely mental vehicles and then have a right old laugh totally destroying them all!'.
somewhat true, but not as true as they'd have you believe:
Of weare really opening up.
Nevers seen Goodfellas, The Godfather, Scarface, sopranos. I would rather rewatch Titanic.
I've never seen Mamma Mia. What am I missing?
If we are opening up... I've never seen Titanic. Never will. Never want to.
I saw a bit of it... in a hotel in Sardinia.
I've never seen any of Frozen though.
... and that one with Robert Pacino that was referenced somewhere up above. What even was that?
I've never seen Titanic. Never will. Never want to
I worked with a guy whose brother worked on it. He dragged a big bunch of us along to watch it, we got half pissed first then had to sit through hours of that bilge. Spoiler alert - the ship sinks, but not nearly quickly enough. Then, when the credits were rolling, my mate pulled out a camcorder to video them so he could get a shot of his brother's name on screen, but some busybody in the audience (not staff, just an audience member) tried to take the camera off him and they came close to fisticuffs. Ever since, I've always felt that I was owed a couple of hours of my life back.
Nevers seen Goodfellas, The Godfather, Scarface, sopranos. I would rather rewatch Titanic.
Same here, I've never quite understood Hollywood generally and some directors including Scorsese in particular have for romanticising the mafia.
Never seen any of the Wick films after the first.
I've never quite understood Hollywood generally and some directors including Scorsese in particular have for romanticising the mafia.
Mean Streets didn't romanticize the mafia. If you want to see something that really doesn't romanticize the mafia, watch Gomorrah, an Italian mafia drama. Its depiction is utterly bleak, nothing romantic about it.
The main message of The Sopranos was that Tony Soprano was an utter monster, same with Breaking Bad, Walter White was a nasty, selfish man who destroyed his family and hurt everyone close to him. Many fans seem to miss that, but any thinking person can see what the writers were trying to get across.
"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die."
Didnt Rutger Hauer have an input in to those words.
That quote must have been inspired by Michael Collins....
"Although I may feel I am the same person, I also feel that I am different from other people. I have been places and done things you simply would not believe.
I have seen the sun's true light, unfiltered by any planet's atmosphere. I have seen the ultimate black of infinity in a stillness undisturbed by any living thing. have been pierced by cosmic rays on their endless journey from God's place to the limits of t hne universe, perhaps there to circle back on themselves and on my descendants."
This makes that scene even better for me.
Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion.
This line has always annoyed me. What is the 'shoulder of Orion'? 'Orion' describes a random number of stars as they appear when viewed from earth. They have no other relationship and aren't anywhere near each other. So nevermind which one's the shoulder, Orion is not something which would ever be referred to in space navigational terms.
There. I've also never seen Blade Runner though I've probably seen bits of it on the telly etc., nd a lot of Rutger Hauer Guinness adverts, and received demonstration of how an android kills someone with her thighs. Many of the locations have been a backdrop to some quite challenging surfs, though I probably shouldn't say any more about that.
I've also never seen Starwars.
but any thinking person can see what the writers were trying to get across.
You'll be no doubt surprised to learn that some viewers of The Boys are complaining that their hero - Homelander, turns out to be the villain of the piece and why did the writers 'only' decide that they were going to do that in the last series...
The main characters of those two you mentioned though are not ones written by either Scorsese or Coppola though who both do actually have a hard-on for these guys. When real life mobsters reportedly come out of a movie theatres after watching the Godfather, and quote...
"I left the movie stunned ... I mean, I floated out of the theater. Maybe it was fiction, but for me, then, that was our life. It was incredible. I remember talking to a multitude of guys, made guys, who felt the same way"
You've not really done a service to wider community.
This line has always annoyed me. What is the 'shoulder of Orion'? 'Orion' describes a random number of stars as they appear when viewed from earth. They have no other relationship and aren't anywhere near each other. So nevermind which one's the shoulder, Orion is not something which would ever be referred to in space navigational terms.
Next you will be complaining about sound in space fights, ring worlds and the continuity holes in every time travel film ever.
Its a work of fiction 🤣
What is the 'shoulder of Orion'? 'Orion' describes a random number of stars as they appear when viewed from earth
It could be referring to something else that's called Orion...maybe? or just, y'know use your imagination. I'm walking in the lakes at the weekend, and route goes over Helm Crag which has rocks called Lion and the Lamb...I don't expect I'll see any lions, or for that matter any helmets.
I've never seen Spinal Tap 😬
I've never seen Mamma Mia. What am I missing?
Well if your ever in a karaoke bar with Pierce Brosnan and he goes up to the mic to do a song you like, you’d be running out if you’ve seen it 🙂
I've never quite understood Hollywood generally and some directors including Scorsese in particular have for romanticising the mafia.
Mean Streets didn't romanticize the mafia. If you want to see something that really doesn't romanticize the mafia, watch Gomorrah, an Italian mafia drama. Its depiction is utterly bleak, nothing romantic about it.
The main message of The Sopranos was that Tony Soprano was an utter monster, same with Breaking Bad, Walter White was a nasty, selfish man who destroyed his family and hurt everyone close to him. Many fans seem to miss that, but any thinking person can see what the writers were trying to get across.
Same as Peaky Blinders.
you can’t beat physical effects as opposed to overdoing the cgi
The plate photography in those films is obviously great, but there's still a shedload of CGI involved.
Yep,there’s definitely practical reasons to use cgi, but I remember just watching a dr who episode where they’d gone full on overboard with hundreds of cgi Daleks on screen when all thru it they had a few interacting with real people on most scenes , it just didn’t add much and the marvel aqua man underwater battle was just too busy,both sort of looked more like a video game inserted into the film.
Cgi to hide safety harnesses/add muzzle flash make a lot of sense.
TBH well done CGI is pretty undetectable,the amount its used now would blow you mind.
There’s a scene in one of the star wars things where they are piloting something and the set is literally 2 seats and the whole cockpit is digitally added so no set work required.
Talking of Alien 
Nevers seen Goodfellas, The Godfather, Scarface, sopranos. I would rather rewatch Titanic.
Same here, I've never quite understood Hollywood generally and some directors including Scorsese in particular have for romanticising the mafia.
If you had actually watched them, you certainly wouldn't accuse them of romanticising anything. Goodfellas in particular (which is the best of the bunch IMHO) shows how the fun, games and excitement at the start get progressively bleaker and bleaker until - spoiler alert - everyone ends up either dead or in prison, but mostly dead. Theres not much glamorous about that. Its not like there are happy ending to any of those films.
