Blade Runner 2049.
Holy fuck. There are no words. ?/10
Just came back from the theater. Fantastic.
? Respected the original
? CCCP is a thing
? Peter and the wolf
? PEUGEOT
? Long takes
? Brutalism
? Bits of Vangelis
So now the full scale amongst my friends is complete. :lol:
I went to see it last Sunday with some of my friends. Verdict from that group was from boring to quite good, with various reasons to raise it above meh. It didn't feel all that special to me, even if it was technically well made. Can't think of anything that would make me watch it again, but not much I would say to put it down, either.
With the exception of 2 maybe 3 scenes, that movie is spot-on.
Yeah and I didn't like the bits with the redone Rachel. The director mostly respected the original film, which he made a point of doing, but I think that was a side-step.
I dunno....
I think it's just the kind of thing Wallace would have done in his position to try to get to Deckard.
Was it blue and orange, like every other film these days?
Was it blue and orange, like every other film these days?
No.
It's not a fucking Michael Bay movie. Quite the contrary.
This technique has been brought into mainstream use through the pioneering work of Jonathan West (ASC), who, after spending more than a decade shooting various "Star Treks", defined the different tints for the different CSI installments, giving each of them a look that speaks for their location (neon and pastels for Vegas, cool blues and greys for NYC and red and brown sandy tones from Miami) and also makes it instantly recognisable to anyone zapping through channels and stumbling upon an episode.By the way, Michael Bay is far from the only director to lazily use cheap digital grading tricks to enhance the teal and orange shades in his films.
For the hand-held camera footage, Soderbergh used Panavision Millennium XLs that were smaller and lighter than previous cameras and allowed him to move freely. In order to tell the three stories apart, he adopted a distinctive look for each. For Robert Wakefield's story, Soderbergh used tungsten film with no filter for a cold, monochrome blue feel. For Helena Ayala's story, Soderbergh used diffusion filters, flashing the film, overexposing it for a warmer feel. For Javier Rodriguez's story, the director used tobacco filters and a 45-degree shutter angle whenever possible to produce a strobe-like sharp feel. Then, he took the entire film through an Ektachromestep, which increased the contrast and grain significantly. He wanted to have different looks for each story because the audience had to keep track of many characters and absorb a lot of information and he did not want them to have to figure out which story they were watching.
This technique has been brought into mainstream use through the pioneering work of Jonathan West.
Maybe it was the version I watched, but a lot of scenes really bothered me. The fast action scenes really seemed sped up, the CG looked really terrible, the greenscreens were obvious and some scenes were just generally off. Other than that, it was a pretty good action flick parody of the classic spy film. It was like Sean Connery meets Jason Bourne meets Sterling Archer.
8.5/10