Blade Runner 2049 - 10.6.17 (2 Viewers)

[SAhmed]

I was also very pleasantly surprised at how good Dave Bautista was in his role (particularly in the connecting short preview movie). I have liked his previous roles limited as they have been (mostly) - the level of sensitivity he was able to bring was an unexpected but very welcome.

Regards,

 

[Patrick Sun]

Out of curiosity what rating would you give the original film?

Can't say I was quite grading films way back in 1982, but the original is one I've seen a lot over the past 30+ years, and I only watch the theatrical version, not the re-worked versions that have popped up over the years. But I'd probably give it a B/B+, moreso because I just think the acting energy is just so much more enjoyable to watch (I recall enjoying listening to the various scenes with dialogue between Deckard and the various characters, the dialogue pacing was just less morose and somber, even though it's still being told in a film noir fashion), as BR:2049 struggles to keep my attention in the acting energy category, along with the plodding pace of the storytelling. But BR:2049 is a more beautifully-inert-looking film in terms of settings. I just didn't much care for the set design / world design of 2049 vs. 2019.

 

[Lord Dalek]

Here's a better question Pat, do you honestly like ANY movie???

 

[Patrick Sun]

Magic 8-Ball says "Better not tell you now".

 

[Edwin-S]

So did you enjoy Valerian more and think it’s a better film? I recall you enjoyed Valerian

I would say that I liked these two films about the same. I have some issues with both films. In one respect, I have a similar issue with both films: that issue being the music. The music in neither film left any good impression on me. In Valerian, I hoped that the film would have the inventiveness of "The Fifth Element" and got an unmemorable typical Hollywood "Wall of Sound" orchestral borefest. In this film, as I was listening to the cacophonous noise, I kept asking myself, "where have I heard this before?". The answer didn't occur to me until I found out that Hans Zimmer did the BGM for this film as well as "Dunkirk". After that, it all fell into place as the repetitive noise that passed for "music" at critical junctures was just Zimmer cannibalizing his "Dunkirk" score and coming up with "Dunkirk Lite". In "Dunkirk" that noise worked because it was supposed to reflect the stress that those people were under. In BR:2049, it is just a lot of noise, signifying nothing except Zimmer's creative bankruptcy.

Other issues with Valerian:
The humour fell flat in a lot of places.
Valerian was played as a character suffering from ennui by the lead actor. Yet, there was no real set-up for why Valerian was kind of a dissolute "hero", who seemed bored by his duties.
The story felt too much like an Avatar clone.

Other issues with BR:2049.

The cinematography was too dingy and dark. Have these guys forgotten how to use lighting? A good portion of the film was so dark that you could barely make anything out.
I'm a little tired of stories that always have to involve some theme about children and "daddy issues". Having children isn't the be all and end all of life.

Basically BR:2049 felt like the bastard love child of "Arrival" ( in its dingy cinematography) and Sicario ( with its flawed killing machine).

 

[KeithDA]

My experience seeing the film yesterday was the volume level - it was VERY LOUD. I suppose I should have got up and complained, at the expense of missing a section, as my ears were still ringing a couple of hours later. It was an early afternoon showing with only a handful of us in the auditorium - perhaps when full, the extra 'bodies' would absorb some of the sound? Anyway, it has rather coloured my view of the film.
Has anyone here ever managed to get the sound level turned down....?

 

[Robert Crawford]

My experience seeing the film yesterday was the volume level - it was VERY LOUD. I suppose I should have got up and complained, at the expense of missing a section, as my ears were still ringing a couple of hours later. It was an early afternoon showing with only a handful of us in the auditorium - perhaps when full, the extra 'bodies' would absorb some of the sound? Anyway, it has rather coloured my view of the film.
Has anyone here ever managed to get the sound level turned down....?

Keith did you see it in an IMAX theater?

 

[KeithDA]

No - there isn't one near here...

 

[Robert Crawford]

No - there isn't one near here...

I was just wondering as IMAX theaters usually have louder audio levels than other theaters. Based on his previous film, I think the director intended the audio to be loud which is not good for everybody.

 

[KeithDA]

Thanks Robert.

As to the film then - I thought it languid and dreamy with its deliberate pacing. Very different to the 'mass market' trailers that preceded it!
The story emerged and made rolls rather than twists in its plot.
I liked it.

 

[TravisR]

Has anyone here ever managed to get the sound level turned down....?

A few months ago, I saw a movie and there was a dumb old bag in the row in front of me who was complaining to her friend about how loud the trailers were so she went out to tell them twice and after the second time, the volume dropped precipitously. The only problem is that the theater should have told her that the trailers are always louder than the feature because the movie ended up being too quiet. Needless to say, she sat there complaining to her friend about how it was too soft during the movie.

That's not meant to compare your complaint to that because BR is a loud movie and I was seeing a movie where people talked and nothing was loud.

 

[Greg.K]

The sound didn't seem overly loud to me at the showing I saw. (non-Imax).

 

[Atari]

I saw it in Imax and there were a few times it seemed a little loud, but my tolerance is fairly high so it didn't bother me. The only problem I can remember having at a theater was when Toys came out. They had the volume set at some ear splitting level and all 20 of us in the theater went out several times to complain and nobody would turn it down so I eventually gave up and left. I've never been back to that theater since.

 

[Patrick Sun]

So some friends were going to check out BR:2049 on $5 Tuesdays at the Studio Movie Grill near us, and I decided to check it out once more.

So, we sat about 2/3 back from the screen, but the audio levels for the bass were so ridiculously high, in light of the subwoofer system placement for the theater were behind the screen, and during the super-duper loud bass-filled musical "cues", the actual screen vibrated enough to cause the image projected onto it to shudder and blur the image. It was comical to say the least. (This did not happen in my initial viewing at a more advanced AMC Dolby Cinema theater last Friday, and I don't really like seeing movies at the Studio Movie Grill because their presentations aren't top-notch, their seats are uncomfortable, and that food service button being in the place where I want to rest my elbow at times pisses me off, but I digress...)

Anyhow, those super-duper loud bassy bits were even more distracting the second time around, like the director wasn't sure he was being subtle enough to continually whack the viewers upside the head with the super-duper loud cues that something significant was happening to the characters on-screen.

Overall, the film didn't get any better on the 2nd viewing for me, but still not a horrible follow-up, just really long, slow, drawn-out unnecessarily so,and peppered every now and then with spikes of super-duper loud sounds as if to wake up those slumbering viewers who might have nodded asleep at times.

 

[TravisR]

The sound didn't seem overly loud to me at the showing I saw. (non-Imax).

I'm sure it varies by theater but a modern day movie like BR 2049 is a sound mixer's dream so it's bound to have an aggressive sound mix and if the theater has the volume at a fairly high level, the parts that are intended to be loud will be really LOUD.

 

[Edwin-S]

I might go and see this again in 2D. Maybe the picture quality will improve as it is possible that the picture is just too dark for a good 3D presentation. The 3D was also pretty unmemorable. Also, maybe I'll manage to avoid meeting any pricks like the one I came across during my first viewing. I really couldn't concentrate on the film as I ended up stewing over a stupid situation that occurred.

 

[Vic Pardo]

[QUOTE="Patrick Sun, post: 4534879, member: 279020"

Overall, the film didn't get any better on the 2nd viewing for me, but still not a horrible follow-up, just really long, slow, drawn-out unnecessarily so,and peppered every now and then with spikes of super-duper loud sounds as if to wake up those slumbering viewers who might have nodded asleep at times.[/QUOTE]

I hate when that happens. If I decide to sleep during a movie, dammit, don't wake me up!

That happened during THE MASTER at the Ziegfeld Theater in New York (my last visit to the theater before it closed). I lost interest and zoned out early and tried to sleep, but every so often, Philip Seymour Hoffman would make a sudden shout or bang a table and I'd sit up with a start. I finally left and headed home with about 10-15 minutes remaining in the film.

 

[TJPC]

I found out years ago, that it was always a good idea to bring ear plugs to the theatre, especially IMAX. This system originated in Canada, and I have had years of experience with it. They used to have a specially deafening opening about how wonderful their sound system was.

 

[KeithDA]

the actual screen vibrated enough to cause the image projected onto it to shudder and blur the image.

Yes, the bottom of the screen was doing this too.
I still don't know if it would have been better to have been in an evening showing with more 'sound absorbent' people in the room..?

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

So, having done a lot of thinking about this film since seeing it I think one thing that makes 2049 somewhat different than the original film is it is a much more emotional picture where it really takes a deep dive into how replicants feel. I think for some people this will make 2049 a much more satisfying experience in that you really are brought so much closer to the replicants in this film. They are presented in a much more open and direct way as slave labor and we get to see in a deeper way than in the first film how that affects them. Also, rather than being pulled into the story by a human detective we are instead pulled into the story by a replicant. So, I think in this film the audience is asked to identify with the replicants much more so than the human characters.