Rate the latest movie you've seen.

[Baruch]

A rational world helping all people?  Maybe I should check it out.

To each their own totalitarianism.  For those overweight, there is always Hunger Games ..

[SGOS]

American Made 6/10

If you kind of like high tech drug smuggling movies.  Not as good as Johnny Depps "Blow."

[Cavebear]

To each their own totalitarianism.  For those overweight, there is always Hunger Games ..

The movie was a combination of "let them eat cake" and a survival game.  I stopped watching halfway through the first.  I could tell who would win and didn't much care how. 

[Baruch]

The movie was a combination of "let them eat cake" and a survival game.  I stopped watching halfway through the first.  I could tell who would win and didn't much care how.

My daughter was riveted by the first movie, because of her age at the time.  By the time the third one came out, she had moved on.

[SGOS]

Blade Runner 2049  8/10

I could very likely raise that after watching it a couple more times.  It creates unique and interesting future technology, and it refers back to the original and builds on it, not only by developing the story further, but by pleasantly drawing in sounds and background music reminiscent of the original.  The environments don't feel as crushed and chaotic anymore, the streets not so over crowded, something that I liked about the first movie.

I have to admit, I didn't know what was happening for much of the first half.  I shared the theater with one other guy for the 11:00 AM showing.  He walked out, but I don't know why.  Even without knowing where the story was going, there is a lot of visual interest that kept me there during the first part.  I assume seeing it again will help in following the early part of the story, which would influence my rating possibly even upping it to 10/10.

It helps to have seen the first movie.  There are a couple of loose ends that might suggest another sequel.  The movie may seem a bit slow to some, although those parts often have cerebral aspects about them.  I would describe the movie as powerful.  Much of this is the sound track that sometimes goes so far as to rely on unaccompanied but thunderous tympani being played by the likes of Joe Frazier or the Hulk.  Think the closing sound track of the first film.

[Cavebear]

Blade Runner 2049  8/10

I could very likely raise that after watching it a couple more times.  It creates unique and interesting future technology, and it refers back to the original and builds on it, not only by developing the story further, but by pleasantly drawing in sounds and background music reminiscent of the original.  The environments don't feel as crushed and chaotic anymore, the streets not so over crowded, something that I liked about the first movie.

I have to admit, I didn't know what was happening for much of the first half.  I shared the theater with one other guy for the 11:00 AM showing.  He walked out, but I don't know why.  Even without knowing where the story was going, there is a lot of visual interest that kept me there during the first part.  I assume seeing it again will help in following the early part of the story, which would influence my rating possibly even upping it to 10/10.

It helps to have seen the first movie.  There are a couple of loose ends that might suggest another sequel.  The movie may seem a bit slow to some, although those parts often have cerebral aspects about them.  I would describe the movie as powerful.  Much of this is the sound track that sometimes goes so far as to rely on unaccompanied but thunderous tympani being played by the likes of Joe Frazier or the Hulk.  Think the closing sound track of the first film.

The original was good but disturbing.  I'll have to wait to see the new one.

[SGOS]

The original was good but disturbing. 

It was disturbing, although I never really thought about that.  It managed to stay within my zone of acceptable limits, and contrary to movies made for the purpose of graphically assaulting your sensibilities, Blade Runner had a story where the disturbing aspects are a vital to a philosophical subplot about what is OK to do to things that aren't human or even alive, and how society becomes conditioned to dealing with outsiders in mindless ways.  Murdering our very creations that turned out to be inconvenient is seen as entirely normal, and maybe it even is in some situations.

Here it is, 35 years later and I'm still analyzing that movie, and thinking about moral issues I hadn't even considered before.  But presenting these kinds of philosophical dilemmas is something I like about movies, and Blade Runner does it far better than most in ways that are almost too subtle to even notice.

[Cavebear]

It was disturbing, although I never really thought about that.  It managed to stay within my zone of acceptable limits, and contrary to movies made for the purpose of graphically assaulting your sensibilities, Blade Runner had a story where the disturbing aspects are a vital to a philosophical subplot about what is OK to do to things that aren't human or even alive, and how society becomes conditioned to dealing with outsiders in mindless ways.  Murdering our very creations that turned out to be inconvenient is seen as entirely normal, and maybe it even is in some situations.

Here it is, 35 years later and I'm still analyzing that movie, and thinking about moral issues I hadn't even considered before.  But presenting these kinds of philosophical dilemmas is something I like about movies, and Blade Runner does it far better than most in ways that are almost too subtle to even notice.

Bladerunner explored the idea that AI replicants could have fully human concerns and fears.  It was way ahead of its time.  I recall reading the antecedent 'Do Robots Dream Of Electric Sheep'? 

[SGOS]

Bladerunner explored the idea that AI replicants could have fully human concerns and fears.  It was way ahead of its time.  I recall reading the antecedent 'Do Robots Dream Of Electric Sheep'? 

Speilberg's movie, AI, does the same thing, and as I recall it too was not well received by movie goers.  It has more of fairytale feel about it, but it's even more disturbing.  I liked that film too.

[SGOS]

Blade Runner refers to the androids as "replicants," but they are actually no different than human, utilizing genetically designed human organs to function.  There are no mechanical parts or electronic circuits. Earlier films portrayed such androids as having at least slightly robotic personalities.  Even Data in StarTrek had these qualities.  Blade Runner androids had none of that, but they still called them androids.  The disturbing part is because, as the Tyrell Corporation claims, "They are more human than human."  I think Blade Runner may have been a first film portraying androids as indistinguishable from human, so much so that they could only be detected with a sophisticated psychometric device.  Even society worried about accidentally murdering a human because you could never tell an android from an actual human without the Voight Kompt test, which was so well known that detecting an android in the movie was sometimes phrased as, "We VK'ed him last week, and terminated him."  All done without a hint of legal proceeding.

[Cavebear]

Blade Runner refers to the androids as "replicants," but they are actually no different than human, utilizing genetically designed human organs to function.  There are no mechanical parts or electronic circuits. Earlier films portrayed such androids as having at least slightly robotic personalities.  Even Data in StarTrek had these qualities.  Blade Runner androids had none of that, but they still called them androids.  The disturbing part is because, as the Tyrell Corporation claims, "They are more human than human."  I think Blade Runner may have been a first film portraying androids as indistinguishable from human, so much so that they could only be detected with a sophisticated psychometric device.  Even society worried about accidentally murdering a human because you could never tell an android from an actual human without the Voight Kompt test, which was so well known that detecting an android in the movie was sometimes phrased as, "We VK'ed him last week, and terminated him."  All done without a hint of legal proceeding.

But they WERE different.  They were preternatually strong but with a limited lifespan.  And they could be distinguished from humans. Perhaps I should re-read the Brunner book.

[SGOS]

But they WERE different.  They were preternatually strong but with a limited lifespan.  And they could be distinguished from humans. Perhaps I should re-read the Brunner book.

Minor differences at best, like having blue eyes or brown eyes.  Would you use eye color, strength, or longevity as the reason to discriminate, let alone terminate on sight?  It would make sense if they were dangerous, which they are, but only because humans treat them worse than shit as slaves, both for labor and sexual gratification.  Such simple social differences could be worked out politically and technologically, rather than just bathing the crowded streets in their blood.

[Cavebear]

Minor differences at best, like having blue eyes or brown eyes.  Would you use eye color, strength, or longevity as the reason to discriminate, let alone terminate on sight?  It would make sense if they were dangerous, which they are, but only because humans treat them worse than shit as slaves, both for labor and sexual gratification.  Such simple social differences could be worked out politically and technologically, rather than just bathing the crowded streets in their blood.

I wasn't suggesting bathing the streets in their blood.  I was asking why the preturnaturally strong differences and lesser lifespan should be ignored.  There is a difference about that.

[aitm]

Bought a fire stick a few weeks back, only watched a couple so far, issues with my internet speed. Anyhoo....watched "the hitmans bodyguard" it was alright, had it's moments. Worthy of wasting a couple hours if your not doing anything interesting. 2.5/5

[SGOS]

I wasn't suggesting bathing the streets in their blood.  I was asking why the preturnaturally strong differences and lesser lifespan should be ignored.  There is a difference about that.

According to the first movie, the four year lifespan was built into the androids to prevent them from developing annoying habits, like thinking on their own or adopting strategies of self preservation.  That always struck me as a weak point in the story, since the four year life span itself was precisely the cause of android discord that it was designed to prevent.  Such a problem was not anticipated by the designers and would have been the  'well, duh??' moment in history if there ever was one.

Another story inconsistency in film #1 was when Roy Batty asked Tyrell how he could get more life.  Tyrell told him he couldn't because he was designed as well as they could make him.  Whereas earlier, the movie said the life span issue was intentional.  I suppose that he could have meant once designed to live four years, Roy could not be redesigned.  But Tyrell didn't indicate that at all.  Also, the android Rachael, had no such life span limitation, so it seems like androids can be built anyway you want.

There is a scene in the second movie, where Deckart meets Tyrell again briefly.  Tyrell is no longer played by Studs Edit:  Joe Turkel, but a younger actor, making it seem like maybe Tyrell was an android himself, but I think that was an unintended mistake by the director, and not something to be developed in another sequel.  At any rate, that brief scene was a surreal encounter in the film, but I'm not sure why.  It's not like I'm trying to avoid giving anything away.  I don't understand it.  There was just something about it that gave me the heeby jeebies.  The acting maybe.  I want to watch that scene again.