Sci-fi Kinos

Just marathoned pic realated, it's truly amazing!

What are some more sci-fi kinos I can enjoy?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=fwpPy2IDNwE
youtube.com/watch?v=QKmLVWb2Cxw
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Radio Free Albemuth 2010

Lockout 2011

Pandorum

Any Riley Scot sci-fi

thanks famm

The Congress 2013

Blade Runner is a legitimately mediocre movie that's only remembered for its visuals (which aren't that exceptional, Black Rain does the same thing), the score (which is pretentious) and mostly imagined depth (people have convinced themselves that the movie is some kind of grand statement on human nature, ask what that statement is and you'll never get a good answer in a million years).

Roy's monologue alone makes it kino for me

it's one of the most memorable moments in kino history

>the score (which is pretentious)
you are a retard

...

Roy's monologue is a bunch of purple nonsense that only serves to make him seem petty and immature.

>I'm dying now but I went into SPACE so who's the REAL human now huh? checkmate atheists

Vangelis' ambient synth bleeps don't deserve a tenth of the praise they've gotten.

>Children of Men x2
>Star Wars OT
>Also Star Wars
What did he mean by this?

Imagine if you would see something from this video at 10.03 and then some cop would try to tell you are not human enough
youtube.com/watch?v=fwpPy2IDNwE

>marathoned
As in, watched in one setting? Is this an unusual way to watch a film or something?

>Vangelis' ambient synth bleeps don't deserve a tenth of the praise they've gotten.
You can dislike the score if you want, but don't use words like "pretentious" when you obviously don't know what they mean. The definition isn't "anything acclaimed by others that I don't like."

Also nice job completely misunderstanding Roy's speech, not that I would expect anything more from someone who would call Blade Runner "mediocre"

I tried to love this. Great concept, genuinely weird, but it din't move me as I hoped it would.
>Butt-head the assassin, tho

>telling people what a pseud you are.

At least I try to do something other than accept pop-culture memes at face value. Think. Do you really like Blade Runner or did you just go into knowing you have to like it because it's such a 'masterpiece' according to everyone else.

Even worse, you're one of those people who makes condescending assumptions about anyone with different opinions

>you like something I don't? Ha, you fell for a meme. That's okay, not everyone can be as smart as me

It's a real question which you avoided. What do you actually like about Blade Runner? How did it earn the acclaim? It looks solid, but aside from that it's a straight-forward neo-noir movie that's half as interesting as its contemporaries. I'd rather watch The Long Goodbye or even Klute over Blade Runner any time.

not him but I just rewatched it and wasn't expecting much but was blown away by how good it looks. The characters and story aren't incredible but it's still one of the greats

yeah, I feel that atmosphere is more authentic than mordern sci-fi but I don't know why

In my defence, do you watch many movies made in the 70s? I know Blade Runner is later but it's got that style to it. The 70s was a generally great looking time for movies if you ask me.

70s power. The 80s ruined Hollywood irreparably. It was already bad but Post-Heaven's Gate is the true end-times. Anybody remotely resembling an auteur was ruthlessly clamped down upon to ensure that such a decadent money-pit could never be recreated. The cost of this was that nobody was ever allowed to be creative again.

The Time Machine
Forbidden Planet
Planet of the Apes
The Invisible Man
The Day the Earth Stood Still

Sci-fi turned into a meme in the 80s and never recovered

>insinuating I got memed into liking it, and didn't "really" like it.
Motherfucker, the strengths of this film are obvious to anyone with regard for cinematography, symbolism, set design or costuming alone.

>Forbidden Planet
Just watched this last night, it's a fucking masterpiece.

Also forgot Silent Running

>I don't know why
I do, and I will tell you
>Ridley was at the heights of his powers
>100% practical effects
>Clearly not written or directed by committee
>Taking real risks (resulting in being a bit of a box-office)
It was a different time, to be sure.

It looks good. I admit that. All four things you brought up there are about looks. What does the movie do beyond looking good? If this is all it takes then Beyond the Black Rainbow is an equally miraculous feat of filmmaking.

For real now, what do Blade Runner fans think of that movie. I like it a lot.

I liked it in the same way I'd appreciate a good music video

Do you mean something along the lines of 'looked and sounded good and it doesn't need to be held to any standard higher than that?' If so I think that too.

which is fine for beyond the black rainbow but for me blade runner created a beautiful and practically flawless world so it's not that comparable

>world
Are we talking about something other than visuals now?

came here to ask this.

Do yourself a favor and watch Moon.

>2 hour movie
>marathoned

watching kinos is hard work m8

good post. also nice trips

Yes, OP should like that. Like Blade Runner it's essential psued-core.

Weird huh? And in the catalog I saw some people posting about the opening scene in The Dark Knight Rises. What's up with that? LMAO!

>Beyond the Black Rainbow
I really wanted to like this film. The trailer was the best I'd seen the The FP (2011), and was very hype to see it. The film ended up being a little slow for my taste, while maintaining a cool sort of 70's paranoia. Didn't change my life, though.

hello my fellow redditor XDD

anyone recommend some good scifi/korean/japanese kino I could watch tonight

I'm sad and I want something stylistic/dark/masterpieceful

What if I take a dog up to space and hold him up to the window while we fly past this. Is he a human now?

The Red Spectacles

what am I in for?

I agree that the film is still celebrated largely because of the more visual elements, which captured perfectly the rain-slicked neon and trash tropes of cyberpunk as a whole.

The story is still solid, with enough moral ambiguity and grittiness to further serve the neo-noir aesthetic while exploring themes that are increasingly relevant in the 21st century.

>Also Syd Mead concept artistry gold

A high-tier pleb-filter. Have faith that the director knows what he's doing and don't look at your fucking phone. If you have taste you should have a decent time.

>I.Am.a.Hero.2016.1080p.BluRay.x264.DTS-WiKi

Kino

>while exploring themes that are increasingly relevant in the 21st century.
Where are the robots? Where is the anything? What were you thinking when you wrote this?

it's old as fuck where can I find it?

thanks boys, checking em both out

Pretty sure that when I saw it I just got it from PirateBay. I'm sure it's around. I think it's even on youtube (don't do this of course).

he was not a dog. he could develop different types of personality based on the expirience, just like the real human.
youtube.com/watch?v=QKmLVWb2Cxw

>Where are the robots?
Surely you jest
>Artificial intelligence
>Corporate/consumer driven supertechnology
>virtually induced memories
>urban decay
>Multi-culti wasteland
Shall I go on?

dogs have personalities

I'm not seeing it. Blade Runner isn't really about those issues at all. Sure there are robots that consider themselves human, but this isn't explored. They're just there. It's a fancy coat of paint on a neo-noir hitman movie.

I agree with the motifs in the film are a byproduct of the visual style, not the other way around. Completely distant from the source material too. Also, there are no androids today like in the film, user. sorry.

>I'm not seeing it. Blade Runner isn't really about those issues at all.
You and I must be watching vastly different versions of a film called Blade Runner, then.
>this isn't explored.
>The robots literally return to earth (at great personal risk) to seek out their human creators in an effort to attain the immortality they believe they are due.
>Is Deckard or isn't he?
I'm sorry you can't into sci-fi, bro

>the motifs in the film are a byproduct of the visual style
They are intertwined, but I agree that the visual is the stronger of the two. The other themes are still solid.

>distant from the source material
This is certainly true.

>there are no androids today like in the film
If I have to explain what the androids in BR symbolize to you, then I have other threads to attend to.

>>If I have to explain what the androids in BR symbolize to you, then I have other threads to attend to.

...

>tfw to intelligent to enjoy sci-fi flicks

>tfw can read books of all kinds and use my imagination to animate action, while plebs due to their lack of imagination wait for Holliwood to make movies based on those books

This. Blade Runner is a truly average movie. The entire plot is stupid. All the bad bots coming to kill their creators have an expiration date. The creators could hide in a safe room for 3 days and then be fine because the bots would be dead. Deckard did literally nothing during the movie. He didn't detect anything, he didn't protect anyone. He was a McGuffin that just moved from set piece to set piece to listen passively to exposition.

I agree with you. Blade runner is a one time, maybe few find experience that's sole claim to fame was how well it actually brought a sci fi world to life. Blade runner manages to feel real enough to people who watch it just for the cinematography. When it comes down to the plot that needs to take place, it's not only boring but so all over the place it needed several cuts just to tell it properly.

It did a lot of things well, but it's not something you go back and watch because the plot was good. It's just beautiful to look at.

>What are some more sci-fi kinos I can enjoy?
Strange Days
>The Matrix owes everything to that film.

>It's just beautiful to look at.
And that is why it still revered today

Robot-men not wanting to die isn't even a 'really makes you think'-core plot point. And don't even get me started on 'Is Deckard or isn't he?' He's not. Why would he be? What point would there be to it? Why would Gaff make cryptic hints towards this? Why would a replicant dream about a unicorn?

>sorry you can't into sci-fi
fuck you I am the master. Just ask these guys and .

Explain that to the posters ITT who still insist that there's more going on than nice lighting.

Glad to see that my 'Blade Runner is overrated' posts are finally gaining traction though. We'll dispel this fiction yet.

>'Is Deckard or isn't he?' He's not.

The Matrix owes a bit more to World on a Wire and the underlying sci-fi story Simulacron-3.

>my 'Blade Runner is overrated' posts are finally gaining traction though.
>my
It's okay to jump on the "Bade Budder Oberradded DURR" bandwagon, but to claim you are piloting such a bandwagon is disingenuous and you know it.

he's not tho. That stuff didn't come up until the later cuts which only existed to capitalize on the movie's meme-status and recouperate on old losses. Such an important plot point wouldn't have been completely scrapped in the OG cut. For all the shit people give it it's actually not bad the theatrical cut. They knew what the movie was. It's neo-noir in a future-city. People who complain about the narration have been completely 100% memed.

I don't know. I don't have a job so I can make a lot of posts here. How many big critics are pushing this thing? The only critic I've seen claim it is Dan Schneider, and I'm pretty sure I'm the only Sup Forums poster who knows he exists.

>Marathon one movie

What?

It's one long ass movie, my man

>Simulacron-3
>World on a Wire
Looking into both of these now. Thanks.

...

Spiderman and Xmen? Get the fuck out, faggot.

>implying Raimi's Spiderman isn't kino

You get the fuck out shitter

Blade Runner is fantastic and while the visuals put it over the top its essentially a perfect storm of script writing and direction

Generally I'd consider Scott to be an okay director, but he knew how to handle noir from a presentation standpoint and he did so wonderfully not because of aesthetic but he captured the emotions of the characters beyond what minimal lines they had and the minute facial expressions they put on

You have to look under the surface as to what its implied the characters are feeling and how hard their situations are hitting them, if you can't get that then you won't understand what the fans get beyond the visuals

Solaris and Stalker. They get bashed and praised here in equal measure, but if you want to be a sci-fi kinoist, Tarkovsy's two sci-fi films are pretty much mandatory. I enjoyed Solaris a lot and the book it was based on. Stalker is a bit more abstruse.

The old British TV miniseries Quatermass and the Pit was pretty good. They made a film version of it, but it loses a lot of the detail.

Planet of the Vampires is an entertaining 60's campy horror sci-fi, and it influenced the look of the Alien franchise quite a bit.

The animated French film Fantastic Planet is a classic for good reason.

Primer and Upstream Color are both sci-fi in many regards.

If you want an entertaining goofball Christmas sci-fi, look up "Dark Angel," the Dolph Lundgren film released in 1990.

Everyone's motivations in this movie are extremely simple. You're talking like there's a massive amount of depth here but you want give anything concrete. It's posts like this that make me think the movie's a meme.

Who should I start with?

Deckard or Roy or Rachel

>Still doesn't get it, the post

Thanks mate, will look into these kinos

pls explain how Roy is deep beyond 'fuck you I don't want to die I saw space once you know.'

And after all these explanations. I must be really dense.

Roy is real get it? u dumb shit he's a person, u dense fuck

How can Roy be real if he isn't real.

Roy as a plot oriented character is very basic, yes

But its the thematic weight he has that makes him wonderful

One of the more often pointed out themes of the movie is "Are the replicants human?"

What makes Roy work so well as a character is that he's as human as they come yet treated like a tool, he embodies the ethical quandry the film is posing to the audience

So when he's dying, and will lose all those memories like tears in the rain, he's lamenting for an existence he is doomed to lose for no other reason than because he was only meant to be a tool, something inhuman

fucking spooked retard, I'm done humouring you.

>Roy is a plot oriented character is very basic yes
I'd say the same applies to everyone

>But the thematic weight he has that makes him wonderful
You'd better have a good explanation for what that is.

>One of the more often pointed out themes of the movie is 'are the replicants human?'
People do say that.

>What makes Roy work so well as a character is that he's as human as they come yet treated like a tool
assertion followed by something that isn't there

>he embodies the ethical quandry the film is posing to the audience
you mean he thinks he's a person but people don't treat him like one. That's not a thematic exploration, that's the robot man being treated like a robot and not liking it. You haven't said anything of substance here. This isn't depth. You don't know depth. If you tried to read real science-fiction your fucking head would spin off.

>so when he's dying
we're already here?

>and will lose all those memories like tears in the rain
Oh that's what he meant. Deep.

>he's lamenting for an existence he is doomed to lose for no other reason than because he was only meant to be a tool, something inhuman
he feels bad about dying. This isn't an exploration of the themes you brought up, it's the robot man dying. Fucking has as much to say as you. Read some Strugatsky Brothers or something.

>you'd better have a good explanation for what that is

Just explained it as his struggle relating back to the ethical quandry which could probably be better summed up as "Should they deserve the same dignity as us since they experience life like us?"

>its not an exploration

Correct, but its not meant to be either

Its essentially supposed to make you think and feel for the characters, its good drama on some very basic human levels (I could go into that as well but I'd rather defend Roy as a character first)

>You could say that about the other characters

It is exactly what I would say, and thats the point since it is noir movie with classic archerypes built in with a simple plot meant to be a vehicle for characters with thematic and emotional depth despite not having motivational depth that would be related to a denser plot

>shitting on Blade Runner
understandable

>shitting on Vangelis' score
nope

If you compare the themes of the film to the themes in the book, it is mediocre, although the visuals are astounding, and one of the reasons I love the movie. The idea that (basically) humans don't want to be be slaves is nothing ground breaking, especially in sci-fi.

I don't think book comparisons are eneitrely fair

I usually try to look at how much a film can get done with with fewer visuals and lines than a book usually does

Stop saying kino it's gay

I personally think that it's okay but only in the context of the 'flick, movie, film, cinema, kino' dichotomy. Only this made plebs insecure so they destroyed it.

>shits on the film because he doesn't get it
Don't worry user, the next Marvel action flick is coming soon!

>I'm done humouring you
my first post ITT u fucking retard

don't reply to an user asking answers of another specific user if this kind of mixup bothers you so much.

He's right though, what's the big message besides "slavery: bad, death: bad, living in fear: bad"

but the book got a lot more done thematically speaking, which could have been done visually as well. Although we got what we got, and it's nice to have something different from the book.

lol, u dumb

Why is solaris listed twice?

Blade runner is a perfect example of visuals for thematics done right.
The story is decent.
The characters are decent.
The visuals are phenomenal.
I love the movie, will probably try to read "Do androids dream of electric sheep" seeing as the source material is often better than the derivatives.

I LOVE THOSE! I'll leave decoding intelligent films such as Snowpiercer and Oldboy to patricians like you.

Source material is completely different. It's a study of empathy, not the totally compelling and relevant subject of robot slavery. Also if you're willing to stretch your mind a tiiiiiinny bit the book is also very anti-Semitic