Wow what a disapointment. Is this really what passes for a "smart" movie this days...

Wow what a disapointment. Is this really what passes for a "smart" movie this days? No wonder you guys think Blade Runner 2049 was kino.

Attached: 2hCGSFwXzkLq7fRxQ7rHkFheXHj.jpg (2000x3000, 477K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/bgLEhyLaRvA
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

trips of truth

The only people that call it smart are people trying to shit on it

Ex Machina was better desu. Mostly just because of the dancing scene

youtu.be/bgLEhyLaRvA
preach. It's astounding how lame it was minus the cloning scene

How did the interracial fucking scenes add anything to the film's narrative or themes?

Blade Runner was league's better than this shit

trips have spoken finally.

This makes me sad really, give me 1 million dollar and i make a movie at least 10 times better.

tell me what quality BR has without using the words ambience/atmosphere/music.
I will wait

>he doesn't realize the movie was about the deterioration of her marriage
Typical Sup Forumstard, so busy being angry about black people that he forgot to even watch the film

yeah I thought it was terrible aside from a couple good scenes. I can't believe the people praising it as intelligent or thought provoking

what do you expect. video game plots have taken over good screenwriting. Kids that grew up on quest markers are now adults. they see canto bight as a great sub plot.

Wasn't too smaht
Wasn't that interesting
Jesus that black autist chick got some gold star cringe lines
looked about as good as a walking dead ep

still miles better than Bright tho.

No one thinks Canto Bight was a good subplot

wtf Bright was kino as fuck i almost cried

Attached: dsdssdsdsde.jpg (442x1069, 127K)

OP here, but BR also had good scenes, characters and character interactions. I'd say Ford and Leto were the only truly bad characters in the movie.
Ambience, atmosphere and music DID add to the film, but alone they really mean nothing. Hell, Annihilation had those and they couldn't save most of the scenes.

It really sucks.

It was fantastic, but not because it was "smart" or "thought provoking." It transcended >muh plot and >muh meaning and >muh character to create an incredible experience of cinematic psychedelia that uses the medium in a way that refreshing and challenging for a release of its size

But it wasn't about. You can draw a conclusion that she went in out of guilt but that's not what the movie is about. It's simply a sci-fi story with little substance, the only theme it showcases like many recent sci-fi films is "alyums are scary and impossible to comprehend".

Okay, now explain how it does that, because the visuals were consistently bad. You basically write off the ways it sucks and focus on something as intangible as "psychedelia"

>Is this really what passes for a "smart" movie this days?
No, it's pure gimmickry for the contemporary Netflix audience. It's sci-fi for people not into science fiction, just like BR2049 is. It's "smart" film for people who don't want to think too hard. It's "art" for people who value cheap ideals of entertainment over artistic merit. It's everything wrong with modern filmmaking, and the praise it receives is a reflection of steep societal decline.

Attached: annihilation-tarkovsky.jpg (3400x5060, 2.59M)

The fucking delusion. It's an average horror film but I'll give you the lighthouse scenes, that shit was KINO.

One of the themes of the movie is self destruction. It’s literally told to the audience

>comparing Blade Runner 2049 to this shit because they're vaguely similar
What.

What are you even trying to say? The movie had really fucking obvious and dumb scenes and shit characters and drama.
>uses the medium in a way that refreshing and challenging for a release of its size
I disagree, it felt like a college student project trying really hard to be deep.

Not him but the comparison is fair. Both are dumb hollywood movies disguised as deep and smart.

blade runner had something unique to say.
annihilation didn't.

not very comparable

>Gorgeous special effects with CG that's barely notceable or not even at all
>Near stellar casting. Gosling was perfect as as K and Ana De Armas was actually believable as a sex symbol who people would purchase.
>Acting was great all around. This was Hoeks first major role and I think she did a good job as Luv. Bautista was also believable and a complete departure from his character Drax in GOTG. Harrison also surprisingly didn't phone it in
>K was a really good protagonist. He's capable, but not overpowered. Also the nature of his character is very tragic even before the main events of the movie, so he's easy to root for

>tell me what 2+2 equals but don’t say 4!

lol

>

Attached: 1516477825403.png (1920x1080, 1.69M)

>blade runner had something unique to say.
Whoa let's not get crazy here. "robuts have fees fees" is not unique, original or interesting in any way bro.

In what way was 2049 a dumb movie disguised as being smart? The film I saw told a relatively simple story but told it well

I'm not concerned with the surface of the images, how they look, I'm concerned with the content. Biological forms interrelating as they do in Annihilation, both visually and conceptually, is unlike anything put to screen before. And the visuals are very tangible as a psychedelic experience if you've ever had one.
You sound like a college student trying really hard to appear smarter than the film. It wasn't primarily concerned with characters and drama, that much is obvious. Its aims were much higher. It wanted to create literally a pure cinematic experience, which is where the 2001 comparisons are coming from

You guys need to check out more avant-garde cinema and subsequent theory, maybe read up on some McLuhan. It's not necessary to enjoy movies but it really takes you to the next level as an appreciator of kinógraphy such as Annihilation.

shit b8

This. The comparison is remotely fair because Blade Runner was consistently gorgeous, had a plot that was easy to follow, didn't focus on science (poorly) the way Annihilation did, had characters with a lot of depth, and focused on its core theme in a way that was followed up on from start to finish without lousy characterisation being there solely to support said themes.

thats not what it had to say, you simpleton.

It has a good message about striving to become special through your own actions and not leaning off of others?

butthurt/10
not an argument

Attached: 1510057375722.png (560x572, 50K)

heres another (you)

Neither is your response my man

>n-no you!
You must be over 18 to post here.
Dumb movie, boring plot, okay imagery.
Some random good ideas don't make it good, neither does you saying it was supposed to be bad because "2deep".

Did you even watch the film you fucking brainet, if you don't understand the film don't just say it's bad. Throughout the film they fucking spoonfed themes by mentioning cancer like a 5 times. Dumb Sup Forumstard

But the movie wasn't about that? K didn't strive to be shit, he just did his job until he realized his job was shit then his fee fees told him to do something out of character for a robot. This of course told through an increasingly convoluted sequel bait plot.

wasn't meant to be nor did it need to be

objectively wrong

>Both are dumb hollywood movies disguised as deep and smart.
this is still true, movies don't need to be 1:1 to be comparable in some aspects.

Mostly every scene with Leto. Nothing wrong with being dumb, honestly, but they shouldn't try to sound deep.

the movie was co-produced by anglos, and it's literally mandatory that you have to add shit like interracial couples in films/shows in order to get funding.

>guy with a god complex talks like a pretentious faggot
what a surprise

What? The entire plot revolves around K's character and his arc, him becoming 'human' There's no out of character shit when he was doubting who he was since the beginning. The plot wasn't convoluted either. This reads like bad bait

"it was on purpose!" is not an argument. The movie delt with Leto's character as seriously as any other, there wasn't a single momment that implied his philosophies weren't to be taken seriously. He was a cartoon villain with zero self awereness.

Always love when these threads pop up. Just proves how much better taste i have than everyone on this board.

Good characters and story. Subvert the chosen one troupe well and give a satisfying alternate story arc. Every characters is nuance if you examine them closely, no distinct good or evil. Not resolve the plot around protagonist vs antagonist like some capeshit. Characters’ motivation are driven by their background and context really well. Include the character from the previous movie without being overbearingly pandering. Make it a good sequel with unique quality story instead of being a rehash. That is on top of the already good Cinematography and sound and set design

>Bautista was also believable and a complete departure from his character Drax in GOTG
Yeah I loved the ten seconds he was in the film, what a great actor

are you just posting the last jedi apologist propaganda?

Do you fags really enjoy being contraraians?

Last jedi is subverting troupe done wrong when it takes the story out of logical sense and make characters acting out of characters.

I liked it because it was basically The Colour out of Space.

>everyone who doesn't have the same opinion as me is a contrarian!

>The Colour out of Space
good taste