0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 6033 times.
for sure a movie for the Male sex..during the scene below which WGH captured the field of female erotic giants young teens of high school age made sounds of dislike upon seeing those two gals statues
And for anyone who has NOT seen the director's previous films, Sicario, and Arrival, I suggest you do so...
I fell asleep at one point.
The volume on some of the female vocals as they whispered their lines was so low I couldn't understand what they were saying. This happened several times.
I felt there was too much effort to have a slow pace, even when unnecessary. They could have eliminated 30 minutes of long pauses and had a better movie in my opinion.
I was tempted to leave half way through.Not to mention the excessively loud volume for sound effects, which also happen several times.They could have eliminated 90 minutes, but as sequels usually go, this one is inferior to the the first.Apart from some visuals, there wasn't much about this film that I particularly enjoyed.
The negative feedback is so interesting to me because to me they sound like what was said about the original. I've always considered the original a little slow, that the visuals and production design were the best thing about it, etc etc.
2049 can absolutely lose 30 minutes and have the same impact. In fact I think the original run time was supposed to be 30min shorter. Not sure why the director decided to go all in. But that additional 30 minutes is what takes the film to Kubrick level. There's a meditative pace to it and emphasis on landscapes that reminds me of 2001. Sicario had similar moments, but much shorter. Definite influence.
I live in a small town, so I missed it. But I'm rather curious, since only guys have commented - what did your female friends and partners think about it? There seems to be a big gender gap about this movie - maybe?
Page created in 0.038 seconds with 27 queries.