Discussion in 'Movies and Entertainment' started by Brian in Mesa, Mar 5, 2011.
Tom Hardy may have been a better casting choice.
I'm curious about WHY you thought there would be more action, considering there wasn't a precedent for it since the original didn't have that much action itself.
I haven't made up my mind yet, but I think I might have enjoyed this movie better than the original. I might attribute that to Ridley Scott, who has become a mediocre filmmaker in his old age and his flaws start to show up more in his earlier work.
DEFINITELY deserves the
Went to see this over the weekend. I love science fiction but have always had mixed feelings about the original. However, I really liked this movie. I know it's probably blasphemy but I enjoyed this more than the original. It has some pacing problems (like the original) and Jared Leto's character was underutilized. However, this movie isn't a Star Wars or an Aliens. It's more of a narrative.
I will be adding this to my 4K collection when it hits home video.
That's not probably blasphemy; it is for certain blasphemy
My problem with the original was at times it was too preachy for the sake of being preachy. I thought the story itself was ahead of it's time talking about the ethics of AI. Way before it's time and why it's a classic. For some reason I just always had a hard time watching the original.
my problem with the original is it always puts me to sleep. Great visuals and substitute for ambien, but that's about it for me.
the original was very philosophical... does this one have the same tilt?
No, I don't think it does. Like Covert said the first was was way ahead of its time dealing with the ethics of AI/replicants.
There aren't those types of questions in this one. But, there have been several short films leading up to this that bridge from original and help set the table for this movie.
I think this one still has a very narrative driven tone IMO. It’s the polar opposite of Star Wars type science fiction.
I enjoyed it.
Separate names with a comma.