From a film making perspective John Wick 2 is really something special.

Clearly our opinions differ drastically, but I'll attempt to convey what I felt was there/lacking with both of these. Maybe you'll understand where I'm coming from, and why my top movie choices of the year, are what they are.

I'm not sure how anyone could believe that the new Bladerunner is superior to the original, but you're entitled to that opinion. As a 3 hour long piece of art it was beautiful, as a movie, it was fucking dreadful. Gosling was boring and uninspired, the story was sloppy, pointless, and predictable. The pacing was like nails on a chalkboard, and the antagonist was so poorly written and portrayed that i literally laughed during his bit. All of that followed up with a painfully dull and anticlimactic ending, made for an Incredibly subpar film. The visuals, music, ambience and everything from an artistic point of view was breathtaking, and had the filled the beautiful scenery with a story worth telling, they could have easily made the film of the year, or of the past few years, but they didn't.

I loved John Wick, and I enjoyed chapter 2, but after an hour of seeing the sane thing over and over, it starts to get pretty fucking boring. First one bad a better balance, and it had the benefit of surprising it's audience with how amazing it was. With part 2, people were expecting it, and it delivered as well as it could, but like I said, I was bored out of my mind at the end of the film, and that's what made it a good vs great. It was on the cusp, but I need a bit more than brilliant camera work and phenomenal choreography to stay enthused for 2+ hours, and it did great keeping the action fresh for the majority of the film it just missed the mark by becoming stale at the end. This is just my opinion ofc, and clearly LOADS of people disagree with me, since everyone seems to think JW2 is the best movie of the year.

I apologize for any typos, I wrote this on my cell during a bumpy stop and go trip lol.

The blade runner ending might have been anticlimatic but I don't think it was that predictable. I remember thinking Gosling was really good in it and Harrison Ford was pretty bad. Felt that Jared Leto was good as Wallace too. I can understand the story being sloppy, or at least not being communicated coherently. All things considered, I still believe it's a really good film with great visuals and acting.

What's the difference? There's nothing about the movie itself that defines whether it's a movie or not. We know that it is one. So if it's a beautiful piece of art then, as a movie, it is a beautiful piece of art.

The thing that hurt blade runner for me was just the villain and 1 or 2 scenes that were just a bit slow. Other than that the rest was fantastic.

This post was edited by OutOfTown on Dec 27 2017 07:56pm

I don't think blade runner 2 really had a villian... Maybe that's why some people think it was anticlimactic.

It didn't really.


For me it has to be Kingsmen: The Golden Circle. Fucking loved it.

Logan was good too but it was so long since I first watched it.

Came here expecting real movies instead pretty much only trash action movies made to grab money are listed.

Where the real movies at that actually get nominated for awards.

I, tonya
Wind river
Etc

I just watched I, tonya and while the actors did a good job portraying the people involved in that story...the movie as a whole really isn't much for entertainment.

logan
spiderman
guardians
it

This post was edited by Doom0277 on Dec 28 2017 10:51am

Get out was garbage. i've never seen so many people walk out of a film.