snowleper

Members
  • Content count

    222
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About snowleper

  • Rank
    Squire

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

426 profile views
  1. Now that was actually good. Well done.
  2. 1. Zeno's Conscience - by Svevo 2. Nausicaa - by Miyazaki 3. Hunter's Run - by Martin and Dozois 4. The Darkness that comes before - by Bakker 5. Ulysses - by Joyce 6. Name of the Rose - by Eco 7. The cosmic Connection - Sagan 8. A wizard of Earthsea - by Le Guin 9. The Dispossessed - by Le Guin 10. American Psycho - by Ellis (Hyperion by Simmons and the culture books by Banks are also really good).
  3. I don't know if Berzerk is necessarily 'a' book. But that's cool. It does have a lot of good things going for it as a series.
  4. It would be good, if Xi was having a wet dream about Mao. Or being creamed into by Billie Idol. (And apparently really liking it). But maybe we'll get a taste of that in five years. Hard to say.
  5. I think Fincher did a fantastic job with this. But more than anything I think I really enjoyed the very dry dark humor in Mindhunter. It was refreshing to be shown a story rather than be told what to think or feel about it. Particularly when the subject matter is such an easy thing to moralize about. The characters were flawed and interesting. The scenes and lighting very carefully constructed. And Fincher was able to throw in a lot of nuance without compromising the narrative objectivity. That being said, I think the initial dialog between Holden and Debbie was supposed to be awkward. Particularly if Kemper pegged him correctly, and Holden was actually a virgin. But even so -- it's often very hard to clearly pin down the constructed/fictive intent.
  6. I think you are rationalizing, and bending over backwards to somehow make nonsensical elements of this wreck of a story justifiable. The movie certainly doesn't go out of it's way to clearly explain these things. Instead we have the events and setting in this movie and it's prequel to help flesh out how this world works, what replicants are, how they are produced - and what they are for. I think my assumption here is based on something that is clearly demonstrated. You can disagree. But I think you have to admit that my assumption works much better within this movies logic than K being a singular -designer- unique replicant. (Which would cut against the mold and probably require an explanation - because that would be unusual). The fact that we are having this conversation makes me think this was a poorly written element of the story -- much less any of the other things I've listed above. It's either lazy -- or nebulous, or both. I think seeing K treated like property would have been better for the dramatic arc of the story. And it would have helped the movie concentrate on the actions of a clearly worked plot, rather than the protagonist's half-baked quest for meaning.
  7. I've watched up to the second episode, and so far this show has been phenomenal. Anybody else watching? It's a period drama set in the FBI in the 1970's about the development of criminal psychology and the serial crime unit - to help better understand where and why these killers come from. It's directed by Fincher (who did Se7en) -- based on a book I haven't read. I usually hate crime dramas, particularly 'psychological' crime drama -- but the script, characters, and writing has been really solid so far.
  8. Not so. By trying to pay tribute to it's predecessor it failed to develop on it's own. My contention is that it was a sci-fi movie. But not a Noir movie -- even though it was trying to be, or at least dressing itself up to be just that. I don't see how Joi improved the movie at all. It interacted poorly with the protagonist, acting as a crutch/sounding board to explore his nonsensical angst -- and had no meaningful interactions with any of the other elements of the movie. It was an isolated, boring, pointless character that didn't even fulfill the formulaic requirements of a love interest all that successfully. We get that at the end. Some replicants care -- because they simply do. This might have worked if it had been a reoccurring element of the movie. Or if we got some inkling of a replicant freedom movement. But we didn't -- aside from this lazy set-up for this sequels' sequel towards the very end. And still -- the movie seems to operate on the premise that the repli-child is objectively important, and not just symbolically essential to a beleaguered group of escaped artificial slaves. The whole quasi-mystical exploration of the 'miracle of birth' was very poor sci-fi. Which makes sense given that this director also did Arrival, which had good elements but was also full of mystical spiritual depok chopra style bullshit. As opposed to K being a designer, absolutely unique replicant? Even his designation 'K' seems to point towards the possibility of 10 other models possibly proceeding him. If not a fuck ton more, since K is an incomplete serial number. It makes no sense that they would design a replicant to be a cop and only produce the one. The entire logic of the movie points towards the fact that he was produced on a factory line to serve a designed non-unique purpose. That's essentially what replicants are. It also would have made more sense if he was actually kept in a box, like his debriefing seemed to kinda infer he should have been, instead of paying to live in a flat, and living just like an ordinary person. (This movie really dropped the ball in the representation of replicants as slaves -- and K as an enslaved slave-catcher).
  9. This is assuming that any of this was a unique twist. It wasn't. It seemed very derivative of the awful shit fest that was 'Her' -- going home and masturbating to Siri seems antithetical to the noir genre itself. Plus -- it was kinda just objectifying sexbait down to the core. I absolutely disagree. Deckard's life was on the line the entire time -- much less the lives of the replicants he is brutally hunting down. The first blade runner has points when you can say it slows down -- but the movie operated very well as a hunt/chase movie, unlike the sprawling plod fest that was the sequel, where you are asked to care about the protagonists shitty fake, emotive existential journey that ultimately and very foreseeably goes nowhere. (The comparison here would be the first blade runner spending almost an hour and a half on Deckard questioning if he is real or not, and then to climax with the anticlimactic reveal that he IS real. which is very much not the case of the first movie -- although the book kinda meanders there for a time). It isn't Deckard who views it that way. It's the script -- as narrated by the awful blind jesus look alike villain man who makes something along the lines of 2-3 short clichéd visits in the movie. My issue is that it isn't something that is shown -- it is something that is assumed and dictated to us. Also it makes no sense that Rachel was specifically engineered to seduce and soak up the spunk of a very specific, average police detective. That's stupid. It's not good writing. Same with the circular reasoning that the child is important because it is important. Or -- it exists ergo it is important that it exists. We are never given anything concrete about how or why this kid is special -- it's just special because the script needed it to be. With a splash of special messiah jesus bullshit thrown in because the movie had to go that extra distance to be clichéd and pseudo-religious. --- Also, it bugged me that the movie was essentially about Rachel and her female daughter. It was pretty much their story, except they were almost entirely absent, and instead the story that circles around them is told to us by some dudes who really had nothing to do with any of it. K was boring and pointless, and Deckard was an absentee father who seemingly abandoned his daughter and pregnant repli-wench to 'protect' them -- so some weird maggot farmer could take care of them and perform what may have been a botched cesarean (which is science by the way -- not a fucking miracle) - and them dump her body in a suitcase and throw it into a hole in his backyard.
  10. It lost sight of itself in trying to be an homage to the first movie. The fact that this was a sci-fi movie is indisputable. Noir though? I'd say that isn't really a fit. Mostly because the love interest in this movie very much does not meet this mold. Going home and making out with your cell-phone companion as opposed to some work based fem-fatale was a mistake on the part of the screenwriter/director. It produced little to no tension and the stakes that they piled onto it at the end with the loss of the AI was really tacked on and inorganic. Even if the love interest had been K/(Joe?)'s boss - that would have helped increase the dramatic tension and cohesion of the script (by at the very least parsing the movie down so it didn't sprawl as much as it did). Plus there were way too many implausibility's and assumptions occurring in the movie. We are essentially told -- not shown that this child is special for some reason. It somehow matters, even though the only concrete detail we get here is that people want it dead due to some sort of pseudo-miscegenistic replicant racism. The script assumes that Deckard and Rachel had some sort of grandiose love -- which really didn't seem like the case in the first movie (their 'love' scene actually felt kinda rapey if we are going to be honest), and it is assumed/ presented that Deckard knows and cares that he has a child. Which was a very lazy plot device. And it was really weird how old fat Deckard did such a decent job of kicking Kay-Joe's ass, since he wasn't really much of a bad ass in the original movie. Just a cold blooded killer with a gun and somewhat of a conscience. The first movie was really about oppression and slavery and nature of humanity/inhumanity. Deckard flat out murders escaped slaves and the audience is supposed to feel unsettled by this. His fight/experience with Roy Batty at the end turns this around --- and with this sequel it almost seems as if they wanted to recapture the dramatic arc of Roy Batty in the character of Kay -- just without any of the impact or substance -- but with a lot more pointless sprawl distilled into a character that I found really hard to care about and his cell-phone girlfriend, who ultimately didn't matter very much at all. We also had Kay-Joe's existential journey which didn't make a lot of sense. We are told that he can't disobey any order -- yet he inevitably ends up doing just that without any explanation, and it seemed very clear that he couldn't have been the kid in question, since there should be multiple models of Kay-Joe probably working in the same department -- because replicants are mass produced. Why vegas is irradiated also didn't make much sense. Particularly since Deckard, his dog, and Kay-Joe had no problem going/living there. (And as an aside, I thought the giant vegas sex mannequins were really fucking strange).
  11. My workout consists of discreetly goodbyeing my depression. It's changed my life.
  12. This movie was pretty. But the story was really poorly constructed, and very loose. A lot of style over substance here. Like a lot of movies and television -- this turned out to be a lot of bad drama stuffed into a sci-fi jumpsuit. Also really didn't like the pseudo-spiritualism thrown in, with the talk of souls and being born -- and the strange jesus-ish feel to what was supposed to be the central plot. It was like Blade runner as presented by the Da Vinci Code. Except maybe worse.
  13. It would have been easier to accomplish post-Alzheimers. And as a child, I bet nancy would have given you a cookie afterwards anyway.
  14. Inoculating the Americas to smallpox and influenza hundreds of years before the Spanish accidentally arrived.
  15. If could turn back time, I could find a way - to take back those words that'll hurt you and (then) you'd stay.