Regarding the pacing...it is a legit criticism IMO, and I'm rarely ever one to criticize deliberate pacing.
Nearly every scene is paced similarly and that can become redundant. I don't think it's fair to label those who criticize the pacing as the typical ADD movie-goer (although that stereotype often fits for many who have that criticism).
I just happen to think that when reflecting upon the story of 2049, the deliberateness of practically every scene isn't necessarily warranted to tell the story effectively.
Skyab23 wrote:Regarding the pacing...it is a legit criticism IMO, and I'm rarely ever one to criticize deliberate pacing.
Nearly every scene is paced similarly and that can become redundant. I don't think it's fair to label those who criticize the pacing as the typical ADD movie-goer (although that stereotype often fits for many who have that criticism).
I just happen to think that when reflecting upon the story of 2049, the deliberateness of practically every scene isn't necessarily warranted to tell the story effectively.
I'm not suprised to see people giving it a free pass on pacing. It's very easy to disregard such criticism and blame it on impatient audiences. This would've been torned to shreds with Refn's name on it. The amount of inessential material became quite clear as time went on. I caught myself tapping my shoe several times throughout.
The more polarizing, the more of a success this is to me. I haven't seen it yet. But I'm glad it's not all 100 percent praise. A lot of people look at the original as a masterpiece, depending on the cut. But a lot of people don't have the patience for the original either, some things don't click with them even if the visuals make their jaw drop. It's a classic but it's not like a TDK or a Godfather or whatever the fuck comes to mind when you think of a classic that everyone seems to adore. It's more like a 2001 reaction where a large percentage feel that it's way too slow. "It does nothing for you!? Get the fuck outta here it's incredible". I can't tell you how many times I've heard this argument about these films. So I don't know if 2049 will end up in that same boat with similar discussion..too early to tell. But at least there's aspects of this film that won't please every movie-goer. If that was the case, I'd be worried going into this Monday, when I finally see it. I already know that it's not everyone cup of tea. As long as the soul of Bladerunner is intact, I'm happy.
I can watch this world and the characters roaming around inside of it for 4 hours and probably have a smile on my face. But maybe that's just me.
Vader182 wrote:2049 is idiosyncratic enough that, like Dunkirk really, I totally sympathize with the hyperbolic praise as much as I do the air of disappointment.
It's a weird movie.
-Vader
Interesting. My problem with it is that it isn't. It puts its cards on the table and then decides to spend half an hour telling you what the card is even though you already know.
Villeneuve's Interstellar. Visually ambitious, thematically rich etc., asks a lot of questions that are (deliberately?) unanswered while others are spoon-fed to you.
I can relate to the issue with pacing.
And the other gripe I had with this was that Zimmer/Wallfisch's score felt a bit impersonal, like, perhaps trying to emulate Vangelis too much. It would probably have been a tad better If they had a year to make this instead of a few months.
