ArmandFancypants wrote:Scott has never been an overly gifted storyteller, though. He rarely gets the basics right - the only times I could accuse him of that are Alien and Thelma & Louise. Even Blade Runner is more of an atmospheric, visceral treat than a really robustly-plotted thriller/drama.
Blade Runner's aware it's more of an abstraction than anything though, it's not as though it uses the mystery of the investigation to compel viewers along. The key difference is the 'small things' seem increasingly important in some of his films as the 'big things' seem to lose more and more of their luster.
ArmandFancypants wrote:Scott has never been an overly gifted storyteller, though. He rarely gets the basics right - the only times I could accuse him of that are Alien and Thelma & Louise. Even Blade Runner is more of an atmospheric, visceral treat than a really robustly-plotted thriller/drama.
true.
Last edited by thrice on July 15th, 2013, 10:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
chom wrote:Let The Right One In bored the shit out of me.I really don't get that flick's appeal.
Likely because it's semi-fresh to the beat up genre, portraying Vamp's as grotesque creatures that are slaves to their horrifying needs, not romanticized sexy supermen/women that happen to drink blood. That combined with the expert film craft make it easy to see why it's so appealing to both Vamp and film fans, even if it's on the slower end.
^ This. Also, the vampire(s) in question are kids rather than adults, so that (for me) gives it an unnerving edge.
Back to the Future: Part II is better than the original
I have such a blast watching this film everytime, it expands on the original, is funnier
The third one sucked big balls though, it could have been the last act of the 2nd movie (30 minutes) or they could have just cut it all together. The Western arc didn't deserve his own movie, it was kinda boring (especially compared to Part II)
