Forum Topic

Yorgos Lanthimos, and his new BFF Colin Farrell, return with another darkly humourous, beautifully shot oddball. Indeed, it's not a revenge thriller (although it does incorporate elements of that genre). I found that the flat, emotional suppression caused by the stilted delivery of lines (an ongoing stylistic choice of the director) meant that the motivation of characters was much harder to decipher than would normally be the case, and this (for me) detracted from the overall enjoyment of the film. The very, very black humour and the tension inherent within mundane situations pervade his films, and this is still evident (although the humour is turned down a bit while the tense mundanity is amped-up). This film had some superb shots (the overhead shot where Bob collapses after coming down an escalator with Anna is still firmly framed in my mind over a week after seeing it) and some darkly, gloriously, absurdist moments (Bob must eat cake!), but it definitely will not be for a lot of people, primarily because it doesn't have a standard 'Hollywood' narrative arc or pay-off and the delivery of dialogue is so odd to watchers. I overheard several teenagers in the cinema say "WTF was that shit??!!" at the end of the film, although I did notice that they stayed until the end and didn't talk, surf or fidget for the entire film so something must have grabbed their attention.I really liked Lanthimos' 2015 film, The Lobster, as well as his earlier Alps and Dogtooth. I'm not so sure about this though, considering it overall to be a glancing shot rather than a hit or a miss, although certainly not a bad way to spend two hours. I'd suggest to anyone who was intrigued by The Killing of a Sacred Deer (yup, it's a retelling of the story of Iphigenia) that they check out The Lobster and watch Lanthimos miss less and hit more.

Joseph Jones ● 3087d

Having now seen this and reading/watching several reviews I see that this film has really divided opinions. As someone who thinks that the original Blade Runner (any cut) is one of THE seminal sci-fi films of all time (although it's deeply flawed in so many ways) I was worried that a sequel would severely mess around with any source material and produce a real stinker of a film. Fortunately a decent director of smart sci-fi (Denis Villeneuve) who obviously loves the original was attached to the project as well as one of the two screenwriters (Hampton Fancher) who worked on the first film so that somewhat allayed my fears. This was a good film in my opinion (even, dare I say it, better than Ridley Scott's deeply flawed original).Visually gorgeous, with utterly superb production design helping flesh out the setting of this dystopian future, I thought it managed to tackle the 'big theme' of the original (what does it mean to be human?) better in some ways than Scott's myriad cuts. Also there's some really interesting ideas about what the future might bring. However, it could do with some editing (it's soooooo long it could alternately be called Blade Runner 2049 Minutes Runtime) and some of the characterization/motivation of characters should've been fleshed out more while other characters could've been less prominent. There's also no singular defining, quotable monologue like Rutger Hauer's 'tears in rain' soliloquy from the original.Definitely worth watching, just make some time for it and be prepared to sit through a film that is, and feels in some parts, very long. It's also utterly lacking in Basil Exposition (which is a good thing IMHO), so if you have a short attention span, struggle with working things out for yourself or do not really know much about the world of Blade Runner then perhaps it really isn't for you.

Joseph Jones ● 3116d