"Truth is, in this regard Earth is a bit... arrghh. You have to watch out," says one android to another. I do like slow and minimalistic movies but this one did not work for me. I read "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" before the movie came out and saw "Blade Runner" at the theater on opening day. Not trying to draw comparisons though. Did like that the androids are filling their lives with memories, like us.
Terrible, really. There's slow cinema, of which I'm a fan, and then there's just plain boring. So boring, in fact, with a good 50% of the already mediocre shots being utterly unnecessary, that I'm giving it a star for sheer audacity. The only redeeming factor was the creepy lullabye towards the end. Fanfic at its cinematic worst. 1.5
Strange, out of the box and interesting mix of experimental, documentary and fiction to adapt Phillip K Dick's short-story "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?". I especially liked the atmospheric tone of it, the almost deserted city and abandoned buildings and sites shots.
Agent 47 learns the meaning of guns, experiments with his sexuality, makes peace with man's best friend (sheep, not dog) and has a good old sing-song... all while Ion De Sosa fills up film time by inserting a riveting tour of his hometown, old couples, church and the local wildlife. 2/5 Comedy aside, this is a dystopian thriller that I feel spends too much time on the slowburner. The final scene is horrowing though.
An unauthorized take on Philip K. Dick's novel bears rewards for those aware of the story and its previous famous adaptation. With very little narrative the director is still able to convey this hunter vs replicant tale. The empathy machine is no where in sight but mind you neither is empathy at all. Well worth a watch though the genre hounds may take odds against this one.
It has been proven on a few occasions it's possible to make a good sci-fi on a tiny budged, however, that requires creativity, great ideas, and it's something this film certainly lacks. What it doesn't lack are: static city landscape shots, atrocious acting, some random characters who do not seem to have any connection to the plot, which actually does not exist... Pretty bad!
Drawn in by the cinematography and production design, dozed off with the script and the edit. This could have been amazing but I didn't even watch it to the end. I took my screen grabs and made a sharpish exit. I wish this had been a photographic exhibition and not an overly indulgent film.
When I first saw Blade Runner, I was astounded that a book adaptation could be so good in itself: an equal and opposite exploration of the book's themes that only added to my experience. Now I am struck dumb to discover that there is a film equal and opposite to both Blade Runner and the novel it is based on. Both give weight to Dick's vision, both dazzle and horrify.
I think people are being unfair on this. If slowness is anathema then yeah you might want to pass but it's a good example of how to create a future world from the present day - all it requires is careful editing and the broken tourism system of Benidorm. Of course, plot-wise it's not much but the visuals coupled with the tone successfully highlight a morally suspect future world (a big theme in the cyberpunk genre).
The frustrating thing I find occasionally about slow cinema like this is that I worry I'm inserting myself too much between the frames (we always do); I suspect that having no context at all for the inspiration of this would have been more advantageous. Shots lifted from Akerman, Seidl, with some (red herring?) plot advancements, but intellectually stagnant. For this viewing the film only did half the lifting.