Gosling's performance was nuanced and captivating. The scene where he's talking to the chick who makes all the artificial memories and he just suddenly screams out "GODDAMMIT" through tears blew me away

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3998852&forum_id=2#36221211)

You see Get Out is a triumph in cinematography, original storytelling, character depth, and most importantly for any contemporary film - bravely taking on the issue of race which is completely original and hasn't really been done before in Hollywood or pop culture / entertainment.

Sorry to be a bit harsh - but I think you might hold some outdated views where like the aesthetics and philosophical depth in art are more important than social issues and virtue signaling.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3998852&forum_id=2#36221269)

(literal quote from the director)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3998852&forum_id=2#36221274)

Lol @ people thinking Get Out was some deep thematic deconstruction of race or whatever. It was piddly nonsense lacking in any complexity of thought. OH HOW ORIGINAL whites use blacks and take their brains just like IRL ! LOL

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3998852&forum_id=2#36222062)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3998852&forum_id=2#36221498)

It didn't need extraneous character development or plot details.

There was a little too much stuff added on in Blade Runner

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3998852&forum_id=2#36228664)

"It didn't need extraneous character development or plot details."

Right, because to a large extent the plot and characters fundamentally didn't matter. It was an action chase flick. Full stop. The women were hot, the world just served as a background for cool vehicles, there was awesome metallic drug paint they sprayed in their mouths, they talked about places like the bullet farm, water in a desert was dispensed by opening a giant waterfall. Obviously, the details don't matter. But if it didn't get a nom for best picture I would shrug. The fact that BR didn't is completely insane.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3998852&forum_id=2#36230221)

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1856101/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3998852&forum_id=2#36223090)

I mark Batman Begins as the decline of IMDB. That's when the fanboys and idiots really started pouring in.

I prefer Metacritic now.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3998852&forum_id=2#36223635)

The Economist was more critical of the film, calling it a "bombastic sequel" and noting its "thin and threadbare" storyline, which was "riddled with holes", and the "little more than a cameo" appearance of Ford, despite his being used heavily in the film's promotion.[105] Kevin Maher of The Times gave it three of five stars, claiming "a more devastatingly beautiful blockbuster has yet to be made", but concluding that the plot was lackluster.

great cinematography for sure

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3998852&forum_id=2#36225030)

sure he didn't have a ton of screentime, but his character was absolutely pivotal to the plot. He was the father of the child and the entire ending hinged on his appearance.

"bombastic" yeah maybe, but not in a try-hard way. I don't think it was any more bombastic than the original. The score, for example, was an almost perfect riff on the original's, and it needs to be soaring and transcendental

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3998852&forum_id=2#36225059)

agree score was great

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3998852&forum_id=2#36225074)

any worthwhile sequel builds off knowledge of the original.

I was worried going into it that they would try to make it too standalone, but I think it struck the perfect balance, in that you don't NEED to see the original, but it greatly enhances the experience

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3998852&forum_id=2#36225084)

And Ford absolutely had a decent role in the movie and wasn't just a cameo. Anyone that says that didn't get the film.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3998852&forum_id=2#36225231)

Another thing I keep thinking about is how grounded and realistic this "bombastic" sfx extravaganza actually is. There's nothing in the movie consumer tech wise that definitively couldn't happen 30 years from now. There's no ridiculous space travel or other quantum physics technology exaggerated for a movie plot. In fact the different parts of earth in this post-apocalyptic wasteland feeling like different planets with different species of inhabitants strung together by quasi space travel is one of the magnetic intangible qualities of the movie that makes me want to rewatch it a few times.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3998852&forum_id=2#36226777)

great acting by the girl too jfc could watch this on repeat:

https://youtu.be/Oa9c9JBBGxM?t=3m16s

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3998852&forum_id=2#36228368)

the themes and technical execution are timeless

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3998852&forum_id=2#36230075)