User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 10:59:35 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You will when you get older. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I didn't even know the length before I went to see it. People actually care about that when deciding which movie to see in a theatre? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 11:26:01 AM EDT
[#2]
I watched it this weekend, and what can be said that hasn't been already? I loved it. I expected a it to be about K hunting down Deckard as one of the last unretired replicants loosely framed by the environment established in the pre-released shorts on youtube.
Boy was I wrong. The plot was excellent. The score was intoxicating. The cinematography masterful. Better than the original "Blade Runner"? Maybe. This movie is easily one of my favorites. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 11:29:21 AM EDT
[#3]
As a longtime original Blade Runner fan I thought I would hate 2049, I actually like it. The bady female replicant was HOT!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 11:29:57 AM EDT
[#4]
Saw it in the theater when it came out.
Bought it on Blu Ray last week, have watched that 3 times now. So yeah, I like it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 11:34:57 AM EDT
[#5]
Anyone else think that based on Dr. Badger's assessment of K's carved figurine, Sapper Morton must have been a potential billionaire?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 11:41:51 AM EDT
[#6]
Why did Joe lie down and die on the steps. There has to be something 'big' in that moment that I'm not getting.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 11:47:11 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why did Joe lie down and die on the steps. There has to be something 'big' in that moment that I'm not getting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 11:51:13 AM EDT
[#8]
Wallace was blind the whole time.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 11:51:37 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He should have looked at the camera and given a speech about all the stuff hes seen...then said "time to die. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Why did Joe lie down and die on the steps. There has to be something 'big' in that moment that I'm not getting. "He's outside dying on the steps" "Oh...OK. Want to meet his sister?" |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 3:04:17 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why did Joe lie down and die on the steps. There has to be something 'big' in that moment that I'm not getting. Sapper allowed himself to get killed to protect Deckard, Ana, the other Nexus 8 replicants, their cause. She explained to 'K' that dying for the right cause was the most human thing replicants could do. Jay |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 3:12:52 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why did Joe lie down and die on the steps. There has to be something 'big' in that moment that I'm not getting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 3:14:10 PM EDT
[#12]
I liked the 2049 movie a lot, and my wife loved it.
 Like others, I was a little apprehensive, because I loved the original Blade Runner, and was worried that 2049 would disappoint. I think it's a fantastic sequel, and really like the story telling and the visuals.
However, there is ONE thing that bothers me, and hopefully someone can explain. WHY does K/Joe believe that he might be Deckard & Rachel's kid? That part never made sense to me. Obviously I understand that he has the memories, but if he WERE the kid, how in the world would he have become a Blade Runner, who is owned by the police department? Clearly, the police department must have purchased him from Wallace at some point. There is ZERO explanation possible (as far as I can tell), how a human/replicant hybrid could have been BORN to Deckard/Rachel, and then somehow magically have appeared in the Police department as a purchased replicant. Plus, EVEN IF it were somehow possible for the people protecting the child to have snuck him into an order from Wallace to the police department, why in the world would they have chosen the life of a Replicant for the child? That would also make no sense at all, since openly being a replicant would put him at risk of violence from humans. That's my only beef with the movie - that a smart investigator like K would never in a million years have believed that he might be the lost child, because there's no way that makes sense. Did I miss something? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 3:14:16 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Depends! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 3:17:56 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I liked the 2049 movie a lot, and my wife loved it. Like others, I was a little apprehensive, because I loved the original Blade Runner, and was worried that 2049 would disappoint. I think it's a fantastic sequel, and really like the story telling and the visuals.
However, there is ONE thing that bothers me, and hopefully someone can explain. WHY does K/Joe believe that he might be Deckard & Rachel's kid? That part never made sense to me. Obviously I understand that he has the memories, but if he WERE the kid, how in the world would he have become a Blade Runner, who is owned by the police department? Clearly, the police department must have purchased him from Wallace at some point. There is ZERO explanation possible (as far as I can tell), how a human/replicant hybrid could have been BORN to Deckard/Rachel, and then somehow magically have appeared in the Police department as a purchased replicant. Plus, EVEN IF it were somehow possible for the people protecting the child to have snuck him into an order from Wallace to the police department, why in the world would they have chosen the life of a Replicant for the child? That would also make no sense at all, since openly being a replicant would put him at risk of violence from humans. That's my only beef with the movie - that a smart investigator like K would never in a million years have believed that he might be the lost child, because there's no way that makes sense. Did I miss something? The point was the inverse of the first movie K became special because he chose to, not because he was the "chosen one" like Rachel or Deckard. The majority of the themes dealt with free will or the lack of. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 3:20:55 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Anyone else think that based on Dr. Badger's assessment of K's carved figurine, Sapper Morton must have been a potential billionaire? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 3:31:02 PM EDT
[#16]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 3:48:16 PM EDT
[#17]
Good movie. Unfortunately, I watched it while the kids were in bed, and had to keep jockeying the volume...the loud parts were too loud when the volume was high enough to hear dialogue, and couldn't hear the dialogue when the loud parts were quiet enough. I look forward to another viewing when I can just blast it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 4:05:55 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Freysa told 'K' that Sapper allowed 'K' to kill him. Sapper allowed himself to get killed to protect Deckard, Ana, the other Nexus 8 replicants, their cause. She explained to 'K' that dying for the right cause was the most human thing replicants could do. Jay Couldn't 'K' join the ones in hiding? How was bringing Deckard to meet Ana necessary? What would Deckard do next? Kill himself? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 4:11:00 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He thought the memory was his and wanted to be "special", Joi told him all the time he was "special". K was not the unique unicorn from the first film he was just an ordinary horse. If you look close at the horse sculpture it is a unicorn with the horn broken off. The point was the inverse of the first movie K became special because he chose to, not because he was the "chosen one" like Rachel or Deckard. The majority of the themes dealt with free will or the lack of. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 4:14:46 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But the horse was found in the furnace where in his 'memory' he'd placed it. I thought the intent of the furnace scene as an adult was proof it wasn't an implanted memory. Who put the horse in the furnace if not 'K'?....and why? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
He thought the memory was his and wanted to be "special", Joi told him all the time he was "special". K was not the unique unicorn from the first film he was just an ordinary horse. If you look close at the horse sculpture it is a unicorn with the horn broken off. The point was the inverse of the first movie K became special because he chose to, not because he was the "chosen one" like Rachel or Deckard. The majority of the themes dealt with free will or the lack of. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 4:16:51 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He thought the memory was his and wanted to be "special", Joi told him all the time he was "special". K was not the unique unicorn from the first film he was just an ordinary horse. If you look close at the horse sculpture it is a unicorn with the horn broken off. The point was the inverse of the first movie K became special because he chose to, not because he was the "chosen one" like Rachel or Deckard. The majority of the themes dealt with free will or the lack of. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I liked the 2049 movie a lot, and my wife loved it. Like others, I was a little apprehensive, because I loved the original Blade Runner, and was worried that 2049 would disappoint. I think it's a fantastic sequel, and really like the story telling and the visuals.
However, there is ONE thing that bothers me, and hopefully someone can explain. WHY does K/Joe believe that he might be Deckard & Rachel's kid? That part never made sense to me. Obviously I understand that he has the memories, but if he WERE the kid, how in the world would he have become a Blade Runner, who is owned by the police department? Clearly, the police department must have purchased him from Wallace at some point. There is ZERO explanation possible (as far as I can tell), how a human/replicant hybrid could have been BORN to Deckard/Rachel, and then somehow magically have appeared in the Police department as a purchased replicant. Plus, EVEN IF it were somehow possible for the people protecting the child to have snuck him into an order from Wallace to the police department, why in the world would they have chosen the life of a Replicant for the child? That would also make no sense at all, since openly being a replicant would put him at risk of violence from humans. That's my only beef with the movie - that a smart investigator like K would never in a million years have believed that he might be the lost child, because there's no way that makes sense. Did I miss something? The point was the inverse of the first movie K became special because he chose to, not because he was the "chosen one" like Rachel or Deckard. The majority of the themes dealt with free will or the lack of. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 4:18:42 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Replicants cannot kill themselves? 'K' let Luv kill him too?...just the perfect mortal wounding so he'd drop dead right after dropping off Deckard? Couldn't 'K' join the ones in hiding? How was bringing Deckard to meet Ana necessary? What would Deckard do next? Kill himself? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Freysa told 'K' that Sapper allowed 'K' to kill him. Sapper allowed himself to get killed to protect Deckard, Ana, the other Nexus 8 replicants, their cause. She explained to 'K' that dying for the right cause was the most human thing replicants could do. Jay Couldn't 'K' join the ones in hiding? How was bringing Deckard to meet Ana necessary? What would Deckard do next? Kill himself? ETA: While I have no doubts any interactive machine can be programmed to “lie” or fabricate alternatives, it still means they (it) are still simply operating within parameters set by programming. My thought is the importance of doing it regardless of programming. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 4:18:56 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I get all that, and I understand why he was obviously VERY interested in finding out the connection between himself and the memories and Deckard/Rachel ... I just don’t see how that could possibly have led to any belief on his part that me might actually be the child himself. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 4:23:14 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I liked the 2049 movie a lot, and my wife loved it. Like others, I was a little apprehensive, because I loved the original Blade Runner, and was worried that 2049 would disappoint. I think it's a fantastic sequel, and really like the story telling and the visuals.
However, there is ONE thing that bothers me, and hopefully someone can explain. WHY does K/Joe believe that he might be Deckard & Rachel's kid? That part never made sense to me. Obviously I understand that he has the memories, but if he WERE the kid, how in the world would he have become a Blade Runner, who is owned by the police department? Clearly, the police department must have purchased him from Wallace at some point. There is ZERO explanation possible (as far as I can tell), how a human/replicant hybrid could have been BORN to Deckard/Rachel, and then somehow magically have appeared in the Police department as a purchased replicant. Plus, EVEN IF it were somehow possible for the people protecting the child to have snuck him into an order from Wallace to the police department, why in the world would they have chosen the life of a Replicant for the child? That would also make no sense at all, since openly being a replicant would put him at risk of violence from humans. That's my only beef with the movie - that a smart investigator like K would never in a million years have believed that he might be the lost child, because there's no way that makes sense. Did I miss something? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 4:27:43 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I get all that, and I understand why he was obviously VERY interested in finding out the connection between himself and the memories and Deckard/Rachel ... I just don’t see how that could possibly have led to any belief on his part that me might actually be the child himself. Once the realness of the memory is validated, all logical thought as to alternatives go out the window. "You're way off baseline." |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 4:35:45 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I get all that, and I understand why he was obviously VERY interested in finding out the connection between himself and the memories and Deckard/Rachel ... I just don’t see how that could possibly have led to any belief on his part that me might actually be the child himself. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I liked the 2049 movie a lot, and my wife loved it. Like others, I was a little apprehensive, because I loved the original Blade Runner, and was worried that 2049 would disappoint. I think it's a fantastic sequel, and really like the story telling and the visuals.
However, there is ONE thing that bothers me, and hopefully someone can explain. WHY does K/Joe believe that he might be Deckard & Rachel's kid? That part never made sense to me. Obviously I understand that he has the memories, but if he WERE the kid, how in the world would he have become a Blade Runner, who is owned by the police department? Clearly, the police department must have purchased him from Wallace at some point. There is ZERO explanation possible (as far as I can tell), how a human/replicant hybrid could have been BORN to Deckard/Rachel, and then somehow magically have appeared in the Police department as a purchased replicant. Plus, EVEN IF it were somehow possible for the people protecting the child to have snuck him into an order from Wallace to the police department, why in the world would they have chosen the life of a Replicant for the child? That would also make no sense at all, since openly being a replicant would put him at risk of violence from humans. That's my only beef with the movie - that a smart investigator like K would never in a million years have believed that he might be the lost child, because there's no way that makes sense. Did I miss something? The point was the inverse of the first movie K became special because he chose to, not because he was the "chosen one" like Rachel or Deckard. The majority of the themes dealt with free will or the lack of. K had four real choices: Let/help Stelline be captured by those who wanted to own her (Wallace and Luv) Bring Stelline to those who wanted for selfish reasons to crown her (Freysa) Destroy her for those who wanted to maintain the status quo (Joshi) Save Deckard and bring him to the child, Stelline. He imitated Deckard and gave up everything to save her. The crazy thing for me is that if those memories were his and he was born and not a replicant, it meant he was blindly following orders to murder replicants when he could have chosen differently. Of course, at the end he does. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 4:36:30 PM EDT
[#27]
I thought it was real interesting that they've transitioned from Replicants having thoughts and feelings. To that you could even murder a disembodied AI, by crushing the microchip.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 4:38:58 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I thought it was real interesting that they've transitioned from Replicants having thoughts and feelings. To that you could even murder a disembodied AI, by crushing the microchip. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 4:42:43 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I get all that, and I understand why he was obviously VERY interested in finding out the connection between himself and the memories and Deckard/Rachel ... I just don't see how that could possibly have led to any belief on his part that me might actually be the child himself. But that's my interpretation |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 4:47:59 PM EDT
[#30]
Luv is not a standard replicant. She's a one-off for Wallace alone. Other replicants may not be able to lie while she certainly can. She also can kill humans
replicants CAN kill themselves, as the "prequel" short films demonstrate |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 4:58:29 PM EDT
[#31]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 5:01:30 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryBaseline tests when they are about to fail
When he failed the second time Joshi pulled some strings to get him out, and if he failed again in ~24hrs he was going to be 'retired'. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 5:08:29 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryWhy would they baseline them if they can't fail a baseline?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 5:20:58 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Luv is not a standard replicant. She's a one-off for Wallace alone. Other replicants may not be able to lie while she certainly can. She also can kill humans replicants CAN kill themselves, as the "prequel" short films demonstrate |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 5:41:20 PM EDT
[#35]
I watched it Saturday and again last night. I want to like it so much, but... I dunno. It's like jerking off and not finishing. I may try to watch it one more time. A lot cleaner than the original, but not as visually gratifying, which is sad given 40 years of technology.
At one point I thought maybe it needed narration. And I'm sorry, if you Dave Bautista in this film as a replicant, there really should be a kick ass fight scene, not some half-assed fight that he basically intentionally loses so he doesn't have to reveal what happened to the baby. And I really don't get the whole fight in the water. Just lame. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 5:43:02 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
Quoted: I get all that, and I understand why he was obviously VERY interested in finding out the connection between himself and the memories and Deckard/Rachel ... I just don't see how that could possibly have led to any belief on his part that me might actually be the child himself. But that's my interpretation I am just not sure I understand how he ever came to believe he might be "special" in the first place, since it is so obviously IMPOSSIBLE for him to be the child. I mean, it's not like there's any ambiguity that the police department (relatively recently) purchased him from Wallace. I really like Flamicane's answer that he was being emotional and irrational about it, but it just seemed like such an impossibility that I am a little disappointed the story didn't provide a better reason for him to believe he might be "the one" 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 5:56:13 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Luv is not a standard replicant. She's a one-off for Wallace alone. Other replicants may not be able to lie while she certainly can. She also can kill humans replicants CAN kill themselves, as the "prequel" short films demonstrate |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 6:07:47 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I just bought the DVD yesterday and watched it for the third time. Just an excellently done film all the way around. I have no doubt it will be considered an all time classic eventually, equalling (exceeding, IMO) the first one. I would agree. I actually like it as much as the first and that is saying something. The CG was well integrated without being overwhelming like Transformers 7. The story was there, but left bits for you have to actually think on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 6:23:33 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Have you noticed the only time he smokes is in his apartment, and just the once? He's not addicted. He doesn't smoke after actual physical sex. Nor after killing or any other activity we would normally associate with nicotine. It provides a way for Joi to physically interact with him. It's the only way. So he smokes. Purely to take the illusion one step further. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 6:30:54 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Saw it in the theatre (something I rarely do) and this weekend i rented it to watch again (something I've seldom ever done). I would agree. I actually like it as much as the first and that is saying something. The CG was well integrated without being overwhelming like Transformers 7. The story was there, but left bits for you have to actually think on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 6:37:24 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: One effect I was pleasantly surprised about was Rachael. She didn't look fake like Princess Lea in "Rogue One". Excellent job by the effects team. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 6:52:13 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Best CGI human I've ever seen. Looks % real. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 7:14:21 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Was she? I didn’t know that. I was under the impression she was a standard Replicant whom stood out for one reason or another and Wallace took note. Something like when a product rolls of the production line and the unit for some reason performed better. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Luv is not a standard replicant. She's a one-off for Wallace alone. Other replicants may not be able to lie while she certainly can. She also can kill humans replicants CAN kill themselves, as the "prequel" short films demonstrate I totally got her after it was explained in the appendices that she was described as designed with a 12 year girl's mind, and was given no memories. Her calmly directing fire on the San Diego mouth breathers while getting her nails done: Awesome. Also, the pilots in the three spinners that K took down,,, especially the two he shot,,,, were they human or replicant? Were the thugs in Las Vegas,,, including the rogue LAPD cop,,, were they human or replicant? K didn't hesitate to kill any of them, and all this happened after he was off his Baseline. As far as Luv killing humans, I got the impression she never had a Baseline. Jay |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 7:19:36 PM EDT
[#44]
This is what is great about Blade Runner 2049. We can talk about it, debate things and how we interpret it. Just like all real pieces of Art.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 7:21:02 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm glad more people have taken an interest in Luv. I totally got her after it was explained in the appendices that she was described as designed with a 12 year girl's mind, and was given no memories. Her calmly directing fire on the San Diego mouth breathers while getting her nails done: Awesome. Also, the pilots in the three spinners that K took down,,, especially the two he shot,,,, were they human or replicant? Were the thugs in Las Vegas,,, including the rogue LAPD cop,,, were they human or replicant? K didn't *hesitate to kill any of them, and all this happened after he was off his Baseline. As far as Luv killing humans, I got the impression she never had a Baseline. Jay Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Luv is not a standard replicant. She's a one-off for Wallace alone. Other replicants may not be able to lie while she certainly can. She also can kill humans replicants CAN kill themselves, as the "prequel" short films demonstrate I totally got her after it was explained in the appendices that she was described as designed with a 12 year girl's mind, and was given no memories. Her calmly directing fire on the San Diego mouth breathers while getting her nails done: Awesome. Also, the pilots in the three spinners that K took down,,, especially the two he shot,,,, were they human or replicant? Were the thugs in Las Vegas,,, including the rogue LAPD cop,,, were they human or replicant? K didn't *hesitate to kill any of them, and all this happened after he was off his Baseline. As far as Luv killing humans, I got the impression she never had a Baseline. Jay * No he didn’t, did he? “Killing” wasn’t even an option, even of other Replicants hence using the term “Retire”. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 7:26:06 PM EDT
[#46]
The whole baseline concept bothers me. Supposedly failing a baseline (what I assume to be an AI diagnostic) results in retirement. OK. So, this thing that is stronger and faster than you that’s been designed to basically kill has a malfunctioning artificial intelligence, and the guy running the diagnostic TELLS the thing it’s “way off baseline (so we are supposed to kill you before you flip your shit and start offing us)”? And the captain does the same thing? Seems incredibly stupid.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 7:34:43 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The whole baseline concept bothers me. Supposedly failing a baseline (what I assume to be an AI diagnostic) results in retirement. OK. So, this thing that is stronger and faster than you that's been designed to basically kill has a malfunctioning artificial intelligence, and the guy running the diagnostic TELLS the thing it's "way off baseline (so we are supposed to kill you before you flip your shit and start offing us)"? And the captain does the same thing? Seems incredibly stupid. But if so, it seemed the Chief was pretty attached to K. So you could say she error'd on her friendship with the Replicant and trusted his ability to not turn on her. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 7:48:25 PM EDT
[#48]
It's a little thing,,, but what happened to the dog?
The last you see it is when the replicants retrieve K in Las Vegas. If it was real, would the replicants even care about it. If it was replicant, would they take it with them. The campfire scene right after they retrieve K,,,,,,,,,? 
Jay |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 7:55:18 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't remember anything about being terminated for failing a baseline. But if so, it seemed the Chief was pretty attached to K. So you could say she error'd on her friendship with the Replicant and trusted his ability to not turn on her. I laughed a little inside at her reaction when she realized she wasn't going to get a chance to do the no pants dance with him, remembering her earlier 'wall' speech to K. Jay |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2018 7:55:19 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Saw it in the theatre (something I rarely do) and this weekend i rented it to watch again (something I've seldom ever done). I would agree. I actually like it as much as the first and that is saying something. The CG was well integrated without being overwhelming like Transformers 7. The story was there, but left bits for you have to actually think on. I saw it in IMAX three times, it is easily the most visually impressive movie I've seen. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
