It's by the same person who did 'Arrival', so I'm confident the director has the sci-fi know-how to pull off something like Blade Runner. I'm cautiously optimistic.
|
I consider the original Blade Runner to be a, if not the movie that, when I watched it as a young teen, changed my perspective on movies and Science Fiction as a whole. While I certainly can't and won't expect the new movie to have the same impact - I do think the trailer nailed it. (music, lighting, visuals, setpieces, symbolism and all). I am now looking forward to this very much.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing I hate about modern movies, and sequels to movies like this is the "EVERYTHING WILL CHANGE THE WHOLE WORLD"
Screw the ever encompassing grandiose scope of things. Why can't the scope be small?
Like in the first Blade Runner?
It was a guy, chasing several people, falling for a woman and working for faceless people. Tiny scope really.
But... but.. what will we do without EPIC? And explosions? Besides tell actually interesting stories.
I do tend to agree. And if what they're heavy handedly alluding to is the plot of this one... Pass. Been there, seen that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you can have epic world-changing movies that are enjoyable for audiences and critics. But I think the current movie system forgets that "epic and world-changing" doesn't mean a literal slugfest or physics-defying action sequence every ten minutes that has to keep topping themselves all the way to the over-the-top ending. There are at least a couple plot threads at the end of the original Blade Runner that could have huge profound changes throughout the solar system... but I keep getting the impression this sequel is instead going to try and action movie/blockbuster it's way through it.
I think Villeneuve has the chops to pull off another Arrival, but I'm not sure Ridley Scott (executive producer) and the studio will let him turn in anything but a very pretty, action movie installment in their "franchi$$$e." It might be a very good action film, or it might be another dumb dud like Prometheus and Aliens: Covenant. But I seriously doubt it'll have the scope and imagination to live up to the original Blade Runner.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Blade Runner 2049 is a movie that should not work. Blade Runner - a loose adaptation of Philip K. Dick's novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? - was a movie rooted in ambiguity, in which far more was left unsaid than spoken out loud and where the still-astonishing visuals masked a strong vein of character and thematic subtlety. The film's ending seems to explicitly reject further exploration of that world, and three disappointing sequel novels (by K.W. Jeter, a friend of Philip K. Dick's and fellow traveller in SF dystopian fiction) only reinforced that idea. The announcement that Ridley Scott was helming a sequel to do to Blade Runner what Prometheus did to Alien was enough to make movie fans break out in a cold sweat, only moderately alleviated when Scott bailed and a director no-one had heard of was announced in his stead.
That director, Denis Villeneuve, had already some intriguing form in movies like Sicario, but it was last year's Arrival that made people really sit up and take notice. A beautifully-shot movie with a pace that was relaxed but intense, stand-out performances and a phenomenal sense of atmosphere, Arrival was a stand-out work, a piece of art that also worked as a strong science fiction piece. And Blade Runner 2049 is the same, but even moreso. It is a virtuoso triumph that on absolutely no level should work, but on almost every level it does.
Blade Runner took us deep into the streets of a future (and now - in two notable moments - explicitly alternate history) Los Angeles, with neon-lit grime and rain-soaked futurism. Blade Runner 2049 revisits the city - which is now larger, even more imposing and less human - but relatively briefly. Instead we spend a lot of time on the outskirts of the city, in the grey-soiled remnants of California, in a San Diego turned into an vast industrial wasteland and a Las Vegas slowly being swallowed by the desert. When you think of Blade Runner you think of those towering tech-pyramids, and for Villeneuve to minimise that imagery in the movie's sequel is a brave move, but one that exemplifies his goal with this film: to craft a successor to Blade Runner, not a retread. And it's a successor on every level, with the core question of the original movie, what does it mean to be human, taken to an even higher and more ambiguous level.
Blade Runner 2049 very quickly identifies its protagonist as a replicant and one who seems to be relatively content with his lot, complete with an AI girlfriend and a good working relationship with his boss, but a few key moments of revelation see him going down a path of self-discovery that is a reflection of Rachael (and Deckard if you subscribe to that theory, a theory that this movie cheerfully does nothing to confirm or deny) in the first film. What are the replicants? Unthinking, soulless machines or a new type of human, one that is stronger, faster and smarter than the originals? Is using them a slaves even remotely morally justifiable? The fact that human civilisation on Earth and in the offworld colonies would collapse without them makes it very easy for the "real" humans to ignore the question, and the introduction of a new breed of replicant that is 100% loyal and obedient seems to render the question moot. Enslaving a race that seems to have no qualms about being enslaved makes it easy to pretend it's not slavery at all. At least, until one very small secret is learned and turns the entire world on its head.
Blade Runner 2049 understands that the simplicity of the original Blade Runner was a key part of its success: the plot was pretty bare bones and the sequel follows suit, the main plot being a simple (ish) missing persons case. But K's following of the clues becomes unexpectedly harrowing, revealing greater depths to this world and the existence of his own kind. Villeneuve and writers Hampton Fancher and Michael Green have taken the set-up from the first movie and extrapolated a storyline that follows it up perfectly, without damaging the integrity of the first movie in any way. The film even pays homage to some of the futuristic dystopian movies that have come in its way, with several brief nods to the numerous anime (but most famously Akira and Ghost in the Shell) that have borrowed the original Blade Runner's visual stylings. The film also gives us the weirdest love scene since Ghost, although one that is also altogether healthier and more positive than the original movie's rather debatable relationship between Rachael and Deckard.
This film works tremendously well. The cast is excellent, Ryan Gosling in particular doing a lot of work with his eyes and his reactions to the revelations he encounters. Robin Wright as his boss is perfect, the steely resolve we've come to expect of her mixed with several unexpected, and all the more effective, moments of real human vulnerability. Sylvia Hoeks as replicant enforcer Luv is terrifying, blank-eyed and emotionless when carrying out violence, but she also occasionally shows what she really thinks of what's going on through flashes of honest emotion. Jared Leto is okay as new tech-king Wallace, but he does get the lion's share of ripe dialogue in the film. He's only in two scenes of consequence and they're both the more interminable scenes of the movie. The film's biggest revelation is Ana de Armas, a young Cuban actress who is given a very difficult role as Joi and carries the role with charisma, sweetness and resolve (even if her storyline may make fans of the animated series Archer do a double take).
Harrison Ford shows up again as Deckard and is perfectly fine, showing charisma and cynical humour in his role. This is actually a bit distracting - Deckard was very much an un-Harrison Ford-ish role, reserved and cold and undemonstrative compared to Indiana Jones or Han Solo - since Ford plays the older Deckard more as a subdued version of Han Solo in The Force Awakens. I enjoyed his performance, but I didn't really believe I was seeing the same Deckard as in Blade Runner, just thirty years older. This would be a bigger blow to the film if Ford was actually in it for any substantial amount of time, or if his role was integral to the movie. Although Ford's presence allows for some excellent moments of reflection and soul-searching (including what may be the greatest special effect in film history, to the point where I eagerly await learning how the hell they did it), the same story could easily have been told without him.
Another negative is the score. It's certainly not bad, but it lacks a theme as memorable as anything in Arrival. Johan Johansson began composing this movie but was ousted in favour of Hans Zimmer, who then hands in a completely unmemorable Johan Johansson cover work, which is one of the more bizarre scoring decisions I've seen in recent years. I appreciate that no-one was trying to out-Vangelis Vangelis, but the decision to go in a different, more traditional direction and then make a hash of it is disappointing.
Blade Runner 2049 (*****) does the impossible: it crafts a sequel, a successor and a subversion which respects the original whilst not being afraid to be different from it, that knows what made the original film work without slavishly copying it and which raises many of the same questions in a different way. The combination of story and visuals has profound thematic and character consequences which will drive as much discussion about this story as it did the original, as will the somewhat open ending. If this film does well expect a third trip to the Blade Runner universe, and we'll probably not have to wait another thirty-five years for it. Part of me hopes the movie doesn't do well: the story wraps up well enough and the only place the story can go in a third film is a very familiar one.
Blade Runner 2049 is on general release now. Villeneuve's next movie will be the holy grail of SFF adaptations, Dune. Right now, I think he can actually do it justice.
Vendor - Fantasiapelit Tampere
|
Pretty much agree word on word with Werthead here. Blade Runner 2049 is a great movie, and good contender for the movie of the year. It is full of interesting science fiction ideas and anxieties- anxieties based on technologies that we do not have in this quality yet. Every actor is on point (Jared Leto was good, and only slightly annoying) but I like to extend my hat to Dave Bautista who does a lot with little as Sapper Morton.
It is very beautiful movie visually as well, but Roger Deakins being the DP so this is almost guaranteed. I adore how little they used CGI backdgrounds, mostly using large sets, absolutely amazing miniature work and stunning painted backgrounds. This, with the mood and atmosphere added to the mix, and this is more of Tarkowski/Kubrick than it is Scott in style, with Villeneuve's "small grandeur" style added to the mix.
Villeneuve has amazing track record with this. Prisoners, Enemy, Sicario, Arrival and now this. This is Mad Max: Fury Road level sequel; easily being worthy of the original and for me, even topping it. It is brutally cold and cruel towards it's protagonist and by proxy, to you. It is bleak yet beautiful and cruel yet merciful. Watch it. Now. Because it looks like it's going to bomb in US.
I saw it Thursday night right after the first night of comic-con here in NYC. I was fighting a cold and tired from the day. I'm not sure how that may have affected my viewing of the film.
I thought that it was overindulgent. I thought that at least 30 min could have been edited out and it would have increased the pacing of the film. If there's a director's cut that's longer I have no interest in seeing it...AT ALL.
I've seen this directors other films (particualrly Sicario and Prisoners. I've seen Arrival but prefer the other two over it) so I like his films and style. But this thing? Yeeeeesh, where was his editor...
The performances though? Pretty solid. From Dave Bautista to Robin Wright to Lennie James all great. Ryan Gosling and Ana De Armis, in particular, I loved their scenes together. Sylvia Hoeks as Luv grabs your attention every time she's on screen and Jared Leto is just flat out chilling. Harrison Ford is an older and more worn Rick Deckard. The WHY of where he is tragic and just a little heartbreaking.
I saw this in IMAX and it has to be one of the most beautifully shot things I've seen in a looooooong time. The Academy better THROW that award at Roger Deakins.
The story is not convoluted but it's not exactly straightforward either and reaches a fairly satisfying conclusion. There actually CAN be another film but there SHOULDNT BE.
I cant call it the masterpiece that most people seem to want it to be. The pacing of the movie is glacial. I've seen and loved slow moving movies before but it was the sense of forward momentum that this movie was lacking. It almost seemed meandering at some points. IS this a movie that I'd watch again? Sure. On BluRay. In parts. And I hate doing that. But I can easily see myself falling asleep in my home upon a second viewing. It's definitely NOT an action film and it doesn't have to be but there's very little urgency in the pacing of this movie. Which made it a little hard for me to care about what happens next.
It's worth seeing on the big screen alone just because of the way it looks. But drink plenty of coffee beforehand.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just got out. It's not a great movie. But it's a good movie. My issues weren't as much with the overall pacing, but with the individual scenes pacing. Every major sequence should or could have had a few minutes cut, and the movie would have remained just as good.
6.5/10
To each their own. I loved the movie, but I also loved the original Blade Runner (so much so I bought the soundtrack). I saw it on an IMAX screen which I highly recommend. The movie tells a story, and it's a good one to boot. If you like hard science-fiction go see it. If you are looking for a Transformers-like experience you'll be sorely disappointed. For reference I also loved the original Dune movie, which Sean Young was in too.
My feelings on the movie pretty much mirror ShinHakkaider. It's a stunning visually movie. Just too slow way too slow. I went and watch it with three friends and we all had to fight staying awake. Don't get me wrong we all enjoyed the movie yet it could have been at least a hour or less. Denis Villeneuve can film some great movies if he can be reined in from making them too long. Stunning visuals cannot save how unnessarily long the movie was. I will buy it on Blu-ray yet like ShinHakkaider it's not one I can sit through a entire sitting.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you are looking for a Transformers-like experience you'll be sorely disappointed.
Mmm, nothing better than a little subtle jab about tastes and expectations.
Regardless, I enjoyed the story, and thought it was told well when it was told. The lingering shots did nothing for me but remind me that auteurs like Scott and Lynch used to do this before they became huge; and the fact that scenes seemed deliberately drawn out for no reason other than 'art' is one of the reasons I couldn't get myself to watch more than 2 episodes of Twin Peaks the Return. I'm sure Villenuve's vision is what we got on the screen (as long as he doesn't revision it twice like the original), but that vision, in my opinion, clouds over and lowers the quality of the story he is trying to present.
|
|
Very evocative of Dick's writing much more so than most films based on his works. I was impressed with how well the original feel was captured without having to spare modern tech. I think the breakneck speed of modern films just kills a good story and I loved the pace of BR2049. Best Sci-Fi film I've seen in a long time. I recommend a trip to the big screen for the great visuals. The soundtrack was killer blasting in the theater too.
Wert is spot on with his more in-depth review.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you can have epic world-changing movies that are enjoyable for audiences and critics. But I think the current movie system forgets that "epic and world-changing" doesn't mean a literal slugfest or physics-defying action sequence every ten minutes that has to keep topping themselves all the way to the over-the-top ending. There are at least a couple plot threads at the end of the original Blade Runner that could have huge profound changes throughout the solar system... but I keep getting the impression this sequel is instead going to try and action movie/blockbuster it's way through it.
I think Villeneuve has the chops to pull off another Arrival, but I'm not sure Ridley Scott (executive producer) and the studio will let him turn in anything but a very pretty, action movie installment in their "franchi$$$e." It might be a very good action film, or it might be another dumb dud like Prometheus and Aliens: Covenant. But I seriously doubt it'll have the scope and imagination to live up to the original Blade Runner.
From the comments here and the first reviews coming out now, it appears I was completely wrong; this appears to be a worthy (but not perfect) successor to the original Blade Runner (which itself wasn't perfect, but still a great film). Which makes me very happy. :) Now I just need a good recipe for crow.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you are looking for a Transformers-like experience you'll be sorely disappointed.
Seven Samurai is THREE HOURS PLUS long and is a WELL PACED movie.
The Godfather Part II is OVER THREE HOURS long and is a well-paced movie that is also character focused over plot.
Ben Hur is well over THREE HOURS LONG and I sit through this movie at least ONCE a year and at no point does it lose my engagement.
The fact that BLADE RUNNER 2049 is poorly paced and super slow has nothing to do with the expectation of it being a Transformers-like experience. It has to do with an over-indulgent director being too in love with holding those long shots instead of the practicality of telling the story and fully engaging your audience.
It's a good movie, but it could have done with at least 20-30 cut out and been a much tighter film.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the record, I have my issues with the original BLADE RUNNER as well, which I only let slide because I'm a fan of the theatrical cut with the voice over. I'm a big noir fan so the voice over always worked well for me.
Ugh that voice over..... Though I get the noir angle.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just hope they don't go for a third movie Rise of the Replicants with a young adult genre theme........
|
|
Sounds like the 3D was layered on afterwards. Just an FYI
I forgot to mention earlier but was glad to see the Edward James Olmos cameo.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The movie was amazing. Pacing was completely spot on. The movie deserved to be this slow. People are just used to fast paced films.
I have a single quibble and it's a weak one.
I disagree.
|
|
I disagree.
** spoiler omitted **
That wasn't the reveal. The reveal was when
You know a nice treat for the voice over fans would be a bonus narration track by Gosling on the DVD :)
Oh right, that makes sense.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I went in expecting typical Hollywood fair: a resurrected masterpiece whored out with too many action scenes and overt call backs to the original to stand on its own. I was quite wrong.
Overall I thought it was the finest film I've seen all year, and maybe the best film I've seen in a long time. Most of Werthead's review is spot on: I won't bother rehashing it. One thing I want to draw particular attention to is the pacing, which many have criticized.
The pacing was fantastic as a whole. It was slow, but very intentionally slow. It was indulgent. It lingered on shots and scenes and let them bleed out in a way deeply reminiscent of the original film. It both allowed and forced you to take in the scenes, to take in the visuals, to appreciate everything going on. It let the score breath in each scene. It evoked grandeur.
Overall it's a 10/10 for me. The only weakness at all was the chaos of the ending, and even that I was able to excuse as part of the tale as a whole.