Blade Runner 2049

So... anyone got that shot of Ana De Armas and Mackenzie Davis? Y’know the one.

For what it's worth, this is how I understood it:

Finest Movie of 2017; I'm calling it right now.

__________________
A man's got to know his limitations.

At last.

My friends had all been gobsmacked for the last week, as their Blade Runner obsessed friend seemed to have lost his mind, having still not seen the long-awaited sequel almost a week after release. They had spent the last 6 months listening to constant theorizing and extrapolating, so had fully expected an opening night rush at the cinema. The plain truth is that after working many consecutive 10-12 hour days, I was just too damned tired to go see it. AH, but this week saw the return to a more normal schedule at work, so last night was the night!

I managed to coax enough friends into going with me that our group ended up filling almost an entire row at the cinema. We went to one of those fancy premium cinemas, so we had giant comfy reclining seats with plenty of leg room. I grabbed a pizza, a hot dog, a giant soda, and we all plopped down just in time for the film to start.

__________________

I think that, when we look back on 2017 ten fifteen years from now, we will notice how some quality films, like It or Fate of the Furious, will have aged quite poorly. We'll probably still appreciate Get Out, Wonder Woman and Logan, but I don't see Spider Man Homecoming, Beauty and the Beast, or Despicable Me 3 aging well.

On a different note, I feel that Blade Runner 2049 will be regarded as a masterpiece ten years from now, like how it is being acclaimed right now. The film ignores a majority of popular modern film cliches and tropes, and tells a story in a slower, more methodical way.

We are I think clearly in an era were at the cinema at any rate(perhaps less so for home viewing?) audiences are more obcessed than ever with hyped franchises at the cost of almost everything else. Part of that is I think as has been mentioned the dumbing down of cinema in general but also I think the shear cost of tickets means people are much less willing to take risks in their viewing.

As far as 2049 itself goes whilst I did enjoy it I must confess I do kind of find myself in the position you mention as a diehard fan of the original. I find myself in pretty strong disagreement with the idea that the sequel recaptures the success of the original especially, again its certainly not without its merits but it feels like a very different piece of cinema to me, much less arty drama and much more action thriller.

Although I would also say that the original film has always been a bit of an oddball in terms of where its fandom comes from. It has always tended to be embraced by the "sci fi geek" audience yet I very often kind of get the idea that a lot of commentary on it is rather avoidant on the film itself not really meeting expectations. In that respect I think 2049 does arguably meet these expectations more fully being as mentioned more of an action thriller with a lot of focus on hard sci fi.

I wouldn't want to set my opinion totally in stone after one viewing but for me this comes at the expense of both the dramatic depth and character of the original. The sequels more plot focused approach and the breath of its story tends to mean that I don't think it really gets to grips with any part of it as successfully as the original did with Deckard, Rachel and Roys characters.

Equally I felt 2049 seems to become caught up in its own crushing seriousness in a similar way to Nolans sci fi epics. The original although is a very characterful piece of cinema not afraid to embrace the oddball(more than a bit of Clockwork Orange influence IMHO from the Kubrick fan Scott). Most obviously in Roy's character which I think benefits massively from this but in many others as well and in the general design of the world that doesn't just feel like a prediction of the future but rather pushes into nostalgia and somewhat fantastical, again I think greatly to the benefit of the story.

The sequel for me whilst an enjoyable piece of hard sci fi to me just seemed to be lacking in that magic and also somewhat in originally(not just as as a sequel but also lifting from stuff like Her, Drive, Equilibrium). If I was picking out "this generations Blade Runner" I would be more inclined to go with something like Under The Skin(from another obvious Kubrick fan in Glazier)..

Finally got to see this, and it's definitely a solid sequel . (And those definitely come along infrequently).

Films that have that 'no scene wasted' magic are uber rare though, and I didn't feel it matched the original on that front. (Or at least the 'later originals', shorn of their cumbersome narration and the like )

It had the look down, and amongst the venerable hat tips, it revitalised it at points as well. (Top marks for those austere opening shots and the scenario-setting of the opening scenes as a whole, amongst many others). The acting ran from solid up to excellent, the continuation of some of the franchise's mysteries and cruelties were neatly handled, punchy, yet left with some pleasing ambiguity. Villeneuve drew all the strands together well. (But couldn't quite get that consistent line of tension to strum through the whole film as he has previously).

If I was to pitch as to why, I'd say:



Oh yeah and essentially:

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

Replicants != AI

__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.

What are they then? Pod people? Sentient poodles who've undergone a very thorough shaving? A rogue form of metallic mould?

They are people. Or if your interpretation is colder just replicants. Joi is AI. AI has to do with machines and computer programs built of binary. Replicants as well as humans are biological entities.

Giving it a second watch I certainly still enjoyed it but I would say that even ignoring comparison with the original it felt like there was a bit of a disconnection between the first half(or 2/3rds) of the film and the latter stages(from just before the plot moves to Vegas onwards).

There seemed to be a good deal of focus on both K's situation in the LAPD(as a hated semi slave who needs to keep in certain emotional boundries) and how he related to Robin Wrights Joshi plus obviously a good deal of time spent on building up his relationship with Joi. Both of those plots just seemed to hit a rather unsatisfactory wall to me, Joshi is killed off by someone else with no reaction from K who also doesn't have any further dealing with the LAPD.

Joi also gets dealt with in a rather crude fashion to me considering how much effort had gone into building up the character and her ambiguous relationship to K. We cut from that surrogate seduction to a billboard stating in no uncertain terms "she was just a pay for fantasy" and the characters largely forgotten after that besides being killed off.

Really I think the film would have been much better off removing Wallace and Luv as Bond villian/henchwoman like characters and instead having the LAPD and Joshi as more nuanced antagonists. It also would I think have benefited not just from giving a bit more depth to Joi's character but also keeping her around to react to K not being the "child" considering she was the one claiming he was "special".

RE: Joi

Hogwash!

Luv is one of my favorite aspects of the film. Great antagonist, and played with much more subtlety than a bond henchman. Hoeks performance is stellar, and I hope to see more of her in other roles in the future.

These are cool conceits, and felt they did come across for me too to varying degrees. I think the Luv elements you mention are stronger though, for example, and that as much as Joi does reinforce some of these themes and illuminate K's actions, too often her scenes felt comparatively lightweight to me, or achievable by other means. (So in part it's just a pacing decision, and in others its a weighting thing, where the character just didn't seem to carry the same impact as her contemporaries, or with the same frequency on a scene-for-scene basis).

I dunno, the odd standout moment aside (cold cold giant ad, with reference to the theme you describe), she just felt like a missed beat for me overall :/

Oh ok cool. I don't actually know the lore that well. I assumed that their intelligences stemmed from some form of computerised tech. What's their route to sentience then?

This is probably an early concept and Deckard’s final look was probably decided upon after a lengthy process...

... but I prefer to believe Ford simply wouldn’t put up with any kind of costume fitting.

Bond isn't of course lacking in henchpersons with a bit of character to them either so I don't see my post as an inference that she lacks that but ultimately she is a "baddie" for the hero to knock down. You compare things to the original or even to Joshi earlier in this film and does I'd say clearly come across as a dramatic simplification.

I actually felt the scenes between them were some of the most effective in the early part of the film with a more subtle hand than a lot of the rest of it. There was an interesting ambiguity to the relationship with the appearance of some feeling present on both sides yet also obviously hints as limitations and an obvious questionable power dynamic.

The surrogate scene with McKenize Davis whilst obviously lifting from Her in concept was I think very effectively done with some of the most original visuals of the film. The film to me though seemed to drop the ball with the character after that point with the billboard inferences as to her nature being pretty simplistic and ham fisted for me. Again surely we would have been better off having that explored in a scene between the actors?

Sidelining and then killing off her character as well left the K "special" subplot floundering a bit for me. Earlier in the film the desire for this "specialness" of being the child is expressed not though him but rather though her with indeed his being resistant to it. When he's revealed not to be the child the reaction just feels rather muted to me because the situation it built up in isn't there anymore.

"Cells interlinked within cells interlinked, Within one stem. And dreadfully distinct, Against the dark, a tall white fountain played."

Anyone have any ideas as to why these lines from Nabakov's Pale Fire were used in the film? A copy of the book was in K's apartment, as well.

^
This analysis, I think, sheds light on the matter: http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2017/10/...de-runner-2049

The baseline test, interestingly enough, was Gosling’s idea.

I enjoyed it, especially the stuff I didn't think I would. Most thoughts had Leto as a throwaway, lacking part of the film. I would say he might have been my favorite part. So cold, menacing and brutal.

My only real gripe was the sound. It was great except for the horns. I can't think of any other film where the sound was so obnoxiously loud. I never cover my ears, but I started to because it was just too jarring. It was the first time I was grateful for not seeing(hearing) something in IMAX.

The climatic scene when the vehicle is crashing on the seawall... I can't describe why I was so fascinated by that. The contrast of the dark with the pure white. A true piece of art.

View Spoilers

WARNING: "one of you BR experts" spoilers below

I can't remember when or much of when I saw the original. I know of the famous "tears in the rain" scene. Is there some sort of reference to final scene of 2049 being in snow.

I can't remember when or much of when I saw the original. I know of the famous "tears in the rain" scene. Is there some sort of reference to final scene of 2049 being in snow.