Author Topic: Blade Runner 2049  (Read 415 times)

Junior

  • Bert Macklin, FBI
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 27320
  • What's the rumpus?
    • Benefits of a Classical Education
Blade Runner 2049
« on: October 06, 2017, 09:46:41 PM »
We're going to need this.

One of the most amazing things in a movie full of amazing things is that it doesn't really answer the "Is Deckard a replicant or what" question from the original.
Check out my blog of many topics

Im not a quitter, Kimmy! I watched Interstellar all the way to the end!

aewade90

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 65
    • Letterboxd:
Re: Blade Runner 2049
« Reply #1 on: October 07, 2017, 06:46:12 AM »
We're going to need this.

One of the most amazing things in a movie full of amazing things is that it doesn't really answer the "Is Deckard a replicant or what" question from the original.

The fact that it re-raises the question while adding even MORE ambiguity to it is fantastic. The way it inverts that question as to whether K is a human or not is fantastic. The cinematography is fantastic. Ford and Gosling are fantastic. The last half of act two and the overall runtime are the worst things about it, but it manages to be so gorgeous that it's not really too much of a complaint.

I originally rated this 3.5 on Letterboxd but the more I think about it (and I've thought about it a lot of the past couple of days) I'd put it closer to 4.5/5 - on par with Blade Runner. In Villeneuve tradition, the questions are more philosophical than ambiguous like the original, but after a few rewatches and living the whole x-cuts saga of Scott's film, the more I think that Blade Runner (1982) was just Ridley swinging for the fences and missing so goddamn hard that he shot straight past "Heavens-Gate-failure" level and circled back around to "genius"(-ish). Villeneuve removes all of Scott's weaknesses and brings so much more. He even manages to wring out Ford's career-best performance - as much as I love Ford, I never thought he had it in him.

Give Deakins the Oscars for Cinematography and just close the category for future entrants, because I really can't think of another film that is this gorgeous.

sdb_1970

  • Elite Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2206
Re: Blade Runner 2049
« Reply #2 on: October 07, 2017, 09:52:54 AM »
aewafe90, agree with everything you said
[insert pithy expression of false modesty here]

Junior

  • Bert Macklin, FBI
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 27320
  • What's the rumpus?
    • Benefits of a Classical Education
Re: Blade Runner 2049
« Reply #3 on: October 07, 2017, 10:24:22 AM »
Yeah, same. This is a stupidly good year for genre movies. Get Out and mother! for horror, this and very likely Star Wars for scifi, Spiderman and Wonder Woman and very likely Thor for superhero. These are really good to all-time great examples of their respective genres.
Check out my blog of many topics

Im not a quitter, Kimmy! I watched Interstellar all the way to the end!

FLYmeatwad

  • An Acronym
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 26435
  • I am trying to impress myself. I have yet to do it
    • Processed Grass
Re: Blade Runner 2049
« Reply #4 on: October 07, 2017, 09:20:18 PM »
I think More Mjhor Thor might be an outlier in the sense that I'm hoping it won't be a typical superhero film, but I'm still super excited.

Regardless, did enjoy a good amount about this one, even if the score got a little overbearing and, though it's not saying much, it's likely my fave of Denis V's filmography (haven't seen the Jake G one tho...) because so much of the talent surrounding the director is functioning at a really high level. I'm not head over heels for Deakins's work here as many seem to be, but there's no denying that it's a fantastic looking film, and damn if Ford doesn't make his time count. All of the secondary cast members do, really, wish we got more time with Letbro and Bautista. The way it does kind of exist as a companion piece and extension of the original works wonders.

And seeing it as a fiction, especially because the CGI here is notably more distanced (for me, anyway) from what felt a lot more practical when I watched the original, works, rather than seeing it as a future. Though I don't know if people who saw the original when it first came out thought that was what 2019 would be like, just that I think we can watch this and realize that we aren't that far away from the year the film takes place in, and that we aren't headed in that direction, but it doesn't undermine the film the way I kind of expected it would, because it exists in the franchise.

Those are just loose, nothing thoughts about 10 minutes removed from my screening.

philip918

  • Elite Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3773
Re: Blade Runner 2049
« Reply #5 on: October 09, 2017, 12:28:16 PM »
Really liked this a lot despite tons of reservations. So, pretty much typical Villeneuve for me. I wouldn't be surprised if I absolutely loved it, or completely hated it on a second viewing.

Biggest question: Didn't Wallace and the replicant rebels have the same goal?
"If God gives you lemons find a new God."

Junior

  • Bert Macklin, FBI
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 27320
  • What's the rumpus?
    • Benefits of a Classical Education
Re: Blade Runner 2049
« Reply #6 on: October 09, 2017, 01:37:27 PM »
I think they had the same intermediate goals. But Wallace stated that he wanted the replicants to be able to reproduce so that they could create more slaves faster. I don't think the rebel replicants had that goal.
Check out my blog of many topics

Im not a quitter, Kimmy! I watched Interstellar all the way to the end!

AliceGuyBlache

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 233
  • Take my views with a few gallons of salt
    • The Alice Guy Blache Show
Re: Blade Runner 2049
« Reply #7 on: October 12, 2017, 02:42:51 PM »
I'm willing to wager that the film wouldn't be a whole lot different if the girlfriend subplot was dropped completely. It totally rips off HER. We didn't need the sex scene, the only thing it added to the main plot was the femme fatale leaving the tracker on him (which could've been established earlier). At first, I thought there was an interesting idea in the visual merging of her with the femme fatale, but the film never makes good on that set-up.

I'm also kind of at a loss on how K/Joe didn't know about the program limits of his virtual girlfriend sooner, like, I don't know, when he bought it? It leaves a gaping plot hole in the film.

Junior

  • Bert Macklin, FBI
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 27320
  • What's the rumpus?
    • Benefits of a Classical Education
Re: Blade Runner 2049
« Reply #8 on: October 13, 2017, 09:14:20 AM »
I think it uses the Her similarity to remind the audience of the Deckard/Rachel relationship from the previous film. K's unknown provenance, the "realness" of Joi's devotion to him (whether it is actually love or programmed), these are questions that this film raises about the previous relationship again later in the film and they're set up in that relationship. Also, it's the movie's most spectacular scene among many. Have you ever seen something like that before? With the blending of the two women?
Check out my blog of many topics

Im not a quitter, Kimmy! I watched Interstellar all the way to the end!

philip918

  • Elite Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3773
Re: Blade Runner 2049
« Reply #9 on: October 13, 2017, 03:54:39 PM »
The effect was interesting, but I didn't think the Joi plot really added anything to the film other than making it 25 minutes longer.

A Joi-less cut would be much better.
"If God gives you lemons find a new God."