Jump to content

Blade Runner 2!


Recommended Posts

I don't think I'm being overly critical, and what's a not-taste oriented quibble?

 

I just didn't love every minute of it, and I wished the minutes that I didn't love weren't at the end.

 

I might have to see it again (if I can stomach the sadness of a lot of it and the some of the violence again), but I almost envy those that didn't like it at all; that's easier to process than mixed feelings.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Ford's been mailing it in for so long that he's solely responsible for 89% of the USPS income.

Not Dune. Jodorovsky's Dune. Look for the documentary!!

100% I felt the same way.  I think it's both-- you nailed it.   I'll murder you and everyone you've ever loved.

Something that isn't a taste oriented quibble would be like fidinding logical flaws in writing, bad writing, things that can be attributed to poor leadership/directing and poor cinematography etc..

 

The complaints you made I thought had to do less with hard things like that, and more your enjoyment or preferences (I.e a taste thing.) because I thought the technical aspects of the film (cinematography is the obvious one) and the writing was second to none.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, yeah. I'll admit I was really sour on this project since it was announced... somewhere I missed that Denis Villeneuve was involved, otherwise I would have anticipated this more. I really did not think it was possible to pull this off in such a balanced way... but they did it. It's a proper sequel that expands the meaning of the original without being slavish to the source. Tonally it doesn't pander to the audience and, like the original, trusts you will follow. When you think of all of the films either inspired by (or blatantly ripping off) the original it's incredible that this managed to feel so fresh and avoid the obvious cliches of the cyber-punk/future noir genre. Solid B+ (probably higher, but I need to see it again)

 

I was not enthused about Harrison Ford's involvement, but he did a fine job and this is exactly how you bring back an old character... or use an old character as a plot "device". In Force Awakens Luke was just a McGuffin based on the hype of "ooohhhh remember all that stuff he did in the original trilogy? Sure you do, but we're not going to tell you why he's important to THIS story". In 2049 Deckard is used in a way where it feels like his past is simply catching up with him in a way he could have never intended. He's not the end-all-be-all of anything. The thrust of the narrative uses him as a focal point for further raising the stakes of what was already building up without his direct involvement. In fact, his character (and Rachel) could most likely have been swapped with new characters; but they chose to tie this to the events of the first film and did so in a way that didn't feel like fan service, nostalgia pandering, or lazily relying on established characters. It felt 'organic', or a happy concidence that Deckard and Rachel's story fit neatly into this (even though you know it was a planned continuation)... if that makes sense?

Another plus for me was that they still kept the 'Replicant or human' question ambiguous, which is how it should be, despite what Ridley Scott has tried to push. Deckard was an everyman and he still felt like an everyman in this story. He gets a happy ending that feels deserved just by virtue of how much time he has been forced to live in seclusion, and by consequence of his actions in the original. But again, it doesn't hijack K's story, it accents it. You get what Deckard is about in the first 15 minutes of Blade Runner and 2049 doesn't try to make him more than he is. If anything he's a tragic figure that represents an aspect of humanity caught in an ideological battle between the subjugation and exaltation (or supremacy) of replicants.
I'm still digesting some of the philosophical aspects of this, but in the end I think K realizes that his "humanity" isn't reliant on some kind of hereditary connection or "miracle birth", but in choice; a consciousness breaking free of its own perceived constraints. And he learns that in part through Deckard's involvement in the story... a human find his humanity through a replicant. Then a replicant finds his humanity through helping that same human find closure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, aesthetically and tonally this film nails it. Kinda the blueprint or 'quintessential' film for what I consider to be cyber punk.

 

I really want to see it again too. Its such a rich film visually, i think there will more going on that I missed initially.

 

Where is Driver these days? He is conspicuously absent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good solid film that surpasses the original.

 

There's a lot to like and I guess a lot many will love. I had some questions at the end. I think it expands on the humanity of replicants really well without being in your face about it.

 

Gosling's performance is stellar.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Additionally I have a whole new feeling coming out of watching that film. I'm finding it really hard to describe it. I don't feel the same way I do after watching a film. There's no elation. I just feel like I witnessed something and I'm still thinking about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I loved it.

A few non-spoilery things first: I loved that the whole production design and the music held roots in the original, but felt free enough to expand upon it and go in a few different directions. Thirty years had passed for both us and this world, so it made sense that the look and feel should have progressed a fair amount. But it still felt entirely true to the original. Also I was blown away and how unapologetically "thinky" it was. It was almost like an arthouse film in how subdued and intentionally paced it was. Also, this was the best performance by Harrison Ford in years, and I swear someone needs a boot to the ass if Roger Deakins doesn't finally get an Oscar.

As for spoilery details:

I went in very much spoiler-free, and I was floored at how genius the narrative of this mirrored the original on the other end of the spectrum.

In the old one, you're made to assume that Deckard is human, but there are hints that he could be a Replicant. In this one, it's the other way around. K gets harassed for being a Skinjob, but there are lots of hints that he's possibly human. (Or at least human enough.) The way that it handled the "is he or isn't he" of Deckard was also genius. The real answer was that it doesn't matter anyways.

I've got to take a lot of time to really think on it and probably see it again, but I am just so happy to finally have a solid SciFi movie that has implications and makes you consider it deeply.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hate to be one of these people who reply to a spoiler with a spoiler, but here we go.

Just got back from seeing it... thinking out loud...

 

 

IReally want to know how women react to it, and if they feel that the line between merely depicting a world where their roles are mostly terrible and reveling in it was crossed. During the really uncomfortable scene with Wallace and the just-born female replicant, I was looking around the theater to see how female audience members were reacting (there weren't any), and afterwards I was wondering if they'd ever considered a male aspect / factor in replicant infertility = Leto doing that scene with a male replicant instead. Probably not.

 

I had that thought too. This certainly dealt with a lot of female-centric issues from a solely male point of view.

I feel like it carefully tread that line, but it's still going to be potentially problematic for some. For instance, I'd have I don't think we ever actually heard a female human speak to the point of fertility or male dominance. Which, I know part of the point is that replicants should be considered on the same level as humans, but that certainly still has some deep issues.

But yeah, this likely has already inspired a whole lecture series on Tumblr, and I don't think they'd be entirely unwarranted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hate to be one of these people who reply to a spoiler with a spoiler, but here we go.

 

 

 

Just got back from seeing it... thinking out loud...

 

 

IReally want to know how women react to it, and if they feel that the line between merely depicting a world where their roles are mostly terrible and reveling in it was crossed. During the really uncomfortable scene with Wallace and the just-born female replicant, I was looking around the theater to see how female audience members were reacting (there weren't any), and afterwards I was wondering if they'd ever considered a male aspect / factor in replicant infertility = Leto doing that scene with a male replicant instead. Probably not.

 

 

I had that thought too. This certainly dealt with a lot of female-centric issues from a solely male point of view.

 

I feel like it carefully tread that line, but it's still going to be potentially problematic for some. For instance, I'd have I don't think we ever actually heard a female human speak to the point of fertility or male dominance. Which, I know part of the point is that replicants should be considered on the same level as humans, but that certainly still has some deep issues.

 

But yeah, this likely has already inspired a whole lecture series on Tumblr, and I don't think they'd be entirely unwarranted.

My thoughts on that scene and the female being cast as a replicant...

is simply that it is more powerful imagery to have a man stab a woman in the womb, than it would be to mess with a males junk. Ripping out a womb is such a more powerful and haunting image. That is literally the cradle of life... That's why I think it was chosen for a woman to represent replicant infertility. Not out of gender bias or anything. Simply to make the scene more horrific.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, aesthetically and tonally this film nails it. Kinda the blueprint or 'quintessential' film for what I consider to be cyber punk.

 

I really want to see it again too. Its such a rich film visually, i think there will more going on that I missed initially.

 

Where is Driver these days? He is conspicuously absent.

I assume he's hiding from the Internet since Leatherface comes out soon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I felt the same way when I saw the first one. It was pretty, great soundtrack, but boring as hell.

 

I really wanted to like it but by the time I got out of the theater I thought I had just been released from prison.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

Where is Driver these days? He is conspicuously absent.

I assume he's hiding from the Internet since Leatherface comes out soon.

 

OR I was taking a break for an incessantly negative politically backwards messageboard before I snapped!

 

Maybe he's got a job taking all his time.. leatherface 2?

Two more movies and a TV show thank you very much :p

 

 

I loved this movie. My only gripes were some really handy plot coincidences--

 

Like how K happens to have lunch one day out in front of the front for the Replicant revolutionary army-- or that he stumbles upon Deckard's daughter in the course of his investigation and he just so happens to have one of her memories, AND he somehow realizes who she is later. As I worried, Ford was Ford and not Deckard-- but he was light enough I was okay.

 

Overall though, the beauty of the filmmaking and K and Joi's relationship and Luv's intensity made up for the problems I had. It can't touch the perfect of the original, but it is the only thing to come close in 40+ years of trying to capture the Blade Runner vibe. It FELT like the same world, which is a feat given that in all this time no one else has been able to-- and many have tried.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Where is Driver these days? He is conspicuously absent.

I assume he's hiding from the Internet since Leatherface comes out soon.

 

OR I was taking a break for an incessantly negative politically backwards messageboard before I snapped!

It was a valid guess! And there are really only one person that fits that description, the others are just trolls (literal, living under bridges, not Internet trolls).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

Finally saw this tonight, amazing. Expected it to be after all the positive word of mouth but thought I'd still have a little bit of disappointment but none at all, makes me want to re-watch the original soon.

As I worried, Ford was Ford and not Deckard-- but he was light enough I was okay.

 

 

I thought the same up until the scene with him and Leto. That scene was probably Ford's best work in years, he was actually acting. There was a range on emotions on his face - something I didn't think Ford was capable of doing in a long time. That scene to me reinforced he was an older Deckard, opposed to just acting as a Deckard who was the same, just older.

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...