BLADE RUNNER 2049 - Ryan Gosling & Harrison Ford

[numberthirty]

Saw it yesterday. Certainly went into with a head full of doubts.

Totally solid film. Very impressed with that they made a simple film instead of making the most the most off-the-wall film possible just because it was an option.

[JKtheMac]

I am the perfect age to be a Bladerunner fan. And in many ways the early work of Scott made me a Cinema fan. 'The Dualists' is still one my my favourite movies. So making a sequel to Bladerunner was always going to make me nervous, especially after the way Alien has been over-milked.

All in all it was an interesting movie. Very sparse, some pretty good acting, especially from Harrison Ford. It could easily have spiralled into post apocalyptic cliche or pastiche at one point, but it held together well.

What I wasn't expecting was Wagner. The story (again by TV screenwriting veteran Hampton Fancher), seems to be loosely based on Die Walküre. With a wannabe Wotan who has helped colonise nine worlds but is seeking to extend his legacy and create a new race. I say loosely based, because despite being populated with characters straight out of the opera, the story was not a direct copy, and so enhanced rather than detracted from the overall story. Indeed without that connection the story may have been a little flimsy and directionless, and very slow indeed. At least being slow gave me opportunity to pick out the mythological analogues and how they reflected upon the story while watching the cinematographer (Deakins) and the score (Wallfisch & Zimmer) take centre stage.

[Vegan Daddy]

It was okay. Very pretty movie but overly long and a little too stuffed for me. The third act was pure schlock.

[Mia]

I've seen it twice already. The preview on Thurdsay (which I had to walk out on before it ended) and the yesterday. First I watched it as a thriller and the second time I saw it as a character study.

I really liked the film a lot. I didn't like Villeneuve's film Scicario (which I found boring and pretentious) and I was afraid it wouldn't like this. But I really did.

My main draw to this film was Westworld (which drew heavily from the first Blade Runner film), so I am very interested in the concept of what makes a person.

Yes there was the obvious allegory to slaves/under class rebelling. As well as the allegory to Pinochio, Moses and Jesus. But I did like the message at the end which said that spoilers:

Your value as a person comes from what you do and the choices you make in your life. Not the circumstances of your birth or the class you come from

end of spoilers. I liked the twist near the end. Along with a certain character who was introduced, whose functions really oppened up a whole new set of questions. Especially regarding the personalities of the replicants. And it would be really like to see it expanded on, should there be a sequel to this film. Although it looks really iffy right now due to the box office receipts. But it would really be nice to see even in a 8-10 episode series through Netflix.

[Ilan Preskovsky]

Excellent movie. I'm still slightly ambivalent about the first film, simply because it doesn't live up to the book on which it's based. The second film doesn't really have that problem and despite - or actually because of - its slow pace and long running time, I was able to just immerse myself in the its world. The mystery at the centre of it works well but it's worth knowing that it's much less about that than the characters and the idea its trying to explore. Don't go in expecting everything to be tied up in a nice bow, in other words. It's simply an exceptional piece of filmmaking, immacualtely controlled by Villeneuve and everyone, from the art designers to the music composers to the actors to, of course, the cinematographerRoger Deakins, are at the very top of the game.

Don't go in knowing anything about the film except that it is very deliberately paced and is about its very Philip K Dickian ideas of what it means to be human and the nature of reality, as well as the subtle but strong characterization, rather than a tidy plot.

My only real problems were that Jared Leto's performance and the part he was playing felt totally off to me and that you absolutely should not see it in 3D as the 3D adds nothing but darkens an already pretty dark vision of the future. IMAX 3D may be fine but regular 3D really isn't. Though, to be fair, I do think the contrast might have been off as the cinema I saw it in - which is sadly all too frequent an occurence in this digital age without real projectionists to monitor the film from beginning to end.

[CliffHanger2]

Saw it in standard excellent movie probably see it again. Lots of character and beautifully shot.

[Mia]

Here's a great article on the theme & the twist (don't read if you haven't seen the film)

https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/10/...poilers-review

[Zero Hunter]

Honestly the running time kept me from going to see it in the theater. I just can't sit in a theater that long. I am sure I will watch it once it comes out on bluray or vod, but a 2:30+ running time is just not something I can sit through in a theater anymore.

[Mia]

Honestly the running time kept me from going to see it in the theater. I just can't sit in a theater that long. I am sure I will watch it once it comes out on bluray or vod, but a 2:30+ running time is just not something I can sit through in a theater anymore.

I understand that's one of the reasons that it took a hit.

The funny thing is, when I saw it the first time I thought that it was slow, I also thought that I wouldn't enjoy it as much the 2nd time given the fact that much of it is a mystery/thriller and I knew what was coming. But it didn't drag for me at all on seeing it again. I think that 20 minutes might have been cut and it would not have hurt the story. But much of the story involves the protagonists evolution and a growth and I'm not sure if it's possible to rush, especially given the fact that he wasn't very emotive.

The film is far too cerebral and American audiences don't appear to like cerebral films. Just simplistic action (boggles my mind how Rogue One made money), not that I found this film that hard to understand. It wasn't like Inception or Edge of Tomorrow that you had to watch numerous times (or read forums) to see what happened. You didn't even have to have watched the first film to understand or get the concept. It's given in the opening and then explained via exposition of one character.

[numberthirty]

One guy's take...

I do think that the run time was an issue when you factor in how large a portion of the current movie going public were not even alive when the first film's theatrical run happened.

It was also not the most "Fan Service" film for folks who wanted a movie heavy on Deckard.

[Cleric of Hell’s Brigade]

The sequel is a beautifully shot movie, and the atmosphere and set design need to be applauded (and with sound design). Same with Gosling and several of the other actors, who really pulled great performances (not all of them, but several key ones in my opinion).

It is a touch long, and there are a couple scenes that add little to the movie's overall plot that could have been cut (and would have trimmed the run length down).

A solid 7-8/10. I liked it more than the original (which had great set design and atmosphere, but almost no charm in the characters).

[Gray Lensman]

I understand that's one of the reasons that it took a hit.

The funny thing is, when I saw it the first time I thought that it was slow, I also thought that I wouldn't enjoy it as much the 2nd time given the fact that much of it is a mystery/thriller and I knew what was coming. But it didn't drag for me at all on seeing it again. I think that 20 minutes might have been cut and it would not have hurt the story. But much of the story involves the protagonists evolution and a growth and I'm not sure if it's possible to rush, especially given the fact that he wasn't very emotive.

The film is far too cerebral and American audiences don't appear to like cerebral films. Just simplistic action (boggles my mind how Rogue One made money), not that I found this film that hard to understand. It wasn't like Inception or Edge of Tomorrow that you had to watch numerous times (or read forums) to see what happened. You didn't even have to have watched the first film to understand or get the concept. It's given in the opening and then explained via exposition of one character.

Part of that might be a couple of non-related factors.

Going to the movies is expensive, and cerebral films tend to translate well to the home theatre system. For the price of 2 tickets, a soda and popcorn, I can buy the Blu-Ray, a 2 liter of soda and a box of microwave popcorn, allowing me to watch the film more than once for the same price. Plus, I'll have 2-5 more bags of popcorn for later viewings.

Long films are often unpopular because there is no pause button in the theater - if you have to leave to use the bathroom, you'll miss something and it might actually be important - which for some people ruins the whole thing. I don't like the thought of spending $20 to leave angry (or deal with my wife leaving angry because she missed something important - like the dramatic payoff).

If I want to see something in the theatre I prefer something with visual spectacle where the experience is enhanced by being there - but without 3D because I personally hate wearing glasses over glasses, and my wife has a lazy-eye which was misdiagnosed as a child and left untreated. This renders her 100% unable to see a 3D film without getting a sharp headache.

[TomServofan]

Excellent movie. I'm still slightly ambivalent about the first film, simply because it doesn't live up to the book on which it's based. The second film doesn't really have that problem and despite - or actually because of - its slow pace and long running time, I was able to just immerse myself in the its world. The mystery at the centre of it works well but it's worth knowing that it's much less about that than the characters and the idea its trying to explore. Don't go in expecting everything to be tied up in a nice bow, in other words. It's simply an exceptional piece of filmmaking, immacualtely controlled by Villeneuve and everyone, from the art designers to the music composers to the actors to, of course, the cinematographerRoger Deakins, are at the very top of the game.

Don't go in knowing anything about the film except that it is very deliberately paced and is about its very Philip K Dickian ideas of what it means to be human and the nature of reality, as well as the subtle but strong characterization, rather than a tidy plot.

My only real problems were that Jared Leto's performance and the part he was playing felt totally off to me and that you absolutely should not see it in 3D as the 3D adds nothing but darkens an already pretty dark vision of the future. IMAX 3D may be fine but regular 3D really isn't. Though, to be fair, I do think the contrast might have been off as the cinema I saw it in - which is sadly all too frequent an occurence in this digital age without real projectionists to monitor the film from beginning to end.

What do you think of Jared in Fight Club?

[CentralPower]

I hope to have time to see it again. (Looking at a busy few weeks though. And, if this weekend's box office is anything to go by, the movie ain't gonna be around that long.)

Never seen the first, always wanted to though. This intrigues me. Gosling was a surprise to me.

Make time for the original movie. (There is more than one take. The director's cut is the best. But, the other variants are worth seeing for the insight they add.)

Because he's not. Some people involved in the creation of the first had that as a head-canon, but the actual movie was ambiguous. So the creators of the sequel were free to do whatever they wanted on that issue, such as having him be human.

The unicorn scene says otherwise. Ridley Scott matters more than Harrison Ford.

The unicorn (both origami and dream) demonstrates that Graff and Deckard are thinking along the same lines, for reasons that are not clear in the original movie (but heavily implied in the second).

View Post
I saw it as Gaff giving them a pass

But, how would Gaff know about Deckard's fondness for unicorns? spoilers:

It is implied that Graff's mind was the template for Deckard's memories.

end of spoilers

I liked the twist near the end. Along with a certain character who was introduced, whose functions really oppened up a whole new set of questions. Especially regarding the personalities of the replicants.

spoilers:

Are you talking about K's AI wife? That was all sorts of squirmy. Was she alive? Was she just following a program? Either way, there is something to squirm about.

end of spoilers

What I wasn't expecting was Wagner. The story (again by TV screenwriting veteran Hampton Fancher), seems to be loosely based on Die Walküre. With a wannabe Wotan who has helped colonise nine worlds but is seeking to extend his legacy and create a new race.

Why Wotan specifically? (Based on other posts you have made, you have a background in mythology. But, you gotta fill us in.)

Another question: What is the significance of the "Peter and Wolf" theme?

My objection is more thematic. To me, if he is a replicant, it negates his character arc. It just makes no sense to me.

How so?

If Deckard is a replicant then Roy Batty has merely saved one of his own. Deckard also loses later if he's not human, because he's not crossing the transgressive tribal lines to love someone he knows is a replicant. He ceases to be a human risking everything for love and pretty much becomes just another replicant on the run.

Is a replicant who hunts other replicants really one of Batty's "own". Similarly, a replicant that switches sides (from enforcing the law to breaking it) is committing a transgression.

I do think that the run time was an issue when you factor in how large a portion of the current movie going public were not even alive when the first film's theatrical run happened.

You clearly did not drink as much Mountain Dew as some of us....

[Ilan Preskovsky]

What do you think of Jared in Fight Club?

I honestly don't remember him in it. But then I haven't seen it since it first came out, pretty much.

I tend to run hot and cold on him in general. He has turned into a weird mix of method actor and hammy, modern-Johnny-Depp-like movie star and the result can sometimes work but often doesn't. I hated him in Suicide Squad, for example but thought he was excellent in stuff like Requiem for a Dream and Dallas Buyer's Club.