Sfdebris.net

So I just got back from seeing the sequel that almost nobody asked for: Bladerunner 2049.
Let me get this out of the way; I really like Bladerunner, I think it's one of the best films of the eighties and I believe that the 'final cut' is the best version.
It was pretty good, slightly better than I expected, if you liked the original I recommend you go and see this one.
I'm not going to give a full review but I will list some things I liked and didn't like about this film.

The sound and visuals in this movie were really, really good, it was very well directed and I loved the cinematography.
The musical score was surprisingly powerful, memorable and very reminiscent of the original, I think I'll get my hands on the OST when I can.
The people behind it did their best to remain faithful to the dark, gritty, dirty, overcrowded atmosphere of the original while making use of the gigantic, modern day adaptation budget they had, this is an expensive looking movie.
Parts of it reminded me of Mad Max Fury Road, if you've seen the film you already know what I'm talking about so I won't get into that.

Now I'm going to get into the story, characters and other elements of the film that people may not want to know about before catching it themselves.

SPOILER WARNING












































I like how the film starts out, it almost feels like a cold open, just Ryan Gosling doing his job as a Bladerunner. I kind of like how the film just accepts Ridley Scott's 'Deckard is a replicant' idea from the get go. Now it's common knowledge that all Bladerunners are replicants or something.

David Bautista is only in the film for a few minutes which is disappointing because he was really good and I thought his character was pretty interesting.

I have to admit, Ryan Gosling's performance was better than I was expecting, his bland, stoic nature makes sense considering his character, he often reminded me of Deckard in the original and is a surprisingly better detective, fighter and killer than he was.

I didn't think that the prejudice against 'skinjobs' was explored very well beyond the obvious hatred against them, even then it didn't crop up very much.

I didn't like the police chief, I didn't find her very interesting and I thought her relationship with 'K' was a bit vague, the 'loose cannon' moment we see in so many of these kinds of films made me laugh unintentionally.

Edward James Olmos's scene is okay, I was a bit disappointed to see he decided to 'comfortably retire', I honestly wish he had been the police chief character and that he had a bigger role in the film.

Joi was a fascinating character and I thought that her relationship with 'K' was going to take a more satirical direction, I was disappointed that it doesn't although I kind of like the scene where the giant advert hologram of her talks to him.

The villains were okay, they were appropriately creepy and unpleasant although I don't quite understand Jared Leto's character's problem or motivation. He's either a replicant himself or some kind of cyborg, I'm very unclear on this. What did he plan to do with Harrison Ford or any of the other replicants? It felt too comic-book for my liking, I know that the original Bladerunner isn't 'realistic' but it did feel appropriately gritty and grounded. The original CEO guy, Edward Tyrell or whatever his name was was a believable human, his motivation was greed and capitalism, he wanted to make the best technology and for everyone to buy it, simple. He was also a slightly more interesting character in my opinion, his last scene with Rutger Hauer is just fantastic, one of the best scenes in sci-fi media in my opinion. Jared Leto's 'fixer', I've forgotten her name sorry, felt like an anime villain, I really liked the actress's performance but this character did not belong in a Bladerunner story in my opinion. I know the original replicants were violent and intimidating but this one went way over the top with the fight scenes and outright brutally murdering the police chief in her office. How the **** did she get away with that!?

I LOVED the stuff that happened in the Wasteland, it was appropriately gritty and post-apocalyptic but it felt a bit over the top having the 'fixer' lady just mortar bomb the bandits, I would have preferred a longer fight scene with 'K' fighting off the bandits, eventually scaring them off, to showcase just how strong these replicants can be. However, HOW THE HELL DID 'K' GET BACK IN THE CITY!? I know this might sound like nit-picking but seriously? How did he get back in? His car was wrecked and those walls look almost impenetrable.

The radioactive Las Vegas was nicely atmospheric, the scene with the bees was interesting although I was slightly irritated that it never got brought up again. The fight between Harrison Ford and Ryan Gosling felt like unnecessary filler but it made sense considering Deckard's character and the fact that he is clearly going crazy from paranoia and isolation.

I did not care for the 'replicant resistance movement' one bit, it just felt like sequel bait, an issue I'll get into very soon.

Okay, big, big nitpick, WHERE THE FRAK DID 'K' GET A FLYING CAR WITH GUNS!? Where did he find this thing!? Does the military in the Bladerunner-verse just leave them lying around neo-L.A? Other than this I quite enjoyed the final action scene, there was a lot of tension and the 'fixer' lady gets an interesting death.

I did not particularly like or understand the ending, how exactly does everyone know that the memory Doctor is Deckard's daughter? Where is the evidence for this? Have I missed something? This leads into my biggest issue with the movie; the sequel bait.

SONY and Warner Bros clearly want to turn Bladerunner into a big franchise, this is a very bad idea. They spent A LOT of money on this movie, somewhere around $300 million if you include production and advertisement costs together. The original Bladerunner bombed, it has always been a 'cult' phenomenon along with many other works based on Philip.K.Dick stories. It's not family friendly like the Star Wars franchise generally is and it isn't popular and beloved like the Marvel and DC universes generally are, it is made for an adult audience, this film was made for an adult audience. They're clearly hoping to create the next 'Matrix' with this film, the short Bladerunner Blackout 2022 proves this (I liked that one by the way.) This isn't a bad idea in theory but given that Bladerunner is a good stand alone movie and not a cool, fun, badass action romp like the Matrix films were I don't see why people will flock to see this film.
















END OF SPOILERS

Okay, I'm done for the moment, if you've seen the film I'd love to read your thoughts on it.

I'll probably have more to say on it later (I'm still digesting the film), but I too was disappointed with the Gaff scene. The guy was mysterious and always left the impression that there was a lot more to him than we knew. He was like the Boba Fett of the Blade Runner universe.

Then they bring him back in an old folk's home? Not what I was expecting or hoping...

SlackerinDeNile wrote:I like how the film starts out, it almost feels like a cold open, just Ryan Gosling doing his job as a Bladerunner. I kind of like how the film just accepts Ridley Scott's 'Deckard is a replicant' idea from the get go. Now it's common knowledge that all Bladerunners are replicants or something.

I don't think the movie was saying anything about Deckard's nature there one way or another. Wallace himself when talking with Deckard seemed to play with the thought whether or not Deckard was a replicant or not, but didn't give any straight answer. A replicant as a Blade Runner seemed to me just a step in replicants being integrated into human society.

I agree that the motivations Wallace's character had didn't make much sense. He just seems to have a vague God complex. He gives a speech about how civillizations are built on slave labour, but... we have machines to do that now, don't we? Why exactly do we need replicants so much? Admittedly, that is also a problem with the original, but at least Tyrell felt like a more nuanced character.

For the character of K, I did overall like him a lot as well as his relationship with Joi. However, the antagonism between K and Luv felt hollow. There's not nearly as much thematic depth in two superhuman replicants beating the crap out of each other as there was in the fight between Roy and Deckard. Luv seemed to harbor resentment over being Wallace's tool given how she shed tears when killing, but that was never explored.

K's choices in the end made me think of the "What you are in the dark" theme from Babylon 5's Inquisitor. The replicant resistance leader said earlier something like "Dying for a good cause is the most human thing one can do." I feel like in the end K agreed, but decided a good cause doesn't need to be anything world-changing. A good cause can just be allowing a father to see his child.

Crowley wrote: I don't think the movie was saying anything about Deckard's nature there one way or another. Wallace himself when talking with Deckard seemed to play with the thought whether or not Deckard was a replicant or not, but didn't give any straight answer. A replicant as a Blade Runner seemed to me just a step in replicants being integrated into human society.

I agree that the motivations Wallace's character had didn't make much sense. He just seems to have a vague God complex. He gives a speech about how civillizations are built on slave labour, but... we have machines to do that now, don't we? Why exactly do we need replicants so much? Admittedly, that is also a problem with the original, but at least Tyrell felt like a more nuanced character.

For the character of K, I did overall like him a lot as well as his relationship with Joi. However, the antagonism between K and Luv felt hollow. There's not nearly as much thematic depth in two superhuman replicants beating the crap out of each other as there was in the fight between Roy and Deckard. Luv seemed to harbor resentment over being Wallace's tool given how she shed tears when killing, but that was never explored.

K's choices in the end made me think of the "What you are in the dark" theme from Babylon 5's Inquisitor. The replicant resistance leader said earlier something like "Dying for a good cause is the most human thing one can do." I feel like in the end K agreed, but decided a good cause doesn't need to be anything world-changing. A good cause can just be allowing a father to see his child.

I didn't realise Luv shed tears when killing, I have no idea what that is about.

That last part is quite profound though, it's nice that the film has some subtext.

Wallace is blind without his drones, and he is the Creator of the Replicants - he is the Blind Watchmaker. Why he doesn't get some eyes grown I have no idea.

The car has guns because ''Joe'' is still driving a police cruiser, and in this dystopia The Wallace corporation and the police are armed. Yes, even after he surrendered his badge and gun. Wallace Corp seems to go in for missiles and satellite based weapons though - the LAPD doesn't have that kind of budget I expect.

''Joe'' connects the story of the dream maker and her condition to the profile of the girl who had the duplicated gene profile and it said she had the same rare genetic condition leaving her with her bubble girl existance.

I literally just got back home from seeing it only minutes ago. Like others here, I'm still cogitating over what I've seen. Overall impression is a positive one. Is it a good movie? Absolutely. Is it a worthy sequel to the original? Definitely. Is it a worthy successor to the original? There is some doubt in my mind about that. Given how ground-breaking the original was, it was certainly a tough act to follow. I am glad, though, that the film makers realized this and didn't attempt to "clone" the first. Sorta like another sequel in another, similar franchise took a bit of a risk by not being an exact copy of the original. Slacker, I agree with pretty much everything you said. Wallace's motives seemed unclear. It's always been my opinion that any movie is only as good as its villain so this movie falls just a little short. Still a great movie though and I'm looking forward to seeing it again.

I thought it was about as good a Blade Runner sequel could ever hope to be, not entirely flawless

It wrap up entirely too neatly, rather than the emotional punch the first one had, the replicant group feel like they come out of nowhere

I think the one character they mishandled was Luv, she come across has having potential for more, but end up just being a very basic heavy, part of me kinda hoped she would have ended up being the Deckard's kid

Harrison Ford 80's characters are becoming bigger deadbeat dad than Goku


Bit of it mostly felt like they could work entirely has short film (Holographic girlfriend, some of the stuff with Wallace)

SlackerinDeNile wrote:I didn't realise Luv shed tears when killing, I have no idea what that is about.

The most common interpretation I've seen to that is she has no choice but to follow Wallace's orders, but she doesn't enjoy it. Which doesn't fit at all with how she acts willingly sadistic at several points in the film.

Crowley wrote:

SlackerinDeNile wrote:I didn't realise Luv shed tears when killing, I have no idea what that is about.

The most common interpretation I've seen to that is she has no choice but to follow Wallace's orders, but she doesn't enjoy it. Which doesn't fit at all with how she acts willingly sadistic at several points in the film.

Perhaps the writers wanted to make her the movies equivalent of Roy Batty in some way, but they missed the point of Roy's character and why he behaved the way he did. If they wanted to go in this direction then perhaps they should have had her make a heel-face-turn near the end of the movie and die heroically.

I rewatched Blade Runner a few days ago, and I commented to my brother at the time that the one thing I expected them not to get was a Roy Batty level antagonist. That prediction held out, although it's hardly surprising. Batty is probably the most interesting character in the original film. The entire original replicant group is an odd, mysterious, almost wacky group. Here the replicants were more just depressed.

Sylvia Hoeks did a very good job as Luv and the character was a decent villain, but there was nothing spectacular there to work with. Jared Leto did fine as Wallace, but his character was just a tad disappointing for me. Actually, his brief appearances felt a bit like sequel bait to me, which is not really something I expect from Villeneuve.

I totally missed the blind watchmaker reference though. That's pretty interesting.

It made more sense in this film, but once again there's a lack of central human characters. I do think K had a great arc though, and I really appreciate how they took some of their questions in another direction while retaining some of Blade Runner's core themes.