So You’ve All Seen Blade Runner 2049, Right?

Looks like he has a hat instead of an arm. Is that what’s going on here?

Just bad perspective where the hat covers all of an outstretched arm.

for me Blade Runner 2049 and Interstellar were two films I have enjoyed most lately. there's plenty other movies I've enjoyed, but those two were like out there for me.

Saw it last night. It was great, just great. I'm not gonna say it was perfect cos i it wasn't, but some of the stuff in it blew me away.

Too bad. I was totally ready for the wacky hat-arm guy movie I was envisioning.

Yes. yes yes. Close to perfect though. Nothing bad about it, in my opinion. Never love Leto, but he was barely there, and did OK. Great film

I like you. I like ^ this guy.

You still can, I believe in you.

Still can what?

Believe that it's some wacky hat/arm thing.

Oh I do. Means I can never watch the movie, but I’m loving the way it’s playing out in my head.

Sooooo many puns in this non-existent film. ;)

so...

blade runner 2049 for me was really great. blew my mind, better than the original.

loved it except for a handful of details

the cinematography was exceptional— probably teh best thing roger deakins has ever done. visually it’s fucking glorious.

while watching, especially at the beginning, i felt that very little story was stretched out over brooding mood shots— but i actually liked it here because those reflections on water, or falling snowflakes, or rusted textures, or sparks flying sparks, or barren landscapes or whatever were so amazingly done, that i said: “okay, i accept this.” the movie could have been a lot shorter without that, but i’m glad it wasn’t.

with all that spectacle in mind it was really well worth it going to a wall-to-wall screen with recliner seats that stretched like a lounger and sound that rattled the back of your head. it was totally immersive.

having said all this, i think it was hard for people who have not seen the original to fully grasp the story— to get who deckard was or to understand the whole backstory of the tyrell corporation or to get what jared leto, what’s his name, was trying to do. a quick written intro at the beginning is not enough. it was barely enough for me having seen the original many times.

plus there were nods and allusions and quotations— they were so well done! they did not feel contrived or mercenary—that someone who didn’t see the original misses out.

plus this one really elaborates on (and twists) the plot of the original. it’s really a sequel, not a standalone. but it’s one of the rare cases when (i think so anyway) the sequel is better than the original (like the godfather, for example).

the movie of course has its limits. it’s aimed at nerdy boys and it’s sort of out of touch with the times when it comes to gender issues— it sort of pays lip service to them for a few minutes but doesn’t quite do the job and ultimately stays within the usual machismo of the genre. a wasted opportunity there, which is a pity, because with some tweaking it could have bolted ahead of the curve in this front only to add to its greatness.

eta: unless the promise is finally fulfilled in the next installment! :D

YAY! YESSSS!!!! YAAASSSS!

Agree that it was for Blade Runner fans only, but I always thought that was going to be the deal. Who would go see this without having seen the first one? Seriously. Who hasnt seen Blade Runner? Well, lots of people I guess. And somehow, not sure why, this film managed to set itself up as a some huge reboot or independent installment, making all those folks who haven’t seen the original think “Oh cool! Gosling doing dark future stuff!” And then they got bored because it’s 3 hours of ... y’know... story that is *inexorably intertwined with Blade Runner.*

I almost agree that it was better than the original (err, the Final Cut whatever blah blah), in a way that, yes Godfather II was better than Godfather. And Dark Knight was better than Batman Begins. But closer to Godfather, since the story is both new and also completely wrapped up in the original.

I’ll need to re-watch BR before I can really comment on whether or not this is one of the few examples in history of a sequel outdoing an original. Never a bad thing. (Oh, Empire Strikes Back and The Wrath of Khan are both also examples of this rare phenomenon in the SF genre).

Anyway... I’m SO GLAD you liked it.

I agree there were a few missed opportunities in terms of gender dynamics, but the villain (the “I’m the best one!” gal) kind of turned gender roles on their ear a bit. Her complete subservience to the Leto dude (Wallace?) was unsettling, but it’s her job to obey.

Robin Wright also did a nice job in her role, and the entire twist at the end took focus away from the sausage fest and placed it squarely on you-know-who in you-know-where. So that was cool.

I found myself wondering if there would be a third installment. My guess is probably not for a while. Not until the stars align again. But the stars TOTALLY aligned for this motherfucker.

The music was insanely great, even if Johan Johansson wasn’t involved. The movie felt like an ambient noise segment at a Nine Inch Nails concert at times, and definitely had a deliciously skull-vibrating and immersive feel to it.


Soooo... what do you think of my assertion that Villeneuve might be starting to do Nolan better than Nolan? I know I’m the Nolan goober around here, but I’m curious. I’ve always loved his epic and intensely personal approach to films, and the weirdness and darkness that he infuses even his most mundane work with. I think Blade Runner 2049 had a lot of Nolan-esque moments to it, especially with respect to the swell and release of tension, but I think Villeneuve MIGHT (*might*) be even better at this kind of thing than Nolan.
If Arrival was Villenueve’s Interstellar, then Blade Runner 2049 was definitely his cerebral Dark Knight/Inception bullet-to-the-brain. But he just might have a better handle on balancing artistry and crowd-pleasing action than Nolan....

Anyway, I could talk about this movie all day and night. It’s hilarious how far this series has wandered off from the PKD source material at this point, but whatever. I haven’t been this blown away by a film in theaters in for-fucking-ever.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to !@#$%! again.

Dog Day Afternoon

It feels like this has been buried a bit, under all the other great films from this era, but still brilliant.

"A-tti-Ca!"

i don’t rate nolan as high as you do so i haven’t paid attention to it as much as you have— and therefore i haven’t elucidated his personal “stamp”.

i liked nolan best with memento, which was so raw and so well done on the cheap. inception had all this money and special effects and shit but i’m not sure the whole dance of memory and loss and uncertainty in it was an improvement from the tattoos and faded polaroids of memento.

i have not seen insterstellar or dunkirk yet— i should within the year most likely. this and that happened. i am just not a fan of the batman. i loved batman when i was literally 3. it’s hard for me to keep the same interests for life. i feel these movies are too ponderous for the subject matter. not saying this to piss anyone off, just it’s how i see it— i’ve witnessed them as inevitable pop culture phenomena, but wasn’t moved by them in any important way.

anyway i didn’t know villeneuve before this either, i think, looking at his credits, so it’s doubly hard to compare them.

where it’s easy for me to compare is between this and the original movue. and it may be the money or the technology or i don’t know what but aesthetically for me this blows the older one out of the water. it’s roger deakins for sure but also maybe the director’s vision.

***SPOILERS FOLLOW***

in terms of story, the original is pretty straightforward, with just one big reveal, whereas this has multiple twists and turns and surprises—including a twist that changes the original film.

thematically also it’s more ambitious because while in the first one you knew (were told) the earth was a shithole and everybody who could would go off-world, here you actually see huge landscapes, which are presumably worse after the first story, and instead of being stuck mostly in obvious sets (crammed urban streets or the house of the dna designer, what’s his name) here you get this epic sense of a devastated planet. the LA landfill in san diego—ha! there is a whole ecological subtext here that was missing from the original. the bees, and those statues like the planet of the apes.

and the other thing is that here the levels of artificiality are stacked on top of each other—it’s not just human vs replicatn but there’s also digital “life” which we can’t tell about it— is it conscious and does it feel or is it just faking it? this one isn’t spike jonze’s “her” but just a more ambiguous sower of doubts about what’s “real” and what’s not (“i’ve felt inside you and there isn’t as much there as you think”— ha ha ha ha).

but anyway there were some embryonic ideas there that i wanted to see more of— the role of women as the future— the whole movie is about women and their wombs, really, but for all their cosmic importance they get a) very little screen time vs. the menzes, and b) we look at them only from the outside/from a distance c) sorta fill these usual stereotypes (with the exception of robin wright). re: b), even if supposedly every replicant gets to see inside the child messiah’s head— we the audience don’t get to know her the way we get to know k, who is the center of this film the way deckard was the previous one. so when he returns there’s 2 people we know and they’re both dudes. the “girlfriend”— is sweet, but might just be a mirage. the rebellion leader has 30 seconds of screen time. the replicant girl who evokes pris from the old one— is there only briefly.

and this is why i think this movie points towards a sequel— it actually implies it. the future belongs to women, as one review online states (replicant women, i should add), but we haven’t gotten to that part yet. when is it coming?

***SPOILERS END****

Saw this movie last night. Eng Translation The Lady in a Car with Glasses and a Gun and really enjoyed it. Cool French thriller. A remake of a movie I never seen. This one was pretty good.

Very good, except for that nonsense about the he Dark Knight movies not being moving or whatever. It’s like you had a little seizure there in the middle of a perfectly coherent thought. Poor thing. ;)


But yes, I agree about the women.

HOWEVER... I was impressed by just how well Ryan Gosling can hold a movie together on his own. I mean, think about it... he has NEVER be so front-and-Center in a film from beginning to end. Not even in Drive. In this, it was Gosling/K, from minute 3 to the end. He really carried the emotional weight of the entire three hour movie, and he did it surprisingly well.

It doesn’t make the stereotype women any less disappointing, but it’s interestung to see an actor really take the audience trough essentially EVERY SINGLE SCENE. Not just anyone could do that. Not just any film could do that and have it work.

Cinematography was exceptional and I think Deakins will win an Oscar.

I like the way you describe the expanded ecology of this film too. The bee scene was utterly fucking badass.

You might be right. This might be better than the original.

i was coherent enough not to insult you while explaining why i haven’t paid that much attention to nolan’s work, but i guess could start going off about the moronic mass audiences looking in overproduced blockbusters for some deeper meaning that’s just not there—or nah, i just won’t. who has the time? :p ;)


yeah i’ve been reading reviews by women and the issue with female representation is brought up often but not always negatively— one critic i read was saying that the film does not portray an idealized world but rather the world as it is (as blade runner does) and therefore it’s clearly justified in its depictions, even though they are, in themselves, bothersome.

i wasn’t suprised by gosling. he managed to carry drive with an even more inexpressive face than this one. but yeah that movie lasted 1/2 the time as this one.

but you gotta remember though— the other character here is the cinematography itself and all those moody, abstract shots. so it’s kind of a tag-team job betwee him and deakins. i don’t give 3 fucks about oscars so to me they’re irrelevant to his great work. if a bunch of hacks recognize his greatness, fine. if they don’t, the work is unmarred by it.

what i was suprised with is that i could not just endure but actually enjoy all of the ambient shots. usually i’m first to condemn what i see as such gimmicks— like in, say, various mathew barney movies. but here, with a great display of balls for an “action” movie, it works very well. maybe because it paces and punctuates the action sequences. there was some of that in the original, sure, with the vangelis music, but here it goes far beyond.

and to add— extra thanks to the director for not filling the whole 3 hours with a bunch of fuking explosions.

Okay, I yield! Yield!!! :)


Ah. See, I hadn’t thought about it like that. I’ve been steering clear of the reviews on this one because this was, honestly, a fucking HUGE thing for me, and I’ve been hoping for something like this — but ONLY if it could be done PERFECTLY— for actual decades. So I want to make sure my opinion is mine, and not colored by the reviews. But this is pretty interesting. I’d love to read a female’s take on the “Joi” character, for instance... so maybe I will read past the simple “5 Stars” and “90-something percent” now that I’ve had a week to let the thing sink in.


You’re absolutely right about Drive. That’s the one that made me notice him as an actor. And the “carrying” he did in that films was probably quite a bit more intense. Close-ups and slow zooms and what not. Lots of his face and silence. So that was no small feat. But I feel like Drive was peppered with several pretty juicy smaller parts — Bryan Cranston, Carey Mulligan, Oscar Isaac, Albert Brooks — that helped make the thing flow. In BR2049, Gosling was the emotional center of everything the audience experienced. It was almost like watching the movie THROUGH him. Not to say the other actors weren’t good in this, because they were. I rarely find Harrison Ford so palatable. And yeah, the runtime.

Anyway, I felt the exact same way about the ambient shots.
I too have a rough time with that kind of thing when it’s just filler, or explosions and nonsense to compensate for a lacking script, and I’ll admit I was apprehensive when I walked into the theater, thinking “Man, I’m gonna wish I was at home if this starts to drag.” But I thoroughly enjoyed every moment of it too. I don’t think I looked away from the screen once. Not at my phone or my watch or my Red Vines. I was glued to this thing.

And the cinematography — just, fucking hell. Incredible. The cinematography in the original was great and definitive as well, and I feel like they maintained the spirit of that by making it an equally important player in the sequel... just adapted for new technologies and modernized, but with the same immersive awesomeness as the first. Only, like you said, with added elements and explosives and a much more expansive perspective.

I actually even kind of liked the way Leto played Wallace as sort of a pompous, country preacher-mad scientist hybrid. I almost expected him to say “Carole Aaaaaan!” a few times. I didn’t hate that affect. I think there are probably other actors who would have been better and more powerful in the role, but I was expecting to fucking hate him as I always do, and I was pleasantly surprised. I think this director, Villeneuve, brings out the best in everyone a bit.

Comparisons to Nolan aside... really I just think they have a similar flair for tension and a similar love of memory and perception and whatnot. Also some stylistic similarities, in color and tone and stuff, but whatever.

Blade Runner, bitches!

i knew it was gonna be a home run for me when i caught myself smiling several times during the movie. not because the movie itself was a happy one but because i was getting a sense of something so very well done.

and then instead of feeling anxious about the plot i started feeling anxious about the movie stepping on a banana peel. and there were some minor banana peels for me but they were not catastrophic.

SPOILERS SPOILERS

one was the digital recreation of rachel. it was too obvious and heavy handed and it looked weird and flat anyway, like a cardboard cutout. i don’t think that it even was necessary for that scene. it ruined it for me a little.

the other heavy handed moment is when the movie doesn’t end with k on the steps of the lab. i wanted the movie to end there. this was the end of his job and therefore his film. but no, they had to had deckard putting his hand on the glass. agh! just that last shot.

so i wasn’t gonna start reading reviews for a while and let the movie seep into my deep brain first but turns out i got into a fight of sorts with a feminist friend who saw nothing but shit in this film— gave it an overly straight, square reading (in the sense of a certain political orthodoxy)and had nothing but condemnation—which puzzled me because i thought i had seen a much more ambiguous piece in this. so i went on to find other feminist readings of it and found a healthy diversity of opinions among a variety of writers. but some people just can’t stand diversity or difference of opinion, and hence... i’m good at pissing off dogmatic people haa haaa haa.

—

eta: i’ll have to say though, i’ve found a lot of women enraged beyond reason lately. i’ve found myself being yelled out instead of argued with in recent months. i sympathize/understand that the current climate we live in, with president pussy grabber being rewarded for his predatory behavior, must have tipped some people over the limit. we’re at a turning point in more ways than one—the patriarchy is fighting for its last gasps of air. so i understand the pent-up rage. at the same time, i still can’t be persuaded by dogmatism and yelling— the only force i’ll voluntarily submit to is the one contained in a good argument.

Fingered

Say no more

SPOILERS!


Was it a digital recreation of Rachel? I actually couldn’t tell. Looked like it might have been a different actress, made up and filmed to look just like her. At least in that sequence when she comes out and talks to Deckard. The first time we saw her it felt more like a flashback, like digitized footage from the original movie. I really wasn’t sure about all of that, but I agree it was a little off. Not off enough to create a problem for me with the movie, but it was certainly a hiccup.

That’s a trend these days. Like in Captain America: Civil War, when they used old footage of RDJ to “de-age” him and turn him into a cartoon, essentially, that did what they wanted him to do. It may have started with Benjamin Button (which used old Brad Pitt footage to digitally put a younger face on 50-year-old Pitt’s body) or maybe it started with that Michael Jackson hologram or some shit. I dunno. Imagine how godawful it’s all going to look in a few years.

You couldn't tell?! You blind or summat? As soon as she spoke you could see it. It didn't look as bad as Leia in the last star wars films but it was bad.

I'm gonna go see it again on Friday I think. It'll be interesting to see if it holds up on second watch.

Well, I do have really, like EPIC shitty vision, but no... in all honesty I couldn’t quite pin it down. One second it looked like all effects, the next second it looked like a different actress, layered with make-up and effects, but still an actual person.

I’m not sure why it was hard to tell. I guess I assumed, because it’s Blade Runner, that they would use as much non-digital effects as possible in the spirit of the original. I was able to tell BIG TIME with Leia, and with RDJ in Civil War, so either, yeah, I’m blind, or their tactics have improved just over the past year.

I've noticed more than once that digital effects can seem obvious when watching in a theater, but look fine at home, even on a big screen TV. I don't know why this is.

Must just be my big fat dumb stupid ass then, right? Yeah, I read you dickhead.

Nah I’m just fucking.

I think I was too focused on trying to figure out which it was — pure digital effects or digital effects plus a different actress — that I got my mind all tied up and couldn’t focus on what was probably the obvious answer.

I mean, it was SUPER obvious that SOMETHING was off, so I just sat up and zoomed way in and got in my own way.

Anyway, still wasn’t enough to ruin or even slightly smudge any portion of the movie for me.

Am I the only one that thinks Blade Runner OG looked amazing, but was like 85% BORING FUCKING SHIT? The last 20 mins are great, but oh my fuck is it just a dull fucking movie for the most part. I get it's importance, and I have seen it countless times, but everytime I think, this movie is duller than 2010...

Also, the book Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep SUCKS. In fact, everything I have ever read by william gibson SUCKS. Fucking boring ass writer. deadly dull. I think people overvalue BladeRunner because it was so different visually.

i’ve never been able to finish the book but it was written by philip dick. he was a sloppy writer though, often worked on amphetamines to get paid quickly.

did like his ubik. did not like the tv version of man in the high castle.

gibson however is addictive and have read most of his stuff (not all i admit).

anyway, generally speaking to all the rest you say—no

hahaha. I forgot. my mistake. I like 3 or 4 PKD books. his ideas were better than the writing.

I stil contend william gibson is dull as fuck.

i agree. i think he’d agree if he was alive. had a bunch of alimonies to pay or something. wrote, knowingly, in a huge rush


contend all you want but neuromancer alone changed the landscape of the culture forever and helped science fiction break through to the mainstream like never before

sure he had cohorts and predecessors and all that context which should not be forgotten, but there was a before and an after him no doubt. and part of it was because he was hugely readable, not just smart.

plus at heart he’s a bit of a poet which made for his colorful images and vivid descriptions and all that. i mean. the first lines of neuromancer: “the sky above the port was the color of television, tuned to a dead channel”. brilliant. you’re old enough to remember that picture so well (and the sound).

i contend that your doubling down on “boring” is boring

btw im not trying to say that gibson is above criticism but the blanket one you use so often isn’t helpful— would be good if you aimed at the actual jugular, i.e., criticized specifics, which you do so well in your published reviews

Blade Runner is not boring. It’s majestic and incredible.

Also, “Do Androids Dream of Elecrric Sheep?” was written by Philip K. Dick. You’re thinking of “Neuromancer.” An easy mistake if you’re not intimately down with the genre. “Neuromancer” is actually a MUCH better book than “DADOAS?” But Blade Runner > Neuromancer. Make sense? No? Good.

I don’t like the book much. I’ve managed to convince myself that it’s great in between readings, but I always go back and realize it’s not.

“The Man in the High Castle” is better.

William Gibson is not boring. “The Differnce Engine” is one of my favorite books.

But PKD is indeed a bit overrated in hindsight. A lot of his writing was kooky and haphazard in a weird, babbling way. I read his stuff and I like the ideas, but I wish Bradbury or someone had been manning the old typewriter.

Still a PKD fan, but not as much as I once was.

Love Blade Runner and Blade Runner 2049 more than any of what he wrote.

Never saw much of the “Man in the High Castle” series, but I did watch enough to know that it was straying even further from the source material than Blade Runner was from “Androids.” Only in this case I like the book more.

Love the movie of Minority Report. Can’t temember the story very well at this point.

PKD is definitely inconsistent.

Proud of you for standing up for “Neuromancer.”

i didn’t stand up for neuromancer, just for accuracy and useful criticism (count zero and mona lisa overdrive were a bit of a letdown, btw, like they were driven by the inertia of the first book— still entertaining though)

Once Bitten. Yolo

Well, whatever. You were right about it.

Just saw the new Blade Runner 2049. I feel a bit conflicted. Beautiful visuals and cinematography and a great soundtrack by Johann Johannsson. But the story made little sense and honestly, I think the movie would have been better if it wasn't a sequel. I honestly believe that Harrison Ford didn't need to be in the movie, and it would have been better if they had just removed him entirely. Also the CEO guy in the watery room was spouting some serious bullshit lines. Who wrote that nonsense?

Still, Villeneuve is a master and he did the original a lot more justice than most directors would have.

Johan Johannsson did not do the score. He left the project officially a few months ago. Pretty sure it was Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch.

Anyway, your issues with the move make no sense to me. Remove Harrison Ford? Like, just him, or remove Deckard from the film’s mythology? No tie-in to the original? Uh. No. I don’t think that would have been better, or good.

It sounds like you’re saying they should take a great story and turn it into not a story at all, or something totally different than what it was. And I disagree. The story was excellent, and without Ford it would have been considerably less so. Without any Deckard/Rachel/Tyrell tie-ins at all it would have been... not a story.

So yah, I’m confused.