Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Antagon
You're in good company. A lot of people loved it. For some reason, it didn't quite gel with me. Had high hopes after I had watched Villeneuve's previous movie "Arrival" - which I consider to be a Sci-Fi masterpiece. But somehow, between the disjointed plotlines, major characters that appeared very late and then somehow completely took over the focus of the narrative, sterile futurist architecture under grey skies and Elvis holograms, I found myself baffled. The philosophical humanist approach was certainly still there, but I just didn't quite feel it as strongly as I did in the previous movie (aforementioned terrible scene notwithstanding).
|
Ok, that Elvis scene absolutely floored me, that was an iconic moment right there. The tension is insane.
I think the tension was one of the best things about the film. And how immersive it was, thanks to that incredible sound design and cinematography.
Of course, it was long, it did meander a bit, and it did “subvert expectations,” but I’m glad it did. If the whole thing was just a longer, slower retreat of the first movie, I would have been disappointed. The result was a pretty powerful “side quest” that provided even more context for the replicants and their collective motivations.
Also, I believe they thought there would be a third film at the time. Sadly, it kinda tanked at the box office (why did anyone ever expect a hard-R-rated 3-plus hour sequel to a cult classic to be a Star Wars-level event for anyone other than nerds like me?) so they may have designed the arc with that in mind.
It feels like it sets up a third volume that pits the machines against the Wallace/Tyrell directly.
But I’m not sure we needed a “War for the Planet of the Replicants,” so I’m OK with it just being one amazing film and one amazing sequel.