Let's start off positively. For me, Blade Runner 2049 is Villeneuve's best achievement. His blurry fogginess blended quite nicely with the world of Blade Runner set by creators of the original movie. The overall audiovisual experience was good enough for me to rate this movie 6/10. And the rating might have been much higher if the creators of BR2049 haven't had decided to turn the milking machine off the reasonable limits. So yes, I've enjoyed it, but...
...they've decided to milk one of the best sci-fi films of all time. And should we review Blade Runner 2049 in the light of the previous Blade Runner, it's obvious a lot of reviewers (and fans) are sharp. And rightly so.
To be frank, I don't like Villeneuve's movies. So far, apart from Blade Runner 2049, I've seen Prisoners, Sicario and Arrival. So only three movies, but all of them resemble a perfect definition of the term "polished t#*d" - great acting, great camera, great editing, everything fits, yet it feels hollow, distant, forgettable. I haven't had any hopes for Blade Runner 2049, since doing a sequel to something like that, whoa, that ain't an easy one. And surprisingly, as noted above, Villeneuve improved a bit. But let's not blame just the director.
Don't read on, if you haven't seen the movie yet. SPOILERS ALERT!
Let's see the script. The writing. People, please keep in mind, that simplicity is the key. Look at the original Blade Runner - you can summarize the story in one simple sentence: "Replicant killer falls in love with a replicant, while on a mission to kill another 4 replicants". That's it. It's the acting, soundtrack, camera, execution, in one word cinematographic, which takes the "simple" and transforms it into art. Now try to summarize the story of Blade Runner 2049 in similar fashion. It's a mess! "Replicant is a replicant killer and is on a mission to kill some old replicants, while having a romance with a hologram girl... and maybe he's a 'chosen' one, a 'born' replicant... and maybe not... and Tyrell successor wants to fill the world with replicants... and the outcast replicants want that too... but in a 'human' way... and maybe Deckard is our hero's father... and maybe not..." See? The whole story is way too much overdone. And what's worse, they've even tried to alter the original story! That Deckard back then had been chosen for Rachel deliberately to produce an offspring! How about that?
Unnecessary bits. The movie is stretched to 164 minutes. I don't mind longer run time, but only if it's not filled with confusing/useless scenes. Some examples: Wallace is piercing with a knife (probably) the reproduction organs of a new replicant. Why did he do that? He's trying to develop a replicant with a reproduction ability, but because he's not successful yet, he pierces the wombs of the new replicants instead? And what about this idea sending Deckard to off- world colony to inflict "more" pain to extract some information? Really? In fact, most of the scenes with Wallace might have been cut out. Much like the ones with Joi, a character almost useless in the whole story (oh yeah, K's pet and that much needed connection to the "lower" class replicants, which are in fact useless too). There were also some cringe-worthy scenes, like the one when K is entering the LAPD building in the beginning and is being mocked by humans. Or re-creation and then killing Rachel (that was really a pointless scene). Or K's rage after visiting the memory maker. I like Ryan Gosling and I think he fits the character of a replicant Blade Runner well, but sometimes his performance have been overdone here.
Just like the whole movie - in one word: overdone. Audiovisually satisfying, but nowhere near the original masterpiece.
So, you have a lot cliffhangers there, when's the next cash cow (sequel) coming out? 2019?
...they've decided to milk one of the best sci-fi films of all time. And should we review Blade Runner 2049 in the light of the previous Blade Runner, it's obvious a lot of reviewers (and fans) are sharp. And rightly so.
To be frank, I don't like Villeneuve's movies. So far, apart from Blade Runner 2049, I've seen Prisoners, Sicario and Arrival. So only three movies, but all of them resemble a perfect definition of the term "polished t#*d" - great acting, great camera, great editing, everything fits, yet it feels hollow, distant, forgettable. I haven't had any hopes for Blade Runner 2049, since doing a sequel to something like that, whoa, that ain't an easy one. And surprisingly, as noted above, Villeneuve improved a bit. But let's not blame just the director.
Don't read on, if you haven't seen the movie yet. SPOILERS ALERT!
Let's see the script. The writing. People, please keep in mind, that simplicity is the key. Look at the original Blade Runner - you can summarize the story in one simple sentence: "Replicant killer falls in love with a replicant, while on a mission to kill another 4 replicants". That's it. It's the acting, soundtrack, camera, execution, in one word cinematographic, which takes the "simple" and transforms it into art. Now try to summarize the story of Blade Runner 2049 in similar fashion. It's a mess! "Replicant is a replicant killer and is on a mission to kill some old replicants, while having a romance with a hologram girl... and maybe he's a 'chosen' one, a 'born' replicant... and maybe not... and Tyrell successor wants to fill the world with replicants... and the outcast replicants want that too... but in a 'human' way... and maybe Deckard is our hero's father... and maybe not..." See? The whole story is way too much overdone. And what's worse, they've even tried to alter the original story! That Deckard back then had been chosen for Rachel deliberately to produce an offspring! How about that?
Unnecessary bits. The movie is stretched to 164 minutes. I don't mind longer run time, but only if it's not filled with confusing/useless scenes. Some examples: Wallace is piercing with a knife (probably) the reproduction organs of a new replicant. Why did he do that? He's trying to develop a replicant with a reproduction ability, but because he's not successful yet, he pierces the wombs of the new replicants instead? And what about this idea sending Deckard to off- world colony to inflict "more" pain to extract some information? Really? In fact, most of the scenes with Wallace might have been cut out. Much like the ones with Joi, a character almost useless in the whole story (oh yeah, K's pet and that much needed connection to the "lower" class replicants, which are in fact useless too). There were also some cringe-worthy scenes, like the one when K is entering the LAPD building in the beginning and is being mocked by humans. Or re-creation and then killing Rachel (that was really a pointless scene). Or K's rage after visiting the memory maker. I like Ryan Gosling and I think he fits the character of a replicant Blade Runner well, but sometimes his performance have been overdone here.
Just like the whole movie - in one word: overdone. Audiovisually satisfying, but nowhere near the original masterpiece.
So, you have a lot cliffhangers there, when's the next cash cow (sequel) coming out? 2019?