It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Right, i forgot about that.
Linked to this, why did he make Rachael special re her "end of life"? another indication that he wanted to observe replicants as they aged beyond the default date.
PS the mode of the test used in the initial original scene and with Rachael is important as it tends to recreate the scene that we would associate with a psychiatrist observing a (human) patient and, therefore, it means that the audience identify more with the replicant rather than simply swiping a bar code. The sitaution re an upturned turtle is designed to bring stress to the audience and, therefore, we sympathise with Leon as we share his perceived stress/concern. Its also important as it uses the eye as a give away and we know that this is shared with humans (we tend to place great emphasis re trust/honesty etc through the eyes)
So from scene one, the stage is set re focussing on the key topic.
If you look a bit through this thread, it seems like the first viewers were all enthusiastic, and then after a bit came more hesitant views. Incidentally, that´s also how my personal opinion developed so far.
Long enough to read most of it. ;)
Looking forward to seeing it again and having a more objective view of it.
Both BR films, as well as the source novel, seem to deal more with "What is false" which is slightly a different philosophical matter, but still very related.
The film touched and reached me - I appreciate the acting, the story and the overall mood. It‘s a very, very good sequel to the classic and has high potential to become a classic as well. I will definitely see it again and buy it in 4K if I can. Love it.
But I also thought Sylvester Stallone‘s performance in „Creed“ was worth the win bit unfortunately they decided against him.
I think the issue with chaps like Sly and the Academy is the politics of it. It's almost like they're afraid to elevate his credibility in case he turns around and does another Expendables film or something.
It's all a big self congratulatory joke to me anyway.
Seen it five times, will go a sixth time. Gets better every viewing.
It's a hard thing to compare it to the original. Obviously if you grew up with the original, you are going to prefer it. Even if Villeneuve made an objectively 10/10 100% Rotten Tomatoes movie, people would still have a soft spot for the original that isn't replicable.
Agreed, @SeanCraig. This is a deeply personal for me and hopefully it will be for you too. This film was made with so much care, with it's ability to be masterclass AND also be utterly respectful to the original just elevates it to another level for me.
I find the story the strongest part (which could be in fact more the storytelling than the story itself). I find it a stunningly worthy follow-up to the original.
The visuals are executed with much craftsmanship and artistic talent, but too monotonous on the whole for me. I expanded on that elsewhere.
The music somehow fits to the overall atmosphere, but I find its sound production lost in echoes, let alone compositional results, and quite a few times the soundtrack is very obtrusive, disturbing my viewing experience.
That being said, I quite enjoyed the third viewing nonetheless.
Not the story, but my understanding of the memories: The film (and also the original IIRC) mentions that replicants show a much more stable behaviour if they have memories. If you think about it, your identification as an individual with life and purpose builds very much on experiences and your interpretation of them. Thus without memories, it would be extremely hard to maintain focus in life, unless you´re a Terminator ;-).
I liked it. It was a well-made movie that really feels of the world of Blade Runner while doing its own things and presenting its own vision. This is a Villeneuve film—no question—not an early 80s Ridley Scott film, and that perhaps is where the biggest gulf opens between the original and this 35-years-on sequel. The film was impressively made and did little (nothing?) to turn one's interest away. But it was in my opinion missing, for want of a better word, that magic that made the original so very iconic.
Zimmer's music was respectful to Vangelis and very well suited for Villeneuve's darker and colder vision of this world, but did little to touch the soul the way the original did. Villeneuve's world is far more expansive than Scott's, trading the claustrophobic and bustling "neo-Hong Kong" streets and gorgeously designed interiors for never-ending desert- and seascapes. Again, this fits Villeneuve's vision, but none of this struck me as being anywhere near that iconic Blade Runner magic.
Perhaps the largest and most noticeable difference, however, lies in the performances. You look at the cast of the '82 film and how seemingly effortlessly larger-than-life were everyone's performances: Ford, Hauer, Young, Hannah, Walsh, Olmos, Sanderson—everyone. In every scene, magic is happening onscreen. Not so much with 2049. Gosling is good. So was de Armas. Leto was very good. Bautista was also good for all his brevity. But there was a lot of just okay in the film too, and Ford in particular, disappointingly, evoked nothing of the character of Deckard. I saw in his performance old man Harrison Ford, not old man Deckard. It was like having Harrison Ford pop up in a Blade Runner sequel, not like getting the old Deckard back, if that makes sense. Can't say much at all about Robin Wright I'm afraid. And despite some emotional performances here and there, there was nothing I'd call iconic. Maybe you can't just make that stuff happen? It's a product of chance circumstances on a set, bringing the best out of the right actors at the right moment in time? Maybe that's how iconic films are made? Not so sure...but maybe...
The art design and cinematography were both impressive. (Still, I couldn't help thinking while the movie was going on that Skyfall looked way, way better than this one—Deakins really knocked it out of the park with that one.)
My favorite scene was likely when Joi embodied Mariette (love that name—Marionette anyone?) to make love to K. In fact, all of that early material between Joi and K was what I found the most interesting, the most compelling, and truly the most Blade Runner-esque in terms of recapturing and updating the themes and ideas of the original. I found it a shame that their story slid into the background as the film progressed and was ultimately "dropped" in favor of other storylines for the film's resolution. (I know you can equally validly look at Joi's destruction as contributing to K's arc; I'm just bummed Joi didn't play a larger role in the film's second half as I found her relationship to K the film's most compelling element.)
So while I mostly focused on what disappointed me and how the film didn't live up to the original in my eyes, as I said to start out with, I genuinely did like the film. Things started to get a little wobbly with the cyclops-led underground replicant army turning up and I think I may have missed why Deckard was such an important, almost hero-status figure to them (a bit of a bothersome development, that), but for the most part, this was a very solidly and impressively made film. I look forward to viewing it again and again and unpacking and absorbing all the different threads, themes, and ideas. And the pace, which I know has been touched on here and there, did not bother me in the slightest. It was a very, very slow pace, but that's Blade Runner and I enjoyed the novelty of a 21st century film willing to take its time and develop mood—market research be damned.
I think Villeneuve accomplished what he set out to do: he made a powerful and absorbing Villeneuve film that truly felt like it was a part of the Blade Runner world, while compromising none of his strengths or vision as a filmmaker. Was it the Blade Runner sequel I had always dreamed for? No. But it's a film I very much enjoyed and look forward to seeing again. And to be fair, I never had hoped for a sequel to begin with.
IMO this review is 100% spot on. Well done, sir!
Why thank you! I'm just glad I was able to pull the bulk of my thoughts together and get them down into a coherent post—doesn't always happen!
The original Blade Runner is a very special sort of film in that there are layers of depth, of meaning, of philosophy, of symbolism that can be absorbed and analyzed, meticulously studied. But at the same time, it's a film that you can throw on late at night with a whiskey in your hand and rain pattering upon the roof and just let the pure art of the visuals and the music and the emotions wash over you and allow you to reflect upon whatever or just sit there and enjoy the beauty of it all. I honestly don't think BR 2049 will offer the same experience when it arrives on Blu-ray.