Blade Runner 2049 Review
Blade Runner 2049 is a 2017 sci-fi/mystery thriller written by Hampton Fancher/Michael Green and directed by Dennis Villeneuve. Despite high praise from critics and audiences who've seen it, the film has generated poor box office results, having made only $197 million by its third weekend against a budget of $150 million according to Indie Wire.
Story
Set 30 years after the original film, replicant Blade Runner "K" (Ryan Gosling) discovers a clue that leads to a miraculous discovery, drawing him into a conspiracy that leads him to question not only his own existence, but the structure of his entire world as he knows it. That's all I'm willing to give away because since this is a detective story at heart it's best going in knowing as little as possible about the plot.
The world they've set up in this film, like the first Blade Runner, is good, but has its questionable rules of how everything works. I understand that the film isn't going for realism and the world is built to get the film's point across, but when you're making a new world for characters to inhabit, it's important that you give it rules that make sense. While the film actually did answer some questions that I had about replicants in the first film (like why they need implanted memories in the first place), it also brings up a lot of weird questions of its own, mostly about the biology of replicants. Why do they need blood or circulatory systems if they're robots? Why do they need to breathe? Why do they need a skeletal structure? They are androids, right? And if they're not and they're like artificially created humans why didn't you explain that clearer? I understand that the filmmakers were kind of bound to a lot of these questions because stuff like this was in the first movie, but you could at least try to explain it better.
However, all of that is not enough to take me out of the experience of the film if it keeps my interest like the first one did and it does manage to do that. I always wanted to see what the next plot point was going to be and the mystery kept me intrigued all the way to the end. The stakes are appropriately increased from the last movie as a sequel should do. Whereas in the first film Deckard was just trying to hunt down some androids, "K" finds himself in the middle of a huge conspiracy and cover-up that could have huge implications for their world if it was ever discovered.
I'm not going to knock the screenplay for being mostly exposition heavy because it's a mystery and exposition is a big part of this kind of genre. Characters absolutely would talk to each other about leads as they're uncovered and it always feels like giving exposition to the audience is secondary. Besides, there are parts of this film that are completely without dialogue like the final cut of the first film, allowing you to soak in the environment and get absorbed into the world in complete silence.
However, whereas in the first film those long stretches without dialogue were there by accident because of Deckard's deleted monologue this time they're there intentionally and the difference in pacing is enormous and noticeable. The first film was shot as a straight-forward two hour long film, which meant it was paced fairly well and didn't feel like it overstayed its welcome. It was slow, but you felt like it needed to be slow in the same way Seven Samurai is slow: setting up the world and characters over a period of time to let you get absorbed. In the new film, however, it felt like this one was slow just because that's what the original Blade Runner did and instead of feeling deliberately slow-paced it feels like it drags. I dare say at times it gets kind of boring just waiting for something to happen or the next lead in the case to appear. I'm still convinced that this thing didn't need to be three hours long and with just a few scenes cut from the theatrical release it would've been a tighter, more efficient movie.
The themes of this film are pretty much the same as the last one: exploring what makes one thing human and one thing not. In this film, however, it explores it in a few new, interesting ways. "K" is in love with a holographic computer program (Ana de Armas) that manifests itself as a woman. Through this bizarre relationship, we're asked to think about questions we might not've even considered before watching the movie. Can you be in love with something that is just a consciousness, not even a real one at that? Can this thing die or just be deactivated? Is the love she feels still real if it's just part of her programming? It's all really interesting to think about and the kind of questions that give a film like this rewatchablilty.
The characters are all pretty good, with the standout being "K". I found it fascinating to watch what is basically an android, with no concept of fear or pain, just going about his business as a blade runner and detective. However, he's not so emotionless that he doesn't have reactions or doubts about the case he's working on. The character tip toes the fine line between relatable and interestingly detached, which is a lot harder to make work than it sounds. Deckard, once again played by Harrison Ford, shows up about two-thirds of the way in and although he's kind of the same grump he was in the last film, there's a lot more depth added to his relationship with the replicant Rachel in the first film. Joi, the hologram, I'm not even sure I can call a character. Can you say a character has a personality when it's pre-programed into them?
Technical
Painstaking effort has obviously been put into recreating and updating the world of the first film. The neon color scheme, the retro/modern hybrid set design and even the fact that it's almost constantly raining are all preserved and it looks gorgeous. This might be Villeneuve's best looking film in every conceivable aspect of visuals.
Cinematography legend Roger Deakins joins with Villeneuve once again to do what might be the best work of his career. Everything within the frame works in perfect harmony with everything else. The composition, lighting, color, blocking, camera placement; all of it is perfect and every frame is a beautiful painting.
The neon color scheme returns, as I said before, and it once again works with the set design to give the feeling of a huge, grimy city, even more so that the first one even. It really feels like a technologically advanced New York City with crowded environments, filthy streets, obnoxious advertisements constantly in your face. As I said before, the technology in the film is still represented as kind of retro and futuristic, just like in the first film, but they've advanced the technology just like how it would advance in this film universe. It's a subtle bit of storytelling to show how much time has passed since the events of the first film, but it's pretty damn clever.
The sound editing in the film is unbelievable. You feel everything that happens on screen. When somebody fires a gun, you feel the impact in your ears. When a flying car races by, it causes you to rumble in your chair. It's the kind of thing that can only be appreciated in a movie theater.
The music is trying emulate the score of the first film and while it succeeds (and there's a really cool bit of musical fan service towards the end of the film) it's just not as memorable as the first film's.
The acting is good from the cast all around. I think the only reason the audience is able to be invested in "K"s story at all is because he's played by Ryan Gosling, who brings his all into this role. Even though he has a completely stoic expression on his face for almost the entire movie, he comes across as sympathetic and vulnerable. Even though Harrison Ford mostly gives his usual grumpy old man performance, he has a few really good scenes that prove he's still got some really good acting chops. I've never actually seen Jared Leto in anything besides this movie, so I couldn't tell you if he's giving a good performance or just playing himself, but he certainly gives a memorable performance, if nothing else. Ana de Armas is the most confusing performance of the film for me; I don't know if she's actually a good actress or just has a lot of raw charisma that she's able to turn into screen presence or if she's just so hot it distracts me from how good or bad she is, but there was never a moment when I thought her performance was terrible, so that's something.
Summary: Much like the first one, I think Blade Runner 2049 is the kind of film you have to watch more than once to fully appreciate. Maybe the pacing won't seem so slow if I watch it again and know what to expect or I'll notice some nuance that I didn't get the first time. However, on first viewing I can definitely say that 2049 is unlike any movie you'll see this year; contemplative, smart, meditative and a whole lot deeper than anything else out in theaters at the moment. Check this one out.
Story
Set 30 years after the original film, replicant Blade Runner "K" (Ryan Gosling) discovers a clue that leads to a miraculous discovery, drawing him into a conspiracy that leads him to question not only his own existence, but the structure of his entire world as he knows it. That's all I'm willing to give away because since this is a detective story at heart it's best going in knowing as little as possible about the plot.
The world they've set up in this film, like the first Blade Runner, is good, but has its questionable rules of how everything works. I understand that the film isn't going for realism and the world is built to get the film's point across, but when you're making a new world for characters to inhabit, it's important that you give it rules that make sense. While the film actually did answer some questions that I had about replicants in the first film (like why they need implanted memories in the first place), it also brings up a lot of weird questions of its own, mostly about the biology of replicants. Why do they need blood or circulatory systems if they're robots? Why do they need to breathe? Why do they need a skeletal structure? They are androids, right? And if they're not and they're like artificially created humans why didn't you explain that clearer? I understand that the filmmakers were kind of bound to a lot of these questions because stuff like this was in the first movie, but you could at least try to explain it better.
However, all of that is not enough to take me out of the experience of the film if it keeps my interest like the first one did and it does manage to do that. I always wanted to see what the next plot point was going to be and the mystery kept me intrigued all the way to the end. The stakes are appropriately increased from the last movie as a sequel should do. Whereas in the first film Deckard was just trying to hunt down some androids, "K" finds himself in the middle of a huge conspiracy and cover-up that could have huge implications for their world if it was ever discovered.
I'm not going to knock the screenplay for being mostly exposition heavy because it's a mystery and exposition is a big part of this kind of genre. Characters absolutely would talk to each other about leads as they're uncovered and it always feels like giving exposition to the audience is secondary. Besides, there are parts of this film that are completely without dialogue like the final cut of the first film, allowing you to soak in the environment and get absorbed into the world in complete silence.
However, whereas in the first film those long stretches without dialogue were there by accident because of Deckard's deleted monologue this time they're there intentionally and the difference in pacing is enormous and noticeable. The first film was shot as a straight-forward two hour long film, which meant it was paced fairly well and didn't feel like it overstayed its welcome. It was slow, but you felt like it needed to be slow in the same way Seven Samurai is slow: setting up the world and characters over a period of time to let you get absorbed. In the new film, however, it felt like this one was slow just because that's what the original Blade Runner did and instead of feeling deliberately slow-paced it feels like it drags. I dare say at times it gets kind of boring just waiting for something to happen or the next lead in the case to appear. I'm still convinced that this thing didn't need to be three hours long and with just a few scenes cut from the theatrical release it would've been a tighter, more efficient movie.
The themes of this film are pretty much the same as the last one: exploring what makes one thing human and one thing not. In this film, however, it explores it in a few new, interesting ways. "K" is in love with a holographic computer program (Ana de Armas) that manifests itself as a woman. Through this bizarre relationship, we're asked to think about questions we might not've even considered before watching the movie. Can you be in love with something that is just a consciousness, not even a real one at that? Can this thing die or just be deactivated? Is the love she feels still real if it's just part of her programming? It's all really interesting to think about and the kind of questions that give a film like this rewatchablilty.
The characters are all pretty good, with the standout being "K". I found it fascinating to watch what is basically an android, with no concept of fear or pain, just going about his business as a blade runner and detective. However, he's not so emotionless that he doesn't have reactions or doubts about the case he's working on. The character tip toes the fine line between relatable and interestingly detached, which is a lot harder to make work than it sounds. Deckard, once again played by Harrison Ford, shows up about two-thirds of the way in and although he's kind of the same grump he was in the last film, there's a lot more depth added to his relationship with the replicant Rachel in the first film. Joi, the hologram, I'm not even sure I can call a character. Can you say a character has a personality when it's pre-programed into them?
Technical
Painstaking effort has obviously been put into recreating and updating the world of the first film. The neon color scheme, the retro/modern hybrid set design and even the fact that it's almost constantly raining are all preserved and it looks gorgeous. This might be Villeneuve's best looking film in every conceivable aspect of visuals.
Cinematography legend Roger Deakins joins with Villeneuve once again to do what might be the best work of his career. Everything within the frame works in perfect harmony with everything else. The composition, lighting, color, blocking, camera placement; all of it is perfect and every frame is a beautiful painting.
The neon color scheme returns, as I said before, and it once again works with the set design to give the feeling of a huge, grimy city, even more so that the first one even. It really feels like a technologically advanced New York City with crowded environments, filthy streets, obnoxious advertisements constantly in your face. As I said before, the technology in the film is still represented as kind of retro and futuristic, just like in the first film, but they've advanced the technology just like how it would advance in this film universe. It's a subtle bit of storytelling to show how much time has passed since the events of the first film, but it's pretty damn clever.
The sound editing in the film is unbelievable. You feel everything that happens on screen. When somebody fires a gun, you feel the impact in your ears. When a flying car races by, it causes you to rumble in your chair. It's the kind of thing that can only be appreciated in a movie theater.
The music is trying emulate the score of the first film and while it succeeds (and there's a really cool bit of musical fan service towards the end of the film) it's just not as memorable as the first film's.
The acting is good from the cast all around. I think the only reason the audience is able to be invested in "K"s story at all is because he's played by Ryan Gosling, who brings his all into this role. Even though he has a completely stoic expression on his face for almost the entire movie, he comes across as sympathetic and vulnerable. Even though Harrison Ford mostly gives his usual grumpy old man performance, he has a few really good scenes that prove he's still got some really good acting chops. I've never actually seen Jared Leto in anything besides this movie, so I couldn't tell you if he's giving a good performance or just playing himself, but he certainly gives a memorable performance, if nothing else. Ana de Armas is the most confusing performance of the film for me; I don't know if she's actually a good actress or just has a lot of raw charisma that she's able to turn into screen presence or if she's just so hot it distracts me from how good or bad she is, but there was never a moment when I thought her performance was terrible, so that's something.
Summary: Much like the first one, I think Blade Runner 2049 is the kind of film you have to watch more than once to fully appreciate. Maybe the pacing won't seem so slow if I watch it again and know what to expect or I'll notice some nuance that I didn't get the first time. However, on first viewing I can definitely say that 2049 is unlike any movie you'll see this year; contemplative, smart, meditative and a whole lot deeper than anything else out in theaters at the moment. Check this one out.
Comments
Post a Comment