Blade Runner 2 on the way care of Ridley Scott 2 2

[reddwarf666222]

1 hour ago, Marwood & I said:

Here you go @reddwarf666222

Do you think Lewis would've made a good Bond? He could have introduced the more 'manly' approach and beat Danial Craig by 30 plus years....

 

  Hide contents

 

Yeah I think he would have made a good Bond. I honestly think we would have ended up with something close to Dalton, but to be honest Dalton’s Bond was very similar to Craig’s. The issue is they kept Moore two films too long.

[Bosco685]

A really interesting article that wraps up the events of the second movie, and how these tied back to the original movie.

Blade Runner 2049’s Ending Explained

Quote

K is Roy Batty
Because he’s a stoic Blade Runner unexpectedly thrust into a plot bigger than himself, we’re initially meant to view K as a Deckard parallel. He’s our protagonist, after all. However, there’s a different character who he’s actually closer to: Roy Batty.

 

What’s so striking about Roy is that while he’s framed as the bad guy, his villainy really is all in the presentation. His motivation is survivalist but not selfish. He has an altruism for his team and fully understandable motivations. To call him a good guy may be too much and he’s definitely got a maniacal, manipulative side, yet framed in a world where he’s hunted, that’s a product of surroundings. In short, Roy Batty was right.

 

Even though Batty isn’t mentioned once, Blade Runner 2049 underscores that. K is the compliment to Roy, fitting the role of the tragic figure finally finding their place in the world and accepting their existence in death. Telling the story from his perspective – and in the end even using the same music to hammer the point home – makes an unavoidable conclusion about the universal replicant humanity, how it’s powered by the self, and that love is what ultimately achieves it.

 

The Ending Makes Deckard Human
In the film’s climactic battle, K saves Deckard from drowning at the last minute, finally freeing him from the 35 years of running and hiding; he’s presumed dead and so now can finally live. In Vegas, Deckard essentially made himself a replicant regardless of the truth – he lived the life of the hunted – but once you remove that stigma, any classification washes away. And as we now know there is no discernible biological distinction between humans and replicants (except for the eye code), when you delete that classification, they become indistinguishable human.

 

It’s meta-textually powerful too. As Deckard meets Stelline, the plot device is a person. All the Wallace and Resistance ephemera falls away as he finally gets to see her, highlighting the individual. And with it, the movie’s true meaning.

 

[Doohickamabob]

Saw the new Blade Runner movie. A couple weeks ago, they released the "Final Cut" of the original Blade Runner at one of my local theaters (only one showing!) and I managed to catch it. I don't think I ever saw that version before, but it was really satisfying. It didn't have the voice-over narration (which does help with exposition for those who don't know the story yet), but it did seem to be better paced than the "Director's Cut" version. It was so cool to see the original on a big movie screen, with excellent sound.

Anyway -- last week I saw the new "Blade Runner 2049" movie. I think I liked it, though the movie is so long, and so flatly paced, it really does ask a lot of the audience. I feel like much of it was unnecessary, as others have pointed out here. That is, they could easily have edited it tighter and made it 30 minutes shorter, with more forward momentum etc. I feel like the director was either (1) trying to get his money's worth on sets/locations, or (2) trying to make the movie trance-like, with a slow pace ala Andrei Tarkovsky (of "Solaris" and "Stalker" fame) though whatever it was, it didn't work for me. The movie is just cool enough that it didn't annoy me sufficiently to make me give the whole thing a thumb's-down for its length.

Here are some random thoughts about "Blade Runner 2049":

*** PROS: ***

-- Compositionally, the movie looks amazing. Every shot looks like frame-able art. The movie doesn't cut around with choppy edits and too many close-ups; it looks like the cinematographer (Roger Deakins) and production designer put care into every moment on screen.

-- The movie expands the "Blade Runner" world: We get to see not just the original city (which the movie doesn't break out in full nighttime "Blade Runner" style until the final act), but the protein farms and solar-power zones (huge expanses of land that are all used to feed/power the world, and probably also the off-world colonies). We also see a city-sized junk yard, which is what San Diego is turned into (ha ha, it's San Diego!) -- just a giant expanse of all the left-over machines and metal junk from civilization, in mounds and mountains. Then there's Las Vegas, which is an abandoned playground full of malfunctioning holographic stages and such.

-- The story expands on the role of replicants, and how they were changed after the Nexus 6 replicants rebelled. It also shows how the new replicants are given very narrow areas and options with which to satisfy their deliberately limited emotional capabilities. Ryan Gosling does a good job of keeping things minimal and simple while still being interesting -- he shows small, subtle expressions suggesting minute amounts of emotion, curiosity, confusion, etc. under the surface.

-- The scene with Gosling and his "girlfriend," and how they figure out a way for him to, uh, consummate physically, is one of the most original scenes I've seen in any movie in a long time. Just on the basis of that scene alone, the movie is worth a recommendation.

-- The female actresses in the movie are waaayyy above average, and there are several of them. I'm not just talking about them being pretty -- though they are quite attractive. They're also really interesting, well-cast, strange, and to me they're almost all new faces. I get tired of the same people showing up in movie after movie, and I felt like the filmmakers took a chance with a bunch of relative unknowns and let them all shine in their own ways. There are four standouts: The woman playing Gosling's "girlfriend," the streetwalker type (shades of Daryl Hannah) with the reddish hair and predatory eyes, the girl in the giant holographic bubble (she really conveyed a lot with very little dialogue), and then of course there's the ruthless one (who reminded me of a young Mary Tyler Moore with a vindictive streak). The casting went a long way to making the drawn-out scenes more bearable.

-- The detailed plotting surrounding the "blackout" and hidden files, etc., kept the story mysterious and eventually much of it did tie together very well, considering the interplay of concepts about memory, conscience, meaning and purpose to life, etc. I was surprised how much the movie ran with the idea of memory, as a theme, and did something of its own with the idea rather than just repeating the basic ideas from the first movie.

-- Really glad to have some of the original cast members show up in the sequel. I won't say who (though you might have already heard), but obviously Harrison Ford is back so that's not a spoiler. I will say, though, that the way one of the original cast members shows up seems somewhat forced, though the technical methods used to bring that cast member back (CGI finessing) are remarkably good, and better than similar methods used in another recent movie.

-- The sound design of the movie is pretty amazing, and the soundtrack takes a real risk in that it is mostly devoid of any recognizably melodic themes, and is built largely around atmospheric sounds, ambience, and large, unsettling zapping types of noises. The thick, echoey drum that marks the beginning of the first "Blade Runner" movie makes a return here as well. The sound and feel of the movie is very primal, which kind of goes with the visuals since they seem to focus on primal elements like dust, air, and water.

*** CONS: ***

-- My god is this movie long. It's nearly 3 hours long. The last movie I saw in a theater that was 3 hours long was "Cloud Atlas," but at least that was 6 interlocking individual stories. I think "The Hateful Eight" was 2.5 hours but its pacing methodically built up to something, so the time flew by. This movie's pacing just moves along like a Rumba with low batteries. Good thing I didn't drink a large soda or anything, though I will give the movie some credit in that you can be pretty sure if you do run off to pee, you won't miss much dialogue or anything (since there's often several minutes without dialogue).

-- Ryan Gosling: I like him, he's a cool-looking chap, he's not a bad actor... BUT... He's on the screen almost the entire movie, and he only occasionally speaks. That's a lot of burden to put on one actor, to maintain a sympathetic protagonist connection to the audience for 3 hours. Even if I thought he was the best actor in the world, I would get tired of looking at him for that long. There are scenes where it seems like 3 minutes go by with Ryan Gosling walking in to a new environment, looking around, walking up a staircase, looking around some more, looking pensive, turning his head, and then walking forward to look more closely at something. On and on. If we don't see the front of his head, we see the back of his head. Too. Much. Ryan. Gosling. (Though I'll watch "Drive" again anytime.)

-- Robin Wright plays the police detective who is in charge of Ryan Gosling's character, giving him assignments and such. I like her as an actress (she's the Princess Bride after all), but for some reason, I didn't like her much in this role. Maybe I'm too spoiled by M. Emmet Walsh's utterly strange and compelling turn as the man in charge during the first "Blade Runner" movie. I didn't think Wright was bad; just somewhat lacking in the kind of grit and gravitas that I think the role called for. Eh, maybe I'll change my mind if I see the movie again (which won't happen for a while).

-- Jared Leto -- I really felt he was ineffective in his villainous role. Again, there's a lack of substance or something. I feel like maybe they were going for a Millennial-style, Silicon-Valley CEO type of effect. He wasn't that interesting to me, though the way he augmented his senses was fairly inspired.

-- The motivation of the female villain... I was confused about what was going on in her noggin.

-- Harrison Ford. Long, long wait to get to Harrison Ford. And then, not enough for him to do. Maybe that's a shallow concern... But I thought I was seeing a Ryan Gosling/Harrison Ford movie, not a Ryan Gosling movie with an extended cameo by Harrison Ford. (Ford did look great and had the chutzpah lacking in others' performances.)

-- Not a lot of memorable lines or quirky details like there were in the original. The first movie had stuff like, "Wake up -- time to die," or "My mother....let me tell you about my mother!" or "Are you testing to find out if I'm a replicant or a lesbian, Mr. Deckard?" Plus many other completely memorization-worthy lines, and bits. "Home again, home again, jiggity jig!" ... I can't remember any dialogue from this movie. (Then again, I haven't seen it 15 times like I have the first movie.)

-- Wanting to be an artistic, visionary director is one thing; putting a direct reference to Stanley Kubrick in your movie is a bit too much. There's a sculpture that is almost a direct replica of the kneeling-women sculpture in the Korova Milkbar scene of "A Clockwork Orange." No need to wink that hard just to pay homage to your inspiration. Distracting.

-- The ending is a bit "yeah....so?" I mean, I get what they were going for, but I didn't feel as much about it as I would have liked to. (I also don't feel any need to see somebody strangled underwater for the full amount of time it would take for them to really asphyxiate.) It didn't have the brilliance of "tears in rain," in any case. (It had its own take on precipitation...)

*** CONCLUSION: ***

I dunno. I'll rent it in a year, maybe watch it 2 or 3 times. Hopefully find a reason to like it more. Or maybe I'll just watch "Mad Max: Fury Road" 5 more times (which would take about the same amount of actual time). It is not a bad movie -- I'm glad I saw it. I wouldn't expect everyone else to like it, though. I give the filmmakers credit for trying something that was not formulaic, and takes many risks with its approaches.

Edited October 25, 2017 by Doohickamabob

[Martin Sinescu]

That's really stellar, Doohickamabob, looking forward to reading the whole review (walking out the door for work now). I felt gypped after Marwood's short (for him) post 

I will say this about "long" movies: I do this thing where I consciously sense when a movie is wrapping up -- I'm the type that likes to get immersed in the theatrical experience of a movie to the point that I feel like an observer standing in front of the "fourth wall" -- so when I feel things coming to a conclusion, it jars me out of that state and I get legitimately disappointed (if it's a good movie). In that sense, I enjoyed BR2049 as there were a few times I thought it was wrapping up, only to have the movie keep going for another 30 minutes, and another 30 minutes, and 15 more minutes....

[Get Marwood & I]

3 hours ago, Martin Sinescu said:

I felt gypped after Marwood's short (for him) post 

It seems you feel my work is not a benefit to the public....? 

[Artboy99]

9 hours ago, Doohickamabob said:

Saw the new Blade Runner movie. A couple weeks ago, they released the "Final Cut" of the original Blade Runner at one of my local theaters (only one showing!) and I managed to catch it. I don't think I ever saw that version before, but it was really satisfying. It didn't have the voice-over narration (which does help with exposition for those who don't know the story yet), but it did seem to be better paced than the "Director's Cut" version. It was so cool to see the original on a big movie screen, with excellent sound.

Anyway -- last week I saw the new "Blade Runner 2049" movie. I think I liked it, though the movie is so long, and so flatly paced, it really does ask a lot of the audience. I feel like much of it was unnecessary, as others have pointed out here. That is, they could easily have edited it tighter and made it 30 minutes shorter, with more forward momentum etc. I feel like the director was either (1) trying to get his money's worth on sets/locations, or (2) trying to make the movie trance-like, with a slow pace ala Andrei Tarkovsky (of "Solaris" and "Stalker" fame) though whatever it was, it didn't work for me. The movie is just cool enough that it didn't annoy me sufficiently to make me give the whole thing a thumb's-down for its length.

Here are some random thoughts about "Blade Runner 2049":

*** PROS: ***

-- Compositionally, the movie looks amazing. Every shot looks like frame-able art. The movie doesn't cut around with choppy edits and too many close-ups; it looks like the cinematographer (Roger Deakins) and production designer put care into every moment on screen.

-- The movie expands the "Blade Runner" world: We get to see not just the original city (which the movie doesn't break out in full nighttime "Blade Runner" style until the final act), but the protein farms and solar-power zones (huge expanses of land that are all used to feed/power the world, and probably also the off-world colonies). We also see a city-sized junk yard, which is what San Diego is turned into (ha ha, it's San Diego!) -- just a giant expanse of all the left-over machines and metal junk from civilization, in mounds and mountains. Then there's Las Vegas, which is an abandoned playground full of malfunctioning holographic stages and such.

-- The story expands on the role of replicants, and how they were changed after the Nexus 6 replicants rebelled. It also shows how the new replicants are given very narrow areas and options with which to satisfy their deliberately limited emotional capabilities. Ryan Gosling does a good job of keeping things minimal and simple while still being interesting -- he shows small, subtle expressions suggesting minute amounts of emotion, curiosity, confusion, etc. under the surface.

-- The scene with Gosling and his "girlfriend," and how they figure out a way for him to, uh, consummate physically, is one of the most original scenes I've seen in any movie in a long time. Just on the basis of that scene alone, the movie is worth a recommendation.

-- The female actresses in the movie are waaayyy above average, and there are several of them. I'm not just talking about them being pretty -- though they are quite attractive. They're also really interesting, well-cast, strange, and to me they're almost all new faces. I get tired of the same people showing up in movie after movie, and I felt like the filmmakers took a chance with a bunch of relative unknowns and let them all shine in their own ways. There are four standouts: The woman playing Gosling's "girlfriend," the streetwalker type (shades of Daryl Hannah) with the reddish hair and predatory eyes, the girl in the giant holographic bubble (she really conveyed a lot with very little dialogue), and then of course there's the ruthless one (who reminded me of a young Mary Tyler Moore with a vindictive streak). The casting went a long way to making the drawn-out scenes more bearable.

-- The detailed plotting surrounding the "blackout" and hidden files, etc., kept the story mysterious and eventually much of it did tie together very well, considering the interplay of concepts about memory, conscience, meaning and purpose to life, etc. I was surprised how much the movie ran with the idea of memory, as a theme, and did something of its own with the idea rather than just repeating the basic ideas from the first movie.

-- Really glad to have some of the original cast members show up in the sequel. I won't say who (though you might have already heard), but obviously Harrison Ford is back so that's not a spoiler. I will say, though, that the way one of the original cast members shows up seems somewhat forced, though the technical methods used to bring that cast member back (CGI finessing) are remarkably good, and better than similar methods used in another recent movie.

-- The sound design of the movie is pretty amazing, and the soundtrack takes a real risk in that it is mostly devoid of any recognizably melodic themes, and is built largely around atmospheric sounds, ambience, and large, unsettling zapping types of noises. The thick, echoey drum that marks the beginning of the first "Blade Runner" movie makes a return here as well. The sound and feel of the movie is very primal, which kind of goes with the visuals since they seem to focus on primal elements like dust, air, and water.

*** CONS: ***

-- My god is this movie long. It's nearly 3 hours long. The last movie I saw in a theater that was 3 hours long was "Cloud Atlas," but at least that was 6 interlocking individual stories. I think "The Hateful Eight" was 2.5 hours but its pacing methodically built up to something, so the time flew by. This movie's pacing just moves along like a Rumba with low batteries. Good thing I didn't drink a large soda or anything, though I will give the movie some credit in that you can be pretty sure if you do run off to pee, you won't miss much dialogue or anything (since there's often several minutes without dialogue).

-- Ryan Gosling: I like him, he's a cool-looking chap, he's not a bad actor... BUT... He's on the screen almost the entire movie, and he only occasionally speaks. That's a lot of burden to put on one actor, to maintain a sympathetic protagonist connection to the audience for 3 hours. Even if I thought he was the best actor in the world, I would get tired of looking at him for that long. There are scenes where it seems like 3 minutes go by with Ryan Gosling walking in to a new environment, looking around, walking up a staircase, looking around some more, looking pensive, turning his head, and then walking forward to look more closely at something. On and on. If we don't see the front of his head, we see the back of his head. Too. Much. Ryan. Gosling. (Though I'll watch "Drive" again anytime.)

-- Robin Wright plays the police detective who is in charge of Ryan Gosling's character, giving him assignments and such. I like her as an actress (she's the Princess Bride after all), but for some reason, I didn't like her much in this role. Maybe I'm too spoiled by M. Emmet Walsh's utterly strange and compelling turn as the man in charge during the first "Blade Runner" movie. I didn't think Wright was bad; just somewhat lacking in the kind of grit and gravitas that I think the role called for. Eh, maybe I'll change my mind if I see the movie again (which won't happen for a while).

-- Jared Leto -- I really felt he was ineffective in his villainous role. Again, there's a lack of substance or something. I feel like maybe they were going for a Millennial-style, Silicon-Valley CEO type of effect. He wasn't that interesting to me, though the way he augmented his senses was fairly inspired.

-- The motivation of the female villain... I was confused about what was going on in her noggin.

-- Harrison Ford. Long, long wait to get to Harrison Ford. And then, not enough for him to do. Maybe that's a shallow concern... But I thought I was seeing a Ryan Gosling/Harrison Ford movie, not a Ryan Gosling movie with an extended cameo by Harrison Ford. (Ford did look great and had the chutzpah lacking in others' performances.)

-- Not a lot of memorable lines or quirky details like there were in the original. The first movie had stuff like, "Wake up -- time to die," or "My mother....let me tell you about my mother!" or "Are you testing to find out if I'm a replicant or a lesbian, Mr. Deckard?" Plus many other completely memorization-worthy lines, and bits. "Home again, home again, jiggity jig!" ... I can't remember any dialogue from this movie. (Then again, I haven't seen it 15 times like I have the first movie.)

-- Wanting to be an artistic, visionary director is one thing; putting a direct reference to Stanley Kubrick in your movie is a bit too much. There's a sculpture that is almost a direct replica of the kneeling-women sculpture in the Korova Milkbar scene of "A Clockwork Orange." No need to wink that hard just to pay homage to your inspiration. Distracting.

-- The ending is a bit "yeah....so?" I mean, I get what they were going for, but I didn't feel as much about it as I would have liked to. (I also don't feel any need to see somebody strangled underwater for the full amount of time it would take for them to really asphyxiate.) It didn't have the brilliance of "tears in rain," in any case. (It had its own take on precipitation...)

*** CONCLUSION: ***

I dunno. I'll rent it in a year, maybe watch it 2 or 3 times. Hopefully find a reason to like it more. Or maybe I'll just watch "Mad Max: Fury Road" 5 more times (which would take about the same amount of actual time). It is not a bad movie -- I'm glad I saw it. I wouldn't expect everyone else to like it, though. I give the filmmakers credit for trying something that was not formulaic, and takes many risks with its approaches.

very thorough and I appreciate it. I agree with you completely.

Re Ryan Gosling: my issue was that you had his character on the screen for a lot of the run time, but he was playing a character that was devoid of emotion. His lines are purposefully given as flat and emotionless. I get that he is playing an artificial being that is programmed to behave as he is so he is doing that on purpose but it is lacking in character that can draw you in. Assuming Sylvia Hoeks character named Luv is also a replicant of similar model her character is allowed to show emotions such as anger yet as a viewer I know she is a replicant. Makes me wonder why Gosling's character had to be so "flat".

 

I do agree on the love scene between K ( Ryan Gosling ) and Joi ( Ana de Armas who plays his love interest ) was unique and interesting. I also will say Joi was major eye candy for me.

Edited October 25, 2017 by Artboy99

[Lucky Baru]

Has the studio figure out how much money they have lost on this movie?

[Get Marwood & I]

On 25/10/2017 at 9:11 AM, Doohickamabob said:

Saw the new Blade Runner movie. A couple weeks ago, they released the "Final Cut" of the original Blade Runner at one of my local theaters (only one showing!) and I managed to catch it. I don't think I ever saw that version before, but it was really satisfying. It didn't have the voice-over narration (which does help with exposition for those who don't know the story yet), but it did seem to be better paced than the "Director's Cut" version. It was so cool to see the original on a big movie screen, with excellent sound.

Anyway -- last week I saw the new "Blade Runner 2049" movie. I think I liked it, though the movie is so long, and so flatly paced, it really does ask a lot of the audience. I feel like much of it was unnecessary, as others have pointed out here. That is, they could easily have edited it tighter and made it 30 minutes shorter, with more forward momentum etc. I feel like the director was either (1) trying to get his money's worth on sets/locations, or (2) trying to make the movie trance-like, with a slow pace ala Andrei Tarkovsky (of "Solaris" and "Stalker" fame) though whatever it was, it didn't work for me. The movie is just cool enough that it didn't annoy me sufficiently to make me give the whole thing a thumb's-down for its length.

Here are some random thoughts about "Blade Runner 2049":

*** PROS: ***

-- Compositionally, the movie looks amazing. Every shot looks like frame-able art. The movie doesn't cut around with choppy edits and too many close-ups; it looks like the cinematographer (Roger Deakins) and production designer put care into every moment on screen.

-- The movie expands the "Blade Runner" world: We get to see not just the original city (which the movie doesn't break out in full nighttime "Blade Runner" style until the final act), but the protein farms and solar-power zones (huge expanses of land that are all used to feed/power the world, and probably also the off-world colonies). We also see a city-sized junk yard, which is what San Diego is turned into (ha ha, it's San Diego!) -- just a giant expanse of all the left-over machines and metal junk from civilization, in mounds and mountains. Then there's Las Vegas, which is an abandoned playground full of malfunctioning holographic stages and such.

-- The story expands on the role of replicants, and how they were changed after the Nexus 6 replicants rebelled. It also shows how the new replicants are given very narrow areas and options with which to satisfy their deliberately limited emotional capabilities. Ryan Gosling does a good job of keeping things minimal and simple while still being interesting -- he shows small, subtle expressions suggesting minute amounts of emotion, curiosity, confusion, etc. under the surface.

-- The scene with Gosling and his "girlfriend," and how they figure out a way for him to, uh, consummate physically, is one of the most original scenes I've seen in any movie in a long time. Just on the basis of that scene alone, the movie is worth a recommendation.

-- The female actresses in the movie are waaayyy above average, and there are several of them. I'm not just talking about them being pretty -- though they are quite attractive. They're also really interesting, well-cast, strange, and to me they're almost all new faces. I get tired of the same people showing up in movie after movie, and I felt like the filmmakers took a chance with a bunch of relative unknowns and let them all shine in their own ways. There are four standouts: The woman playing Gosling's "girlfriend," the streetwalker type (shades of Daryl Hannah) with the reddish hair and predatory eyes, the girl in the giant holographic bubble (she really conveyed a lot with very little dialogue), and then of course there's the ruthless one (who reminded me of a young Mary Tyler Moore with a vindictive streak). The casting went a long way to making the drawn-out scenes more bearable.

-- The detailed plotting surrounding the "blackout" and hidden files, etc., kept the story mysterious and eventually much of it did tie together very well, considering the interplay of concepts about memory, conscience, meaning and purpose to life, etc. I was surprised how much the movie ran with the idea of memory, as a theme, and did something of its own with the idea rather than just repeating the basic ideas from the first movie.

-- Really glad to have some of the original cast members show up in the sequel. I won't say who (though you might have already heard), but obviously Harrison Ford is back so that's not a spoiler. I will say, though, that the way one of the original cast members shows up seems somewhat forced, though the technical methods used to bring that cast member back (CGI finessing) are remarkably good, and better than similar methods used in another recent movie.

-- The sound design of the movie is pretty amazing, and the soundtrack takes a real risk in that it is mostly devoid of any recognizably melodic themes, and is built largely around atmospheric sounds, ambience, and large, unsettling zapping types of noises. The thick, echoey drum that marks the beginning of the first "Blade Runner" movie makes a return here as well. The sound and feel of the movie is very primal, which kind of goes with the visuals since they seem to focus on primal elements like dust, air, and water.

*** CONS: ***

-- My god is this movie long. It's nearly 3 hours long. The last movie I saw in a theater that was 3 hours long was "Cloud Atlas," but at least that was 6 interlocking individual stories. I think "The Hateful Eight" was 2.5 hours but its pacing methodically built up to something, so the time flew by. This movie's pacing just moves along like a Rumba with low batteries. Good thing I didn't drink a large soda or anything, though I will give the movie some credit in that you can be pretty sure if you do run off to pee, you won't miss much dialogue or anything (since there's often several minutes without dialogue).

-- Ryan Gosling: I like him, he's a cool-looking chap, he's not a bad actor... BUT... He's on the screen almost the entire movie, and he only occasionally speaks. That's a lot of burden to put on one actor, to maintain a sympathetic protagonist connection to the audience for 3 hours. Even if I thought he was the best actor in the world, I would get tired of looking at him for that long. There are scenes where it seems like 3 minutes go by with Ryan Gosling walking in to a new environment, looking around, walking up a staircase, looking around some more, looking pensive, turning his head, and then walking forward to look more closely at something. On and on. If we don't see the front of his head, we see the back of his head. Too. Much. Ryan. Gosling. (Though I'll watch "Drive" again anytime.)

-- Robin Wright plays the police detective who is in charge of Ryan Gosling's character, giving him assignments and such. I like her as an actress (she's the Princess Bride after all), but for some reason, I didn't like her much in this role. Maybe I'm too spoiled by M. Emmet Walsh's utterly strange and compelling turn as the man in charge during the first "Blade Runner" movie. I didn't think Wright was bad; just somewhat lacking in the kind of grit and gravitas that I think the role called for. Eh, maybe I'll change my mind if I see the movie again (which won't happen for a while).

-- Jared Leto -- I really felt he was ineffective in his villainous role. Again, there's a lack of substance or something. I feel like maybe they were going for a Millennial-style, Silicon-Valley CEO type of effect. He wasn't that interesting to me, though the way he augmented his senses was fairly inspired.

-- The motivation of the female villain... I was confused about what was going on in her noggin.

-- Harrison Ford. Long, long wait to get to Harrison Ford. And then, not enough for him to do. Maybe that's a shallow concern... But I thought I was seeing a Ryan Gosling/Harrison Ford movie, not a Ryan Gosling movie with an extended cameo by Harrison Ford. (Ford did look great and had the chutzpah lacking in others' performances.)

-- Not a lot of memorable lines or quirky details like there were in the original. The first movie had stuff like, "Wake up -- time to die," or "My mother....let me tell you about my mother!" or "Are you testing to find out if I'm a replicant or a lesbian, Mr. Deckard?" Plus many other completely memorization-worthy lines, and bits. "Home again, home again, jiggity jig!" ... I can't remember any dialogue from this movie. (Then again, I haven't seen it 15 times like I have the first movie.)

-- Wanting to be an artistic, visionary director is one thing; putting a direct reference to Stanley Kubrick in your movie is a bit too much. There's a sculpture that is almost a direct replica of the kneeling-women sculpture in the Korova Milkbar scene of "A Clockwork Orange." No need to wink that hard just to pay homage to your inspiration. Distracting.

-- The ending is a bit "yeah....so?" I mean, I get what they were going for, but I didn't feel as much about it as I would have liked to. (I also don't feel any need to see somebody strangled underwater for the full amount of time it would take for them to really asphyxiate.) It didn't have the brilliance of "tears in rain," in any case. (It had its own take on precipitation...)

*** CONCLUSION: ***

I dunno. I'll rent it in a year, maybe watch it 2 or 3 times. Hopefully find a reason to like it more. Or maybe I'll just watch "Mad Max: Fury Road" 5 more times (which would take about the same amount of actual time). It is not a bad movie -- I'm glad I saw it. I wouldn't expect everyone else to like it, though. I give the filmmakers credit for trying something that was not formulaic, and takes many risks with its approaches.

Great review @Doohickamabob. I agree with a lot of your observations, pros and cons. I could add to both.

The film will always struggle to match the original which is its better in almost every department in my view. 

But I caught it at a perfect moment for me and it made its mark in a way few films I've seen have managed. The whole is much greater than the sum of its parts. A perfect moment in time. And we know what happens to them don't we.

[drotto]

19 hours ago, Lucky Baru said:

Has the studio figure out how much money they have lost on this movie?

The movie is just shy of 200 mil WW box office.  Should at least hit that by end of run.  Reported 150 mil budget. So with blue ray etc should make some more.  Will come close to breaking even in real world numbers, but by Hollywood math will be written off as a moderate loss.

[Lucky Baru]

3 hours ago, drotto said:

The movie is just shy of 200 mil WW box office.  Should at least hit that by end of run.  Reported 150 mil budget. So with blue ray etc should make some more.  Will come close to breaking even in real world numbers, but by Hollywood math will be written off as a moderate loss.

OK.  Nothing like spending 200 million dollars and getting nothing but bad press (the articles being written about the amount of movies adding to the dismal year that the studios are having) for your investment.

[Artboy99]

1 hour ago, Lucky Baru said:

OK.  Nothing like spending 200 million dollars and getting nothing but bad press (the articles being written about the amount of movies adding to the dismal year that the studios are having) for your investment.

It is unfortunate the film is getting negative articles, as it is a quality product in my opinion. I would prefer more movies like it are made over something like A Bad Moms Christmas.

[Bosco685]

2 hours ago, Artboy99 said:

It is unfortunate the film is getting negative articles, as it is a quality product in my opinion. I would prefer more movies like it are made over something like A Bad Moms Christmas.

Have to agree!

[revat]

17 hours ago, Bosco685 said:

20 hours ago, Artboy99 said:

It is unfortunate the film is getting negative articles, as it is a quality product in my opinion. I would prefer more movies like it are made over something like A Bad Moms Christmas.

Have to agree!

I love'em both!  I'm always a fan of movies that give the people what they want.  BR2049 and Bad Moms both do that.  I have a tougher time with movies that don't know what they want to be, and don't then don't know how to market it.  Like the Jennifer Lawrence Mother movie.  Who is that marketed to?  And do you think the person who goes into the movie got what they wanted out of it?  SOMETIMES that can work (and I get that we get some innovative stuff that way), but its a very fine line to walk.

[Gatsby77]

Just saw this last night.

_Amazing_ film.

And it did the impossible -- was a more than worthy sequel to the original.

If you had asked me even two years ago I would have said even trying to do a sequel to the original was a stupid idea, and yet somehow Villeneuve and company pulled it off. It helped that the orginal screenwriter was involved as well.

Stunning, if slow moving. But I think the pacing (and...to an extent) acting problems were equally present flaws in the original, so they're forgivable.

Loved the ending too. Don't want to see a sequel.

Edited November 18, 2017 by Gatsby77

[reddwarf666222]

Even China can’t save this film now. 7.5 mil opening weekend 

Edited October 31, 2017 by reddwarf666222

[Bosco685]

2 minutes ago, reddwarf666222 said:

Even China can’t save this film now. 7.5 mil opening weekend 

Saw that the other day that the China box office bombed as well. That is so sad, as this film deserves better results.

[reddwarf666222]

1 minute ago, Bosco685 said:

Saw that the other day that the China box office bombed as well. That is so sad, as this film deserves better results.

I think there is a second chance for this film if Warner pushes heavily for Academy Awards across the board. If that happens an extended rerelease could hopefully bring in Hidden Figures or LaLaLand numbers.

[fantastic_four]

15 hours ago, reddwarf666222 said:

I think there is a second chance for this film if Warner pushes heavily for Academy Awards across the board.

The Academy almost never nominates science fiction.  The only award it has any outside shot of being nominated for is Best Picture, and that's only because they now nominate 10 instead of 5.  It has zero chance of winning that award.

I would never have even guessed a best picture nomination if they hadn't done it with "Mad Max: Fury Road," still one of the more baffling nominations in Oscar history.

Edited November 1, 2017 by fantastic_four

[Artboy99]

27 minutes ago, fantastic_four said:

The Academy almost never nominates science fiction.  The only award it has any outside shot of being nominated for is Best Picture, and that's only because they now nominate 10 instead of 5.  It has zero chance of winning that award.

I would never have even guessed a best picture nomination if they hadn't done it with "Mad Max: Fury Road," still one of the more baffling nominations in Oscar history.

I still do not know what people see in that film. I thought it was terrible with way too many over the top things.

[fantastic_four]

1 minute ago, Artboy99 said:

30 minutes ago, fantastic_four said:

The Academy almost never nominates science fiction.  The only award it has any outside shot of being nominated for is Best Picture, and that's only because they now nominate 10 instead of 5.  It has zero chance of winning that award.

I would never have even guessed a best picture nomination if they hadn't done it with "Mad Max: Fury Road," still one of the more baffling nominations in Oscar history.

I still do not know what people see in that film. I thought it was terrible with way too many over the top things.

I liked it but didn't find it exceptional.  I can't even begin to imagine why among the sea of quality sci-fi films THAT'S the one that gets a Best Picture nod.