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
Yes it takes its time but I wasn't board one bit and it didn't feel its length and the film rests on Gosling and he doesn't disappoint, he's utterly superb.
Who are the bad guys in Blade Runner? I mean the really evil ones? In 2049 we get two really bad characters that are easy to identify/ hate. But in the first, the distinctions were very blurry, and that ALONE makes it a better film IMO. Or at the very least more interesting from a story telling POV. Really evil bad guys just feels a little comic-book-y to me. Plus of course, two good guys battling when they first meet over mis-perceptions... ;)
I also agree with you that Wallace cutting open the new replicant's belly was disgusting and unnecessary. I had to close my eyes at that part.
I had a number of issues with the movie, maybe I will discuss them once more people have seen it. But I don't want to rain on anyone's parade either. I'm glad lots of BR fans are loving the new movie.
I thought I would enjoy it, but it exceeded expectations.
As someone who is not devoted to the original (though I do think it's a good enough film), this is (tentatively) the top film of the year so far. I loved seeing DUNKIRK in 15 perf IMAX but if I separate the theater experience and the film, BR2049 would, I think, come out on top (its certainly an experience in its own right, simply different).
I shall have to revisit the original once more (seen it twice, but it's been a few years). Just on initial impressions, however, I have to say 2049 comes away more favorably. Admittedly this may be because I saw it on the big screen, whereas I've only seen the original on a television. Be that as it may, I think 2049 not only expands the discourse of the original but also allows it the room to continue expanding throughout the film. No ideas were shortchanged here, and the film is all the better for its length.
The presentation of everything is at the very least on par with the original, to boot, if it does not likewise surpass it — thanks to Villeneuve, Deakins, and in large part Gassner.
In the end, given the potential for disaster in making a sequel 35 years after the original classic (remember how worried we were?), it was handled well. Will post a more in depth review later.
MORE obsessive thoughts on Blade Runner 2049. Sorry, but the original IS one of my top favourite films of all time... and again, MASSIVE spoilers here.
V
V
V
V
There is something vaguely misogynistic about the willingness to show Deckard as an older Harrison Ford but to want or need to not have Rachel in the film as an older Sean Young.
If they had seen fit to tell the tale as a reunion of Deckard, Rachel AND their daughter in the story, mostly as written, I'd be all like, THIS IS THE BEST MOVIE EVER MADE!!! Sadly this is not the case. Having her character die in childbirth in the past was a convenient way of skirting the issue of whether she was 'special' or not and whether Gaff was right when he said "Too bad she won't live.." And also a way of preserving her stunning & youthful beauty from the first film. Not cool IMO. :( Without Rachel, this sequel is merely an exercise in extremely artistic sci-fi storytelling without the real heart to back it up... no matter Ford's onscreen tears at hearing her voice in the records. Sorry. It needed Sean IMHO...
Okay, shoot at me for this.
Yep.
but not for the reasons noted. Rather, because I can't stand these digitized younger versions of actors, whether it be Michael Douglas in Ant Man, RDJ in Civil War or Carrie Fisher in Rogue One. The digitized Sean Young looked far better than those prior examples, but still not real enough, and certainly not as real as the actual 1982 Sean Young who they showed in flashback just a few seconds earlier.
In this instance, I believe they brought her back to show the impact on Deckard. For him to make the choice. Did he reject her only because of her eyes, because she wasn't actually Rachel, or because he had his integrity and ethics and was willing to make a sacrifice? That's open to interpretation. I wish they hadn't made it about the 'eyes' but rather that he had to make the tough choice to reject her for the greater good. That would have been far more interesting imho, and that's where they copped out.
Bottom line: The older Deckard is present because Harrison Ford is still a major star, and his presence in a film such as this elevates its box office and its marketing. Sean Young was hot stuff in the 80s but who even remembers her now? Certainly not me. It made sense that Rachel has expired in the film because she is most definitely a replicant, and so has a much shorter life span. The jury is still out on Deckard (yes, I think this film still hasn't fully answered that age old question definitively). So seeing him as an older person is understandable in his case, but not in hers.
@bondjames
I did as you requested. :)
@PanchitoPistoles
There's a lot I didn't quite catch and it raises quite a few new questions (just like the first one) which is what makes it a worthy sequel.
But for me it was the replicant from the same Wallace-corporation that really blew me away. Luv, played by Dutch actress Sylvia Hoeks. Just wonderful how she switches so fast from being a wonderfully stylish businesswoman/assistant and a true killer henchwoman. The way she showed off her evil killer side was especially fantastic in the scene with Robin Wright, who plays the LAPD-chief. Nothing short of stunning. Hoeks could be shortlisted here for an award.
As I said, I found actress Robin Wright equally impressive. A cool, in-control, dominant boss, who doesn't shy away to mildly belittle the heritage of K/Joe.
It's Obvious that Roger Deakins gets as much praise as he got for "Skyfall", What a stunning visual artist he is. But let's not forget the incredible production design from Bond-designer Dennis Gassner. I think he really is the 'Ken Adam' of our time now. It also helps that Deakins and Gassner worked so closely together on "Skyfall".
I know understand why Daniel Craig and Barbara Broccoli try to do everything in their power to 'steal' Villeneuve from other film projects he's currently working on.
I'm glad you enjoyed the movie, friend.
I too found Ana de Armas, whom I know from KNOCK KNOCK, to be astonishingly beautiful in how she was presented.
Deakins + Gassner + Craig + Villeneuve would currently be my favourite recipe for a Bond film too.
You know.....sometimes you leave the cinema and you forget all the stuff that's happening now to Catalunya. Then you feel happy and fulfilled :-). I loved this film. Just imagine if you were alive in such a bleak dystopian LA. That's the feling it left me. And then the Biblical theme of the film, combined with stunning acting. Goosebumps!
https://embed.vpro.nl/player/?id=WO_VPRO_11090059&profile=default&sharing=1";
As you noted, all the actresses did a phenomenal job in the film. They were the highlight for me, and this is something Villeneuve is increasingly known for (strong female characters: which may also be why he is currently being courted for Bond).
Gassner and Deakins are on top of their game.
Thanks for the video as well. It was an interesting watch.
If I had one small nitpick, it would be
Also
Sorry, I thought I had. My bad.
This is because I prefer Alien but I can understand why some would rate the original BR higher.
That being said I think I preferred 2049 more, not taking anything away from the original but I found this slightly more compelling and save Hauer the acting was all round better.
I don't think the original is that much an acting showcase and Ford definitely gave a better performance. Hoeks is the break out star here and maybe if DV does do Bond 25 is she a possible Irma Bunt type if they go down the route of woman villain?
Though I thought Gosling was fantastic, the film hinged on his performance and he didn't disappoint in my view. Deakins might well have delivered his best work to date and Gassner's production design was stunning. Every frame is utterly gorgeous, if Roger doesn't finally get his Oscar for this then there should be riots.
Zimmer and Wallfisch score like Hans Dunkirk score is hardly something I'll be tracking down to put on my turntable but it invests the film with tension and atmosphere perfectly complimenting Deakins and Gassner's work. No it's not the iconic masterpiece that is Vangelis score is but it does it's job more than capably.
I'm still processing my experience of the film, I'm calling it film of 2017 and it has surpassed Dunkirk as my film experience of the year.
Also and I know TDK gets a kicking from many here but it had been till yesterday afternoon my bonafide best Blockbuster experience since 2008 but I can say it's been unsurped by Denis and his team, I'm just blown away, it's a masterpiece. Also unlike TDK and some other epic running time movies I didn't feel this was over long in fact it didn't feel the running time,
I think the film just looks like a work of art helps but DV paced this perfectly, there was a worry from the trailer that they might have made this fast paced to suit a contemporary audience but they had the convictions to go with it and while it might be at detriment to the box office, I'm sure this is built to endure and will be talked about and revered for decades to come not unlike the original.
I am expecting the inevitable back lash though I'm sure the film will start to get it's critics once things settle down there are already those out there who plain just don't like it but that is life isn't it.
Mark Kermode put it best when he said, it's a film that respects the original, gets it but has the courage to do something different with it and
5/5 10/10 Simply one of the greatest big screen experiences I've ever had and it looked and felt incredible in IMAX.
I agree, this is easily the best movie I've seen all year. I can't imagine anything topping it. Exquisite production, compelling noir story line. For the first time since I can remember I sat through the end credits of a movie not in the hope of seeing some fan service stinger, but because I was just gobsmacked.
As for the BO, we've always known that BR or any of its sequels has a limited target demographic. It'll earn its money back, no doubt there, but perhaps it'll have to wait for the home cinema releases before profits can be made. Either way, that doesn't matter to me. I'm grateful that they were willing to invest the dollars they have; this thing was expensive. But the money is on the screen and I bet the Oscars won't overlook BR2049, at the very least not in two or three technical departments. It'll become one of those sleeper hits. Avatar what? In 30 years from now, people will still be buying copies of BR2049, but Titanic and Avatar may very well have been forgotten, remade, outmatched by then.
The thing with BR2049 is that it's not a film adjusted to the demands of the larger audience; instead, it's a film that requires the larger audience to adjust its demands to. But every once in while, a chosen few will discover, contemplate and then worship this film, write essays about it, take inspiration from it, pay an homage to it, reference it. Like most of Kubrick's films, it may not bring the cash in, but it will become a part of cinema history soon, and I'm happy for Villeneuve that he gets the chance to be a part of it too.