yes, indeed. as a sort of up to the minute, cutting edge review this is, look you see, quite late. many or any of those interested in the motion picture Blade Runner 2049 will in all likelihood seen it, or elected to give it a miss. i, however, only saw it when the home video (disc) release came around in the first week of February. a number of my friends and most of my family would, no doubt, think something was wrong or otherwise amiss if i failed to comment on the movie.
a quick, spoiler free and rapid review would be that whilst Blade Runner 2049 is needlessly long, it is quite the visual treat and, mostly, is an above average film with moments of genius. the "borrowing" from other films is interesting, and ultimately it exists to show that Blade Runner is a film which required no direct or obvious sequel, no matter how good that sequel may very well be.
right, a break from the normal. there is no possible way i can work out to speak of this film without huge, big massive spoilers. and so a *** SPOILER ALERT WARNING *** is in place. for both Blade Runner 2049 and a couple of other films. so you have been warned to go ahead and read with caution, and here is another warning.
READERS BE AWARE
HUGE SPOILERS FOR BLADE RUNNER 2049 FOLLOW
CONTINUE AT YOUR OWN RISK!
what qualifications do i bring to speak of Blade Runner 2049? if you were to ask friends and family i dare say they would suggestion i am a "passionate" or if you will "far too obsessive" type of fan of the original. i don't quite think i am a member of some sort of deranged lunatic fringe; just rather someone who has a healthy appreciation for how astonishing Blade Runner was, is and always shall be.
making a sequel to a much loved, seemingly self-contained film somewhere north of 30 years later was, then, a brave move. and, to their credit, the makers knew this, with the director (a bloke called Denis) saying that he knew "lovers of the original would be going to see this armed with baseball bats to take me apart" if he got it wrong. as mentioned above, then, phew, for he did not "get it wrong" as such.
the tricky part of this was always going to be the plot. this they got right, kind of. in borrowing from one of the better "sequel" novels, in this case one i read some 20 (!) years ago called Edge Of Human, and also, in a roundabout way, the superb film adaptation of Children Of Men, they came up with a story relevant and in keeping with the Blade Runner world, and was further one more or less worth telling. should you wish to know the finer points of this plot, well, hit the google. i shall carry on assuming you are aware of it.
an initial disappointment came quite early on. the superb opening was somewhat spoiled when it was revealed that "K", played most splendidly by Ryan Gosling, was indeed a replicant. oh, i thought. there goes the intrigue and the guessing about whether he is or isn't, a la Deckard in the original. but, then again, to rehash that character trait would be to simply mimic the original. also, it's an important premise as the film goes on, "K" being a replicant, as it turns out he might be just more than this.
so, the point and premise of Blade Runner 2049. after briefly being outlawed - not ever fully explained in the films - replicants are back, now being created by Niander Wallace (Jared Leto), who bought up what was left of the Tyrell Corporation. whilst he has made replicants more placid and slave like, he simply cannot make them at the rate required for Earth's colonisation of planets. the answer is to investigate a legend; the story of how one Replicant gave birth.
this premise is viable in many ways. other than giving a practical reason to have Deckard and Rachel (yes, the parents according to the myth or legend) in the film, it does feel like a natural development of the Nexus replicant technology in the Blade Runner world. which is probably why it was, from what i remember, pretty much the crux or point of departure for Edge Of Human.
"K" is on the hunt for the replicant child too. this is mostly because he has been ordered to find and destroy it, out of fear that the idea of replicants breeding causing mayhem amongst humans. partially, as the film goes on, however, it's because he starts to suspect that maybe, maybe, he himself is the mythical child. and so for an hour or so the plot goes very much Angel Heart, only not as interesting because you know what exactly the plot twist might be.
further disappointment comes as "K" hunts Deckard. yay! woo hoo! there's Edward James Olmos. no! boo! they spoil this by having him act as an elder Edward James Olmos, rather than Gaff. the accent is gone, and he does not speak in Cityspeak, but rather plain English. also, when he speaks of his relationship with Deckard, it sounds like it was written by someone who had never ever seen their relationship in the original film and assumed they were partners. but still, thanks - a "for the fans" scene that actually helped move the plot along.
Harrison Ford as Deckard? ok, this is now the third time Harrison Ford has been dragged in to play a character he last played in the 80s, and also has been blessed with a child on his return. weird, but anyway. so, whilst his return as Indiana Jones did not gone down too well, and his return as Han Solo was to simply make the coolest smuggler in the galaxy a bumbling idiot, here it's all note perfect. considering Ford was not really a lover of the original (he dismissed his part, saying he was "a detective that never did any actual detective work"), he plays the part brilliantly; something made easier no doubt by the fact that a convincing job has been done of writing Deckard 30 years on.
does Blade Runner 2049 "borrow" from any films other than the ones already mentioned? goodness me yes. the most impressive of these is A Clockwork Orange. the manner in which they check replicants, or at the least "K", is not developing any signs of rebellion is Ludovico Technique through and through. a nod to this, or sorts, comes in the scene when "K" finds Deckard. two erotic statues guard the building. if, like me, you are a Kubrick enthusiast, you will note or think straight away that they are massive versions of the, erm, milk dispensers from the Korova Milk Bar.
the film also elects to take a bizarre turn past Waterworld. wood is now the most valuable commodity on the planet, and the more you have the wealthier you are. this then ditches the idea of the original, and indeed the source material in the form of the Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep? novel, of real and artificial animals being the difference. you only really notice this when "K" encounters some bees and gets enchanted by them. at that point you notice the emotional engagement of the characters has gone because the animal motif is absent.
other flaws? far too bloated. this story did not need one hour longer than the original film to be told, but they went ahead and did that. i am glad i decided to skip it at the cinema; a decision made on the running length alone. i suspect that, as visually stunning as it is, i would have walked out bored and yawning, hating the film. which i do not. also, the symbolism is a bit too heavy handed at times. as in "hey! Eldon Tyrell died via having his eyes crushed in! let's make a continuance of this by making his successor blind!".
also, the effects are just not right. it's not really the fault of using CGI as such, although yet it is. the spinners and all other such wonderful things are far too pristine, clean, sharp and crisp (hello, Faye). it's all supposed to be a dark, dirty and murky future.
the music, as hinted at in the trailer, is a thing of beauty. i was worried about the apparent lack of Vangelis, but the new score is superb. except they undermine it. every now and then - mostly in key scenes - they echo or mix in some of the Vangelis score. all this does is remind you of how brilliant that one was, really, and distracts from the fact you are watching a different film.
if i may borrow from the original film somewhat, Blade Runner 2049 has been built as well as anybody could make it - but not to last. somehow i doubt that this film shall be treasured, discussed, worshipped or maybe even watched 30 years from now, as was, is and always will be with the original.
really, there was no more story to tell. Blade Runner, in whatever of the versions you prefer, was a complete story in itself. bravo, sincerely, for them finding a plausible and agreeable story to tell after the fact, but at best this makes it a nice bonus rather than something essential or a thing that people have hoped for.
yes, then, a good film and kind of worth the effort of watching, but i am not at all sure the world really needed Blade Runner 2049. a short version is that it adds absolutely nothing to the original concept or story, just some lovely visuals and an expansion on some ideas.
be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment