Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
‘Blade Runner 2049’ is a sequel that honors — and surpasses — the original
“Blade Runner 2049,” the superb new sequel by Denis Villeneuve (“Arrival”), doesn’t just honor that legacy, but, arguably, surpasses it, with a smart, grimly lyrical script (by Fancher and Michael Green of the top-notch “Logan”); bleakly beautiful cinematography (by Roger Deakins); and an even deeper dive into questions of the soul.".....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/goingout ... 896d862daa
liminalOyster » Sun Oct 15, 2017 4:11 pm wrote:Finally saw mother! last night. For a relatively successfully iconoclastic art assault event c. 2017, it's pretty effective. Jennifer Lawrences presence is a bit off-putting as the biggest link to Hollywood pap but otherwise I'm impressed that 24 hrs later I'm still interested in thinking the allegory itself as well as his directorial choices through.
Would def recommend reading even a few basic points about the film before seeing it. The vanity fair piece rhat Cordelia posted upthread would be a good primer.
Scorsese and De Niro would come close with Raging Bull and The King of Comedy—two movies that equal or surpass Taxi Driver in every way except as the embodiment of the historical spirit.
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1296
JackRiddler » Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:45 pm wrote:.
Blade Runner 2049 overdoes everything in an effort to match or outdo the original. You can't outdo a pretty simple action thriller that made just the right philosophical turns; one that was not quite intentionally but perfectly timed for the moment in both history and the development of film; and one that obviously wasn't planning to flop and then turn into a cult object.
You can load up the proposed sequel with ambition and themes and attempts to map out a complete political economy of the fictional world (which of course is a not unfaithful version of the present day, but also nothing you won't get from reading R.I.). You can hope what comes out works for the near three hours. It more or less does that! The Harrison Ford scenes prove to be damn good, surprise. (He underacts and it works.) But this can't recreate or beat the earlier film, because the original did it without knowing that it would work, it was something genuinely new at least at that level of market. (I speak of the overall effect and not the epic and highly planned visual sense and set design, which crystalized a style revolution in film-making ever since, and goes into worthy baroque variations in 2049.)
It reminds me of a line from J. Hoberman about Taxi Driver:Scorsese and De Niro would come close with Raging Bull and The King of Comedy—two movies that equal or surpass Taxi Driver in every way except as the embodiment of the historical spirit.
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1296
2049 doesn't come very close, let alone equal or surpass the 1982/1992 versions in any particular way, but it's not bad viewing. It's trying to do the impossible, bound to at best noble failure, and that's that. Don't think of it as a "sequel" or continuation or canonical anything. It's an interesting riff or commentary 35 years later, and that's just about its impact too. It's not going to grip emotionally. Emotionally, it's superior to the Matrix (and it's also superior as a work of sociology, I suppose), but emotion was what drove the first film - again, in an unconscious or unrepeatable and yet very simple way.
I suppose I should note loads of trigger warning for anyone who might feel susceptible. With Kim Nicolini, I lean to the idea that this is not a work of misogyny, but one that maps out the practice and variations thereof.
.
I really couldn't tell you the difference between his latest Han Solo, Deckard and the character he played in Cowboys & Aliens.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests