Audio Asylum Thread Printer
Get a view of an entire thread on one page
|For Sale Ads|
Having seen this one on the small screen I'm not sure what to make of it. But then the original Bladerunner, with its melencholy moods, wasn't exactly emotionally fullfilling. Not that a movie needs to be.
This new chapter may base itself in the world imagined by writer Philip Kindred Dick. Yet it is the creation of another writer with good intentions wanting to extrapolate that world something like a generation or two later. There is plausibility within the confines established by the original script. It plays like a police procedural on the one side, and with evil corporate baddies that provide the interference and struggle.
All in all I enjoyed it even if my glass remains neither half empty nor half full. It is a bleak world from which this movie comes. It always was bleak and continues to be.
The movie does seem to redeem itself with more than one viewing. It is rich in its descriptions and depictions. At 2hrs 44 minutes this movie takes its time to fold out its chapters. The production values are high. The CGI is good, perhaps really good in that it may not be possible to always differentiate between what is and what isn't CGI in many scenes.
So sad about Rachel.
But, man, being a Bladerunner is tough.
I'm really impressed they took the premise in such
an interesting direction and did it so very, very well
while retaining a vibrant vibe from the first one.
Gives hope for the future of film making (if not humanity).
That doesn't mean they should attempt a third part, but the
potential is there.
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
In a sense all of us are replicants of the previous generation which may be the subliminal attraction to this series. But I digress, please carry on.
Good movie , music and actually perfectly watchable on a small screen due to some sort of a plot. First movie I could stand the performance of Ryan Gozling for the entire length of the drama. Perfectly decent acting if not a little woody but one can surely excuse the replicant in that account.
As it appears wood will be worth more than gold in future ..
. . . wherein he claimed that there are more square acres of forest today than there were in 1900.
Now, John, who frequently reports about how the homeless are out to bilk taxpayers out of billions of dollars, wouldn't lie to us, would he? ;-)
I got my kicks from Sylvia Hoecks performance.
dripping off her left lower eyelid? I do believe so. Which is part of the theme where replicants, even Luv (Hoeks' character), seems to have some sense of their own humanity even though they are engineered, not natural.
Hoeks' performance was very good. I believed it.
The setting is what's left of our environment after corporate oligarchies take over. They take us to the stars and institute AI, but society and planet are busted down to last levels.
The movie takes us to the place where we need another good old-fashioned revolution to jump start us again. The 2060's?
In post-apocalyptic 1992 (2021 in later editions), after "World War Terminus", the Earth's dirty atmosphere leads the United Nations to encourage mass emigrations to off-world colonies to preserve humanity's genetic integrity, with the incentive of free personal androids: robot servants identical to humans. On Earth, owning real live animals is a status symbol, because of mass extinctions and the cultural push for greater empathy that has motivated a technology-based religion called Mercerism. Poor people can only afford realistic-looking electric animals. Deckard, for example, owns a robotic black-faced sheep. Mercerism uses "empathy boxes" to link users simultaneously to a collective virtual reality of communal suffering, centered on a martyr-like character, Wilbur Mercer, who eternally climbs up a hill while being hit with crashing stones." end quote
The first movie did not dwell on many of the details in the novel, such as Mercerism, but did create its environment based on the above description.
For some insight into the world of BR2049 I found the link below.
spoiler warnings --
And yes, there does seem to be a setup for another sequel. But that will likely be influenced by box-office performance with this movie....which isn't that high in the domestic market. Mostly, it is hard-core sci-fi fans that turn out for movies like this one. I presume, anyway.
other notes: It seemed like some of the holographic graphics used in this movie are very much like similar effects used in the Ghost In The Shell movie from 2016 with Scarlett Johansson.
thanks a lot, I will check it out.
... Had there been more daylight scenes in the original movie, we presume the cinematography would have been equally depressing. Blame the author Philip K. Dick, for dreaming up such a disaster struck world as he did in the novel "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep". Read that and you see where this world comes from.
...and it wasn't talking cause it was dead.
...spectacular on the large XD screen.
A visual delight and one of the best films of the year.
...kinda like it may not be possible to always differentiate between what is human and what is replicant. I thought 2049 held true to the original's basic ideas while advancing the story and providing an even more bleak and dystopian look to the future.
IMO, this was a production made for the large screen and I can't imagine it having in the same impact on anything less.
I'm sure you're right about large screen viewing as the preferred method. At my current residence I have to drive a ways (like more than 50 miles) to get to an IMAX screen. Instead I viewed this on my aging 32" Samsung LCD flat panel. Perhaps seeing it on the small screen like mine, one tends to be less influenced by visual impact and more by story. And there is a story here.
re: Replicant BladeRunners retiring "illegal" replicants. That does seem an ironic twist, but can provide a metaphor for any political position you wish to take.
On my first viewing it took me a while to identify the protagonist in this film as a replicant. On second viewing I notice that I had missed some up front clues offered in the beginning of the film that identify just this. I guess it takes me a second viewing for many of the essential story elements to get imprinted on my feeble brain cells. But really I was looking at many of the movie set props and deciding which were physical and constructed in the model shop and which were CGI 'virtual' constructs. These blend well, I thought.
...and it added to the telling of the story instead of distracting from it as sometimes happens. I saw the IMAX version and was impressed by the nearly perfect merging of live, models and CGI. The big screen revealed no technical flaws. While the score was not by vangellis it was very much in that style and entirely appropriate to the sequel IMO.
Post a Message!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: