Kevin's Watch

Let's get this out of the way.....

Harrison Ford is not a good actor. He's wooden, and he sleepwalks through his roles. Tom Selleck would have been a better Indiana Jones, and Kurt Russell would have been a better Han Solo.

Similarly, Blade Runner was not a good movie. It utterly missed the point of Philip K. Dick's amazing book, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, and really only succeeds at being a passable '80s sci-fi interpretation of a noir film.

With that said, 2049 is just freaking stellar. Maybe it's because Ridley Scott didn't direct it (because he hasn't made a good film since Black Rain). I don't know, but what we have here is a quiet, thoughtful film about what it means to be human, and something that captures the spirit of P. K. Dick's writing, without having any of his input.

Literally the only thing that's made Ridley Scott's films from the last three decades worth seeing has been his visuals. Dennis Villenuve has captured the original film's look and feel, and created something beautiful. I generally don't see movies in the theater, but this one was worth it. It's just jaw-dropping.

Ryan Gosling is perfect in his role. Ford doesn't show up until the last third of the film, and he's used sparingly. He's not just used as a throwback; it makes sense that he's there. In fact, the whole film exists as a stand-alone, and doesn't lean on the first film in order to justify its existence.

What makes this film so much more amazing is the pace and the story. It's a real slow-burner, and it requires some deep thoughts and connections to really get it. At it's core, it's relatively simple, but so much is left unsaid that it really surprises me that it got greenlit. Hell, I liked it so much that it makes the first film worth watching again.

Good to hear. Thanks for the review. I had no intention of seeing it until now.

I agree with Cail for the most part. We'll have to agree to disagree about Harrison Ford.

I liked the film and appreciated the style of storytelling.
How 2049 alters the perception of the original film is fascinating.

Having never read the source material I evaluate the first film on its own merits and am a fan and have enjoyed multiple viewings over he years.

2049 is going to suffer from a weak box office performance precisely because of how slowly the film unfolds. Rank and file movie goers simply don't have the patience for film experiences of this kind.

aTOMiC wrote:2049 is going to suffer from a weak box office performance precisely because of how slowly the film unfolds. Rank and file movie goers simply don't have the patience for film experiences of this kind.

Sadly, this is 100% accurate.

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:Historically, movie adaptations of Philip K. Dick's works have been mostly mediocre (think Minority Report, Paycheck, and Total Recall) but some of his adaptations are pretty good (A Scanner Darkly, The Man in the High Castle). Everyone should read his short stories and novels but I do need to advise that after a while they become...repetitious--you will see the same underlying plot over and over again.

I want to see this in the theater but will need to find a time when the Mrs. is able to go, as well.

I actually preferred the Gary Sinise staring "Impostor" to Minority Report although they are both based on Dick's work Impostor suffered from a much smaller budget and didn't make so much as a dent at the box office.

aTOMiC wrote:

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:Historically, movie adaptations of Philip K. Dick's works have been mostly mediocre (think Minority Report, Paycheck, and Total Recall) but some of his adaptations are pretty good (A Scanner Darkly, The Man in the High Castle). Everyone should read his short stories and novels but I do need to advise that after a while they become...repetitious--you will see the same underlying plot over and over again.

I want to see this in the theater but will need to find a time when the Mrs. is able to go, as well.

I actually preferred the Gary Sinise staring "Impostor" to Minority Report although they are both based on Dick's work Impostor suffered from a much smaller budget and didn't make so much as a dent at the box office.

Imposter was quite good, as was Screamers.

Hmm, hadn't planned to, but think I will check it out afterall.

--A

Cail wrote: Imposter was quite good, as was Screamers.

Loved Screamers. I didn't know it was based on a PKD story until years after I saw it the first time which gave the film a little extra credibility to me.

(What happened to the other Blade Runner 2049 thread?)

Saw BR tonight and very much enjoyed it. I think it was probably twenty five percent better as a result of seeing it on a large screen, not least because of the powerful and haunting sound track. At nearly three hours long, and not being a terribly fast paced film I think it needs that extra boost that a cinema viewing gives it.
I saw the original a number of times and liked it a lot, and doing a bit of recapping by reading the Wikipedia page on the film payed dividends by helping me spot all of the more subtle references (eg the significance of the origami figure) to the original that I otherwise would have missed. There were one or two bits I was puzzled by

Spoiler

eg why was K left alive and free when Declare was captured

but in the main it hung together for me pretty well.
Harrison Ford wasn't brilliant (for me) but was passable, and Ryan Gosling was tip top. The cinematography was stunning and as noted the sound track excellent. All in all a fine follow up to the original with one small fly in the ointment - the female replicants, stunning though they were, hadn't the capacity to make me fall in love with them like the incomparable Sean Young!

Yeah I liked it .. and it gave the orig Blade Runner flick the purpose and context it lacked. Cinematography was dark in line with the original. So it maintained a sense of consistency. It had to be Harrison Ford .. I hated him m in the original .. but never really liked the original actually. I thought Ryan Gosling was great in it.