PLEASE NOTE - THE FOLLOWING IS A SPOILER FREE REVIEW. I WILL NOT REVEAL ANY MAJOR PLOT POINTS FROM THE MOVIE. "I did you job once. I was good at it"
In the history of movies no director has a totally flawless filmography. There are always one or two films where for some reason the magic didn't happen and the final product is a pile of poo. The best directors are those who are consistent, with a large number of highs and only have a handful of duds. And then there is Ridley Scott.
No-one in their right mind will argue that Ridley Scott is one of best directors Hollywood has ever had. He brought us such amazing movies like Alien, Thelma & Louise, Gladiator, American Gangster and The Martian. However, he also gave us such duds like GI Jane, Robin Hood and Exodus: Gods & Kings. He has had as many downs and he has had ups. That being said, when he's up, he is really up; his best efforts are rightly cinematic classics that stand the test of time extremely well. And then there is Blade Runner.
Like many movies that are now considered brilliant, Blade Runner did not initially do well at the box office, polarising critics and audiences. However since it's release in 1982, this futuristic film noir is directly responsible for the aesthetic look and feel of the majority of sci-fi movies, tv shows, manga/animation that has come out since. It cannot be stressed enough the impact of this film. Some people herald it a flawed masterpiece. Others call it over-rated. It is considered one of this "must see" classic films and yet many people haven't taken the time to watch it (or one of the 6 additional versions that came out over the years).
Many people were surprised when it was announced that a sequel was going to be made, especially given the poor track record for sequels to movies that came 15+ years ago. My initial response was "NOOOOOOO!". ThenI found out Ridley was producing and Harrison Ford would be reprising his role as Deckard, so then I was like "HMMMM". Then it was announced that Denis Villeneuve was directing. Once I saw both Sicaro and Arrival I was like "OMFG YES!".
So can Blade Runner 2049 be a box office hit, despite being a sequel to a 35 year old movie? Can Harrison Ford successfully reboot another of his greatest characters? Will cinematographer Roger Deakins finally get an Oscar for his efforts?
The story/plotIn 2049, artificial beings called replicants (which were considered outcasts in the first movie) have been integrated into society. Current "blade runner" K (played by Ryan Gosling) gets embroiled in a mystery and enlists the help of Deckard (Harrison Ford) a former blade runner who is now retired.
Overall opinionI have purposely left the plot a bit vague as to talk anymore about it would potentially spoil the movie and this is a non-spoiler review.
In generations past we have had master directors such as Hitchcock, Kubrick and Coppolla amongst others. In my opinion, Denis Villeneuve is THE current master director working today. He has yet to put a foot wrong with any of his movies. Couple his talent with Roger Deakins as cinematographer and you cannot go wrong.
When he was originally asked why he to do this movie, Villeneuve stated that he loved the original and wanted to make a sequel before anyone else messed it up! Villeneuve/Deakins have done an amazing job of recreating the futuristic neo-noir dirty lived-in feel of Ridley Scott's original movie, which easily allows this movie to truly feel like a sequel that takes place 30 years later in that world (especially when you compare Prometheus and Alien: Covenant to the 1979 Alien which could affect the viewing experience a little. But I digress).
Composers Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch have also done an amazing job of recreating the original 80s synth score and updating it to fit with what modern audiences have come to expect from big budget movies these days.
The casting is spot on too, with everyone on top form giving subtle, understated or nuanced performances as required. However beautiful it is to look at and well made a movie, it is not perfect. It is a tad long with a running time of 163 minutes. If the pacing is done well, then movies of that length just fly by. There are a few places where the running time could have been trimmed down without ruining the overall story. Also, just like Villeneuve's last movie Arrival, this movie has a thoughtful and slow to develop story that really takes time to develop character. As with the original 1982 version, they are not a lot of explosion, gun battles or action. Will that to be everyone's taste? Maybe. Hopefully. If the success and popularity of Arrival proved anything it's that thought-provoking character driven slow burn stories can exist in the sci-fi realm alongside the traditional action oriented movies.
Did I like this movie? Yes. Is it a great sequel? Yes/ Has it left a lasting impression on me? As of this moment, no (but not all movies are supposed to). Will this movie go on to be considered a classic like the original? Only time will tell, but I hope so.
The PerformancesRyan Gosling - KGosling gives a very understated and yet surprisingly emotional performance as K. It takes a great actor to express emotion while simultaneously having a passive face. Good job all round.
Harrison Ford - DeckardThe third time in recent years that Mr Ford has successfully "rebooted" one of his more iconic roles. If you have seen his body of work (when he puts the effort in) you already know what to expect from him performance wise. A couple of times I felt I was actually watching Harrison Ford rather than Deckard, but not in a bad way. His presence in the film is definitely justified and necessary.
Jared Leto - Niander WallaceYou would be remiss, thanks to al of off screen antics getting into character as the Joker for Suicide Squad, to view Jared Leto as just an OTT "method" actor. However, he is an Oscar winner for a reason. Here, he is wonderfully cast at the head of the organisation responsible for the new generation of replicants and does a great job given his limited screen time.
Robin Wright - Lt JoshiThe former Princess Buttercup is always a joy to behold on screen and brings a new dynamic to the "cop in charge" role that appears in many films. She also manages to avoid any of the cliched and stereotypical traits such a role usually has.
Ana de Armas - JoiAn AI "companion" to K, Ana brings some warmth and at times much needed connection for K. A look into the future of holographic AI perhaps.
Sylvia Hoeks - LuvA replicant that could be considered the "villain" of the movie, although that would be slightly inaccurate. She could be viewed as the upgraded replacement for Sean Young's Rachael in the original if one wanted to go that way when viewing the movie. Sylvia's performance is poised, calculated, cold and at times very menacing without the need for histrionics or scenery chewing.
Dave Bautista - Sapper MortonRemember the time when it was a joke casting a wrestler in your movie? However, thanks to the success of The Rock we now can take wrestlers seriously when they pop up in films. Bautista owns the role of Drax in GOTG, however, in this film he plays a very different character. I almost didn't recognise him at first.
OTHER STUFFThe CGI
As influential as the original movie was, it didn't actually have a lot of CGI due to budget constraints. It relied a lot of matte paintings and miniatures. However, with a bigger budget and modern technology at his disposal Villeneuve accurately manages to recreate and update the world while still making it all seem real and lived in. Quite an achievement, especially with one character in particular.
The cinematography
Beautifully shot. Roger Deakins is one of the best in the business and the fact he hasn't yet won an Oscar is a crime.
The pacing
As previously mentioned, the pacing in some areas could have been tightened up as the film does feel like 163 mins long. My mind didn't wander, except for the last 45 mins when I really needed to pee but didn't want to miss anything.
Final verdictAnother fantastic, slow burn, grown-up sci-fi movie from Denis Villeneuve. After rewatching the original movie last night to get me reacquainted with this world, it felt like a natural progression into this one. Great acting from all involved with a mystery that does keep you engaged and guessing.
Score - 8/10My Movie rating system
10- Citizen "F*%king" Kane (A+)
9- Bloody Great (A)
8- Really rather good (A-)
7- Pretty decent (B+)
6- Definitely above average (B)
5- Middle of the road average (C)
4- Mediocre (D)
3- Meh (E)
2- Crap (F)
1- Why the hell did I waste my my time and money on this abomination (unrated)
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Is box office failure a good way to judge the quality of a movie?Upon writing this (Sunday at 7pm) Blade Runner 2049 currently has an opening box office on $31.5 million. Obviously I liked the movie and this figure surprised me. However, I hope that people don't just look at the box office number and assume it is a bad movie.
Forgive me for a second while I list a few movies that all have something in common:
Blade Runner
The Shawshank Redemption
It's a Wonderful Life
Citizen Kane
The Wizard of Oz
All of these movies are rightly considered cinematic masterpieces, beloved by any generations of film lovers. And yet, every single one was a flop at the box office. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.
So my question, do you let box office numbers influence your decision to watch a movie?
