iamdanielyoon - Tumblr blog

iamdanielyoon · 7 years ago

Text

Blade Runner 2049 REVIEW (2.0)

*This post has been updated. Some things have been changed...

Rating:

***/*****

B-

80%

Notes: I watched the film with my father, who fell asleep for most of the film. His thoughts? Summed up: That was weird.

Bought an 11,500 won popcorn combo that came with 2 blueberry ades (sodas). And a large popcorn. Obviously.

The theater was mostly empty but there were possibly 15 people in the 160 seat theater.

Got seats in row C, seats 11 and 12. Smack dab in the middle and in a place where the screen was close enough to fill most of my field of vision.

The Predecessor

Audiences, and critics, called the original Blade Runner an esoteric film. Never before has a film been characterized so aptly. Wes Anderson is niche. David Fincher is focused. Steven Spielberg is talented. J.J. Abrams is new cinema. I hate to be so condensed in my perspective of them, but I’ll chalk it up to the short attention spans present in the online world. I hope I got my point across, though. All of these attributes I attributed to each of these accomplished directors can be seen as positive or negative. I, personally, am a fan of all of the directors I mentioned. I haven’t loved all of their works, or even seen all of their works, to be honest, but I do acknowledge their ability in crafting stories (although I have finished viewing the filmographies of J.J. Abrams and David Fincher). Their narratives have a distinct flair and I respect the craft they bring to the industry.

The connotation attached to the term ‘esoteric,’ however, was that the film was meant for a niche audience. Specifically, Blade Runner was for those who liked noir and sci-fi stories. The film is not like Looper (2012) or Star Trek (2009), far from it. So don’t expect anything like that sort of thing going into it. The film is, at its core, a detective story. In terms of “mature” film, the Coen brothers can be comparable in terms of pacing, I suppose. But while the Coens have fascinating dialogue and well-executed editing, Blade Runner (1982) was more of a plodding crime story. It meanders and it doesn’t pander. It is for a specific set of people yet the film has been a major influence in the sci-fi genre, in all mediums. In a rare instance, the scathing, often empty critiques of Cinema Sins on the film were accurate. The fantastical visual imagery of its time nonetheless does not make for a sufficient story, a well-told narrative or a propelling plot. Critics and audiences complain about that in cinema to this day and yet they gladly overlook those faults in this film [http://bit.ly/2rdYkKg].

So let’s get my thoughts on the original Blade Runner out of the way. I watched The Final Cut (2007): the one recommended by Blade Runner 2049’s director Denis Villeneuve. Like films of the past that had dark, gritty, grimy, seedy sci-fi worlds, Blade Runner had great production design. Ridley Scott is a flawed director, one who has had his fair share of duds and head-scratchers, but one thing you cannot deny is the man’s attention for detail and his extensive use of practical effects. The props used in The Martian (2015) were gorgeous. Blade Runner is no different. To cut my thoughts on the original short, here are my thoughts in a nutshell: Overrated; interesting sound design; weird parts; strange change in atmosphere/tone in the final act (something I believe Cinema Sins touched on) and overall a mediocre experience.

The World

What’s lovely about this film is the fact that this film remains grounded within a future of the established universe. Time has progressed in the world of Blade Runner’s, not our own. Time has not been altered or changed to reflect modern tastes. Touch screens and head-up-displays that are prominent in our modern cinema have very little to do with the established world of Blade Runner. The Voigt-Kampff test is a technology that was interesting in the sense that it remains iconic and fascinating from a filmmaking perspective. It provided some memorable characters and scenes. And this film adds new vehicles, weapons and a great cinematographer to its established universe and polishes out the rough edges that were present in the original.

Acting

Blade Runner 2049 stars Ryan Gosling in his second role in which he actually gets to show that he can act (the first being La La Land (2016)). For some reason, people like to project onto, and thus warp, actors’ performances so that they think that blank, expressionless actors have fantastic range. While some actors do have genuinely subtle acting, others, like Gosling, seem unable to emote. Most of the time, people submit that acting, in its best form is subtle (See: Oscars). Other times they suggest that powerhouse and extremely emotional performances like Hugh Jackman’s from Prisoners (2013) is what constitutes a great performance. While I do realize that acting requires immense talent, incommensurate kinds of methods for getting into character, a cooperation between all the major filmmakers involved, and more, I lean more towards James Franco’s performance in 127 Hours (2010) than Colin Firth’s in The King’s Speech (2010). #JamesFrancowasrobbed. I would like to not thank the Academy for not giving the award to Franco. But rarely do I say that the casting for a film was impeccable. Sometimes certain performances win over the people, sometimes it’s a great chance for actors to branch out, sometimes there are surprises from left field, but in a few rare cases, it’s hard to see anyone else in a role. Ryan Gosling is great for K, Harrison Ford returns in good form as Deckard, Bautista brings something truly unexpected in his role and there is an integral character with a small role overall that I thought was absolutely pitch perfect. After I saw her and Robin Wright’s subtle acting it cemented my thoughts on the film in the acting sphere. It’s superbly cast. The small important character was the actual performance that I was most pleased by in this film, however. And Jared Leto was interesting as the eccentric, blind, rich man… I think.

Music (Score)

Hans Zimmer’s talents are squandered in this film. He’s been able to collaborate to great effect in films like The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014), as flawed and bad as the film was, the score is worth mentioning. And prior to that, Zimmer had worked with co-composers on the first two Kung Fu Panda films to create some surprisingly resonant, memorable scores (2008 & 2011). But instead for this film, he’s to do his rendition of the original film’s compositions. He’s got to do Vangelis, again. Thirty-five years later. I get it. People like the original’s score. People worship Zimmer and Blade Runner, sometimes they happen to do both. For the original Blade Runner, that composer’s sound was an iconic part of it, sure. Doesn’t mean it was timeless. Hans Zimmer got a lot of flak for making his own version of the Batman theme in The Dark Knight trilogy, and the world is all the better for it. Here, he is boxed in the world of Blade Runner. Here, he is chained by the fans of the original. The film suffers because of those fans. Instead of going in new directions like Giacchino for Jurassic World (2015), Star Trek (2009), Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014), War for the Planet of the Apes (2017) or Rogue One (2016); instead of Denis Villeneuve bringing back the composer he previously collaborated with in 2015 for Sicario, Johann Johannsen, we are given a bland fan offering.

I suppose they didn’t want fan backlash from the small contingent of fans that actually do exist. And by that I mean, the fans that exist for Blade Runner seem to be in small numbers so why worry about upsetting them? Look at the box office for the film. Instead of pandering to such a tiny audience, the filmmakers had the opportunity to please core fans and expand its audience. Furthermore, it’s unheard of for a $185 million budget film to be given plenty of artistic license. Movies may be art, sometimes, but the unfortunate truth is that any commercial product inevitably exists to make profit. Games, music, fashion: they all exist, for the most part, not for artistic expression but to make money. Warner Bros. and co. were generous enough to not chokehold the production a la Alien 3 or the original Blade Runner. But once again, I’m drawn back to my original thought. Denis Villeneuve seems to always have done things his way and in a manner that stays true to his vision. So why be a part of a franchise and keep things so monotonous? There are moments when I notice the film’s music is about to head to something great, and then it veers back towards comfortable synth sci-fi. The score is about to become something different and have its own identity, but then loses its confidence and returns to its identity as a Blade Runner sequel. Film score snobs, music critics and whoever else may heap praise upon Zimmer and his Dunkirk (2017) collaborator Ben W. for this film, but I won’t be one of them. Zimmer and his new buddy (Zimmer worked well with Junkie XL in Batman V Superman (2016), offering up unique and resounding themes for its protagonists; Junkie XL also previously crafted a great, fresh score for Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)) are forced to placate the appetites of voracious fans instead of going in bold, new directions. I dislike the music. You might like it. And you’re free to do so. Music, I find, is a far more divisive medium than film concerning tastes. So go nuts and go crazy for all I care. Yo Yo Ma spoke about music that sounded good to him [http://bit.ly/2DzAURY]. The music in the Blade Runner universe doesn’t sound good to me. For more perspective on how the original film’s sound and soundtrack are layered and the like, you can see Nerdwriter1’s video on the matter [http://bit.ly/2DlKNoy].

Cinematography

The cinematography is so darn good. I’d curse if I was so inclined, but I don’t, thus my use of the word: ‘darn’. When used right, the visuals in a film can heighten the action, improve the pacing and add meaning to everything. The locked camera of Jackie Chan and Hong Kong directors make the action far more interesting than in Hollywood blockbusters with people flailing around in darkness (See EFAP’s video on Jackie Chan: http://bit.ly/2FGennp). Blade Runner 2049 reunites director Denis V. and cinematographer Roger Deakins. I’m just going to state for the record that I’m a fan. A big fan. I want to watch every film Deakins has ever done because seeing his work in this century’s films, I’m truly blown away. Directors need to work with a number of people to block, but a cinematographer like Deakins makes the final product that much more artistic. Everything moves with purpose. The camera work is streamlined and masterful. I can’t really express in words how he does what he does besides a few interviews Deakins has done himself and a video by Tony Zhou (Every Frame A Painting, a truly artful man with a way with words. And a quick message to Zhou, if he somehow stumbles across my writing: Please come back to your channel and continue to do video essays. Please. We all miss you. Come back. Please.) [http://bit.ly/2B3Ps9q]. The visual artistry of this film is profound. Denis and Roger should continue to work together for as long as possible.

Story/Plot/Narrative

The story of Blade Runner 2049 has a similar progression to its predecessor, in certain aspects. Its broad narrative is an investigation with mystery in a sci-fi setting. Whereas the previous film meanders, wastes time with its groundbreaking visual effects (there are shots of the iconic buildings that are just viewed from different angles with synth music blasting) and overall the plot devolves in its final act (turning into a slasher film, as noted by Cinema Sins, I’m not calling them good or critic-worthy but they occasionally do make some valid points)—this film is much more focused. This film finds a solid story progression but it too finds ways to slow down its story. There are lulls in between the acting, the spectacle, the visuals and the narrative. Although the argument can be made that the lulls are necessary, how you react to them can be a large indicator of what kind of moviegoer you are. If you perceive The Revenant (2015), Memento (2000), No Country For Old Men (2007) or Gravity (2013) as niche, indie, weird, dumb or boring, Blade Runner and its sequel are definitely not for you. Of note: all the previous films I mentioned in the preceding sentence are ones I enjoy. Note: I enjoy them. You don’t have to. You can have your own opinion. You’re free to express that... For the most part. Anyways, on the bright side the film finds philosophic ideas to explore, interesting sci-fi settings to discover… but I found it to be more of a specifically satisfying affair. Like the original Blade Runner, Rogue One, Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015), Captain America: Civil War (2016), The Avengers (2012) and Terminator (1984), I understand why people like this film. But it doesn’t mean that I have to. I respect the craft and artistry. I do. But it’s not something that connects with me. It’s not that it falls flat. It’s just that the sum of its parts do not add up to a greater whole. I shouldn’t be analyzing a film based on math but I’m just trying to make a point. Blade Runner 2049 is exceptional filmmaking… but it’s niche in its appeal. It’s finely tuned, for the right group.

What do you think?

#Blade Runner #Review #Blade Runner 2049 #Movie #Film #Cinema #2017 #No TLDR #Pros #Cons #Thoughts #Not really analysis #Opinion #Sci fi #denis villeneuve #Think

2 notes · View notes

iamdanielyoon · 8 years ago

Text

Blade Runner 2049 Review

***/*****

B-

80%

9:30pm

2D Digital

10/17/17

--------------------------

Notes:

Mostly empty theater but there were possibly 15 people in the 160 seat theater.

Got seats in row C, seats 11 and 12. Smack dab in the middle and a place where the screen was close enough to fill most of my field of vision.

------------------

The connotation attached to the term ‘esoteric,’ however, was that the film was meant for those who liked noir & sci-fi stories. The film is not like Looper (2012) or Star Trek (2009), far from it. So don’t expect anything like that sort of thing going into it. The film is, at its core, a detective story. In terms of mature film, the Coen brothers can be comparable in terms of pacing, I suppose. But where the Coens have fascinating dialogue and well-executed editing, Blade Runner (1982) was more of a plodding crime story. It meanders and it doesn’t pander. It is for a specific set of people yet the film has been a major influence in the sci-fi genre, in all mediums. In this rare instance, the scathing, often empty, certain critiques of CinemaSins on the film were accurate. The fantastical visual imagery of its time nonetheless does not make a sufficient story, a well-told narrative or a propelling plot. Critics and audiences complain about that in cinema to this day and yet they gladly overlook those faults in this film.

So let’s get my thoughts on the original Blade Runner out of the way. I watched The Final Cut (2007): the one recommended by Blade Runner 2049’s director Denis Villeneuve. Like films of the past that had dark, gritty, grimy, seedy sci-fi worlds, Blade Runner had great production design. Ridley Scott is a flawed director, one who has had his fair share of duds and head-scratchers, but one thing you cannot deny is the man’s attention for detail and his extensive use of practical effects. The props used in The Martian (2015) were gorgeous. Blade Runner is no different. To cut my thoughts on the original short, here are my thoughts in a nutshell: Overrated; interesting sound design; weird parts; strange change in atmosphere/tone in final act (something I believe CinemaSins touched on) and overall a mediocre experience.

What’s lovely about this film is the fact that this film remains grounded within a future of that universe. Time has not been altered or changed to reflect modern tastes. Touch screens and head-up-displays that are prominent in our modern cinema have very little to do with the established world of Blade Runner. The Voigt-Kampff test is a technology that was interesting in the sense that it remains iconic and fascinating from a filmmaking perspective. And this film adds new vehicles, weapons and a great cinematographer to its established universe and polishes out the rough edges that were present in the original.

Blade Runner 2049 stars Ryan Gosling in his second role in which he actually gets to show that he can act (the first being La La Land (2016)). Most of the time, people submit that acting, in its best (see Oscars) form is subtle. Other times they suggest that powerhouse, extremely emotional performances like Hugh Jackman’s from Prisoners (2013) is what constitutes a great performance. While I do realize that acting requires immense talent, incommensurate kinds of methods for getting into character, a cooperation between all the major filmmakers involved, and more, I lean more towards James Franco’s performance in 127 Hours (2010) than Colin Firth’s in The King’s Speech (2010). #JamesFrancowasrobbed. But rarely do I say that the casting for a film was impeccable. Sometimes certain performances win over the people, sometimes it’s a great chance for actors to branch out, sometimes there are surprises from left field, but in a few rare cases, it’s hard to see anyone else in a role. Ryan Gosling is great for K, Harrison Ford returns in good form as Deckard, Bautista brings something truly unexpected in his role and there is an integral character with a small role overall that is pitch perfect. After I saw her and Robin Wright’s subtle acting it cemented my thoughts on the film in the acting sphere. It’s superbly cast. The small important character was the actual performance that I was most pleased by in this film, however. Jared Leto was interesting as the eccentric, blind, rich man… I think.

Hans Zimmer’s talents are squandered in this film. He’s been able to collaborate to great effect in films like The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014), as flawed and bad as it was, and the first two Kung Fu Panda films (2008 & 2011). But instead he’s to do his rendition of the original film’s compositions. He’s got to do Vangelis, again. Thirty-five years later. I get it. People like the original’s score. People worship Zimmer and Blade Runner, sometimes they happen to do both. For the original Blade Runner, that composer’s sound was an iconic part of it, sure. Doesn’t mean it was timeless. Hans Zimmer got a lot of flak for making his own version of the Batman theme in The Dark Knight trilogy, and the world is all the better for it. Here, he is boxed in the world of Blade Runner. Here, he is chained by the fans of the original. The film suffers because of those fans. Instead of going in new directions like Giacchino for Jurassic World (2015), Star Trek (2009), Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014), War for the Planet of the Apes (2017) or Rogue One (2016); instead of bringing back the composer that he previously collaborated with in 2015 for Sicario, Johann Johannsen, we are given a bland fan offering. There are moments when I notice the film’s music is about to head to something great, and then it veers towards synth sci-fi. Film score snobs, music critics and whoever else may heap praise upon Zimmer and his Dunkirk (2017) collaborator Ben W. for this film, but I won’t be one of them. Zimmer and his new buddy (Zimmer worked well with Junkie XL in Batman V Superman (2016); Junkie XL previously crafted a great score for Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)) are forced to placate the appetites of voracious fans instead of going in bold, new directions. I dislike the music. You might like it. And you’re free to do so. Music, I find, is a far more divisive medium concerning tastes than film. So go nuts and go crazy for all I care. Yo Yo Ma spoke about music that sounded good to him. The music in the Blade Runner universe doesn’t sound good to me. For more perspective on how the original film’s sound and soundtrack are layered and the like, you can see Nerdwriter1’s video on the matter.

The cinematography is so darn good. When used right, the visuals in a film can heighten the action, improve the pacing and make meaning of everything. The locked camera of Jackie Chan and Hong Kong directors make the action far more interesting than in Hollywood blockbusters with people flailing around in darkness (See EFAP’s video on Jackie Chan). Blade Runner 2049 reunites director Denis V. and cinematographer Roger Deakins. I’m just going to state for the record that I’m a fan. A big fan. I want to watch every film Deakins has ever done because seeing his work in this century’s films, I’m truly blown away. Directors need to work with a bunch of people to block and all, but a cinematographer like Deakins makes the final product that much better. Everything moves with purpose. The camera work is streamlined and masterful. I can’t really express in words how he does what he does besides a few interviews Deakins has done himself and a video by Tony Zhou (Every Frame A Painting, a truly artful man with a way with words. And a quick message to Zhou, if he somehow stumbles across my writing: Please come back to your channel and continue to do video essays. Please. We all miss you. Come back. Please.). The visual artistry of this film is profound. Denis and Roger should continue to work together for as long as possible.

The story of Blade Runner 2049 has a similar progression to its predecessor, in certain aspects. Its broad narrative is an investigation with mystery in a sci-fi setting. Whereas the previous film meanders, wastes time with its groundbreaking visual effects (there are shots of the iconic buildings that are just viewed from different angles with synth music blasting) and overall the plot devolves in its final act (turning into a slasher film, as noted by CinemaSins, I’m not calling CS good or critic-worthy but they occasionally do make some valid points)—this film is much more focused. This film finds a solid story progression but it too finds ways to slow down its story. There are lulls in between the acting, the spectacle, the visuals and the narrative. Although the argument can be made that the lulls are necessary, how you react to them can be a large indicator of what kind of moviegoer you are. If you perceive The Revenant (2015), Memento (2000), No Country For Old Men (2007) or Gravity (2013) as niche, indie, weird, dumb or boring, Blade Runner and its sequel are definitely not for you. Of note: all the previous films I mentioned in that sentence are ones I enjoy. Note: I enjoy them. You don’t have to. You can have your own dang opinion. You’re free to express that... For the most part. Anyways, on the bright side the film finds philosophic ideas to explore, interesting sci-fi settings to discover and the like… but I found it to be more of a specifically satisfying affair. Like the original Blade Runner, Rogue One, Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015), Captain America: Civil War (2016), The Avengers (2012) and Terminator (1984), I understand why people like this film. But it doesn’t mean that I have to. I respect the craft and artistry. I do. But it’s not something that connects with me. It’s not that it falls flat. It’s just that the sum of its parts do not add up to a greater whole. I shouldn’t be analyzing a film based on math but I’m just trying to make a point. BR 2049 is exceptional filmmaking… but it’s rare in its appeal. It’s finely tuned, for the right group.

TL;DR: Not for me, but I respect the craft. 3/5 stars

#Blade Runner #Blade Runner 2049 #Review #Film #Cinema #Movie #Discussion #2017 #October #Movie references #Text #Long #80%#B-#3 stars #3/5 #Sci fi #Blockbuster #denis villeneuve #Thoughts

4 notes · View notes