Blade Runner 2049 (15.)
Directed by Denis Villeneuve.
Starring Ryan Gosling, Harrison Ford, Ana de Armas, Jared Leto, Sylvia Hoek and Robin Wright. 163 mins
It's still raining, after all these years.
The 35 years later sequel is a decidedly tricky proposition, an itch you know you shouldn't scratch. What do you add? What do you keep? And where in all this do you find a point? In revisiting the world of Deckard and replicants and it's-too-bad-she-won't-live,-but-then-again,-who-does, the filmmakers have given us new characters, new sights and a satisfying new storyline, while really just rehashing the original. It's an upgrade certainly, but still a copy; a very superior skinjob.
This is clearest in the choice of music. Shortly before its release the original score by Johann Johannsson was dumped in favour of one by Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch that largely rejigs the first film's Vangelis soundtrack.
Just like Ridley Scott's classic, its impact is primarily visual. Cinematographer Roger Deakins had the biggest challenge of anyone on the film: how to make something fresh when every other sci-fi film of the 35 years has copied the Blade Runner look. Deakins expands and updates the world beautifully with a succession of overwhelming images, but there are still plenty of moments when it looks like a high brow version of Ghost In The Shell.
When Blade Runner 2 (lest you were wondering how the other 2047 Blade Runner sequels had slipped past without you noticing) harks back to the original, it isn't the 1982 Blade Runner, the sci-fi thriller that was a box office failure; it's the dreamy arthouse Blade Runner that Scott refashioned it into over the years. For his sequel, Villeneuve has gone straight to the Director's Cut. It is slow and quiet and indulgent, far more than any other film costing this kind of money and not directed by Christopher Nolan would be allowed to be. The assumption is that the affection for the original will allow them to get away with this, but this may be a problem when the young'uns wander in expecting some kind of futuristic action flick. For them it will be like looking at some very beautiful paint dry.
The film's great addition is Gosling as the new Blade Runner. This time there is no ambiguity, we know he is a replicant. It suits Gosling: he's a leading man persona, covering an enormously resourceful actor. It's a new character, so strictly speaking he isn't stepping into another man's shoes, but there's something almost indecent about how much at home he makes himself. His semi-profile looks perfect set against the futuristic skyline. LA is his kind of dystopian city backdrop. You wonder if you really need Harrison Ford at all.
Few actors have worn the terrible burden of stardom as gracelessly as Harrison Ford. Over the last decade it has seemed like he was trying to trash all his own iconic roles: reviving Indy for the disastrous Crystal Skull; bringing back Hans Solo just to have him killed off. When the news came through that the long threatened Blade Runner sequel was actually happening it seemed only John Book was safe; unless there is a Witness 2 being planned. He looked grumpy and decrepit in the early publicity photos. A 75 year old man has every right to a bit old, but surely a 75 year old movie star would have someone take care of him to make sure he doesn't look his age in pre-publicity shots, unless he'd upset everyone involved. This time though he's back with dignity, though at times Deckard seems like an onlooker.
There's a euphoria around this release, a thrill that it isn't terrible but something worthwhile (that, say it softly, it isn't the film you feared Ridley might have made) that means people are possibly overboarding it. I'm not sure how much substance there is beneath the surface. Not all of the new characters work: Leto gives us an overblown impersonation of Tyrell from the first film and Hoek is aggravatingly bland in the villain role. Lady, this is your big break: try and do something more than a scowling version of the woman from NCIS
I remember seeing Blade Runner the week of release, when most people were still describing it as boring, and being awed by it, thinking it was the most amazing sci-fi film since 2001. Over the years though I tired of it, began to see the joins, and the images began to lose their lustre. And this is the point of 2049: it's Blade Runner for people who are tired of watching Blade Runner.
Directed by Denis Villeneuve.
Starring Ryan Gosling, Harrison Ford, Ana de Armas, Jared Leto, Sylvia Hoek and Robin Wright. 163 mins
It's still raining, after all these years.
The 35 years later sequel is a decidedly tricky proposition, an itch you know you shouldn't scratch. What do you add? What do you keep? And where in all this do you find a point? In revisiting the world of Deckard and replicants and it's-too-bad-she-won't-live,-but-then-again,-who-does, the filmmakers have given us new characters, new sights and a satisfying new storyline, while really just rehashing the original. It's an upgrade certainly, but still a copy; a very superior skinjob.
This is clearest in the choice of music. Shortly before its release the original score by Johann Johannsson was dumped in favour of one by Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch that largely rejigs the first film's Vangelis soundtrack.
Just like Ridley Scott's classic, its impact is primarily visual. Cinematographer Roger Deakins had the biggest challenge of anyone on the film: how to make something fresh when every other sci-fi film of the 35 years has copied the Blade Runner look. Deakins expands and updates the world beautifully with a succession of overwhelming images, but there are still plenty of moments when it looks like a high brow version of Ghost In The Shell.
When Blade Runner 2 (lest you were wondering how the other 2047 Blade Runner sequels had slipped past without you noticing) harks back to the original, it isn't the 1982 Blade Runner, the sci-fi thriller that was a box office failure; it's the dreamy arthouse Blade Runner that Scott refashioned it into over the years. For his sequel, Villeneuve has gone straight to the Director's Cut. It is slow and quiet and indulgent, far more than any other film costing this kind of money and not directed by Christopher Nolan would be allowed to be. The assumption is that the affection for the original will allow them to get away with this, but this may be a problem when the young'uns wander in expecting some kind of futuristic action flick. For them it will be like looking at some very beautiful paint dry.
The film's great addition is Gosling as the new Blade Runner. This time there is no ambiguity, we know he is a replicant. It suits Gosling: he's a leading man persona, covering an enormously resourceful actor. It's a new character, so strictly speaking he isn't stepping into another man's shoes, but there's something almost indecent about how much at home he makes himself. His semi-profile looks perfect set against the futuristic skyline. LA is his kind of dystopian city backdrop. You wonder if you really need Harrison Ford at all.
Few actors have worn the terrible burden of stardom as gracelessly as Harrison Ford. Over the last decade it has seemed like he was trying to trash all his own iconic roles: reviving Indy for the disastrous Crystal Skull; bringing back Hans Solo just to have him killed off. When the news came through that the long threatened Blade Runner sequel was actually happening it seemed only John Book was safe; unless there is a Witness 2 being planned. He looked grumpy and decrepit in the early publicity photos. A 75 year old man has every right to a bit old, but surely a 75 year old movie star would have someone take care of him to make sure he doesn't look his age in pre-publicity shots, unless he'd upset everyone involved. This time though he's back with dignity, though at times Deckard seems like an onlooker.
There's a euphoria around this release, a thrill that it isn't terrible but something worthwhile (that, say it softly, it isn't the film you feared Ridley might have made) that means people are possibly overboarding it. I'm not sure how much substance there is beneath the surface. Not all of the new characters work: Leto gives us an overblown impersonation of Tyrell from the first film and Hoek is aggravatingly bland in the villain role. Lady, this is your big break: try and do something more than a scowling version of the woman from NCIS
I remember seeing Blade Runner the week of release, when most people were still describing it as boring, and being awed by it, thinking it was the most amazing sci-fi film since 2001. Over the years though I tired of it, began to see the joins, and the images began to lose their lustre. And this is the point of 2049: it's Blade Runner for people who are tired of watching Blade Runner.
