Blade Runner 2049
2.5/4
Starring: Ryan Gosling, Ana de Armas, Robin Wright, Sylvia Hoeks, Jared Leto, Harrison Ford
Rated R for Violence, Some Sexuality, Nudity and Language
When faced with a dilemma like this, the question a film critic has to ask himself or herself is this: do I write from popular opinion, or my own heart? "Blade Runner 2049" is a highly anticipated movie, and the reception from critics and audiences has been rapturous. But in all honesty, I really don't think its a good movie. Rest assured, I'll tell you why.
Much has changed since Rick Dekard's (Ford) first outing. After a brutal rebellion, replicants were outlawed, bankrupting the Tyrell Corporation (which gives me hope that, in the near future, our lobbying laws will be severely curtailed). Now, a man named Niander Wallace (Leto), has completely reworked the agricultural landscape and revamped the replicant program by making them obedient. Older models from Dekard's era are still "retired" by newer models like K (Gosling). After one such outing, K sees something underground. It turns out that they are the bones of a replicant, and evidence proved that she gave birth. Such a revelation is incredibly dangerous, and as K's superior, Lt. Joshi (Wright), points out, there plenty of people who would kill to suppress it.
The problem with this movie is two-fold: a screenplay that thinks its far deeper and more sophisticated than it actually is, and the choice of director Denis Villeneuve. This movie has one of those screenplays that has its characters talk and talk in this deep metaphysical dialogue, which, for a sci-fi film inspired by a Phillip K. Dick story, would be fine. The problem is, they aren't saying anything of substance. It's just an attempt to camouflage the fact that film's plot is totally routine and every twist is predictable from the 20 minute mark. The final one is not, but instead of being a real revelation, it cheapens the proceedings.
To one degree or another, Denis Villeneuve has been guilty of pretentiousness and self-indulgence. He directs his movies with a sense of seriousness that they don't earn. "Sicario," "Prisoners," "Arrival," and to an extent "Incendies," all felt like conventional movies trying to be groundbreaking. That hasn't changed here. This is a stiff, cold and emotionless movie, and it is also far too long for its own good. This is a movie that could have been told in two hours, give or take. That's 45 minutes that could, and probably should, have been cut out. I'm not against long movies in principle, but that's only when they earn it. Villeneuve doesn't. At least the film looks gorgeous, although considering that it was Roger Deakins behind the camera, that's not a surprise.
The acting doesn't impress much. Ryan Gosling is one of our best and most daring actors. He played a Jewish neo-Nazi in "The Believer" and a mostly emotionless action hero in "Drive." He's always interesting to watch, but here he's going through the motions. K just isn't very interesting. Much more compelling is Joi (de Armas), his AI companion. Of all the characters on screen, she's the one I felt for the most. The rest of the cast, including a truly creepy Jared Leto and a menacing Sylvia Hoeks, is fine. Harrison Ford also returns, but not until the last 45 minutes of the movie.
On a technical side, this movie has it. The visuals are striking, with several moments almost worth the price of admission in and of themselves. But the story is boring, the lead character is a dullard, and the film is way too long. I like science fiction, but this one just didn't do it for me.
Starring: Ryan Gosling, Ana de Armas, Robin Wright, Sylvia Hoeks, Jared Leto, Harrison Ford
Rated R for Violence, Some Sexuality, Nudity and Language
When faced with a dilemma like this, the question a film critic has to ask himself or herself is this: do I write from popular opinion, or my own heart? "Blade Runner 2049" is a highly anticipated movie, and the reception from critics and audiences has been rapturous. But in all honesty, I really don't think its a good movie. Rest assured, I'll tell you why.
Much has changed since Rick Dekard's (Ford) first outing. After a brutal rebellion, replicants were outlawed, bankrupting the Tyrell Corporation (which gives me hope that, in the near future, our lobbying laws will be severely curtailed). Now, a man named Niander Wallace (Leto), has completely reworked the agricultural landscape and revamped the replicant program by making them obedient. Older models from Dekard's era are still "retired" by newer models like K (Gosling). After one such outing, K sees something underground. It turns out that they are the bones of a replicant, and evidence proved that she gave birth. Such a revelation is incredibly dangerous, and as K's superior, Lt. Joshi (Wright), points out, there plenty of people who would kill to suppress it.
The problem with this movie is two-fold: a screenplay that thinks its far deeper and more sophisticated than it actually is, and the choice of director Denis Villeneuve. This movie has one of those screenplays that has its characters talk and talk in this deep metaphysical dialogue, which, for a sci-fi film inspired by a Phillip K. Dick story, would be fine. The problem is, they aren't saying anything of substance. It's just an attempt to camouflage the fact that film's plot is totally routine and every twist is predictable from the 20 minute mark. The final one is not, but instead of being a real revelation, it cheapens the proceedings.
To one degree or another, Denis Villeneuve has been guilty of pretentiousness and self-indulgence. He directs his movies with a sense of seriousness that they don't earn. "Sicario," "Prisoners," "Arrival," and to an extent "Incendies," all felt like conventional movies trying to be groundbreaking. That hasn't changed here. This is a stiff, cold and emotionless movie, and it is also far too long for its own good. This is a movie that could have been told in two hours, give or take. That's 45 minutes that could, and probably should, have been cut out. I'm not against long movies in principle, but that's only when they earn it. Villeneuve doesn't. At least the film looks gorgeous, although considering that it was Roger Deakins behind the camera, that's not a surprise.
The acting doesn't impress much. Ryan Gosling is one of our best and most daring actors. He played a Jewish neo-Nazi in "The Believer" and a mostly emotionless action hero in "Drive." He's always interesting to watch, but here he's going through the motions. K just isn't very interesting. Much more compelling is Joi (de Armas), his AI companion. Of all the characters on screen, she's the one I felt for the most. The rest of the cast, including a truly creepy Jared Leto and a menacing Sylvia Hoeks, is fine. Harrison Ford also returns, but not until the last 45 minutes of the movie.
On a technical side, this movie has it. The visuals are striking, with several moments almost worth the price of admission in and of themselves. But the story is boring, the lead character is a dullard, and the film is way too long. I like science fiction, but this one just didn't do it for me.
Comments
Post a Comment