Blade Runner 2049

Wow. I was surprisingly satisfied with that. The original Blade Runner was many things, but I'd never call it satisfying. That's part of its charm in fact. But this movie's ending really packed a wallop.

Before I begin the compliments (and a couple of nits) I want to praise the filmmakers for doing something I never believed they would do. Going in I expected this to be a blockbuster, explosive, action-packed, popcorn flick. Which was NOT the first film at all. But that's what happen to film sequels that are relaunched decades later. If anything the pacing is even slower here than the original (the film is also 45 minutes longer) and the action in the climax is a more personal hand-to-hand life-or-death struggle (like the first film), rather than a blow-'em-up. Whatever else you want to say about the movie, it did right by the first.

I feel this is more than a sequel. I think the correct term is a Supplement. I don't like Blade Runner's future. It's ambiguous enough to make you yourself question the morality, without the characters ever seeming to bother to. The future just sucks, and everyone is resigned to it. If anything, Blade Runner 2049 is even uglier, and it's designed to be. We were never really sure of the Replicants' motives in the first film. But it was hinted by the Human characters they simply went nuts and all became psychotic killers. But the morality of the film was always questionable. Basically the solution was to kill every single Replicant in existence whether or not they had been complicit with that rebellion or not. No trials, no questions asked. Are we really sure the Blade Runners are actually the good guys? Making the protagonist of this film a Replicant made me question all of that.

And in this film the humans seems a bit cold, but both K and Joi take pleasures in the simple things like feeling the rain. And he's treated like nothing but a second-class citizen throughout the entire film. He could potentially be executed for failing his most recent baseline reading. This points out, whatever set the Replicants off in the first film, they actually had a point. They weren't crazy. They were fed up.

Feminists seem to be in an uproar over the gratuitous female nudity, and how all of the females and Replicants are being used and abused by men. And speaking as someone who think Game Of Thrones sucks ass, I take those complaints seriously. That being said, I'm a guy. I like nudity in movies. How am I so sure that the excessive nudity here was not exploitative? Because it was kind of repulsive. It was off-putting. I didn't get aroused seeing those scenes. I was made uncomfortable. It deliberately shows how much the Universe sucks. It's not done with a wink and nod like it is on Game Of Thrones. It's upsetting. Which tells me that feminists complaining about that specific thing are missing the point. They are SUPPOSED to be upset by it. That is not a failing of the film. It's simply working as intended.

The sex scene between Marietta, Joi, and K also gained some criticism, but I actually find it both creepy and sexy at the same time. What's interesting is that it is the sex scene where the nudity itself is more suggested than the other graphic nude scenes. It's supposed to be sort of erotic, so there is some mystery attached.

I like that the thing that makes Deckard stop the knock-down, drag-out with K is that he likes the song. I like that song too. I'd stop fighting and listen to it too.

Is Deckard a Replicant? Ridley Scott says he is, and the film doesn't say for sure either way. I personally don't see it. That's a huge thing, and if he were, it would have come up. The filmmakers thought they were being cute with the ambiguous clues they were leaving that suggested that particular popular theory might be true. The truth is, if it WERE true, it wouldn't be hinted at. It would be freaking remarked upon. Repeatedly. The idea of a human impregnating a Replicant is enough to threaten a Holy War. The Holy War would become a Crusade if two Replicants managed it. The fact that this specific aspect of the controversy isn't broached at ALL means that Harrison Ford is right that Dekkard is human, even if those cute clues were added to appease Scott. The fact that they were clues rather than facts means that Dekkard is human.

In the first film, I think Tyrell is a creep, but at least he's well-meaning. Wallace is a total monster. The one thing I would change about the film is that here he doesn't get a proper comeuppance. I would have had K righteously kill him. After that scene with the nude Replicant woman, and shooting Rachael's clone? That is not a person I feel comfortable having as a lose end. I don't like that at all.

Honestly, I was so satisfied with that otherwise, I don't want another sequel. Let's leave things on that specific nice note. That war between the humans and the Replicants that's building? Knowing it and the Replicants' possible freedom is in the future is enough for me. I was very glad to see that. What's funny is that I had to wait a day to see resolution for the first movie (I saw Blade Runner for the first time last night). I was not stuck with that ambiguous ending for 40 years like the rest of that film's biggest fans. This was a great movie and Supplement to Blade Runner. 5 stars.

That was cool.

It was a bit confusing and I didn't understand exactly what was going on, but the animation was gorgeous and moody.

The English voice cast was great too. I like that they got back Edward James Olmos for Gaff.

I always wondered how and why the Blackout happened.

I liked it. 4 stars.

It's really a roomful of crappy people if Wallace's murderous argument actually makes a dent in policy. And it apparently did. It's no wonder this world is a pit.

Didn't dig it. 2 stars.