My past experience of Blade Runner (1982) consisted of watching the Director's Cut with my dad in 2003 and the Final Cut at AFI in 2015, the latter serving only to enhance my already great appreciation. I'd also read the loose literary basis, Philip K. Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, in between, helping me understand a couple aspects that hadn't gotten much explanation on screen. Thus Dad and I independently got the idea to see the sequel in a theater before long. I can't speak for his optimism, but mine was cautious, noting that (1) long waits usually mean big differences, (2) people were saying nine years ago that Harrison Ford was getting too old to reprise his action roles, (3) Ridley Scott ceded the director's chair to Denis Villeneuve, and (4) Rutger Hauer's Roy Batty couldn't appear in it.
Thirty years after the events of BR, uncannily humanoid organic robots, called "replicants," have become common and mostly legal on Earth, albeit subject to rampant bigotry. Older models, which don't all have the limited lifespan from BR are less cooperative as slaves and thus marked for death at the hands of special forces inexplicably called "blade runners," who are at least typically replicants themselves. LAPD Officer KD6-3.7 (Ryan Gosling), usually going by "K," shows no desire to rebel -- until after the site of one of his hits reveals the fossils of a once-pregnant replicant. Since news of this possibility interferes with the public narrative that replicants are too distinct for human rights, K's boss (Robin Wright) orders him to hunt down and kill the now-adult child. His subsequent detective work continues to blow fuses in his head, metaphorically speaking; and the closer he gets, the more that certain parties try to remove him from the picture....
The mystery has a way of throwing the audience for a loop, too, even when the evidence was already present. Some parts still seem strange if not confusing to me. And you know what? That's OK. I appreciate a movie that keeps me thinking long after the credits roll, and this is probably the headiest newcomer I've seen in ages. Eat your heart out, Interstellar.
Perhaps the most intriguing new character is K's long-time holographic A.I. girlfriend, Joi (Ana de Armas). She does quite a convincing job of conveying love for him, in contrast to the street ad models, and sometimes she helps him figure things out. I sensed she would get involved in some of the more emotional moments the film had to offer. Yes, it kinda traces the footsteps of Her (2013) in that regard, but it integrates the minor plot point well. It also gives us something we might envy in a mostly dystopian future, besides the flying cars.
On the opposite end of the pleasantness spectrum is Niander Wallace (Jared Leto), CEO of the eponymous company that bought BR's Tyrell Corporation. While BR had no true villains to my mind, Wallace is utterly heartless, at least toward replicants, despite having curiously robotic mannerisms himself. He has milky eyes and apparently uses miniature drones to see, making him an example of the disabled villain cliche that should have died in the last century. I consider it a mercy that he gets only two scenes.
And Ford's Rick Deckard? I'm afraid that the former blade runner's role inherently spoils the ending of at least two BR cuts (assuming you even understood the implications thereof), so I'm reluctant to say how he features in this plot. Just know that he shows up in the third act, in a big way. And might I say, he seems a little more badass than before.
Dad thinks Mom was right not to see 2049. It has neo-noir grit, with a tad more violence than its predecessor and arguably no better treatment of female characters. At the same time, it takes old-fashioned patience with some slow scenes and a 164-minute run time -- Dad's chief complaint. But I like patience for a change in modern cinema, especially when alternating with action sequences. And these are awesome sequences, thanks to effects quality, cinematography, and innovation. How many times did I think, "Huh, never seen this before"? (The fighters are impossibly hardy, but that's justified by replicants' athletic superiority.)
One of the few mixed reviews I've seen of 2049 notes what it owes to other movies, like Her and Children of Men (2006), some of which in turn owe their existence to BR. I say, "So what?" They're excellent in their own right, and nothing has changed so dramatically that I can't accept this as a worthy part of the BR franchise. It maintains a similar mood. It captures the same kind of future, with heavy Asian influence and a shortage of natural nonhuman life. (Dad had wondered why BR was part of an environmental film festival; 2049 makes the relevance a little clearer.) About all that's missing is a strong presence of Vangelis, with Hans Zimmer's collaboration a hackneyed substitute.
I won't say that 2049 is BR's equal, except maybe to weaker cuts. I'm undecided on whether it's classic material or just mostly great. But in any case, it's my new favorite Villeneuve flick and my new favorite Gosling flick.
No comments:
Post a Comment