"Blade Runner 2049" Review (Spoilers)
Also reviews for the latest episode of DC's Legends Of Tomorrow, and the novel Who Censored Roger Rabbit?.
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.
Because 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. *****.
DC's Legends Of Tomorrow "Bored On Board Onboard"
Wow, I'm surprised. This show is doing something really unexpected during Constantine's farewell season. I did not see it coming. What the series decided to do is make Constantine so loathsome and despicable in his final episodes, we'll be glad to see the back end of him and say good riddance, rather than missing him. I never would have thought of that specific storytelling avenue. Because I do not suck, and am not a total idiot. The producers must be 10th level stupid to think that idea is remotely acceptable after forcing us to lose him. DC is franchise that can do almost nothing right. Not only is the show getting rid of the best character. They're making sure to ruin him and whatever affection the audience previously held for him. Again, this type of storytelling is unusual because even the dumbest and hackiest of writers know you shouldn't do that.
The show suggests Barry Allen is a sucky wedding guest. I agree. Sara may love the guy, but Ava is right that he's a magnet for supervillains. Barry is the guy who whenever he attends something honoring somebody else, that thing instantly becomes about himself instead. It's interesting Ava recognizes this and Sara doesn't.
I'm always like the British phrase "A cuppa cha."
So Behrad objects to drinking? But apparently all the pot he smokes and the acid he drops is okay. I understand the character is Muslim and the writers want to be respectful to that aspect of him. But the fact that he's a pothead probably means that is NOT the thing they need to keep for Muslim authenticity. It in fact makes no sense.
I am not happy. *1/2.
Who Censored Roger Rabbit by Gary K Wolf
Warning: Major book spoilers ahead. If you haven't read the book and plan to, skip this review.
In some weird way I think this novel did a few things better than the movie did. I think where the movie has it over it is setting it as a period piece (this is set in "present day" 1981), and making the relationships between the characters more solid, and in the case of Jessica and Roger Rabbit sincerely loving. I'm seen interviews with Gary K Wolf where he laments he himself did not come up with a character as great as Judge Doom, and he was created exclusively for the movie and Wolf is kicking himself for that fact. After reading this book, I cannot disagree with him more. Doom is actually a drag on the movie and the entire premise. Why?
Because this is supposed to be a hard-boiled mystery. And not only is Doom the most likely culprit, he's guilty of practically everything. There is no mystery involved in that particular film mystery. You can argue about the wisdom of killing Roger off and having it turn out he was one of the murderers in the book. You can also bemoan that the genie (the other murderer) wasn't set up properly. But both of those revelations surprised me, which is what a good mystery should do. And what's amazing about Roger's guilt is that it SHOULDN'T have surprised me. He was the most likely culprit after all. What shocked me is that he was planning on framing Eddie Valiant for it before getting killed himself.
So, yeah, I like the characters in the movie better. I like the feel of the Film Noir period piece. As a mystery? The book has it all over the movie. In every way. Judge Doom IS a great and scary villain. But he's an improper villain to make the culprit of a mystery. Were I Gary K. Wolf, who DID strive to write a proper mystery, I'd object to that, not be envious of it.
It should also be pointed out that this version of Eddie Valiant has it all over the movie version. As the first person Narrator and the one character in every scene, it's fun to realize this version of Eddie has a REALLY good and wry sense of humor. It's outside of Toon humor, but I don't believe the film, with its somewhat childish notions about the power of laughter, would have been able to make or appreciate that distinction. As such I think if you don't count the Roger Rabbit cartoon at the beginning and all of his flailing hijinks in the film, in a lot of ways, the book is funnier. And Eddie is the funniest character.
Who Framed Roger Rabbit is one of my all-time favorite movies, top five definitely, possibly top three. It's interesting that the book, that was never quite as well-received as it was, actually points out a visible flaw in the film I never noticed before. As a mystery, the movie sucks. ****1/2.
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.
Because 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. *****.
DC's Legends Of Tomorrow "Bored On Board Onboard"
Wow, I'm surprised. This show is doing something really unexpected during Constantine's farewell season. I did not see it coming. What the series decided to do is make Constantine so loathsome and despicable in his final episodes, we'll be glad to see the back end of him and say good riddance, rather than missing him. I never would have thought of that specific storytelling avenue. Because I do not suck, and am not a total idiot. The producers must be 10th level stupid to think that idea is remotely acceptable after forcing us to lose him. DC is franchise that can do almost nothing right. Not only is the show getting rid of the best character. They're making sure to ruin him and whatever affection the audience previously held for him. Again, this type of storytelling is unusual because even the dumbest and hackiest of writers know you shouldn't do that.
The show suggests Barry Allen is a sucky wedding guest. I agree. Sara may love the guy, but Ava is right that he's a magnet for supervillains. Barry is the guy who whenever he attends something honoring somebody else, that thing instantly becomes about himself instead. It's interesting Ava recognizes this and Sara doesn't.
I'm always like the British phrase "A cuppa cha."
So Behrad objects to drinking? But apparently all the pot he smokes and the acid he drops is okay. I understand the character is Muslim and the writers want to be respectful to that aspect of him. But the fact that he's a pothead probably means that is NOT the thing they need to keep for Muslim authenticity. It in fact makes no sense.
I am not happy. *1/2.
Who Censored Roger Rabbit by Gary K Wolf
Warning: Major book spoilers ahead. If you haven't read the book and plan to, skip this review.
In some weird way I think this novel did a few things better than the movie did. I think where the movie has it over it is setting it as a period piece (this is set in "present day" 1981), and making the relationships between the characters more solid, and in the case of Jessica and Roger Rabbit sincerely loving. I'm seen interviews with Gary K Wolf where he laments he himself did not come up with a character as great as Judge Doom, and he was created exclusively for the movie and Wolf is kicking himself for that fact. After reading this book, I cannot disagree with him more. Doom is actually a drag on the movie and the entire premise. Why?
Because this is supposed to be a hard-boiled mystery. And not only is Doom the most likely culprit, he's guilty of practically everything. There is no mystery involved in that particular film mystery. You can argue about the wisdom of killing Roger off and having it turn out he was one of the murderers in the book. You can also bemoan that the genie (the other murderer) wasn't set up properly. But both of those revelations surprised me, which is what a good mystery should do. And what's amazing about Roger's guilt is that it SHOULDN'T have surprised me. He was the most likely culprit after all. What shocked me is that he was planning on framing Eddie Valiant for it before getting killed himself.
So, yeah, I like the characters in the movie better. I like the feel of the Film Noir period piece. As a mystery? The book has it all over the movie. In every way. Judge Doom IS a great and scary villain. But he's an improper villain to make the culprit of a mystery. Were I Gary K. Wolf, who DID strive to write a proper mystery, I'd object to that, not be envious of it.
It should also be pointed out that this version of Eddie Valiant has it all over the movie version. As the first person Narrator and the one character in every scene, it's fun to realize this version of Eddie has a REALLY good and wry sense of humor. It's outside of Toon humor, but I don't believe the film, with its somewhat childish notions about the power of laughter, would have been able to make or appreciate that distinction. As such I think if you don't count the Roger Rabbit cartoon at the beginning and all of his flailing hijinks in the film, in a lot of ways, the book is funnier. And Eddie is the funniest character.
Who Framed Roger Rabbit is one of my all-time favorite movies, top five definitely, possibly top three. It's interesting that the book, that was never quite as well-received as it was, actually points out a visible flaw in the film I never noticed before. As a mystery, the movie sucks. ****1/2.