I finally watched Blade Runner 2049.
As a huge fan of the original move, I freely admit I've been biased against this movie without even watching it. I idealised the original and to a lesser extent the original Electric Sheep book for decades and found the 1997 PC game to be one of the best movie games I ever played at the time.
Main issue is my own personal opinion, I've never liked pampered, coddled child star Gosling in anything he's ever been in, I just don't buy it. Compare that to Harrison Ford in the original, a ex carpenter from the school of hard knocks, just been in one of the most influential films ever, about to play Indiana Jones and to reprise Han Solo many times, at his peak in one his best ever performances showing multi faceted layers of vulnerability.
Then you get former Mickey Mouse Club star Gosling doing his best young circa Romancing the Stone era Michael Douglas 'badass' voice impression. Unfair? That's my honest rating of his acting in this. Just my opinion.
Without giving spoilers the pacing and visual style didn't match up to the original film in any of it versions, the original film has got an incredible sense of pacing and visual continuity that 2049 lacks, by far the most potent scenes in 2049 basically ape the original movie, even using the same soundtrack or similar remix.
Ridley Scott has nothing to worry about in terms of being outshone, nothing at all.
In many ways a new director taking up Blade Runner was always going to be a poison chalice, and I still think Villenueve did a decent job overall, it's not a bad movie, but lightning didn't strike twice this time for me. Direction aside the story and screenplay just aren't as good as the original, the original didn't dwell that much, it moves quickly for the most part so the slow moments really mean something. There's more for the viewer to have to fill in the blanks with their own imagination. 2049 is more bluntly stated.
Ridley Scott had Ford and Hauer at their peak, both giving Oscar worthy performances with an incredible supporting cast, I just didn't feel that this time round. Ironically, in Dave Bautista they had someone you could have built the whole movie off, he should have been the star, someone with the hard knock life experience and complex charisma to give what the role needed.
For me 6/10, as as someone less invested in the original, I can see it deserves higher, but not by much.
I know plenty of fans really liked it and I respect their opinions, but to me it doesn't hold a candle to the original.
As a huge fan of the original move, I freely admit I've been biased against this movie without even watching it. I idealised the original and to a lesser extent the original Electric Sheep book for decades and found the 1997 PC game to be one of the best movie games I ever played at the time.
Main issue is my own personal opinion, I've never liked pampered, coddled child star Gosling in anything he's ever been in, I just don't buy it. Compare that to Harrison Ford in the original, a ex carpenter from the school of hard knocks, just been in one of the most influential films ever, about to play Indiana Jones and to reprise Han Solo many times, at his peak in one his best ever performances showing multi faceted layers of vulnerability.
Then you get former Mickey Mouse Club star Gosling doing his best young circa Romancing the Stone era Michael Douglas 'badass' voice impression. Unfair? That's my honest rating of his acting in this. Just my opinion.
Without giving spoilers the pacing and visual style didn't match up to the original film in any of it versions, the original film has got an incredible sense of pacing and visual continuity that 2049 lacks, by far the most potent scenes in 2049 basically ape the original movie, even using the same soundtrack or similar remix.
Ridley Scott has nothing to worry about in terms of being outshone, nothing at all.
In many ways a new director taking up Blade Runner was always going to be a poison chalice, and I still think Villenueve did a decent job overall, it's not a bad movie, but lightning didn't strike twice this time for me. Direction aside the story and screenplay just aren't as good as the original, the original didn't dwell that much, it moves quickly for the most part so the slow moments really mean something. There's more for the viewer to have to fill in the blanks with their own imagination. 2049 is more bluntly stated.
Ridley Scott had Ford and Hauer at their peak, both giving Oscar worthy performances with an incredible supporting cast, I just didn't feel that this time round. Ironically, in Dave Bautista they had someone you could have built the whole movie off, he should have been the star, someone with the hard knock life experience and complex charisma to give what the role needed.
For me 6/10, as as someone less invested in the original, I can see it deserves higher, but not by much.
I know plenty of fans really liked it and I respect their opinions, but to me it doesn't hold a candle to the original.
