Saw it, like it, some buts, and felt it was a little too long for its own good.
Excellent review. Glad to see it received Kermode’s approval. He puts into words the achievements of the movie very well, particularly when it comes to its relationship with the original film.
I finally saw it today and loved it!
It’s managed to become my favourite Ryan Gosling film of the year, knocking off La La Land. If anybody knows where I can get a jacket like the one he wears in this, know that I will be much poorer after you’ve let me know. Where could he have gotten such great taste in jackets from?
This makes me think how great an Officer K and Walter team-up movie would be. On that note, give me a Roy Batty and David one.
But yeah, 2049 was great. I hope it does well at the box office, and I hope that everybody involved is sensible enough to know that they shouldn’t make a sequel.
Is anybody else disappointed that we didn’t get the Johannsson score for this? The Zimmer/Wallfisch one had it’s high points for sure, but a lot of it just sounded like their Dunkirk score had attacked a Yamaha.
Assuming that the announcement trailer was at all representative of what Johannsson was going for (and I know there’s no guarantee), I’m more interested to hear the rest compared to what we got.
Still, I loved this movie, and I’m already happily counting down the days until I can go and see it again.
I was disappointed, but I couldn’t follow the revelations of the story very well.
What was the significance of the date 6.10.21? Why was that carved into the tree and who carved it? When did Deckard carve the horse and how did it get to his daughter if he was in Vegas at the time and says never saw her as a child? What exactly were the past sequence of events for Deckard and his daughter that left them where they were when we meet them in the movie?
Mainly, I felt a bit bored for long stretches of the movie. Liked it all right, but felt like it took forever to move along.
Those are easy ones Johnny, do you have anything more complicated?
The date was the day Rachel died in childbirth, which is why it’s on her grave marker (the tree) and on the horse, a present for her child from the child’s father. Either Deckard carved it on the tree, or Sapper did, or another one of the replicant resistance did it. There was a plan; Decked was a target so he went away, the kid was taken by the resistance, hidden in the orphanage, and eventually placed in the bubble with a fake identity.
The resistance are also the ones keeping an eye on everything to do with the daughter, the miracle, and they got the horse to her at some point in her early childhood.
As for “exactly” the sequence of events? If you were that bored by the film I doubt you’d have wanted to sit through a blow by blow itinerary of travel and communication.
Ah, but I thought Deckard said that he was gone before the kid was even born. That he had never seen the kid. If he was with Rachel, that explains how he carved the tree.
Nevertheless, they found where the horse was carved because of the Vegas radiation. So Deckard had to carve it when he was already hiding in Vegas while Rachel, from the photo, was obviously living at and giving birth dying at the farm (with the tree in that photo of her). He also said that after the blackout, he couldn’t find any of them and obviously, while he was in hiding he had no connection with any other replicants. Even they didn’t know where he was since they had to use the tracker planted on K to find the casino.
That’s where I was confused. Once Deckard is in Vegas, he shouldn’t have had any contact with anyone related to the kid, but he carved a horse there that somehow got to her. However honestly I think a lot the background was simply there to provide a reason why people who should know tge answers to the mystery don’t have them.
My disinterest watching the movie had more to do with the length given to the set up of the story didn’t really have powerful payoffs. Honestly, I didn’t really care about the daughter even though it was a nice scene or thought that it would mean much to the replicants’ cause. I mean, it’s no miracle if Tyrell designed a replicant to have a kid - it’s just engineering. Whether or not they can give birth doesn’t make them any less human, and honestly unless they work with Wallace, none of them can or will ever give birth anyway.
What’s their practical endgame strategy? The whole late introduction of the replicant underground didn’t seem that well-thought out, but someone had to get K back into the story. It makes sense in the story, but it didn’t really seem that important or lead to a clear conclusion. Honestly, it almost felt like this “happy ending” was tacked on just to go out with something resembling an upbeat emotional payoff.
Sorta like the Shining helicopter shots with Deckard flying away with Rachel at the end of the theatrical cut when the much more ambiguous final cut elevator door closing fits the tone of the story much better.
I can see why people like the new movie, but I never quite bought the story as much as I appreciated the world of the movie.
I just got back from a showing, and I felt that the best thing about it was that it made me really appreciate the theatrical cut of the original even more.
And that’s not me being facetious, I mean that in a very positive way.
Both movies, really, are at the core simple noir films with a sci-fi filter. And I found both so enjoyable.
The theatrical cut of the first is just much more straightforward with itself, through the narration, and the focus on the case and not so much any kind of mystery.
2049 felt very much like a neo-noir to the original’s noir. If that makes any sense. Felt like a response/self-aware evolution of the cliches the original reveled in. In doing so, I love how the two play off each other and contrast through the way the story is told and how the tones differ. It really appeals to me as a duet in that sense.
I agree with that. Honestly, I think that the stories of both are simply vehicles to sell the tone, but I think why I still prefer the original is that 2049 tries to do some loftier stuff with its story. And I don’t think it quite hit the mark there. Although I loved Joe’s character arc. So pulpy and good. The theatrical cut of the original - feels like it knows what it is more and doesn’t stray too high.
I think they’re sci-fi films with a noir filter.
OK, major spoiler strategy required.
My commitment to supporting my local (independent) cinema has backfired - Blade Runner isn’t showing this week (some pesky Kingsman movie is on the main screen). The Mountain Between Us on Screen 2 it is then (the wife will not enjoy Kingsman).
Yeah as I said many posts ago it goes off the rails a bit in the second half, but my logical plot issues are all elsewhere.
I think the core character developments all work, even if they’re not as compelling as I would’ve hoped them to be. Emotionally it’s a well made film, but I wish the ending was more rousing.
I appreciate K’s sacrifice and Deckerd’s re-union, but I don’t feel it very powerfully.
It was interesting how this film inverted elements from Dick’s novel in ways different from the first film. The novel is far more like a 50’s tv show where the protagonist is a robot killer instead of a bus driver than it is a sci fi detective story. In it, domestic life is frustrating and absurd, but in the movie K’s domestic life is his solace. The fact that androids can’t have kids and never had childhoods is more a curiosity for them than an existential crisis. Also, they have no empathy so they will easily sell each other out to survive.
The novel’s essential thematic question never considers the idea that androids could be as good as human but that by having android slaves, it makes people less human. That Deckard is losing his empathy and becoming more like an android every time he kills one.
Blade Runner still works if Deckard is human for that reason. In the end, there is no discernible difference. Batty would have passed the VK test and maybe Deck, a human, would have failed.
I didn’t get much of a similarly sharp arc to K’s story.
Nah, the noir bits are too embedded for that to work
Yeah, honestly stuff like the “War” and “The importance” really drags it down. It’s a bit too…cliche in an almost trite way. The underground society felt like an entirely different movie.
It really didn’t need all that baggage.
Yeah, K’s arc was much more simple. But I liked that aspect to it, as it made it easy to buy into some of the less stable elements of the movie. Sort of like a “straight man” for the film.
That was something I liked about the film. K is not important to overall scheme or the talk of war between humanity and replicants. For a while, he thinks he has a destiny…but he doesn’t. He’s just another bloke.
Yeah, the movie is strongest with bits like that. Like his various apartment scenes, or the bit on the bridge near the end. Even if he’s not special, he’s still going through these very iconic tropes and two-fisted detective story set-ups and because of the front-facing nature of his character…I was both amused and engaged a lot.
Him throwing away the figure and taking out the gun is incredibly simple, but simplicity is underrated sometimes.
He’s not the chosen one, but he’s hardly inconsequential. Once he starts pulling at the threads the plan to protect the miracle daughter begins to unravel and then he has to try and put it right again.
I really liked the movie, but for the first half I liked it a whole lot more. It gets a lot closer to what most of the Blade Runner inspired films and TV shows have been reaching for. Something like this year’s ‘Ghost in the Shell’ for example had all the same advantages, including money, and still only got half as far, if that.
So my issues with it are not deal breakers, but they’re there.
Fair enough. And I may have put my point across wrong. What I was trying to say is that K seems to be at the edges of a bigger story. He doesn’t really get to see the whole of that story.
I agree with that. He’s a spanner in the works really, but a spanner who then tries to help.
That’s pretty simple. Deckard carved the horse for his kid before it was born, while he and Rachael were living in Vegas. Then Rachael left with the other replicants (like Sapper) and later died during childbirth.
The other replicants buried Rachael, carved the date into the tree as a headstone and also carved the date into the model horse, as a link between the child and it’s mother.
The little girl was later place in the ‘orphanage’ where she was forced to hide the horse. Later on she was moved at age eight to her little bubble, where she creates memories for replicants.
She later illegally transfers her own memory of hiding the horse into a replicant (Officer K), probably so he can act as a decoy for if someone tries tracking her down, never realizing that it would be K himself who would pick up the trail.