Just got back from the theater. Hmm. . .
Well here's my spoiler-free take.
This film can be viewed with an eye on two distinct components: the technicals and the narrative.
Technically, the film is a masterpiece. It looks ABSOLUTELY amazing. Villeneuve, by way of cinematographer Roger Deakins and production designer Dennis Gassner, has crafted a gorgeous film that captures the visual spirit of Scott's 1982 original while also pushing things into new territory. I would love to see a breakdown between digital effects and practical effects, because it looks like he did a great deal practically, and the things that I suspect were in fact digital look nearly perfect. Hollywood take note, THIS is how to do effects in 2017!
The film is also great in terms of the soundtrack and sound design. It sounds as good as it looks, with a score that is very reminiscent of the original but . . . even better, I think? I was happy to not get any saxophone this time around and to just stay in Synth Town from beginning to end.
In terms of performances, I think that everyone is good across the board, with Gosling the one to carry this thing on his shoulders and he does a good job of it. I also was pleasantly surprised to see Robin Wright and Mackenzie Davis in here; somehow I didn't even know they were in it. And of course there's Ford, who I probably have to agree with europe1 is the weakest link in the cast, and I also have to say, he's just damned old now. It's official, Harrison Ford is an old man. But you just couldn't make this movie without him.
And now we get to the narrative. You know, when I first saw the original Blade Runner I felt like it moved along at a laborious pace. It moves very deliberately to the end. Well with Blade Runner 2049, I feel like Villeneuve decided to just DOUBLE DOWN on that shit. I'll be damned if this movie doesn't move EVEN MORE SLOWLY than the first film. I just rewatched the first film last night so it is very fresh in my mind and it actually feels somewhat brisk in comparison.
Now combine that slow pace with a story that feels quite simple and frankly a bit uninspired and the result was, for me, a movie that just never really did grip me on a narrative level. I never did feel fully invested and I even caught myself zoning out a few times, suddenly coming to and realizing that I wasn't paying attention to the dialogue. This is a nearly three hour long movie that could've been at least thirty minutes shorter if he had just tightened up. But really, I don't think the length is the problem, I think the problem is the not-super-interesting story that's being told. I mean, okay, give me a three hour Blade Runner movie! But just use that time to tell a more compelling tale.
All in all, it's a good movie that I was really hoping would be great. On a technical level, it's incredible. Just go ahead and give it ALL the technical Oscars! But its dragged down a bit by a story that simply could've been better.
7.5/10. I struggled with the poll because I had to choose either a 7 or an 8. I went ahead and went with an 8, but that's only because I was so damn impressed with the film on a technical level that I couldn't bring myself to call it a 7.
