So, went ahead and watched Blade Runner 2049 upon people saying it was better that GitS. I also haven't seen the original since the 90s
I found something really annoying. Did K literally just die RIGHT IN FRONT of the Ana's place? That seems really stupid.
This movie asks questions of the audience. What is memory? Do you require a soul to be good? Hologram love? And are loving a copy, or is it just the real thing?
I cared nothing for these questions. We have moved as a society from Blade Runner 1. We've had so many great Sci-Fi shows and movies since then. These questions felt like a retread. Which means you have to focus on posing it in a particularly interesting and thought provoking light. BR2049 failed here.
I liked Jared Leto's performance here. First time I've actually seen him act. But his character is straight up cartoon villain, similar to the big human bad in Venom. He just loves shooting and stabbing. With a movie going for nuance, this is a complete fail.
I do not care for any love interests here. Rachel was wasted, and only put in to ask the question about loving a copy and then to show how evil Wallace is. Hologram love is great. Do what makes you feel good. Joi was only there to name K and die. Also, why didn't the writers let K name himself. That would have said a lot more.
It would have been great if this story was more self contained. Instead it felt like a piece in the franchise. Sort of telling it's own story but setting up future movies. Wallace is around, off world is a thing, the revolution is building, etc. I didn't not expect MCU style world building.
The police here are far too worried about finding this replicant kid and NOT WORRIED ABOUT MRUDER IN ITS OWN HOUSE. This revolutionary army is poised to take control and is very interested in this kid. Do they help K get Deckard back? Or do anything to help them secure the kid? Nope. We need that one on one fight between K and Luv for DRAMATIC EFFECT.
Fighting in all the water, I think, was supposed to be visually effective. It was not. Just like the watery movements early in the movie around Luv that was supposed to foreshadow her death was some of the worst visuals I've seen. In a movie. Period. Give me Zach Snyder terrible visuals going from black to dark any day over that.
The slow pacing was fine. I like a lot of Clint Eastwood's movies too, that do the same. But they held onto the wrong thing so many times that didn't enhance the scene, world or let things breathe. Someone needs watch Eastwood's movies more.
I seemed to remember Blade Runner looking more like a smoky Altered Carbon. I think I've forgotten. That make me think GitS visuals are better. Just more interested in Cyberpunk than Noir with a couple of colours.
I really wanted to like this film. I'm still giving it an 7 or 8 despite all this stuff I wrote.
Alright, your turn. Tell me how I'm wrong.
I found something really annoying. Did K literally just die RIGHT IN FRONT of the Ana's place? That seems really stupid.
This movie asks questions of the audience. What is memory? Do you require a soul to be good? Hologram love? And are loving a copy, or is it just the real thing?
I cared nothing for these questions. We have moved as a society from Blade Runner 1. We've had so many great Sci-Fi shows and movies since then. These questions felt like a retread. Which means you have to focus on posing it in a particularly interesting and thought provoking light. BR2049 failed here.
I liked Jared Leto's performance here. First time I've actually seen him act. But his character is straight up cartoon villain, similar to the big human bad in Venom. He just loves shooting and stabbing. With a movie going for nuance, this is a complete fail.
I do not care for any love interests here. Rachel was wasted, and only put in to ask the question about loving a copy and then to show how evil Wallace is. Hologram love is great. Do what makes you feel good. Joi was only there to name K and die. Also, why didn't the writers let K name himself. That would have said a lot more.
It would have been great if this story was more self contained. Instead it felt like a piece in the franchise. Sort of telling it's own story but setting up future movies. Wallace is around, off world is a thing, the revolution is building, etc. I didn't not expect MCU style world building.
The police here are far too worried about finding this replicant kid and NOT WORRIED ABOUT MRUDER IN ITS OWN HOUSE. This revolutionary army is poised to take control and is very interested in this kid. Do they help K get Deckard back? Or do anything to help them secure the kid? Nope. We need that one on one fight between K and Luv for DRAMATIC EFFECT.
Fighting in all the water, I think, was supposed to be visually effective. It was not. Just like the watery movements early in the movie around Luv that was supposed to foreshadow her death was some of the worst visuals I've seen. In a movie. Period. Give me Zach Snyder terrible visuals going from black to dark any day over that.
The slow pacing was fine. I like a lot of Clint Eastwood's movies too, that do the same. But they held onto the wrong thing so many times that didn't enhance the scene, world or let things breathe. Someone needs watch Eastwood's movies more.
I seemed to remember Blade Runner looking more like a smoky Altered Carbon. I think I've forgotten. That make me think GitS visuals are better. Just more interested in Cyberpunk than Noir with a couple of colours.
I really wanted to like this film. I'm still giving it an 7 or 8 despite all this stuff I wrote.
Alright, your turn. Tell me how I'm wrong.