Let me start this off by saying that this sequel did not feel outside of what we remember.
Blade Runner 2049 maintains the mood and feel of its predecessor. The visuals, the sound... the dystopian future, it's all there.
| FIRST THOUGHT |
I love writing reviews, it comes somewhat naturally to me after watching something that I learn to feel passionate about.
This movie taught me to be passionate.
But... it's really hard for me to express judgment. And I'm going to explain why:
Actually, it's very simple. This was a 3 hours movie. Of these 3 hours, 2 were simply... air. Now, don't get me wrong, that isn't always negative, like in this case. It was refreshing air, but still... it doesn't (at first glance) hold anything on the plot.
Because of this, the viewer (me at least), is left with a lot of questions, the picture doesn't explain itself. Also; as a side note - you most definitely need to watch the first one. The great majority of the runtime is inexplicably useless.
The longer it goes, the longer it begins to add new stuff, and then some, then it seems somehow related to what's actually going on, but right after it deviates the actual story on an ideal from the characters involved, that at a certain point, evaporates. I'm really conflicted about this because it looks to me like the screenwriters and director wanted to leave all of this to theory and the fans.
Why is this confusing? Because it's a very strange mixture of linear narrative and non-linear narrative. One is focussed on one objective, the other starts a bunch of other objectives and then it simply dies. No explanation was given, no closure was given.
And this is aggravated by the fact that it's a 3 hours movie, of which 1 hour of the actual story is spread and mixed amongst 2 hours of absolutely nothing. VISUALLY IMPRESSIVE NOTHING. A VERY INTERESTING BUNCH OF LITERAL VOID.
This is actually the only thing I did not like about the movie. Which, again, if you are like me and enjoy movies that aren't patently explaining themselves, it's not a bad thing. I just feel like it could've been much more interesting if they explained somehow what happened to all the side characters, or just cut them out.
|STORY & ACTORS |
Aside from what I've mentioned before, the more "linear" part of the story is actually not that bad. It's nothing impressive. A part of what I said earlier connects to the fact that this movie constantly keeps juggling between what is real and what is not. Be it by robots, or actual reality that the characters are living. So it came out pretty obvious that the movie would have a twist at some point, somewhere. I will admit that I did not get it until the very end, so, don't be discouraged.
Ryan Gosling was great, also because he as an actor was perfect for his role. Being so that he has this way of being and looking conflicted, and so it portrayed really well on the protagonist.
Harrison Ford had less value to this movie than he did in the last Star Wars.
Jared Leto's character is a mystery to me, but he did a phenomenal job talking random shit.
All of the other actors, Jared Leto included, were there to push the story forward (or to add random bullshit) and that's it. They did a fantastic job, but unfortunately, as mentioned above, at first glance it looks like they don't mean shit.
| CINEMATOGRAPHY |
The movie is visually pleasing, it's bliss for people with OCD. It's perfectly round and at the same time perfectly square. It keeps smooth lines combining great color combinations in the palette, and utilizing great solid colors at the same time.
As I said before it holds perfectly a spot near its predecessor, the mood and feel are almost identical. (Having watched the first one only an hour before going to the theater to watch this one)
I have to say, this one looks A LOT, like A FUCKING GIGAZILLION LOT more gruesome and splatter than the first one. The fighting scenes are brutal, they do not go into dramatic effects, they just are what they should be. A punch in the face, exploding heads and blood.
There is no doubt that this movie looks fucking amazing.
It sounds amazing as well. It has a collection of deep, pure sounds. There is not a lot of music, but when there is it's powerful and present and it makes you wake up and amaze. Same goes for the special audio effects: I have watched it in ATMOS and I have to admit, they did not utilize it at all, except for one scene later in the movie, but the way it goes from absolute silence to seat trembling sensations it's really amazing. The sounds were so powerful I could literally see the movie screen shake and the subwoofer hit made the whole room shake.
I would also like to add that in the Italian version, you can clearly see that they used "incorrect" words grammatically, they used a lot of anglicisms, I guess they've done that to express how language is evolving? It's actually current of our generation, I see a lot of people adapting English words in Italian, so I was very impressed by that.
| FINAL THOUGHT |
I feel like everyone needs to understand, before watching this movie, that you need a time, a mood and a place perfectly fit to sit for a 3 hours movie that it's going to feel like a 6-hour long journey into colors, shapes, and absolute "living" silence.
This is NOT a Marvel movie, there is action, well-done action, but it's not about action. You need to sit, relax and don't think about time, because, trust me, it's going to fuck you.
Please like my comment if you enjoyed my review, it makes me really happy.
Note that all of this is driven by my personal opinion. If you think I wasn't objective in some of the parts of what I've written, you're welcome to make me notice where.
On Twitter, I review the entire world -> @WiseMMO
LIFF31 2017 #5
"Joe, wake up. It's a beautiful day".
"You Were Never Really Here" is a cold and brutal revenge story that isn't for everybody. Wasn't a slow burn or the usual art house film you'd expect. The story is straight forward; we see a suicidal, possibly sexual abused veteran trying to rescue a missing girl from sex slavery, but it's presentation is different. After it was over, I struggle to collect my thoughts and needed to take time to suck all the details.
But the more I think about it, the more I like and appreciate it. Themes play a big part, instead of plot. Leaving you to fill in the gapes. This might be frustrating for some people.
Joaquin Phoenix was amazing, as usual. The way he portrays a soft and rough person with a long history of violence told through his eyes. Phoenix was extraordinary to watch. You can feel the sweat, blood, and tears come off the screen in a couple of scenes.
Lynne Ramsay manges to build up this atmosphere and anxiety through her excellent directing. Even the on/off-screen violence made the film's energy of brutality so uncombable. Mixed with Jonny Greenwood's vicious and tense soundtrack. Of course the trashy and beautiful cinematography, only adds to the dream-like feel of it.
Issues I had with the film (which are small) is how too simply the storyline is or the flashback scenes could have been executed a little better. That's really it, to be honest.
Overall rating: Interesting look on the new "Taxi Driver".
This film, of which I really hate to refer to it as that, is nothing more than child rape apologist's tribute to a horrific family. Of everyone involved in this film, the only one w/ any semblance of humanity is the ex-wife/mother, and it didn't start out that way. She eventually came around to the fact that her ex-husband was a child molestor, yet she refused to believe in her son's guilt.
The way that this story was portrayed was as disgraceful as the family's blind denial of facts of their father's wrongdoing. The director, Andrew Jarecki, has since been raked over the coals for what he tried to pull w/ this film, b/c he definitely didn't film a documentary. Instead, he picked and chose what to show in order to portray the Friedman family in a certain light, and even in the best possible light he could frame them, they still come off as horrible human beings. This should just go to show how truly guilty these men were.
If you read the trial transcript or a legal review of the case, you'll see what Jarecki chose to exclude from this film as a way to make it seem that the son was not guilty. Additionally, the one brother, David, was the most vociferous of the bunch, when it came to defending the father. He lives in a constant state of denial. Any documentarian worth their salt would have questioned him w/ the only hard evidence this case produced against the father, the foot-high stack of child pornography seized from his home during the postal service raid. Yet, that question never came, and it allowed David to continue to spout nonsense about his innocence in direct conflict w/ the evidence at-hand. It's good to see that Jarecki really doesn't work in film any more.
