Laying cards on table, I do recall rather liking the 1982 original, and seeing it again some years later on TV. I liked the original Philip K. Dick novel still more.
I'd go out of my way to see the recently released 'director's cut' of that original version, which everyone seems to be saying is even superior to what was originally released to cinemas.
However, this sequel I wouldn't bother with sitting through a second time, not least because at over 2.5 hours. I found myself close to nodding off more than once, and would have done were it not for the racket on the soundtrack. The final 30 mins upped still further the tedium factor for me. (Co-star Harrison Ford, reprising his character of the original, only appears 3/4 hour from the finish, otherwise it's Ryan Gosling all the way with virtually no distractions).
I can't be bothered to summarise the plot, save that in a future L.A. Ryan Gosling is searching for a certain female who mysteriously disappeared some decades previously, and who carries with her the key to the survival of humanity. As in the first film, there's also play with the notion of which characters are truly human and which of them are mere replicants.
Many reviews comment on the visual effects, and there's no denying that they are quite spectacular, as efficiently realised as we've all come to expect nowadays. I remember the visuals of the 1982 film leaving me open-mouthed in admiration. In this new film there was no similar reaction on my part, surely a symptom of what has now become somewhat work-a-day. In fact now we more readily pick up on poor effects rather than feeling astonishment at especially good ones.
French-Canadian director, Denis Villeneuve, has made some high standard films in recent years - most notably for me 'Sicario' and 'Prisoners'. Perhaps it's something of a generation thing, but despite some superlative opinions on this latest offering, I can't put it in anything like the same class.
I'd been toying with the idea of going to see this in IMAX-3D, such was its hype, but eventually opted for the regular-sized 2D screening at a local cinema - and at less than one sixth of the combined cost of travelling to the closest Imax plus admission price. I've no regrets at having done so.................4.
Thanks for the review Ray. I didn't go and see it, thought about it, but then thought it isn't really my sort of film so why feel I should see it, it isn't suddenly going to magic into the sort of thing I like. Your review has nicely settled it for me.
ReplyDeleteCan't understand why it's getting so many 'oohs' and 'aahs', Rachel. All I can surmise is that it's a triumph of cinematic technique over content - but I'm pretty sure also that my age plays a large part.
DeleteAs the years go by, I am seeing fewer movies each year. You nailed the reason why I don't: "cinematic technique over content." And I too, am sure that age plays a large part in it, remembering what movies used to be, especially from the year 1939 (so many classics produced) to the late 50s.
ReplyDeleteIt's films like this which so many are raving about, Paul, which make me seriously think about just giving up on cinema-going, so far I feel out of sympathy with the end-product. The films I've really enjoyed this year are far outnumbered by those I've not liked. I'm thinking that when it comes to nominating my Top Ten of the year it might be a problem simply to find that number of films I felt positive towards. It's not looking too good so far.
ReplyDeleteI agree that 1939 was a landmark year for cinema, though I have to say that sometimes I can't take the naivety of many films of the 40s and 50s - as well as later, which is especially exemplified in all those emotion-nudging soundtrack scores with their lush, in-your-face orchestrations. Others may not feel as distracted by them to the extent that I am.
But so many of today's films think that by assaulting the visual and aural senses at the expense of intelligent content is the key to bountiful financial returns. Trouble is, they are often correct.
I almost went to see it today but I did the garden , I guess that speaks volumes
ReplyDeleteIf the film is your bag, J.G., then you ought to see it on a really big screen. It'll give it a much-needed push on the interest level.
DeleteRay,
ReplyDeleteI jut read to review to Pat, who saw the film week. He thought it was better than your review but he is easily impressed with special effects. Me not so much. I prefer a good plot/story line with the CGI effects. Pat says he could see it again but then he likes Bojack Horseman. He also likes "Maudie." He couldn't get into "Downton Abbey", "too much looking for Lady Mary's teapot" type of plot. By the way, have you seen "Game of Thrones?"
Ron
Bojack Horseman? I know I'm slow, Ron, but I can't manage to work that one out. (I'm assuming it's a play on some fella's name.)
DeleteWasn't sure it would have been Pat's kind of film, but not too surprised to hear that it is. Good for him.
No, despite all the talk about it, I've never seen 'Thrones'. It's on far too late for me (and I don't watch that much TV anyway) - and I'm blowed if I'm going to take the trouble to search it out to view by other means. It'll have to remain among the many 'unseens', I'm afraid.
ouch. i had little intention of seeing it anyways, but you just sealed that deal. Even for Mr. Gosling.
ReplyDeleteAs long as I haven't deterred you from seeing something you'd been keen on seeing, B, then my conscience can rest easy.
DeleteI don't think I'll be going to see this, like JG I'd rather do the garden.
ReplyDeleteI believe most fans of the original feel positive towards this sequel, J, even though I didn't. If you didn't care for the first it's definitely a case of not bothering with this.
DeleteI saw this two days ago and I'm still trying to wake up. I looked back for your review and I agree 100%, even down to the number of times I almost fell asleep during the showing of it. I had to walk out after 2 hours because I began to feel as though the movie would never, ever end and I'd be trapped in the theater for all time, feeding whiskey to a feral dog in a dusty abandoned casino. That Elvis hologram was almost the last straw, but the shooting of the Rachel replicant WAS the straw that broke my will to see this movie to the end.
ReplyDeleteThe star of the film, in my opinion, was Ryan Gosling's coat, which I absolutely adored. I perked up every time he did a scene wearing it. It's gorgeous, and he looked great in it. I really liked the coat, and that's a sad comment on the sequel to a movie and an esthetic that, originally, took my breath away.
Goodness, Vivan! You really are down on it, aren't you? - a stage or two even further down than I am.
DeleteBut it's good to know someone who's certainly in the same direction of opinion as me. Am also comforted by the both of us having high regard for the original. Majority reviews I've seen seem to say that this belated sequel is at least as good as that. You and I must remain in our disagreement with them.
I wish I'd paid more attention to Ryan G's coat while the film was playing. Might have given me a bit more interest to hold my attention. But I've just had a look at some of the film stills and now of course I can see what you mean. It's something like what in the 1970s we called 'car coats' (whatever that meant). Perhaps they still are. It does indeed look a very fetching garment.
I also think that special effects these days are getting a bit old hat. The standard now is so high that we only notice them when they are less than impressive, whereas before when they were all painstakingly hand-created they would quite rightly astonish us, even though a lot of them now look 'creaky'. But the enjoyment was at a higher level, at least in my case. Yet another sign, if not of my age, certainly one of being out of tune with current accepted fads.
Thanks for dropping by with your MOST interesting (not to say amusing) comments.