Blade Runner Revival: Big on Atmosphere, Short on Story

I never would guess that a sequel to Blade Runner starring Ryan Gosling and Harrison Ford would make the original look like some kind of masterpiece by comparison.  The deeply flawed original, at least, had some compelling narrative elements and methods, and a unique design sense.  The sequel has a lot of great visuals and impressive loud bassy sounds (at least in my Dolby 7.1 theater), and even a few entertaining scenes.

But mostly, it’s a lot of conversations that amount to nothing — much like P.T. Anderson’s Inherent Vice.  Like the Anderson flop, almost nothing happens in 2049.

Without those visuals and dynamic audio — the ambience of the film, and a little fun dramatic wrangling, we’re talking 2/10 and at nearly 3 hours, a colossal bore.  As-is: 4/10.  Still boring, but not as bad as nails on a chalkboard.

* * *

A couple more comments about this movie.  First, it’s another one critics swung and missed at.  Same incompetence which would lead to panning Oldboy or the English version The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, I reckon.

Now the whole thing about Replicants being some evil force, without ever depicting, and indeed barely explaining, why they’re such trouble.  With The Terminator, you know the cyborgs are bad.  In Alien, the robot is out for corporate interests at the expense of the crew.  In The Matrix, humans have been enslaved by the machines.  But Replicants don’t seem like much of a threat.  That is the utter failure of both Blade Runner and its sequel.

One more thing:  I appreciate slowness.  A movie taking its time.  David Lynch can just hold the frame whilst holding the audience in his grip.  Kubrick, with his slow scrolls and pans, kept you enrapt.  2049‘s director Denis Villeneuve is no David Lynch, and no Kubrick.  You see, that only works if you are already in the midst of compelling tale.  And if you are a competent director.  I liked Prisoners, but boy Villeneuve is in a slide.  To the abysmal Sicario, and lame Arrival, add 2049 to the growing pile of overrated claptrap by Villeneuve.

Comparison Notes: Recommended: Her, Ex Machina, The Fifth Element; Not Recommended: Inherent Vice

Obligatory Star Wars Post

Another Star Wars, another Death Star.  Yawn.  Which is too bad, because I was really looking forward to this movie.  And the first two-thirds or so held up well, with some terrific sequences wrapped around something of a compelling story.  But then another Death Star — and a completely unbelievable one given the context of the other episodes, and an extended, wearying action sequence to go about attacking it.

The magic, mystery and wonder the of the original series is long gone, but the first part of the film was strong enough to yield a mild thumbs-up.  Not that it matters, as Star Wars has already earned more money than every other movie ever made combined.  6/10

Film Brief: Non-Stop

On Oscar day, I write about a movie which will certainly not be discussed a year from now.  Non-Stop is about what you’d expect, which is to say somewhat entertaining but not very good.  It does work to deliver some genuine intrigue and excitement for a good deal of the film, but it never reaches the type of frenzy in say, Speed 2: Cruise Control, and its resolution is weak.  I liked Speed 2 by the way — it had something Non-Stop severely lacks: a great villain.

In a review I of this movie, a critic compared Liam Neeson’s growl to that of Harrison Ford.  I see the similarity, but for all of Neeson’s talent, he is no Harrison Ford — at least not for a movie like this.  He just doesn’t have the charisma of Ford.  A generous 4/10.

An Abysmal Anchorman

This is pretty much the worst video ever made.

– Napoleon Dynamite.

With a Tomatoemeter reading of 74%, all the funny Dodge Durango ads, and an appreciation of Steve Carell, I figured I’d get some enjoyment out of Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues, even though I’ve only seen pieces of the original.  Boy was I wrong.

On top of the above-mentioned assets, I learned in the opening credits that this is a Judd Apatow production.  Wow what a waste of talent.  Anchorman 2 is a big plastic rubber ball: it induces no sensation at all.  If it weren’t for wanting to document it in this blog, I would have walked out around the one-third mark.

Humor is even more subjective than movies in general.  I’ve never been a fan of Will Ferrell — I just don’t think he’s that funny.  I’ve always thought of Michael McDonald as Mad TV‘s much funnier version of a tall quirky comic, and felt there’s never been much point to Will Ferrell.

The flatness at the core of this horrible picture sweeps out like a giant bacteria to suck the life out of all supporting characters.  Carell, for example, is different here than other pics, strange and quirky, but the material just isn’t there.  Finally, about halfway through, I had a couple slight chuckles, but all the acting talent in the world can’t save the wretched writing.

And I think this movie knows its not funny.  In an effort to justify itself, at the end of the movie a cavalcade of cameos is thrown in: Harrison Ford (also appearing at the beginning), Jim Carrey, Vince Vaughn, Will Smith, Sacha Baron Cohen, Tina Fey and Amy Poehler, Liam Neeson and Kanye West, among others, all of whom are little more laugh-inducing than the rest of the movie.

As I said, comedy is highly subjective.  I don’t know what the critics are seeing to yield a 74% Tomatoemeter score — best I can figure, it’s the same critics who basked in the 70’s vintage stylings of American Hustle.  Regarding hit comedies: I didn’t like The Hangover, either, but for me, The Hangover was a hundred times better than Anchorman 2.  Stick to the Durango ads, and skip the movie. 1/10