Rambo John J
Distinguished Member
I liked BR2049 but I did have a few issues with it. Not least of which was the run time. It felt like they bypassed the 2 hour, more concise, theatrical version and went straight to the extended self indulgent director's cut.
I'm not denying the film's like walking through an art gallery and every new scene gives you another gorgeous piece to gaze lovingly at for 5 minutes, but these days films this long tend to be a bit more action heavy to give things a jolt as the hours tick by. I know that makes me sound really dumb, but there's a limit to how much silent Ryan Gosling staring into the distance in a beautifully framed shot I can look at before starting to fidget. The film did work for me, and it's mesmerising to look at, it just seemed like every scene ran unnecessarily long and wouldn't have been hurt by trimming it down a bit. I know I'll warm up to it over the coming years, although it's not like I didn't like it because I did and I'm sure I'll do both films in a double feature at least a couple of times in the next 12 months.
I would have liked to have been moved in a similar way as I was when I first saw the original, although that's far too much to ask of anything at my age, I'm not a wide eyed kid who's literally never seen anything like this before any more. The original film laid the cornerstone for pretty much every dystopian future film that followed it, it stands to reason that the sequel should look like the same world. And it did an excellent job of visualizing that world, but it's still a variation of Bladerunner, it always had to be and I shouldn't hold that against it, but like every other sci-fi film there wasn't anything that I felt was truly groundbreaking like there was in the original. They took it about as far as they could, and it's me that's at fault in feeling like I wanted something more from it visually, but I'll definitely get over it.
I dunno. I liked it. I liked it a lot. Yet I found it frustrating at times. It managed to visually wow me while at the same time making me think it should have wowed me more and in some kind of different way. I admire the balls of making a 3 hour art house film with tentpole money and giving it a wide release on the biggest screens. I think it's a more than worthy sequel to the original. I think it's as cold, immersive, flawed, and beautiful to look at as that is.
Where Ridley just about kept his self indulgence in check Denis has gone all in and let his run free. I think this should have been the director's cut, I think you could take 30 minutes of dialogue-free beauty shots out of it (there must be hundreds of them) and have the same story told a bit quicker with no change to the script and story at all. That would have been my preferred introduction to this film and then I'd discover this version once I reached the point of genuinely wanting more. I'm just not quite there yet. But it'll be a grower, I'm sure of that.
I just think it was a bit too much. Kind of like the challenges in Man vs Food. Some moderation might have been better. For me, anyway. I guess I needed to wear an elasticated waist but didn't.
I'm not denying the film's like walking through an art gallery and every new scene gives you another gorgeous piece to gaze lovingly at for 5 minutes, but these days films this long tend to be a bit more action heavy to give things a jolt as the hours tick by. I know that makes me sound really dumb, but there's a limit to how much silent Ryan Gosling staring into the distance in a beautifully framed shot I can look at before starting to fidget. The film did work for me, and it's mesmerising to look at, it just seemed like every scene ran unnecessarily long and wouldn't have been hurt by trimming it down a bit. I know I'll warm up to it over the coming years, although it's not like I didn't like it because I did and I'm sure I'll do both films in a double feature at least a couple of times in the next 12 months.
I would have liked to have been moved in a similar way as I was when I first saw the original, although that's far too much to ask of anything at my age, I'm not a wide eyed kid who's literally never seen anything like this before any more. The original film laid the cornerstone for pretty much every dystopian future film that followed it, it stands to reason that the sequel should look like the same world. And it did an excellent job of visualizing that world, but it's still a variation of Bladerunner, it always had to be and I shouldn't hold that against it, but like every other sci-fi film there wasn't anything that I felt was truly groundbreaking like there was in the original. They took it about as far as they could, and it's me that's at fault in feeling like I wanted something more from it visually, but I'll definitely get over it.
I dunno. I liked it. I liked it a lot. Yet I found it frustrating at times. It managed to visually wow me while at the same time making me think it should have wowed me more and in some kind of different way. I admire the balls of making a 3 hour art house film with tentpole money and giving it a wide release on the biggest screens. I think it's a more than worthy sequel to the original. I think it's as cold, immersive, flawed, and beautiful to look at as that is.
Where Ridley just about kept his self indulgence in check Denis has gone all in and let his run free. I think this should have been the director's cut, I think you could take 30 minutes of dialogue-free beauty shots out of it (there must be hundreds of them) and have the same story told a bit quicker with no change to the script and story at all. That would have been my preferred introduction to this film and then I'd discover this version once I reached the point of genuinely wanting more. I'm just not quite there yet. But it'll be a grower, I'm sure of that.
I just think it was a bit too much. Kind of like the challenges in Man vs Food. Some moderation might have been better. For me, anyway. I guess I needed to wear an elasticated waist but didn't.