Blade
Runner 2049 (2017/Warner
4K Ultra HD Blu-ray w/Blu-ray)
4K
Ultra HD Picture: A- 1080p Picture: B Sound: A- Extras:
C+ Film: B-
In
the sea of sequels, remakes, revivals, 're-imaginings' and
franchises, it is no wonder so many bad films get made, especially
with big price tags that show even most of them (too many
cinematically illiterate to begin with) know that they are making
awful work and cannot tell you who the audience for most of the duds
are for. It was not always that way in Hollywood, where they used to
be able to tell the difference between a major motion picture and
B-movie. Serials and movie series may have had low budgets, but the
more ambitious ones were fun and more watchable and entertaining than
most of the tentpole disasters of the last few years. That also
means the big films that had something to say or show were the hoped
for hits that would have respectability, were made for smart adults,
might win awards and a few might even become classics.
When
did this change? There were always blockbusters, some more than at
other times, but usually when you made a film that really, really
worked, the idea was to spend the energy and resources trying to find
something new instead of cheapening the achievement or selling it
out. A sequel would make a classic seem like it made some kind of
mistake, did not mean what it said or showed and was a childish
affair. Even a big budget, big screen movie series (from James Bond
and Star Wars, neither of which knew they'd be series, though they
intended to be!) knew what not to repeat and knew to go in new
direction to survive. But then, for better and worse came The
Godfather
films.
Made
under unusual circumstances (the book gets bought, then suddenly
becomes a best seller as production is happening, so the director
(Francis Coppola) is followed by an 'instant replacement director' so
the studio can protect their potential blockbuster) was a serious
critical and commercial hit, but Coppola and author Mario Puzo had
more to say and show, plus they would finally have the freedom to
totally do what they wanted, thus we should think of the first two
films in the series as one in some respect. That the sequel was also
a big hit (despite no Marlon Brando) and critical hit, that opened
the gates for sequels to 'anything' and that has produced a bad
moviemaking mentality, as well as some of the oddest choices for
sequels ever made.
Ridley
Scott's Blade
Runner
(1982) was a compromised film that landed up with multiple versions,
yet did become a classic because fans and filmmakers gravitated to
its look, themes and the density of the world that was created. It
would also become a classic of serious science fiction like Kubrick's
2001:
A Space Odyssey
(1968) and neo-Noir classic like Roman Polanski's Chinatown
(1974), so doing a sequel to any of these classics have high risks,
yet the studios involved decided to try for what they expected could
be potential Godfather
II
situations by getting highly talented people to make sequels to films
that really did not need them.
Godfather
III
(1990) was so problematic, Coppola (rebellious as ever!) bashes the
money motivations for making the film at the start of his own audio
commentary on the film, then explains what he tried to do to make it
work anyhow, but it was 16 years later and especially without Robert
Duvall, the film was too compromised and too late, which was can also
say about The
Two Jakes
(also 1990, also Paramount Pictures), a belated sequel no one
expected out of Chinatown
(turns out the writers wanted a trilogy back in 1974!) with Jack
Nicholson (who directed it!) back as Detective Jake Gittes. The case
from the 1974 film resurfaces in a new case, but I give the makers
credit for not shying away from the dread of the first film.
Peter
Hyams (Outland)
directed 2010:
The Year We Make Contact
(1984, seven years after Spielberg's Close
Encounters Of The Third Kind)
also 16 years later by coincidence. Kubrick was asked back as it was
based on the sequel book by Arthur C. Clarke, but Kubrick (unhappy
about not getting all of his 2001
royalties among other things) said no, though he helped Hyams a bit
and Clarke did much more. Unfortunately, the film was too talky, had
technology that looked more dated (analog TV picture tubes
especially) and awful insights in its predictions (the Soviet Union
exists in the film, but would fall two decades before!!!) means the
film should have been called '1983' and did so bad, no more Clarke
books would be optioned. Ironically, Outland,
released a year before Blade
Runner
by the same studio (Warner Bros.) and production company (The Ladd
Company) held up much better and was much more influential (it and
Scott's Alien helped usher in Blade
Runner's
dark post-modern dystopian look) and the film influenced all kinds of
outer space films, down to those by James Cameron.
So
after several cancelled attempts (including Soldier,
with Kurt Russell in a film using a recycled script from one of those
attempts), we get a Blade
Runner
sequel 35 (!!!!) years alter entitled Blade
Runner 2049
from director Denis Villeneuve (Sicario).
Like all those other serious sequels, they were made with big hopes
and expectations in mind, planned for big 70mm blow-up releases (even
when shot on lower-definition formats) and big screen multi-channel
sound and set up as prestige releases the studios thought would be
big hits. Sadly, history repeated itself so far again with 2049
(as we shall refer to it henceforth) with the film not being the hit
expected, a mixed critical response and some odd results.
One
huge issue in this cycle of rare upscale sequels is that the original
films were not reissued in theaters, on home video or both before the
sequels arrived and in all cases, you need to have seen the originals
to understand all going on in the sequels. Thus, here is our link
for more on the 1982 film, starting with its remarkable 4K edition...
http://www.fulvuedrive-in.com/review/15042/Blade+Runner:+The+Final+Cut+4K+(1982/Warner
Another
problem with all these sequels is they tend to rob the originals of
their mystery, finality and maturity on some level. In the case of
2049,
we have to believe that Harrison Ford's Rick Deckard character is
still alive 35 years later, whether he was human, a replicant or some
odd combo of the two. Never addressed all the way in 2049,
that right there killed the film for many fans who think it sells out
the best cuts of the film. It is no spoiler or secret that Ford
returned, despite his unhappiness with the first films' production.
However, like the confusion of the editing in The
Two Jakes,
the awful tech choices and effects in 2010
and the mixed flatness in Godfather
III,
2049
has its own problems including not being able to imitate the odd feel
of the first film (though changing the format it was shot on throws
it off not unlike Christopher Nolan going from Panavision 35mm in
Batman
Begins
to larger film frame formats in his Dark
Knight
sequels), or adding more density to its dystopia (there was actually
more, but they kept it out of the film!!!!) or if they are going to
answer some questions, why not ask a solid number of new ones?
However,
the film was made by a group of people loved the original at least as
much or even more than the other sequels noted, those who returned
had now things to contribute that made this fresher than expected,
new casting is often great (Robin Wright, David Bautista, Jared Leto
and some new faces we will hopefully see more of very, very soon) and
the new, more vicious 'skinjob' Blade Runner is cast in the best
possible way by the most underrated lead actor working today: Ryan
Gosling!
Gosling
is one of those too-rare actors who can carry an entire film as a
lead, yet despite being an actor since his childhood, he is somehow
still
not the big box office name he should be. This actually has the
advantage of making him immune to typecasting and being one of the
best actors of his generation can meet the challenge (this was not
easy work here) of what turns out to be a more complex role and
performance than anyone was expecting.
POSSIBLE
SPOILERS AHEAD...
K
(Gosling) is the new LAPD guy to 'retire' replicants, especially
older ones made by the Tyrell Company, which has somehow collapsed
while Coca-Cola and Atari continue to thrive in the late-Capitalist
economy of this messed-up future, when his boss (Wright) has him
trying to solve the puzzle of a missing replicant. This happens
after an odd encounter with one of his targets (Bautista) and though
he may have his act together to be able to turn on a dime, events
start to even start to throw him off. Unknown to him and his boss,
he is being used to help out powerful others with bad intents,
including the man who heads the successor of Tyrell's empire (Leto),
so the return to a new living hell is set up.
With
that, I will say there is some great action, suspense, performances,
impressive production design, cinematography and money on the screen
in a way that makes sense (this is the most expensive of the sequels
we've been discussing), yet it did not always feel like it was able
to connect with the original, it does run on longer than it ought to
and there are more than a few missed opportunities throughout.
Otherwise, it is worth a look and will hold up in the long run better
than 2010,
but 2049
also makes a few misassumptions about the first film and that is
where it really falters. Now you can see for yourself.
Speaking
of seeing, the biggest impediment to the film was having a look
worthy of the original Blade
Runner,
darkness included, but also without looking like the many (and
usually lame) imitators of the 1982 film. Then, the sequel took so
long to make that they had the option of film, Ultra HD cameras or
both. Boldly, though you cannot get it to be dark in the same way,
the makers chose 3.4K Alexa XT UHD cameras and the result is that the
2160p HEVC/H.265, HDR (10; Ultra HD Premium)-enhanced 2.35 X 1 Ultra
High Definition image is one of the best HD shoots to date in the 4K
format and in any motion picture. This is not to say there are not
some flaws and issues, but they are minor, though you can see motion
blur and more color, detail and depth limits in the still good
looking 1080p 2.35 X 1 digital High Definition image on the regular
Blu-ray. So who could have the vision and talent to pull this off?
No
surprise, it is one of the visual geniuses of our time, no joke, the
great Director
of Photography Roger Deakins, BSC, ASC (Skyfall,
Kundun,
Fargo,
Barton
Fink,
Sid
and Nancy)
making this as big screen and widescreen as he can with his superior
command of light, shadow and advanced grasp of color. He does not go
as dark as the original 1982 film by his own admission (though you
could argue Skyfall
has some shots that are as dark as both), so instead, he not only
comes up with many shots that reference the 1982 film and captures
its look and spirit, but he then turns around and comes up with some
new views, looks and even visions that are not imitations at all, yet
still an advanced, yet logical extension of the classic film. (It
finally won him an Oscar.)
Not
as easy as it looks or seems. Some shots still reminded me of 2001:
A Space Odyssey
and George Lucas' 1971 THX-1138,
but that's not a bad thing either. If anything, it adds a whole
different sense of creepiness to the film it needed and exposes the
limits of all those imitators who fell short. This joins The
Revenant
as one of the few great 4K releases originating in all UHD and not
only makes a great visual companion to the original, is stunning demo
material for all serious home theater systems.
One
side point. The film was made with IMAX presentation in mind (even
the 70mm trailer on this one looked good) so the frames are actually
larger and not as wide in that format, but this disc stays with the
scope frame that the original film used. We may or may not ever see
a version with IMAX shots that fill up our screens to 1.78 X 1 or the
like, but it is a fair argument we might be missing some picture
info, while the other films noted for 70mm blow-up usually were
missing some information on the left and right sides of the frame.
Only the late Michael Cimino (The
Deer Hunter,
Heaven's
Gate,
Year
Of The Dragon)
ever letterboxed his scope films when they got 70mm blow-up prints.
Either way, the presentation is solid and was even issued in 3D,not
available in this set.
In
theaters, the film was released in several 12-channel formats
including DTS: X, Dolby Atmos, Auro 11.1, IMAX 11.1 and in Sonix DDP,
but both of these discs use Dolby Atmos 11.1 (Dolby TrueHD 7.1 on
older systems) and it is far more strong and state-of-the-art than I
expected with rich bass, exceptional articulation, fine music (even a
Vangelis piece from the first film is used) and is very well
recorded, mixed and engineered. This is so much so that it is easily
one of the best-sounding films of the year and definitely one of the
best on home video to date. Be careful pumping this one up upon
first viewing or you might unintentionally damage your system!
Extras
include Digital HD Ultraviolet Copy for PC, PC portable and other
cyber capable devices, while the regular Blu-ray adds nearly two
hours of extras including three short films (one animated) that try
to bridge a gap between the two films:
Prologues:
2036: Nexus Dawn
Prologues:
2048: Nowhere to Run
Prologues:
2022: Black Out
...plus
a really interesting
Behind The Scenes/Making Of featurette in multiple parts you should
watch AFTER
seeing the film:
Designing
The World of Blade Runner 2049
To
Be Human: Casting Blade Runner 2049
Blade
Runner 101: Blade Runners
Blade
Runner 101: The Replicant Evolution
Blade
Runner 101: The Rise of Wallace Corp
Blade
Runner 101: Welcome to 2049
Blade
Runner 101: Joi
Blade
Runner 101: Within the Skies
So
despite my reservations, length issues and how it makes too literal
ideas from the first film, Blade
Runner 2049
is still a pretty good sequel worth your time. However, being a long
one, you'd better watch the original first, preferably The
Final Cut.
-
Nicholas Sheffo
