![]() It starts to look like K might, in fact, be the child, and that Decker may, in fact, be his father. He goes on the hunt to find this child, which leads him to Decker (who’s hiding out in a dystopian Vegas). K is one of these “robot” blade runners and spends the majority of his time struggling with the fact that he’s not human, that he doesn’t have a soul.ĭuring an investigation, K finds out that a female replicant may have given birth to a child many years ago, which is impossible. So we’ve built a new kind of blade runner. They called these special cops, “blade runners.” Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) was one of the best of these blade runners.Ĭut to now, 27 years later, and some of the old replicants are still out there. So LAPD built a police unit to hunt them down. ![]() In the previous movie, humanoid robots, known as “replicants,” became faulty. And while it was interesting, I don’t think he lived up to the stuff Ridley Scott did 35 years ago.Ģ049 follows a blade runner named “K” (Ryan Gosling). As far as the visuals and the soundtrack? Villeneuve definitely brought in his own take on that. To them I would say, well, it didn’t have a whole lot to live up to on the script side. Where does that leave us with this new iteration? Good question. ![]() Despite seeing the movie several times over the years, I continue to forget the plot outside of “REPLICANTS.” That’s a classic sign of a bad screenplay. And the story for Blade Runner was a mess. So much so that, at times, you’re tricked into believing what you’re watching is better than it is.īut guys. Blade Runner’s use of art direction, cinematography, and score, are some of the best in the history of the science-fiction genre. I’m not saying that Blade Runner, on the whole, was a disaster. And so what was, at best, an interesting experiment, has become some sort of misunderstood classic. You start to look ignorant if you don’t agree. And a funny thing happens if enough people claim ownership over a failure. Plus it’s cool to say you love something that other people don’t. The movie is “theirs” because “they” are the ones who found and built it up. It provides them with a sense of ownership. And those who did reacted with a collective, “Eh?” Why? Because of that aforementioned bad screenplay.īut one of the things cinema geeks love to do is claim failures and remake them into overlooked classics. So why is it such a beloved movie? Well, it isn’t. Those who defend it don’t understand screenwriting. The original Blade Runner had a terrible screenplay. Dick’s novel, “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?”īefore we get to the review of today’s film, let’s all put our Honesty Hats on and be real. Writer: Hampton Fancher and Michael Green (story by Hampton Fancher) based on characters from Philip K. One of the more shocking decisions for this sequel was bringing back the film’s original writer, Hampton Fancher, who, since 1982’s Blade Runner, literally has two writing credits that aren’t Blade Runner related. They had to know that this wasn’t Guardians of the Galaxy, right? Maybe they got lost in Ryan Gosling’s soulful eyes and got delusions of grandeur. ![]() But that Warner Brothers and Sony gambled 155 million dollars on the movie in the first place. Dark and thoughtful sci-fi never does blockbuster business. Premise: When an android Blade Runner discovers his entire life is a lie, he’ll stop at nothing to find out where he came from.Ībout: The long-in-development sequel to Blade Runner finally hit theaters this weekend, bringing in 32 million dollars on a 155 million dollar budget.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |