A round-up of Letterboxd reactions to Denis Villeneuve’s much-anticipated Blade Runner sequel.
In the fortnight since its release, Blade Runner 2049 has retained its 4.2+ rating on Letterboxd. Denis Villeneuve’s sequel is generally drawing high praise, with some caveats, and a lot of love for Roger Deakins. (We’ve tried to keep this round-up spoiler-free, but one person’s mild spoiler is another’s setting-the-context. You have been forewarned.)
“The most haunting and moving science fiction film I’ve ever seen. Probably the most beautiful too!” writes Jennifer wanted to “print out and frame every single shot in this film and hang them in my house”. We agree.
Also writing at the five-star end of the scale is Tristan Parillo: “The perfect anti-blockbuster, 2049 features all the visual spectacle and visceral imagery you’d expect from a sequel to Blade Runner, but sacrifices none of the intellectual depth.”
“Blade Runner 2049 hit me like 2,049 Harrison Ford punches to the face. What a fantastic film with a beautiful message, and just all-around cinematic treat. It’s possibly the slowest movie I’ve ever seen but it rewards you with its mood and atmosphere. Every set piece is beautiful and each performance is moving. Fantastic theatre experience.” (Cody)
Many of you have praise for the way in which 2049 sits as a sequel to David Nolan)
“Blade Runner 2049 bewegt sich auf dem selben philosophischen niveau des vorgängers, verbindet dabei gekonnt alte denkansätze und bringt in manchen szenen dann schöne ‘gespiegelte’ ideen mit ein.” (Burning)
Translation: “Blade Runner 2049 moves on the same philosophical plane as its predecessor, skillfully combining old approaches to thinking and introducing some beautiful ‘mirrored’ ideas.”
Blade Runner 2049 lovers have their criticisms, too: that the marketing sucked, that Jared Leto’s character wasn’t particularly memorable despite all the build-up, that it lacked the quotable dialog that peppered the original, and that the female characters were marginalized.
Harvey goes further on this last point in a mixed review: “The treatment of women in this film is especially rough. The female characters are either prostitutes, pure evil, kept behind glass, disfigured or killed. After Sicario, I’m sensing a pattern.”
But overall, the positive reviewers agree that it is a film worth putting on your pants for.
At the other end of the scale—aside from near-universal agreement about Deakins’ Oscar-worthy cinematography—reviewers have issues with the plot, the character development, the need for a sequel at all, and, again, the treatment of females. treats its women as disposable”.
Another common theme amongst 2049’s detractors: whether the film’s central question was worth making an entire movie to ask. Not according to Knut-Arne Heggen: “Ultimately it feels contrived, bleak and without charm, almost devoid of ideas and not confident in the few it does play around with, leaving absolutely nothing to the imagination. The lazy script leaves the existentialism of the first in favor of an essentialist outlook which is completely uninteresting and oddly dated in a time when AI is a very hot topic.”
CourtJester concurs: “2049 tried to ride the line between cerebral visual poem and action blockbuster, and it failed in both respects. In part, this is because the original Blade Runner concept is not as unique or interesting as it once was. ‘Do clones have souls?’ was never a sound philosophical question, at least not as much as the oft-confused ‘do computers have souls?’. It was fun in the ’80s, but we know better now.”
Some of you are unimpressed (“Films and Faith agrees.
This write-up on Deakins’ lighting and cinematography is a worthwhile read, collecting material from many of his recent interviews and breaking down his lighting set-ups. And, like most of you, IndieWire isn’t holding back on its Oscar recommendation.
What did you think? Let us know by posting a review or replying via the usual channels.
-0-640-0-360-crop-fill.jpg?k=a01be124cd)
