|
BLADE RUNNER is one of my favorite movies ever. I have watched at least one version of it every year since the 1980s, which is easier now that i have the "briefcase" collection. I've read numerous treatises about its impact on film-making over the last 35 years; its relation to Dick's original book; its commentary on global warming; its use of Noir elements... I even recall reading an interesting essay about its use of "eye" imagery. Is Deckard a replicant? No, nor should he be, but the debate goes on.
So i had mixed feelings about the very idea of a sequel; equal parts dread and desire... like an anticipated rendevous with the protagonist of the vagina dentata horror film, TEETH.
Was the new film going to resolve the Deckard/replicant debate in the worst possible way, or otherwise shit on other aspects of its progenitor, thus undermining the original? Was it going to be a wrong-headed disaster? When i heard Villanueve was going to direct, i became more hopeful. He is an interesting filmmaker, with a strong Dick-ian streak of questioning the underlying nature of reality in his stories, and an evocative visual style. But he's done some stinkers, too... so again, hope mixed with dread. And Jared Leto? Oy.
I watched it with my family last Monday. Then i saw it again, this time in IMAX, on Wednesday.
I was greatly relieved. Why?
1) It's great;
2) It stands on its own, while still evoking the original;
3) Its intense visuals of a decaying future are matched by a thoughtful story;
4) Ford hasn't been this good in a while;
5) It alludes to, but does not resolve, the Deckard/replicant issue;
6) It uses Leto in a limited, and thus more effective, way;
7) Great score that uses motifs of the Vangelis score but takes it in an original direction; and
8) No badly executed voice-over.
Is it a flawless movie? Um, no. It's too long (by about 1/2 hour), and its deliberate pacing can be a slog for those not engaged with the story or the characters. And the characters probably aren't developed nearly well enough for those not already invested in this narrative. The story's reversals might be too clumsily executed, and its philosophical navel-gazing can be wearisome. And Ryan Gosling's emotionless "Joe" (at least at the outset) might not be everybody's idea of a compelling protagonist. But the original film had a lot of flaws, too.
Both films remind me of Cindy Crawford, the gorgeous supermodel of the 1980s-90s, who had a big black mole on her face. She wasn't beautiful DESPITE the mole; her beauty was intensified by it. "Perfect imperfections", as John Legend sang.
And like the original, this film has apparently flopped, too, despite good reviews. And as its critical reputation grows over the years and it, too, becomes a slowly discovered flawed masterpiece, I'll have other versions to look forward to when they release the work-print, the director's cut, the European version, and the "final" cut, and they then put them all together in another briefcase collection. So i've got that going for me... which is nice.
| 
