2017. Mankind learned to imitate the traits of neo-Noir. In the pursuit of the spirit of the eighties, the quantities “replica” retro-wave increased with each passing year. However, this has led to growing concern fans of the original neo-Noir films. A number of skillfully used the techniques of this genre, some movies exceeded all reasonable limits and the question arose where lies the line between film, fully consistent with the spirit of the time and “replica”. Those who specially went to the session for the sake of finding the answer is called those who went to “blade Runner 2049”…
We must pay tribute to Danny Villeneuve he didn’t ruin anything that could ruin how it is with sequels 9 times out of 10. The original is not offended, the story continued. The cinematography is beautiful, the color and design are pleasing to the eye, the number of visual findings is striking. The whole film is full of shots that can be interpreted metaphorically, what appears to be a sign of high class Creator (except that the hive was asking in the lap of a giant statue, if you know what I mean).
Are there any downsides? Yes, I think that the character of Jared Leto can be safely removed from the narrative. The antagonist of it is quite comical, sometimes even caricatured. The story arc of his wobbly feet of clay, and in the final and completely ignored. It is clear that it is necessary for the plot, but it was possible to find a more elegant solution. In the first Bladrunner actually was not the villain of the hero. All of the characters, as demanded commandment of film Noir was not bad and not good, and alive (especially the Replicants, which is typical). In the sequel, that Mr. Wallace that his minions (she especially), senseless and merciless at the behest of the writer, not the logic of the narrative.
With neo-Noir, returning to the epigraph, is also left ambiguous. The techniques used in the first film, truly canonical “smoke and mirrors” that creates a certain magic. Shadows, night of reflection, steam, dust, rain, the picture takes on a dreamlike components, hiding from us the truth and blurring the duality good-bad. In the new film everything is maximum clear and smooth. The characters reflected in perfectly cleaned the mirror. Now we know that it is cool and upscale, but still only a movie, not something magically associated with real world, authentic in its mutnosti and blur, we’ve seen once and surviving on the margins of memory. The magic of film Noir.
But once again, praise the tape can be long and with good reason. However, the review will still be grayed out and will be left without a rating, for one simple reason. The idea of existentialism and artificial intelligence have not received any development. And the saddest thing is that it is rather the rule, not the exception, at least remember the recent “Wild West”. In both cases, mastery of form, the excellent visuals and acting and… Secondary. The impression that the idea stopped in its development 20 years ago, “the Ghost in the shell”. Then, indeed, the stunning visionary statements were not born, nothing fresh, no insights, no revelations. Even tape 1982, the deeper and more precisely in its promise. Character Rutger Hauer, first rebelling against its Creator, and after experiencing this shock in the face of death (and here it should be noted that the character of Ryan Gosling, of course, is the incarnation of Roy Batty, and not Descartes) is a much more powerful idea than what we offer 35 years later. Replicants gain the ability to reproduce? So what? They also could obtain new knowledge and the plant to make its copies. What’s the difference? But if the conversation is about what people makes them function is the merger of two genetic codes, one new and the nurturing of the child so, again, this is a purely mechanical function. This is a step back to ponder what is being and consciousness. Even in the same “Ghost in the shell” the problem of reproduction solved much smarter merge two minds into something new cybernetic body, evolutionary bypassing the need for traditional breeding. Still, Descartes is talking about “think, therefore I exist”, not “multiply, then.”
Or maybe just every generation needs its own films on the subject. And repetition is not a Vice, but a historical necessity. In any case, the repetition came out perfect.
PS. In my modest opinion, the last scene is superfluous. Penultimate perfect to complete.