I can see now why Netflix has been throwing out so many Noah Baumbach films my way – most likely because this was just about to be released (and produced) by Netflix.
Similar kind of humour to The Squid and the Whale– the dad was almost exactly the same in both films. He even uses the same phrase, calling something "a minor work". The father figures are so bad in all of Baumbach's films it makes me think he may not have had the best father...
There are some big names in this film, and they all put in good performances. The dialogue is good, and funny, and there are some great comedic moments (the blood on Ben Stiller's nose giving the speech made me chortle).
Well, this is going to be a really difficult one to review.
First of all, let me just preface this by explaining that the original Blade Runner film is one of my favourite films of all time, and alongside Withnail's Hamlet soliloquy to the zoo in the rain at the end of Withnail & I, the 'tears in the rain' speech at the end of the original Blade Runneris my favourite scene in cinematic history. Something I don't think will ever be recreated.
So it was tough for me to even come to terms with them re-booting a film I loved so much. I think I got angry the first time I saw the trailer for this and took to social media writing something stupid like "Harrison Ford, retire thyself."
But I heard good things about this, and from people whose opinions I respect. And didn't this director do a couple of great films recently, like Arrival and Prisoners? "Maybe I should give it a chance..." I thought to myself.
And so I went along to the cinema, slightly nervous, but hoping for good things.
I might need to ask a few ranty questions here, so forgive me, but...
Why the hell did they cast Jared Leto as the villain? Why was he so overly creepy and villainy? Why didn't he just leave that visual chip thing in his neck all the time? What was the point of the scene where he stabs the replicant he just made in the tummy? Why did his assistant cry at that point, and then turn out to be the most evil kind of henchwoman in the world afterwards? Wasn't the virtual girlfriend storyline a bit too much like the film Her? Why did the tough replicant at the beginning even let K (Ryan Gosling) retire him? Surely it would've been better to kill Ryan Gosling and then no one would've found Rachel's remains? Why was the music so loud and jarring? Why is Hans Zimmer making jarring scary music (after Dunkirk and this, I think he might be losing his touch a bit when it comes to sound – too loud, too icky) when they could've got Vangelis to do the soundtrack instead? Why was it so bright? Why couldn't they have kept it dark like the original? Was Deckard a replicant or not? (Actually, I like not knowing) but did the fact he was living in radioactive Las Vegas mean he WAS a replicant? Because when they track Deckard and K down, the people who come to get them are wearing gas masks.
Also, why was the film so long?
It might sound like I didn't like it, but I did. It's not a bad film, at all. There was a lot I did like about it: the cinematography was beautiful (despite not being dark & noir enough), the acting was good (apart from Jared Leto), it didn't just rely on action but created suspense in the traditional detective/crime format, the sets were pretty and the dialogue was good.
If it wasn't connected to the original, I might've been able to relax a bit and enjoy it more. But I found myself overanalysing everything. It didn't help that the plot was overly complex and opaque at times.
But I didn't hate the film, I just hate this re-boot culture we're living in now.
I was recovering from sickness myself when I watched it, and I think I just wanted something lighthearted that would distract me from how I was feeling.
Romantic comedies are usually a bit sickly (no pun intended), but this one dealt with a wide range of issues in a very neat and refreshing way. I thought the premise was good and the comedy toed a very nice line between normal everyday people trying to be funny, and actually being unfunny.
I was pleasantly surprised to see in the credits at the end that it's based on a true story and was written by Kumail and his actual partner in real life.
The premise to this documentary sounded really interesting.
But it wasn't.
Boy oh boy have I been having some bad luck with documentaries recently.
It was terrible. I hated the filmmaker's stupid smug face, and David Prowse sounds like a big blabbermouth who got cut out of the franchise because he talked to the press too much. No matter how they spin it. I sympathised with George Lucas in this case – and that's not a sentence I could've foreseen myself saying in a while.
I think I'd heard too much about it before watching. I thought it was absolutely beautifully shot though – some of the weather scenes, the birds flying in the sky, the part where all the furniture flies in the air in slow motion – fantastic.
It was a great exploration into the nature of mental health, and it definitely made me paranoid and uneasy. Most certainly a film that illustrates the elusive nature of truth and reality.
The scene where the main character has his outburst in public is incredible. I just wish I hadn't seen it a million times before on YouTube, because I think I spent the majority of the film waiting for him to lose his shit.
Note to self: try to write review sooner rather than later.
I really enjoyed this film. I thought it was dark, brooding, not easy to predict (in fact the plot threw me in completely the wrong direction a couple of times). I thought the acting and dialogue were great, and it was a really immersive world.
At times I think it could've moved a tiny bit faster, and it was a very long film.
