Blade Runner 2049 - 13 Nerdy Nights of Horror - Day 13 HAPPY HALLOWEEN!

            I’ve already given my thoughts on “Blade Runner,” along with my experiences with the movie, and what has changed about my opinion since I first viewed it. I still believe the film is overrated, but I do have a stronger appreciation for it, considering it’s a film that has gotten people talking about it to this day. And with The Final Cut, it really allows you to soak in the true meanings behind the film and be engulfed in this world that has so much to learn about it. It is a film that does stand the test of time, regardless of flaws.

            Word of a sequel being made first popped up in 1999, but nothing was getting off the ground until 2014, when Ridley Scott confirmed it was being made. It not only had Scott returning to produce the film, but it had Hampton Fancher returning to write the script, with help from Michael Green. Green also worked with Scott earlier in the year on “Alien: Covenant,” but also had “Logan” under his belt, as well as the upcoming “Murder on the Orient Express” film. Harrison Ford also agreed to reprise his role of Rick Deckard as well, much like with what he did with “Han Solo” a couple years prior, and the film was set to star Ryan Gosling as a new Blade Runner.

Only burning question left was, who was going to direct the movie, and the answer we got was Denis Villeneuve. At the time, Villeneuve was already best known for “Prisoners” and “Enemy,” and had just wrapped “Sicario” at the time of his attachment. It left me a bit cautious, as I wasn’t too big a fan of “Sicario,” but last year had my worries put to rest, after witnessing Villeneuve’s last movie: “Arrival.” If you haven’t seen “Arrival,” then by all means, stop reading and go watch it. “Arrival” was not only a true modern sci-fi masterpiece, but it really had the kind of intellectual flare that very few sci-fi movies have. Seeing that movie allowed a sense of comfort to be brought, knowing that a film maker with the kind of tenacity and ambition as Villeneuve, was going to be handling a project such as this. And from what I was seeing, it got me invested in revisiting the original again.

I saw the film at a double feature with the first at one of my local Regal theatres, because apparently only one Regal per city was allowed to do it or something, and I’ve given this film a good amount of time to think on. So now the question everybody wants to know is this: what are my thoughts on the movie? Do I join the crowd of critics and cinephiles that are astounded by it, or am I in the minority that thinks it’s a long, bloated, overrated mess, seeking attention for people to listen? Well, let me say that “Blade Runner 2049” is not only good, but I would dare even put it among other legacy sequels. “The Godfather Part 2”; “Aliens”; “Silence of the Lambs”; “Terminator 2”; “The Dark Knight”; “Mad Max: Fury Road”; now “Blade Runner 2049.”

But what exactly makes me put it up at that level of praise? Because it does one thing that many sequels tend to have trouble doing, and that’s expand the future it created. Almost all of the advertising and technology that you saw in “Blade Runner” is kept in continuity for the sequel, like Atari and Cocoa-Cola reigning supreme in the gaming and soda wars. They never showcase any current trends or politics, no social media is present, and doesn’t feature any of the tech we got later on, like smart phones. It wasn’t a film that was being made for the same reason as any other sequel like “Kingsman The Golden Circle,” “Spiderman: Homecoming,” or “Transformers The Last Knight” were commissioned. It felt like this was a film that was purely made to introduce more to this world, in a way that feels like it was important. And all the new tech that they do showcase does feel in tune with how this world would evolve in its own version of 2019 to 2049. It really is spectacular to see Hampton Fancher write this world as if it was just the very next day, but especially to see Dennis Villeneuve both surpass and honor it like it was just now being created.

What also makes this especially important to go see on a big screen is the cinematography and score. Roger Deakins has had such a keen eye with a camera, and out of all the movies that he’s worked on as director of photography, I would most definitely say this is his best work yet. The look of this film is practically orgasmic to witness, it looks so beautiful. Every shot and frame of this movie has such a rich and captivating aura to it, really feeling like you’re looking into a world that’s both familiar and not…if that makes any sense. And the score by Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch is similar in that familiarity I talked about, but it really emphasizes just how majestic and epic this film is.

Ryan Gosling is absolutely spectacular as the new Blade Runner; with him being a replicant, you have a whole new wave of possibilities to work off of, considering he’s not lucky like Deckard to have a Rachael in his life, and his involvement with this case has much more secrets to it than he had hoped. His arc really does go into themes about life and what our true purpose is, and if we really have a destiny of our own set to happen. Gosling carries those ideals with a great deal of strength, and I don’t know anyone else who could have done it better. After this, “The Big Short,” “La La Land,” and “The Nice Guys,” seems like Gosling is having quite the winning streak.

Harrison Ford return as Deckard is especially welcome, and it was actually nice to see him in a sequel role that he’s actually invested in. While he doesn’t really appear until much later in the film, you definitely feel his presence throughout the film, especially in the beginning. And when he does show up, it feels rewarding, and the scenes that he and Gosling share really showcase some of the best acting that Ford has given in a long time. Now a big question people have is, do they confirm Deckard is a replicant? Thankfully, they don’t, and I’m really glad for that. This tells me that the people behind this more than respect their audience, by keeping that mystery a secret, as opposed to confirming a side and disappointing the others. And it also adds onto more questions about replicants than we thought, wouldn’t you say?

As for any problems I had with the film, there were two big problems I used to have with the film. For a runtime almost at 3-hours, I questioned why it needed to be as long as it did, but after going into it again, I almost didn’t want it to end, because I was just so captivated by what was on screen; maybe I was just tired when I first saw it. The other problem I used to have with the film was Jared Leto; he wasn’t bad, but much like with “Suicide Squad,” he was so hyped up, but barely has twenty minutes of screen time. At first, I asked why would they even bother getting Leto for the part, but it could be just on the part of mis-marketing, which is why I don’t like watching trailers anymore. I’ll even admit, I have not watched the new “Star Wars” trailer, so I don’t know what people are pissed about in it.

So with this big resurgence for the “Blade Runner” story, should there be third one? Well, I think it is possible to make it a trilogy, but there’s no need to rush it. I feel like if they did want to do a third one, they would play this smart and give it a few years to get the correct story going for it. That, and you would have to make sure everyone is fully dedicated to it; this film would not have been as good if you didn’t have people who cared about it like they did. So keep it in mind: plan it out, don’t go rushing it.

With that said, “Blade Runner 2049” is an absolute masterpiece, and I’m so happy to have seen it when I did. If you love the first film, I guarantee you that you’ll fall in love with “2049.” From its cinematography, to its writing, the scope of the world, the lead performances, the new possibilities to theorize and talk about…it’s a film that I’ve been pining to see come alive for so long. If there is one sci-fi epic that you must absolutely see this year, it’s this film. Much like with “Interstellar,” “Inception,” “The Martian,” “Gravity,” and Villeneuve’s last film “Arrival,” “Blade Runner 2049” is the next modern sci-fi classic of the year.

Rating: A+

And with another month of October done, so passes another Halloween. Thank you all for joining me on our fourth year of Halloween reviews for the month, and I hope to do this again next year, for our 5th celebration. I know I kind of cheated a little bit, re-talking about a couple horror films I talked about in previous vlogs, but you never exactly know when someone's mind does change after a while. That, and I was aware about half of the reviews were more sci-fi related than horror, but don't worry. I'll change that next year. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to finish up "Stranger Things" season 2.

Happy Halloween, everypony!

4 Horror Films I Differ With Critics and/or Audiences On - 13 Nerdy Nights of Horror - Day 12

            After I reviewed “Death Note (2017)” and the original “Blade Runner,” I started to remember multiple situations that questioned whether or not my judgement towards a film was truly what I’ve felt. I also took into deeper thinking about more questions about my opinions on movies. Are my thoughts really my thoughts, or am I just going along or against a crowd, to feel some sort of importance? And if it was what I felt about the film, is it from a critic’s point of view, or from how I would go about movies regularly? Questions like these and conflicts like Rotten Tomatoes vs DC Fan boys, tend to come about every so often, and this year has had quite a number of films. The four films that I want to observe here are ones that I wanted to discuss how I felt about, where I have at least some form of disagreement with audiences and/or critics.

            “It Comes At Night,” written and directed by Trey Edward Shults, tells of a family of three trying to survive a plague that has infected almost all human life, and how they try to survive in this world, just as another couple comes by and asks for help. I remember seeing this movie the same day I went to go see “All Eyez On Me,” and I had time to do a double feature. I met up with a friend of mine who had graduated a month prior, and was actually joining someone in seeing the same movie. I felt lucky, knowing this was a film I wanted to talk with somebody about. I was advised by my friend, Noah, who said to look at this film in the same vein as “The Babadook,” “The VVitch,” and “It Follows,” which are all three films I truly love. However, after it was done, the three of us had kind of a similar opinion: “eh.” When I came home, I found a great divide between critics and audiences, where the critics over 80% were positive about the movie, but it got about 40% or less from audiences, who even gave it a “D” on CinemaScore. And I have to agree with them on that, because I don’t think this movie’s that good. Sure, I can admire the performances (especially Joel Edgerton who does a fantastic job), as well as the cinematography and editing, but that’s about it. I thought it was an interesting choice to change aspect ratios, to sort of signify if something isn’t right; but after the first time done, it becomes repetitive as you become more fixated on the ratio changing again, rather than the movie itself. The best way I can describe it, is that it feels more like a college short film turned into a feature on the same budget. It might be filmed and acted great, but you can definitely feel the pretentious artist vibe ejaculating into the reel.

            February brought to us all the smash horror hit, “Get Out,” by Jordan Peele. This is a film that just about everybody is calling one of the best films of the year, and one of the most original horror films ever made. People have not been able to stop raving about it, and the positive acclaim felt like no one could really dislike the movie. And to the film’s credit, it is a really interesting concept, having people use a hypnosis to steal other people’s bodies…but unfortunately, I don’t think the film is all that great. Do I like it? Yeah, but I wouldn’t go out of my way to say it’s one of the best horror films I’ve seen, let alone movies in general. I do think it is a well written film, adding a clever mix of horror, comedy, and politics, with some really creative actions and lines that each of the characters have, and the cast does an excellent job with the material, but I think it may be that I just didn’t think the film was directed all that great. I found most of the movie to be really slow, not really building that much tension, and could have easily been cut down for about a few of them. I know it’s trying to add in those subtle comedic moments, but the way they were inserted feels really unnecessary to what the film was trying to go for. It wouldn’t be a problem if the jokes were funny, but I only remember finding about one or two jokes that made me laugh. They just didn’t seem to land with me the same way some of his other comedy humors me. As for the horror element of the film, I didn’t really feel scared at all. In fact, the way this film tries to blend horror and comedy feels much like the effort of a college short film; the two elements in this manner just don’t work together. And it pains me to really say any of this, because I love almost all of Jordan Peele’s other works; he’s one of the funniest writers working today in Hollywood, but I just don’t think he was as good of a director here. It’s a shame too, because I want him to be versatile with his approach to comedy, but I just didn’t really get the enjoyment I wanted from “Get Out.”

            One of the more controversial films we have here, as well as one of the most controversial films ever released, was the Jennifer Lawrence flick, “mother!” directed and written by Darren Aronofsky, and co-starring Javier Bardem, Michelle Pfiefer, and Ed Harris. While some critics find it to be a somewhat passing film, garnering a 69% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes, much like “It Comes At Night,” the fresh rating it has is counteracted by a rotten rating by audiences, along with a score of F on CinemaScore. Not many films usually get a hated score like that, but casual movie goers did not hold back on this one. Similar to how “Detroit” is physically and psychologically violent, “mother!” amps that up to 11 and 12. This film has made people uncomfortable, vicious, ill, and shocked to see what was presented before them on screen. I didn’t think it was much, as the film looked like Aronofsky’s adaptation of “Rosemary’s Baby,” but when I saw the film opening weekend, I completely get what everyone was talking about. It’s Aronofky’s interpretation of God and the Old Testament, as told through the life of an acclaimed poet's wife, and by the time the film arrived at the third act, it clicked in pretty quick. I may not be someone who defines themselves to a religion, but I am aware that Darren Aronofsky is known for giving out films that make people feel uncomfortable, and “mother!” does that job amazingly. To me, this is what I was hoping to see from the religious films we’ve been getting in theatres the past few years, but never quite got. The many close-ups that comprise most of Jennifer Lawrence’s takes in the movie is a nice subtle choice that tries to get the audience as uncomfortable as her character is. So for people to go and complain about how uncomfortable the movie is, you’re actually applauding it. It honestly does make me sad that ambitious films like these only come every so often now, considering most movies nowadays are blockbuster or franchise universe attempts and installments. We really could use a New Hollywood Era, so auteurs like Aronofsky and others can influence other film makers to do the same.

            Last of this bunch, we have Gore Verbinski’s “A Cure For Wellness,” a film that hasn’t received well praise from either side. Much like with “mother!” I understand as to why people would be detracted away from the film, especially considering Verbinski has had a couple duds the past few years, with the exception of “Rango,” so it could have been that people had enough. Because of that, the film tanked at the box office, grossing less than $27 million against a $40 million budget. It’s a shame, because I just watched the film last night, and I find it to be one of the most atmospheric horror films I’ve seen in a long time. It was kind of like a mix between “Shutter Island,” “The Stepford Wives,” and “American Horror Story: Asylum.” Watching this on a 4K television, I got to appreciate the magnificent cinematography by Bojan Bazelli; every shot in this movie, accompanied by the amazing production design and stellar editing, show such an otherworldly presence that sucks you in. While I was upset at “The Lone Ranger” having a long runtime, “A Cure For Wellness” makes up for its runtime by giving us interesting discussions about the institution’s origins and how history tends to repeat itself time and time again. Dane DeHaan is excellent, carrying this performance of a man who is questioning the methods used at the institution, and how he can completely escape this nightmare hole. Since he has to wear a cast and crutches for most of the movie, even the sound of him moving can be unsettling as to what could happen. And seeing what this man goes through, it’s no wonder it got an R rating, because it goes into all the worst scenarios you could be thinking of almost every time. Although, I will admit I wasn’t too thrilled about the very end of the movie; it just felt a little too confusing for what I felt it should have gone for. If you’ve seen the movie, you may know what I’m talking about. Other than that, I would definitely call “A Cure For Wellness” one of the most underrated movies I’ve seen this year, along with “Ghost in the Shell.”

            I normally don’t do these kinds of reviews, but I wanted to do this so you guys got to know about some films that I tend to disagree with people on. Hell, it was one of the reasons I wanted to talk about the recent “Death Note” movie. If you’ve seen any of these films, feel free to tell me where you stand with them. Also, now that I’ve talked about some of the more talked about horror films of this year so far, what am I going to review for Halloween? Well…remember how I promised you a “Blade Runner 2049” review?

To be continued…