Haydn Engel Reviews

Rating: 8/10 (7 May 2020)

What happens when you pump millions into a film that will not make it back in theatres. The obvious answer is that you market it as something it is not. This is a standard practice in cinema, and it does nothing but exploit viewers and upend the general public's views of a particular film. Which destroys the ability of artistic directors to follow their vision, and it has always made me wonder if it would be at all possible to have two versions of a film in theatres at the same time. You could have a studio cut of the movie in those 64 screen multiplexes and in the indie theatres, where they serve spiced tea and apples behind the counter, you could have a director's cut because at the moment this ploy of marketing an arthouse flick as an action movie is doing no one any favours.
DE: The directing is superb, though that has become a standard for Villeneuve. However, unlike his other films, this one draws on its shots for far too long and you could certainly feel like the editor could have stepped in a cut a good 10 minutes of this film and still leave that lingering desolation feeling. It almost feels like Villeneuve was trying to mimic Stalker in his approach, but unlike Stalker, the lingering shots feel inauthentic as in Stalker we are meant to be contemplating existence, religion, purpose, but in 2049 we are sitting at the heart of a mystery that feels like we are not trying to solve.
W: The dialogue is decent, yet a little clunky and on the nose. And sadly that is the best part of it. Though I am not shocked Hampton Fancher, the man who penned the original script is back, however in the subsequent 25 years he has written nothing of note, so obviously the studio brings in the standard scriptwriter in the guise of Michael Green, who did pen Logan but also penned Alien: Covenant and the much-maligned Green Lantern. This combination leaves us with a film that barely has a plot and does not delve into anything of note. However, it does likely explain why Villeneuve structured the film the way he did and why there are so many drawn-out shots.
C: This is so beautifully shot that it should be taught in schools and, sadly, this film was Deakins's first Oscar out of 13 noms, though his second would come with the gorgeous 1917. His use of the camera and understanding of a shot is fantastic, and if one sees the rest of his works, they can see a shift in style for this film, and while those long lingering shots may be a pain for the storyteller visually, they are perfect representations of what you are trying to get across. The mood and notion are there in every frame. The angles and shadows that are being cast on Gosling throughout the film speak volumes. The special effects, while excellent, do not feel genre-defining or like 25 years have passed since the original.
A: Ford cannot act at a level beyond a 6, and that is fine. He is there because he has to be. Gosling's muted touch was decent enough though I worry he is going to get typecast as wooden if he keeps on the path he currently is on. Sylvia Hoeks, one would assume was hired for her visual aesthetic rather than her ability to emote, which if this was Tarrantino flick, I think she would have worked. But in this nuanced, subtle drawn-out film her character comes off cartoonish.
I was incredibly impressed with Ana de Armas and found her performance soulful yet understated. The mechanical I am saying what I suppose to yet am still a creature with almost a concept of feelings really elevates Goslings numbed performance.
S: I would have scored this higher if I had not seen Arrival, whereas the industrial style sound design should have been more engaging. I could not help feeling they were reusing it. Of course, the sounds were meant to be jarring given all the silence we were fed, but ultimately it feels like that opening sequence in the remake of Funny Games, it is not shocking or grating in the sense the creator wants, but more in the sense, please turn down the TV those noises are starting to give me a headache.
PD: The PD in this film was quite good, the sets feel real and lived in. Especially the opening sequence. Rebuilding on a franchise that is famous for its visual effects and the PD is not easy, but they were able to meet a standard that has been heralded for decades. Dennis Gassner did well here as is expected. He has almost always been brought in when you need a world that feels distant, yet somehow still retains elements of the one we live in. See his work in the Truman Show, Big Fish and 1917 for this.
BA: Well done throughout, especially Leto's character, though I will say the only real negative was Wright's outfit. What is this 2049 and she is channelling the 50's or was she literally a copy of the police chief from Futurama? Also, Ford's entire presence was uninspired.