Oct 062017

“Blade Runner 2049” is… meh. And I don’t mean “meh” in “it’s not everything it could/should have been” way, it’s”meh” in the “I sat through it, pointed my eyes at it, listened to it, and very little of it made any sort of impact whatsoever” way.

It was competent film making, I suppose. But the plot was muddled, the main character was the polar opposite of “interesting,” *everything* was dismal and depressing (the original was set in a rather dismal Los Angeles, but “2049” is actually a post-apocalyptic wasteland on the “Judge Dredd” side of “Mad Max”). The original had some amazing visuals; this one… not so much. The original had some impressive music; this ones soundtrack was, sad to say, pedestrian and utterly forgettable.

Oh, well. At least they didn’t redesign the Klingons…

There were a few interesting things, like the fact that the “Blade Runner” universe is apparently an alternate history where the Soviet Union is still a going concern (as is Pan Am). But on the whole… meh.

 Posted by at 6:03 pm
  • Nick Gaston

    I haven’t seen it, but the bit about the composer piqued my curiosity.

    It looks like they originally hired the guy who did the score for “Arrival”…but fired him and replaced him with Hans Zimmer and one of his buddies?

    What the hell? I mean, I like Zimmer just fine, sure—and I like Johnny Cash, too, but I don’t think he’d be a good choice to replace Vangelis, either.

    Was Tom Raybould sick or something? He’d have been cheaper, too.

  • FelixA9

    Saw it last night and totally agree. Jared Leto’s character is interestingly weird but most of the rest is a snooze-fest.