>The highly stylized 1982 science-fiction film Blade Runner was probably an influence on 2046, Wong Kar-wai’s wondrous, poetic art-movie investigation into a science-fiction writer’s romantic history with several women. Now it appears that 2046 has, in turn, influenced the reboot of remake-crazy Hollywood’s Blade Runner, which appends a random date to its otherwise pointless title: “Blade Runner 2049.” Here, the conflict between human police and replicants (rogue robots who long to be human) gets replayed by K (Ryan Gosling), an officer whose trek into the future’s vast wastelands repeats the same mission — and the same turquoise-tinted miasma — depicted in the original film. Once again, the job is to terminate unruly replicants, but this time they must stop an impending revolution. The replicants in Blade Runner 2049 present no political allegory (unless panic-stricken viewers see Antifa clones — inhuman despoilers of liberty — under every bed), but their conflict with K revives a problem that already existed in the first film, based on Philip K. Dick’s novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?: The man-vs.-robot concept is banal except to those who admire Dick’s dystopian fantasy as prophecy.
ARMOND DOESNT LIKE IT
Other urls found in this thread:
nationalreview.com
twitter.com
The ending
>When K’s encounter with Ford’s Deckard finally occurs, Villeneuve forfeits the emotional power of the parent-child reunion one expects for a series of ridiculous last-minute hazards. This ending is cheap. When a subsidiary character announces, “There’s a bit of every artist in their work,” it doesn’t justify Villeneuve selling out his usual grasp toward profundity. (The subplot of an underground revolution led by Hiam Abbass as a one-eyed radical evokes Incendies, but it’s a frustrating distraction.) Because Villeneuve has submitted to Scott’s director’s-cut pseudo-profundity, he loses the chance to make Blade Runner 2049 mean something in the current moral upheaval, in which dystopia and the distance between humans and apparatchiks are everyday realities. Ultimately, Villeneuve’s sequel is more ultra-hack Scott than visionary Wong. Blade Runner’s awesomeness is gone.
>nationalreview.com
This is probably the most straightforward Armond review I've ever read.
Kermode loved it so much he almost cried while reviewing it.
Kermode >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Armond
Some of this is not bad.
>The man-vs.-robot concept is banal
Correct.
>Scott's director's-cut pseudo-profundity
Correct.
But these paragraphs reflect White's deeper issues as a critic. First, he's too keenly on-duty in ideological terms - he writes for conservatives, so he looks for conservative meanings which are simply mirror images of liberal ones, rather than standing aloof from the fray, which has traditionally been the most productive stance for conservative critics.
Secondly, what the fuck is this shit?
>dystopia and the distance between humans and apparatchiks are everyday realities
Is White even a conservative? Does he know what conservatism is? Dehumanizing your opponents has nothing to do with conservative moral values. Oh, it has plenty to do with being a Republican hack, just as it has plenty to do with being a Democrat hack. But it's not philosophically what conservativism has ever been about. I can only think that the National Review are willing to publish something like that because they basically don't take cinema seriously, as it's uncharacteristic of the periodical which published Whittaker Chambers' superb negative review of Rand's Atlas Shrugged.
YES! REDDITORS BTFO
OUR GUY IS RIGHT AGAIN
and to think I wanted to see this reddit flick.
Good one.
>picked Inception as best film of that year
pls go back
Can’t be the real Armond, he never used the phrase “post-9/11”
How can he find the "moral dillemas" powerful and effective in a film like Arrival and not in BR 2049?
He just proceeds to shit on Ridley Scott more than he talks about the film itself lmao.
>When K's encounter with Ford's Deckard finally occurs, Villeneuve forfeits the emotional power of the parent-child reunion
ARMOND DIDNT EVEN FUCKING PAY ATTENTION
Oh wow how will Denny ever recover
Wow I almost was going to see this movie this weekend. Thanks for saving me ten dollars armond
Where is the pathetic shill?
kermode is a faggot who whines about sexism and shit.
Because BR2049 dillemas had already been brilliantly shown in 1984 Blade Runner. And this one handled it poorly.
what a surprise
This was great with the idea of a replican and human baby , tyrell made rachel a replicant with a womb and wallace couldnt replicate it. So many other little things armond obviously wasnt paying attention see
REDDIT BTFO YET AGAIN BASED ARMOND
If you didn't predict that Armond wasn't going to like it, then you're an idiot. I love Armond, but he's losing his touch.
Unless he liked it of course
Then you would say "BASED ARMONDxD Sup Forums BTFO"
Because Arrival didn't have nearly as much hype as BR 2049 so it was okay for Armond to like it.
Taking Armond's opinions on popular Holywood films is ridiculous. He's only a good critic for stuff without hype.
Why is this thread dead? Aren't the shills runners supposed to do damage control?
armond liked some of his other films so they can't play the contrarian card.
>Ultimately, Villeneuve’s sequel is more ultra-hack Scott than visionary Wong
literally btfo
I unrionicly like Armond