MovieChat Forums > blissquest > Replies
blissquest's Replies
True
I second everything you have said here, my friends, and it is goose-bump-refreshing to find more who understand what Mr. Villeneuve has done with this incredible film.
I hope others, like us, will continue to chime-in on this board, echoing the praise this film truly deserves.
Ryan played the part exactly as he should've: a cold, powerful replikant who only has feelings for his AI. Notice the only time he shows any emotion throughout the film is when everything he thought he knew about himself was being challenged. That's because what was happening (or what he thought) was beyond the scope of his design. Humans call it cognitive dissonance - when things aren't adding up, your brain (mind) tries to create something to put you at ease.
And to think today, 2017, the closest thing we have to a replikant is a sex doll, and they damned sure can't argue about implanted memories. But hey, we gotta start somewhere.
https://www.siliconwives.com/collections/luxury-sex-dolls.
I agree partially with your conclusion.
Wallace made it clear he would get the information he was looking for out of Deckard one way or another. He said he had the means of making Deckard experience "real pain," but those means are off world.
The Replikants knew Wallace would eventually get that information out of Deckard, so they wanted K to intercept Wallace. Why K? His special skill for finding and retiring Replikants.
I read the book, after watching the 1982 film, looking for some "illumination", and boy was I disappointed! I found it dry and dull. The problem with Sci-Fi, based on technology, is it'll ultimately become outdated and irrelevant, and that's why films are there to take the original idea to the next level, which what Scott and Villeneuve have done.
Amazon is releasing a series called Electric Dreams, which as you know is a short title of the book Bladerunner is based on. I guarantee you, if it's based on the book, it'll bomb, big time!
Nolan seems to enjoy tackling complex subject matters, which makes his job exceptionally difficult. The more complex the subject (i.e. a dream within a dream with a dream), the more easy it is to make mistakes or overlook important details. And for the life of me, I don't understand why he's agreed to do Memento again!
Current IMDB ratings put this film at 8.7. By next year, it'll be at 8.3, which is the same rating as it's predecessor, and that'll make it a bonafide hit, regardless of what the naysayers have to say.
Many doubts were reconciled when I watched it (paid for it) again the following day. Enjoy!!!
And the MASTERPIECE Inception? please don't tell me you think that's garbage as well?
Negative, baseless garbage should be ignored!!
He's blind ("flawed"), so I doubt he's a replicant.
No. K is just a boy-clone of the "real" born child.
But, but what about his INCREDIBLE batman trilogy?? I mean, come on!
Me too....I thought Arrival was nothing but HYPE, but 2049 is INSANE!!
Again, I would tend to go with Tracer's conclusion, which is in synch with what I said earlier: K was (is) just the sacrificial son.
Here goes....
K is the (boy) clone of Deckard's daughter, created as a decoy to throw-off anyone coming to look for her in the future. That's why K has some of her memories, and that's why she was crying when he went to see her. She realized who he was, but couldn't tell him because that would put her in harm's way.
Anyone disagree with my conclusion?
I did see Enemy and completely forgot it was directed by Villeneuve. I enjoyed that film as well, but the giant-insect-metaphor at the end went over my head. All I kept thinking about afterwards was Kafka's Metamorphosis.
"Denis seems ok with not having to appeal to the general audience if it means that he can give a supperior aesthetic for the genre enthusiasts."
I couldn't have expressed this point any better myself, and what I find baffling is the fact that there are some folks who didn't like this film, but enjoyed the original. How is that possible?!
Well, I'm glad you enjoyed it as much as I did, and thanks for making a good point about Villeneuve's vision.
Yeah, I agree, the sweat thing was overdone. But remember, Deckard was retired and at home, so why would he be wearing a jacket from 30 years ago?
What I find shocking is not so much the fact that you've shot this film down without even seeing it; it's the fact that people are actually chiming-in to agree with your negativity. Dude, if it's not for you, then let it be!!!