undulated-raptor

[undulated-raptor]

Justice League

Instead of trying to put together a review of Zack Snyder’s Justice League and talk about the differing aspects of the film, I want to focus on four specific moments. Two of them I absolutely loved, the other two I really couldn’t stand, but I think these four together really show the wide range of good and bad in this movie. Also, I guess there should be *spoiler warning* on this, but let’s face it, there really isn’t anything to spoil with this movie. Just about every major story beat that happened we knew was going to happen, whether from the ridiculously excessive number of trailers that was put out, or the fact that we know these actors all have contracts to show up in each movie, etc.

The first moment I loved is actually the first scene of the movie. The scene just consists of a cell phone interview of some kids talking with Superman, where we see him smiling and actually being the “beacon of hope” we always expect the character to be. For the first time since this whole adventure started with Man of Steel, we see Superman being Superman. It is definitely the smartest thing that this movie could have done, by retroactively showing that the world at large does actually love Superman, which we didn’t really see, especially in Batman v Superman.

The other moment that I really enjoyed is actually the final post-credit scene. Throughout Batman v Superman, I never cared much for Jesse Eisenberg’s Lex Luthor. I was initially worried back when he was first cast, and his portrayal, which felt more like an audition to play a villain more like the Joker/Riddler/Trickster level of manicness compared to the scheming brilliance of Luthor. Then this post-credits scene happens. We see him in his full Luthor-ian glory on a yacht, no longer doing a slight variation of his Mark Zuckerberg, but more reserved, more “in control”. Oh yeah, a new character is also introduced, but it isn’t important the way Luthor’s rebranding is.

The first moment I hated came almost immediately after the opening scene with Superman, as we go into a sad, slow-motion montage of the world apparently having lost its hope, filled with hate. I get trying to show the effects of having lost Superman, but the choices to include a shot of a homeless man with a sign saying “I tried” and some epic slow-motion footage of a couple of men harassing a Muslim shopkeeper and her son, including a really powerful shot of one of the men kicking a crate of fruit. Listen, I get there’s a lot going on in the world right now. I get there’s a lot of horrible people out there, who are doing pretty awful stuff. I get that we’re trying to make these movies feel “real”, like they could be happening within our world. That being said, I went to go see a movie that was Batman fighting some aliens. I did not go for some social commentary about how apparently our world sucks because we don’t have Superman.

The other particular moment I couldn’t stand came after the resurrection of Superman. There is a brief fight between our heroes, which is entertaining enough and makes relative sense within the story. Then Superman is holding Batman while floating up off the ground a bit, and returns the threat/question of their last movie, “Do you bleed?” Suddenly Lois shows up, and Superman tosses Batman back behind him like a rag doll. Again, pretty fun moment. But then it happens. We cut back to Batman, laying on the ground in obvious pain, commenting seemingly only to the audience that “something’s definitely bleeding.” Alright, let’s get something straight here. That does not feel like the character of Batman. What makes it worse is while he’s laying there, the camera does a magnificent job to highlight his crotch, with a bulge that makes Jareth the Goblin King seem reserved. At that point, I just have to ask, what are we doing here? I’ve seen a lot of other people commenting online about the “horrible sexualization” of Wonder Woman and the Amazonian warriors, but nary a negative peep about this or Superman and Aquaman running around without their shirts on. Now, I’m not saying that there aren’t a few lingering sexy shots of Wonder Woman, and I’m definitely not saying that those are okay, but let’s have some objective standards over what we get upset about. Reducing a character to nothing more than a sex object should be something we want to avoid, whether it is a male or female character.

I actually found myself loving this movie overall. Yes, it has its weak points (aside from the ones listed, there’s a thousand criticisms all over the web, some more valid than others, but none too terribly distracting in all), and it has some definite strong points, like some of the character interactions. Personally, I would even go so far as to say that this movie is the best one since this DCEU adventure got started up. I might be in the very small minority, but this beats out Wonder Woman, and blows the others out of the water.

[undulated-raptor]

Thoughts on “Introduction to Film”

So, let’s talk about the show Community. It has been one of my favorite shows since I first started watching it. I still remember when it first came out in 2009, I was a Sophomore in High School, and I had just seen promos for some new show that had Chevy Chase. I had loved his movies (specifically National Lampoon’s Vacation and Christmas Vacation) growing up, and was thrilled to see him weekly on TV.

Until episode six: “Football, Feminism, and You”. Chevy Chase’s character, Pierce Hawthorne, has the quote “As far as I’m concerned, there’s only one black hole worth studying. It’s called Sagittarius A, it’s located in the center of our galaxy, and it has the density of 40 suns. Just like my wiener.” As with all great uncomfortable moments of TV and movies, my mom had just happened to be walking by at that moment. As such, Community was no longer allowed to be recorded. It faded away from the front of my mind for several years, before I came back to it eventually on DVD. I blasted through the first four seasons (as that was all that was available on DVD at the time), loving almost every moment of it. It quickly became one of my absolute favorites. The comedy is brilliant, the crazier, more “quirky” episodes are beautifully crafted, but most importantly, the relationships are perfect.

Since that watch, I’ve seen almost everything related to Community, and just can’t get enough. Earlier this week, I just found that all six seasons are on Hulu, and so it is time for another rewatch. I’m currently almost done with the first season, and after having watched it at least a dozen times, there are so many things that keeps jumping out at me, making me love it even more than before. Take, for example, episode three: “Introduction to Film”. Written by Dan Harmon himself, this episode was the first to really emotionally connect with me. By using the first two episodes to begin and introduce the audience to Danny Pudi’s Abed Nadir, Community begins to set up this delightfully quirky character that seems to exist just to have funny lines and pop culture references. Then this episode happens. We begin his episode story arc by hearing Abed mention that he isn’t a fan of Robin Williams movies because “In every movie there’s an authority figure that gets mad at him for making people laugh”. This seems as an innocent enough remark, until we, moments later, hear Abed tell the group that his dad is only paying for classes that will help set him up for the family falafel business and not his Film Class.

Throughout the episode, we see as the rest of the group, specifically Joel McHale’s Jeff Winger (who’s been shown to be a cynical, apathetic, guy only really out for himself) and Gillian Jacobs' Britta Perry (who’s been shown to be passionate, caring, and self-sacrificial in a shallow, selfish, way) clash over how to treat Abed. Britta writes him a check for his class, which sets up an eventual confrontation between her and Abed’s father Gobi Nadir, played by (I kind of hate myself for referencing him this way, because it’s kind of not that great of a show, but he’s hilarious in it) Glee’s Iqbal Theba.

As the episode progresses, we see Jeff and Britta arguing over Abed and the way Britta involves herself in his life, all the while Abed is filming, mentioning that the first assignment for his class is a documentary, stating that his is about his dad. We then see the first interaction between Britta, Jeff, and Mr. Nadir, where Britta and Mr. Nadir begin arguing, with Mr. Nadir mentioning that Abed is “a special boy” and that “it was hard enough to talk to him before, now we have this [the camera] between us!”, eventually exclaiming “You want to raise him? You raise him. I’m out!” Then Abed tells Jeff that he thinks Jeff should play his father. Jeff replies “I don’t wanna be your father”, and Abed retorts “That’s perfect, you already know your lines”. This moment, in and of itself, is pretty heartbreaking.

The episode continues, and we see Jeff and Britta’s already strained friendship turning worse. Eventually, they find out that Abed has skipped film class in order to shoot his movie, and Britta confronts him about it. After that, she gets upset and walks out of the room, to which Jeff looks at his camera and says “I think you are really weird, Abed. And I think the wrong person just left.” Again, a heartbreaking moment for a character that you’re only beginning to feel sympathy for.

The final confrontation happens between Jeff, Britta, and Mr. Nadir in the study room, a place we’ve come to associate as a “safe place” for this group of outcasts and losers. As they begin to argue again, Abed stops them all so that they can watch his movie. The movie is absolutely heart-wrenching, as we see poorly photoshopped pictures of Abed’s mom and dad over Britta and Jeff, watching them argue that there’s something wrong with him. It ends with the scene of Britta/Abed’s mom leaving the room and Jeff/Mr. Nadir saying again that the wrong person left. We see the reaction faces of Jeff, Britta, and Mr. Nadir, seeing that Mr. Nadir is tearing up watching this movie. He turns to Abed, and in Arabic, says that “I never blamed you for her leaving”, to which Abed replies “You never had to say it”. Mr. Nadir then turns to Britta and Jeff, telling them “My son is hard to understand. If making movies helps him be understood, then I’ll pay for the class”. It’s a touching moment, and a moment that helps us really understand the character of Abed Nadir. No longer do we see him as just a quirky character that’s there to make “meta” humor. He’s a deeply flawed character, desperately clinging to pop culture references because that’s the only way he has to connect with the people around him.

In my opinion, this is one of the greatest episodes of the entire series Community, and in the running for one of the greatest episodes in the history of television. The entire “A” plot, with Abed, is beautifully crafted. The “B” plot, dealing with guest star John Michael Higgins' Professor Whitman, who teaches his class as Robin Williams in Dead Poets Society, throwing away books, having them stand on desks, trying to teach these adult students to “Seize the Day!” We see a little into Yvette Nicole Brown’s Shirley Bennett's background, when Professor Whitman forces her into answering why she is there at Greendale. She eventually gets flustered and says “Because I wasted fifteen years of my life with a man who left me with nothing but stretchmarks and a memory of two bland orgasms and now it’s time to get what’s mine!” Again we see the hidden rage under Shirley’s nice, kind demeanor, and we hear more of what her marriage was before he left her and she came to Greendale. Also with this “B” plot, we see Jeff desperately trying to fake “Seizing the Day” for Professor Whitman.

In this episode we also Pierce Hawthorne (back when his character was more flushed out, and while being racist/homophobic, still had redeeming qualities and moments of great humanity/wisdom) try to coach Danny Glover’s Troy Barnes in how to sneeze like a man, as well as one of the greatest Pierce moments of the series. (When he beats Annie’s “most racist thing I’ve ever heard” by asking that Shirley isn’t Troy’s mother in only 29 seconds.) The only character really side-lined in this episode is Alison Brie’s Annie Edison, who is more flushed out through the rest of the season.

In all, “Introduction to Film” is a brilliant episode that perfectly balances humor and emotional depth to weave characters together. While the first two episodes are great at setting up the idea of the show and the general concept of the Greendale Seven, this episode in particular really kicks off the series and is what puts it in the Pantheon of television shows. “Introduction to Film”, is, in essence, the real Introduction to Community.

[undulated-raptor]

Feeling a Bit Down

So, I was talking with a friend today, and I wound up (actually just began the conversation with, because I can’t handle always keeping it in) letting it out that I’ve been feeling quite a bit down lately. I’ve felt like any control of my life has been slipping away from me for a while. Now, I’m just reaching out at anything at an attempt to regain control. The last time it was this bad, I wound up putting on over 50 pounds of weight in a single summer, by turning to eating. This time, I’m trying to be more productive, but it isn’t nearly as productive as it should be. As such, I’ve been experimenting in some woodworking, pyrography, writing, watching TV (especially favorite sit-coms like Community, Arrested Development, Brooklyn Nine-Nine, and Seinfeld), and even crocheting. However, none of these have actually really brought back any true happiness or control to my life. I feel like I’m just spiraling. spiraling all the way into chaos.

So, the question is: what to do? I’ve gone a couple times to go and talk with a therapist, but I’ve had trouble actually communicating with him what all I’m having trouble with. I think that that has to do with not wanting to appear weak to an actual person. If anyone out there is reading this, I can just imagine that you’re a bunch of bots. None of you are “real”, as far as I’m concerned. (Side Note: Yes, I know that all (at least I think) of you are actually real, but for the practical reasons, you’re just a computer.) Considering that, it is a lot easier to share my weaknesses with you, because it feels like I’m only sharing it with myself. If I can figure out how to talk with myself, and by proxy you, maybe I can learn to talk with others. Talk about real things.

[undulated-raptor]

We're the middle children of history, man. No purpose of place. We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our Great War's a spiritual war... our Great Depression is our lives. We've all been raised on television to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars. But we won't. And we're slowly learning that fact. And we're very, very pissed off.

Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club

[undulated-raptor]

Something worth discussing

So, I may be putting this in the wrong spot, as I hope to discuss it more with my friend on our potential podcast, but I have to get this out there now. I am a huge fan of The Incredibles. I think it’s very nearly a perfect movie, and I would argue that it is the best overall film Pixar has ever done. (yeah, yeah, the beginning of Up is great, but as an overall film it winds up being just alright compared to Incredibles). Now, that being said, I was rewatching it over the weekend when a little throw-away joke that always slid right past me smacked me in the face. I even remember quoting it when I was younger, after seeing the movie for the first time. Near the beginning, Mr. Incredible saves a suicide jumper. We then see a brief clip of them in court, with the victim’s lawyer stating “Mr. Sansweet didn’t ask to be saved. Mr. Sansweet didn’t want to be saved. And the injuries received from Mr. Incredible’s so-called “actions” cause him daily pain.” Then, Mr. Incredible and Mr. Sansweet have a quick interaction, with Incredible shouting “Hey, I saved your life!”, and Sansweet replying “You didn’t save my life, you ruined my death, that’s what you did!”

This scene messed me up. Here we see a good man being punished for saving someone’s life, someone who wanted to die. Mr. Sansweet is shown in the film as a middle-aged man who is willing to commit suicide. He is stopped in his attempt, and rather than coming to terms with it and coming to enjoy life, the only other time we see him he is suing the Hero that saved him. What is it that went so wrong with Oliver Sansweet’s life that led him down this path? Much more importantly, why is it that an animated Pixar family film is putting forth such a dark subplot, and how is it that it just flew by me so many times of watching this movie? I’ve seen the film probably over a hundred times, and repeated this exact scene easily another hundred, but this one time it all finally clicked. In 2004, Pixar made a superhero film that was bright, cheerful, optimistic, family-based, and yet darker than any of the “realistic, gritty” movies that DC and Warner Bros have put out.

So what’s the point? Why is this in there? The movie could have done just as well, plot-wise, without Mr. Sansweet. Mr. Incredible is still sued in a class-action lawsuit from the victims of the train incident from the prologue, so the only purpose (plot-wise) that Mr. Sansweet fulfills can be considered superfluous. I think Mr. Sansweet is there because the creators had something to say. This last part will be controversial. I want to be clear: I am not claiming that the creators of The Incredibles agree to what I am about to say. I am merely putting forward a thought as to why Oliver Sansweet appears in the movie.

I think the whole point of Oliver Sansweet is to show that not everybody wants a hero. There are people in this world that get depressed, or become suicidal. As part of that, they push aside those who are trying to help them. Even if that help saves their life, they aren’t appreciative. Being a hero isn’t all the glory we tend to think it is. Sometimes, being a hero means being hated for doing the right thing, for helping someone that doesn’t think they need help, or does their best to refuse your help. I think Oliver Sansweet stands for those of us who think we can do it all on our own, and resent people for trying to help us.

[undulated-raptor]

Potential Podcast

So I was talking with a friend the other day, and the idea was floated that we should start up a podcast. Aside from listening to a bunch of them, I have no inkling of what that would entail. Looking it up online has some suggestions, but one of the main things every resource says is to narrow down your content area. Our problem is that we like to talk about just about everything. So, I suppose my question is, are there people out there who would listen to a podcast of two guys rambling (and often arguing) over whatever topics they deem worthy of talking about? Potential topics include:

1) Movies/TV 2) Theology/Christianity 3) Politics/Philosophy 4) Random Literature

Again, this probably wouldn’t be too well structured, especially at first. Also, just a head’s up, we’re probably going to go ahead and do the recording whether or not we have listeners. I know I’m more game for the idea than he is, but we both think it would have some great benefits for us personally, outside of potential listeners/whatever glory a successful podcast would bring.

I suppose the main point of this is, look out for a potential podcast maybe coming out from us at some point in the not-too-soon future.

[undulated-raptor]

Happiness

“I actually feel good about my future for the first time in quite some time.” While this statement is kind of devastating in its own way, it makes me feel great. I’ve been having a bit of a hard time lately in school, not really sure of what I was doing, where I was headed. I wound up studying as a Secondary Education Major, but it never felt quite “right”. Finally, last week, all the pressure of the Education field came crashing down on me, and I had a nervous breakdown. I couldn’t figure out what to do, but I needed out. Well, yesterday I went and had a couple chats with a couple different advisors, and I eventually realized what I needed to do. I needed to change to just a Mathematics major. So, this week, I’m actually withdrawing from my Education classes, and starting an accelerated Geology course 2 weeks late, in an effort to get me back on track. The downside of this is that I’ve felt this bad over the  past year or so, all the while trying to hide it from my girlfriend. I love her, but I can’t bring myself to admit my troubles to her. I know that she’d still love me, but I can’t make myself admit weakness in front of her. And I know that that’s an issue. A relationship requires trust, and trust requires communication. If I can’t be open with her about my struggles, can she really know me? Or, by trying to keep those struggles hidden, am I just presenting a more idealized front to her, lying to her in the process? I suppose one of the key things I’ve learned from this already is that here forward, I need to be more open with the ones I love. If they love me back, then they’ll accept my flaws and weaknesses. After all, we are all just human. Perfection can’t be reasonably expected. But, concerning my education, I feel so much better about the year and a half to come. (yes, switching majors my junior year still won’t push back my graduation time-table).

[undulated-raptor]

yay, discrete structures test on Wednesday... definitely not ready...

[undulated-raptor]

Happy Leif Erikson Day!

So, I just realized that today is Leif Erikson Day, and as such, wanted to wish everyone out there a Happy Leif Erikson Day!

[undulated-raptor]

Blade Runner 2049 Non-Spoiler Review

Let me begin by saying that I absolutely love Blade Runner. It is one of the few movies, with The Godfather and Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, where no matter how many times I watch it, I remain practically silent. I grew up seeing Blade Runner on random lists of “Greatest Sci-Fi Movies of All Time”, etc. Needless to say, I was practically indoctrinated into loving the movie, before I ever even saw it. When I finally did, I bought the special Blu-Ray 30th Anniversary Collector’s Edition, with the The Final Cut, both the Original Theatrical and International Theatrical Cuts, and the 1991 Director’s Cut. I watched them all. Back to back to back to back. Personally, my favorite is the Original Theatrical, but I see why people prefer different ones. Again, the most important thing to remember about film is that film is subjective. While there are some objective rules about what is good or bad, most of critique is subjective.

So, this brings me about to watching Blade Runner 2049 last night. Again, I had been ridiculously excited about this movie since it was first announced, and my excitement only built when following announcements came, like Denis Villeneuve being named as Director, Ryan Gosling taking the main role, Harrison Ford’s return as Deckard, and especially Roger Deakins as Cinematographer. With each trailer that came out, just more and more excitement, to where I could hardly contain myself. My sister and her family came to visit over the weekend, so I didn’t take the chance to watch it until Sunday night. Now, Blade Runner 2049 officially has a 2 hour and 44 minute run time, according to IMDB.com, which from what I’ve read, seems quite a daunting task to most movie-watchers. It definitely, to me at least, did not feel anywhere nearly that long. I’ve read several other reviews and listened to several podcasts that have already talked about it, and it seems to be the general consensus that it felt too long and bloated, that Villeneuve was able to just pack in as much as he wanted without restraint, making a too long, boring, movie. I completely disagree. Not only did the time fly by for me, but I was fully wrapped into the movie from practically the first shot (the opening of an eye, a brilliant callback to the original film) to the very end.

Another major complaint that I’ve read online is several writers criticizing Blade Runner 2049 for having a “woman problem”. Now, a lot of what I’m about to say could probably be discounted by most people holding up that argument, seeing that I am a straight white male, but I think that that doesn’t provide nearly the bias that others claim. For me, there were some problems with female representation, but not necessarily the complaints they’re referencing. (The article in question is titled “Blade Runner 2049 Has a Woman Problem”, read from http://movieweb.com/blade-runner-2049-woman-problem/). The first claim this article makes is that Blade Runner 2049 fails the infamous Bechdel Test. For those that don’t immediately recall, the Bechdel Test is commonly used “standard” for testing to see whether movies have deep female characters, based off of three criteria: (1) the movie has at least two women in it, (2) who talk to each other, (3) about something besides a man. If we use this test, I will admit. Blade Runner 2049 does have multiple female characters, and some do converse with each other, the third part is never fulfilled. However, despite the article’s claims that the women in the film fall into male fetish archetypes, I disagree. Robin Wright, as Lieutenant Joshi, shows actual empathy toward Ryan Gosling’s K, while retaining a toughened exterior. Within the world of the story, this makes sense, seeing that she is a Lieutenant within the Los Angeles Police Department, a position which demands a certain amount of toughness. Also, yes, she does drink whisky several times throughout the movie. As did M. Emmet Walsh’s Bryant in the original film, who has a very similar relationship with Deckard as Joshi does K. (Note: If I remember correctly, Bryant doesn’t actually drink in the movie. It is, however, heavily implied that when he pours the two drinks in his office, both drinks were not meant for Deckard.) The article also mentions that Joshi sexualizes K, which I see not as a fault of Joshi’s character, but rather a well-made choice that highlights more complexity, not only of the relationship between Joshi and K, but of the world of 2049 Los Angeles altogether.

The article also briefly discusses the other three main women of the film, Sylvia Hoeks’s Luv, Ana de Armas’s, Joi, and Mackenzie Davis’s Mariette. Luv is described as “a tough-as-nails femme fatale in heels, coldly flirtatious, deadly murderous”, which she is. Believably so. Having seen the original as many times as I have, Luv reminds me an awful lot of a more advanced version of Daryl Hannah’s Pris, a cold, calculating killer. It is also mentioned that Hoeks kisses Gosling’s K in the climax, which the article calls “laughably improbable and out-of-nowhere ...straight out of an S&M dungeon.” Again, I have to disagree with the writer. The kiss, which is delivered at a pivotal moment of the climax, has, to me, a sense of the departing embrace between respectful enemies. (I can explain more, but I want to stay as far away from spoilers as I can for this writing. My next one will most likely go more in depth). Switching to Ana de Armas’s Joi, the article refers to her as “a purchasable housewife style AI program whose greater yearnings all revolve around her devotion” to K. However, I think this claim misses the most important point of Joi, in that she is supposed to be nothing more than a caricature. Joi is an AI program, one early in the eventual evolution of holographic entities. Thinking within the world of the film, the complaint that she is not more fleshed out would be similar to complaining that a Nexus-1 or Nexus-2 Replicant was not fleshed out. They aren’t because they are the early stages. This is even addressed within the movie, as Mackenzie Davis’s Mariette tells her “...inside you, and there’s not as much there as you think.” Speaking of Mackenzie Davis, I actually agree with the article in that the movie “criminally underuses… [her] as a “hooker with a heart of gold,” a movie trope so tiresome and old school it’s almost nostalgic.” Again, I actually agree with this sentiment, and I think it’s one of the very few actual problems I had with the movie.

The next main problem that the article discusses is that Harrison Ford was brought back, while his co-star from the original Sean Young was left behind. Her character, Rachael, is in the movie, though off-screen. It is established rather early in the film that her character died seemingly shortly after the events of the first movie, during childbirth. This revelation is the driving force for the rest of the movie, as K is trying to find the child, due to personal curiosity, while Jared Leto’s Niander Wallace sends Sylvia Hoeks’s Luv to tail K, then bring the child back to him, feeling the need to make Replicants that can produce their own offspring. Rachael’s presence is felt throughout the movie, and even through CGI de-aging, she does make an important surprise cameo in the movie.

So, I’ve realized that I started this as a conversation/review of Blade Runner 2049, and have spent most of my time rebutting an article that I only somewhat disagree with. This may have not been the way I wanted to go about doing this, but it also let me get out some of my first and heaviest thoughts about the film. Now, we go on to my just rambling about a film I absolutely loved, but do have some issues with. First, something I wasn’t overly fond of. I know Villeneuve is a brilliant director, and very few people can tell a story like him and Roger Deakins. That being said, I was left a bit confused by the amount of nudity within the film. I’m not sure necessarily that it was gratuitous, and I’ll feel more certain about that after a second or third rewatch, but it was a bit overwhelming at times. (Particularly a giant holographic nude Joi, though I see why that scene in particular is important.) However, in dealing with nudity, this movie has one of the craziest and most interesting love scenes that I have ever seen. *Mild Spoilers Ahead, But Only Kind Of* There is a scene where K brings home Davis’s Mariette so that he and Joi can be together, physically. In doing so, de Armas’s holographic Joi “syncs” with Mariette, but the sync is slightly off. As such, while they are beginning to kiss and undress, Mariette and Joi seem to phase back and forth, as well as their hands are slightly differently placed on K. Like I said, it was crazy to watch, but definitely interesting. (Also note: very minimal nudity during that scene, almost as if Villeneuve is careful to point out the purity or innocence of this, compared to the lewdness of the streets.)

Overall, I absolutely loved Blade Runner 2049. For those of you looking for an answer as to whether Deckard is a Replicant or not, don’t worry. You don’t get an answer. For those of wondering if K is a Replicant, don’t worry. They tell you he is almost immediately. For those of you that may be worried that the studio made Gosling do a voiceover narration throughout the film, don’t worry. They didn’t. (I love the Original Theatrical Cut of the first movie, with Ford’s narration, but I  definitely think it was for the best that it was not done for this movie). Also, this movie plays out a bit more of just a regular Detective Story rather than more of the classic Film Noir that the original did, but it pays tribute to the original perfectly, without drowning itself in nostalgia or sequel teases. To sum up, I think that if you enjoyed the original, or if you just want a movie that’s different from most things you see, definitely give Blade Runner 2049 a shot. Hopefully you’ll have a better movie-going experience than I did. Side Note: there were two 15-16 year old girls that sat directly in front of me, there only because “Oh my god! Ryan Gosling is so hot!”, who were on their phones almost the entire time, and I still absolutely loved this movie.

P.S. - I feel I can’t talk too much about the main cast without ruining potential spoilers, so expect a much more in-depth spoiler-filled review coming later this week. I might even go watch it again, to reply and possibly counter some of my own arguments I made here, who knows?).