Just watched...

..."Blade Runner 2049."

I had been waiting a long while to see this film--and it was a nervous wait since the film could have been fantastic or dreadful. But even before it was released, I saw it has a lot going for it: co-written by Hampton Fancher who co-wrote the original film, produced by Scott Free Productions (founded by Ridley Scott, the director of the original film), and starring Harrison Ford who played Rick Deckard in the original film. Add to this the fact that the film was directed by Denis Villeneuve who did the extraordinary 2016 Amy Adams film "Arrival," and also stars "La La Land"'s Ryan Gosling (a wonderfully understated and versatile actor, seen previously here and here) and Oscar-winner Jared Leto, well,...it seemed to be a sure thing.

And I must say that the film exceeded any expectations I had. It is a stunningly beautiful film--truly a worthy successor to the original, in every way possible. The visuals are as breathtaking as the original and the art direction is ravishing. The story makes complete, utter sense and in no way feels forced--or unnecessary--as many sequels (especially after so many years) can; the story not only references the original, but is completely dependent upon it in an extremely satisfying and plausible way. Thanks to Villeneuve, the pacing of the film is a marvel: perfectly deliberate and eerie, like dreaming. I love that Fancher and Villeneuve and everyone connected with this film dared to forego the current popular film structure paradigm of an explosion or car chase every 5 minutes. Sure, there are some actions scenes, some explosions, some chasing, but it does not feel distracting, sensationalizing, or sophomoric...they are part of the larger, more cerebral story filled with deep connections that one must pay close attention to and for.

The film presents something else that I just adore: I love when films portray technology that is unrelated to most anything we know now or could possibly imagine. As the great science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke once said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." And Leto's character possesses some magical technology that is simply not explained which makes complete sense: if we show current technology, why would we bother to explain how, for example, an iPhone works? In the future, the tehchnology that seems magical now was built on all that came before it. Have faith, it will get there.

And of course it is a real treat to see Harrison Ford as Deckard once again, along with many familiar faces from the original film. The new additions are marvelous too: Gosling, Leto, Ana de Armas, Sylvia Hoeks, and Robin Wright are expertly cast.

Recommend? YES YES YES! But of course you SHOULD have seen the original first...

http://bladerunnermovie.com/

Just watched...

...a haphazard double bill of "The Lobster" and "The Nice Guys."

When I flew back from Maui, my plane had a nice in-flight selection of films to choose from and since one is basically held hostage while traveling by air, I thought I'd catch up on some films I'd been meaning to see. The first one that caught my eye was a film that made a splash at last year's 2015 Cannes Film Festival: "The Lobster."

Directed by Yorgos Lanthimos and written by Lanthimos with Efthymis Filippou, the story concerns itself with a near-future society obsessed with the state of being a couple. If one is single--or worse, if one finds oneself single because your partner has either left you or perhaps died, one is given 45 days to find another suitable mate or be turned into an animal. The premise sounds quite Kafka-esque and the film certainly is a highly surreal allegory. Most reviews and film journalists refer to "The Lobster" as a hilarious black-comedy, but I want to disabuse them of this notion. While there were some black-comedy moments and a kind of off-kilter bemusement arising from the bizarre premise itself, on the whole the film reads like an absolute nightmare. The amount of malice and cruelty exhibited in this film was cumulative and weighed on me heavily by the end of the story. The completely flat, naïve affect of the cast--headed beautifully by Colin Farrell and Rachel Weisz--makes the characters seem like children caught up in some kind of horrible ritual...no one is able to help themselves from either becoming a victim or abusing victims. And the clear, dispassionate cinematography helps this feeling along while the overwrought, staccato string quartet soundtrack hacks and saws away at our nerves and emotions.

Also of note is the effective dream logic at work--never once is it explained how people are turned into animals and I liked that. This is a fairy tale and magical things are taken for granted in such tales.

While the story description says it takes place in a "near future," I felt it took place in an alternate reality, right next to our own, in a colorless approximation of Soviet-era or Eastern bloc grimness. There was nothing in it that suggested a time any different from ours. Being an allegory, it naturally has a lot to say about our own culture which places so much emphasis on being in a relationship, but I feel there is a much bigger issue at play: it begs the question of how people can travel to such extreme poles in their psyches and how they can grant power to arbitrary, superficial structures instead of their own souls. If one looks at our current frightening election cycle here in the United States, we can witness how such a thing happens, and it happens through fear.

Recommend? I am truly torn about this one. It is a skillfully made film. All elements work well and it is a relevant, powerful statement. But the depths it explores might hurt.

And now, as Monty Python used to say, for something completely different. Since I had some more time to kill on the flight, I hopped over to a film that was released this past spring, 2016, "The Nice Guys."

Set in 1970s Los Angeles, a vigilante-for-hire (Russell Crowe) and a struggling private investigator (Ryan Gosling) team up to solve a mystery and a handful of murders that happen along the way. This comedy was savaged by some critics but I found it amusing. A predictable story and some hackneyed characters are saved by some zippy dialogue (some of which was improvised by Gosling and Crowe)  and Gosling's excellent comedic timing: the film plays like a cross between an Abbot and Costello classic and something like "Chinatown" or "L.A. Confidential" (which were films deliberately evoking classic noir thrillers like "The Big Sleep"). In fact, Gosling gets to do a marvelous scene that is nearly a frame-for-frame and wheeze-for-wheeze copy of something Lou Costello did in the 40s.

Recommend? Sure, it's a fun and funny romp. And Gosling really is great.

Just watched...

..."Drive" from director Nicholas Winding Refn.

I had put this film on my Netflix queue a while ago where it lingered, being bumped down while many other films were scootched up to first place. When it eventually turned up in my mailbox, I had quite forgotten why I wanted to see it. Did I really pick a film--starring Ryan Gosling no less--about a stunt driver in Los Angeles who is also a criminal get-away driver? An action film? Me? Did someone hack into my Netflix account and add this as a joke?

No, there was a reason I wanted to see the film. And that reason was: the film is good. Far more than an action film, it is a resonant, moody, atmospheric dream that features a talented cast: Ryan Gosling as The Driver, with Carey Mulligan, Bryan Cranston, Albert Brooks, Ron Perlman, Oscar Isaac, and Christina Hendricks. But the other uncredited member of the cast turns out to be the city of Los Angeles itself, much like other psychological thrillers that have taken place there...films as far back as Howard Hawks' 1946 masterpiece "The Big Sleep" all the way to David Lynch's "Mulholland Drive" (previously here). The city is a silent player, changing and shaping the other characters, effecting how they behave and think, its topography and architecture as important as any living person.

Based on the 2005 James Sallis novel of the same name, there is more silence and unspoken communication than dialogue in this chilly--and chilling--story. Almost surreal on many levels, it is also an homage to a certain kind of film from the past. There are very deliberate echoes, on the part of the director, from the second Golden Age of film in the 60s-70s with a pace and intent reminiscent of films like "Point Blank," The Driver," and the sort of disenfranchised solitariness of "Zabriskie Point"...and even the legendary "Two-Lane Blacktop" (previously here) in which James Taylor plays an unnamed character identified only as "The Driver," just like Ryan Gosling. There is also a deliberate sense of the 80s as well, with the neon pink font of the title an homage to 1983's "Risky Business" and the abundance of synth-pop in the soundtrack.

The plot is a kind of neo-noir thriller involving layers of crimes and double crossing in which Gosling--who skillfully plays his Driver with an unflappable, eerie stillness--flows between hero, anti-hero, dangerous hero, and hero. And the film opens with possibly the most tense, slowly unfolding cat-and-mouse getaway car chase ever filmed.

Director Refn won the Best Director Award (Prix de la mise en scène) at the 2011 Cannes Film Festival, and the film was nominated for Best Film, Best Director, Best Supporting Actress, and Best Editing at the 2012 British Academy Film Awards (BAFTA).

Recommend? Yes. It walks a line between genres, styles, and intents. It has a little something for everyone.

http://www.drive-movie.com/