darksideofthespoon-622-36121

Out of some masochistic, morbid curiosity, I was suckered into watching this on the big screen. Suckered by the 'rave' reviews, trailers and opinions of associates. For years, I mean years, I never, ever wanted a sequel. I never felt Blade Runner needed answers. If the movie seemed too ambiguous, than maybe, just maybe, that was its intention. Try reading the book. It's the same. What is Deckard? Phillip K. Dick never told us. The whole point to the story was to question what makes us human.

2049's attempt in answering this question, to me, robbed itself of what made the first movie, so good.

I did not walk into this movie expecting not to like it however. I put all my bias aside, and watched it with an open mind, a positive attitude, full of hope and wonder.

For me, the movie seemed too clean, too digitised, almost sanitised of the rich, tangible atmosphere that made the first movie so real.

I never really felt for K. Ryan Gosling was, well...Ryan Gosling. Its obviously just me, but his acting does nothing to make me care for this character. Harrison Ford's burnt out, old version of Deckard, also did nothing for me.

Jared Leto was as hollow and pretentious as expected.

Phillip K. Dick never followed up on his book, because everything you needed to know, and the point of the story, was right there inside.

For all its details, 2049's execution left me uninspired, unmoved and care-free.

Even the visuals never grabbed me. As stylised as they tried so hard to be, they did not detract from how I was left feeling, cold and empty.

K's virtual girlfriend, to me, epitomised the whole film. Empty, detached and without heart or soul.

I watched Blade Runner again on Blu-ray, just to make me feel better. I still get a lump in my throat at Roy Batty's dying words. And I still feel for Deckard and Rachel when they fall in love. Vangelis sounds as fresh today as ever. And the street scenes, in all their colourful, wet and grimy glory, sell to me, what the future is very much looking like being.

None of those emotions crossed over into the sequel, for me anyway.

I can understand if you do not like the so-called 'found footage' films, for example; Blair Witch and Cloverfield. I must admit, some of them work, some of them don't. Cloverfield worked for me, but only on the big screen in a cinema. Blair Witch worked for me, but only on a small PC monitor. Some things work better depending on the way you view these things, but also, what works with one person, will not work with another, everybody is different.

With that out of the way, let me honestly try to convince you that my small review on this film is mainly based on its merits, and not just what I enjoy personally.

I think the credit is due to the effort that went behind making this film, because even though each of the video tapes the guys find and watch are very strange and hard to swallow, they have genuinely tried hard to convey a sense of realism.

But it also helps if the viewer made a little effort, and suspended your disbelief in order to get into the film. Some people can do this easier than others. If your a horror fan, this will entertain at the very least. Each of the five found tapes start off innocently enough like home movies, but each one reveals shocking footage of something strange or unravels into a horrifying ordeal. It reminded me of 'Tales of the unexpected' or 'The Twilight Zone' but with the use of a hand-held camera instead.

Again, it'll either work for you or it wont. But the makers of this film tried hard and kudos to them. The effects were great, the acting was as expected, just as in any 'found footage', if its going to convey realism, its NOT going to have Oscar worthy acting, don't forget these are meant to be 'real' people. And the stories behind each tape were all entertaining.

In the end then, before you watch it, heres some top tips; Turn the lights out. Keep telling yourself that what you are watching is 'real'. Open your mind. And enjoy.