Blade Runner 2049

I watched a movie and it was called Blade Runner 2049, directed by Denis Villeneuve, starring Ryan Gosling and Harrison Ford, released 2017. It is a sequel to movie Blade Runner, directed by Ridley Scott, released in 1982. It takes place in the future of 2049, Ryan Gosling plays K, a replicant blade runner, who is tasked with “retiring” a replicant but it becomes more than that as K gets caught up in something larger than himself.
The story expands on the original however makes very clear that this is much later. There is an opening texts that brings the audience up to speed; some from the first movie to explain what replicants are (slaves) and how the intervening years played out, to where we are in the present of Blade Runner 2049. It helps but there are still ambiguities spread through the movie because its established universe, if that makes sense.Though they really do not take you out of the story so much, as one might think.
The visuals are still very “neo-noir” though it is still very much its own movie. It harkens back to the first movie (rain, vehicles, tech), though everything is upgraded, to a certain degree. The pacing is very slow and deliberate, much like Dune, directed by David Lynch, bringing the audience in and makes you question what is happening along with K. It is dark for the most part, and uses shadow, much like a noir movie. The use of shadows and lights also really makes you question who is real and who is not, among the many other questions that come up throughout the movie. It helps establish the dark tone of the movie, in that regard as well.

The acting was superb. Some of it was over the top but also very subdued. It was very minimalist in dialogue and that helps with how the tone of the movie plays out. It is more about emotion/emoting by the characters to have a certain feel in scenes, rather than cluttering it up with dialogue to hit you over the head with what they are trying to express, thus making you have the same emotional correlation.

Overall, the movie is amazing. It is a superb sequel to a cult classic. I do suggest however to see the first Blade Runner, specifically the Final Cut version, before seeing this one because it will make a bit more sense, in certain aspects of the film. Having that freshness also will amp you up for the new one. I definitely did not think there would be a sequel to Blade Runner, one of the more classic sci-fi movies of our time, but here we are and it is visually stunning and still retains so much while still adding more.

Shin Godzilla

I watched a movie and it was Shin Godzilla, co-directed by Hideaki Anno and Shinji Higuchi, starring Hiroki Hasegawa, Yutaka Takenouchi, and Satomi Ishihara, released in 2016. It is the 31^st installment of the Godzilla franchise from the Toho Company in Japan. It is not like any previous Godzilla film. On the dvd it says it is a “reboot” but I don’t see it as such. Have you ever imagined what it would be like if Godzilla was treated like a natural disaster? This movie treats Godzilla as such in a modern setting, showing the minutia of how much red tape there is during a natural disaster and how far we are willing to go to fix this natural disaster. I will admit, this is not what I was expecting as far as a Godzilla movie goes but it does follow within the mythos that is Godzilla. However, there is more focus on how Godzilla effects people rather than just seeing him rampage through the city like in times past. Some were critical of this (I got a message on my social media about it). I see that criticism. The greatest of all Godzilla films is Gojira (1954), the Japanese one, not the American one, and that established Godzilla as a force of nature, born of nuclear testing. He wreaked terrible havoc on Tokyo and the devastation caused was an allegory for the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan. Godzilla is the embodiment of nuclear destruction. The later films, I'm not really sure about since they represent the time they were made, to a certain degree, but the military and people still treat him as a threat. I can understand where fan's criticism comes from; you come for Godzilla and get a lot of talking and very little Godzilla. I can relate in that is what disappointed me about the  Godzilla (2014) Legendary Pictures put out. However, that didn’t seem to bother me so much in Shin Godzilla.

As for Shin Godzilla, there is some interesting and creative ways to try and stop Godzilla that are really fascinating to watch. It is about teamwork and what the greater good is for. There are sections where it is frustrating to see where the government breaks down because of personalities and/or policies. Many of the countries are portrayed in a lighter tone, with some digs here and there but that’s understandable. Ultimately, it comes down to the choices they have to make to stop Godzilla from destroying and killing so many people, which in itself is interesting since it is a living organism and the question becomes even more difficult than say if it was a hurricane or earthquake (which they address in the movie)and how to rebuild from that. It also brings up other questions of whether to destroy Godzilla as a pest or keep it alive for testing since it is a new organism, which is similar to the Gojira (1954) in that respect.

Godzilla, for the most part, is very different from what you expect but it works better in the context of the story. There is evolution of both Godzilla and how the people in the Japanese government try to contain it. That gives much more depth to how much is at stake as the movie progresses and that adds a fresh perspective on the Kaiju drama. The Godzilla effects are well done and you (or at least I couldn’t) tell the difference between if it was CGI or suit actor (it was motion captured!). The design of Godzilla was familiar but very different from before, which is nothing new since Godzilla has gone through design changes since 1954. There is a different way Godzilla defends himself from attack though again, this change goes more in line with the kind of story we are dealing with. The crumbling buildings and devastation looked pretty spot on as well.

All the elements are there in this Godzilla installment: people running, Godzilla rampaging through the city, the government talking about how they will contain Godzilla, personal sacrifices of main characters (no romance though) and ultimate resolution. It is a Godzilla a film and I commend Toho for doing something different rather than rehash something over and over. Each Godzilla film is different (have you seen Son of Godzilla or Godzilla v. Hedora?) and though it might not be liked by many Godzilla fans, I think it stands on its own as a thought provoking piece much like the 1954 Gojira.

It (2017)

I watched a movie and it was called It, directed by Andy Muschietti, starring Jaeden Lieberher and Bill Skarsgård, released in 2017. It is an adaptation of the 1986 novel by Stephen King. The movie follows 5 kids who are terrorized by a malevolence in a small town, Derry after one of their own, Bill’s brother Georgie gets killed by It. It is a complicated story to synopsize without revealing too much of the plot. Though to be fair, this is the second adaptation of the classic horror novel, the first being in 1990, as a tv movie and that one was more or less a condensed version of the book. Here, the 2017 version, focuses solely on the kids and how they navigate through the town. All of the kids are terrorized by 3 bullies AND their parents in different ways (Bev’s dad is sexually abusive though it is mostly implied and not shown so explicitly and Eddie’s mother is a hostile hypochondriac) as well as the adults in town avoiding helping Ben when he is getting abused by the bullies. There is something off about Derry, that is very conveyed through the style choices that Muschietti uses, as I mentioned earlier. There are some differences, as Ben is now the historian of Derry rather than Mike though in one scene Mike mentions his grandfather knowing something was not right about the town and even calls out the It curse.
Bill Skarsgård does an amazing job as It. Even from the first scene with Georgie, you can tell there is something most definitely wrong. However Bill adds a childlike voice to It that just feels off as well. The effects of It and everything surrounding it are really spot on, the jumpiness of the character when it attacks the children, the manic change of faces and the way everything just escalates was frightening. The kids all sold on their performances, sounding like kids, rather than Adult kids. It helps that they were all age appropriate so that there was some realism there, as with the dialogue overlapping in certain scenes and really terrified looks on their faces and in their actions. It has a weird air to it too since it rides the line on winsome tween coming-of-age story to terrifying clown horror. Ive read some of the book (online and it was hard to follow as I am distracted by school and life in general) and I felt that there was enough in this adaptation to see that it was adapted really well. A lot of what I imagined was on screen which is pretty rare and it also changed enough, not in 1958 rather in 1988 setting the story this time, that it could be relatable. Additionally, the terror comes from both ends which really has meaning and was not really conveyed in the first tv movie adaptation.  I am sure that a lot people will have mixed feelings about it but I would recommend it. Something that is interesting here is the adaptation of two films and using the same source material; what gets cut? What gets saved? How does one adapt such a thick book into a different medium? How does one make it fresh for new audiences while there is another version that is 27 years old? Overall, it is a great adaptation to King’s work which has been called hard to adapt many times. Little things have changed but the message is still there overcoming fear both as a child and an adult.

The Bird with the Crystal Plumage (In honour of Dario Argento's 77th birthday today)

Today is Dario Argento’s 77^th birthday and I received in the mail, The Bird with the Crystal Plumage that I ordered a week ago! In honor of Dario’s birthday, I will write a review of it.

The Bird with the Crystal Plumage is a giallo film, and it was released in 1970, making it the directorial debut of Argento. It is part of his Animal Trilogy (that also includes Cat o’ Nine Tails (1971) and Four Flies on Grey Velvet (1972). The story of Bird with the Crystal Plumage concerns a man named Sam (played by Tony Musante) who is in Italy, trying to get over his writer’s block with his girlfriend (played by Suzi Kendall). He witnesses a murder of a woman (played by Eva Renzi) in an art gallery, and gets sucked into a web of mystery and violence involving the woman and a serial murderer.

Unlike Argento’s later work, this one has very little blood in it; though that does not detract from the use of suspense and terror to keep the story moving. In fact, there is an element of Hitchcock in that you see a lot of the murders through the eyes of the killer or you get this air of anticipation with everywhere that Sam goes, playing detective. The sets are sparse and in many instances dark, which adds to that mood.

The soundtrack is done by Ennio Morricone and it gives it a suspenseful feel however it does seem out of place in a lot of scenes. Luckily, it is used sparingly.

It is an interesting start to Argento’s film career I will say because it conveys so much without having so much gore and really makes you want to know what the hell is going on. It does not confuse like many giallos do (at least for me) and has really great pacing to keep you riveted. Like Sam, you want to solve the murder to with every new clue.

Overall, this is a great Argento film to begin with if you have not seen an Argento film and really showcases where he began and where he will be going with his future films.