
After watching the new Bladerunner I feel like a victim of some Grand Scam or a bad joke. All around crooked smile, give shifty eyes and nervous like large drops of sweat from forehead, patting me on the shoulder. Critics, echoing the bloggers look into the mouth of the representatives of both parties, the audience created a beautiful utopia of the new masterpiece of science fiction that "opens new horizons", "makes you think" and"makes revolution". However these General words I and I do not understand where specifically, the movie opens horizons mentioned, about what exactly makes you think what makes a revolution.
I don't are a hardcore fan of the first film, from me no plastic gun bladrunner Rachel my waifu, but I like its visual style, the music of Vangelis and strong humanistic message. If anyone have forgotten or not understand especially for the Ridley Scott, who seems in the end was crazy, then the main conflict of the first part revolved around the question that it means to be human. Bladrunner because it was called that were literally on the edge of the blade, trying to distinguish the Replicant from the man in inability empathy "send him on the rest." In the denouement, the Replicant Roy showed that the artificially created organism, the ability to be morally higher than a man, but because some ways and exceeds it. However, did Deckard people in whole of any lesson, we unfortunately, so is not know, like in the sequel to development got very different ideas.
Remember the awkward and tedious love story between Rick and Rachel, which were actually the only genre attribute of a Noir detective? Got a sequel to it. For some reason the authors of the sequel decided that wasn't that dream, whether the androids elektrowni or no, but can they natural procreation, i.e. through sexual intercourse. At this, they not even have become particularly bother in that somehow logical and interesting to justify this idea. Instead, this script was made to still a few romantic lines, podsyuzhetov and characters, not having the ability or desire to adequately disclose that, creators are brought to primitive melodramatic snot, hiding behind the guise of supposedly speaking for yourself visual style.
In General I used to that in the movies, Villeneuve rather banal morality, such as the fact that you need to live for today, love the family and so on, but what I definitely not from him expected especially in Union Deacons, so it is the failure of the visual part. The film turned out to be empty not only content, but and form. All as for the plot are given either small text, or to pronounce some of the secondary characters. All the rest of the time, the characters are silent and Alexander Blok's nostalgic, go on some trash and wastes in the twilight. Every fifteen minutes is the visual splendor of over 200 million is interrupted satanic howling synth by Hans Zimmer, which is exactly the alarm reminds the viewer that the drooling in the cinema. Yes, notably the same mock Vangelis.
But where I and where criticism. I don't even kinology. Those who in his life read more than two books I would advise you to save three hours read the movie plot on Wikipedia. All participants of the Scam offer, finally, to put the question squarely, start the vote and solve time for all who still greater genius — Villeneuve or Nolan? And while you count the results of voting, I will better to seek out the anime Armitage III.