Blade Runner 2049: Same Setting; Still not Interesting

Are you ready for a horrific reality, People-Who-Think-Blade-Runner-Is-Awesome? Here it goes: the movie isn't great. Sure, it has a pretty interesting setting, Rutger Hauer was a lot of fun with his depressed wax on existentialism and, for the most part, the movie does a pretty good job in the whole world building department. But, let's be honest, the story and pacing are mind-numbingly boring, the movie is known more for its nauseating number of recuts and, despite its influence, the whole “Are we real?” question that movie seemed so anxious to ask in every version was so much better delivered in the dozens of Japanese homage movies made in its wake (Ghost in the Shell, Akira). Now, with so many recuts, obnoxious fanboy arguments about its place in science fiction and even the weird foreshadowing of Ridley Scott's personality (the existential angst is strong in that man), Hollywood has finally just gone the sequel route. The result: a passable sci-fi movie set in the world that you probably love with little or no context to care. Good job, Hollywood?

Look, from a clear aesthetic point of view, Blade Runner 2049 is a beautiful movie that never misses a chance to show off its weird future world. Future Los Angeles is still just as much a sight to behold as it was in 1982, there are partially successful attempts to reconcile the original's themes with the sequel's story, and, in an about face from the original, most of the cast (instead of just Rutger Hauer) put in enough work here to make me actually believe they cared this time around. Even in the hands of weirdo director Denis Villeneuve, the movie feels like the people who made the original memorable were still involved in some heavy degree. That's dedication.

Unfortunately, much like its predecessor, the movie is still an overlong, mostly predictable (even I saw the twist halfway through the movie) chore of a movie whose only memorable quality is its commitment to its own nihilism. Sure, you could argue that some of the action scenes (at least the ones you can see properly) play out well enough to understand, but it all comes down thematically to the same stupid question Ridley Scott asked back in 1982 and just can't seem to escape from now that he's almost 80. “How do we determine what is real in an artificial world?” just isn't that interesting of a question this time around.

As for watching it, got anything better to do this weekend? Considering it was the only major release and Friday the 13^th is coming with the promise of seemingly better action movies (The Foreigner), better horror movies (Happy Death Day) and even better historical dramas (Breathe, Goodbye Christopher Robin), my best suggestion would be to just take an off week this time around. Are you an unrepentant fan of the 1982 original and cover your ears to its myriad criticisms? Knock yourself out here.

Denis Villeneuve (Arrival) continues to make aesthetically beautiful, if thematically frustrating, movies about existence without deeper meaning. Basically, replicant Blade Runner 'K' (Ryan Gosling) discovers a conspiracy involving older model replicants that could cause a war between human factions and machines. Along the way, Harrison Ford will appear and act like he really needed a paycheck, hologram assistant Joi (Ana de Armas) will somehow display more depth than most characters despite being a soulless, body-less A.I., Robin Wright will sell her throwaway character's part for all its worth and, when it finally ends after two-and-a-half excruciating hours, you'll feel like the whole mess of a plot was literally for the sake of nothing while scrambling for deeper meaning. Thanks, Hollywood, but I already own every season of Rick & Morty. I don't need any more case studies on existential nihilism.

My score: 4/10. Seriously, if you want to have an existential crisis AND be entertained, just watch Rick & Morty. It's the only show that makes you laugh from the humor and cry at the horrors of existence in the same breath.

Kingsman: The Golden Circle: The Sequel NO ONE asked for

For those of you who just couldn't be bothered to see it or the rest of you who see Matthew Vaughn's name next to a movie and black out because he's not the most recognizable name, 2014's Kingsman: The Secret Service might have been one of the most entertaining, irreverent and psychotic action comedies of the last few years that sold its premise (lisping meglomaniac trying to take over the world) simply by taking a played out genre trope (overly courteous British agents) and blowing it all up with well-timed bouts of humor that tended to hit more than they missed (you will either love or hate the big finale; no middle ground). Regardless of where you stand on the film's merits, it was an honest take on an under-read comic book and, by the grace of Vaughn, sold itself for every cringe-worthy setpiece and joke it could muster. How does Vaughn follow-up his arguably best movie? By making a sequel no one asked for. This is the part where the world groaning about sequels starts to have a little more hold than usual.

Sadly, despite its pedigree, Kingsman: The Golden Circle is a movie with literally no reason to exist in any form. Not only does it expand too much beyond its comic book origins (which were already stretched thin with the original movie) but the premise (meglomaniac without lisp tries to take over the world) and the iconic action sequences of the original (the Colin Firth fight) are cribbed almost verbatim from its prequel. The narrative doesn't flow, the new characters feel like an old Oscar nomination check sheet for the sake of name recognition and the movie makes commits the cardinal sin of relying too much on its predecessor to fill its own plot holes. Kingsman worked fine as a stand alone movie BECAUSE it didn't need or promise any sequels in an era made up of little else.

Fortunately, if you can escape the inevitable deja vu of a movie trying too hard to recapture its glory from its superior big brother, there are small gems to find. Pedro Pascal's Whiskey is a fun, almost endearing character bogged down only by a late-game plot dump that seemed forced by the two hour-plus movie somehow running out of time. And, despite being a prime example of gimmick casting in a movie full of it, Elton John was both funny and wildly entertaining as a warped parody of himself. Say what you will about the man, seeing a 70-year-old, feather-laden musician kick a bad guy in the face with platform shoes while slyly winking at the camera almost makes the insulting nature of the joke funnier than it should be. See? Gratuitous overkill CAN be awesome if it sells it right.

As for watching it...just go watch the original and be happy you didn't fall for all the advertisements about the sequel being some kind of awesome expansion on the canon of the now pointless series. Better yet, just wait a few months and randomly search “Elton John fighting” and you'll likely stumble across the only aspect of this movie that warrants any of your time. Seriously, has the “good” movie season started yet?

Matthew Vaughn (X-Men: First Class) makes what can only be described as his first truly awful movie with Kingsman: The Golden Circle, a bloated, overly self-referential experiment in cinematic overkill that takes the good will of its predecessor and wastes it all trying to make you watch the same movie you saw three years ago with more moving parts and worse plotting. Having been rebuilt after the events of the first movie, the Kingsman intelligence agency is promptly decimated by a drug cartel known as the Golden Circle because...I'm not exactly sure. Their wonky world domination plan and the actual destruction of Kingsman don't really make any sense outside of being bad plot devices to push the bloated script onto additional set pieces people still didn't ask for. Take the previously mentioned advice to watch a cool 30-second clip of Elton John kicking a guy in the face to “Saturday Night” and just be glad you didn't waste your money again this week. Its sadly too late for me.

My score: 2/10. Is it weird that I want to see more action sequences involving Elton John kicking dudes in the face to his own music? Probably weird...