Reviews

I love it when a movie makes me think this much. A lot of professional and fellow IMDB reviewers seem to think they've "figured out" the movie. Roger Ebert seemed to think it wasn't so simple. I don't think it's so easy either, but I'd like to write my own theory here, in case anyone is interested. Pure Spoilers follow --> First of all the love letters don't explain what Sean knows. Did the older Sean quickly write and mail a final love letter, giving his exact location, as he was dying of a heart attack in Central Park? That's pretty unlikely, as it is unlikely that young Sean would have heard anything about about a random death in Central Park that happened before he was born. Did older Sean sketch a picture of the auntie that told Anna there was no Santa Clause? That also would make no sense. But when young Sean saw her, he knew who she was. "Tonight you belong to me" by Patience and Prudence plays during the credits and sums up the movie perfectly.

There are many mysteries in this film. But the young Sean is not a fraud. He had no motive for any kind of fraud either, something that some professional film critics have tried to insert in a social class fantasy way. But Sean has two attentive parents a nice home and friends. His parents are shown being just as baffled as everyone else; evidently young Sean does not spend his time practicing elaborate mind control schemes. He is clearly distraught by the love letters. But, after talking to old Sean's mistress about them he climbs a tree. A genuine refuge for those troubled with genuine human quagmires. I can see why people would want there to be a nice "rational" explanation. With such a serious movie, (the acting is freakin absorbingly amazing) grabbing onto to something "real" so that we don't get washed away in a sea of uncomfortable cosmic mystery may be a natural gut reaction.

I was initially a bit frustrated with young Sean's silence at the end when he went to talk to Anna. But I guess he was confused about the behavior of old Sean and 1. Didn't want to hurt Anna, 2. Didn't know if he really wanted to be the same guy that old Sean was. It's a lot to take in for a little kid who only has flashing glimpses of his former life and doesn't really have the experience to put it all together. He might have figured most people forget their former lives for a good reason. I mean it has been pretty awkward for everyone in this movie.

What I would have liked to have seen more of at the end is Anna's exploration of the unknown because she just had an experience that would make her put things into a different perspective. Her selfish husband that wants to posses her (and is also an angry child batterer) has been a ho-hum distraction for her pain. But wouldn't she want to ditch him and explore the mysteries of the universe now? Meet up with some other New Yorkers who have experienced past lives or ESP or something like that? I would demote half star for this if I could (The soundtrack, by Alexandre Desplat, deserves 10 and a half stars though). Anna's new husband has come to represent what society wants for Anna and what she settles for. At the end when he comes to her at the water in a scene that is apparently a homage to the ending of Maborosi, she seems to hate his guts. That's a good sign at least. Maybe she swam away after all.

On the other hand, in Maborosi the new husband is not trying to control his wife but seems to genuinely want to help her. He says that there are some mysteries that we just can't know and it's ok to let them go.

I think it takes talent to satirize the status quo of the current society while living inside it. I can see why many people didn't get this movie. For me it was brilliantly funny. A middle class Joe Shmoe thinks he's doing his part only to find that by being smaller he just has a more detailed view of the worlds problems. I especially loved the way the first part of the movie captures how "hava niceday" faux friendly greetings have been borrowed into everyday English from consumer culture. But this point of view continues to be echoed though the story in more layers as it examines consumer culture's to claims to being concerned about the environment or humanity.

The director, Alexander Payne, also directed The Descendants, which looks much more like a tourist vision of Hawai'i than the real thing. Payne has redeemed himself with Downsizing.

I could never quite feel like knew where they were physically. And I am not sure why, there are plenty of wide shots setting up the reference, then a zoom in. But I think it has to do with the story not making sense. If there are replicants for slaves, why are their still children slaves in the garbage heap? If K has false memories implanted why does he still think that he's a replicant? If he, like other recent generations of replicants are programed for obedience, why does he suddenly disobey orders? If he can go against his programming on a whim, why can't Luv? Why does the replicant revolution care about a story of a lone birth? Isn't being a slave reason enough to want a revoluton? Why do we care about a lone replicant birth? But if said birth is top secret, why does K take Dekkard to see her? Wasn't he in hiding to protect her? Oops. Was Dekkard meant reproduce with Rachel? It seemed like Rachel didn't really like him. Why does Jerrod Leto's character act like a maniac? How can be so nuts, but still run an interplanetary corporation? Tyrell may have been inhuman, but he could still balance his books.

The original Blade Runner was a smart movie. I expect the same from any movie that wants to be its sequel. The original Blade Runner has replicants that behave in a very human way. Skip ahead to 2049 and we finally have replicants, like K, who behave like robots. What a breakthrough!

I give it four stars because it is fun to think about how many plot holes there are, and how easily they could have been fixed. For example it could have been revealed that Luv balanced the books.

How did Vicious find Jet's daughter? Or even know about Jet? I'm sure The Syndicate had connections inside the ISSP, but would they respond to Vicious? He just killed the leaders of the syndicate and Mao Yenrai and The Eunuch. That's a lot of gangsters that probably don't trust Vicious and possibly want to kill him just for safety's sake. One would think that Vicious would have bigger fish to fry at this point.

Jet's daughter as a character helped define Jet's motivations, raised the stakes. That was a great writing move in my opinion. But using her as a kidnapping pawn breaks the believability of the show. And it's unnecessary; Spike would have showed up at the church anyway (if a renegade Syndicate leader like Vicious really had the free time for a duel).

But, oh well. Hopefully we have another season, and things will get back to coy smiles and failed but funny bounty hunting across the solar system.

David Peoples (12 Monkeys) one of my favorite screenwriters does an excellent adaptation of the Phillip K. Dick novel, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. Not only that, Rutger Hauer who stars as a genetically engineered slave, creates the best line in the whole movie - one of my favorite lines from any movie.

This is the only movie I've seen where we are made to follow around the protagonist, only to realize that he's the bad guy (a cold killer who drowns his emotions in booze and strong arms a genetically engineered female, who is probably only a few years old, into kissing him). And the people presented as antagonists, turn out to be escaped slaves coming back to earth to kill members of the slave trade. The movie doesn't rub the slaves' plight in your face though, the way a Tarantino movie would. There is no poppy 60s rock hit playing while the killing happens. Killing is treated seriously no matter who dies. And because of this it took me several viewings to realize the obvious. I have seen many YouTube reviews done by very good film critics who even miss this point. They complain that the good guy shouldn't be drinking and molesting up the neighborhood. But he's NOT the good guy. Sheesh. The good guy is the escaped slave - not the bad cop.

Anyways.

There have been many versions, I think my favorite is the late 90s director's cut because it has warmer colors than other versions. The art from Moebius' work, adapted by Syd Mead, is classic too.

George Miller sure puts his heart into these - the best post-apocalyptic movies there are. They capture the adventure of a world without bureaucracy. As far as Thunderdome goes, I especially like the cow-car. And Tina Turners shoulder pads. But the cow-car especially.