>Hauer, 74, spoke to THR about his favorite rolls
cruel false advertising
>Dutch actor Rutger Hauer seared himself into cinema history with the “tears in the rain” speech (which he wrote himself)
TIL. I'm impressed!
> Don't lean with one elbow on the success of that was earned over 30 years in the underground.
Well, I generally agree with this, but I completely disagree with everything else he said.
> In many ways, Blade Runner wasn't about the replicants, it was about what does it mean to be human? It's like E.T.. But I'm not certain what the question was in the second Blade Runner.
Maybe he needs to watch it again then? In 2049, there's a lot more going on thematically than the first one. The first one asks the question and just scratches the surface of it. The second one delves way deeper into that stuff. What does it mean to be born? What is a soul? What does it mean *not* to be human?
> It's not a character-driven movie and there's no humor, there's no love, there's no soul. You can see the homage to the original. But that's not enough to me. I knew that wasn't going to work. But I think it's not important what I think.
As much as I like the first movie, the only character who truly had an arc was Hauer's character. Unless you count the last two minutes, when Deckard realizes that replicants might not just be objects, the protagonist of the film stays largely the same, while K has such an interesting and compelling arc.
I do understand his point, but I personally thought 2049 was a masterpiece.
But I'm just a shithead on Reddit and he's the guy who gave literally the greatest speech in film history, so his opinion does matter more.
wow, old Roy doesn't like the new Blade Runner 2049 at all.
the struggle is now real for this sub.