Skip to main content

This breaks the world.

Blade Runner 2049
(2017)

(SPOILERS) It was a questionable thing for (Sir) Ridley Scott and Alcon to go ahead with a sequel to an all-time classic that wasn’t screaming for one, and whose very pervasive influence makes any attempt appear immediately defensive. How much credit they should get for pulling off the seemingly impossible is debatable, however. Ridders was certainly right to go to Hampton Fancher for (co-)screenplay duties, but the clincher was probably delegating directing to Dennis Villeneuve; the Ridley of today just couldn’t direct a slow-burn, immersive piece like his original, and would have turned Blade Runner 2049 into something serviceable but generic; would you want a sequel to Blade Runner that at best stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Prometheus or Alien: Covenant (and I ask as an apologist for both)? I don’t think Blade Runner 2049 surpasses the original, or even equals it, if that must be the yardstick, but it manages to be a worthy successor to an extent no one could have realistically expected.


If one were to find fault, it would be mainly in terms of premise (which I understand was Scott’s); one might argue the picture should have eschewed all ties to the first other than milieu, replicants and the thematic nature of what it means to be human. Forget Deckard and Rachael, or you’re stuck with generational legacies and all that entails. But, being as the decision was made to go that route, 2049 avoids many of the pitfalls of others who have dared tread in the footsteps of cherished originals. The choice to make a direct sequel inevitably means 2049 is tied into the mechanics of plot to a degree its predecessor, built largely on ambience, mood and atmosphere, simply wasn’t, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t take the same amount of pains to imbue those elements.


Indeed, what’s most striking here is that Villeneuve cues us into this being the same world yet is confident enough not to merely replicate it. To be too beholden to a recreation would have led to a pale imitation (Paul WS Anderson’s Blade Runner 2049). The strongest signifier that this is occupies the same universe isn’t the spinners, or the cityscapes, or Harrison Ford; it’s the pacing, allowing shots and scenes to linger on a world that moulders, the anti-modernistic visual style (the anti-current Ridley visual style). Which just happens to be Villeneuve’s approach anyway, making it a perfect marriage. As such, I don’t know how well general audiences will take to the film (boredom appears to be as common a response as adulation). Alcon previously invested significant sums in turkeys that deserved their ignominious fate (Transcendence, the Point Break remake), but this could very easily replicate the original’s tepid box office reception (or a steep fall-off from the first weekend). Which is its own badge of honour in a way, and suggests a Blade Runner 2065 may be some years off.


You can’t broach the subject of the atmosphere and tone of Blade Runner, now and then, without discussing the score. My own biggest bone of contention as news of the project came in was the realisation Vangelis wasn’t on board. That was softened somewhat by hearing how regular Villeneuve collaborator Jóhan Jóhannsson was reverential towards one of the all-time-great scores. Plus, I really liked the static-beat-up interpretation of Vangelis’ original by whoever put together the first trailer. Alas, though, it was then announced Jóhannsson was out and Hans Zimmer and one of his factory of protégées (Benjamin Wallfisch) were in. Don’t get me wrong, Zimmer has done some fine work (for Nolan and Guy Ritchie not least) amongst acres of highly generic output, but he’s about as far from Vangelis as it gets. The finished score definitely supports that. While he utilises cues from the original, this is very identifiably Zimmer, replete with thundering bass that shakes the LA cityscape to its foundations. It isn’t a score I’ll be listening to at home, which I’ve done with the Blade Runner OST innumerable times.


But, and it slightly pains me to say it, it does kind of fit what’s required (which is not to say I’m not hoping there’s a Composer’s Cut on a Blu-ray down the line, offering us Jóhannsson’s special signature). I’m not sure the blanket of melancholy permeating the original movie would work here (when we hear bona fide, unvarnished Vangelis in the final scene, it fits exactly that emotion for the first time). Our protagonist K (Ryan Gosling) doesn’t nurse dreams or regrets; he knows what he is (until he doesn’t) and that stark inescapability merits an austere, industrial-tinged score. It fits.


As “genuine” as K’s relationship is with Ana de Armas’ holographic Joi (itself a further dive into the rabbit hole of man-machine-robot-soul; instead of human and replicant interplay, we have a new subordinate tier of replicant and simulant), we aren’t able to support the illusion that it’s something else; K treats it as something else because he has nothing else (making it even sadder). Which isn’t to deny the resonance of Armas’ performance or Joi’s sacrifice, but acknowledge the limitations of her sentient vassal (the giant holographic billboard later beckoning K announces “Hey, Joe”, the model’s standard greeting but also the name she gave him, further underscoring the hopelessness of his connection; we have to wonder if she’s prescribed to tell all her purchasers that they’re special).


Villeneuve didn’t have final cut on the movie, but I suspect the cut itself is predominately his, but he was likely vetoed by Scott in choice of musician (Zimmer being one of the latter’s fave raves, having score six of his previous pictures). What’s most surprising is that the dubious narrative choices Sir Ridders tends to make (particularly of late – see his retconning of the Alien franchise) have failed to mar this, his other iconic now-franchise. Given how loudly he has incessantly shouted about Deckard being a replicant, even to the point of stating there’s no debate anymore and that 2049 straight-up confirms it, it’s surprising that Villeneuve leaves the waters just muddy enough to allow anyone who wants to see the reflection whichever which way to be satisfied.


There’s no doubting K is a replicant – it’s established in the opening scene – but Rick Deckard? When Niander Wallace (Jared Leto; it’s mystifying that some are criticising his performance, as he absolutely gets the heightened tone of this world, and makes an accordingly suitable successor to Tyrell) gives his take on the plan enacted by Tyrell, he outlines his belief that Rachel was designed for a singular purpose, and that Deckard too was designed with meeting Rachel in mind: that they should procreate. But then he pulls back, caveating his remark with “Whatever you are”. One might argue this is clumsy cop out (couldn’t Wallace simply take a DNA sample to check, if he’s in any doubt?). Alternatively, perhaps he’s just considerate of the delicate alchemy of Deckard’s delusion, that something more than his failed technical attempts is needed, something nebulous or soulful, something tantamount to self-belief, if one is to take an evolutionary leap. Ironically, if Scott thinks the movie’s making a blank statement, he has yet again presented a scenario where the alternative is more powerful thematically; that interspecies procreation further dissolves the distinction between gods (men) and men (replicants).


A few weeks back, I was entirely underwhelmed by Darren Aronofsky’s biblical (and environmental and whatever else you may wish to excuse it with) allegory mother!, so it’s pleasing to report Hampton Fancher (I don’t know how much credit to give Michael Green, but I will charitably suggest the worst parts of Alien: Covenant were all John Logan; on the other hand, perhaps the biblical analogies belong to Ridley, heavily embedded as they also are in the Alien prequels) weaves such a subtext much less obtusely into his characterisation of this sequel. Maybe he didn’t plan all along that Rachael would be a reference to Jacob’s wife, who was barren and who would parent a child who would achieve great standing in a foreign land (a land of humans), but it plays with so seamlessly that it’s easy to buy that he did.


Indeed, this kind of generational sequel plotline for is fraught with difficulties, and it’s to Fancher and Green’s credit that they almost entirely avoid them. The chosen one offspring (“Born, not made”) has been run with by both TRON: Legacy and Star Wars: The Force Awakens, but it’s in keeping with an original where the landscape is all-consuming yet the action is small, the most we get of a grand plan to overthrow the system comes in the invitation to K to be part of the uprising; seeing that would make this a different movie (or movie series), about exterior action rather than interior fulmination.


Even the scene we get suggests a troublesome gear shift into the more functional; as such, any third instalment would pay off by entirely undercutting the expectations of the insurrectionists. Certainly, Fancher otherwise works his deal in unexpected ways, like a better-tuned approach to The Godfather Part III, in which the next generation don’t reveal the expected traits. Ana (a hugely, sympathetic, low key Carla Juri) is an entirely imperfect superhuman, victim to the genetic vagaries of an experimental process. She’s no Roy Batty to get behind, and it might be interesting to see her response to and rejection of such a position being thrust upon her (and I don’t mean in a coming to realise she should respond to the summons at a later date sense).


More especially, Fancher plays in a near meta-manner with our expectations of the traditions – the Hollywood traditions – of a text such as this. More commonly, K, the hero, would be a special son, as he believes himself to be, and there’s a period in the film where there’s a struggle with the possibility of our worst fears of a narrative plughole being realised (it’s unclear who doctored the archives to obfuscate the trail, but some have misinterpreted the thread to indicate that K’s a clone of Ana).


Yet his special memory is really Ana’s memory; it’s implied she has been as liberal with her illegal implanting with other replicants too – although I become unclear which are which, as if Mariette recognises the memories she can’t be an earlier Nexus 8, and who exactly designed the Nexus 8, since Tyrell was dead at the time and Black Out 2022 fails to illuminate this, maybe it’s like Apple post-Steve Jobs   as Freysa (Hiam Abbass) appears to instantly recognise his delusion (the small comfort for K is that they sympathise with rather than mock his fantasy). This in itself course corrects from the rather stagnant obsession of Ridley with Deckard’s nature; doesn’t even the act of wanting to be real, of having that self-awareness, make one real? Indeed, if there’s an issue here, it’s that the “soul” is thrown around rather spuriously (by K, by Joshi) as if it’s a tangible distinguishing factor (I’m trying to recall if the word is even used in the original).


There are numerous visual cues in respect of memory as the vital source of “soulfulness”, of identity, weaving the thread the first film established. The carved horse – originally a unicorn with its horn shorn off? – takes up the mantle of Gaff’s origami; the sheep he folds while talking to K offers a cute double reference, to both the title of PKD’s source novel and K’s function, blindly following the instructions of his human masters. If there’s an element in this that didn’t work so well for me, it’s the cultural specificity. Such as Joi repeatedly referring to K’s wish to be a “real boy”. Like the holograms of Elvis, Marilyn and Sinatra, a Pinocchio reference (already more than covered in A.I.) feels a little too marked and pronounced, given that the original integrated elements without ever flagging them as being directly inherited from our world (product placement aside). Even Peter and the Wolf on K’s pager device might have been better as an original piece.


You might say the same about the Apple apps aspect of Joi, finding the picture moving on from the analogue-neon of Scott’s first movie. One can see echoes of Her in this, but mostly it represents a bleaker vision of human relationships than Scott extended (for all its forced seduction scene). Deckard took love, K can take only that he did the right thing, aspired to a righteous cause (and his life is predicated on rejection by all around him. Even his apartment is a cramped affair, with antagonistic graffiti daubed on his door and a hallway lined with scum and villainy. He’s the little man, not the super one). He loses that which was impermanent (as the holographic sex scene with Mackenzie Davis’ Mariette testifies), but he has only a nominal cause to replace it with, and not even that, since his situation appears terminal (unless this makes enough to guarantee a sequel; I thought the ending left him on the brink, but the wiki synopsis appears to confirm K’s death).


The technology aspect of the picture is interesting, in that it appears to allow the writers as much or as limited leeway as they want. Aside from the continued existence of defunct brands and the Soviet Union, the Internet as we know it does not appear to have been formulated, and more especially, the presence of a metaphorical cloud is only such that it doesn’t limit the plot. Joi’s hub can be read if accessed physically, but doesn’t instantly report back to the corporation that manufactured it, and replicant memories, it seems, cannot be accessed. There’s a degree of autonomy that suits a detective novel format and would be left rather deprived if everything everywhere fed into Wallace’s systems. As such, it makes for a satisfying alt-universe self-sacrifice by Joi that she tricks Luv (Sylvia Hoeks) into destroying her portable link and thus the information that could lead Wallace to Ana.


As with the original, not everything makes a whole lot of sense (in this regard, many reviews will cite the superiority of the original in all the ways it was initially criticised). The opening text is somewhat inelegant, and poses more questions than it answers. Such as, how Wallace’s new replicants, the Tyrell lot having been banned, are differentiated by being obedient to humans when they clearly aren’t. Not just in the case of Luv, who might be explained away as a special model (as Wallace’s own personal assistant), but if obedience was built in, K wouldn’t need to take the replicant behaviour test (which is a highly convincing exercise in sensory assault and distraction). And Joshi failing to ask K for proof that he killed Deckard and Rachael’s child is as unlikely as faking Deckard’s death in absentia of a body. And, if Deckard’s plan to keep Ana safe makes sense (certainly more so his being out of the picture than Luke hiding himself away in The Force Awakens), then Wallace’s interrogation equipment being conveniently off-world (requiring a spinner flight K can intercept) doesn’t especially.


Fancher peppers the picture with mostly successful references to future history and prior nods, even if Villeneuve’s visual aspect is far from the post-modern palimpsest Scott flourished. These include unobtrusive call backs - Instead of Methuselah Syndrome, we now have Galatians Syndrome, Deckard’s denseness about the owl in the first movie is replicated in K’s response to his dog – “Is he real?”: “Why don’t you ask him” – the multi-cultural LA appears to have experience a slight demographic shift. There’s also the new, such as the blackout that wiped records of everything, the reference to a dirty bomb hitting Las Vegas, and moments of curious import. K comes across an apiary in the wilderness. Are the bees replicants? Is it significant that they are thriving there just as the real deal has been (presumably) wiped out? A foretelling of the order to come?


There are numerous portents in the picture in this regard, with Lt Joshi (Robin Wright) telling K outright that the knowledge of replicant reproduction would lead to all-out war (except that the replicants already know, and those on Earth don’t appear rampant, albeit have a good thing going with basements). Wallace has a curiously hands-on (and scalpel-on) approach to his progeny, but is entirely dispassionate in observing their functionality (reproduction equals an effective slave labour force, ending his supply issues). Luv sees herself as entirely superior to humans (mocking Joshi as she kills her) but is wholly obedient to Wallace while shedding a tear for the new born he murders, which makes for something of a dichotomy. If that third one comes along, they should definitely avoid depicting this inevitable impending war; look how it turned out for Terminator.


It’s notable that some of the speculated-upon big concepts didn’t come to pass. Most suspected, rightly, was that this would be about Rachael and Deckard’s child, hidden away somewhere (right down to the holographic garden centre in the trailer). While it might have been an effective twist to also reveal that all Earth’s inhabitants are now replicants, it probably moves too far from the closeted, ground-level approach of the movie. As it is, even the location hopping, bright exteriors and spinner fights take a bit of getting used to – it’s the languor between that grounds them.


Villeneuve’s visuals, readily aided by cinematographer Roger Deakins, are both distinctive in their own right and resonant of the work of Scott and Jordan Cronenweth; there’s significantly more empty space in Villeneuve’s frames, making his world more stripped back and desolate. His inclusion of flashbacks to earlier moments (in the same picture) has a tendency to feel unnecessary and mistrusting of his audience’s acumen, however. The only other duff note that comes to mind is in the last temptation of Deckard, in which a de-aged Sean Young is wheeled on looking like a bad hologram version of her former self. The scene holds more sway than just a fan service call back (“Rachael had green eyes”), but because of the effects quality (leagues better than young Jeff in TRON: Legacy, insufficiently superior to Carrie in Rogue One) it lessens the impact; of course Deckard’s not going for it. She clearly isn’t real.


Gosling’s perfect casting in the lead, implacable when called for, brimming with bewildered emotion otherwise, and able to deliver the troubled look rather than searching for dialogue; it might be, if you’re looking for a continuation, that he’s too sympathetic a protagonist compared to Deckard’s rough houser. Ford has pretty much gone through his back catalogue of iconic roles now (unless John Book returns to Amish fields or Richard Kimble has to hotfoot it again) but in this one he finally nails it. Maybe that’s Villeneuve’s influence, but returning to the character doesn’t mar or sully Deckard (and consistently, he is still fairly useless. His best detective work occurred off screen). The fringes are perfectly chosen too, including the enlistment of David Bautista to offer an early guide to the narrative terrain, Barkhad Abdi as a street analyst and Tomas Lemarquis – the best Caliban – as one of Wallace’s employees. It's true that the picture is generally a cooler prospect than the original in terms of performance - but then, how many movies can boast prime Rutger Hauer? - and Villeneuve simply isn't the guy to embrace the luridly humorous in the way Scott did there, but that goes back to the importance of not trying to repeat oneself, or someone else.


Of course Blade Runner 2049 can’t match the original, and it will take time to percolate just how worthy a sequel it is, but right now it feels like it has more than earned its place in the select ranks of great ones. Thematically, it continues the main threads without ever feeling lazy or routine about it, and crucially, it knows that the spaces between the action are more important than the action itself. But in conclusion, we need a third instalment, not so we can follow the replicant revolution, but just so to find out what happens to Deckard’s dog.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

What ho, Brinkley. So, do you think we’re going to get along, what?

Jeeves and Wooster 2.4: Jeeves in the Country  (aka Chuffy)
The plundering of Thank You, Jeeves elicits two more of the series’ best episodes, the first of which finds Bertie retiring to the country with a new valet, the insolent, incompetent and inebriate Brinkley (a wonderfully sour, sullen performance from Fred Evans, who would receive an encore in the final season), owing to Jeeves being forced to resign over his master’s refusal to give up the trumpet (“not an instrument for a gentleman”; in the book, it’s a banjulele).

Chuffnall Hall is the setting (filmed at Wrotham Park in Hertfordshire), although the best of the action takes place around Bertie’s digs in Chuffnall Regis (Clovelly, Devon), which old pal Reginald “Chuffy” Chuffnell (Marmaduke Lord Chuffnell) has obligingly rented him, much to the grievance of the villagers, who have to endure his trumpeting disrupting the beatific beach (it’s a lovely spot, one of the most evocative in the series).

Jeeves is snapped up into the e…

Exit bear, pursued by an actor.

Paddington 2 (2017)
(SPOILERS) Paddington 2 is every bit as upbeat and well-meaning as its predecessor. It also has more money thrown at it, a much better villain (an infinitely better villain) and, in terms of plotting, is more developed, offering greater variety and a more satisfying structure. Additionally, crucially, it succeeds in offering continued emotional heft and heart to the Peruvian bear’s further adventures. It isn’t, however, quite as funny.

Even suggesting such a thing sounds curmudgeonly, given the universal applause greeting the movie, but I say that having revisited the original a couple of days prior and found myself enjoying it even more than on first viewing. Writer-director Paul King and co-writer Simon Farnaby introduce a highly impressive array of set-ups with huge potential to milk their absurdity to comic ends, but don’t so much squander as frequently leave them undertapped.

Paddington’s succession of odd jobs don’t quite escalate as uproariously as they migh…

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

Don't give me any of that intelligent life crap, just give me something I can blow up.

Dark Star (1974)
(SPOILERS) Is Dark Star more a John Carpenter film or more a Dan O’Bannon one? Until the mid ‘80s it might have seemed atypical of either of them, since they had both subsequently eschewed comedy in favour of horror (or thriller). And then they made Big Trouble in Little China and Return of the Living Dead respectively, and you’d have been none-the-wiser again. I think it’s probably fair to suggest it was a more personal film to O’Bannon, who took its commercial failure harder, and Carpenter certainly didn’t relish the tension their creative collaboration brought (“a duel of control” as he put it), as he elected not to work with his co-writer/ actor/ editor/ production designer/ special effects supervisor again. Which is a shame, as, while no one is ever going to label Dark Star a masterpiece, their meeting of minds resulted in one of the decade’s most enduring cult classics, and for all that they may have dismissed it/ seen only its negatives since, one of the best mo…

Ruination to all men!

The Avengers 24: How to Succeed…. At Murder
On the one hand, this episode has a distinctly reactionary whiff about it, pricking the bubble of the feminist movement, with Steed putting a female assassin over his knee and tickling her into submission. On the other, it has Steed putting a female assassin over his knee and tickling her into submission. How to Succeed… At Murder (a title play on How to Succeed at Business Without Really Trying, perhaps) is often very funny, even if you’re more than a little aware of the “wacky” formula that has been steadily honed over the course of the fourth season.

You just keep on drilling, sir, and we'll keep on killing.

Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk (2016)
(SPOILERS) The drubbing Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk received really wasn’t unfair. I can’t even offer it the “brave experiment” consolation on the basis of its use of a different frame rate – not evident in itself on 24fps Blu ray, but the neutering effect of the actual compositions is, and quite tellingly in places – since the material itself is so lacking. It’s yet another misguided (to be generous to its motives) War on Terror movie, and one that manages to be both formulaic and at times fatuous in its presentation.

The irony is that Ang Lee, who wanted Billy Lynn to feel immersive and realistic, has made a movie where nothing seems real. Jean-Christophe Castelli’s adaptation of Ben Fountain’s novel is careful to tread heavily on every war movie cliché it can muster – and Vietnam War movie cliché at that – as it follows Billy Lynn (British actor Joe Alwyn) and his unit (“Bravo Squad”) on a media blitz celebrating their heroism in 2004 Iraq …

The wolves are running. Perhaps you would do something to stop their bite?

The Box of Delights (1984)
If you were at a formative age when it was first broadcast, a festive viewing of The Box of Delightsmay well have become an annual ritual. The BBC adaptation of John Masefield’s 1935 novel is perhaps the ultimate cosy yuletide treat. On a TV screen, at any rate. To an extent, this is exactly the kind of unashamedly middle class-orientated bread-and-butter period production the corporation now thinks twice about; ever so posh kids having jolly adventures in a nostalgic netherworld of Interwar Britannia. Fortunately, there’s more to it than that. There is something genuinely evocative about Box’s mythic landscape, a place where dream and reality and time and place are unfixed and where Christmas is guaranteed a blanket of thick snow. Key to this is the atmosphere instilled by director Renny Rye. Most BBC fantasy fare doe not age well but The Box of Delights is blessed with a sinister-yet-familiar charm, such that even the creakier production decisions may be vie…

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …

This here's a bottomless pit, baby. Two-and-a-half miles straight down.

The Abyss (1989)
(SPOILERS) By the time The Abyss was released in late summer ’89, I was a card carrying James Cameron fanboy (not a term was in such common use then, thankfully). Such devotion would only truly fade once True Lies revealed the stark, unadulterated truth of his filmmaking foibles. Consequently, I was an ardent Abyss apologist, railing at suggestions of its flaws. I loved the action, found the love story affecting, and admired the general conceit. So, when the Special Edition arrived in 1993, with its Day the Earth Stood Still-invoking global tsunami reinserted, I was more than happy to embrace it as a now-fully-revealed masterpiece.

I still see the Special Edition as significantly better than the release version (whatever quality concerns swore Cameron off the effects initially, CGI had advanced sufficiently by that point;certainly, the only underwhelming aspect is the surfaced alien craft, which was deemed suitable for the theatrical release), both dramatically and them…