Beautiful scenes. I did not like much the lack of music. And I did not enjoy the story, some characters were not important, like the bad guy or Harrison Ford.
Great movie. I watched it for 1st time at the cinema. The sound design is amazing, with great visuals and a really engaging story. I loved it.
"Pain reminds you the joy you felt was real. More joy, then! Do not be afraid."
I thought the first was style over substance, well Blade Runner 2049 is style with substance. An improvement on every level except maybe (debatably) the cinematography, they're both absolutely stunning. Beautiful colors, impressive sets, perfect lighting, great score, atmospheric, gloomy and so rainy... more rainy than Prisoners. Denis Villeneuve's direction is excellent and I was so invested in the mystery he created here. Ryan Gosling's character is nuanced and you can feel what he's feeling constantly. The existential crisis is very deep and the dystopian romance aspect was quite interesting and believable too. This is one of Gosling's more serious roles and I think he was excellent. Sylvia Hoeks as the villain was a great choice. Jared Leto I couldn't take seriously, I think it's because he's terrible at being blind. Not convinced Harrison Ford's character needed to be in this movie but he was great. Not a 9/10 because it needed a shorter runtime and more action, although the instances of action were very thrilling.
Day 10 of Ryan Gosling Binge
One of the best sequels in the history of cinema. "Blade Runner 2049" is a monumental achievement in cinematic storytelling standing tall as not just as one of the best modern sequels but as a standalone masterpiece that will redefine the future of science fiction forever.
Villeneuve’s direction is nothing short of masterful, weaving a visually appealing and plot-deep story with ease. Reminiscent of its predecessor yet incredibly different, the film immerses the audience in a dystopian world filled with fantastic details and a tangible atmosphere Every frame is a work of art, and displays an art rarely seen on film.
The score by Hans Zimmer does a pivotal role in enhancing the premise and the atmosphere of the movie complementing the stunning visuals. Hans and Benjamin does a phenomenal job at capturing the bleak yet mesmerizing tone of the film further drawing the audience into the movie and immersing us in.
"K" played by Ryan Gosling is far well written than Deckard ever was in the first film, the depth of the character coupled with the emotional portrayal by Ryan elevates the character into unknown depths. The portrayal by Ryan may not seem much at first on the surface but his nuanced portrayal on a journey of self-discovery is intriguing as well as emotionally resonant elevating beyond the standard modern character. The supporting cast includes Harrison Ford reprising his role as Deckard who delivers equally compelling performance as he did in the first movie, adding more complexity to the character and the storyline as a whole.
"Blade Runner 2049" is more than just a sequel, it's a cinematic genre defining piece of modern art that should be displayed in art galleries.
In conclusion...Denis Willnevermiss is a legend.
Blade Runner 2049- 9/10
Ryan Gosling- 8.5/10
A good continuation of the story, a bit too long, and I didn’t like every narrative decision, but it was a beautiful film nonetheless.
many is the night i dream of cheese
This was a super duper cool movie. I loved the cinematography and acting between the characters. The music wasn't the greatest but it really picked up during the last bit of the movie. This sequel feels as if it does more with the acting and scenes rather than the dialogue compared to the original. Not that that is bad, its just that this movie utilizes things differently than the original.
I gave it 9 out of 10 cause I kept getting confused, but by the end of it I think I understood mainly what had happened. Overall it was a very fun experience and super awesome. I hope to watch it again someday.
"Pain is a reminder that the joy you once felt was real"
As my firt contact with Blade Runner topic it was not the best experience. There is this hype around it but the movie is slow, too long and the first hour quite boring. I love Villeneuve’s movies but this one is truly one big “meh”. Not worth the time
Cinematography is such eye candy. Theme feels a little more narrow than dadoes. Reproduction and child bearing.
Blade Runner was bleak, but it was exciting. This is just bleak... and dull.
So first time I watched it and thought it was crap or ‘okay’ at best but disappointed.
However, after seeing it again and after having watched the original again, yes, far better than I thought at first, enjoyed it but still just feels a little too much filler in there and too long for my liking.
What I realised though is that the line at the end is just brilliant, as simple as it is, but one of the best lines in film for such an understated line: ‘Who am I to you?’
Try to get it in 4k. Watch the first part before this. A lot of people online said it's not necessary to watch the first part but I'm glad I watched it before beginning this movie. It's like if you don't watch Firefly before Serenity, You'll only understand the action sequences.
It's a beautiful film visually, but none of the characters is allowed proper development, not even the main. We never get to truly connect with Joe, as he's just a vehicle, a driving force for the story itself, which gets muddled in the middle, and the remainder of the film suffers as a result. Shame really, it could have been great. 5.5/10
I enjoyed Blade Runner 2049 a lot more than I did the original one, but it is clear to me that this recent movie is not as impactful in its contributions to the genre.
The story was very nice and interesting. It gripped me right away and I found it a lot more straightforward than the 1982 Blade Runner. I've got very little complaints about the story, except that it did have a lot of painfully slow scenes. In that, it really mirrored its predecessor; I didn't like it there and I did not like it here, but I appreciate the movie maintaining a similar style.
The plot had a right mix of mystery and action. It flowed very well from one scene to the other and it made me curious until the end, while posing interesting philosophical questions.
The cast was phenomenal, and that should be no surprise. Ryan Gosling did great, I really loved his portrayal of K. Ana de Armas as well did a great job portraying an AI. And of course, Harrison Ford reprised his role as a now old Deckard; I've seen discordant opinions about his performance, but I personally think he killed it. Great job.
The cinematography was were this movie really improved upon its predecessor, in my opinion. Los Angeles still had that brutalist and claustrophobic feel, but I enjoyed the choice of colors much more. It really was a treat to the eyes.
The CGI was really good as well, from the overall scenery to the cloned Rachel. I really liked the effects on the holographic Joi, especially in the sex scene. Really, really well done.
I enjoyed the sounds of the original Blade Runner and this one didn't disappoint either. It was in line with the 1982 movie and I really liked that.
In the end, I think Blade Runner 2049 is a better movie than Blade Runner. Though, it can only be so thanks to its ability to build on what the previous one explored. I can recommend this movie to anyone who loved the original without worry. And if you were intrigued but not impressed by Blade Runner, give this one a shot, it might surprise you.
8/10
P.S.: I'm glad they didn't confirm whether Deckard is a replicant or not. I don't think he is, but it's much more fun speculating than knowing
Like everyone else, I think this film is beautiful. Unlike most everyone else, I don't like the story. I am very glad that they didn't turn this into another lame action movie and stayed with the mood and tempo of the original. Problem is, I never really cared for the original and I am no less bored with the story of BR2049.
I hate to say this because I am normally thrilled with movies that don't give you all of the answers. But because I'm not a fan of the original, this sequel and its characters mean little. I'm sure Blade Runner fans could enlighten me, but the story is just not that interesting.
I waited a long time before I took the plunge and watched Blade Runner 2049. Denis Villeneuve is ramping up to be one of my all-time favorite directors, and after Dune, I really had no excuse not to watch this one.
The main reason I haven't is a fear that it might be more of what makes the original Blade Runner such a mixed bag for me. On the visual, sound, and technical side, I just adore it. When it comes to the story...well...let's just say I like it, but doesn't LOVE it like so many others.
...and I was right.
Blade Runner 2049 suffers from the same issues as the first one. Parts of it suffers from severe pacing issues, and the story doesn't know what it wants...just as the first one. Does it really matter? Not really...
The visuals are just as impressive in 2049, and the sound and score is, even though I miss Vangelis, excellent. Acting is also superb all around, but to me, the standouts are Ana de Armas and Dave Bautista.
So...just as with Blade Runner, I like 2049, but I don't love it.
This is probably the best legacy-quel I've ever seen (that is, a sequel that came out long after the original). It stays true to the themes of the first one, and keeps its very slow, subdued nature in favour of a soulless cashgrab.
I found that I got a lot more out of a rewatch of Blade Runner 2049. Not only was the plot a lot more clear, but so were some of the subtle messages about what it means to be human and all that cyberpunk philosophy. It was a much more enjoyable and enriching experience this time around.
I still can't stand the characterization of Wallace, though. He doesn't feel real, he feels like a really good actor reading lines of poetry instead of saying what they mean. Like, imagine if you asked me how my day has been, and I start telling you about how birds don't have a place to roost unless they put stop flapping their wings and go find a branch to settle in.
You'd look at me like I'm insane. Wallace's dialogue (which may as well be monologue) sounds like it was written by a crazy person.
Great movie, though.
A booooooooring movie, nothing special with acting, poor idea and story for 2017, exaggerated meaningless nudes throughout the movie. The only thing of course is the impressive (cinematography 10/10). Total 6/10
“Blade Runner 2049” is a solid sequel that could have been a much better standalone sci-fi film. The overall atmosphere is very respectful towards the original, but the retro sci-fi imagery and desperate need to include old characters sometimes feel like a creative limitation as well as an obstacle for new viewers. As with most Deakins-Villeneuve collaborations, once we become used to the breathtaking impact of the visuals and start to focus on the storytelling, it’s sometimes hard to get emotionally invested in the plot and characters. We have the same old dilemmas about identity, humanity, and memory, even though except for a more sentimental approach to love stories, there is nothing really new. Definitely not enough to justify the film’s excessive length. The slow pace is surely one of the trademarks of the original, but here things simply drag on in an attempt at building arthouse depth and at the same time keeping the doors open for possible sequels.
Nevertheless, an enjoyable sci-fi blockbuster with some of the most beautiful cinematography of the decade.
Blade Runner 2049 is a true sequel to the original, through and through. It has dazzling visuals and cinematography, a true vision bleeding through, and a lived in, immaculately crafted set design. But, conversely, it also has the issue of being more brain than heart, occasionally stilted dialogue, and misused women cast members.
Like Daryl Hanah before her, Sylvia Hoeks gives it her all, but it's the material that fails her. She never quite coalesces into a complete character, lacking the one vital scene that connects all the others showing her tears or her rage, her antipathy or her empathy. She feels more like whatever the film wants or needs her to be in the moment than a fully realized being, as much as Hoeks valiantly almost pulls it all together. And Ana de Armas similarly makes the most of a neglected character. She infuses Joi with charm, heart, and an arc of her own. There is a version of this film out in another world where her want to be a real girl and whether it's even possible or if she's just a tool for man's gratification is given more attention. It could carry a movie in of itself. Instead, her character is completely in service of the male lead, from life to death, a fate that previously befell Sean Young's Rachel.
It's impossible not to notice the hollow treatment of most of the female cast. Hoeks is a inconsistent psycho with a twisted crush on the lead, while Joi is fridged for his development. And most glaringly, Sean Young's Rachel is similarly fridged for Deckard, dying off screen and cameoing as just a temptation for Deckard to refuse. The women in this film appear mostly as victims, sex workers, and/or holographic housewives. You could surely argue that the subversion of the Chosen One plot- an admittedly inspired touch- but the force of that subversion is not a real character in of herself, only appearing in two scenes. She's a plot device, again facilitating the two male lead's growth. This is not her story. Director Denis Villeneuve tried to defend this, saying "Blade Runner is not about tomorrow; it's about today. And I'm sorry, but the world is not kind on women." But is that supposed to be a shock? What purpose does it serve to be similarly unkind on women? The world is cruel to them, undoubtedly, but that does not mean they don't have their own stories, their own lives. What's the point of it if you do not condemn it, or even portray it in a new way to shock the audience, to reveal today's dehumanizing treatment of them. In 2049, it's just there, lazily presented with a shrug.
That is not to say the film is completely without its pluses- far from it. The ensemble overall is better served than in the original. Robin Wright is the exception among the female cast, playing a character who is callous and unfailingly committed to the current system, but is not inhuman. There is a loneliness that exudes from her, and there is a sort of kindness to her with how she attatches to K, offering him her version of mercy while never ceasing to believe she's in the right. Harrison Ford is much more engaged in this film. His expression in the last shot of the film may be the most honest acting I've ever seen from him. Dave Bautista owns his singular scene, perfectly setting the tone. And Gosling as K is a much more compelling protagonist than Deckard was. He adeptly portrays a man robotic on the outside and quietly human within, conveying contrasts of hope and fear or yearning and disbelief at the same time. But as Blade Runner had an underutilized ensemble lifted by one bright performance from Rutger Hauer, so does 2049 have a mostly solid cast marred by a horrific showing.
Jared Leto is just awful. He feeds into one of the Blade Runner series' biggest issues - nobody talks like this. It is no coincidence that when Rutger Hauer portrayed Roy Batty, the high point of the franchise, he rewrote the character's dying speech, dismissing the original as 'opera talk and hi-tech speech'. This has always been a potential flaw in this series, but the right actors can find the emotions in the tech, as he did. Wright sells awkwardly written lines like "The world is bought on a wall, it separates kind," with conviction. And Bautista kills it on "You newer models are happy scraping the shit, because you've never seen a miracle." He feels it in his soul, and the emotion of his delivery, certain and grunted through intense pain from both the moment and a long life, reverberates through the entire films. Where they enliven their lines, Leto exposes it.
His jilted, shallow movements, his approximation of how blind people act, relayed to him by his usual overwrought method acting. He put in opaque contact lenses and calls it a day. Every word is spoken with a breathy, empty air. Leto does not feel his lines, he thinks them. He thinks he's delivering a master performance in a Blade Runner movie, he knows he's in one. He thinks he belongs in one, and so he does not. He reveals the insipidness of lines like "There were bad angels once, but I make good angels now," and "Pain reminds you the joy you felt was real," lines that are more thesis statements than actual human beliefs. And his utter lack of conviction in "We should own the stars" is criminal, mustering not enough energy on the last word to sell his character's certainty but just enough for you to notice he tried and failed. These lines are all head, and it is the actors' jobs to find the heart. Leto failed. He lays bare the passionless script.
But this is not the only case of the head failing. A big backbone of the film is Deckard's and Rachel' romance from the first film. The horribly rushed, utterly sterile romance that culminated in a sex scene that's borderline assault at worst and pushy at best. Leto states, in his lifeless way, that the connection they felt was instant? How? Every scene they had was lifeless. This is a case where seeing the original film actually hampers this one- I might be more able to buy into Ford's grief over his love if I hadn't seen how awkward that 'love' was.
This results in a film that, for all of its (mostly) talented cast, its daring visuals, and swooning, unique soundtrack... I like less than the original. 2049 makes me think, but it does not make me feel. It may. perhaps, be more even on the whole than the original. But with Leto, it hits a deeper low. The emptiness of its women is even less excusable in 2017 and today than Blade Runner's was in 1982. And it never hits as big a high as Hauer as Roy, who elevated that film and delivered its themes directly to your heart. I can examine 2049's themes, I can piece apart its cinematography, I can be awed by the lighting and setting. But I cannot connect with it. The crystallizing moment for this, I think, were the flashbacks to events we seen earlier in the film. A flashback after your big twist, showing the little hints that set it up? Acceptable. A flashback to explain your lead's decision to make his big heroic choice? It's lazy. if you need to tell us, through replaying past lines of the film, why your main character is making his climatic choice, you've failed. Either you think you haven't set it up enough for it to work without, or you think you're so smart and adept that you want to make sure the audience sees your genius, sees how perfectly you set this all up, and either one is damning. That's the feeling 2049 left me with. It wants you to look and awe at and think about it so hard it forgets to make you affected by it.
For Hauer's performance, I'd gladly rewatch the original- it leaves an impression that never fades. I feel no compulsion to watch this one again. I'm sure 2049 tells Blade Runner fans exactly what they want to hear. But it's just as simulated as Joi, and just as lacking in true emotion.
8,75/10
Beautiful movie
7.5/10 - I like it but it also felt too long and boring. IMO they stayed too true to the original movie and improved/modernized too little. The main thing that's bothering me is that the technology is an absurd mix of Sci-Fi and "old" technology from our 2000s. Together with the large buildings/structures that remind me of pyramids from the ancient Egyptians it feels just too absurd/exotic and unrealistic. I feel like it's focused on a small niche but surprisingly many seem to like it (IMO it fits into the post Cyberpunk genre which might already be niche). Anyway, what I do like is that they shifted to new problems like climate change and food scarcity. The cinematography was also interesting (and beautiful in an exotic way) and the CGI was obviously nice.
My favorite moment:
Should not have watched this on a computer.
It was better than the original.
Amazing visual aesthetic and gorgeous scenes. I found myself blown away by this masterpiece of cinematography and there was never a boring setting. The storyline was much easier to follow than the first one and the twist was an interesting way to go. The creativity and thought put into this film made it incredibly unique and there as never a dull moment despite its slow pacing. The runtime allowed for some lovely character development and I liked the acting from Ryan Gosling. I could go into much more depth about how great this movie is and all the good parts but just watch it if your in the mood for a beautifully shot cyberpunk film that fulfills your nostalgia for the original.
The cinematography is pure sex. The soundtrack is a dream. The script is heady and pretentious. 2049 is wholly perfect.
This movie reminds me why i love sci fi.
"Pain reminds you the joy you felt was real".
Wow! WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW! And another WOW!
"Blade Runner 2049" is a fantastic follow up to the first and fixes a lot of the issues people had with the 1982 film. Without any director or extended cut. It's everything a sequel should do. Hell, you can watch this without watching the first and wouldn't get lost. Something "Force Awakes", "Jurassic World", and "Finding Dory" should take notes on. This is the type of film that will inspire young film makers out there to pick up a camera and make art. It's that great.
As I said in my "Arrival" review, Denis Villeneuve can release a movie every year and be close of making a masterpiece. This is the masterpiece. When "Prisoners" and "Enemy" was released, a lot of people saw great promise for him in the future, but never has a director live up to that praise. You can see the love and respect he has for the original without cheating out by playing on your nostalgic to win you over, not with Blade Runner. He also brings something new to the universe and made the whole thing thought-provoking.
Roger Deakins continues to out shine himself with every film his apart of, however this might be his best work yet. The beautiful imagery, framing, the use of darkest and neon lights really adds to the amazement of the world building. It's one of the most good looking films I've this year and nothing will top it. I swear if this doesn't get him that long and well deserved Oscar, then nothing will. I lost respect for the Academy a long time ago, but this will make them look spineless.
The performances from everyone were all fantastic. Ryan Gosling and Robin Wright are great as always. Harrison Ford gave probably the best performance I've seen from him. And Jared Leto redeeming himself after the garbage fire that was "Suicide Squad", despite the small screen time. I finally saw him playing a character, not a try-hard 'look at my method acting'.
The score was incredible and has this blasting roar to it that the speakers at my cinema literally vibrated every time. I didn't see it in IMAX, it's that effective.
What surprised me more is how engaging the story was and how emotional it got. By the end, I felt a tear coming down my eye. Little CGI was used in certain aspects as it went for a more practical path with it's effects. The final result is remarkable.
Overall rating: Villeneuve nailed what many thought was impossible. My eye for his next movie has gone up sky high. Please go support this.
took me two nights and one evening just to finish it enjoyed watching it specially the graphics it's like u r in another cool world
I ENJOYED THIS VERY MUCH WAY WAY MORE INTERESTING THAN NUMBER 1, SO MUCH BETTER LOOKING, I WAS ENGAGED FROM START TO FINISH EVEN WITH IT BEING NEARLY 3H. EVERY 20MINS THERE WAS SOMETHING REALLY COOL HAPPENING AND SOMETHING TO TAKE THE STORY FORWARD, THE PACING WAS BRILLIANT AND I THOUGHT THE ACTING WAS
A CLASS, EVERYBODY DID THERE PARTS WELL. KEPT ME GUESSING ALL THE WAY THROUGH. DEFINITELY BETTER THAN THE 1ST ONE
NUMBER 1 5/10 only
the final cut.
THIS ONE 8/10 any cut
IT WAS REALLY WELL DONE AND EXECUTED PROPERLY,
IF AM HONEST NUMBER 1
JUST BORES ME.
too much time, too little meaning
I wish I saw it in IMAX
Visually stunning and narratively satisfying.
“Sometimes to love someone, you got to be a stranger”
Blade Runner 2049 is the perfect sci fi movie. The story expands on the first, making the world bigger and better. The acting is great, from almost everyone Ryan Gosling did great as the soulless cop and Ana de armas did surprisingly well as a robot in love. Of course Harrison Ford does great reprising the role of Deckard. Didn’t dig Jared Leto’s villain though. It’s directed very well by Dennis Villeneuve he should have got nominated for an Oscar for this movie. It’s written very well and well thought out. The cinematography is fantastic Roger Deakins gets his first Oscar and this is some of his best work. The visual effects are some of the best I’ve ever seen like the moments when Jois on screen and the battles( the final battle was epic and one of the movies best moments). Overall it’s a spectacular sci fi movie that ends great and is very thought provoking.
( 10 out of 10)
Not sure how to rate this one. Just saw it. Will have to let it sit with me for a bit. I do know that I liked it, though. Just not sure if I only liked or loved it.
Essentially a love letter to the thirty-five year old original, this long-overdue sequel takes great pains to revisit, recapture and expand the world originally populated by Ridley Scott in that timeless sci-fi classic. It's very particular about its authenticity, from the perennially hazy atmosphere to the glaring, inescapable corporate advertising and the darkly moody synth-driven score.
The dressings are right and the mood is perfect, though it often seems more interested in fleshing out the state of technology in a depressed future society than swiftly advancing the plot. Slow rumination and observation are keynotes of the franchise, vital cogs in its construction, but they don't always seem as purposeful here as they did in 1982. The new model has extraneous characters everywhere; complex, colorful and helpfully disposable but also curiously unnecessary in the greater picture.
As a huge fan of the franchise, I loved the opportunity to dwell in it once again, to see how other cities in America have fared alongside LA's dystopia (spoiler: not well) and to appreciate the little oddities that have become fixtures in that vision of some future noir. Those with less regard for the first film, though, will most likely find themselves bored by the ponderous pacing and frequently cryptic, hidden meanings. And I can't blame them. It's made, almost to the point of exclusion, for a single dedicated audience, virtually impenetrable without a fair knowledge of preceding events and the patience for multiple viewings. Even then, it doesn't seem like there's quite as much material to extract. Most of its riddles are clearly answered before the closing credits.
A wonderfully competent modernization of the franchise, constantly enveloping and sweeping and awe-inspiring, but not perfect. Admirable to set its sights so high and to come so close. I'd be game for another.
7 - Good
This movie is definitely something else, like you feel like you're really stepping into another world. I'd say it's different than the first movie, but still a good continuation I feel.
An atmospheric sci-fi thriller, Blade Runner 2049 is a rather mediocre sequel to Ridley Scott’s cult classic. The story follows a replicant blade runner who discovers that a replicant has given birth, and then attempts to track down the child. Ryan Gosling and Ana de Armas lead the cast and give incredibly strong performances; especial de Armas, who’s extraordinarily compelling as a holographic A.I. that’s trying to exist in the physical world. The visual effects and set designs are also remarkably well-done, creating a rich visual aesthetic that’s a marvel to look at. And the soundtrack by Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch brilliantly compliments the scenes and sets a dark and intense mood. But unfortunately there’s not much of a plot, and what little there is isn’t that interesting. Still, while its story may be perfunctory, Blade Runner 2049 is a fascinating visual spectacle.
The original surely can’t be beat. I was very eager to watch this but sadly it just didn’t rise to the same level. Will not be the cult classic the first became.
More Hollywood recycled trash. Overhyped, overrated ,Leto gives one of the worst performances I’ve ever seen.
BR2049 is an excellent (and visually resplendent) return to Philip K. Dick's dystopian world, and explores its core question—what it means to be human—much more powerfully than its prequel.
Don't believe the hype. This is bullsh*t.
I couldn't understand why I thought that - afterall, I did enjoy Blade Runner, and this thing was really hyped and well rated.
But when I looked at the comments based in age order, people who have watched it recently, now all the hype has finished, thought the same thing as me.\
It's hugely long (for such a simple story line), it takes the dark, noir atmosphere of the original, and then just does it a little more, adds a little bit of special effects (that look like they have been motivated by car advertising execs trying to show off their new LEDS headlights) ....but without any significant benefit to the story.
Even for an enthusiast, this is hard - and ultimately disappointing - work.
THIS MOVIE IS A FUCKING SCAM!! It's 2h40m long and Deckard only appears in the last hour and is just,,, there. He's barely in the movie and only wears that fugly gray t-shirt the entire time, and the rest is just Ryan Gosling walking around with his ugly ass face! Also it's boring asf why is it so damn longgg there's so many shots of people (Ryan Gosling) walking aroung and doing jackshit!! You're NOT Stanley Kubrick, Bitch!!!
Moreover, It's a festival of female nudity and violence against women, there were so many deaths of female characters and JARED LETO FUCKING SURVIVED. How is this movie more sexist than the original 1982 film!? Harrison Ford was direspected! The 15-minute anime short was better than this shit.
The production and directing are fine, I guess.
Speaking as someone who really enjoyed the original Bladerunner film, this was a disappointment.
The plus points are that the cast is great, a dystopian future is always an attention-holding setting for me, so that gave me enough reason to watch the entire film, and the visuals are pretty great.
That said, this film is waaaay too long. Clocking in at the thick end of three hours, this definitely could have been trimmed down to nearer the two-hour mark. I'm more than happy to watch a slow burning plot unfold to reach a satisfying conclusion but this failed on both points: the plot was minimal rather than complex that would require time to setup, while the conclusion was weak, verging on cheesy.
In summary, overblown and a waste of a great cast.
Climate, cinematography, music and story in plus, they made it. However the ending is just… they build up the tension perfectly and then it all blows up like a soap bubble. It's a pity.
This review does contain some spoilers, so read at your own risk. With that said, this movie was nothing like the original, and lacked the same atmosphere. It does the original no justice. While Harrison Ford does play Deckard very well, and the character is indeed well written, he doesn't have much of a role.
I wanted and expected noir, and got NYPD blues instead. Other than Deckard, the movie was a disappoinment. There wasn't much special effects or the neon lights, it was bland and boring.
I can't say much for the soundtrack, it wasn't memorable either. I don't remember it.
So, to sum things up, movie was a disappoinment, Deckard was the only bright spot, and if you're looking to relive some noir of the original movie, this movie isn't the place to do it.
When I first saw this I labeled it as possibly one of the best science fiction movies I had ever seen but to put it into that collection I needed to watch one or two more times. After seeing this movie in theaters twice and buying on blu-ray to watch more, this movie is one of the rare titles I have given a 10 rating to. The special effects alone make other attempts look lazy. The cinematography is some of the finest in any genre and many critics have taken notice. The film is long and quiet(at times) and sometimes unfolds its story with visuals alone which may bore many audience members. I rather enjoy the focus on visuals throughout the movie and hope some movies lean this way more instead of over explaining every concept till 2 year old children can comprehend it. I loved this movies story, cinematography, visual style, special effects, acting, directing, writing, and nearly all other aspects. The biggest aspect i praise this movie for is being a sequel, yes, being a sequel. This is a masterful return to the Blade Runner universe without destroying the image of the original or seeming entirely like a cheap reboot or return for the sole purpose of profit. Instead, this movie creates a worthy new story placed in the same universe many years later and retains the best qualities of the original and builds on many concepts in original and unique ways. I think I've said enough so I'll leave you with this, I have given 4 movies 10 out of 10's and this places amongst those 4.
People give 10 to Avengers but cannot even give a good rating for this masterpiece. Truly the best movie of 2017.
It's so good, most of the scenes if not all the scenes, look like a wallpaper, i could screenshot every frame to make my wallpaper, but i don't have enough patience to do that :|
This is such a disappointment! An extremely slow movie! I believe they filmed the movie and slowed down everything by 50% in post production! I had high expectations but ended up disappointed...
I really must have watched an entirely different movie than the one that is rated here! This movie was TERRIBLE! No plot or real storyline, expressionless actors, poor dialogue. I thought the first one was bad. I could not get through it even after 4 attempts. I was determined to get through this one though even though it took three different sessions to do so.
I'm still hypnotized by the magical atmosphere of Blade Runner's future.
I expected much more from this movie
Wow. I'm glad I went into this with no spoilers. What a beautiful, sad movie. It left me at a loss for words with an emotional ache throughout my body, but I loved it.
I've not seen the first movie that I'm not big fan of for years so had to jog my memory while watching It's sequel that I wasn't highly Impressed with but it was a good film, kept me hooked Into It's futuristic world and characters.
The worst film in my entire life. I couldn't imagine something worse than this shit. And I think, will never be able to do...
sure it has a message to tell, great acting and lots of visual style... but it's just so B.O.R.I.N.G...
Don*t remember the original Blade Runner, do have fond memories of the video game with the same name though... after all the great reviews this was a total disappointment.
A bit "slow" but really enjoyable
Saw this in the theater... greatest nap I’ve had in a while
Let´s just start be saying I am not a fan of the first Blade Runner and I didn't think it needed a sequel. But, who knows, 2049 could be something, right ?
Well I am about 30 min into it and nothing really happened. The little that did could have been told in about, say, 5-10 minutes? The rest was style and atmosphere. With 136 minutes left I quit because I am certain I would have regretted watching more.
So this is not a review on the movie put rather a recommendation to those who did not like the first one to just skip this. It's my subjective, personal opinion. I won't even rate it.
2 hours later and still nothing really happend...
the movie is so f***cking slow
Okay let me get this straight, you will not agree to my 10 if you are not already enjoyed by a great set of cinematics & music. Because this movie LIVES on it. The Story itself is super weak and lackluster and I would be so angry if that is would be what I am supposed to love. But much like Mad Maxx this Movie just excells through other qualities. There hasn't been many movies that manage to make you feel a certain emotion just by having a SPOT ON soundtrack and Bladerunner 2049 has that. It combined with stunning and realistic Cyberpunk Cinematic just make this a very pleasent and exciting movie I loved seeing on the big Screen.
I probably shouldn’t have started to watch this film, with its long running time, when I was feeling tired. Especially with the dark scenes and often muted colours.
Yeah, it was OK. The best scenes saved for the final portion of the film.
Love the cityscape and the technical side which suggests great advances over current day. Of course, we are somewhat behind the curve; we won’t have ‘replicants’ by 2020 that’s for sure!!
As a movie this is a very good movie. The scenery, the acting, the colors etc. are of a very high technical standard. To me personally however, this movie is much too dark and depressing for my taste.
I cannot say that I am surprised that the movie is dark. The first movie was a rather dark one after all and this one is a truly post-apocalyptic one. I quite liked the first movie despite its dark setting though. However this one takes the darkness and melancholy to an entirely new level.
As I said before, technically the movie is great. The scenery is stunning whether it is a dirty little hut out in the badlands or the equally dirty vast cityscapes. The scenes of the abandoned city where Decker is (re)introduced is sad but beautiful.
The acting is more or less great from all the main characters and the special effects are very well done and just right to fit with the rest of the movie.
Unfortunately I cannot bring myself to give it more than 3 out of 5 stars. It has nothing to do with the quality of the film but a lot to do with my personal taste which of course is reflected in my ratings.
Loved it! Definitely wish i could have watched it in theaters!
Loved it! Definitely wish i could have watched it in theaters!
Amazing, every scene is a piece of art
It's been a while since I saw the first one but this movie does a fairly good job of following the original. It answers some of the unanswered questions from the first movie. There's new questions in the race to find answers. And yet, it just wasn't wholly satisfying. The overall drama is fairly similar, and while there's some new drama, it wasn't that exciting or original. More than anything, I think all the hype had me expecting too much.
The film is absolutly agrichuckle.
Fairly typical Villeneuve movie. Dull and bleak story told against an even duller and bleaker vision of future worlds (being mostly either grey, snowy or amber in colour) with a boring story that takes forever to unfold. Can't really understand the hype that this movie gets at all. My biggest regret is that it wasn't half as long as it was, it sure could have been!! More a movie to endure than enjoy unless you're a REAL fan of the slow, plodding, bleak vision of the future.
As a huge fan of the original (I have it in three of the available versions), I loved everything about this one except for the poor editing, which left in too much padding by allowing some scenes to go on for too long, which slowed the pacing far too much. Sometimes less is more, and 30 minutes or so of this one should have been left on the cutting room floor or saved as a DVD extra.
looks good great actors should be good they know how to get good flix
One of the now pretty rare movies without focusing on sex or brutality most of the time. It has a really deep and packing story, and a constant interesting atmosphere. It somehow shows how bad the taste of the majority got today, because of its comparedly bad rating. It is worth atleast 8/10.
Started off good enough enough. I thought this movie could pull off a decent sequel. After an hour the mystery of the child becaming painfully obvious. From then it became a typical hollywood drag of a dog (let's call him Pinocchio Runner) chasing his tail. As I'm waiting for the obvious to happen I remember that the bad guys did some cringey plot revealing monologues in the style of Sunset Beach, but looking like something from a superhero movie (adhere to the demographic?) It was looking bleak and felt dumbed down and boring.
It's fair to compare this to the look of the original as it's setting is simular and it really was a part of Blade Runner. This is less cyber punk and way brighter. It does still have its moments of beauty. Many. The pacing is simular, but the slow pacing of the original was held together with a plot that deveoped and a thick murky atmosphere, which are missing here.
The relationship between Joi and our main guy the serial number was too repetitive and obvious. I liked it at first glance. It looked great on screen. My issue was that the idea and thought provoking behind the relationship was done after a few scenes and the rest, of which there was a lot, felt like filler. The relationship was too linear and uninteresting to demand so much time and in the end it didnt make me feel much for the characters.
Before long there was no new ideas or interesting development in the story. When Gosling finally meets Ford it got worse - not better. The scene in which they meet was boring and silly. I start zoning out. Then... a rescue mission to conveniently take us to the end. Bye now I was completely bored and didn't care about the movie.
This movie didn't need to be made. It didnt feel like the writers wanted to write it. It felt like a cash in. Another cash in.
So it lacks all the main qualities of the original, doesnt stand alone as a good movie, and becomes increasingly boring as it progresses. Least we know Sylvia Hoeks can produce a single tear to roll down a cheek for the camera.
I really did not understand anything of this movie… maybe I should have watched the original first to understand what it's all about. Otherwise it was just… boring and somehow bad…
Fun dgn gk k
Gk gtodufugkkg
Gorgeous, satisfying sequel. The best kind of sequel, one that can stand on its own, with its own stuff to say. The narrative is kind of a derailment from the original, but that's okay, as this works as just another story told in this universe, with some carry-over themes. It's great sci-fi. What is a soul? Is it even important?
It’s going to have to grow on me, like the first one.
This was great! I enjoyed every minute of it. Harrison Ford was amazing and Ryan did a fantastic job as well. The visual effects and even the score made it even better.
Não sou sou muito fã do filme original (talvez tenha visto a versão errada?) mas Blade Runner 2049 me agradou. O filme expande um pouco o universo e conta com personagens muito interessantes em boas atuações. A fotografia é o ponto alto do filme. De negativo fica a atuação de Harisson Ford que parece não estar se esforçando mais em seus filmes.
Um arrependimento: não ter ido assistir no cinema.
Esse filme é ruin!!! duas horas e meia de nada! Affff, não perca seu tempo, o diretor gasta muito tempo em cenas pífias, parece um filme sem conteúdo rodando em camera lenta. Péssimo.
Chef d’œuvre.
Meilleur film de 2017
Different than previous movie yet worth the watch and interesting
That was a horrible ending.
1 / 2 directing & technical aspect
1 / 1 story
0 / 1 act I
0 / 1 act II
1 / 1 act III
1 / 1 acting
1 / 1 writing
0 / 1 originality
0 / 1 lasting ability to make you think
0 / 1 misc
5 out of 10
Some nice visual effects but not a real sci-fi.. slow and boring.
I think people who votes 8,9,10 don't watch sci-fi a lot. This movie is simply boring. Couldn't bare to finish it.
great movie, a real sci-fi in nowdays
Blade Runner 2049 is a beautiful movie. it surely couldn't beat his predecessor, but it's still a good movie to watch. I Think the movie was a little too slow reguarding the story. but Villenueve managed to make the story nice to follow. the search for Harrison ford, the persistent problem of the meaning of "being human". all of this is very well built, with a talented cast and a beautiful photography. BUT, talking about what Made blade runner such a cult, the sequel couldn't manage even to get closer to that. the idea of the "human being" is not so evident in this movie, is just a background to emphatyze the main character story. reguarding the world of blade runner 2049, Villenueve did a great job. he created a really beautiful atmosphere, with a beautiful photography. let's just say that cult movies can't continue troghout history. they are Made and contestualized for a certain period, and that makes them unique and irrepetible. blade runner 2049 is a good movie, not a masterpiece, not something new, but it's certainly well spended money.
Excellent flick...but Roy Batty is still Goat
La he visto en el cine y me ha gustado mucho. Abstenerse los que les guste la ciencia ficción de acción porque se van a aburrir, pero es recomendable si te gustan las buenas historias. La ambientación estés clavada respecto a la primera.
this movie was so pretty it gave me eyes diabetes
It's very rare and, consequently, quite impressive, that a sequel is able to recreate the same feeling as the original movie, 35 years later, under a different direction. That's exactly what "Blade Runner 2049" did. Excluding the obviously better special effects, this movie is so in tune with the first one that it felt like it was released just a couple of years later; visually and sound-wise, Blade Runner 2049 is that close to its predecessor.
It's slow paced, just like the first one but, unlike many other comments I've read about it, criticising that particular aspect of the original movie, I've always felt that the slow pacing suited very well with the tone of the first movie, and it still works wonders for 2049. This is not a slap in the face, Blade Runner is something that crawls under your skin, slowly makes its way to your brain and then melts with it. It may require some patience from the most restless out there, but if you're willing to invest it in this sci-fi wonder, you'll end up with a very satisfying movie experience.
A special mention goes to the soundtrack, which was one of my favourite parts of "Blade Runner". I've always been a fan of Vangelis' music for the original Blade Runner, it took the whole thing to another level, undoubtedly giving the movie a larger than life feeling. I was very impressed that Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch managed to mimic Vangelis' soundtrack perfectly for 2049, again recreating the very same larger than life atmosphere. Sometimes, the right music is what distinguishes a mere movie from a whole experience.
I have to add that the pre-sex scene was one of the most emotionally disturbing pre-sex scenes I've ever seen in a movie. It was such a powerful scene that I felt i should write a whole sentence about it (without actually saying much, but still).
As it so often happens with sequels to old classics (unfortunately), I was afraid the Hollywood money making machine would make this thing bomb. But I am very pleased (and relieved!) to say that fans of the original movie will surely enjoy 2049, whereas all those people who thought "Blade Runner" was a slow paced borefest might want to look elsewhere, because both movies are clearly not for them.
Please, go watch it in IMAX, if you can, it truly deserves that. That was my only regret.
"Blade Runner 2049" is a modern sci-fi classic, just like the original was, 35 years ago.
Saw it only once at a good theater, and was desperately nervous that it was going to suck. On purpose I had watched no trailers, had read no dirt, and had no idea about the plot other than what I had learned from watching the first film probably 10 times over the course of my life.
1.5 hours in I got nervous - shit is it gonna end soon? 2 hours in, I realized "Aw hell yeah, it's gonna be a 3 hour film!" 15 minutes before the end, I said "holy crap, i didn't expect that!". 5 minutes before the end I realized the conclusion, and I just rode it home. I need to see it again now a few times to soak it all up...
Really well done Villeneuve, bravo. So few sequels which come after a masterpiece, pay due respect to the first film. But based on this excellent work, and how the sound, texture and story was crafted, I'm ready for Blade Runner 2051. I am now desperate to see where the story goes from here... :D We can't wait so long this time!!!! (big grin)
Brilliant movie true to the original in every way, from cinematography to the music score. Truly immersive. One of the best movies I watched in years.
this was the best film ive watched on a movie theater this year
I liked most of the movie's tone. Spectacular and beautiful in the empire sprawling dystopia that is / was Blade Runner. Visually stunning, and the 4 hours of the runtime is almost devoted to these superlative, panoramic moments...
Oh, it's just 2h 45m?
The plot is very much attractive and attemptive.
After a few hours of depth, it was okay. 7/10.
If I was charitable.
Its not a good sequel. It's also not blade runner. It is trying very hard to make itself blade runner. It fits together. But, it is going in too different a direction and making different choices.
In ways that should never be attempted, it has rebooted blade runner.
The same problem exists with Ghost in the shell, Ghostbusters, The Force Awakens, etc. The pageantry and spectacular effects are the most important focus, and it destroys the native or originality of the first movie. It's akin to being the archetype of a new trope.
There's a few reboots that improve, but it's a disappointment more profound than a terrible sequel to realizing that a sequel has nothing to do with the first movie. Aliens to Alien, the movie is startlingly different and plays with the same world. Blade Runner 2049 is a different world to the original.
This isn't Fan4stic. It's just... Not a sequel. Too much has changed to be the same world as the original movie.
There are deliberate problems. First world problems, to be sure, and the story is convoluted for effect.
I can't especially pin down why it fails to be a good movie rather than a great one. It has all of the pieces, or some of the pieces of a great, re-watchable, fun and masterful film.
The briefest way to sum up my disappointment is that I don't care about the characters.
The only compelling thing is perhaps Joi the holographic fake girlfriend. And while I think that this is awesome, it is not. I probably should be concerned for the hero, or Deckard. Or anything, anyone else. Nope.
Joi is the least of the significant absurdity. The reality of Joi is something profoundly idiotic. Ie. That the best acting, most emotional and smartest person is the least powerful, and the least human. This is a problem.
If the scenery was a character, it would be the protagonist of the movie. This has actually been attempted with success elsewhere, koyannaquatsi, sic.
Maybe it's just my imagination, or opinion, or A quirk of the length of the movie perhaps. Or just a funny aspect of the direction and production, could the story be told without words? Just scenes and edits.?
Probably.
Other times, it challenges you, especially the preference to rattle the room with ambient bass and ear piercing volume for the emotional experience of the scenery. Does a dead forest require a 97db foghorn-like pulse racing ambience?
It doesn't not work. Audio is pushy rather than subtle. Loud, rather than contrast or matching the power of the visual effects/ landscape.
It's not great. It's not bad. The parts it does badly are choices made. And there's thousands of odd idiosyncrasies. It's a very long movie.
It's just on the cusp of going past the suspension of disbelief. More inconsistencies than plausible or tolerant. As a result of this, you end up pulling the threads with boredom or curiosity. A movie under 100 minutes, you can Suspend Disbelief. At the 150+ minutes mark, the fantasy erodes and it needs to work much harder for coherence.
In an Era where TV can deliver a story with movie quality over 10 to 20 hours, film has to change or choose. Perhaps, choices that were made for the film by someone who doesn't enjoy movies.
Thousands of hours of thought went into this movie, and it bleeds through. When I try to put a finger on the concepts, art, choices and script for a single vision, or a single flaw that underpins the way I don't like it enough to really enjoy this or feel favorable towards it...
Nothing about the movie is inherently bad. You can overtly go into depth into scenes and pull out the hidden details for hours, context and framing etc.
The challenge will be in 5 or 10+ years, to see if someone can make this concept work properly into a better movie, TV series or universe. It is an awesome film to break into pieces, much like Gladiator or Guardians of the Galaxy, to calibrate what makes a movie great and fun.
With some editing, it could be salvaged into a better noir film. More has to go wrong, and the movie would need more characters, etc.
Theres like an hour of filler in the storyline to accomplish... Nothing. The characters chase a red herring, and it takes time. The payoff is that the quest... Is nihilistic. Okay. Awesome.
Perhaps, it comes down to the storyline being rushed, or the twist (cough) being quite a bit mishandled.
The appeal to discourse is vain. Watercooler discussion works if you make good choices and people want more. You don't get this by overlaying and obscuring the plot with a red herring and forget about the wider implications of adding a layer of intrigue that casts infinite doubt into the story.
The elements that gave the twist for Deckard being a Replicant in the original were subtle. It pushed the choice on the viewer to infer more than the movie informed or showed to people. Hence the confusion about cuts and endings, the unicorn, etc.
Now, In its most concise, the replicants are the movie. This is the first problem, of many.
Blade runner focused on the humanity of the characters, their failures and doubts versus the reckless and charismatic replicants, better in every aspect once they could be allowed to be.
This is airbrushed in the sequel.
The other is the artistry and decadence of the settings and locations. Awesome, but amateurish as well.
Amateur in that people don't live in the places created, and never did. There's a lot of brilliant and creative ideas on display, and a botched integration with the world. Things are weathered, in sterile rooms. Lighting is moody, in a clean street, with/without vehicles in the roads. A brothel is next door to a food court with a giant touch screen locker system, which seems like it should be a keyed location. It feels unlike a real location because of the fake and the overt push of the crowds.
And you have tumbled modernist art deco statues in a washed out Las Vegas, but holographic jukeboxes and intact highrises. The reason it looks fake is, people have to make places. Choices. Fund and buy resources. The reason why you don't have an office building with irrigation and water pools is someone has to clean it. Maintain it. And be irritated by it. The Wallace replicants are entirely doll manifestations that also deliver the plot and momentum of the film. This is... Stupid. Not clever. The noir elements don't merge well, the luck needed to process the plot is supra deus ex machinae, there's... Time spent on the silliest of things that do not change the plot in the 4 middle parts. We have 4 middle parts of filler to drive a plot that is being steered.
The directing / storyline choices made are... Curious. Dumb. Gaudy. Pretentious. Self important. Disconnected. Hyped. Overt. Mismanaged. Otherwise, fine. It's not a problem, despite the insanity required to implement. The visual and story choices are styled to make people feel and understand.
You can think of these settings, but it becomes fake and austentatious once built. This overt motif becomes a character in the movie, it does not ever blend in with the background. Hence, amateur.
In some ways, they did the same damage as Ghost in the Shell (2017) attempting modernized Holographic Cityscapes. It is so much more gorgeous, and so much more hollow.
The more significant problem exists with Ghost. The characters were trampled by the budget and the plot inserts. Arguably, the same problem exists with The Force Awakens, that the characters feel forced into the greenscreen and wire work action scenes from unnatural dialogue. Ford Ambles in this movie. A lot. He has his moments, but the insanity of using a cartoon Evil villain in a "billion dollar" movie is incredibly lazy.
Harrison Ford against a non blind, non insane Jared Leto would have connected people to the charismatic and driven ideologue. Nope.
The movie wants to forget subtle and forges a deliberate "fish bowl" motif to the antagonist, a "Desperate" ambitious CEO with a lust for dominance via a replicating replicant workforce. This is the lowest possible point in the movie, because of the way it is presented as... Iconoclast and preachy desperation.
I don't know if I'd give the movie a 9 without Jared Leto, but it seems possible.
I just don't even really care, that's the problem. Every other character, is fine.
The film was actually really disappointing. As a film it was /OK/, but as a sequel to Blade Runner, it was terrible. There were some nice in-jokes and references, but overall low-brow junk masquerading as high-brow gold (it was directed by Villeneuve, so I really shouldn't have expected better, the only thing he's good at is making stupid people think they are clever). Everything seemed forced and unnatural. The plot was trite and cliched, and everything was very predictable. Totally a wasted opportunity ;^<
Greatest movie of the year. Visually stunning, deep, great characters, amazing sound.
A worthy successor of the first Blade Runner!
(don't expect an action-filled, dumb super-hero movie)
Shout by jmg999BlockedParent2024-04-28T06:22:57Z
After having just finished the two "Dune" films before watching this, and having seen a few other Denis Villeneuve films, I think that it's safe to say that he's quite poor at telling stories, especially those belong to other people. His ability to convolute a story is unmatched. I can't recall being more confused than when watching his films. I think that it's an injustice to the actors and the source material. This was a great idea for a story, but his telling of it left a lot to be desired.