Blade Runner 2049 2017

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.

Blade Runner 2049 is a film with memorable cinematography that overly depends on the audience to give it meaning.

If you think about which goals a movie sequel should have, expanding the original is a strong contender. To justify its existence, Blade Runner 2049 should update its predecessor's visuals and messages, specially since its story is set 30 years after the original.

Other commenters here (and everywhere else) have already praised cinematographer Roger Deakins, and justifiably so. Deakins did deliver a brilliant work that draws the viewer in and makes the alternate future look lived-in, dirty and unforgiving. This movie is a visual masterpiece and one can easily predict that it will have an influence over new sci fi releases.

However sitting through almost 3 hours of a movie needs more to be justifiable. Are Blade Runner 2049's messages and questions really deserving of all this investment?

Since Blade Runner's release in 1982, many sci fi movies have tackled questions about artificial intelligence and what it means to be real/human with much more emotional resonance. Not that the Blade Runner universe is famous for being warm, but 2049 isn't really bringing anything new to the landscape, neither feelings or conversations. If anything, the film's slow pace and meandering (sometimes redudant) plot overcomplicate its message. Screenwriters Hampton Fancher and Michael Green throw several ideas in the air, hoping at least one of them will stick. One could say it's a sign of respect for the audience, but it only shows a lack of commitment.

The intense attention to visual impact contrasted with an unfocused story results in a self indulgent film, too entranced by its own beauty to care about what its saying. Blade Runner 2049 heavily depends on the audience's nostalgia and projection – you have your own deep thoughts and assume they came from the movie.

So, despite being a feast for the eyes, this movie doesn't earn its running time, making it a hard pass for anyone not in love with the 1982 original.

"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.

Just got back from Blade Runner 2049... Holy Shit! That was awesome. Denis Villeneuve can do no wrong in my eyes after this and Arrival.

I don't want to get into the story too much as it's honestly a better thing to go into this "sequel" with minimal direct knowledge of the sequel's plot (via reviews and such). However, being familiar with the original movie and watching the 15-20 minute anime short Blade Runner Black Out 2022 (made by the director of the anime "Cowboy Bebop") are definitely recommended imo especially as the anime short fills in some holes about the "Black Out" event that is touched upon in this new movie a few times.

As for the movie itself, it is defined by fantastic direction/editing, story and acting. The themes of discrimination between humans and Replicants, what defines humanity, and what is truly "real", standout in this film even in many of the tiny subtle moments. A fantastic performance by Ryan Gosling is without a doubt the standout in and drives this film, to the point where it almost essentially devolves into a single-man epic at times (of course, in a good way). I wish that there could have been a bit more Harrison Ford, but honestly that is just the homer in me talking. In terms of the actual story and flow of the film, his presence was handled beautifully as a perfect supplement to the movie and the more important story at hand (unlike a few of his more recent reboot/remake cameos).

The runtime is a bit long at 2 hours and 45 minutes, but don't let that deter you. I honestly never felt that bored or overwhelmed by it. A few beautiful action scenes and some atmospheric sprawling set pieces are interspersed among the emotional core and chilling dialogue that drive the film to give it a great pace. I could have watched this movie all day.

This is definitely an easy 9/10 for me at minimum. Once I get a little more time, I'm definitely go in for another rewatch (hopefully in XD/IMAX 3D). I also liked how the ending was handled very tactfully, leaving room for the possibility of a sequel, but not hammering it down our throats like it was rebooting a new cinematic universe. I pray that we don't have to wait 35 years for the next one though...