Blade Runner 2049 (2017)

[shayhiri]

On 10/7/2017 at 8:46 AM, Water Bottle said:

A film that surpasses the original. Plus there's that weird hologram-replicant sex scene.

 

B+

 

Which exact scene is STOLEN whole form "Her" - a better movie. You should see it.

[lolifofo]

I took a 45-minute bus trip to see this film in IMAX, and on top of that, it took me 2 hours to find a bus to take me back to my dorm.

 

And let me just say it was worth every fucking minute of my time. Best cinematic experience of my life, and one of the best films I've ever seen. I got teary-eyed at the end and didn't want to leave my theater room, ever, because I was so mesmerized and blown away by this experience. It was a masterpiece on every level, and in my opinion, even better than the original, which I also loved.

At the same time, I am extremely sad that this film is flopping because I would have loved to see what happens in the sequel. Actually, screw that, I NEED to know what happens later in this story. Goddammit general audiences, why do you let masterpieces like this fail at the box office while generic shits make billions of dollars? Asia, please save this movie! 

 

Anyway...

 

A+++++++++++
 

Duh!

 

[IndustriousAngel]

I thought it dragged a bit, could easily have been 30min shorter - the plot was not that complicated

 

As expected, super design and atmosphere, and I liked how it played like one of those good old idea-SciFi movies from the 60s or 70s, with few people and characters standing for concepts. As to acting, what a shame Robin Wright hasn't been in more movies, but she's the only standout. Gosling exhales as much charisma as in most of his movies, meaning zilch.

The story: A valid sequel, I was expecting worse. Yet still a bit underdeveloped; I didn't get the message why the androids would need children to revolt - if you're feeling suppressed, you don't have to be fertile to feel pissed-off. And the villains were so overdone it bordered on funny, the scene where they're blowing Rachel2's head off was plain silly.

 

Overall, B+ - 7/10

[afalconer7]

A true masterpiece. This is filmmaking perfection. This actually might top Dunkirk as my favorite film of the year but I still have to decide. A+

[Fancyarcher]

My review of Blade Runner 2049.

 

https://dailyuv.com/feed/926795?location=norwich-vt

[RandomCat]

Solid movie that felt like Blade Runner for most of it, then didn't for other parts that were kind of distracting. And as much as I love the score, god the screeching hurt my ears after a while.

 

That said it was very poignant with Gosling doing a great job as a replicant, and his entire journey is fascinating to see, even if the beats are a bit obvious. All of this undone by the feeling that they were playing into a sequel or franchise.

[Valonqar]

On 10/13/2017 at 2:38 AM, IndustriousAngel said:

I thought it dragged a bit, could easily have been 30min shorter - the plot was not that complicated

 

As expected, super design and atmosphere, and I liked how it played like one of those good old idea-SciFi movies from the 60s or 70s, with few people and characters standing for concepts. As to acting, what a shame Robin Wright hasn't been in more movies, but she's the only standout. Gosling exhales as much charisma as in most of his movies, meaning zilch.

The story: A valid sequel, I was expecting worse. Yet still a bit underdeveloped; I didn't get the message why the androids would need children to revolt - if you're feeling suppressed, you don't have to be fertile to feel pissed-off. And the villains were so overdone it bordered on funny, the scene where they're blowing Rachel2's head off was plain silly.

 

Overall, B+ - 7/10

This. I didn't like that idea and it seems to me that the sequel would inevitably lead to the GodMode Hybrid, easily one of the worst cliches in movies period. 

Edited October 16, 2017 by Valonqar

[The Panda]

Finally saw this and I loved it.

 

It was a weird cross of Blade Runner, Children of Men, Her, and a few other sci-fi films of that nature.  And it was brilliant because of it.

 

Cinematography was beautiful and the thematic arcs were poignant.  Especially the K/Joi relationship, lots to be dissected there.  The bait and switch of K being the kid was well done, and you feel the punch of K wanting to be something more than what he was.

 

I can see how this would turn off some viewers due to the slow paced nature of it.  I personally thought the length worked though, the cinematography gave each of the moments time to sink in.  A good contrast of modern blockbusters that are too fast paced and crammed with material.

 

It's been a great year for franchise movies and genre movies, and Blade Runner raised the bar again for the year.  I could see this one being better than the original with time.

 

A

Edited October 22, 2017 by The Pumpkin Spice Panda

[BK007]

Perhaps I need to rewatch the original, but this doesn't hold a candle to it.

 

Felt forced, illogical and pretentious at points. 

 

Shouldn't have made a sequel, especially one as one-note and unimaginative as this was. 

 

Unsure of why its getting such raving reviews. 

[Deja23]

So I finally found time to watch this and it was pretty great. I haven’t watched the original or any of the shorts, but it was pretty easy to follow/understand. It was beautiful to watch on the big screen. I did start wondering when it would end when it got to around the 2 hour mark and I started yawning. While I think it would’ve been fine with a shorter runtime, it was kinda nice to be able to reflect on each scene as they happened and not have things happening too fast. Ryan Gosling was great (he has really pretty hands) and that scene when he found out he wasn’t the child...that hurt. There were obvious clues he wasn’t the child, especially when she cried over the memory, but it was still a great scene. I was surprised by how emotional I got during some scenes since I kept reading that this is a long cerebral movie. Jared Leto’s character was the only one I felt was unnecessary. Overall great and a movie I’ll probably rewatch. A

[Webslinger]

8 hours ago, BK007 said:

Perhaps I need to rewatch the original, but this doesn't hold a candle to it.

 

Felt forced, illogical and pretentious at points. 

 

Shouldn't have made a sequel, especially one as one-note and unimaginative as this was. 

 

Unsure of why its getting such raving reviews. 

 

"Unimaginative" is a pretty strange critique to level at this film. Whether it's successful or not is debatable, but the filmmakers go to great lengths to expand upon the world developed in the first film and its philosophical underpinnings, as opposed to doing a derivative pseudo-remake. From a storytelling level, it's easily one of the most thematically ambitious big-budget studio releases of the last several years. I'm sure Warner Bros wanted something more marketable, but Villenueve and company stuck to their guns and made a piece of masterfully-crafted slow-burn hard sci-fi that deepens its predecessor's exploration of human nature.

[GrimFandango]

Thought it was really well done--I was concerned they were going to jack it up (a la Alien Covenant), but it appears it really benefited from Villanueve's reverence to the source material, I think.

 

I really liked the story, and I felt really bad for Kay when he goes from such a high of believing himself to be very special, to realizing that he is "less-than-human", although I wonder if his sacrifice was realizing that the act itself made him greater and special in another way?

 

My only nitpicks were the length (could have been 30 minutes shorter), and the music was overbearing. The original score had a lot of deftness and delicateness to it in parts, whereas in 2049 it's like a speaker power test--just way, way too loud and overbearing.

 

I'm tempted to see it again, but the length is making me wait till it comes out on bluray, as even in the theater I was checking my watch in parts.

 

Overall, quiet good and I give it a B++.

[RandomCat]

I really want to watch this movie again, every time I think about it, I want to see it. Fucked up world we live in that this failed.

 

It shows I got lost in the credits thinking of this movie, but her character name is spelled Joi? Wow...

Edited November 2, 2017 by RandomJC

[Blankments]

“You’ve never seen a miracle.”

 

The future is a miserable time. Artificiality permeates humanity and humanity evades artificiality. Can a single good act redeem anyone? That is that heart of Blade Runner 2049, a sci-fi tour de force that takes the questions the original film put forward 35 years ago and adds new complexities to them. Villeneuve proves to the perfect choice to revive this property as he knows exactly why the first film has captivated audiences through the years despite its initial theatrical failure.

 

To be human is to hurt. Fancher and Green's script takes that axiom and utilizes it to finally solidify what the first movie puts forward. These replicants have souls, wants, and desires, and that, more than anything else, causes them pain. It also allows them, briefly as it may be, to truly glimpse the beauty that hurt can create. K's quest takes him through all the parts of humanity; the hurt, the struggles, the dreams, and most importantly, the love and the hope.

 

To get into technical aspects (cinematography, score, acting, direction) would be a disservice to the story and pure experience Blade Runner 2049 offers on first viewing. Certainly, when this viewer rewatches it, he'll go into those aspects in a more traditional review. But for now, the sheer vision of this film presents transcends talking about the movie in specific natures such as those. Blade Runner 2049 is an utterly beautiful film in every way, never forgetting that humanity is cinema's strongest asset and that to hope is to hurt but to love is to live. An absolute masterpiece. A+

[Webslinger]

I saw it again a week ago (right before my reply a few comments above), and I'm convinced that history is going to repeat itself in terms of a wider range of people either discovering or rediscovering and embracing this film over time. There's so much to mull over and so much to absorb and ponder on repeat viewings that it's going to continue to have a high place among film buffs for years to come.

 

...which, in a way, may be the clearest indicator that it's a worthy sequel to Blade Runner.

[Avatree]

just watched this snore fest and I've actually aged 2 years since I started the film.

 

- one of the most boring and uninteresting films I've ever seen

- everyone talks really quietly for no reason, no matter who they are or what the context is

- the lighting in every single room is retarded and makes no sense

- it's at least 16 hours too long

- Ryan gosling looks very very bored

- every actor except for Dave Bautitsta was wasted. actually I guess he was wasted the most since he was the best thing in it and he was killed 3 seconds into the opening credits

- plot made no sense whatsoever. I'd start asking questions about the film but I dont care enough

 

on the plus side:

- cinematography was impressive

- some of the sets were well designed

- threesome scene was cool

 

 

I had really thought this was going to be the movie that proved me wrong about denis villeneuve, but its exactly the opposite, he is indeed every bit as pretentious and bland and boring as I had previously thought.

I genuinely liked almost nothing about it.

 

 

Edited November 25, 2017 by Manchester by the Tree

[Joel M]

My biggest takeaway from a second viewing is that Gosling is absolutely amazing in this and it's possibly the most subtle performance of his career. Best actor of his generation imo.

[somebody85]

"Isn't it beautiful?" - Man does this hold up on repeat viewings. Still my favorite film of the year. It's long but damn if I don't want to watch it again when it ends. 

It's such a rare thing to get something like this nowadays.

[somebody85]

Oh and that transition scene of the fire embers flowing into the night turning to city lights is fucking amazing. By far one of the coolest scenes of the year. I forgot all about it when I rewatched this and the score just roars there.

[Lordmandeep]

I think unless you're invested in the original, the film does not really have much to keep interest for nearly 3 hours.

 

 

C+