User Reviews (1,199)

  • Samantha Nader24 October 2017
    Give Us A Film Please Not A Franchise/Universe/Prequel
    Warning: Spoilers
    My boyfriend and I watched Blade Runner 2049 the sequel to Blade Runner (1982) on Friday morning at the local cinema. Perhaps we should have opted to watch it in 3D because the shots were wide and there was quite a bit of scenery that was a work of art.

    With that said, I felt as if Blade Runner is trying to create a sequel for itself more than offer the viewer a film. There are more questions created than answers are given. The 'bad guy' is still out there, his scheme is still intact and on the other side an army has amassed and is ready to strike. We are told about the army, but nothing has happened yet.

    Problem is I paid to watch a film and I want a beginning, middle and an end. I didn't at for the director to tell me I have to come back next year.

    Again, the images on the screen were rich and I wish I can satisfy my boyfriend like Luv and Joi can, but otherwise we are a little tired of Marvel universe, Star Wars remakes and Batman sequels. Please give us a good film.
  • tef-2922621 October 2017
    Commits All The Mistakes Of Original Blade Runner's Theatrical Version
    Warning: Spoilers
    All the problems with the original theatrical version of Blade Runner, which Scott Ridley fought against are here. Ridley has become the studio system.

    Blade Runner 2049, likely the least desired sequel in history, is making Philip K Dick roll in his grave. What is the point of this almost three hour-long sequel? Of course, it is to continue the film industry's addiction to sequels and make cash. That is it.

    Let me get this straight: the world is devastated and anyone who is anybody moves off-world, but people are living in spacious luxury in a casino drinking fine aged Scotch? There is beautiful white snow falling from the skies and sexy call girls approach you on the street? This world is for schmucks, but the main character has an artificial girlfriend with legs to die for waiting at home for him making dinner and giving him threesome sex? Someone book me a ticket back from off-world to Earth please!

    This was the kind of logical misstep that Ridley fought against when the studio released BR to cinemas with a gorgeous drive through the countryside at the end of the original. It makes no sense.

    Face it, this is the film that should not exist and by watching all these 'franchise' films we feed the stupidity of Hollywood.

    BR2049 is the same as the last 10 marvel films, the next ten Star Wars films and the Ghostbusters sequel, but is prettier and more visual.
  • oyw-3345622 October 2017
    Joe Walker was either asleep, fired or sent to the corner by Ridley, Denis or the studio honchos
    Warning: Spoilers
    Let me describe the sequence of Blade Runner 2049 for you

    Here goes:

    Enter the cinema with an overpriced orange juice that is mandatory because in the last couple of years Hollywood has decided it is artsy and de rigueur to make films longer than 2 hours. The lights dim and commercials kick in for 10 minutes. A game for pre-teens wasting daddy's money on mobile phones and plans kicks in. 2 minutes of endorsements for GM trucks (with some guy whose tone is so macho I roll my eyes) follows. Then there is a reminder to get the right debit card to be hip and in. Then the film follows for a whopping 3 hours almost.

    You would think that there was a lot happening and we were kept excited. Alas, the only thing that kept me awake was the very periodical appearance of a beautiful eye candy whether real, hologram or laser show version that would keep things exciting.

    If it were not for the sexy and lovable women Blade Runner 2049 was inane. Yes, inane. Apparently, not every film needs a sequel, a lesson Hollywood didn't learn from Hangover.

    The script was so corny and the words so elementary one would be excused for thinking this is a practical joke. Head of police, yes head of police is told a big lie by a contractor, head of police believes it and all is good. No double checking, no verifying, no details asked no proof required. it is a matter of life and death for the order of the world and, of OK, let's keep rolling guys. The ending was also a joke. A vehicle is drowning and the hero is being drowned but in the last second kills the bad gal and swims back to the vehicle to mount a rescue (for the sequels that will follow). Replicants can have and make babies, but how? Oh well, watch the prequel Blade Runner Rogue Uno, which is coming out in 2020.

    At that point all I wanted in life was to buy my own Joi and Luv and go back home.
  • maximbouts23 October 2017
    Visually stunning but lacks mystique, emotional depth & musicality
    Warning: Spoilers
    Being a hardcore Blade Runner and science fiction fanatic, I felt deeply compelled to write this review. I love Ridley Scott's original 1982 Sci-Fi classic. It is my all-time favorite movie. It had mystique and infused my imagination. It was a unique experience; hypnotic & surreal. The sequel, not so much!

    My initial reaction of BR 2049 was that it's a gorgeous film. I was mesmerized by the striking cinematography and couldn't take my eyes off the screen. I will go as far saying that it's one of the most beautiful films I've ever seen. The rich visuals are so glaring it's hard to take it all in and grasp what you are seeing. From the opening shot you know you're in Blade Runner world. The overall look is instantly relatable to the first film and it's an amazing continuation in that regard. Also, the acting was excellent. The entire cast did a great job. However, once I settled into the film I realized that it is mainly a self-indulgent visual feast containing a weak story that lacks clarity & wisdom. There are obvious cliché moments and in certain aspects the story is comical and naive. The movie delves into complex philosophical themes and asks important questions but seldom explores them. It's all over the place. You get the sense that the film is not sure what it wants to be? It's clearly style over substance. Lots of homage is paid to the original through awesome images but the plot is paper-thin with a few subplots & twists added to make it seem intelligent. But is it? Well, not really! I think the movie tries too hard to be smart but fails to engage due to its long running time & fuzzy story/script, which may end up confusing and distancing the viewer.

    BR 2049 has been most widely criticized for its length, and rightly so. It's overly long with some unnecessary scenes & dialogue whereas the first film was more subtle. BR1 was also slow-paced but in a different way. It had suspense and gradual progression to climax whereas BR2 is forced and even distracting at times. I love slow-paced films don't get me wrong! I can watch a film all day as long as it leads to a point and has tension. Certain films are deliberately made slow to establish a specific mood (e.g. Kubrick & Tarkovsky films). They draw you inside the film and make you feel like you're part of it. BR1 does this perfectly while the sequel is stretched out for the wrong reasons. It comes across as an excuse to showcase impressive visuals which is great if it moves the story along but not for the fun of it. BR1 had long takes and brief dialogue but it drove the story along smoothly and its characters behaved realistically. There was a seamless flow to it. It's humorous how BR2 tried to mimic this technique from BR1 yet failed because its characters talk & move super slowly unlike real life.

    Although it's a visually stunning film, I found it to be almost void of emotions and musicality. The characters were uninteresting and lacked emotional depth. In other words, I didn't care about them. I was not sure about any of the characters' motivations. In the first film, all the characters shined with charismatic personalities. They were unique in their own way and I truly cared about them. They embodied everything that makes us human. This was a vital element that made the original so special. BR2 on the other hand has sad and forgettable characters. It is a very sad film whereas the original had moments of happiness to mix up feelings and lighten the mood, which made it more realistic.

    The music in BR 2049 was the biggest let down for me. It just didn't make sense because there was no music. A strange mix of very loud noises with faint echoes of original Vangelis tones interlaced (I listened to the entire score to be sure!). The musical score by Vangelis in the first film was one of the key elements that made the original my favorite film of all-time. I love atmospheric films that are visually & musically driven to tell the story. The music creates different feelings that make you fantasize. It makes you feel the movie and think about it long after it's over. The music in BR1 was incredible. It set the tone of the film perfectly. There was a haunting eerie atmosphere that along with the images created a hypnotic feel. Vangelis mostly used an electronic sound but he also incorporated piano & saxophone for melancholic effect. Not so in BR2. They messed up enormously this time. I know it's not possible to recreate Vangelis but they could have at least tried to create similarly-styled music by using the original score as a foundation. Even better, they could have perhaps made a completely original soundtrack all together. Blade Runner is an atmospheric film that is about feel and therefore must have a perfect music to visual ratio. Sure, they brought back one Vangelis theme for nostalgia but it wasn't enough.

    To conclude, I enjoyed the film but unfortunately cannot say I loved it. I simply cannot fathom the enormous praise given by critics & moviegoers. I don't think they understood what made the first film brilliant. BR 2049 does contain the main elements required for a true Sci-Fi film but fell flat at further exploring its themes. The original film on the other hand is a masterpiece. It felt spiritual & spellbinding whilst the sequel did not. Should you go see it? Yes. I would still recommend fans and anyone curious to go see this film in theaters despite its evident flaws. But as a huge fan it left me disappointed. Maybe I had high expectations!

    I gave it a generous 7/10
  • Flavour Man28 October 2017
    Unfortunately This Shows That Ridley Is Officially Now A Hollywood Hack In The Same League As JJ Abrams, Paul Feig, etc.
    Warning: Spoilers
    This was a disappointing sequel that may very well break the camel's back. For it is not just a poor and boring sequel, but also destroys - really disrupts and breaks - the Blade Runner mythos.

    If I were the monthly new Marvel movie, the annual ritual of a stupid Star Wars film or the next fifteen Justice League whatever films I would be very worried.

    Blade Runner 2049 is telling people definitively that these sequels are not made for reason of meaning, entertainment, purpose or a fun time. They are stupidly overwrought, prequel-crushing accounting ledger lines.

    Ridley destroyed Alien and now is dismantling Blade Runner. Villeneuve had three hours to do something and did not. This film addresses nothing and resolves nothing. In fact, they took our money and reached zero conclusions. Replicants were made with a uterus in the factory and can have babies (despite the later models' shelf lives)? How? Never mind. The corporation was banned, but another like it and worse was born. Erm, OK. The tycoon megalomaniac is out there. Well, fine. This is a post apocalyptic world? yeah, which is why there are grand buildings with no one around full of beautiful space, there is clean snow falling and you can get beautiful attractive hookers who approach you for a good time.

    I want to thank my dear girlfriend for being so kind as to sit through three hours of this joke with me. She is so noble. Otherwise, this film was so silly that it even tarnishes the original. It should not have been done. It will probably wake up people to skip the next Star Wars, Star Trek, Marvel whatever, Justice League, Lego Movie 18, whatever.

    A few cool technologies, sexy desirable women with gorgeous eyes and lovable legs and nothing else whatsoever except loads of damage to Blade Runner.
  • peterfaure16 October 2017
    Visually stunning and thought provoking, but not flawless
    So, I didn't expect much from this sequel when it was announced, but since the original 'Blade Runner' is, in my opinion, one of the greatest movies ever made (if not the greatest), I had to see it anyways. As I often do, I didn't read any reviews or watch any trailers before going.

    So, where do we start... While not perfect, and inferior to the original, this is still a great movie. Visually it's simply stunning and the actors are all excellent. Just as importantly, or maybe even more so, like the original it combines a slow pace and fantastic ambiance to create an introspective mood and invite reflection on some important themes and issues of our time. (although, maybe, lacking a dialogue with the same power as the Roy Batty monologue at the end of the first movie).

    As some negative reviewers said, it is slow..... but that works well with the story and its intent to create a very clear, pervasive mood rather than to dazzle with dumb car chases, gunfights, or explosions,not to mention pushing the viewer to form his own opinions. The boringpart is subjective: for viewers who like to be challenged intellectually I'd say many action movies are a lot more boring. Nothing wrong with escapist movies, which I also enjoy when I'm in the right mood, but it doesn't change the fact that they're inherently much more predictable, superficial and formulaic. In other words, entertaining but intellectually boring.

    Regarding Blade Runner 2049, one disappointment, though, to be honest, was the soundtrack: aside from being too loud, it really consists mostly of weird sounds/noises etc. While they do heighten the mood at times, or fit the atmosphere, they are not really not up to the lofty standards of the photography, the action, or the direction.

    Also, the plot could have been a little tighter, and while the slow pace is what this movie needed, I'm not convinced it really had to be this long (or to touch on so many themes, as it does).

    Still, it's a fantastic, and unique, viewing experience, and even with its imperfections it does create a believable (if gloomy and depressing) dystopian vision of the future, and touches on themes that could spark endless debate and reflection. And herein lies its beauty: shallow popcorn movies will have faded from everybody's memory in weeks. A movie like Blade Runner 2049 will inspire us and challenge us,whether we agree with some of its vision or not, maybe even whether we love it or hate it, for years to come.
  • ohr-103958 November 2017
    Question: How To Make A Sequel?
    Warning: Spoilers
    The answer? Don't Do It In The First Place!

    Who needed a Blade Runner sequel? Nobody! It is like watering the sea. It is not required!! What is wrong with the studios? Everything is either a sequel or a reboot. Boooooring. Find another line of work if you are out of ideas.

    As much as this film (Blade Runner 2049) was a relatively good film it still was a sequel, which meant it was boring, silly, disjointed and regardless of all the good reviews was a waste of money. As for professional film reviewers: your job first and foremost is to review for the audience and not to be beholden to studios that offer you free screening. Shame on you.

    This film was nice to look at, had a good actor (Gosling) in it and a really hot chick which were factors that drew me in. When I put my bum in the seat though I was bored. Booooring. There is no ending and the beginning makes zero sense! The tycoon is making replicants but is killing the ones already there. Blade Runner is retiring replicants, but they are useful and peaceful. Rachel is back (yup its Boring Wars: the face awakens all over again) via CGI, but why? Nobody knows.
  • Anton Pars14 October 2017
    I Know Where All The Energy Went
    Warning: Spoilers
    They say most sequels (and prequels and remakes) are unwanted and inferior and, in my opinion, they are correct.

    I still shelled out the quids for Blade Runner 2049 because I remember watching it on video years ago and recall having a sense of wonder and amazement. I even proceeded to read the book by Philip K Dick shortly after.

    At over two and a half hours of it this is a true accomplishment: the graphics and scenes and landscape and colours are amazing and evocative. With that said there is a lot more daylight in this film than in the prequel. For some reason the colour orange seems dominant, which is fine perhaps they wanted to impress on us that the setting is a desert and deserted, but overall the futuristic and cyberpunk land is intact.. and beautiful.

    Also beautiful are the women. The hooker reminded me of the hooker in Eyes Wide Shut and she was hot. The girlfriend was hot and even the chief's legs were hot even though I don't go for women with short hair. As a man, the shorter the skirt the more attractive the lady and this film did a stellar job of making me feel happy in that respect, heck, I would marry the giant advertisement if I could.

    Where the story lost me and disappointed was its ending and beginning. Why kill the man who is nothing but a farmer and has been at it for 30 years? Why end the film with having killed an operative, but leaving the arch fiend and his business interests intact and ongoing? I sense yet another sequel coming...
  • vadimsound16 October 2017
    A soulless, bland copy of the masterpiece that was the original
    Warning: Spoilers
    Blade Runner is one of my favorite films of all time for a number of reasons:

    1) Amazing groundbreaking trailblazing visuals that spawned an entire genre (aka "cyberpunk").

    2) Superb music by Vangelis that is integral to the film.

    3) Great characters and amazing acting.

    4) Underlying philosophical themes of corporate oppression (Blade Runner is just a small cog in a huge machine just carrying on with his life doing the job because otherwise he's reduced to nothing), existentialism (what it means to be human) coupled with Biblical references presented in a subtle way.

    5) Amazing practical special effects that make the world around the characters feel lived-in.

    6) Meticulous attention to detail, lighting in particular.

    While "2049" is nothing more than a mere attempt at recreating something in the style of the original by a studio committee ticking off the items in the checklist. The result is abysmal because it does not introduce something new in terms of visual design, interesting characters, music or story. On the contrary it tries so hard to tie itself to the original it's sickening. Call it fan-service or pandering, either way it leads to the movie being a highly derivative product that exists solely because of the original.

    1) Plot lines that go against the premise of the original (Nexus 6 being able to reproduce, new Nexus 8 being easily distinguishable from humans) are stupid.

    2) Acting is horrendous. Ana "Pouty lips" De Armas couldn't hold a candle to Sean Young not to mention the pretentious for pretentiousness sake Jared Leto. Ford is here for a paycheck and Gosling is deliberately one-note.

    3) The music is a lame attempt at copying Vangelis' beautiful score.

    4) Too varying visuals leave you with this feeling of an inconsistent world that doesn't follow the idea of polluted lifeless post-industrial world where the sun doesn't shine, it's constantly raining and the only light outside the building is that of the advertising that seems more real than anything else.

    5) Running time. The original was purposefully slow while the overblown running time of the sequel comes off as director loving certain sets and trying to savor them far longer than he should've.

    6) A myriad of logical mistakes and plot holes (kids with a 100% matching DNA are of different gender).

    7) The opening shot with the closeup of an eye is almost beat for beat with the original.

    8) The zooming sequence is hammered home by the sheer repetition.

    9) The characters are bland, unoriginal and politically correct female copies of the originals, namely Madam and Luv.

    10) The opening sequence is the unused part of the Fancher's script (watch Dangerous Days documentary).

    Overall it seems that producers/writers have an erroneous idea of made the original film great. As if stuffing Biblical references into Neon- lit set pieces, inhabited by some pale copies of original characters and extending the awkward silences would amount to a great movie.

    To sum up "Blade Runner 2049" does not reinvent the wheel, does not offer anything one-of-a-kind or even slightly memorable. There is no reason (other than cash flow for the studio execs) for it to exist. Save the cash and rewatch the original that actually challenges your intelligence and leaves you with a lot to think about.
  • jeppsson_henrik-493-19175322 October 2017
    Boring Runner
    Warning: Spoilers
    I didn't realise 2049 also was the actual length of the film! It sure felt like it! 3 hours of boring dialogue, hollow characters and an embarrassingly weak story. Hard to believe Ridley Scott really made this!

    The first Blade Runner worked the pace of the film brilliantly up to the powerful ending. The story was a rather simple sci-fi noir detective story with a twist. It made some huge comments on humanity and what kind of future we want. It worked on so many levels. It could be viewed as a simple sci-fi detective story or as a great spiritual journey that asked all the big questions. "And what can your maker do for you?".

    The first Blade Runner had so many great lines but with 2049 I cannot remember a single quotable line. 2049 completely lacks all which made the original the best sci-fi movie ever. I take the same view as Rutger Hauer recently did. Why even try to do a second one? It would be as painting a second Mona Lisa. Or building another Eiffel tower.

    A huge disappointment of a sequel that should never have been made.
An error has occured. Please try again.