User Reviews (2,611)

Add a Review

  • Warning: Spoilers
    Well, it's not what I expected but it was very good. A beautiful film with a of lot complex interactions.

    Roger Deakins' cinematography was great. The director, Denis Villeneuve, is the same guy that did 'Arrival' which I thought was good but not as good as other people thought and 'Prisoners'. He may be someone to watch. The direction in this is very strong.

    They avoided the 'let's do a scene like in first movie but make it BIGGER' ploy that flaws most 'sequels'. And it really doesn't feel like a sequel. It's a different story and while it builds on the the first it goes in a really interesting direction. I liked also that Deckard's role wasn't tacked on as an after thought. It's really sort of poetic and I'd like to see it again so I can get some of things I didn't get in the first go around. I gave it a 9 but I'm pretty sure that's going to change to a 10 with a little time.

    It really holds it's on in comparison with the original and if this is the approach they want to take with a possible 3rd movie I'm totally on board.
  • 'Blade Runner' is a masterpiece and a favourite of mine. It is still to this day a genre and film landmark, and ties with 'Alien' as Ridley Scott's best film, despite being disliked at the time it has rightly gained its reputation as a classic.

    Hearing that there was a sequel over thirty years later left me with intrigue, with a great cast (Ryan Gosling and Harrison Ford), one of the best cinematographers in the film industry today in Roger Deakins and with an equally great director on board (having liked to loved Denis Villeneuve's previous films), but also nervousness considering (with notable exceptions) the general reputation with sequels. 'Blade Runner 2049' turned out to be well worth the wait, it is easy to see why it will alienate some with its very long length (can understand the overlong criticism) and slow pace but it is even easier to understand the acclaim the film has received.

    Is 'Blade Runner 2049' better than 'Blade Runner' or on the same level? No. Is it nearly, or shall we say just, as good? Yes. To me it is one of Villeneuve's better films along with 'Sicario' and 'Incendies' (my least favourite of his is 'Arrival' and despite being an understandably divisive effort to me it was still good) and one of the exceptions to the general reputation of sequels. A sequel that treats its predecessor with respect (including some thoughtful and cleverly done nods to it, including quotations from the original score, even Ryan Gosling's name is a nod to the original author Phillip K Dick) and also its audience with respect. Despite its faults, it's also one of my favourite films of the year, and this year has been very hit and miss for films so this is saying quite a bit.

    Sure 'Blade Runner 2049' is not without its flaws. Can totally see where people are coming from criticising the length, most of the time it was not a problem but some of the time there was a sense that the length was too inflated, 20 minutes could have trimmed with no problem at all. There are a few implausibilities and contrivances here and there towards the end and much more could have been done with the underdeveloped character of Jared Leto (the only weak link in the cast, he doesn't have the presence to pull the role off and doesn't look comfortable or interested).

    However, 'Blade Runner 2049' does a huge amount right. It looks amazing, it's impeccably and imaginatively designed with some of the best special effects seen in a long time. It's Deakins' cinematography that particularly stands out, darkly gritty, gorgeously fluid and beautifully audacious Deakins shows that he is fully deserving of being considered one of today's best cinematographers. One cannot praise 'Blade Runner 2049' without mentioning some of the best directing Villeneuve has ever done in a contender for the best directed film of the year (well between him and Nolan for 'Dunkirk'), he is absolutely the right man for the job and shows himself to be not only completely at ease with the material but also tailor made for it. Once again there is a beautiful darkness but also a hard edge and sense of wondrous awe.

    Another big standout is the synthetic music score by Benjamin Wallfisch and Hans Zimmer, so well done and fitting that one doesn't miss Johann Johannsson that desperately. Though imagine what the film would have been like with his involvement, from my understanding he was originally meant to do the music but was fired for reasons that are a mystery to me and Wallfisch and Zimmer were parachuted in and did marvellously with big shoes to fill. It's appropriately hauntingly discordant, heart-pounding and tension-filled, with seeming echoes and quotes to the original's score. The sound effects are clever and thrillingly authentic, like for example the replicated wolfhound.

    When it comes to the writing and story, 'Blade Runner 2049' also triumphs, even if the story is not perfectly executed. The action-oriented scenes and conflicts are filled with tension and suspense as well as ingeniously choreographed, a fine example being the masterful prologue which has to be one of my favourite opening sequences of 2017. The science fiction elements are positively awe-inspiring, often making my jaw drop, while the philosophical ones are incredibly thought-provoking and never heavy-handed (many films have made a hash with this aspect, it was refreshing to see a film doing it well). Despite being a long and slow film, a vast majority of the film was richly rewarding, with a delicious quiet tension and absorbing mysterious elements.

    Excepting Leto, the acting is great. Best of all being Harrison Ford as a suitably world-weary Indiana Jones-like Deckard, that and the 'Apocalypse Now'-like meeting with Ryan Gosling providing a nostalgic element, and a deliciously cold-hearted Sylvia Hoeks (her character and performance being what Leto's character and performance should have been). Ryan Gosling also plays it straight to great effect.

    All in all, despite imperfections this jaw-dropping, richly rewarding, very respectful and visually stunning follow-up is just as good, if not quite as, as the 1982 masterpiece and one of my favourites of the year. 8.5/10 Bethany Cox
  • SebMoz19 March 2021
    It's very rare when a modern sequel/reboot is equal to the original in terms of quality, but this movie is that rare one. It carries over the sweeping and hypnotizing cinematography, it continues the storyline in a natural way, it references the original, but doesn't rip it off, it introduces new concepts without ruining the continuity, it expands on the themes presented in the original in a very natural way, it doesn't drag nearly as much as said original and it's got a more compelling protagonist. I have a feeling I'll just enjoy this movie more and more as time goes by, and I already love it a lot. It's a movie with a lot to unpack, and I have no doubt it will improve even more on rewatches.
  • kosmasp10 March 2018
    I guess if the producers wanted to make another Blade Runner, they totally succeeded - at least so far. As with the original Blade Runner the visuals are the ones that people will refer to when it comes to this movie. And it's not just because of the Academy Awards. You can tell all by yourself and I reckon even without having seen it on an IMAX screen (though I would have recommended it and still am).

    Having said all that, the movie has also the same irritating feeling about it, that the original Blade Runner had. So in almost every aspect it is a successor to it. Story wise obviously too, though I guess this one has a couple of shorts that play before this movie, that are supposed to get you in the mood. They are not necessary to watch, but they are also very well made. This movie is an experience and it is one you have to be willing to make.

    While it does have some action scenes, while it is Science Fiction, it does play more like a slow moving drama with a lot of mystery elements to it. If that sounds intriguing to you, with some added social commentary flavor, than by all means watch it. But beware that you have to have patience with it ...
  • pootc4 October 2017
    Warning: Spoilers
    It's amazing after repeated viewings the lack of patience or inability moviegoers have to simply follow a plot. The lack of concentration throughout the cinema, the talking throughout and some of the comments I have read is downright disturbing. This movie is high art and some people need it spoon-feed to them. If you're not invested from the get-go, just go home.

    Blade Runner 2049 is not your typical movie and it was never meant to be. There are no superheroes or giant robots. Explosions are scarce and it's not funny either. It's about emotion and memories and like the original Blade Runner (1982). It poses the same Philip K Dick inspired questions about humanity - what does it mean to be human and are we just the sum of our memories? It now raises questions about artificial intelligence and real love.

    It is a sequel 35 years in the making to one of the most thoughtful and provocative movies ever. The original movie was a box office flop which later developed a cult following and and has since been hailed a masterpiece. Ridley Scott created a multilayered world which seduces you into a nostalgic like trance for a place which never really existed and a sequel to a film held in such high regard is rarely ever a good idea but Blade Runner 2049 is a rare exception. Think The Godfather Part II, Aliens and Terminator 2: Judgment Day before it.

    No spoilers. We follow Officer K (Ryan Gosling), a new character and a new breed of Blade Runner on the trail of an old model replicant but what he uncovers along the way is so much bigger and threatens to shift the balance of what is left of humanity.

    Director Denis Villeneuve (Sicario, Arrival) and his crew have crafted a beautiful looking film which pays homage to the original without trying to copy it at all. The same rain-soaked, neon-lit streets are present in L.A, only the Eco-system is even more shattered. Sustenance is scarce with protein farming a way of life and while there are obvious nods to the first movie 2049 relishes the opportunity to avoid the familiar and takes us outside the city limits.

    The cast in 2049 is excellent. Ryan Gosling carries the main story with ease, playing his detective character with an ice-cold calm until...

    Harrison Ford as Rick Deckard, the original Blade Runner delivers a highly emotional and raw performance which I found very surprising. Not because Ford is not capable as an actor but Deckard was played so dryly in the original, especially next to Rutger Hauer's Roy Batty. Clearly time and circumstance have clearly changed him here and it's a refreshing approach.

    The casting choices of side characters in limited roles such as Dave Bautista, Robin Wright and Ana De Armas in her very unique role were fantastic. Jared Leto gets only a few scenes as villainous creeper Niander Wallace, the corporate tycoon with a god complex but his best 'angel', Luv (Sylvia Hoek) gets plenty and rightfully so because she's excellent.

    If I I had to choose any negatives from 2049 it would be need to spoon-feed the audience in scenes by adding a small flashback here and there which I thought was unnecessary. The score was clearly not Vangelis who did the first movie and made up so much of the nostalgic atmosphere in it. While good I did miss the sadness, the piano keys and blues of Vangelis for a time but could tell the score was aiming for something different, more urgent, a sense of dread which was probably more appropriate anyway with 2049 being much larger. That's not to say there aren't hints of Vangelis because there most definitely is.

    It has been 35 years and the need for a sequel can be debated forever. Was it necessary? No. But was it good. Yes, really good. Is it a masterpiece? I would say that it's an extremely satisfying conclusion to Deckard's story and having seen it it's made the original even better.

    A movie like this does not come around very often. The world needs more movies like Blade Runner, 12 Monkeys, Ex Machina... and Blade Runner 2049. High praise.

    Best movie of the year!
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Denis Villeneuve, you magnificent world wonder, you did it again!

    I have seen this film three times in the cinema, in 3D, 2D and 4DX.

    And one of the things i have noticed with this film, is that it's not the time in the cinema that takes up my time, It's the hours upon hours in between spent thinking about the film, that is the real time consumer. This film left such a deep and profound impact, which i cannot escape. And I've gone back to the cinema twice to be "tortured", but it's worth it.

    It's a dark, mysterious, grim, hopeless, sad and lonely film, set in a possible near future where the human race is hanging by their fingertips on the edge of doom. So it's quite depressing. But it's so brilliantly put together, the closest master of cinema i think of that has done something similar, is Stanley Kubrick.

    Many Stanley Kubrick films were also "hated" by many when they first released. "2001: A Space Odyssey" for example, which had gorgeous visuals, but felt flat and hollow for many, even professional reviewers back then. But what Kubrick did best with his films, was to create afterthought. People left the cinema feeling confused and even depressed, but the movies planted a seed which then grew for years. The original Blade Runner also accomplished this. BR2049 is no exception, this movie will without doubt live on to be interpreted, analyzed and discussed for decades to come. The story continues from the original, but stands completely on it's own, it tells a new story that directly interlink with the original, but without trying to be a copy, it's a natural continuation in the same universe. You don't have to see the original Blade Runner first, though i do recommend it, see the final cut.

    BR2049 has some of the most gorgeous visuals i have ever seen, and the cinematography is out of this world, there is literally no excuse not to give Roger Deakins the Oscar this time. After 13 nominations he has now knocked the ball out of the park and is this year in his own league entirely. It's confusing to look at something so gorgeous, whilst painting a picture of such a sad and lost world. It sort of collides with your senses, your eyes say it's beautiful, your mind say it's depressing. Which senses are you going to believe? What does it mean? At least don't confuse feeling depressed as a sign that this movie is bad, it's nothing wrong feeling depressed, take it in, embrace it. Then you will know how it feels to be a replicant that's trapped in a caged mind.

    BR2049's story happens 30 years after the original, and there is three short films on Youtube i recommend you watch. These short films describes some of what happened in between 2019 and 2049. Watching them makes it slightly easier to understand some of the things going on. But the underlying theme is the same as it was in the original. What does it mean to be human? What does it mean to have memories? What is a soul? And so on.

    The world has gone darker in 2049, climate is spinning out of control, almost all animals and plants have died. People are desperate and lost, law enforcement can barely keep anything together, and only a small spark can set of total disaster, which is looming just around every corner. Niander Wallace has taken over Tyrell Corp and has by the time 2049 takes place designed millions of obedient replicants that does exactly what he tells them to do. But there is one thing Wallace has not been able to perfect, and that's what the main story is all about, and Wallace will do anything in his power to get his hands on the "technology", which will result in him becoming many hundred times richer and more powerful, the sole ruler of the entire universe. He is so far gone in his mind by 2049 he actually believes he is god himself, and he calls his replicants angels.

    And of course he also uses replicants to do his "dirty work". In 2049 we meet his right hand "girl" Luv (Brilliantly played by Sylvia Hoeks, if there is one actor in this movie that steal the show, it's her). Luv is a "handygirl" so to speak, that perform whatever task she is set to do, with no remorse. Or is that entirely true? I can't spoil anything, but look closely at Luv's character arc. All the other actors also do an outstanding job in this film, no bad performances, but i can't talk about all of them due to the word limit in these reviews.

    Be prepared going to see this film, it's depressing and heavy on your mind, and it demands your full attention. It's one of those rare films who dares to challenge the audience, and by doing so, taking a huge risk, and a 155 million dollar risk at that. The film isn't perfect, but it's close, and it shows the tremendous skills of Denis Villeneuve. And those few mistakes this movie have, are probably just happy little accidents as Rob Ross would have put it. This film is very much like a painting, every stroke of the brush matters, and every little detail is carefully crafted, it takes monumental skills to pull it of.

    I loved this film, it's the best film I've seen all year, It is a must see, a monumental triumph of a film that's just as good (possibly even better) as the original and one of the best sequels of all time!

    9.7/10 - Masterpiece

    And BTW Villeneuve's next movie might be Dune, imagine if he brings Deakins and the rest of this team to make that movie. Yeah, I'm going to leave you with that thought. This is basically porn.
  • The user reviews seems to be over-run by a troll. Lots of repetitive 2 and 3 stars reviews that all read like they're written by the same person.

    It's a relief they still make movies like this; movies for adults. Yes it's a sequel, but it's quality and it stands on its own. This is real sci-fi, made with a proper budget and brought to life by artists. It's serious and paced so that you have time to think. If you're a fan of the genre and can appreciate some ambiguity and a little space for questions to breathe then I think you will appreciate this film. But if you can't remember the last time you read a book then maybe you will find this movie long and boring.

    The cast, acting, and plot are all quite good with only a few misses. The soundtrack doesn't blow me away but it's suitable. The visuals are incredible though and where this movie really shines; I can't think of a single moment in the film where I felt like the vision was held back by the technology available. And the scene at K's apartment with Joi (you will know it when you see it) pushed the envelope of what I thought was possible to do in a film. This one is a real stunner visually. Like the original, I expect Blade Runner 2049 to hold up extremely well over time.
  • Visually the movie floored me. There's clearly so much intentionality and careful effort and planning that went into making that world. Villeneuve blended call backs to the original while still making this his own vision. I'll see anything he makes because I always feel like I'm in good hands with his movies, right from the opening scene.

    The music had a similar feel to the visuals in that they blended old and new. The iconic "Tears in Rain" melody receives a much-deserved return in a delightfully appropriate moment. I'll give the movie serious props for providing a comforting level of nostalgia without ever feeling that it pandered.

    Joi (Ana de Armas) and Luv (Sylvia Hoeks) were fantastic in their own very different ways. Joi, who plays Gosling's love interest of sorts, is essentially Samantha in Her, except she is a holographic projection instead of only a voice. Luv is Jared Leto's favorite replicant assistant and a total ice queen.

    Gosling was cool and dutiful, though kind of lifeless, which I guess was on purpose since he plays a replicant (or does he?) Juxtaposing him with Harrison Ford really made the subtleties of Ford's performance stand out in a way that was absent for Gosling. But Gosling was still very handsome and that worked well with the rest of the movie, which is striking and beautiful.

    Even though I didn't feel bored during any of the 164 minutes, I often felt like nothing was really happening. Even at the end I wondered what was the point. I know it was a character exploration of K (Gosling), like the first was of Deckard, and he clearly grew during the story. Still, the movie overall came across to me as heavy on striking visuals and light on substance.

    Perhaps I'm demanding too much. While I enjoyed the heck out of the movie and would watch it again in a second, it fell slightly short of the profound best picture level movie that I hoped it would be. Somewhere in the two hour and 44 minute runtime is a great two hour movie trying to emerge.

    All things considered, it's a pleasing complement to the original and is well worth a night in the theater.
  • Blade Runner 2049 is certainly a Denis Villeneuve film with his impressive visuals, striking colours and imagery. The pacing of the film may be rather slow but probably it was the intention of Villeneuve to make the audience really take in the shots on screen.
  • 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
  • SnoopyStyle10 October 2017
    It's 2049 Los Angeles. K (Ryan Gosling) is a Blade Runner hunting for old Nexus 8 replicants under LAPD Lieutenant Joshi (Robin Wright). After the 2022 blackout, most records have been erased or corrupted. Tyrell is out of business and replicant production had been outlawed until Niander Wallace (Jared Leto). Wallace is producing a new obedient replicant. Luv (Sylvia Hoeks) is his replicant henchwoman. K hunts down an old Nexus 8 and in the process, he discovers a surprise which leads to Deckard (Harrison Ford). Joi (Ana de Armas) is K's holographic computer girlfriend. Mariette (Mackenzie Davis) is a prostitute.

    This is pure cinema although I can see some object to the length and dark depressing sensibilities. For the most part, the action is not intended to be fun. Some people will feel the long running time more than others. An easy test is whether the person likes the original or any cyberpunk sci-fi anime. This takes the original's visual mastery and adds a more compelling detective mystery. Any BR fan will undoubtedly love this unless they are some nitpicking fanatic. Non-fans may find this more appealing... or not.

    The original's detective story and pacing are its major flaws. This sequel has a real detective story with a real mystery. The writing is impeccable. The designs take the original vision and dives right in. Roger Deakins' work is beyond beautiful. Villeneuve is at the top of his game. Gosling is a more effective lead. Ford comes in during the second half and is a more fun Deckard. Ana de Armas is a gorgeous vision of girl perfection. Sylvia Hoeks is an amazing villain. The movie tackles all of the ideas without hitting one over the head. This is a great film although I'm not sure if popular modern audience will take to it. The opening box office certainly does not suggest that.
  • Denis Villeneuve is today without any doubt the most prominent Canadian director. In recent years he was mostly active in the crime ("Prisoners" (2013) and "Sicario" (2015)) and science fiction ("Arrival" (2016), "Blade runner 2049" (2017), "Dune" (2021) and "Dune part II" (2024)) genre.

    It requires a lot of courage to make a sequel to such a cult classic as "Blade runner" (1982, Ridley Scott). "Blade runner 2049" is situated, as the title already indicates, in 2049 and therefore 30 years after the story of "Blade runner".

    The theme however has remained the same, the fear of robots taking over. This fear is with the discussions about Artificial Intelligence in 2024 even more relevant than it was at the time of release of "Blade runner 2049".

    Relevance is however not the same as originality. In "Blade runner" (1982) the fear of Robots taking over was further elaborated upon in the fear that they could adjust their own expiration date. In "Blade runner 2049" (2017) it is the fear that they can reproduce. Variation within a theme.

    The cinematography is brilliant, perfectioning the decadent atmosphere of the 1982 film and having 3D technology as an extra. A very good performance by cinematographer Roger Deakins. Nevertheless the overall impression I got after seeing this film was that it is too much style over substance.
  • I always make it a rule to only ever do a review once a show or film is ended. In this case, I started about forty minutes in, for one reason only, I was bored to tears.

    I love the original film, and although a film I thought never needed a follow up, but I was open to it, and thought the basic storyline in this film was pretty good, and imaginative.

    I'll start with the positives, it looks amazing, genuinely, the effects, sets and all aspects of the visuals are seriously impressive, that's the major strength, the acting is hard to fault, Gosling is always on point.

    The downer...... It's insanely boring, how on Earth did they allow this film to be so slow, you almost forgive the first hour, where literally nothing happens, you convince yourself that it's bound to open up and switch up several gears. It never really does though, it improves, but it seems to be on half speed for large spells.

    I struggled with the plot a bit, possibly because there isn't one.

    In summary, the window dressing is terrific, it looks sensational, incredibly well acted, the problem, it bored me to tears. 5/10.
  • Visually stunning, enthralling, and an absolute epic score. Blade runner 2049 is everything a sequel needs to be. Denis Villeneuve i salute you.
  • To chase after an iconic masterpiece, to imitate or to try and supplant its rightful place, is a fool's errand.

    Thankfully director Denis Villeneuve along with his talented collaborators never succumbs to imitating or trying to super-cede Ridley Scott's 1982 landmark "Blade Runner".

    Hampton Fancher, who created the story of the original, has crafted a new screenplay with Michael Green, that not only builds on the themes of "Blade Runner", but ties them together with larger questions about the current human state and its challenges.

    Ryan Gosling stars as a replicant of the latest generation, who tries to solve a puzzle that leads him into the realm of real and manufactured life, and walks along the same noirish paths that made the original so gripping. Gosling imbues his character with a very compelling façade, which starts to crumble as his humanity takes over his mechanical design.

    The equally thrilling performances by Jared Leto, Ana De Armas, Robin Wright, Carla Juri and of course Mr. Harrison Ford, forge a credible bond with the audience and enhance the visual grandeur created by cinematographer Roger Deakins and production designer Dennis Gassner.

    And although "Blade Runner 2049" may not achieve the same level of force as its predecessor, it is a tremendously immersive, philosophical and touching experience, that should be enjoyed on the largest screen possible.

    The movie's pace is deliberately patient, which may confuse some members of the audience. But by slowing down and observing, the audience can revel in the immensity of the images.

    The more we move, inexorably it seems, towards the do-or-die reality of "Blade Runner", the more vital these stories become.

    Whatever the box-office-fate of "Blade Runner 2049" will be, the long wait has paid off. It is far more than just a quick cash-in on a cult classic or an overly devoted sequel. It stands on its own and adds many new layers to the question: "What makes us human?"

    And it urges us on to find the truth in the rain.
  • With great acting, great screenplay, incredible cinematography Blade Runner 2049 is one of the best sequels ever made!
  • This will be my first 10/10. When I look at the 1/10 reviews I'm amused by how many people don't see that this film although, can be called boring by some is atleast spectacular in the cinematography, music, set design, and many more aspects. I can talk about this film forever but no one would read it. I was never bored watching it and every scene is in service of the story.
  • If anything just the visual look of this film makes it amazing. You can sit back and watch this thing on mute and still be wowed. In comparison to the original it doesn't really compare but its as good as a sequel/follow up could have possibly been and had just enough nostalgia to hit those soft spots. A brilliant film by a brilliant filmmaker.
  • In 1982, Ridley Scott released "Blade Runner", based on Philip K. Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?". It had two focuses. One was the question of what makes us human, as the protagonist (Harrison Ford) starts to question his order to capture the renegade replicants. The other was the look at a dystopian future, as there's no connection to the natural world and the population gets bombarded by advertising everywhere.

    Now, "Incendies" and "Arrival" director Denis Villeneuve has released a sequel: "Blade Runner 2049". The sequel expands on the original's dystopian focus, as anyone with the economic means has departed the moribund planet. A new corporation has replaced the one from the original movie, and has continued making replicants. A new blade runner (Ryan Gosling) is the protagonist here, but there's more than meets the eye.

    The visuals are impressive. I guess that my complaint is that the plot takes a long time to get going, and a lot of the movie is shots of the protagonist's face to the tune of music. Even so, I'd say that the movie is worth seeing, if not as great as the original.
  • From an original 1982 theatrical showing to a Beta videotape, to a standard laserdisc, to a deluxe Criterion letterbox laserdisc, to a DVD, to a high-definition blu-ray, Ridley Scott's "Blade Runner" has been viewed countless times in the original voice-over version, the European cut, the director's cut, and the final cut over the 35 years that followed its release. All those memories have not been lost in time, like tears in rain, but rather are indelible images from one of the greatest science fiction films. Thus, any thought of a sequel evokes mixed emotions. Despite the involvement of Ridley Scott, the results could be another disaster like "More American Graffiti," or an undistinguished but palatable followup like "2010," or a companion masterpiece like "The Godfather Part II." Fortunately, "Blade Runner" cultists can breathe a sigh of relief; while "Blade Runner 2049" may fall short of the unqualified masterpiece status of "The Godfather" sequel, at least on an initial viewing, the film enhances and builds upon, rather than diminishes, the original; however, only time will determine if "BR2049" will enjoy the same repeatability as the first film and join it as a timeless classic.

    Fresh from his outstanding work on "Arrival," director Denis Villeneuve helmed "BR2049" with a steady hand and attention to detail, which were likely guided or inspired by Ridley Scott. Set thirty years ahead of the original film, Roger Deakins's career-best cinematography captures a future that is colder and bleaker than that portrayed by Jordan Cronenweth's original work, which has a warmer tone. However, Deakins's cooler hues are appropriate for 2049 Los Angeles, where snow has replaced rain and holographs rule rather than neon. Warm or cool, the atmospherics in both films are equally dazzling. The aurals are as captivating as the visuals; the haunting music by Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch evokes the original Vangelis score without plagiarizing.

    The casting is also superb with Ryan Gosling spot on as K, the blade runner whose job, like Deckard's in the original film, is to retire renegade replicants. While the role may lack showy moments for an actor, Gosling's tall lean figure and enigmatic face create an image possibly more enduring than that of Harrison Ford in the original. Both Ford as an aging Rick Deckard and Edward James Olmos as a retired Gaff return to link the sequel to the first film. Among the newcomers, Robin Wright is well cast as Gosling's deadly serious, deathly pale Lieutenant Joshi of the LAPD. Ford and Olmos are not the only returnees, an origami figure and a small wood carving wordlessly connect the two Blade Runner films, and implanted memories, flying cars, outsized advertising, and transparent plastic raincoats also have encores.

    "Blade Runner" cultists are best served seeing the sequel knowing little; the story unfolds as a policeman sent in pursuit of a mystery that expands upon threads in the original movie. Tthe film's length is arguably excessive, especially for those unfamiliar with the original, and "Blade Runner" novices may be left behind by a leisurely narrative that prizes visuals above action. However, "Blade Runner 2049" is that rarity of movie sequels, a film that enhances and elevates the original, yet stands on its own as a masterful film. The passage of time will determine if "Blade Runner 2049" and "Blade Runner" become the inseparably coupled films that "The Godfather" and "The Godfather Part II" have become, but all the elements are in place.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Modern reviews seem to indicate that if a film is very long and slow but has good visuals, it must be a masterpiece. That seems to be the general opinion of several reviews for this film. One reviewer even compared it favourably with 'The Godfather'. I found 'Blade Runner 2049' much too long, very slow and cliched. The camera lingers on every frame. About 50 min could have been cut, resulting in a taut film. The whole bit about Joe's hologram girlfriend could have been severely trimmed. So could several other scenes. Then there is the cliched corporation head who won't let anything interfere with his 'noble' quest. The director seems to be in love with his visuals, to the detriment of the movie's story snd pace. Which is a shame because there is a nice film buried in here. In its' current almost 3 hour length, this is not a worthy sequel to the first film and my rating is 6 but see it and decide for yourself.
  • It goes without question that Blade Runner 2049 has the best cinematography ever. Roger Deakins blew me away. The VFX was also remarkable, the production made great use of greenscreens and miniature models. I found the story very interesting, but I think it was a bit slow, which was the reason why it unfortunately underperformed in the box office. Even though I have not watched the original film, Blade Runner 2049 made me fully immersed in the great world Denis Villeneuve created. And let's not forget about the acting; Ryan Gosling nailed it in my opinion, Harrison Ford was great, and Ana de Armas was also good. I am sure that in one or two decades this film will be definitely considered a sci-fi classic.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    K and Deckerd's fight would have been avoided with a normal dialogue. Joi didn't have to be "canceled". Madam didn't have to die. Why didn't they tell the story of the "Memory Maker Daughter's" illness? They did K dirty making him believe that he was the miracle child. A lot of bad behavior or outcome of the Replicants' might be avoided by making them in a spesific and certain manner and quality or make them look the same, etc. Too long time yet too little was told. Waste of opportunities...
  • Imagine Blade Runner without a strong directorial vision, an interesting story, or engaging characters. If you find that impossible to imagine, just watch the forgettable sci-fi flick Blade Runner 2049.

    Instead of the distinct '40s-noir of the original, 2049 offers scale without purpose and a dusty color palette. Instead of riveting, distinct, excellently-acted characters, you've got sturdy but unforgettable people. Blade Runner was full of amazing moments and places, such as the room of living toys and Rutger Hauer's every word, but 2049 has nothing but a bland lead and a bunch of characters whose motives can't be looked at too closely.

    Scenes come not out of the story but out of a desire to have something happened, resulting in pointless interactions like the tormenting of a naked replicant. There aren't so much huge plot holes as poor motivations and small inconsistencies that make everything in the movie feel false.

    If you don't compare this to Blade Runner, it's a mediocre but almost-watchable movie with the occasional interesting idea (the talking, naked ad, the memory designer's creation of a birthday party), but as a sequel to a classic, this movie is a travesty.

    And how is it that a futuristic L. A. heavily influenced by Japanese culture has no Asians in the entire city? It's as though there's no detail so big or small that the filmmakers won't ignore it.
  • When I had heard the news that there was a sequel to Blade Runner in the works, I thought it was a ludicrous idea. But with a fantastic and proven director attached and with the original director producing I decided to give it a shot. Of course the trailer blew my friends and I away with its stunning visuals but I remained hesitant. Once I saw the movie I went in expecting disappointment. Fortunately I was terribly wrong to be so worried! The movie was perfect. It had a compelling plot, creative story-telling, and beautiful sets and CGI. Settings were unique and characters were interesting. The movie keeps your eyes glued to the screen and guessing til the very end.
An error has occured. Please try again.