User Reviews (2,476)

Add a Review

  • Blade Runner 2049 is a fascinating movie and one of the rare sequels that outdoes the original. The cast performs great, fulfilling each role wonderfully. Gosling particularly stands out in the lead, providing the perfect balance of emotion and physicality, both of which are entirely convincing. With its thoughtful, yet not slow pacing, the story is able to come together in a way that clearly conveys every character and their motivations. The writers also gave great consideration to the relationships between various roles, displayed in the genuine interactions that take place all throughout. In turn, the emotional depth is very resonant and forces the audience to truly care about each protagonist. Altogether, the plot line feels very personal, while also focusing on a large scale thematically. The appointed central idea is a natural pick up from where the first picture left off, too. Some components of the third act may not quite entirely come together, but the story absolutely works in both developing such an impactful theme and delivering a satisfactory end to the lead's journey. In fact, the arc of this main character beautifully encapsulates the theme itself. In support of these ideas, the production is spectacular. There are various cinematic shots, and the editing is fantastic in pair with solid direction. Most notable are the visual effects that are often astounding, outmatching the capabilities of its predecessor by a landslide. The action present is beyond thrilling, as well. Just as fitting is the score and sound, which match each scene with much success. Overall, Blade Runner 2049 is an all-around awesome picture and absolutely worth a watch, especially for its outstanding visuals, great characters, and simply intriguing premise.
  • 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 ...
  • 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.
  • '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
  • Blade Runner 2049 is a continuation of 1982's Blade Runner a seemingly impossible task. Against all odds and logic, the movie pulls it off.

    The Good: The greatest thing about the sequel is simply the story. Without delving into spoiler territory Blade Runner 2049 concludes with an ending that works with an internal logical sense and yet still surprises. There are so many good decisions throughout this production one could hardly list them all.

    The idea of keeping the cold war and old Iconic brands from the first movie works brilliantly and the overall look and feel of this movie are timeless. Blade Runner 2049 does not try to pigeonhole its narrative into the concerns of today. It does not wink at the fears of today's audience. It is its own self-contained universe telling a story that will work fifty years from now and would have worked just as strongly fifty years ago.

    The acting is strong across the board with Harrison Ford appearing as if he actually wants to be in the film (and looking fit to boot). Also, Ana de Armas needs to be in every movie moving forward. A truly star-making turn.

    The Bad: A combination of a long running time, a leisurely pace and a soundtrack from a health spa can put one in a catatonic state if one is not careful. I confess a strong ending brought me back into the film It was losing me for a while there.

    In Conclusion: This movie sticks to the ribs after viewing. It seemed even better in retrospect than during the actual viewing (see leisurely pace above). Blade Runner 2049 pulls off effortlessly decisions that could seem disastrous in other films (Jared Leto). In many ways, it is better than the first film and better than it had any right to be. A triumph.
  • I've only seen the original Blade Runner once and it was a long time ago. I liked it but I just haven't got around to revisiting it. I mention this because even though I'm not a die-hard fan of Blade Runner, I still found the plot of 2049 engrossing. It's a well put together mystery, I found that they constantly took the plot in unexpected directions and other than the trailer spoiling the return of Deckard, I was always excited about what was going to happen next. The movie pulls an excellent bait and switch at the end that really surprised me. They made the right decision to not repeat the formula of the first one and take the story to a new place. They also create some compelling subplots which is something that few movies get right.

    The biggest star of this movie is the cinematography and the excellent work of Roger Deakins. The original was noteworthy with the special environment that Ridley Scott and his creative team brought to the screen. That was continued here if not improved upon. The look of L.A. in 2049 they decided to go with isn't completely distinct but it was a little more understated (I'd compare it to the 2017 Ghost in the Shell but less fantastical). My favourite scene might have been a shootout in a defunct club where the lighting and the background show are turning on and off. I don't hesitate to praise when a movie looks good but this is an exemplary example of using visuals and atmosphere to help build on a strong story.

    Blade Runner 2049 returns very few of the characters from the original film but they manage to breathe life into this movie through the new ones they created. Officer K isn't the most lively protagonist but he gets an eye-opening character arc that kept me involved. Deckard doesn't appear till later in the movie but he remains interesting and what they decide to do with him makes his appearance worthwhile. I also really liked some of the smaller supporting characters. Sapper really helps kick off the movie, what Joi represents is extremely emotional and Mariette is so mysterious that her involvement brings up more and more questions. Add in that Niander Wallace and Luv make for pretty menacing villains and you have a pretty well-rounded and fascinating script.

    I don't think that the actors/actresses will be the focal point of the awards attention that this movie will get but that doesn't mean there aren't exemplary performances. Gosling is good as K, he's deliberately robotic and he accomplishes a lot through his subtlety. Harrison Ford isn't in the movie as much as I wanted him to be (he's still one of my all-time favourite actors) but he holds up his end. He works with Gosling well and they have a solid rapport. Surprisingly, I really liked Sylvia Hoeks. She stole a lot of her scenes and I thought she was great even acting against a stacked cast. Dave Bautista showed he has a lot more range than people give him credit for. Jared Leto is in a very Jared Leto role (deliberately weird and hard to understand) but he does it well and although he might be a little creepy, the guy is still a great actor. I also want to credit Ana de Armas, she was distinctly warm and she showed a lot more emotion than I had seen from her previously.

    There were points in this movie I could have rated this a 9/10 but some small things that I had to dock the movie for. Even with a compelling story, the movie has such a long run time that it couldn't help but drag. There are certain scenes where the movie wants you to really drink in the environment but they could have edited it a little tighter. They also couldn't help but lose me at points through how much artistic flair the utilize. Villenueve is an authority in this area and while I appreciate an artistic approach to this science fiction tale, for me they overdid it a little.

    I was surprised how much I ended up liking Blade Runner 2049. I think if you're a big fan of the original, you'll love this to bits. This is successful in bringing in the uninitiated but I think fans will enjoy this even more. I haven't been on board for all of Villenueve's films but this is a good combination of his artistic style with enough of a commercial element for the masses. I'd give this somewhere between an 8-9 but with the extremely long run time, I'll give this an 8/10.
  • It's our memories that make us, the feelings and emotions that just take us, to places far beyond our reach, the things our teachers could not teach, that make us exactly what we are, as we travel from near and far, through dystopian imaginings, to our greatest conjurings...

    Oozing metaphors from almost every pore, the dreams of unicorns lay behind several locked doors.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • plabrec12 March 2022
    10/10
    A+
    Every aspect of this film is mesmerizingly transportative and mind-blowingly brilliant. Dennis Villeneuve has quite possibly delivered to us not just the best sci-fi film ever, but a totally perfect movie in every objective sense. The writing, visuals, soundtrack, and absolutely everything about this sequel are truly legendary to extents dwarfing even the brilliant original. Pretty much all viewers will realize and agree that movies like this are why cinema exists.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Don't believe the lying shills rating this a ten out of ten. The original Blade Runner is a masterpiece. This film is not. It only deserves a six, but I loved the original so I gave it a seven. My review will compare both films and it contains **spoilers**.

    First up its pacing. This film is actually much slower than the original, adding up to two hours and forty three minutes of mind numbing boredom. I love slow paced films provided there's enough drama and tension. The first Blade Runner film has long pauses, but its justified. The silence swells toward sudden violence or it occurs because a character is gnawing over a great line of dialog they've just heard or are about to express. So what makes a slow paced film entertaining? The solution is information provided at the right time.

    The first film immediately tells us that replicants are murderous outlaws. We see one commit murder. Some are hiding here on Earth in Los Angeles and Dekkard is forced to detect and kill them. All that information is given to the audience within the first few minutes. So when Dekkard is wandering through crowded streets of futuristic LA, we the audience are afraid for him, because any one of them could be a murderous replicant. Dear Ridley Scott repeat after me: Information creates tension.

    This newer film instead begins with long drawn out scenes of dull aimless searching and investigating. Since no villain shows up until the last hour, there's no reason for the hero to actually hurry or feel afraid. When the boring pace finally speeds up toward the end, you're so bored out of your skull, you forgot why anyone is doing anything and you no longer care or even notice what the film thinks is a stunning twist.

    Those shill reviewers are glowing about its photography. Compared to its budget, the photography is below standard. There are rare nice moments. Seeing the fusion powered spinners (those flying cars) again was nice nostalgia, but far too many albeit pretty shots of -- nothing happening -- rendered the plot all the more irrelevant.

    Now for the production design. The indoor set designs were poor, telling us very little about the world this film is set in. The "production value" looks cheap. I don't mean that in a cheap sleazy film noir way (no that would have been cool), I mean that I don't know where they spent the 185million budget, because only a fraction of that was spent on the sets. Two things did work. The voice comp device has been updated reminiscent of 1984 (the Orwell film starring John Hurt) and there is a Total Recall (the original not the remake) style artificial Female hologram character that is programmed to love K (Ryan Gosling). Interesting, but hardly ground breaking, while the original film was ground breaking in too many ways to mention here. The close up long lens shots in the original made the grimy futuristic streets of Los Angeles really look and feel like a crowded claustrophobic sleazy poverty stricken hellhole. Such a lens also gives size to any character in the foreground making Ford look all the more epic.

    This film used wider lenses and so the pent up tension of the original street scenes is non existent. In fact very rarely does it venture outside into the streets, so that we cannot breathe in the human polity as easily as we did in the original. The original film had real light emanating from miniature buildings, vehicles and advertising. I'm sorry but computer generated light just doesn't behave like real light does. Real light goes where it wants. The human eye cannot be fooled. Syd Mead is a genius. But looking at this film makes me think he wasn't given the power he needed to bring out this film's potential. It actually looks like some hack is trying to copy him. This makes me feel sad to write that. His work on Elysium (2013) was far superior.

    And now the acting. Gosling plays it straight (and glum) as he did in the pretty to look at but boring Bangkok crime flick Only God Forgives. There is a plot reason for this, but his dull acting compounds this movie's languid pace. There's not enough of Harrison Ford, who only shows up in the last hour (maybe less?). Jared Leto's monologues are just awful. Its not his fault. He's miscast and badly written.

    Like Mead, Philip K Dick is a genius too, both films are inspired by his literary masterwork "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep". This film didn't delve deep enough, barely scratching the intellectual surface. Since many of his concepts are incredibly visually rich that just compounds the cinematic failure here.

    Should you go and see this? If you're a fan of the original, I think you should. The story ends in a way that sets things up for another Blade Runner movie which I hope will actually be entertaining.

    This film is meant to be a science fiction noir film, but it has little of the intelligence we expect from science fiction and none of the crime solving tension that is required of film noir. It lacked the brutal immediacy of the original nexus 6 villains the first one had in spades. It lacked the tense cat and mouse hunting game that made the original so intense, a race where the lead changed more than once. It just isn't as clever as its, at times pretty visuals and constantly obnoxious soundtrack, pretends it to be.

    Instead we get a self important bloated fatware art-house snoozefest that is bleak, boring and about as intellectually deep as counterfeit artificial snake skin.
  • Blade Runner 2049 is the sequel to the 1982 sci-fi classic Blade Runner. Directed by Denis Villeneuve (Arrival, Sicario) and once again based on Philip K. Dick's novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, it successfully recaptures just about everything excellent about the original and is a superb sequel to one of the greatest and most important science fiction films of all time.

    Thirty years after the events of the first film, LAPD Officer K (Ryan Gosling) works as a Blade Runner, retiring old rogue replicants (artificial humans) hiding out around the Los Angeles area. One day while on a job, K discovers a long buried secret in the yard of a replicant which leads him on a journey to track down former Blade Runner Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford), who has been missing for decades.

    Featuring amazing visuals and some of the most philosophical and thought-provoking themes since the original, Blade Runner 2049 is a masterpiece of science fiction and is possibly one of the greatest sequels ever made. I was transfixed the entire time, to the point where I felt that even blinking would cause me to miss something I wanted to see. The cast was brilliant as well, especially Ryan Gosling, who does a fantastic job carrying the film as its lead actor. However, perhaps best of all, is that seeing the original is not a requirement to fully understand everything that is going on, although it would probably still help to have done so beforehand. I'm almost certain that author Philip K. Dick would be proud of this film. I know I am.

    I rate it a very high 9.5/10
  • This is an amazing piece of work. It has incredible artistry. As a visual exercise, it is breathtaking. I thought the original was way ahead of its time in creating a milieu, a dystopian world, full of disease and commercialism. Given the wonders of modern times, the world where this takes place is nonpareil. Ryan Gosling is out to eliminate the old replicants because there is a secret which needs to kept. The hierarchy is doing what it can to keep a world event from eliminating the awful world they have created. Goslin has memories, but they could have been implanted in him, so he is continually torn by dealing with details that may or may not be true. He needs to return to the place of his childhood. Harrison Ford reprises his original role of Deckard, now old and living in the ruins of Las Vegas. Evil is in control, but there is hope. The final scenes are incredible and puzzling, but it is a great challenge to the viewer.
  • I got an hour into this achingly slow film and just gave up. The title of the film implies a continuation of the first film, including the elements that made it so special, the sense of discovery, the icily beautiful soundtrack, the sense of improbability, the unreal being made real, tantalizing glimpses of implied universes created organically out of the conversations among the characters and their behavior, the first film is a classic. This film has none of that. In fact, despite the name of the first film in the title, it's the polar opposite. Make it believable at least. In the first film it was believable that Leon should beat the stuffing out of Deckard. There is no one on earth who would ever believe that Ryan Gosling could vanquish Dave Bautista in a fight, this just wouldn't happen in any universe. If his job was to take him out, why not just shoot him and be done with it? No, we get a long, drawn-out first scene that makes zero sense and it's all downhill from there. I haven't seen Dune, but can I assume that Villeneuve ruined it just as effectively as he ruined Blade Runner?
  • Warning: Spoilers
    BR2049 has more plot holes than emmental cheese and one big "plot twist" that I won't mention, not because it would spoil much, but because if you decide to watch this movie, you deserve to be disappointed by its stupidity.

    The big "twist" is mentioned as the "miracle", but it is absolutely idiotic and illogical from the point of view of a manufacturer of replicants. How did "that" might have ever be considered a good idea? One would assume that after the disaster of the Nexus 6 series, Tyrell Co. and his successors would have invented some more reliable security system - such as a lower level of self-consciousness, way safer than the questionable "obedience" of the Nexus 8. Or even something like all the androids looking the same, so that they can be easily detected and you would not need blade runners to locate and eliminate them.

    Anything that would provide humanity with useful, free labor without ethical problems… But no, in this movie ethical problems just got exponentially bigger. And so much for a science so advanced as to reproduce perfect bodies and minds...

    Besides, since it is established that humankind sucks, I failed to understand how replicants are in any way better, since they just want to be more "like humans"….

    On the visual side, BR2049 sucks, too. Looks like they used random leftovers scenery from other Sci-Fi/disaster movies, from the overused industrial background of Terminator to the desertic blurred landscape of MadMax and the inevitable nightmarish city-scape, which looks like Blade Runner, but on cheap side. Costumes looks like the contemporary drab clothing promoted by Nordic high street chains: lots of dark, cheap-looking leggings and stretchy tops, a far cry from the decadent, elaborate futuristic/retro suits of BR.

    In one scene, Deckard meets Tyrell's successor in a closed room filled with water, except a square island in the middle. A room that has no other reason to exist except bringing back memories of the "original" Tyrell building.

    The dialog is unbelievable bad and scenes drag on forever. When the Goslin character finds Deckart, the two spend over ten minutes fighting and chasing each other, when a couple of lines of dialogue would have avoided that.

    The ending is both manipulative and plagiarist: it wants to move the audience, recreating the amazing poetic moment of Roy Batty's death, but using snow instead of rain. If nothing else, the ending would have been enough to put me off this piece of commercial garbage.
  • I really enjoyed this new installment of blade runner. The storyline is well developed, the characters have depth, and they are well acted. I thought Ryan gosling did and outstanding job as K. The main characters had great chemistry and it really made this film read so well. The storyline had a great flow and kept me captivated throughout the entire film. Great twist, left a somewhat open ending, all amazing!
  • mahmus21 October 2020
    When I heard they were making a sequel to Blade Runner, one of my favorite films at that time, my reaction was "No! Leave the original alone!". Thank God they didn't because Blade Runner 2049 is just as good, if not better than the original.

    I remeber my biggest fear was that they would drop the slow pace and noir atmosphere for more action and explosions, but thankfully, the film remains just as slow and just as great for it as the first one.

    The effects are outstanding and sure to stand the test of time just like the original's. Roger Deakins' cinematography is stunning in every way. The performances from Ryan Gosling, Ana de Armas and Harrison Ford are spectular.

    I love how realistically the technology has progressed since the first once. Everything's just a little more advanced after thirty years.

    I also love how it subverts the "chosen one" trope. K may not have been a real human bean, but he sure was a real hero (sorry).

    Rarely does a movie come around and blow away all my expectations like this.
  • It is 2049, 30 years after the events of the previous movie. K is a Blade Runner, a policeman who tracks down and terminates replicants (androids) whose model are viewed dangerous to society. K is himself a replicant, but has been programmed to be beneficial to society. One day he tracks down and terminates a replicant that has managed to evade detection and capture for over 28 years. In his garden are found the remains of a female replicant. Shockingly, the woman died during childbirth and the baby appears to have survived. Replicants cannot reproduce. If word gets out that they can, the human-replicant hierarchy will forever be disturbed. K must find the child, quickly. Also after it is Niander Wallace, a billionaire whose company makes replicants and whose main interest is in changing the world order.

    An intriguing and engaging movie, directed by Denis Villeneuve (Prisoners, Incendies, Sicario, Arrival) and co-written by Hampton Francher, who co-wrote the screenplay for the original Blade Runner. Good plot with some great twists and turns. Some clever manipulation of the viewer too, as you are funneled down one way of thinking, only to have things turn out in another direction. This unpredictability, and requirement that you use your brain, makes for some intriguing viewing.

    Great special effects, without being too show-offy and gratuitous. Great action scenes too.

    While I have seen the original Blade Runner (in all three forms), you don't have to have seen it in order to enjoy, or even understand, this one. It works fine as a standalone movie.

    Solid performances by all involved.

    On the negative side, the plot is not entirely water-tight. There are a few key moments where things take a turn for the implausible and contrived. The end result ultimately justified these turns, making me less critical of them, but the writers could easily have developed the plot around those moments more, in order to make them less loose and clumsy.

    Though I thought it was going to be, the running time of 163 minutes is not an issue. The movie never drags and the time just flies by.

    Great movie - certainly not your average sequel.
  • Gordon-1110 October 2017
    Warning: Spoilers
    This film tells the story of a modified, manufactured man who hunts down and kill old versions of manufactured men. The discovery of a secret makes him re- evaluate his life and values.

    It is unfortunate that"Blade Runner 2049" is so desperate to impressed with great lighting, to the point that it ignores the story. Scenes drag on several times the length needed to tell a story, making the film overly long. The first hour already felt like eternity, and the next 100 minutes were even longer. People in the cinema were restless, head resting on hands or just looked at the ground because it was so boring. The story was thin, and could have been told in a short time. Even the drowning scene had no sense of thrill, urgency or threat. It is simply plain boring.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    In the ongoing tradition of Harrison Ford's Action heroes of the 1980's turning out to be really terrible dads, we have Blade Runner 2049, the sequel to 1982's Blade Runner.

    We meet a replicant cop named K who is of a new variety that doesn't rebel unlike those bad ones in the movies. So he tracks down a Runaway Nexus 8, even though in the original movie, we were assured that Nexus 8's only had 4 year lifespans. During the course of this, they discover the bones of Sean Young's character from the original movie, along with the realization she had given birth.

    Our hero also has a relationship with a Hologram Girl for some reason. I guess so he is sad when she gets deleted later in the movie.

    If you are watching this movie to see Harrison Ford reprise his role as Deckard, you don't get to see him walking around like someone's confused grandpa until 2 hours into an interminably long movie. (Seriously, I feel bad for Ford. Why does he do this to himself?)

    So they want to find the child of Deckard and Rachel because this is a replicant that can reproduce, which is supposedly more efficient than just growing them, for some reason. They say they need more replicants to colonize the outer colonies, but of course, there are plenty of people living in squalor, including a child labor sweatshop.

    I can't emphasize enough how long, boring, uninteresting this movie was. It's like they watched the original and still had no idea what made it a good movie.
  • When you make a sequel to a 30 year old movie, you better do it right. And unlike a certain other sequel to a 30+ year old film(s) that also includes Harrison Ford, Blade Runner 2049 respects it's elderly predecessor while also giving a good continuation of it's themes and expansion of the universe. It's tone and style by way of it's precise filmmaking, music, and diliberate use of color to convey feelings all do an excellent job of immersing us in the Blade Runner setting again and making something great technically . It definitely nails the atmosphere.

    This sequel takes a slow and steady pace and focuses on a new character K, who has an interesting arc himself with an element of ambiguity to who he is. In fact, all the movie's characters have distinct dialogue and reactions. They all do their part to slowly peel back the layers of this mystery behind a replicants child and the potential for the artificial to become the authentic. It constantly reminds you that everything in 2049 from whiskey to romance, is artificial, grounding you in this silent but incredibly important hunt for the truth. It expands the universe immensely with the idea of artificial birth, if replicants can...replicate, the line between man and machine becomes even further blurred than it's predecessor. I dare say it's themes are deeper across the board. It's clear that Villeneuve respected the Blade Runner name and wanted to add genuine depth to the world. At no point are there attempts to undercut the original.

    My only criticisms of this movie are very minor. It's been said that the first cut of this movie came out to be 4 hours long. While I certainly could watch something that looks this good for 4 hours, its too long for a standard release and we know that they had to shave off over an hour of footage, which will never be seen again. I think it's a shame that this will (probably) never be released as an extened cut because I think there are some ideas and characters that could have been expanded upon. One example is Jared Leto's character. He puts on a very interesting performance and it would have been great to see more of this and his character's perspective. When every single shot in this movie looks amazing, its reasonable to believe that much of the cut footage looks great too. The actual film that was released is great, but I think it's potential was even higher.

    If you still haven't seen this film, do it. It's a worthy follow up to the 1982 classic and it never breaks form. It doesn't rely on the original to tell the story and it also does NOT make the fruitless effort to recreate the original story through unnecessary fan service. It utilitlizes the old characters in meaningful and believable ways, and only as much as is necessary.

    This is what film sequels should be.
  • 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...
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I am going to offend when I write how the original Blade Runner left me disappointed. By the end, there were too many unanswered questions for me not to feel anything but jaded. Blade Runner 2049 on the other hand, left me riveted. Ryan Gosling is not exactly synonymous with action films, though from the opening scene, he proves himself to be a powerful, heroic figure. Unlike the original, which toyed with the idea that Deckard was a replicant, 2049 adamantly admits to K's (Gosling) status almost immediately.

    Though I could criticise Blade Runner 2049 for its anti-climatic finish, it does three things brilliantly. First, the film answers the burning questions the original refused to dignify. Secondly, the film captures the essence of the original's universe. The world feels lived in; where technology and the metal skeletons of architecture blend; where clear demographics and political allegiances exist, an 'us versus them' feel emerging that mirrors the world we live in today. Thirdly, the film immerses the viewer instantly with not just the mystery of its story, but with its score. The sound is thunderous and impactful, exploding across the screen with tremendous effect, while the raw, visceral musical score accompanies this perfectly, serenading us with themes that don't just resemble, in part, the original, but a unique cyber punk style too.

    The effects are phenomenal, from the fluctuating holographic interfaces, to the flying cars; from the impressive explosions to the dystopian backwaters which surround the spurring metropolis; the effects satisfyingly developing an imperfect future. Although the effects are a necessity in Blade Runner 2049, never does the feature become over-reliant on them, the film's leads been the driving force of this cinematic achievement.

    The film's introduction sees K completing his manhunt of Sapper Morton (Dave Bautista), an older model replicant, who has found some semblance of peace. K however finds himself caught up in an even bigger investigation, the ramifications of which could be dire, his lieutenant, Joshi (portrayed effectively by Robin Wright), spurring her infallible asset on.

    It is here we are introduced to Jared Leto's Niander Wallace, the mastermind behind the new generation replicants. Despite been in only a few scenes, his calculated malice sends cold tones throughout the feature, and is further delivered upon by his assistant, Luv (Sylvia Hoecks), whose lack of decency for human life is frighteningly human.

    Much like the original, Blade Runner 2049 questions what makes us human, and why in the future we would attempt to differentiate ourselves from our creation, when they begin to adopt our traits. Though Gosling's K appears robotic in his movements at times, in his relationships, especially that with virtual intelligence Joi (the lovely Ana De Armas), we witness how human he truly is, their romance been as inventive as it is beautiful. The film takes itself very seriously when demonstrating the poignancy of machines sharing a connection, though the themes of slavery and child-labour, despite still been major topics today, are only briefly discussed.

    Acting greats like the always entertaining Lenny James, Hiam Abbas, and Edward James Olmos (reprising his role from the original) briefly appear, and despite portraying characters with barely enough screen time to be truly appreciated, their performances nonetheless propel the narrative forward. Furthermore, though Harrison Ford receives second billing, it is not until much later into the film that we are blessed by his on screen presence, his version of Deckard retaining the old 'shoot first ask questions later' routine of his character, yet being deeply melancholic and sympathetic.

    Blade Runner 2049 is at its core, a futuristic romance, about the importance of freedom, sacrifice and family; a film that gives me hope for the future of Hollywood. This feature is possibly the best film I have seen this year, Denis Vileneuve again proving himself to be an outstanding director.
  • boblipton19 March 2020
    One of the things that made BLADE RUNNER (1982) so interesting to me was it was an era when tv and movie sf seemed to be devouring all the genres, and this looked to be a fine melding of sf with film noir's sour, dour paranoia. There were other reasons to love it. If you were one of the fifty thousand people in the world who knew who Philip K. Dick actually was, then you probably knew he was as crazy as -- well, take whatever your saying for as crazy as you can get and double it. We knew he was poor and could use the money. We didn't know he was dying after decades of living in poverty, to top off the irony.

    Anyway, here we are, thirty-five years later and sf, like Flash Gordon, has conquered the universe, Ridley Scott has re-edited and re-issued the movie several thousand times, none of which I have ever bothered to look at. I did look at Blade Runner 2049 this afternoon and pronounce it visually stunning, and so what?

    If I want to stun myself visually, I can stare into a 300-watt bulb set to strobe. You want to stun me visually with a movie in a good way, show me some new stuff in a way that tells a story in a novel manner. That's a little tougher here, what with decades of MAD MAX and RED DWARF. There is one sequence that blew me away, the Dickensian sequence set around San Diego, with dust heaps out of BLEAK HOUSE, and tormented orphans hard at work and such. After that, it was musing on the fact that even Tinkerbelle wants Pinocchio to be a real boy and can something be done about Jared Leto? Will some one give him a chocolate chip cookie at least?

    In the end, BLADE RUNNER 2049 is a good movie not because it tells exactly same story with newer and more obnoxious special effects, but because it tells another story that arises out of the first, and not just one in which the good guys win because the good guy leaks marginally less blood and lives, while the bad guy dies, thus proving that..... good guys have better clotting? Yay for the good guys! No, Ryan Gosling actually learns a moral lesson and does a good deed as a result, for no benefit. Because in the end, if we want to be human, we must behave as humans.
  • 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.
An error has occured. Please try again.