User Reviews (1,611)

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I gave it a generous 7/10
  • jonaswilmann18 October 2017
    High art? Hmm ...
    Warning: Spoilers
    "Blade Runner 2049" comes off incredibly long and boring. Not because of the slow pacing – "Blade Runner" had slow pacing too, but had the viewer hypnotized – but because there's no interesting thoughts present and nothing new really. Thematically the movie is exploring the same questions (about being human etc.) as the first movie did 35 years ago. And the few 'new' additions to the Blade Runner universe are totally devoid of originality. Take for instance K's hologram-wife. Not only are those scenes totally unnecessary (that three-way scene, jeez!), but we've seen the concept so many times before (for instance in Spike Jonze's "Her").

    Apart from that, the movie is riddled with plot holes and stuff that just don't make very much sense. Tyrell get's killed off by a replicant and his Nexus-7 prototype runs off, shortly after Tyrell Corp rushes a line of replicants with OPEN ENDED lifespans and no other safety device than implanted memories (that didn't work with Rachael). No. Just no.

    Furthermore we are told the nexus 9 are programmed to obey. However K lies to his superiors, constantly acts on his own, acts emotionally from early on in the movie. He does not obey at all.

    And the revelation of a replicant child being born has people talking about revolution. Robin Wrights Joshi says it will 'break the world'. But how? Rachael was the only replicant able to give birth and Tyrell took that secret with him. Neither the few remaining Nexus 8's or the 9's can give birth – so no, it doesn't break the world. It doesn't break anything. But the movie really wants us to take this very seriously (Hans Zimmer is doing his loudest to make us sit in awe).

    And it gets even worse. Later we learn that Jared Leto's ridiculous bad guy Wallace (those monologues!) strives to learn the secret of making replicant babies. But why? That undermines the entire idea of replicants. Tailormade slaves with superhuman ability; strength, intelligence etc. that are controlled by implanted memories. Having replicants make babies the old way would offer zero control of the outcome and the child replicants would have to grow up, go to school, make their own memories. What's the point then? And what's the difference, from just having some people make babies?

    A lot of people has called "Blade Runner 2049" 'intellectual sci-fi' and so forth, but I found it to be quite the contrary. The movie forcefully demands you to accept it as highly intelligent art, but if you scratch the surface, you'll find something very different.
  • Samantha Nader24 October 2017
    Give Us A Film Please Not A Franchise/Universe/Prequel
    Warning: Spoilers
    My boyfriend and I watched Blade Runner 2049 the sequel to Blade Runner (1982) on Friday morning at the local cinema. Perhaps we should have opted to watch it in 3D because the shots were wide and there was quite a bit of scenery that was a work of art.

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

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

    Again, the images on the screen were rich and I wish I can satisfy my boyfriend like Luv and Joi can, but otherwise we are a little tired of Marvel universe, Star Wars remakes and Batman sequels. Please give us a good film.
  • Shater Abbas15 October 2017
    So Much About This Reminds One Of The Force Awakens (Star Wars)
    Warning: Spoilers
    The title says it. Here goes: Prior to release the critiques are overwhelmingly positive and make out the sequel to be the second coming! It turns out there is either payola going on or the studio has photos of some people.

    The day before and on the day of release IMDb fills up with perfect 'viewer' reviews of said film propelling the sequel to IMDb 250 list. All these, er, reviewers believe this film is perfection with not even a speck of imperfection. 10/10 i.e. nothing at all could be in any way better! The sequel was in actuality unrequested and unwanted.

    The sequel sets itself up for even more sequels with unresolved or cliff hanger plots.

    I do have to confess that I found the actresses in 2049 sexy and worth fantasizing about. Those were the real tens here and so I cannot give BR2049 a mere 1, which is something TFA deserves. Obviously Ridley and Villeneuve are better crew than JJ Abrams and whoever Disney hires, but it has to be said that BR2049 was a disappointment and I wish it were not made. The bar was set so high to begin with.
  • oyw-3345622 October 2017
    Joe Walker was either asleep, fired or sent to the corner by Ridley, Denis or the studio honchos
    Warning: Spoilers
    Let me describe the sequence of Blade Runner 2049 for you

    Here goes:

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

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

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

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

    At that point all I wanted in life was to buy my own Joi and Luv and go back home.
  • vadimsound16 October 2017
    A soulless, bland copy of the masterpiece that was the original
    Warning: Spoilers
    Blade Runner is one of my favorite films of all time for a number of reasons:

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

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

    3) Great characters and amazing acting.

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

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

    6) Meticulous attention to detail, lighting in particular.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    To sum up "Blade Runner 2049" does not reinvent the wheel, does not offer anything one-of-a-kind or even slightly memorable. There is no reason (other than cash flow for the studio execs) for it to exist. Save the cash and rewatch the original that actually challenges your intelligence and leaves you with a lot to think about.
  • Flavour Man28 October 2017
    Unfortunately This Shows That Ridley Is Officially Now A Hollywood Hack In The Same League As JJ Abrams, Paul Feig, etc.
    Warning: Spoilers
    This was a disappointing sequel that may very well break the camel's back. For it is not just a poor and boring sequel, but also destroys - really disrupts and breaks - the Blade Runner mythos.

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

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

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

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

    A few cool technologies, sexy desirable women with gorgeous eyes and lovable legs and nothing else whatsoever except loads of damage to Blade Runner.
  • tef-2922621 October 2017
    Commits All The Mistakes Of Original Blade Runner's Theatrical Version
    Warning: Spoilers
    All the problems with the original theatrical version of Blade Runner, which Scott Ridley fought against are here. Ridley has become the studio system.

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

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

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

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

    BR2049 is the same as the last 10 marvel films, the next ten Star Wars films and the Ghostbusters sequel, but is prettier and more visual.
  • psbgsg149 October 2017
    Oh dear...
    Warning: Spoilers
    What a disappointment, so much hype and, therefore, expectation but this is no more than a competent sci-fi film, certainly not a worthy successor to the original. I could support a 163 minute run time if there was plenty of content but at times it felt like the actors were moving and speaking slowly not for effect, but to fill in the gaps. As for the plot, everything revolved around the ability or otherwise of replicants to breed. If you have the technology to grow a human body from scratch and implant whatever memories you want I'd have thought introducing the mechanics of reproduction wouldn't be difficult. I could go on but really, this film isn't worth the bother.
  • jeppsson_henrik-493-19175322 October 2017
    Boring Runner
    Warning: Spoilers
    I didn't realise 2049 also was the actual length of the film! It sure felt like it! 3 hours of boring dialogue, hollow characters and an embarrassingly weak story. Hard to believe Ridley Scott really made this!

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

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

    A huge disappointment of a sequel that should never have been made.
  • peterfaure16 October 2017
    Visually stunning and thought provoking, but not flawless
    So, I didn't expect much from this sequel when it was announced, but since the original 'Blade Runner' is, in my opinion, one of the greatest movies ever made (if not the greatest), I had to see it anyways. As I often do, I didn't read any reviews or watch any trailers before going.

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

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

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

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

    Still, it's a fantastic, and unique, viewing experience, and even with its imperfections it does create a believable (if gloomy and depressing) dystopian vision of the future, and touches on themes that could spark endless debate and reflection. And herein lies its beauty: shallow popcorn movies will have faded from everybody's memory in weeks. A movie like Blade Runner 2049 will inspire us and challenge us,whether we agree with some of its vision or not, maybe even whether we love it or hate it, for years to come.
  • igor-lepcin9 October 2017
    Everything. Happens. In. Half. A. Speed.
    Warning: Spoilers
    SPOILERS ALERT: The biggest difference between 1982 masterpiece and this one is that in the first film everything is happening at a normal speed. In original movie people talk like they talk in real life, their move at perfectly normal, every day, common speed, it doesn't take them forever to finish the sentence, or to shape out a thought, and yet... somehow it all works perfectly together.

    There's no way to know how will people (let alone robots) act or talk in thirty plus years, but if it is to be anything like in BR2049, I suspect it will be a pretty bleak and exhausting world.

    From the moment one, everybody talks, walks, plays, runs in some super-strange slow-mo: I'd say at 50% of the normal speed. It takes 10 seconds for poor Ryan Gosling only to take out something from his pocket. Not to say how long it takes him to walk through the scene - so much that half way through, let's say, the orphanage part, I have already forgotten what is he doing there in the first place.

    20 minutes into the movie, all I'm doing is wondering when this shot is going to end, when this scene is going to end, when the sequence will, and, ultimately, when the movie is going to end. This is not the way to pay a homage, to anybody or anything.

    There is a reason why the shots in "2001 Odyssey..." are that long, somebody should've warned the director about that. And there's also a reason why all shots in the original BR are that tight. And that's just one of the reasons to why both 2001 and BR are masterpieces. And for that same reason, BR2049 could that never be.

    You don't drag out every single aspect of the movie just to make it seem serious or pretend to be an artist, no. If you do, you get very expensive, anemic boredom. I have no idea why the director did it - he hasn't done it in that fairly fair movie with Hugh Jackman. What possessed him to do it here? Was it the importance of the first movie? Was it his fear to look like a schoolboy in front of the Master? Don't know, don't care.

    What a waste of great actors, class all - forcing them to engage in some sort of quasi elevated, quasi profound, but genuinely bizarre ballet that has nothing, nothing, nothing to do with the real life. The movie is three hours plus long only for the given reason - it would have been an hour shorter if had played out at normal pace.

    Oh - and to end here - the biggest dread of all: a hint of a possible franchise. Please, please, please people, for the love of all that's holly. Don't.
  • Anton Pars14 October 2017
    I Know Where All The Energy Went
    Warning: Spoilers
    They say most sequels (and prequels and remakes) are unwanted and inferior and, in my opinion, they are correct.

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

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

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

    Where the story lost me and disappointed was its ending and beginning. Why kill the man who is nothing but a farmer and has been at it for 30 years? Why end the film with having killed an operative, but leaving the arch fiend and his business interests intact and ongoing? I sense yet another sequel coming...
  • KJ Proulx6 October 2017
    Blade Runner 2049 - Movie Review: A New-Age Sci-Fi Classic
    For film fanatics like myself, Blade Runner 2049 is a great film for people to see, regardless if they've witnessed the original or not. On the other hand, if you've never seen the original Blade Runner and are just a casual moviegoer that have thought of the promotion for this film as being an action-packed thrill ride, then I'd have to warn to stay far away from this near three hour motion picture. It's very hard to review this film without getting into specific plot details, but that's exactly what makes this film worth the price of admission alone. For nearly every reason a film fan should be excited about a movie, here is why Blade Runner 2049 is a must see as soon as possible.

    Before dropping you into this world with Ryan Gosling's character, there is text at the beginning that will fill you in on the history of the events in the past, but even though that information is given to you, your experience just won't be the same without having viewed the first film multiple times and remembering the emotional core of it. Set out on a mission to find something of meaning to the overall story, Ryan Gosling's character (who will remain nameless for the sake of this review) uncovers mysteries and secrets from the past, inevitably involving Rick Deckard. Quite honestly, that's the plot in a nutshell and the specifics of the film will lead to ruining your experience, so let's get technical.

    If not for anything else, Blade Runner 2049 benefits from some of the best cinematography I've laid my eyes on in years. From the addition of the seamlessly blended visual effects, to the mind- blowing scenery constructed by the entire art department, I have nothing but praise for this film. Whether or not you find yourself enjoying your experience, the visuals alone should have you applauding, due to their incredibly detailed nature. I personally found the overall film to be magnificent, but when certain scenes were dialogue-free and asking you to gasp at the imagery, that's exactly what I was doing, as I feel many audiences members will.

    Again, without giving anything away, once Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) enters the picture, the way both films sort of interconnect was brilliant in my opinion. It does justice to any loose ends that fans may have wanted in the past, as well as create a new story to gawk at in the process. With a terrifically restrained performance by Ryan Gosling, you'll find yourself sucked into this world as a fly on the wall, as he uncovers these mysteries. With the addition of Harrison Ford giving one of his most sincere and memorable performances, as well as Ana de Armas in a role that really took me by surprise, this film was casted to the nines from beginning to end. Some may complain about Jared Leto and Dave Bautista not being included as much, but I felt as though the served the story quite nicely.

    In the end, this movie aims to impress Sci-Fi fans across the world, but I feel as though the people who will be looking back on this as a possible classic or at least one of the best sequels ever made, are those who've had the pleasure of indulging in the greatness that is 1982's Blade Runner. I don't say this about films very often, especially when talking about sequels, but I haven't been this immersed in a theatrical experience in quite some time. This is definitely a superior film than the original, it's one of the best films of 2017, and I'll be revisiting it very soon. Blade Runner 2049 is getting a lot of praise and awards consideration from critics and filmgoers across the world, and every bit of it is deserved. Aside from being very long, this is pretty much a perfect film if you don't try to nitpick how it connects and certain questions that aren't blatantly answered. If you know what type of film you're in for, or you've at least seen the original and enjoyed it, I can't recommend this movie enough.
  • iemmedibi22 October 2017
    Standing in the shadow of giants.
    Warning: Spoilers
    I broke a taboo and went to see the Film Which Shouldn't Have Been Made, aka Blade Runner 2049. And regretted it.

    Not quite sure which bit was the worst, so I'll start from the good ones. CGI was the biggest player and reaching levels never seen before. Rachael gave me, indeed, the goose bumps. Photography was gorgeous but in many ways not comparable to the original. The 2049 version of Pris was as good as the original, and not because of CGI, which is nice. The BR1-way of nice, which had no CGI.

    Lots of juicy bits to take us for a wonderful trip down memory lane, but all these great bits seem to have been scripted to make a replica(-nt) of the original film. They are not hidden somewhere to let the audience spot them and delight with their discovery. Beside the cameos played by the original actors, the numerous references to the first film are a substantial part of the footage. They are not nuanced, they are slapped in the face of the public in inescapable order: car zooming over LA (check), Pris (check), origami (check), exotic animal dealer in seedy district (double check), PanAm (check), Coca-Cola billboards (check), Atari ads (check). And the list goes on.

    With that out of the way, let's face it, if it hadn't be for the CGI, the cameos and the plagiarism, the film had very little to offer. The soundtrack was horrid; bombastic, droning and uninspired much like Hans Zimmer's previous stuff. The repeating nods to the original soundtrack were coarse and, at the same time, they made his almost bearable. No stupid voice over of the very first BR theatrical version, but a big fat explanation right in the middle of the film, by a one-eyed replicant, in a scene that made me expect Tina Turner appear in leather clothes. Beside the gratuitous explanation, the plot is not as linear as one might expect, but it seems that all the ideas and influences have been, sort of, stitched in a hurry, cramming as much stuff as possible in a film that was already too long.

    The influence of "Her" ( is evident, but while Her had all the time to develop the psychological drama, in BR2049 the same ideas are badly developed, and CGI gets massively in the way, distracting from the drama.

    The first BR blurred the boundaries of good and evil, as much as human and artificial. In BR2049 we have the reappearance of the super villain, much like in a Marvel flick. All the good old stereotypes of Hollywood film making are back, and one is to wonder why the cavalry didn't make it for the gran finale.

    There are also good reasons to dislike the closing scene, which lets the audience leave the theatre with nothing to remember beside the special effects. The film should have ended right on that staircase and let us sink deep in K's existential agony. Which is amplified by its similarities to ours. But no, the scene, which is a bad copy of Roy's death (check), underlined by the same music (check), but not nearly the same pathos, is whisked aside in a hurry, and the happy ending cuts in. OK, Gosling is no Rutger Hauer, but his character had the same potential. Why did his death need to look so unimportant? BR1 led us to question what should be considered human and what is not; it shook our certainties. BR2049 seems to put that boundary firmly back in place: if you are not born, your feelings are just a delusional dream; you are a machine. Period.

    Given the profusion of prequels, trailers and whatnot, we had to endure, it is only to be expected a string of director's cuts. While the first Blade Runner had a history that unfolded throughout its several editions, due to its initial misunderstanding and its later rise to cult status, the repackaging of this one has probably been planned upfront, as a way to stand firmly in the shadow of the original film.

    While Blade Runner inspired generations, I won't be surprised if its sequel will soon be forgotten. As already written by someone else, Blade Runner 2049 looks like a flawed replicant and the only feeling you will be left with is a sense of regret for having wasted three hours of your life.
  • dierregi15 October 2017
    Do tears freeze in the snow?
    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.
  • praymondmurray10 October 2017
    Plot holes so big, they're practically chasms
    Warning: Spoilers
    Please be aware that my review contains spoilers so please do not read further if you do want to have key plot points revealed.

    First things first, I'm a big fan of the original and have enjoyed immensely with each viewing, first from when I was a 10 year old until 2 weeks ago so I was interested to see what Villeneuve would do with the sequel.

    Watched it Saturday and must say the experience left me somewhat underwhelmed and frustrated at seeing such an opportunity to do something original go to waste, that I have decided to post my thoughts here on IMDb for the first time.

    In no particular here are some of my questions and general points about the film.

    Jared Leto's performance. How the hell is he such a high paid star? I cannot think of anything he is particularly memorable and this is no exception.

    His eyes. Are they distracting on purpose?

    If his character saved the world from starvation, how come there aren't millions of people worshiping him? Humans are suckers for finding idols and why shouldn't his character be any different. Crikey, we have dictators in our world who had days and months of the year named after family members.

    Why doesn't he have a massive army organised to hunt down Deckard instead of entrusting this to one replicant and a few goons?

    Monologues giving exposition is lazy storytelling and old Wallace loves a monologue.

    What is his plan? He wants to produce more replicants but kills one at the start for some spurious reason. Hint hint, to show the audience he is a very naughty. He also has the Rachel replicant killed. No wonder he cannot make enough replicants if he keeps killing them.

    Ryan Gosling plays Ryan Gosling again and although I don't dislike his performances, I find it hard to root for his character here, as I've seen it before in a much better film (Drive).

    The music wasn't particularly memorable and only made me think of the much better soundtrack from Bladerunner. Apparently this was intentional on Villeneuve's part as he removed the original composer who wanted to do something original. So instead, the director opted for Zimmer to make it more Bladerunnery and therefore less memorable for this film.

    The film did not merit or need the run-time it had. I appreciate the original BR took its time but it had a new world to show us

    The ending was goofy and ridiculous. Why would K bring Deckard to his daughter who is the most wanted person in the history of want people? This will definitely endanger her given that Leto's character has a relationship with her and probably has her under some sort of surveillance.

    Hero comes back from the dead to say the day cliché at end was extremely predictable and had me rolling my eyes, which I shouldn't be doing the first time I watch a film.

    The blackout sounds like a much more interesting story than this. Caused by replicants? A solar flare? Was there a Trump two term presidency in this universe?

    Robots reproducing and creating their own has already been cover in Battlestar Galactica, who did it in a more compelling fashion with characters and stakes I cared about

    Plus, how come Leto's character hasn't figured out on to get replicants to reproduce? Why can't he produce them faster? How many has he killed before delivering a monologue

    Some of the visuals are stunning though lack depth or colour. The future looks fairly boring in comparison to Bladerunner 1982, which offered some very unusual street shots and characters. One included a guy with a eagle on his head. Nothing to really catch the eye in BR2049.

    Why not have Rachel as leader of the rebellion instead of some random person the audience has no connection with.

    When the capture Deckard, why on earth wouldn't they kill K?

    How did K know how to find the car with Dekkard at the end? We don't see him doing any investigative work to discover this information, despite the long run time.

    They made a replicant clone of Rachel but get the eye colour wrong? Seriously?

    How heavy handed was the prejudice? No subtlety whatsoever. Jeepers, you spend all that money on effects but then go minimum wage on screen writers.

    That sex scene reminded me of Ghost with all the syncing going on. Watching Whoopi do her thing was just as sexy as watching this scene, despite it having two incredibly attractive women present, along with Ryan Gosling who is no slouch himself in the looks department.

    The replicant rebellion feels shoehorned in rather than something which has grown and developed organically. Need to take lessons from Star Wars on how to introduce a rebel alliance story.

    The golden rule of cinema is broken here when they show/play clips from a much better film.

    Critics are only offering gushing praise for a film with considerable flaws because they don't wish to get caught out like the critics of 82. Back they, the critics hated it because they couldn't see the hidden depth, this time they see depth that simply isn't there. Even one of the character says something along these lines to another.
  • ohr-103958 November 2017
    Question: How To Make A Sequel?
    Warning: Spoilers
    The answer? Don't Do It In The First Place!

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

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

    This film was nice to look at, had a good actor (Gosling) in it and a really hot chick which were factors that drew me in. When I put my bum in the seat though I was bored. Booooring. There is no ending and the beginning makes zero sense! The tycoon is making replicants but is killing the ones already there. Blade Runner is retiring replicants, but they are useful and peaceful. Rachel is back (yup its Boring Wars: the face awakens all over again) via CGI, but why? Nobody knows.
  • kaefab8 October 2017
    this movie should never have been made
    Warning: Spoilers
    The first movie (which should have stayed the only movie) is a masterpiece of sci fi. I was hooked from the start great story and for the time great FX also cannot beat the soundtrack by Vangelis.

    Not sure what is going on with Ridley Scott first with is Alien Convenant he destroyed the series there and now with the new addition of blade runner.

    I feel that all the positive reviews for this movie are fake, because the movie is a sad excuse to make money and makes no sense at all, no surprised it failed this weekend at the box office.

    The acting is good so are the special effects, but the story is weak and none existent, Tyrell corporation is gone and there is a new company that makes the replicans, and tyrell had found a way for them to reproduce and have babies.

    This is where the story gets weird, Deckard is brought back into the mix because he had a child with Rachel.

    The movie also lack action and in the end does not explain anything. I felt like a huge waste of 2h and a half.

    35y in the making for this wow just wow.
  • teamonkey10 October 2017
    Dull without suspense
    Warning: Spoilers
    The original Blade Runner is one of my favourite films so I was really looking forward to this one. What a disappointment. If I wasn't in the company of others I would of walked out early. I left the cinema feeling annoyed that I had to sit through this overlong monotonous film. The storyline is dragged out with the main character just going from place to place to investigate something like in a video game. At the beginning he is in a fight scene and you find out he is basically indestructible. The replicants are now terminators. This leaves out any suspense that he is in danger. The first film was kind of believable, the city was overcrowded and the building were decaying - it had atmosphere. This one looked like a more modern city with a lot of emptiness. The technology has advanced so much that he now has a solid light fully realistic AI holographic companion that operates from a small device he can keep in his pocket. If you think about it why are they so desperate to increase replicant slave labour production when they are capable of building AI robots that can be enveloped with holographic light to look human. They still have the blurry 1950 TV quality monitors to echo the first film but the supposed technology jump does not make sense. The music by Vangelis was one of the most important parts of the original. He conveyed through the use of synthesisers and traditional instruments a sense of awe and wonder, beauty and the sadness of a dystopian world. Johann Johannsson was originally commissioned to score the film and I think he would of done a great job but they decided for some reason it was not Hollywood sounding enough so they bought in Hans Zimmer. What a disaster. It might as well be the music from Batman VS Alien. Just lots of loud noise. The original was a box office failure that became a cult classic. This is just a failure.
  • FabledGentleman3 October 2017
    One of the best sequels of all time
    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.
  • sterlingfu8 October 2017
    Not a good movie...just people/business hyping it up better than it is for $$$
    Warning: Spoilers
    I always gave the original Blade Runner 10/10. Seen it a over a 1000 times including at the movie theater. Good pace, visuals, music, likable characters, bad guys. Yup, pretty much everything. One of my top 10 movies of all time. This review for 2049 is not because it should be the same thing or make it over the top.

    OK now this Blade Runner 2049. Bad boring. Where nothing really means much. Unlikable characters, music is "meh" nothing unique(A poor version of the original_. Bad people in this, who cares? Bring us back with someone who is actually a threat(like Roy). We have some stupid terminator woman who really just flat out sucks. Poor casting. Jared Leto sucks. Yeah, he really does. Then you have the black guy with a cane from walking dead, who talks to everyone sideways. Who talks to people sideways? Why did you cast him? I've never see someone in any other movie, show or real life talk to people when they are not looking at them. Fail!!! I thought it was stupid in walking dead and now its really stupid. Plot is blah. Oh, it's also like a journey for Ryan Gosling to go from one Cameo to another with another boring scene. Not much vocab, emotion. Even Roy in the original had TONS of emotion and even had poetry at the end when he decided to turn a corner and save life instead of destroying everything in his path.

    Harrison Ford is just an old man in this(sorry to say). Think it's time to retire. Did nothing in this film except hold a gun in Ryan's face and get captured with handcuffs.

    Do not believe the hype, not a good movie.
  • Nikolaos Stampoulopoulos8 October 2017
    A sleek, expensive and obedient skin-job
    Blade Runner (1982) was a happy (yet gloomy) accident, involving: a) a young and ambitious director who fought ferociously with studio executives in order for them to let him fulfill his vision; b) a rising blockbuster star who wanted to prove he can also act in a serious movie; c) a crazy Dutch actor who decided to change the script and improvise one of the most memorable monologues in film history; d) a bunch of talented artists who wanted to make a movie that would look and sound different from anything else we had seen before. And most of all, e) a post-Vietnam turbulent era when Hollywood rebels like Coppola, Scorsese and Cimino were audaciously attempting to reinvent the language of cinema, telling stories that mattered and not caring at all about target audiences and marketing trends. As a result, Blade Runner was a box office failure that slowly became a legend, breaking stereotypes like "good guy kills bad guy at the end" and dealing with existential agony on an almost metaphysical level; always within the context of a gritty corporate dystopia in the near future.

    Blade Runner 2049 is none of these things. On the contrary, it's the flawed triumph of a next generation of studio executives, who control the creative process by paying millions to the industry's best of the best, providing they will make something that will take advantage of a successful brand name in order to bring profits to shareholders. If there is one word to describe this movie, it's "replicant". Not the kind of replicant who realizes that "all those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain" as he dies, but a sleek, expensive and obedient skin-job that will try to entertain you and if it succeeds will return as a sequel that will eventually become yet another franchise. I spent 160 minutes of my life watching a pleasant and perfectly constructed piece of nothing, and I didn't care for a moment about any of the characters or a storyline that was designed without the intention to question and redefine a single thing. All its moments have already been lost in my memory, while the original Blade Runner remains vivid in my mind, as if I only saw it yesterday.
  • JoeB1318 October 2017
    Boring, missing the point of the original
    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.
  • Tim 53527 October 2017
    A Long Wait for Disappointment
    Warning: Spoilers
    In 1982 I was deeply excited about the prospect of seeing "Blade Runner," and can remember applying for a chance to see an advance showing in Sacramento. From the start it seemed obvious that it was a special film--clouded in controversy and mystery. Later I acquired my much-viewed VHS copy, with all the eye-gouging, nail-puncturing violence. Later still the Internet provided background information as, eventually, did articles plus a comprehensive book by Paul M. Sammon. In short, I am a fan, and was eagerly anticipating the sequel.

    So, it was with disappointment that I left an October 6, 2017 showing "Blade Runner 2049." Overly long, boring, poorly paced, and confusing were my initial impressions, though admittedly it was beautifully filmed (potential Oscar nomination in cinematography?).

    I appreciated the many (too many?) subtle and not-so-subtle nods to the original film, the effort to build on the "Blade Runner" universe, and efforts by writers, directors, and actors to bring the story to life. But there were just too many scenes that should have been reduced in length from 25-50% of their run time. Such excess in a film is, to me, almost always a fatal flaw. And some scenes (e.g., where characters "Joi" and "Mariette" merge to make love to "K") could have been cut altogether, I feel, without harming the story.

    The acting was satisfactory or better, for the most part, as one would expect from the level of supporting talent.* However, I have knowingly seen two pictures starring Ryan Gosling—2016's "La La Land" and now this—and in both he is bland and wooden. Despite the fact that "2049's" "K" is SUPPOSED to be a self-controlled, artificial humanoid, I wonder if it is just Gosling's natural on- (and off-) screen persona. And frankly, Harrison Ford's "Deckard" just did not work for me. Sacrilegious, I know; but true. I blame this on two factors.

    First, Ford appears (too) late in the movie, by which time I was already exhausted by tedium. Second, for a character without appearance-changing makeup, a dramatic accent, say, or pronounced behavioral distinctions, it is hard not to just see Harrison Ford. (Kind of like Robert Redford miscast in 1985's "Out of Africa.") Oh, it's (old) Harrison Ford again. Sorry HF fans everywhere.

    And another thing; due to poor direction, they included "Admiral William Adama" (Edward James Olmos) from TV's "Battlestar Galactica," and not "Gaff" (also Olmos), in a too brief cameo. (Listen to "Gaff" in the 1982 original. Totally different voicing.)

    Like most films, it suffered from its share of "Oh, come on!" moments. Why would 6-foot "K" allow 6-foot-6 Dave Bautista's imposing "Sapper Morton" to make the first move (and thus begin the accumulation of a ridiculous amount of damage, most of it unnecessary, sustained by "K" throughout the story)? Because that's what movie detectives do. I must say, "K" apparently likes to pass violently through solid walls (a nod to Rutger Hauer's "Roy Batty" head in the original, I take it).

    Almost all action-adventure films are silly in hindsight and full of movie plot clichés—"Blade Runner 20149" is no exception. But the test of a good movie is whether the story flows at a pace that makes audiences subconsciously accept and even relish these otherwise nonsensical encumbrances (see 1999's "The Matrix"). For my part I was less inclined to give "2049" a pass on the silliness due to its plodding nature.

    Ridley Scott is prominently associated with both the recent "Alien" and Blade Runner" franchises, and has promised multiple sequels. Do we want this? Is state-of-the-art movie-making worth either ridiculously poor stories (the "Alien" franchise) or bad plotting and editing ("Blade Runner 2049")? It's admittedly hard to make a good movie, but Scott and his people are paid a LOT of money to do so. Check Scott's IMDb filmography. Can any mortal be involved first-hand in that many projects? As with Stephen King, maybe it's time to pare down the quantity and re-focus on the quality? Just saying…

    In conclusion, my disappointment focused primarily on the script and editing.**

    Some recommendations to potential viewers: First, if you plan to see "Blade Runner 2049" it will help to see one of 37 versions (e.g., voice-over or no voice-over?; graphic violence shots or not?) of the original 1982 film beforehand. Second, maybe wait to watch the movie digitally, so that you can re-play key scenes and increase volume on important dialogue. In the theater I kept mentally reaching for a non-existent remote control. Third, (after Recommendation One) if like me you hold the original picture in deep admiration as a flawed but intriguing analog masterpiece of SF movie-making, consider skipping this sequel altogether. But I imagine that warning will fall on deaf ears.


    * Because of the look and feel of two female characters in the film, I wonder if actresses Felicity Jones ("Rogue One") and Tatiana Maslany ("Orphan Black") were originally considered for the parts eventually played by Ana de Armas (companion hologram "Joi") and Sylvia Hoeks (deadly replicant "Luv"). While watching the trailer footage, I originally mistook those two characters for actresses Jones and Maslany. Their doppelgangers did just fine, though. Hoeks' "Luv" is particularly chilling.

    ** Oh, and the music! Not so good. Too often I was aware of background music--that by itself is not a good thing--and its shortcomings. So much so that by the end of "2049," where original "Blade Runner" music ("Tears in the Rain," I think) is (finally) used, it left me with mixed feelings. First, thank god! Second, where was that musical excellence during the rest of the film? Music can make or break a film, and is incredibly important. Few excellent films have poor musical soundtracks. Unfortunately, "Blade Runner 2049" is not an exception to that guideline.
An error has occured. Please try again.