User Reviews (2,456)

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.
  • 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
    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.
  • 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.
  • 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 ...
  • 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
    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.
  • I shall be brief: For a film that has all the possibilities of being a truly dramatic exercise in story-telling, this sequel is slow, slow, slow, the endless tedium interrupted occasionally by scenes of brutality and pain. I managed to stick it out only to check and see if Sean Young was used here as Rachel. My biggest disappointment, however, was with Jared Leto ,one of my favorite actors. I thought his performance here was listless and wholly without passion. He can do much better than what he gives us in this broken-down wreck of a movie. As for the rest of the performances, they were not memorable although I must admit that it was amusing to see Harrison Ford so deeply immersed in his role.
  • iwalrus8 August 2021
    Not a bad film but too long and drawn out. The idea was well executed but it would have been tighter if it was 30 minutes shorter.

    Good photography, special effects and acting and also good to see Harrison Ford in the movie.

    Some twists thrown in, keeping the viewer guessing who is good and who is bad.
  • This is one more of those bad movies, but not the worst, that just like all oscars lasts so long if not the longest time this one, almost 3 hours, so yeah, a huge time waster and tiring and boring to watch. Unclear story, nonsense, and lack of logic. Only bit good things are few earthly (humane) things such as father daughter relationship and man woman relationship, job, vehicles, robots, bit of spiritual or religious philosophy. Bit hot women, bit emotions, bit moral, bit high presence of filth, fashion, technology. But the lack of clarity, unreality, and long time makes this not worth watching. Just bit good associations to better things, better movies.
  • Blade Runner 2049 plods through a hollow plot line that ultimately abandons the dystopian warning of the first movie, and ends up feeling more like advocacy for transhumanism than anything else, which is a complete turn around. Not only does that turn around not make any sense, it also robs the movie of any sort of dramatic tension, and renders the science fiction setting as obsolete. This is a shame, because the production value is high, and with a better script it really could have been something.
  • christiancarden27 September 2021
    4/10
    meh
    The large empty echoing sets and long drawn out repetitive silence haunts this beautifully shot sequel. Interesting story but nothing that captures your attention beyond the fan service.

    This can be a good thing, as the original is also inundated with the same, in my opinion, flaws.

    This movie lacks balance between the "art" it's trying much too hard to be, and the rich and beautifully potential-filled world it's set in.

    Also... could have done without the "comic book" villains... less is more, more is annoyingly cheesy.

    This was like batman forever meets dune. A shame.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    i cannot believe these ten star comments, first the visuals were mostly flat, there was no explanation why in this time there were virtually no people around, one scene only with about thirty extras, no lights seems to be on either in the shots were he is flying over the city. more importantly you had a very thin plot that could have been told in less than an hour. nothing happens for most of the film. it is as if all concerned were on valium. the music was just noise. talk about an anti-climatic ending, the film just whimpers out. none of the very little plot made any sense. so here we have yet again critics raving about nothing. an insult to the original in every way. do not waste your time or money going to see this. i was going to list the many non-sensical things in the film but on reflection i don't think the film deserves anymore of my time
  • 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.
  • As a fan of the original, even the cinematic release with the narration, I was excited to hear about a sequel. But this movie stinks. Plodding, slow, long, pretentious, convoluted and boring. Several left the cinema at various stages but I soldiered through to the end, although I admit I nodded off a couple of times. I don't understand the rave reviews, perhaps there are two versions on release or maybe those reviewers are those that think a Batman film is the best ever made.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Here's the long-awaited sequel to the Ridley Scott hit, but unfortunately it ended up in the hands of director Denis Villeneuve instead - a man I find criminally overrated after the threesome of PRISONERS, SICARIO and ARRIVAL all failed to impress me. BLADE RUNNER 2049 is similarly glacial in its construct, with the director seemingly unable to inject any warmth into his film whatsoever. As such, the performances feel artificial (maybe that was the intent) and you don't really care about any of what you see. Harrison Ford's the most interesting thing in this, and it's criminal to make the audience wait two hours to meet him again. Elsewhere, the endless CGI scenery is admittedly beautiful, but the plot is surprisingly slight - reminiscent of ANGEL HEART at times, but weaker. Watch it for the visuals if you must, but otherwise this is weak sauce compared to the first.
  • Great acting, Great general concept, Great effects and lighting and completely butchered. So incredibly slow and obvious, no real heart at all.............. It's a movie about connection that just doesn't connect.
  • I felt the same way about "Blade Runner 2049" as I did Ridley Scott's 1982 original: it's slow, ponderous, and portentous.

    The dystopia has been ratcheted up a notch in this sequel set just around the corner. My office can't even figure out how to get video conferencing to work consistently, but we're supposed to have flying cars by 2049? We'd better hustle.

    Denis Villeneuve directs at a funereal pace to give us one long, sustained note of sci-fi gloominess. This is the kind of film in which characters don't speak lines, they recite maxims. Where scenes begin with some mad genius monologuing in an attempt to imbue what really should just be a pulpy noir with philosophical import. Every single frame of this film is calculated to make its audience feel like there's more significance than there actually is, and it's too self- consciously aware of its own effects, as if you can hear someone off-camera saying, "ooohhh, look what our visual effects team has done here." All of the actors have been asked to make their faces as blank as possible and speak in emotionless monotones, as if Villeneuve is daring them to have fun. All of these things were wrong with the original film as well, but instead of learning from the mistakes of the past, Villeneuve has set out to reproduce them. He's done too good a job.

    Grade: C-
  • ...that's a very bad sign. Or maybe it's because I'm a big fan of 'Blade Runner'. I don't really know. There are movies I just saw once, some dating back 30-40 years ago, that I remember vividly. But this 'sequel'? I watched it less than a year ago and I don't remember a single scene. Not recommended.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I never was one of those people asking for a Blade Runner sequel. Now that Blade Runner 2049 is out, my position still stands. This film is simply a massive letdown and nothing more.

    The year is 2049 and the world has grown in technology, but not humanity. Ryan Gosling plays K, a Blade Runner (a futuristic cop) tasked with tracking down the last of the Replicants-androids that look like humans. Knowing that he himself is a replicant, he goes on a journey of his own when he finds a box containing the bones of a Replicant who gave birth to a child and is tasked with finding the child. Little does he know that the new head of the Tyrell Corporation that makes the Replicants, Mr. Wallace (Jared Leto), plans to use the missing child for his own purposes and kill K if he has to.

    My main problem with the film is that it was unforgivably boring. The film is two hours and forty-five minutes long, which is already enough to test one's patience (and bladder), but it feels so deliberately paced; the characters almost always move so slow, that it feels like the filmmakers thought that it was the best way to pad out the running time, despite having not enough material to justify it.

    The performances range from great to laughable. Harrison Ford is hardly in the movie, and his inclusion is clearly a marketing ploy, but he gives the best performance in his brief running time and he feels like a continuation of his character from the original, Deckard, in a world where things have just gotten worse. Gosling isn't bad as K, and his stone-face actually is pretty effective in a couple of scenes, but Rutger Hauer in the original gave his Replicant character more of a personality. Leto is trying and failing to bring a degree of menace as the villain, and his female Replicant sidekick competes with him in the field of phoning it in.

    What else shocked me was how unsubtle the film was. The original was not only a futuristic crime noir that had Harrison Ford's Deckard chasing down androids, but also a personal journey involving himself and Rutger Hauer as the villain that involved trying to find a degree of humanity in such a futuristic world, and that maybe, Deckard is a replicant himself. Here, the story is mainly of Gosling trying to come to terms with the fact that he is a Replicant and what it means in terms of his humanity. Whereas in the original, there were subtle signs, images, and bits of dialogue that hinted at Deckard's purpose in the original, everything is spelled out for the audience to the point that old bits of dialogue are repeated thrice at important moments. It doesn't respect the audience's intelligence at all. The first and final thirds of the film are mainly filled with dialogue that is basically speeches that preach ideas about conflict and the ethics of machines, but hardly any of it is explored in an interesting fashion. What's worse, the film feels so empty and devoid that for a time, I forgot what K's objective was.

    What I will say is that the cinematography is beautiful. There are a lot of colorful images with ancient ruins and futuristic tech in the background and foreground that could easily pass as being part of an art gallery. The only downside is that there is too much gray in some shots and it feels too clean compared to the original.

    Why Warner Brothers and Sony wasted their time making this film, I have no clue. Maybe it was Ridley Scott's fault. After being unimpressed with his Alien: Covenant earlier this year (and was also quite the snooze-fest), watching this only proved to me further that Scott just doesn't care about good filmmaking anymore. Denis Villeneuve is clearly an ambitious director, but his style didn't feel completely right for this film. Clearly, in a film that tries so desperately to say much more humanity than its predecessor, it comes out feeling empty and feels less human than the original did.

    P.S. A lot of people have accused me of being too shallow and wanting this film to be more action packed. I do not have that mindset. I enjoy films that take their time as much as the next film enthusiast, but this one just didn't do enough to justify what it was aiming for. I'm not ashamed in expressing my opinion. Just let me be clear on something: going at a slow, deliberate pace and speaking lines of preachy dialogue does not, I repeat, does not equal intelligence. The positive reviews baffle me, especially on Rotten Tomatoes. Sony owns the company, which leads me to think that maybe it bribed more than a few critics in the hopes that more people would see it. Clearly, that is backfiring and I'm happy that people are rejecting it.
  • There are some movies that get made that should never be diluted by a sequel. This movie is one of them. Following in the footsteps of his absolutely terrible Arrival (The aliens don't understand our concept of time. Five minutes later it's we'll be back for your help in 3000 years). Dennis Villaneuve's Blade Runner 2049 is too long, too dull and too derivative of the original. A sequel that's based on what I feel is a lame story line (which I can't give away simply because it's a major spoiler). While the look of the film is in line with the original, if not dirtier, the movie itself really goes nowhere. I can see why it bombed at the theaters. It really isn't for anyone who's not a fan of the original. It's another in Ridley Scott's recent line of failures (even though he only produced it. It want's to be a smart movie, but honestly, the only smart movie I've seen recently is Ex Machina, which was brilliant, something this movie isn't. There are parts that were interesting, but overall the entire film just plods from scene to scene. Ryan Gosling's inability to emote doesn't help this. Nor does waiting nearly 2/3rds of a too long run time for Harrison Ford's Rick Deckard to show up. I have to say that I wasn't looking forward to this film and now that I've seen it, I'm disappointed.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Blade Runner never needed a sequel, it is a perfect standalone film, and if it had to happen I think the writers should have been bold and done something new and original with the world rather than relying on the first film to drive the narrative. Ultimately it all just feels a bit hollow.

    I think this would have worked entirely more successfully if the story had been about Ryan Gosling's character pursuing an unrelated case. The opening sequence and fight is fantastic and Gosling was great but as soon as Harrison Ford arrived, all the promise of this film dies, and leaning into weird religious writing where Deckard and Rachael have had a miracle child doesn't do justice to those characters or the original film.

    I've also got to mention Jared Leto who inserts such interminably long pauses between every word he says that he very quickly becomes beyond irritating and probably accounts for most of the bloated runtime. Apparently Gary Oldman was considered for Leto's role and I think he would of been far more convincing as the 'creator' character

    What we get here looks like Blade Runner and sounds like Blade Runner but it just mimics all the elements and falls short, just like the recreation of Rachael in the story. If this was the intent, then it's too pretentious and meta for me.
An error has occured. Please try again.