omg, what a beautiful film. A bit long at nearly 3 hours but it was captivating. I do like how Denis Villenuva knew how much fans were scrutinizing him and could feel the pressure from it and used it to make a great film. They used the right amounts of characterization and mystery and it was jsut slightly less noir than the original. Then there's Hans Zimmer's score which paid great homage to Vangelis. It was funny because the score was a lot of this in the film: "Oh, wow, what a pretty--WWWUUUAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!"
I'll be seeing this tomorrow. The vast majority of film critics are heaping praises on this film and last I checked it had a 98% rating on Rotten Tomatoes!
It sucks though that they couldn't get Vangelis to score this film.
Can't wait to see it. I read that some old faces appear, not just Deckard's. And thankfully while Deckard is integral to the plot, he's not the sole focus. I love Ford, but the movie should have enough link to the original to be thought provoking without being just another overdone tie-in.
Oh, and no, don't see Director's cut, see the original version if you can find it. The Director's cut spits on some of the lore. You'll find the versions hotly contested if you look around. =)
The original theatrical release has that HORRID narration. Goodness no. Scott's vision of the film is better represented by the director's cut. Bladerunner was never a movie made by lovers of the story on which it was based. Scott thought it was a bad story to make a movie on.
I like the 1982 film, that's all I need. Don't care what it was intended to be or not, what was made was done, and any changes thereafter are revisionist history.
Narration vs. screwing up the story... I'll take narration. I deny Scott's add-on nouveau vision.
Agreed. Far better and you learn more about the world. Adds atmosphere, even in Ford's monotone people complain about. In fact, because of it.
Saw the new movie and have a lot of thoughts about it. It was good for sure, but hardly called for 2 hrs 45 mins or so. Not bad, but not nearly as atmospheric as the original. Well cast IMO. Glad I saw it, but given the choice of seeing one of these movies in the future, I'll still watch the original. Got stuck seeing it in 3D. Nice job of 3D, but it didn't add anything. After a while you don't even notice. Many more thoughts, but I don't want to spoil anything. It's worth seeing in the theater, but lower expectations a bit.
Its a great movie. Definitely a worthy sequel to the original classic and an excellent movie on its own.
Definitely a little bit disappointed to see a mostly empty theater. Its people like us killing excellent sci fi movies in a way. They are going to go the way of flight sims when we keep nitpicking really good sci fi movies to death. Its already far less of a draw the summer super hero popcorn movies for a general crowd.
Pretty soon all we will get will be disney formulaic sci fi movies at this rate.
I supported it by going to see it and talking about it. Nothing wrong with some criticism. There are things I liked a lot, but that can't be talked about without major spoilers. There are also reasons it doesn't look the same, a lot has happened on their timeline. In general, this is one of the best sci fi sequels. This is nothing like the Prometheus travesty. There are elements of the story that bring questions about "what is life" like the original, but done in a different way entirely.
There were 4 of us in the theater, but then we went to the 1:30. That plus being 3d and 10 min after the regular version might explain it. Our theater is never packed though.
In my opinion the Final Cut is the best one. I don't like the voice-over at the beginnning. There is nothing of substance in it that you couldn't observe through the film. The Director's cut pushed the balance of Deckard's identity too much in one direction, the Final Cut reverses these changes. Therefore I think that it is the best option. The 1982 US theatrical release was horrid, the European theatrical release tolerable, but either way the Final Cut addresses points that I didn't like about the other versions.
I haven't seen the new one yet. I would still recommend watching the original because it is one of the few all-time classics in science fiction that still holds up very well for a 1982 movie. It's also a solid Noir film if you like that genre, and I guess it was the first film in cinema (at least the first that was moderately popular at the time) that addressed fundamental questions about artificial intelligence that has become somewhat of a staple ever since. Back then it was original for cinema (not for science fiction, the writers had that topic covered well before, though not necessarily Philip K. Dick in the original novel; the film is a rather loose adaptation). I think that knowing the Blade Runner massively shapes/shifts the perception of films like Ex Machina, which is another example why it's worth watching it. Likewise the Battlestar Galactica reboot would have been unthinkable without the Blade Runner as a conceptual forerunner.
This is just one of the many, many examples where quality often does not equal commercial success. Why didn’t BR 2049 have more mass appeal? First of all, the original film was never a commercial success until about 10 years after initial release and secondly, BR is very much a thinking man’s hard sci-fi which we know does not really sell. What sells much more is action oriented sci-fi.
Sorry, but I would give it 2/10........won’t divulge reasons for fear of spoilers for people that are yet to watch it. I think the biggest problem is that it was built up so much but in my opinion nothing greater than average.
2 out of 10 seems hardy realistic. That seems like an opinion based on "what I don't like can't be good", not "it was average" ; average would be 5/10, innit?
Plan 9 from Outer Space would be about a 3/10 for me- it's at least laughable while you have a drink with pals.
What you're saying is that Bladerunner 2049 is a worse film than 'Son of the Mask' and 'Leonard part 6'. That's pretty bold.
2 out of 10 seems hardy realistic. That seems like an opinion based on "what I don't like can't be good", not "it was average" ; average would be 5/10, innit?
Plan 9 from Outer Space would be about a 3/10 for me- it's at least laughable while you have a drink with pals.
What you're saying is that Bladerunner 2049 is a worse film than 'Son of the Mask' and 'Leonard part 6'. That's pretty bold.
Not really.....yeah, 5/10 could be classed as average but my point is that the film has been built up so much that it becomes more of a disappointment for me. Given that I saw some review scores of 98% etc. (Rotten Tomatoes) and many others above 90% without reading the content as I didn't want to spoil the story before I saw it just made it more of a let down. I've never seen 'Son of the Mask' so can't comment but it's totally subjective....all I'm saying is that I was massively disappointed and because everyone seemed to have built it up so much I was massively unimpressed and found the story quite boring. Given the original, there is so much more they could have done with it and taken it many different places. It was probably too long, only gaining momentum when Harrison Ford entered the scenes and was just so drawn out that it became quite monotonous.
RT is pretty much worthless, reviews mean very little to me. Most of the movies and games I enjoy the most get poor reviews. I don't watch for art, I like what I like. LOL I agree though, it was built up a lot, and considering how much I love the original, I didn't need even more.
The good: - Visually (and soundtrack wise) a match with the original BR. - Story-wise a reasonable extrapolation from the original's premises
The bad: - The story's premise stretches by suspension of disbelief - Tyrrell got something working that they can't do now? - Next, there's no real investigation happening - which is bad for a Noir film where the investigation is the pivotal point of the whole plot. - There's an utterly useless story element about that holographic girl. - Worst of all: Deckard suddenly drops his paranoia level for no reason Mild
("You're dead now. Go see her." - WTF, they left no body behind, not even "an explosion that nobody could survive" - in short, no justification whatsoever to assume it'd be safe now to drop cover.)
I'm sorry, but that's the kind of needless plot hole that Hollywood execs rip into the fabric of a story, just so they can insert a hook for a sequel. I suppose one could also complain about Hollywood whitewashing as there are no Asian characters in the whole film, and it's supposed to be the LA of the future. I don't pay that much attention to these questions normally - but it's true, and the original did not make such mistakes.
I'd give it a C for effort, although it was a needless effort to begin with - sad!
Only you can decide that......go and watch it, just dont expect it to be the best film of the year as it seems to be portrayed.. Many people like/rate it.
The effects are good, it's definitely a slow-burner and certainly not old-school.....not so much dialogue heavy although most scenes only have 1 or 2 people actually in them......there's nothing really anything to gauge how politically correct it may or may be unless you want to debate how the future may or may not look based on what we're doing to the planet currently and how that may shape our future
I went to see it with co-workers right after we finished our shift. There were six other people besides our group of five, it was an early showing around 4PM (3D version only for that showing). Personally I am a huge fan of Blade Runner and for some odd reason I really enjoyed the original US - Voice Over version of Blade Runner (1982). I have all the versions in Blue Ray and enjoy each one as well. Blade Runner 2049 was beyond what I expected. I had some hope that Denis Villeneuve would do justice to the Blade Runner universe after watching "Sicario" back in 2015. His method for visuals and style had me hooked. Villeneuve placed similar artistic brush with BR 2049. The soundtrack gives his visuals a "fourth dimension" of immersion to the story, it had me by the gut provoking an emotional response in some parts of the story. It is one of the very few movies that I would pay again to see it in the theater (even at high priced Cinebistro theaters). I also played the 1997 Blade Runner game from Westwood Studios back in the day. Here is the full run of the game (3.5 hours worth) if you wish to remember it, it was ground breaking for it's time 20 years ago. The game can be downloaded from the U.S. digital archives and played on Win10 x64 :
NOTE: It appears that some things from the game story were reflected on the BR 2049 movie.
Just got back home from seeing this and I thought it was absolutely brilliant. However, I can also see why this movie had limited box office appeal. Did anyone notice how the goop/gel on the newly created replicant who gets stabbed by Jared Leto looks just like the gel that was used for the cylons in BSG? Also, one of the police officers at HQ calls K a "skin job".
How in the heck did Deckard make that mistake saying that the original Rachel had green eyes? Sean Young has brown eyes and you could clearly see that in the original movie.
I was disappointed that Edward James Olmos only had about 1 minute of screen time.
Skin job is what cops called replicants, a derogatory term. That was in the first movie too, or is that what you were referring to? I thought EJO deserved a little more time too, but it might be hard to work in. We need a spoiler thread to discuss.
How in the heck did Deckard make that mistake saying that the original Rachel had green eyes? Sean Young has brown eyes and you could clearly see that in the original movie.
I'm willing to give the script a pass. It could eaqually well be argued that
Deckard remembered her eyes very well, and felt that she was a perfect match, then realized that he was in danger of giving in/becoming emotionally compromised. So he just says that she had green eyes, for the more or less predictable reaction by the corporate overlords; it is their impatience that saves him.
What did you guys think of Jared Leto's performance? I thought he played a creepy megalomaniac quite well. Having said that, I think Tyrell was a better written character and Joe Turkel was just brilliant in that role. I don't think any other actor could have played that role at his level.
Why is there always a need for Harrison Ford to throw in some "humor" in his movies? I was expecting Deckard and got Han Solo. I don't remember any humor from Deckard in the original. Leave him out of the movie if you're gonna change the character. It seemed to me his character was poorly written just to shoe horn some familiarity and something "safe" into 2049.
Jared Leto's performance reminded me somewhat of Oscar Isaac in Ex Machina. Isaac was more impressive, but he had more screen time. So I'd say "not bad, but also not very remarkable beyond the somewhat stereotypical narcisstic high tech corporate villain".
Also, I must say, this was another example of really bad scriptwriting. The whole motivation for his actions is that he can't build the Replicants fast enough, and that he needs billions of self-replicating docile slaves rather than the millions that he can manufacture. Each replicant is a biological organism based on human DNA. (yet somehow they grow faster and are more intelligent ... well). So, how does he plan to feed them, given that the world seems to be relying on Soylent Green already. This doesn't make sense whatsoever. If he just wants to rule the universe and replace humans with their stupid "own will" and all, well, okay, that might make a bit more sense. But flooding the universe with billions of replicants while not having the food to grow them is absurd.
I agree, the motivation was REALLY thin. How can that be faster than manufacturing? Do they want child replant slave labor or plan to wait 20 years? I have yet to like Jared Leto in a movie. It was interesting seeing him in American Psycho as Bateman's victim I guess.
Why is there always a need for Harrison Ford to throw in some "humor" in his movies? I was expecting Deckard and got Han Solo. I don't remember any humor from Deckard in the original. Leave him out of the movie if you're gonna change the character. It seemed to me his character was poorly written just to shoe horn some familiarity and something "safe" into 2049.
That "Indiana Jones/Han Solo" humor was found on the original BR 2019 as well, it is Ford's trade mark for certain movies. Here he is with his "dorky humor" in the scene when he interviews Zhora:
It cracked me up seeing that holo-billboard for Pan Am. So even in 2049, that airline is still in business in the BR universe.
I saw it as a nod by Dennis Villeneuve to Stanley Kubrick (in this case, 2001).
Well the original film also had a Pan Am billboard so I would say it was Ridley Scott's homage to Kubrick/2001 and Villeneuve just continued the tradition. The funny difference is that Pan Am was actually still in business in 1982 when the original film came out.
What was the deal with the overt Russian influence in 2049 LA? You see Cyrillic written on several buildings including the farm units you see in the beginning of the film. I guess the writers decided to add Russian to the already existing Chinese and Japanese influence we saw in the original film.
I liked Jared Leto alot in "Lord of War." He was also good in "Requiem for a Dream."
Pan Am...they are still in business in a way...they are charter only as of a few years ago. Who know? Maybe by 2049 or even in 2019 they got a corporate bailout?
I can see the Russian influence. At least in Chicago there seem to be alot of Russians and I see the influence here as their popularity and presence is on the rise. I even see trucks advertising that they need drivers in both English and Russian (Cyrillic).