Blade Runner 2049 2017

Let me start this off by saying that this sequel did not feel outside of what we remember.
Blade Runner 2049 maintains the mood and feel of its predecessor. The visuals, the sound... the dystopian future, it's all there.

| FIRST THOUGHT |

I love writing reviews, it comes somewhat naturally to me after watching something that I learn to feel passionate about.
This movie taught me to be passionate.

But... it's really hard for me to express judgment. And I'm going to explain why:

Actually, it's very simple. This was a 3 hours movie. Of these 3 hours, 2 were simply... air. Now, don't get me wrong, that isn't always negative, like in this case. It was refreshing air, but still... it doesn't (at first glance) hold anything on the plot.

Because of this, the viewer (me at least), is left with a lot of questions, the picture doesn't explain itself. Also; as a side note - you most definitely need to watch the first one. The great majority of the runtime is inexplicably useless.

The longer it goes, the longer it begins to add new stuff, and then some, then it seems somehow related to what's actually going on, but right after it deviates the actual story on an ideal from the characters involved, that at a certain point, evaporates. I'm really conflicted about this because it looks to me like the screenwriters and director wanted to leave all of this to theory and the fans.

Why is this confusing? Because it's a very strange mixture of linear narrative and non-linear narrative. One is focussed on one objective, the other starts a bunch of other objectives and then it simply dies. No explanation was given, no closure was given.

And this is aggravated by the fact that it's a 3 hours movie, of which 1 hour of the actual story is spread and mixed amongst 2 hours of absolutely nothing. VISUALLY IMPRESSIVE NOTHING. A VERY INTERESTING BUNCH OF LITERAL VOID.

This is actually the only thing I did not like about the movie. Which, again, if you are like me and enjoy movies that aren't patently explaining themselves, it's not a bad thing. I just feel like it could've been much more interesting if they explained somehow what happened to all the side characters, or just cut them out.

|STORY & ACTORS |

Aside from what I've mentioned before, the more "linear" part of the story is actually not that bad. It's nothing impressive. A part of what I said earlier connects to the fact that this movie constantly keeps juggling between what is real and what is not. Be it by robots, or actual reality that the characters are living. So it came out pretty obvious that the movie would have a twist at some point, somewhere. I will admit that I did not get it until the very end, so, don't be discouraged.

Ryan Gosling was great, also because he as an actor was perfect for his role. Being so that he has this way of being and looking conflicted, and so it portrayed really well on the protagonist.

Harrison Ford had less value to this movie than he did in the last Star Wars.

Jared Leto's character is a mystery to me, but he did a phenomenal job talking random shit.

All of the other actors, Jared Leto included, were there to push the story forward (or to add random bullshit) and that's it. They did a fantastic job, but unfortunately, as mentioned above, at first glance it looks like they don't mean shit.

| CINEMATOGRAPHY |

The movie is visually pleasing, it's bliss for people with OCD. It's perfectly round and at the same time perfectly square. It keeps smooth lines combining great color combinations in the palette, and utilizing great solid colors at the same time.

As I said before it holds perfectly a spot near its predecessor, the mood and feel are almost identical. (Having watched the first one only an hour before going to the theater to watch this one)

I have to say, this one looks A LOT, like A FUCKING GIGAZILLION LOT more gruesome and splatter than the first one. The fighting scenes are brutal, they do not go into dramatic effects, they just are what they should be. A punch in the face, exploding heads and blood.

There is no doubt that this movie looks fucking amazing.

It sounds amazing as well. It has a collection of deep, pure sounds. There is not a lot of music, but when there is it's powerful and present and it makes you wake up and amaze. Same goes for the special audio effects: I have watched it in ATMOS and I have to admit, they did not utilize it at all, except for one scene later in the movie, but the way it goes from absolute silence to seat trembling sensations it's really amazing. The sounds were so powerful I could literally see the movie screen shake and the subwoofer hit made the whole room shake.

I would also like to add that in the Italian version, you can clearly see that they used "incorrect" words grammatically, they used a lot of anglicisms, I guess they've done that to express how language is evolving? It's actually current of our generation, I see a lot of people adapting English words in Italian, so I was very impressed by that.

| FINAL THOUGHT |
I feel like everyone needs to understand, before watching this movie, that you need a time, a mood and a place perfectly fit to sit for a 3 hours movie that it's going to feel like a 6-hour long journey into colors, shapes, and absolute "living" silence.

This is NOT a Marvel movie, there is action, well-done action, but it's not about action. You need to sit, relax and don't think about time, because, trust me, it's going to fuck you.

Please like my comment if you enjoyed my review, it makes me really happy.

Note that all of this is driven by my personal opinion. If you think I wasn't objective in some of the parts of what I've written, you're welcome to make me notice where.

On Twitter, I review the entire world -> @WiseMMO

Just got back from Blade Runner 2049... Holy Shit! That was awesome. Denis Villeneuve can do no wrong in my eyes after this and Arrival.

I don't want to get into the story too much as it's honestly a better thing to go into this "sequel" with minimal direct knowledge of the sequel's plot (via reviews and such). However, being familiar with the original movie and watching the 15-20 minute anime short Blade Runner Black Out 2022 (made by the director of the anime "Cowboy Bebop") are definitely recommended imo especially as the anime short fills in some holes about the "Black Out" event that is touched upon in this new movie a few times.

As for the movie itself, it is defined by fantastic direction/editing, story and acting. The themes of discrimination between humans and Replicants, what defines humanity, and what is truly "real", standout in this film even in many of the tiny subtle moments. A fantastic performance by Ryan Gosling is without a doubt the standout in and drives this film, to the point where it almost essentially devolves into a single-man epic at times (of course, in a good way). I wish that there could have been a bit more Harrison Ford, but honestly that is just the homer in me talking. In terms of the actual story and flow of the film, his presence was handled beautifully as a perfect supplement to the movie and the more important story at hand (unlike a few of his more recent reboot/remake cameos).

The runtime is a bit long at 2 hours and 45 minutes, but don't let that deter you. I honestly never felt that bored or overwhelmed by it. A few beautiful action scenes and some atmospheric sprawling set pieces are interspersed among the emotional core and chilling dialogue that drive the film to give it a great pace. I could have watched this movie all day.

This is definitely an easy 9/10 for me at minimum. Once I get a little more time, I'm definitely go in for another rewatch (hopefully in XD/IMAX 3D). I also liked how the ending was handled very tactfully, leaving room for the possibility of a sequel, but not hammering it down our throats like it was rebooting a new cinematic universe. I pray that we don't have to wait 35 years for the next one though...

There are plenty of reviews of this film, so here are a few spoiler free heartfelt words of my own, which I hope will help those decide to watch this movie, without worry...

It has been 24 hours since watching the 'Blade Runner' sequel and I still have the same feeling of utter joy as I did walking out of the cinema yesterday. I was so happy that I actually cried, because after 35 years I had finally found my perfect score 10/10 movie. When you see a film that affects you so emotionally that you have tears rolling down your cheeks, then I believe you are witnessing something very special indeed.

True, I am probably biased. The original 1982 'Blade Runner' is my second favourite film of all time - a cult classic that made Ridley Scott in to one of the most respected film makers alive today. The sheer wealth of ideas, the photography, the visual special effects, the sets, the tension, the story, the music and the acting all come together with a passion that, for me, was film making at its' finest.

Hence, when I heard that a sequel was planned, my heart sank. Please, leave it alone, I thought. However, my reservations were slowly pushed away when I heard that most of the team that made the original were on-board to make the sequel. Then, after it was announced that Denis Villeneuve was directing, my confidence grew even more. Alright, let me keep my fingers crossed and believe... which was literally how I was in the cinema yesterday. The lights went down, the music started and...

...within 2 minutes I had goose bumps on my arms and I knew it was going to be fine.

I am here to tell you now that this movie delivers on every level. The pedestal was very high indeed and everyone involved with this sequel should be extremely proud with what they have achieved.

'Blade Runner 2049' is respectful, powerful and smart. The director knew he had a tall order and he manages to bring his style to the next level, creating a science fiction masterpiece.

There were moments when I did not blink for fear of missing something, moments when I was gripping my hand with tension, moments of utter wonder at the visuals, moments of shock and moments of surprise. I was pulled in to this movie like no other I have seen and the 3 hours it lasted was no hardship at all for me... in fact, I didn't want it to end.

Granted, I was sitting in the best seat in the one of the best cinema's in the UK with IMAX and it really helped to literally immerse you in the film. The quality of the picture was simply stunning and the sound was ground shaking without any distortion... and 'Blade Runner 2049' deserves the best possible screen and audio you can buy.

This movie has been crafted with love and skill.

This movie was worth the 35 years wait.

This movie is the sequel we all wanted and hoped for.

This movie is a perfect 10/10 for me and I hope that you all enjoy it as much as I did and will do, again and again.

"I always told you. You're special. Your history isn't over yet. There's still a page left."

Same with Arrival and Sicario, I didn't like this movie as much as other people. Villeneuve is a visually interesting director. The same goes for Christopher Nolan. But both have, in my opinion, the problem with emotions and characters in their movies. In Arrival we had some really bad cliché scientists, Sicario didn't have any interesting characters at all (same old "this is an evil guy, this is a good guy"-type stuff); the worst characters award goes to Inception (no Nolan discussion beyond this, I promise).

When I look at this Blade Runner version, we have the same problem as in Sicario. We have a solid bad character as in Luv (if we count in Mr. Wallace we have two, but was he even a character we cared about? In the end he didn't have much to do anyway, maybe he was in the movie just to implement the new moral system/ideology after Tyrell) and of course the good characters as in K and Deckard. When I look at the original Blade Runner, the sides of good & evil aren't nearly as distinguished as in this movie. Sure, you can say the replicants that want a longer life that threatened other people were the "bad" boys, but here they had their reasons. And in the end of the original one, even the bad ones turned human (or atleast did something we'd call humanistic). This was atleast visionary and why I like the original so much. In the new one? Just a solid, not changing bad character, whose only reason to be bad seems her loyalty to Mr. Wallace and his ideology. This is way behind the moral integrity of the original Blade Runner and mostly just another boring good vs. evil plot without any scope for moral integrity, for humans and replicants alike.

As for replicants and their moral scope, Officer K. didn't seem to even have one at all. Questioning his lifestyle or his side of ideology didn't seem to bother him at all. His character was just too focused on his "who are my parents, are my memories real or not?", so there was no room for him to really change or develop with everything that's happening as the movie continues. In the end, he's just as wise as he was in the beginning without getting somewhere. This is tragic and kinda the point, but did I feel any emotions for him? Not at all, because he wasn't an ambigiuous character to start with. It seems to me that part of the problem and why this movie was made how it is, is that Villeneuve planned from the beginning to do more Blade Runner movies and just touch some themes. So Officer K can just play the role of getting Deckard to the point he his now and in the next movie we could see ideologies crumble (or another boring good guy (Deckard) vs. bad guy (Mr. Wallace)-type story, yawn).

For me, this movie felt like a placeholder for something that could be way deeper and more focused on the philosophical, ethical or moral side of replicants story (which the original movie was). Maybe it was for the sake of more sequels to come (which would be the worst reason in my opinion, the remake and sequel trend in the last few years is just awful for cinema as a unique art form) or also to make it more accessible to more viewers (even with its slow pace, I think Blade Runner 2049 is way more accessible than the original one) Imagine the incredibly long scene with the creepy dolls or the unicorn scene from the original for your "generic" cinema viewer today. I don't think any major movie studio would approve such scenes. Which hurts cinema as an art in the end the most.

TL;DR: The original Blade Runner was a complex movie, Blade Runner 2049 is just overly complicated without getting anywhere (for me).

Okay, so Villeneuve really did the impossible. He took the world of the original Blade Runner and expanded it spectacularly, not only in terms of actual world-building but also by providing viewers with new ideas and topics to discuss, which all resulted in a film I loved even more than the original. Going into the film, I never would have expected the main plot line, yet it made complete sense, and raised many questions that relate to the original's debate over replicant humanity that viewers can debate for years to come. Much like the original, 2049 is a very thought-provoking film, and is especially relevant when thinking of our world today. 2049 touches on current issues like climate change, AI, and living in an increasingly digital world, in very clever ways, all while never seeming out of place in the dystopian setting of 2049 LA. I want to say so much more (!!!), but much like the filmmakers wanted, you really should go into this film not knowing any spoilers.

Speaking of this futuristic world, it's stunning. I read one review that said you could watch this whole film on mute and still be engaged, which is true - I've seen the film now 3 times, and really couldn't point out a single scene that wasn't visually engaging. Roger Deakins really went above and beyond, and like everyone is saying, he absolutely deserves an Oscar for this film. The only place, I thought, where 2049 didn't live up to the original, was in terms of the score. If you love soundtracks/scores like I do, don't think that you'll be disappointed by this film's score, just know that it doesn't compete with Vangelis' work on the original. (The sound editing on this film was pretty stellar however).

So overall - Blade Runner 2049 is amazing, and definitely my favorite film of the year. Denis Villeneuve showed how well he can pull off the "human story in a sci-fi film" in Arrival, and he takes this concept even further in 2049. This film is a must watch of 2017, and preferably in IMAX/3D/the largest screen possible!

Started off good enough enough. I thought this movie could pull off a decent sequel. After an hour the mystery of the child becaming painfully obvious. From then it became a typical hollywood drag of a dog (let's call him Pinocchio Runner) chasing his tail. As I'm waiting for the obvious to happen I remember that the bad guys did some cringey plot revealing monologues in the style of Sunset Beach, but looking like something from a superhero movie (adhere to the demographic?) It was looking bleak and felt dumbed down and boring.
It's fair to compare this to the look of the original as it's setting is simular and it really was a part of Blade Runner. This is less cyber punk and way brighter. It does still have its moments of beauty. Many. The pacing is simular, but the slow pacing of the original was held together with a plot that deveoped and a thick murky atmosphere, which are missing here.
The relationship between Joi and our main guy the serial number was too repetitive and obvious. I liked it at first glance. It looked great on screen. My issue was that the idea and thought provoking behind the relationship was done after a few scenes and the rest, of which there was a lot, felt like filler. The relationship was too linear and uninteresting to demand so much time and in the end it didnt make me feel much for the characters.
Before long there was no new ideas or interesting development in the story. When Gosling finally meets Ford it got worse - not better. The scene in which they meet was boring and silly. I start zoning out. Then... a rescue mission to conveniently take us to the end. Bye now I was completely bored and didn't care about the movie.
This movie didn't need to be made. It didnt feel like the writers wanted to write it. It felt like a cash in. Another cash in.
So it lacks all the main qualities of the original, doesnt stand alone as a good movie, and becomes increasingly boring as it progresses. Least we know Sylvia Hoeks can produce a single tear to roll down a cheek for the camera.

It's very rare and, consequently, quite impressive, that a sequel is able to recreate the same feeling as the original movie, 35 years later, under a different direction. That's exactly what "Blade Runner 2049" did. Excluding the obviously better special effects, this movie is so in tune with the first one that it felt like it was released just a couple of years later; visually and sound-wise, Blade Runner 2049 is that close to its predecessor.

It's slow paced, just like the first one but, unlike many other comments I've read about it, criticising that particular aspect of the original movie, I've always felt that the slow pacing suited very well with the tone of the first movie, and it still works wonders for 2049. This is not a slap in the face, Blade Runner is something that crawls under your skin, slowly makes its way to your brain and then melts with it. It may require some patience from the most restless out there, but if you're willing to invest it in this sci-fi wonder, you'll end up with a very satisfying movie experience.

A special mention goes to the soundtrack, which was one of my favourite parts of "Blade Runner". I've always been a fan of Vangelis' music for the original Blade Runner, it took the whole thing to another level, undoubtedly giving the movie a larger than life feeling. I was very impressed that Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch managed to mimic Vangelis' soundtrack perfectly for 2049, again recreating the very same larger than life atmosphere. Sometimes, the right music is what distinguishes a mere movie from a whole experience.

I have to add that the pre-sex scene was one of the most emotionally disturbing pre-sex scenes I've ever seen in a movie. It was such a powerful scene that I felt i should write a whole sentence about it (without actually saying much, but still).

As it so often happens with sequels to old classics (unfortunately), I was afraid the Hollywood money making machine would make this thing bomb. But I am very pleased (and relieved!) to say that fans of the original movie will surely enjoy 2049, whereas all those people who thought "Blade Runner" was a slow paced borefest might want to look elsewhere, because both movies are clearly not for them.

Please, go watch it in IMAX, if you can, it truly deserves that. That was my only regret.
"Blade Runner 2049" is a modern sci-fi classic, just like the original was, 35 years ago.

I liked most of the movie's tone. Spectacular and beautiful in the empire sprawling dystopia that is / was Blade Runner. Visually stunning, and the 4 hours of the runtime is almost devoted to these superlative, panoramic moments...

Oh, it's just 2h 45m?

The plot is very much attractive and attemptive.

After a few hours of depth, it was okay. 7/10.
If I was charitable.

Its not a good sequel. It's also not blade runner. It is trying very hard to make itself blade runner. It fits together. But, it is going in too different a direction and making different choices.

In ways that should never be attempted, it has rebooted blade runner.

The same problem exists with Ghost in the shell, Ghostbusters, The Force Awakens, etc. The pageantry and spectacular effects are the most important focus, and it destroys the native or originality of the first movie. It's akin to being the archetype of a new trope.

There's a few reboots that improve, but it's a disappointment more profound than a terrible sequel to realizing that a sequel has nothing to do with the first movie. Aliens to Alien, the movie is startlingly different and plays with the same world. Blade Runner 2049 is a different world to the original.

This isn't Fan4stic. It's just... Not a sequel. Too much has changed to be the same world as the original movie.

There are deliberate problems. First world problems, to be sure, and the story is convoluted for effect.

I can't especially pin down why it fails to be a good movie rather than a great one. It has all of the pieces, or some of the pieces of a great, re-watchable, fun and masterful film.

The briefest way to sum up my disappointment is that I don't care about the characters.

The only compelling thing is perhaps Joi the holographic fake girlfriend. And while I think that this is awesome, it is not. I probably should be concerned for the hero, or Deckard. Or anything, anyone else. Nope.

Joi is the least of the significant absurdity. The reality of Joi is something profoundly idiotic. Ie. That the best acting, most emotional and smartest person is the least powerful, and the least human. This is a problem.

If the scenery was a character, it would be the protagonist of the movie. This has actually been attempted with success elsewhere, koyannaquatsi, sic.

Maybe it's just my imagination, or opinion, or A quirk of the length of the movie perhaps. Or just a funny aspect of the direction and production, could the story be told without words? Just scenes and edits.?

Probably.

Other times, it challenges you, especially the preference to rattle the room with ambient bass and ear piercing volume for the emotional experience of the scenery. Does a dead forest require a 97db foghorn-like pulse racing ambience?

It doesn't not work. Audio is pushy rather than subtle. Loud, rather than contrast or matching the power of the visual effects/ landscape.

It's not great. It's not bad. The parts it does badly are choices made. And there's thousands of odd idiosyncrasies. It's a very long movie.

It's just on the cusp of going past the suspension of disbelief. More inconsistencies than plausible or tolerant. As a result of this, you end up pulling the threads with boredom or curiosity. A movie under 100 minutes, you can Suspend Disbelief. At the 150+ minutes mark, the fantasy erodes and it needs to work much harder for coherence.

In an Era where TV can deliver a story with movie quality over 10 to 20 hours, film has to change or choose. Perhaps, choices that were made for the film by someone who doesn't enjoy movies.

Thousands of hours of thought went into this movie, and it bleeds through. When I try to put a finger on the concepts, art, choices and script for a single vision, or a single flaw that underpins the way I don't like it enough to really enjoy this or feel favorable towards it...

Nothing about the movie is inherently bad. You can overtly go into depth into scenes and pull out the hidden details for hours, context and framing etc.

The challenge will be in 5 or 10+ years, to see if someone can make this concept work properly into a better movie, TV series or universe. It is an awesome film to break into pieces, much like Gladiator or Guardians of the Galaxy, to calibrate what makes a movie great and fun.

With some editing, it could be salvaged into a better noir film. More has to go wrong, and the movie would need more characters, etc.

Theres like an hour of filler in the storyline to accomplish... Nothing. The characters chase a red herring, and it takes time. The payoff is that the quest... Is nihilistic. Okay. Awesome.

Perhaps, it comes down to the storyline being rushed, or the twist (cough) being quite a bit mishandled.

The appeal to discourse is vain. Watercooler discussion works if you make good choices and people want more. You don't get this by overlaying and obscuring the plot with a red herring and forget about the wider implications of adding a layer of intrigue that casts infinite doubt into the story.

The elements that gave the twist for Deckard being a Replicant in the original were subtle. It pushed the choice on the viewer to infer more than the movie informed or showed to people. Hence the confusion about cuts and endings, the unicorn, etc.

Now, In its most concise, the replicants are the movie. This is the first problem, of many.

Blade runner focused on the humanity of the characters, their failures and doubts versus the reckless and charismatic replicants, better in every aspect once they could be allowed to be.

This is airbrushed in the sequel.

The other is the artistry and decadence of the settings and locations. Awesome, but amateurish as well.

Amateur in that people don't live in the places created, and never did. There's a lot of brilliant and creative ideas on display, and a botched integration with the world. Things are weathered, in sterile rooms. Lighting is moody, in a clean street, with/without vehicles in the roads. A brothel is next door to a food court with a giant touch screen locker system, which seems like it should be a keyed location. It feels unlike a real location because of the fake and the overt push of the crowds.

And you have tumbled modernist art deco statues in a washed out Las Vegas, but holographic jukeboxes and intact highrises. The reason it looks fake is, people have to make places. Choices. Fund and buy resources. The reason why you don't have an office building with irrigation and water pools is someone has to clean it. Maintain it. And be irritated by it. The Wallace replicants are entirely doll manifestations that also deliver the plot and momentum of the film. This is... Stupid. Not clever. The noir elements don't merge well, the luck needed to process the plot is supra deus ex machinae, there's... Time spent on the silliest of things that do not change the plot in the 4 middle parts. We have 4 middle parts of filler to drive a plot that is being steered.

The directing / storyline choices made are... Curious. Dumb. Gaudy. Pretentious. Self important. Disconnected. Hyped. Overt. Mismanaged. Otherwise, fine. It's not a problem, despite the insanity required to implement. The visual and story choices are styled to make people feel and understand.

You can think of these settings, but it becomes fake and austentatious once built. This overt motif becomes a character in the movie, it does not ever blend in with the background. Hence, amateur.

In some ways, they did the same damage as Ghost in the Shell (2017) attempting modernized Holographic Cityscapes. It is so much more gorgeous, and so much more hollow.

The more significant problem exists with Ghost. The characters were trampled by the budget and the plot inserts. Arguably, the same problem exists with The Force Awakens, that the characters feel forced into the greenscreen and wire work action scenes from unnatural dialogue. Ford Ambles in this movie. A lot. He has his moments, but the insanity of using a cartoon Evil villain in a "billion dollar" movie is incredibly lazy.

Harrison Ford against a non blind, non insane Jared Leto would have connected people to the charismatic and driven ideologue. Nope.

The movie wants to forget subtle and forges a deliberate "fish bowl" motif to the antagonist, a "Desperate" ambitious CEO with a lust for dominance via a replicating replicant workforce. This is the lowest possible point in the movie, because of the way it is presented as... Iconoclast and preachy desperation.

I don't know if I'd give the movie a 9 without Jared Leto, but it seems possible.

I just don't even really care, that's the problem. Every other character, is fine.

Blade Runner 2049 is a film with memorable cinematography that overly depends on the audience to give it meaning.

If you think about which goals a movie sequel should have, expanding the original is a strong contender. To justify its existence, Blade Runner 2049 should update its predecessor's visuals and messages, specially since its story is set 30 years after the original.

Other commenters here (and everywhere else) have already praised cinematographer Roger Deakins, and justifiably so. Deakins did deliver a brilliant work that draws the viewer in and makes the alternate future look lived-in, dirty and unforgiving. This movie is a visual masterpiece and one can easily predict that it will have an influence over new sci fi releases.

However sitting through almost 3 hours of a movie needs more to be justifiable. Are Blade Runner 2049's messages and questions really deserving of all this investment?

Since Blade Runner's release in 1982, many sci fi movies have tackled questions about artificial intelligence and what it means to be real/human with much more emotional resonance. Not that the Blade Runner universe is famous for being warm, but 2049 isn't really bringing anything new to the landscape, neither feelings or conversations. If anything, the film's slow pace and meandering (sometimes redudant) plot overcomplicate its message. Screenwriters Hampton Fancher and Michael Green throw several ideas in the air, hoping at least one of them will stick. One could say it's a sign of respect for the audience, but it only shows a lack of commitment.

The intense attention to visual impact contrasted with an unfocused story results in a self indulgent film, too entranced by its own beauty to care about what its saying. Blade Runner 2049 heavily depends on the audience's nostalgia and projection – you have your own deep thoughts and assume they came from the movie.

So, despite being a feast for the eyes, this movie doesn't earn its running time, making it a hard pass for anyone not in love with the 1982 original.

I enjoyed Blade Runner 2049 a lot more than I did the original one, but it is clear to me that this recent movie is not as impactful in its contributions to the genre.

The story was very nice and interesting. It gripped me right away and I found it a lot more straightforward than the 1982 Blade Runner. I've got very little complaints about the story, except that it did have a lot of painfully slow scenes. In that, it really mirrored its predecessor; I didn't like it there and I did not like it here, but I appreciate the movie maintaining a similar style.
The plot had a right mix of mystery and action. It flowed very well from one scene to the other and it made me curious until the end, while posing interesting philosophical questions.

The cast was phenomenal, and that should be no surprise. Ryan Gosling did great, I really loved his portrayal of K. Ana de Armas as well did a great job portraying an AI. And of course, Harrison Ford reprised his role as a now old Deckard; I've seen discordant opinions about his performance, but I personally think he killed it. Great job.

The cinematography was were this movie really improved upon its predecessor, in my opinion. Los Angeles still had that brutalist and claustrophobic feel, but I enjoyed the choice of colors much more. It really was a treat to the eyes.
The CGI was really good as well, from the overall scenery to the cloned Rachel. I really liked the effects on the holographic Joi, especially in the sex scene. Really, really well done.

I enjoyed the sounds of the original Blade Runner and this one didn't disappoint either. It was in line with the 1982 movie and I really liked that.

In the end, I think Blade Runner 2049 is a better movie than Blade Runner. Though, it can only be so thanks to its ability to build on what the previous one explored. I can recommend this movie to anyone who loved the original without worry. And if you were intrigued but not impressed by Blade Runner, give this one a shot, it might surprise you.

8/10

P.S.: I'm glad they didn't confirm whether Deckard is a replicant or not. I don't think he is, but it's much more fun speculating than knowing

Blade Runner 2049 is a true sequel to the original, through and through. It has dazzling visuals and cinematography, a true vision bleeding through, and a lived in, immaculately crafted set design. But, conversely, it also has the issue of being more brain than heart, occasionally stilted dialogue, and misused women cast members.

Like Daryl Hanah before her, Sylvia Hoeks gives it her all, but it's the material that fails her. She never quite coalesces into a complete character, lacking the one vital scene that connects all the others showing her tears or her rage, her antipathy or her empathy. She feels more like whatever the film wants or needs her to be in the moment than a fully realized being, as much as Hoeks valiantly almost pulls it all together. And Ana de Armas similarly makes the most of a neglected character. She infuses Joi with charm, heart, and an arc of her own. There is a version of this film out in another world where her want to be a real girl and whether it's even possible or if she's just a tool for man's gratification is given more attention. It could carry a movie in of itself. Instead, her character is completely in service of the male lead, from life to death, a fate that previously befell Sean Young's Rachel.

It's impossible not to notice the hollow treatment of most of the female cast. Hoeks is a inconsistent psycho with a twisted crush on the lead, while Joi is fridged for his development. And most glaringly, Sean Young's Rachel is similarly fridged for Deckard, dying off screen and cameoing as just a temptation for Deckard to refuse. The women in this film appear mostly as victims, sex workers, and/or holographic housewives. You could surely argue that the subversion of the Chosen One plot- an admittedly inspired touch- but the force of that subversion is not a real character in of herself, only appearing in two scenes. She's a plot device, again facilitating the two male lead's growth. This is not her story. Director Denis Villeneuve tried to defend this, saying "Blade Runner is not about tomorrow; it's about today. And I'm sorry, but the world is not kind on women." But is that supposed to be a shock? What purpose does it serve to be similarly unkind on women? The world is cruel to them, undoubtedly, but that does not mean they don't have their own stories, their own lives. What's the point of it if you do not condemn it, or even portray it in a new way to shock the audience, to reveal today's dehumanizing treatment of them. In 2049, it's just there, lazily presented with a shrug.

That is not to say the film is completely without its pluses- far from it. The ensemble overall is better served than in the original. Robin Wright is the exception among the female cast, playing a character who is callous and unfailingly committed to the current system, but is not inhuman. There is a loneliness that exudes from her, and there is a sort of kindness to her with how she attatches to K, offering him her version of mercy while never ceasing to believe she's in the right. Harrison Ford is much more engaged in this film. His expression in the last shot of the film may be the most honest acting I've ever seen from him. Dave Bautista owns his singular scene, perfectly setting the tone. And Gosling as K is a much more compelling protagonist than Deckard was. He adeptly portrays a man robotic on the outside and quietly human within, conveying contrasts of hope and fear or yearning and disbelief at the same time. But as Blade Runner had an underutilized ensemble lifted by one bright performance from Rutger Hauer, so does 2049 have a mostly solid cast marred by a horrific showing.

Jared Leto is just awful. He feeds into one of the Blade Runner series' biggest issues - nobody talks like this. It is no coincidence that when Rutger Hauer portrayed Roy Batty, the high point of the franchise, he rewrote the character's dying speech, dismissing the original as 'opera talk and hi-tech speech'. This has always been a potential flaw in this series, but the right actors can find the emotions in the tech, as he did. Wright sells awkwardly written lines like "The world is bought on a wall, it separates kind," with conviction. And Bautista kills it on "You newer models are happy scraping the shit, because you've never seen a miracle." He feels it in his soul, and the emotion of his delivery, certain and grunted through intense pain from both the moment and a long life, reverberates through the entire films. Where they enliven their lines, Leto exposes it.

His jilted, shallow movements, his approximation of how blind people act, relayed to him by his usual overwrought method acting. He put in opaque contact lenses and calls it a day. Every word is spoken with a breathy, empty air. Leto does not feel his lines, he thinks them. He thinks he's delivering a master performance in a Blade Runner movie, he knows he's in one. He thinks he belongs in one, and so he does not. He reveals the insipidness of lines like "There were bad angels once, but I make good angels now," and "Pain reminds you the joy you felt was real," lines that are more thesis statements than actual human beliefs. And his utter lack of conviction in "We should own the stars" is criminal, mustering not enough energy on the last word to sell his character's certainty but just enough for you to notice he tried and failed. These lines are all head, and it is the actors' jobs to find the heart. Leto failed. He lays bare the passionless script.

But this is not the only case of the head failing. A big backbone of the film is Deckard's and Rachel' romance from the first film. The horribly rushed, utterly sterile romance that culminated in a sex scene that's borderline assault at worst and pushy at best. Leto states, in his lifeless way, that the connection they felt was instant? How? Every scene they had was lifeless. This is a case where seeing the original film actually hampers this one- I might be more able to buy into Ford's grief over his love if I hadn't seen how awkward that 'love' was.

This results in a film that, for all of its (mostly) talented cast, its daring visuals, and swooning, unique soundtrack... I like less than the original. 2049 makes me think, but it does not make me feel. It may. perhaps, be more even on the whole than the original. But with Leto, it hits a deeper low. The emptiness of its women is even less excusable in 2017 and today than Blade Runner's was in 1982. And it never hits as big a high as Hauer as Roy, who elevated that film and delivered its themes directly to your heart. I can examine 2049's themes, I can piece apart its cinematography, I can be awed by the lighting and setting. But I cannot connect with it. The crystallizing moment for this, I think, were the flashbacks to events we seen earlier in the film. A flashback after your big twist, showing the little hints that set it up? Acceptable. A flashback to explain your lead's decision to make his big heroic choice? It's lazy. if you need to tell us, through replaying past lines of the film, why your main character is making his climatic choice, you've failed. Either you think you haven't set it up enough for it to work without, or you think you're so smart and adept that you want to make sure the audience sees your genius, sees how perfectly you set this all up, and either one is damning. That's the feeling 2049 left me with. It wants you to look and awe at and think about it so hard it forgets to make you affected by it.

For Hauer's performance, I'd gladly rewatch the original- it leaves an impression that never fades. I feel no compulsion to watch this one again. I'm sure 2049 tells Blade Runner fans exactly what they want to hear. But it's just as simulated as Joi, and just as lacking in true emotion.

"Pain reminds you the joy you felt was real".

Wow! WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW! And another WOW!

"Blade Runner 2049" is a fantastic follow up to the first and fixes a lot of the issues people had with the 1982 film. Without any director or extended cut. It's everything a sequel should do. Hell, you can watch this without watching the first and wouldn't get lost. Something "Force Awakes", "Jurassic World", and "Finding Dory" should take notes on. This is the type of film that will inspire young film makers out there to pick up a camera and make art. It's that great.

As I said in my "Arrival" review, Denis Villeneuve can release a movie every year and be close of making a masterpiece. This is the masterpiece. When "Prisoners" and "Enemy" was released, a lot of people saw great promise for him in the future, but never has a director live up to that praise. You can see the love and respect he has for the original without cheating out by playing on your nostalgic to win you over, not with Blade Runner. He also brings something new to the universe and made the whole thing thought-provoking.

Roger Deakins continues to out shine himself with every film his apart of, however this might be his best work yet. The beautiful imagery, framing, the use of darkest and neon lights really adds to the amazement of the world building. It's one of the most good looking films I've this year and nothing will top it. I swear if this doesn't get him that long and well deserved Oscar, then nothing will. I lost respect for the Academy a long time ago, but this will make them look spineless.

The performances from everyone were all fantastic. Ryan Gosling and Robin Wright are great as always. Harrison Ford gave probably the best performance I've seen from him. And Jared Leto redeeming himself after the garbage fire that was "Suicide Squad", despite the small screen time. I finally saw him playing a character, not a try-hard 'look at my method acting'.

The score was incredible and has this blasting roar to it that the speakers at my cinema literally vibrated every time. I didn't see it in IMAX, it's that effective.

What surprised me more is how engaging the story was and how emotional it got. By the end, I felt a tear coming down my eye. Little CGI was used in certain aspects as it went for a more practical path with it's effects. The final result is remarkable.

Overall rating: Villeneuve nailed what many thought was impossible. My eye for his next movie has gone up sky high. Please go support this.

Day 10 of Ryan Gosling Binge

One of the best sequels in the history of cinema. "Blade Runner 2049" is a monumental achievement in cinematic storytelling standing tall as not just as one of the best modern sequels but as a standalone masterpiece that will redefine the future of science fiction forever.

Villeneuve’s direction is nothing short of masterful, weaving a visually appealing and plot-deep story with ease. Reminiscent of its predecessor yet incredibly different, the film immerses the audience in a dystopian world filled with fantastic details and a tangible atmosphere Every frame is a work of art, and displays an art rarely seen on film.

The score by Hans Zimmer does a pivotal role in enhancing the premise and the atmosphere of the movie complementing the stunning visuals. Hans and Benjamin does a phenomenal job at capturing the bleak yet mesmerizing tone of the film further drawing the audience into the movie and immersing us in.

"K" played by Ryan Gosling is far well written than Deckard ever was in the first film, the depth of the character coupled with the emotional portrayal by Ryan elevates the character into unknown depths. The portrayal by Ryan may not seem much at first on the surface but his nuanced portrayal on a journey of self-discovery is intriguing as well as emotionally resonant elevating beyond the standard modern character. The supporting cast includes Harrison Ford reprising his role as Deckard who delivers equally compelling performance as he did in the first movie, adding more complexity to the character and the storyline as a whole.

"Blade Runner 2049" is more than just a sequel, it's a cinematic genre defining piece of modern art that should be displayed in art galleries.

In conclusion...Denis Willnevermiss is a legend.

Blade Runner 2049- 9/10
Ryan Gosling- 8.5/10

"Pain reminds you the joy you felt was real".

Wow! WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW! And another WOW!

"Blade Runner 2049" is a fantastic follow up to the first and fixes a lot of the issues people had with the 1982 film. Without any director or extended cut. It's everything a sequel should do. Hell, you can watch this without watching the first and wouldn't get lost. Something "Force Awakes", "Jurassic World", and "Finding Dory" should take notes on. This is the type of film that will inspire young film makers out there to pick up a camera and make art. It's that great.

As I said in my "Arrival" review, Denis Villeneuve can release a movie every year and be close of making a masterpiece. This is the masterpiece. When "Prisoners" and "Enemy" was released, a lot of people saw great promise for him in the future, but never has a director live up to that praise. You can see the love and respect he has for the original without cheating out by playing on your nostalgic to win you over, not with Blade Runner. He also brings something new to the universe and made the whole thing thought-provoking.

Roger Deakins continues to out shine himself with every film his apart of, however this might be his best work yet. The beautiful imagery, framing, the use of darkest and neon lights really adds to the amazement of the world building. It's one of the most good looking films I've this year and nothing will top it. I swear if this doesn't get him that long and well deserved Oscar, then nothing will. I lost respect for the Academy a long time ago, but this will make them look spineless.

The performances from everyone were all fantastic. Ryan Gosling and Robin Wright are great as always. Harrison Ford gave probably the best performance I've seen from him. And Jared Leto redeeming himself after the garbage fire that was "Suicide Squad", despite the small screen time. I finally saw him playing a character, not a try-hard 'look at my method acting'.

The score was incredible and has this blasting roar to it that the speakers at my cinema literally vibrated every time. I didn't see it in IMAX, it's that effective.

What surprised me more is how engaging the story was and how emotional it got. By the end, I felt a tear coming down my eye. Little CGI was used in certain aspects as it went for a more practical path with it's effects. The final result is remarkable.

Overall rating: Villeneuve nailed what many thought was impossible. My eye for his next movie has gone up sky high. Please go support this.

Essentially a love letter to the thirty-five year old original, this long-overdue sequel takes great pains to revisit, recapture and expand the world originally populated by Ridley Scott in that timeless sci-fi classic. It's very particular about its authenticity, from the perennially hazy atmosphere to the glaring, inescapable corporate advertising and the darkly moody synth-driven score.

The dressings are right and the mood is perfect, though it often seems more interested in fleshing out the state of technology in a depressed future society than swiftly advancing the plot. Slow rumination and observation are keynotes of the franchise, vital cogs in its construction, but they don't always seem as purposeful here as they did in 1982. The new model has extraneous characters everywhere; complex, colorful and helpfully disposable but also curiously unnecessary in the greater picture.

As a huge fan of the franchise, I loved the opportunity to dwell in it once again, to see how other cities in America have fared alongside LA's dystopia (spoiler: not well) and to appreciate the little oddities that have become fixtures in that vision of some future noir. Those with less regard for the first film, though, will most likely find themselves bored by the ponderous pacing and frequently cryptic, hidden meanings. And I can't blame them. It's made, almost to the point of exclusion, for a single dedicated audience, virtually impenetrable without a fair knowledge of preceding events and the patience for multiple viewings. Even then, it doesn't seem like there's quite as much material to extract. Most of its riddles are clearly answered before the closing credits.

A wonderfully competent modernization of the franchise, constantly enveloping and sweeping and awe-inspiring, but not perfect. Admirable to set its sights so high and to come so close. I'd be game for another.