Movies BLADE RUNNER 2049 Thread v.2

[LATEXXX COMMANDO]

As a person who has never full sat and watch the first move to it's entirety, I did enjoy the film. I knew a decent amount of the story and didn't really feel lost at any point throughout the film.

The visuals were hands down the best part of the movie for me. The whole futuristic, holographic, "neon city" universe always fascinated me.

The score was very good. Story was okay but I wasn't that enthralled with it.

TBH the only reason I went to see it was, like I mentioned earlier, I love the universe and wanted to see it in IMAX and be blown away. Did it it do what I wanted it to? Yeah but if I were to see this on tv or in a smaller theater I probably would have left feeling disappointed.

I gave it an 8/10, only because I saw it in IMAX. If it was anything less I probably would gave it a 7 or even lower.

 

[minute bull]

]IMAX, or not to IMAX?

3D isn't terrible, but apparently with IMAX you get more picture. What that means is more top and bottom, and chances are there will be aspect ratio changes. I don't know there will be ratio changes for certain but that's been my experience with such claims. If that bothers you then a Dolby Cinema (color) or XD (size) are your best bets.

This film will make you wonder how they made Robin Wright ... exactly like M. Emmet Walsh. It was such a weird boner. So awkward.

It's way more accessible than the original, so people who have heard how great BLADE RUNNER is but never really believed it because they saw it and had to admit with hipster sadness it was pretty pretty pretty boring but wanted to like it? Yeah, this one's for them. I can see the complaints because the original is such a seminal, inspirational thing. 2049 feels like a story that's been dropped into this rich world and rather doesn't expand upon it. I guess you could call that playing it safe or limiting, but I would say it makes itself to be the kind of sequel that you want. It calls back to its originator in many various but pleasantly updated ways. F'r instance, it's almost always daylight, so the world feels more redolent and richly textured and without losing any of the original (though largely night-time) aesthetic. Second verse same as the first, a little bit louder and a little bit go fuck yerself if thurr urrn't enerf fer yer. You know how Deckard is scanning the photograph using verbal commands? Gosling does the same thing but with this cool-ass drone and a bitchin' scale model.

Whole film's utterly marvelous to behold. I would watch anything Villeneuve directed.

I think the only slight against the sequel would be only in comparison to the original, in that its core narrative feels personal without that additional layer of universality. BLADE RUNNER is about being human, and what it takes and ayyy how fleeting it be; it's got this macro scale to its theme. I didn't detect the same revelatory multi-facetedness here, but at the same time simplicity of story is one of the things that makes 2049 more accessible.

Another easy point of entry is its full round scenes where you always get the sense that something has happened. Conflict or dramatic tension. As a mystery, yeah it's a bit predictable -- but as we march lockstep toward clue after clue each clue is enshrouded by a nice moment of drama or interest. Especially if you consider Ryan Gosling laying on the glower interesting, which I do. The boy has taken over Keanu Reeves for the Dramatic Blankness title. I don't know how he does it. Because usually someone just standing there staring, that isn't very compelling. Gosling draws you in like, "What is going on in that idiot's mind?"

Characters are given arcs and instances to shine. Fun stuff. I liked the broads. I really liked the shit with the hands. Everyone's pretty cool, some are reminiscent of characters from the first. JLet's doing some weird affectation with his speech. I'm not sure if it's racist, but I like it.

Compared to BLADE RUNNER it's a lot of fun.

I for one look forward to seeing if I can uncover layers and deeper meaning as time goes by. Pretty big shoes, and the sequel wears them pretty well. I was not put off by the pacing and *STAGE WHISPERING* I had availed myself at their little BS bar they got *END STAGE WHISPERING* but I had no trouble logging in the time.

I was often reminded of AKIRA. If there was more action, it would have been GHOST IN THE SHELL.

What I really liked about the movie I can't say right now without giving it all away.

 

[Guestx]

It reminds me of Tron Legacy, though I'd say even that film was better.

It's an apt comparison, because Tron: Legacy was another film that followed up an original installment several years after the fact, and also a film that looked amazing but stumbled narratively.

But like you say, Tron: Legacy > Blade Runner 2049. I rewatch Tron: Legacy every few years because, despite it's flaws, I think it's a fun movie. I don't think BR 2049 is going to get a lot of rewatches though.

 

[Guestx]

I gave it an 8/10, only because I saw it in IMAX. If it was anything less I probably would gave it a 7 or even lower.

So it sounds like you don't really rate the MOVIE an 8. Rather, you give your specific IMAX experience an 8.

 

[LEGS MAHONEY]

Damn these reviews are disappointing hopefully i feel differently

 

[LATEXXX COMMANDO]

So it sounds like you don't really rate the MOVIE an 8. Rather, you give your specific IMAX experience an 8.

Meh...kinda

Like I said the Blade Runner universe has always attracted me, so that's a big part in me wanting to see it in IMAX.

The story was by no means bad, there were parts where I was predicting a good amount in and then the ending took a little turn and was a pleasant surprise.

I'll put it like this, if the same story was told in a different universe than the beautiful one provided in Blade Runner; no beautiful holograms, skyscrapers, bright neon lights, etc and I couldn't see it in IMAX? I wouldn't have been interested.

No one can deny that the universe in the films are a big attraction.

 

[da1nonlyBAYCAT]

9.2/10

The atmosphere, cinematography, special effects, sound, acting, action, and story were all on point. It was a breath of fresh air and felt unconventional. I guess if anything, some of Ryan Gosling's dramatic performances have felt wooden or stoney in the past and I guess I still felt that way a little bit about this one too, still good though. I also thought Jared Leto did a good job and don't usually like him.

 

[Guestx]

Damn these reviews are disappointing hopefully i feel differently

Lofty expectations are your biggest enemy.

 

[LEGS MAHONEY]

Lofty expectations are your biggest enemy.

as long as it's a decent addition to the blade runner franchise ill be more than happy

 

[Guestx]

as long as it's a decent addition to the blade runner franchise ill be more than happy

If that's all you need to be happy, then you should indeed be pleased.

 

[GordoBarraBJJ]

Saw this last night - it is a long movie but it went by fast.

9/10.

Really well done - only gripe is the lat 10minutes or so felt rushed but other than that best movie I've seen so far this year.

 

[RoryFan]

Got my ticket booked for 8pm tonight, none of my friends want to see it so it'll be the first film I've seen on my own in a looong time. I might get the xxxl popcorn to keep me company.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

As far as capturing the feel, pace and ambiance of the original -- this sequel knocked it out of the park. Usually when a film tries to do a continuation of a story decades after the fact, the world's really don't line up -- this felt like the timeline sync'd up perfectly.

Beyond that, the story was decent but not anything special and the ending did not have the magic the original had -- but it's not terrible or tortuous to get through. I was engaged through it all -- but it's marathon, not a race, for sure.

solid 7.5

 

[europe1]

but they kind of made this a good vs. evil action movie that, despite a decent starting premise, doesn't

Spoiler

I'm fine with that development.

One of the things that makes the original so great is the moral ambiguity of the characters. The Replicants clearly do bad things, yet in the end of the film, there is no doubt of their humanity. They clearly are a part of the human experience. With that vantage point establish, you can't really redo that discovery. You sort of have to build-off the fact that Replicants are enslaved humans who are genuinely oppressed, which leads you towards a more traditional good vs evil narrative.

It also has multiple dramatic reveals, where a person is in shadow speaking, before stepping into the light to show their face with pause and fanfare for implied audience gasp, which to me is about as lazy and hacky as jump-scares in a horror movie.

Spoiler

Yeah I thought that was a bit flat. Especially with the recuring character (Deckard, Racheal). It felt like they told you to be awed from remembering them rather than their effect in-and-of the film narrative itself. Someone like Luv is might better introduced just drinking tea, for instance.

doesn't stray off already heavily trodden themes, and the script execution in direction is pretty weak.

Spoiler

I think there was enough new-material and nuance for the themes to resonate. An organic development off the first films themes, if you will.

Both films feature a soul-searching protagonist. Deckard's being if he's a replicant or not -- and if he really is the "good guy" for retiring the replicants. And with K you have his reactions to the born/not-born switcharoo that he is involved it. But with K you also have the "chosen one" persona being deconstructed, something not present in the original. K things himself the first born replicant. As the woman says, "so many of us did". He develops a self-image of himself as the chosen one -- only to have that ripped away from him, and the film explores how those twists-and-turns affects his burgoning humanity.

Taking that route, 2049 also explores much deeper where emotions come from. Do emotions come from experiences or do they come from biological perogatives? The original had that very subtly with Rutger Hauer's speach as the end -- but 2049 makes that it's focal point. K things that he's designed to not be able to develop a sense of humanity. He thinks himself the first-born (thus beliving that he does indeed possess a soul, which prompts him to develop emotions, yet finds that he's not the first-born yet has developed emotions anyway, contrary to his biological perogatives). Here, the film re-affirms the thesis of the original, that it's experiances that formulate our humanity, not or birth or manufacturing, but it does so in a rather different manner.

And the stuff with Ana de Armas character is brand new. Can an aritifical projection develop humanity? Interestingly, the film comes down pretty thoroughly on the no side on that questions, Ana's interactions was just part of her basic coding. But that doesn't make the feelings K felt for her any less real.

And that scene where Ana's projection blends with the prostitutes body was just amazing. A superb display of visuals illustrating just how surreal the disconnect from the bodily and the projected is to a persons emotions. I really love when movies use their visuals to highlight and explore its themes like that.

 

[minute bull]

@europe1

Spoiler

I think there was enough new-material and nuance for the themes to resonate. An organic development off the first films themes, if you will.

Both films feature a soul-searching protagonist. Deckard's being if he's a replicant or not -- and if he really is the "good guy" for retiring the replicants. And with K you have his reactions to the born/not-born switcharoo that he is involved it. But with K you also have the "chosen one" persona being deconstructed, something not present in the original. K things himself the first born replicant. As the woman says, "so many of us did". He develops a self-image of himself as the chosen one -- only to have that ripped away from him, and the film explores how those twists-and-turns affects his burgoning humanity.

Taking that route, 2049 also explores much deeper where emotions come from. Do emotions come from experiences or do they come from biological perogatives? The original had that very subtly with Rutger Hauer's speach as the end -- but 2049 makes that it's focal point. K things that he's designed to not be able to develop a sense of humanity. He thinks himself the first-born (thus beliving that he does indeed possess a soul, which prompts him to develop emotions, yet finds that he's not the first-born yet has developed emotions anyway, contrary to his biological perogatives). Here, the film re-affirms the thesis of the original, that it's experiances that formulate our humanity, not or birth or manufacturing, but it does so in a rather different manner.

Agreed. As the first one explores the Nature of Humanity and creates a synthesis, 2049's theme takes an organic progression into Choice vs Control by showcasing the subjugation that leads toward inevitable rebellion. It's all very Buddhist, the realization of dichotomies, that a slave would attain freedom in the service of others.

K always had a choice, even when he was a slave his choice was to remain as such. What really mattered wasn't the self -- which is to say it doesn't matter whether you're human or replicant -- what matters is the work he did. This goes hand-in-hand with my favorite bit of the film that I didn't want to reveal until more people had seen it but here goes:

Spoiler

I love that K is Roy Batty (no, not literally). I felt K's journey would have mirrored Roy's own dawning self-awareness, but where Roy wanted more life (FUCKER) K was granted a nobler path and with him we realize that there's nothing special about "more life." Death helps usher meaning onto life.

And the stuff with Ana de Armas character is brand new. Can an aritifical projection develop humanity? Interestingly, the film comes down pretty thoroughly on the no side on that questions, Ana's interactions was just part of her basic coding. But that doesn't make the feelings K felt for her any less real.

And that scene where Ana's projection blends with the prostitutes body was just amazing. A superb display of visuals illustrating just how surreal the disconnect from the bodily and the projected is to a persons emotions. I really love when movies use their visuals to highlight and explore its themes like that.

I love that part so much.

I had been a bit concerned 2049 intoduced a more conventional AI on top of the replicants but even if it didn't resolve itself I grew to accept the expansion. Ana de Armas is sure easy to look at.

 

[LC Shepard]

Just seen it. A really great job. I still need to process things and there is a lot to think about.

My only complaint is that the score is nowhere near as good as the original. Then again the original has the GOAT music imo so...

Will post more thoughts later but for now

Spoiler

That love scene/sex scene was one of the best things ive seen in movies period. What a spectacular use of visual effecta to convei a message. Makes me hate shit CGI fests even more

 

[ultimateriley-o]

Spoiler

I think there was enough new-material and nuance for the themes to resonate. An organic development off the first films themes, if you will.

Both films feature a soul-searching protagonist. Deckard's being if he's a replicant or not -- and if he really is the "good guy" for retiring the replicants. And with K you have his reactions to the born/not-born switcharoo that he is involved it. But with K you also have the "chosen one" persona being deconstructed, something not present in the original. K things himself the first born replicant. As the woman says, "so many of us did". He develops a self-image of himself as the chosen one -- only to have that ripped away from him, and the film explores how those twists-and-turns affects his burgoning humanity.

Taking that route, 2049 also explores much deeper where emotions come from. Do emotions come from experiences or do they come from biological perogatives? The original had that very subtly with Rutger Hauer's speach as the end -- but 2049 makes that it's focal point. K things that he's designed to not be able to develop a sense of humanity. He thinks himself the first-born (thus beliving that he does indeed possess a soul, which prompts him to develop emotions, yet finds that he's not the first-born yet has developed emotions anyway, contrary to his biological perogatives). Here, the film re-affirms the thesis of the original, that it's experiances that formulate our humanity, not or birth or manufacturing, but it does so in a rather different manner.

And the stuff with Ana de Armas character is brand new. Can an aritifical projection develop humanity? Interestingly, the film comes down pretty thoroughly on the no side on that questions, Ana's interactions was just part of her basic coding. But that doesn't make the feelings K felt for her any less real.

And that scene where Ana's projection blends with the prostitutes body was just amazing. A superb display of visuals illustrating just how surreal the disconnect from the bodily and the projected is to a persons emotions. I really love when movies use their visuals to highlight and explore its themes like that.

I'm glad you got a lot out of it ! I really wish I had.

Spoiler

To me, the topics of "where do emotions come from," "what constitutes humanity/consciousness/slavery/responsibility/rights," the "chosen one" trope, these are all topics that have been covered quite thoroughly, and much more interestingly, in much more competent hands, and with better actors, than was done here. It's well-trod ground, and I mostly felt that BR2049 didn't offer any new twists on any of these ideas. You argue that the question of artificial projection developing humanity is a new idea, but is it really that different than what was explored in the 2013 film Her ? It's simply the question of binary code-based programming and machinery developing consciousness. Even the love scene in BR2049 felt similar to the one in Her.

On that note, I disagree about your conclusion that the film serves a negative verdict on whether or not she has become a conscious being -- it was entirely her idea to bring in a prostitute so that she could share the sexual experience with K, and she wants him to upload her onto the memory stick so that she can go with him when he leaves. She also is scared for her life, and her last words are a hurried "I love y--", desperate to let K know before she dies.

 

[RoryFan]

You know the expression "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" I felt like this was the opposite. The parts were great but the whole just didn't work for me.

 

[Guestx]

You know the expression "the sum is greater than its parts" I felt like this was the opposite. The parts were great but the whole just didn't work for me.

That was more or less how I felt as well.

 

[europe1]

I'm glad you got a lot out of it ! I really wish I had.

Hey I'm the guy that got a lot out of Alien: Covenant and the Assassins Creed film so I'm used to hearing that

Spoiler

To me, the topics of "where do emotions come from," "what constitutes humanity/consciousness/slavery/responsibility/rights," the "chosen one" trope, these are all topics that have been covered quite thoroughly, and much more interestingly, in much more competent hands, and with better actors, than was done here

I think it might be a case of viewer psychology. I am a guy that love films primarily for the ambiance aspect of it. Films that tend to be very visually-oriented and sport editing to support that tends to resonate strongly with me and make me ruminate on them more.

Spoiler

but is it really that different than what was explored in the 2013 film Her

Never actually seen Her. I was refeering to it being new in the Blade Runner context.

Spoiler

On that note, I disagree about your conclusion that the film serves a negative verdict on whether or not she has become a conscious being -- it was entirely her idea to bring in a prostitute so that she could share the sexual experience with K, and she wants him to upload her onto the memory stick so that she can go with him when he leaves. She also is scared for her life, and her last words are a hurried "I love y--", desperate to let K know before she dies.

I base this chiefly on the scene where K returns to the city and is faced with the giant, pink projection. It calls him Joe and professess its adoration for him. This means that Ana's decision to give him the pet-name Joe was (most likely) a pre-determined coding, a standard phrase, rather than something genuinely original (his dejected emotion reflects this realization). And the projections are designed to be subservient and loving towards their owners. Which casts some murky shadows on all her actions through the films -- since none of her actions really contradict her programming. Even seamlessly self-fulfilling acts -- like walking in the rain -- is done in the eye-sight of her owner and clearly gives K a catharsis. Would she really have done so without him?

Or one might pose a third path. Ana has developed genuine feelings for him -- yet is restricted by her coding in how she can interact with him. She loves him, and wants to give him a name, but Joe is the only option that her programming allows her to give him. A more deterministic bent to her character.