Oh yeah for its day it was great. Don't get me wrong. It can just be unappealing at times.
Heading to see 2049.
Heading to see 2049.
I'm struggling to put all my thoughts together.
All I can say now is this film must be seen. Even if you didn't watch the first.
Unless you can't stand cerebral sci fi. The pace isn't too different from the first so if you can stand that you should see that this is at the very least a powerfully made film. Villenueve has my movie ticket purchase for whatever else he makes from now on.
Also I can say for people worried it will be a cash grab type sequel or the same as the first with a fresh coat of paint, 2049 is definitely not that. There is a small amount of callbacks to the first and some similar elements but everything has a purpose. Even the familiar.
All I can say now is this film must be seen. Even if you didn't watch the first.
Unless you can't stand cerebral sci fi. The pace isn't too different from the first so if you can stand that you should see that this is at the very least a powerfully made film. Villenueve has my movie ticket purchase for whatever else he makes from now on.
Also I can say for people worried it will be a cash grab type sequel or the same as the first with a fresh coat of paint, 2049 is definitely not that. There is a small amount of callbacks to the first and some similar elements but everything has a purpose. Even the familiar.
Last edited:
ProstheticConscience
Check dein Limit
Just saw it. Worthy successor to the original, but not without its flaws. For one thing: bring earplugs. You'll be needing them.
But certainly very, very good. Like the performances and out of Star Wars, Indiana Jones and Blade Runner, this is far and away the best Harrison Ford geriatric version of an 80's movie character he did.
But certainly very, very good. Like the performances and out of Star Wars, Indiana Jones and Blade Runner, this is far and away the best Harrison Ford geriatric version of an 80's movie character he did.
Been thinking about the movie all night to try to not be overzealous about a movie I was already hyped for. With me I can tend to sour on a film after rewatches so I'll just share my thoughts after one viewing.
I'll start with the cons.
1.) There are times the movie drags at a snail's pace when it really doesn't have to. I know this is not unlike the original but there are parts that feel gratuitously slow without much purpose.
2.) There is one element to the plot that in execution...I mean the result of something Gosling does is telegraphed from the moment he does it. There is an emotional pay off with this plot point but when I saw the event in question occur, in my head I had already guessed the result. It's a minor qualm. not even an annoyance but a minor qualm with a plot can make a big difference in whether I feel a movie is perfect or really good.
3.) The sound does indeed get too loud but I think this is just symptomatic of the theater release. I'm sure when it's out on DVD and digital it won't even be a slight problem.
4.) Without getting into spoilers...gee how do I even say this without spoiling to some degree. There is a plot development found within the film that doesn't feel properly developed or earned but maybe I'll be one of the few that feel that way.
5.) There is one scene that follows a very high pressure moment that feels somewhat out of place that made me wonder "does this story really have time for this kind of distraction?"
These are just small gripes though. I can say that unless I sour on the film somehow, Blade Runner 2049 is sci-fi gold. This is a blockbuster done right, and just as I did with Mad Max: Fury Road, I hope more blockbusters strive for this balance of masterful artistry in filmmaking with the kind of sweeping visuals and action that appease blockbuster movie fans. This maybe sacrilege but I enjoyed 2049 more than the original. Yes, from a filmmaking and cinematographic standpoint, 2049 was always going to blow the original out of the water. I am not a Blade Runner (OG) die hard since I only watched the original last week. I can recognize how iconic it was for its time and how influential it was. But I think that objectively 2049 improves on everything the original did. The themes are deeper, the visuals are stronger, the acting is profoundly stronger, the music is relatively equal, and the story...I just feel is deeper. The original Blade Runner's greatest strength is the philosophical themes it explored, but the story is fairly simplistic. Deckard hunts rogue replicants who want longer lives and questions his own reality when he gets to the last. I think the plot of 2049 is far more involved and pleasing to watch unfold, while tackling the same philosophical ideas on a grander scale.
As an aside I just have to say many good sequels get praise for faithfully carrying the story and spirit of the original forward. Some go bigger and better (Empire Strikes Back). I can't think of many sequels that so seamlessly make it feel like the original film was written FOR the sequel. The original Blade Runner was 30 years ago, but the way plot unfolds truly made me feel that events from the first happened so things could happen in 2049. Kihei said the writing isn't the best but I actually think the way the script handled this film being a sequel was absolutely brilliant.
In any case, I feel the film is magnificent. Across the pantheon of all genres I don't know if it quite hits the mark of "masterpiece" but for the Sci-Fi genre I would say the film is a modern masterpiece and should be a benchmark for how future Sci-fi films are made. The cinematography is truly one of the best I've seen in cinema. Every shot is an artistic delight. The editting is very good, most of the sound mixing is fantastic, and the acting was mostly excellent. I have to give a few special shoutouts. Harrison Ford is indeed at his best in a long time. Maybe ever. He has one scene that I would place in his greatest of all time. Sylvia Hoeks is an absolute powerhouse. Reviews have all said the same thing and I have to echo in spades. There is no character like it in the original and there are rarely such intimidating and dangerous villains in film. She steals every single scene she is in with the kind of presence I think today can only be matched by Tom Hardy. Her performance was simply breathtaking. Finally I know Jared Leto got and deserves flak for The Joker but this feels like a snap right back to form. You can make the argument that many other actors could've played the role, but I still felt his nearly Shakespearean villain was magnetic and attention grabbing. He was a delight to watch as well. There is very little to take away from the excellence of this movie.
It's not just the best movie I've seen this year (coming from someone who thought Dunkirk was excellent) it's among the best I've seen the last few years. It's a total package of excellence and is a gold standard among blockbuster Hollywood movies. And as it pertains to sequels and reboots, this is the quality all should strive for. I cannot wait to see this film again and I cannot wait to own it when I get the chance. I am absolutely in love with what Villenueve and Deakins have done with this film.
9.7/10
I'll start with the cons.
1.) There are times the movie drags at a snail's pace when it really doesn't have to. I know this is not unlike the original but there are parts that feel gratuitously slow without much purpose.
2.) There is one element to the plot that in execution...I mean the result of something Gosling does is telegraphed from the moment he does it. There is an emotional pay off with this plot point but when I saw the event in question occur, in my head I had already guessed the result. It's a minor qualm. not even an annoyance but a minor qualm with a plot can make a big difference in whether I feel a movie is perfect or really good.
3.) The sound does indeed get too loud but I think this is just symptomatic of the theater release. I'm sure when it's out on DVD and digital it won't even be a slight problem.
4.) Without getting into spoilers...gee how do I even say this without spoiling to some degree. There is a plot development found within the film that doesn't feel properly developed or earned but maybe I'll be one of the few that feel that way.
5.) There is one scene that follows a very high pressure moment that feels somewhat out of place that made me wonder "does this story really have time for this kind of distraction?"
These are just small gripes though. I can say that unless I sour on the film somehow, Blade Runner 2049 is sci-fi gold. This is a blockbuster done right, and just as I did with Mad Max: Fury Road, I hope more blockbusters strive for this balance of masterful artistry in filmmaking with the kind of sweeping visuals and action that appease blockbuster movie fans. This maybe sacrilege but I enjoyed 2049 more than the original. Yes, from a filmmaking and cinematographic standpoint, 2049 was always going to blow the original out of the water. I am not a Blade Runner (OG) die hard since I only watched the original last week. I can recognize how iconic it was for its time and how influential it was. But I think that objectively 2049 improves on everything the original did. The themes are deeper, the visuals are stronger, the acting is profoundly stronger, the music is relatively equal, and the story...I just feel is deeper. The original Blade Runner's greatest strength is the philosophical themes it explored, but the story is fairly simplistic. Deckard hunts rogue replicants who want longer lives and questions his own reality when he gets to the last. I think the plot of 2049 is far more involved and pleasing to watch unfold, while tackling the same philosophical ideas on a grander scale.
As an aside I just have to say many good sequels get praise for faithfully carrying the story and spirit of the original forward. Some go bigger and better (Empire Strikes Back). I can't think of many sequels that so seamlessly make it feel like the original film was written FOR the sequel. The original Blade Runner was 30 years ago, but the way plot unfolds truly made me feel that events from the first happened so things could happen in 2049. Kihei said the writing isn't the best but I actually think the way the script handled this film being a sequel was absolutely brilliant.
In any case, I feel the film is magnificent. Across the pantheon of all genres I don't know if it quite hits the mark of "masterpiece" but for the Sci-Fi genre I would say the film is a modern masterpiece and should be a benchmark for how future Sci-fi films are made. The cinematography is truly one of the best I've seen in cinema. Every shot is an artistic delight. The editting is very good, most of the sound mixing is fantastic, and the acting was mostly excellent. I have to give a few special shoutouts. Harrison Ford is indeed at his best in a long time. Maybe ever. He has one scene that I would place in his greatest of all time. Sylvia Hoeks is an absolute powerhouse. Reviews have all said the same thing and I have to echo in spades. There is no character like it in the original and there are rarely such intimidating and dangerous villains in film. She steals every single scene she is in with the kind of presence I think today can only be matched by Tom Hardy. Her performance was simply breathtaking. Finally I know Jared Leto got and deserves flak for The Joker but this feels like a snap right back to form. You can make the argument that many other actors could've played the role, but I still felt his nearly Shakespearean villain was magnetic and attention grabbing. He was a delight to watch as well. There is very little to take away from the excellence of this movie.
It's not just the best movie I've seen this year (coming from someone who thought Dunkirk was excellent) it's among the best I've seen the last few years. It's a total package of excellence and is a gold standard among blockbuster Hollywood movies. And as it pertains to sequels and reboots, this is the quality all should strive for. I cannot wait to see this film again and I cannot wait to own it when I get the chance. I am absolutely in love with what Villenueve and Deakins have done with this film.
9.7/10
Different strokes and all, but I'd hardly call Taylor Sheridan a weak writer, or Sicario poorly written. You must not have liked Blunt's character.
Unaffiliated
Registered User
I really liked Sicario. Probably in the third-ish slot area, with Enemy and behind Incendies and Polytechnique.
Seeing Blade Runner tonight. Very excited.
Seeing Blade Runner tonight. Very excited.
sabresfan129103
1-4-6-14
ProstheticConscience
Check dein Limit
Also really like this one, but must disagree on a few points.
1) Cinematography wasn't as good as the original. LA was so much more visually lush and colourful in the original imho. There was still the omnipresent rain, but you could still get a sense of distance. This one, in almost every outdoor shot visibility was down to about 20 feet. That did annoy me. I really wanted to see more of the BR 2049 world, but it was mostly obscured by rain, dust, snow, and blowing sand.
2) That Sylvia chick playing the enforcer replicant did indeed kick a very large percentage of all the asses. She reminded me of the T1000 in Terminator 2; there's a real sense of a deeply inhuman psyche even though it's wrapped in a human shell. You get this sense of creepy otherness and you're hoping it's fleshed out more. But she's no Roy Batty.
3) This one does deserve to be discussed in the same terms as the original, and that's a great achievement. But the original is one of the all-time great sci-fi movies and while this one is certainly the best hard sci-fi movie I've seen since...a really long time, it's not quite there. Visual world: original. Acting: tie. Soundtrack: original in a slam-dunk.
All that said, it's vastly better than I thought it could ever be in this current climate of endless sequels and remakes and reimaginings and ripoffs and rampant Hollywood autocannibalism. Like I said, I'm having a really hard time remembering the last sci-fi movie this good. District 9? Anyway, there were lots of little touches I liked, such as the hooker who looked like Pris, a wrinkled and dessicated Edward James Olmos reprising Gaff in a cameo and continuing his origami, the police commander who looked like Zhora but wasn't...the more I think about it the more I come up with. And come to think of it, the last time I really wanted to go to a movie on opening night was for the premiere of Mad Max. So go me.
A great film, a great story, but not quite up there with the best ever. Like the original.
My opinion on the original would have been helped if I had watched it earlier in my life. Since watching it it has certainly grown on me but...idk I just thought this new entry was absolutely fantastic. Maybe it won't get regarded as such by as many as I might've expected but it makes my list among my favorite Sci-Fi films. And I'd say the original has found its way there too fwiw.
ProstheticConscience
Check dein Limit
I can understand that. I grew up with the original. Can't even begin to count the number of times I've seen it since 1982.
And I just realized one big, big way the original is better: the final battle and denoument. Roy Batty's cat and mouse battle with Deckard vs K and the...evil chick (see? I can't even remember her name off the top of my head) in the rain. Not even remotely close. Roy Batty's death scene = more powerful than any moment in the new one.
Hmmm. I don't know. The last scene with Ryan Gosling was pretty powerful but I can definitely say Batty's death scene is probably more profound. Definitely better acting if nothing else.
Carlzner
Registered User
That's what excites me. I've always been more partial to Dune than Blade Runner. To see Villenueve hit it out of the park with this excites me that he'll do Dune justice... and Dune needs it. The best that he could do here was simply match the original Blade Runner, but Dune has never had a great film adaptation. The best adaptation was a computer game, for crying out loud.
I, too, feel that Sicario is a bit overrated. Neither the characters nor the thin plot were very compelling. It's directed well, so credit to Villeneuve for that, but it could've used a better script, IMO.
Savi
Registered User
Yeah, this is pretty much it. I'm reading some critics about how it's too long or too slow. Well duh, Blade Runner isn't an action movie. It's cerebral sci fi, as you point out.
What can I say. I saw it last night and it blew me away. Absolute madness, and absolutely, ridiculously beautiful. It's by far the best sci fi I have seen in years. Just a matter of time before I'm heading back to go watch it again.
Me, too. I think it is this year's The Assassin, another stunner (to me anyway), in that it will benefit from subsequent viewings.
Blade Runner 2049
2.8 out of 4stars
It was pretty good and definitely entertaining. Mystery Sci-fi or whatever you want to categorize it as. The story was good, the pacing was good(outside the first half hour being a bit too slow/draggy), the acting was good, and the visuals were shot very well but at times underwhelming to me. I did have some issues with it though....(spoilers):
The big twist was just a giant slap in the face as a major plot point. I mean, they gave little reason to believe that Gosling wasn't the "miracle child", but they pull the rug out after heavily driving home and overemphasizing every step Gosling takes that makes him feel and act more human than replicant. I can take a bit, but when they hammer something home so much only to flip the switch, I can't understate how much I hate it and feel it as a cheap parlor trick. And the twist wasn't even that great. "hidden in the database/locked away for no one to hurt her". I don't even recall he showing enough/acting correctly after the dream montage "reading" with Gosling. I just can't stand that.
Harrison Ford in the film was pointless and him living or dying or getting brought to Leto was meaningless. Yes, another "if Indiana Jones didn't exist, Raiders of the Lost Ark has the same outcome". Gosling learns verly little important info from Ford, he gains nothing from meeting Ford, and Ford living or dying or being captured means nothing because he was an extremely stubborn person that traded a lifetime alone to protect the people/person he loved and was never going to talk and tell Leto/Love about the secrets he knew no matter what. Thus the ending of him being saved by Gosling was a very hollow ending "to show Gosling gave his life or didn't for something almost meaningless(Ford meeting his grown daughter?)".
Last big annoyance, the use of Jared Leto. I mean, for being a/the major villain, he's very underutilized and underwritten. I don't care if his "right arm woman" takes his lead here, even she is a near mute ruthless robot who is rarely tested and than surprisingly "superman-esquely" killed by Gosling, ala action movies where somebody runs through all opposers until facing the boss/major enemy. Can't stand it.
Altogether even it felt like something that wanted, is begging for a sequel. Asking more questions than it answers, setting up this, setting up that, ending the way it did on numerous character and storytelling fronts. It just makes me want to yell at the screen "why are you telling such a broad story with extra side pieces and open ended situations in such a long sequel movie already?". It just bothers me that it was set-up like it was.
Feel free to debate any of the above spoilers or try to prove me wrong, I welcome it. Now I want to see the original and compare the 2.
2.8 out of 4stars
It was pretty good and definitely entertaining. Mystery Sci-fi or whatever you want to categorize it as. The story was good, the pacing was good(outside the first half hour being a bit too slow/draggy), the acting was good, and the visuals were shot very well but at times underwhelming to me. I did have some issues with it though....(spoilers):
The big twist was just a giant slap in the face as a major plot point. I mean, they gave little reason to believe that Gosling wasn't the "miracle child", but they pull the rug out after heavily driving home and overemphasizing every step Gosling takes that makes him feel and act more human than replicant. I can take a bit, but when they hammer something home so much only to flip the switch, I can't understate how much I hate it and feel it as a cheap parlor trick. And the twist wasn't even that great. "hidden in the database/locked away for no one to hurt her". I don't even recall he showing enough/acting correctly after the dream montage "reading" with Gosling. I just can't stand that.
Harrison Ford in the film was pointless and him living or dying or getting brought to Leto was meaningless. Yes, another "if Indiana Jones didn't exist, Raiders of the Lost Ark has the same outcome". Gosling learns verly little important info from Ford, he gains nothing from meeting Ford, and Ford living or dying or being captured means nothing because he was an extremely stubborn person that traded a lifetime alone to protect the people/person he loved and was never going to talk and tell Leto/Love about the secrets he knew no matter what. Thus the ending of him being saved by Gosling was a very hollow ending "to show Gosling gave his life or didn't for something almost meaningless(Ford meeting his grown daughter?)".
Last big annoyance, the use of Jared Leto. I mean, for being a/the major villain, he's very underutilized and underwritten. I don't care if his "right arm woman" takes his lead here, even she is a near mute ruthless robot who is rarely tested and than surprisingly "superman-esquely" killed by Gosling, ala action movies where somebody runs through all opposers until facing the boss/major enemy. Can't stand it.
Altogether even it felt like something that wanted, is begging for a sequel. Asking more questions than it answers, setting up this, setting up that, ending the way it did on numerous character and storytelling fronts. It just makes me want to yell at the screen "why are you telling such a broad story with extra side pieces and open ended situations in such a long sequel movie already?". It just bothers me that it was set-up like it was.
Feel free to debate any of the above spoilers or try to prove me wrong, I welcome it. Now I want to see the original and compare the 2.
Don't try to highlight over my post if you don't want to be spoiled people
If you are referring to whether or not Deckard is a replicant, the answer is teased and implied in a couple of ways but it isn't clearly stated.
There's two points that indicate he may be a replicant
1.) He tells Gosling that he and Rachel were being hunted though this could just mean they were being hunted cause they had a child together
2.) Niander Wallace teases Deckard suggesting he was a Replicant made to fall in love with and impregnate Rachel. Though it's a little questionable as to whether or not this was a taunt because I believe he says "What if I told you I made you so..." when I think it's established that Wallace had nothing to do with Tyrell's line of replicants at that time.
I really appreciate that Villenueve didn't answer the question definitively.
There's two points that indicate he may be a replicant
1.) He tells Gosling that he and Rachel were being hunted though this could just mean they were being hunted cause they had a child together
2.) Niander Wallace teases Deckard suggesting he was a Replicant made to fall in love with and impregnate Rachel. Though it's a little questionable as to whether or not this was a taunt because I believe he says "What if I told you I made you so..." when I think it's established that Wallace had nothing to do with Tyrell's line of replicants at that time.
I really appreciate that Villenueve didn't answer the question definitively.
Last edited:
sabresfan129103
1-4-6-14
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
Series Talk: ECQF: Boston Bruins vs Toronto Maple Leafs (BOS Leads 3-1)
- Latest: Michoulicious
