I wonder... some of the studios seem on the brink of bankruptcy (15bn in the hole for eg?) - so, i think about the money. Is churning out crap (that qualifies for tax breaks) a fast way to lock in a profit before distribution a way to get tax payers to fund their debt service rather than risk creating an original property? (Meg, Skyscraper, The Predator) Yeah, i was also disappointed with 2049...
Of course I don't mind in any way that you dislike/hate the movie. That's fine. One of the scenes in the movie that resonates most with me is the scene where the giant Joi holographic advertisement approaches K. After staring for a minute, K looks down at the blade blaster in his hand. He's lost his simulated love. He's been beaten and torn to nothing and has nothing. Every optimistic and human wish, memory and dream he ever had has been stripped of him. He thought he had found his mother - it was a lie. He thought he found his father and that was also a lie. He's directly confronted by the very nature of his existence here. Black nothingness. Nihilism. He has nothing left to believe in. So what does he do? Despite the meaninglessness of his existence he chooses to rescue Deckard. Why would he even bother? He has nothing to gain from it other than almost certain death. There's no reason for him to continue fighting. He's a broken cog in a galactic machine. It's absurdist. When existentially confronted with reality, K makes the most HUMAN decision one could: to rebel against nihilism. He is no longer part of the replicant revolution (it is a revolution NOT a rebellion, the distinction matters a lot) he is Albert Camus' definition of a rebel and his cause is rebellion against subjugation. It's a pure gesture. By rebelling against his assigned lack of meaning, he creates an incorruptible meaning. K saves the world by killing himself. This movie is a blueprint for anti-slavery.
Lol. Someone posted a vid on here called "Blade Runner 2049 but it's just Ryan Gosling staring at things". It showed 25 mins of the runtime with Gosling doing just that! Got took down though, no doubt for copyright.
What really hits me about this movie is that it really makes me question what it means to be human. I started the movie with the hope that it would answer the question of whether Deckard is a Replicant, I was immediately introduced to K who I know is a Replicant, and through his journey, relationships, and interactions I got to the end and realized that it doesn't even matter. In some ways the Replicants in 2049, in contrast with the original, are more human than their human cohorts. Some additional themes, scenes, and ideas, that really get me every time I watch it: 1. There is a cut scene shortly after K and Mariette/Joi do their thing where it zooms in on Joi's face and plays the "Joi is everything you want to be", then later on towards the end of the movie you see the completely transformed nude Joi, almost as if Joi had uploaded her experience to a collective neural network which ushered in the transformation. 2. The scene where Luv kills Joshi. Whoa, Sylvia Hoek's performance is incredible IMO. It makes me consider the potential terrifying aspect of our AI future. Also her death towards the end is impactful. 3. The cold white hardness of K’s baseline test and his rehearsal of Pale Fire solidified K’s status as a Replicant at the beginning, and then the last baseline highlighted his potential humanity. I also think there is significance to Pale Fire, but that is above my pay grade. 4. Luv is constantly comparing herself to K throughout the movie in nuanced ways I only picked up on the 2+ viewings. The jealous Replicant angle is interesting to think about. 5. When K is at the orphanage he adjusts the ashtray with the horse on it as if he had been there before and noticed that something was out of place almost unconsciously. This provides a foreshadowing for the scenes immediately after where he finds the horse. On top of all this, and the only thing that matters personally, is the feeling and emotions that this movie evokes. The sights, sounds/music, story, characters, all just hit me like no other movie has, and I was definitely not expecting it to.
I read somewhere once that the origin of the source material was Dick reading about accounts of slaves in America who ran away and the bounty hunters who were hired to catch/kill them and that the majority of the people didn't see them as humans or at best subhumans. The idea of whether replicants are or aren't humans is a misreading of his point. He's talking about that it certain times and places in history the majority of people in the "in group" see the "other group" as not equal just because of the culture they live in. The first film shows that this belief isn't relegated to the past but is and is unfortunately still with us. The endless debates of are or aren't they worthy of life and freedom is proof of that.
And lastly Rob I have some advice for you: Movies aren't puzzles which you have to put together in a certain kind of way to "get" them, that would be pretty shallow. Films are much more than just a collection of plot points. Focus on why is something shown in that way rather than what it is.
While in BR _Rick Deckard_ refered to *René Descartes* (a replicant quotes "i think, therefore i am") and *Scott* asked "what distinguishes man from machine?", in BR2049 _Joe K._ refers to *Franz Kafkas* _Josef K._ from the novel *The Trial* and *Villeneuve* asks the question "how do we stay human in such a system?". *The Trial* anticipated the bureaucratic state and the reign of numbers and digits (and the algorithms which invade everything). Like _Josef K._ hoped, that the trial against him will be scrapped so that he will be free, _Joe K._ hopes to be a human and therefore be free. *man as a product* We escort a replicant, who isn't much foreign to us (we can identify with him), while the humans shown are more foreign to us. The movie asked "are we replicants already?". Our world is still colorful and not so emptied as BR2049, but it shows our current anthropology. It shows different kinds of people/replicants: the ones who still rebel, and the others who try to denounce them. Surveillance, obsession with optimization and biopolitics want to bring to heel the human subject. In the movie the replicants do the dirty work for the humans. In our reality it's even more blantant: humans are doing the dirty work for other humans. Soon many people will work for artificial intelligences. The special police in the movie isn't guided by politians, but by businessmen. *melancholy* The melancholy of _Joe K._ is the melancholy of the man who doesn't have a happy selfie face. The focus stays on the replicant till the end of this sad, quiet movie. The tedious pace of the movie meets the reality of this emptied world. Many parallels of this world to a museum can be found. The movie shows holograms of Elvis Presley and Frank Sinatra in Las Vegas, but not nostalgic. These people were already completely artistic characters in a fully artificial city. Our past seemed infected by something unhuman. "When did it start, that we all become replicants?" asks the movie. [translated excerpts from the analysis of my favorite movie critic Wolfgang M. Schmitt]
Beautiful photoghraphy and they captured the atmosphere perfectly but the main problem is that you just don't care about the characters. U just have Andriod or possible hybrids behaving like androids( and much of the other characters 2...) You instantly cared about Deckard and Batty and Pris...
All the things I like about it are not story or plot related. I liked Joi. I liked the cinematography and visual effects. I liked the editing. I liked the design of the world. I liked that it wasn't another Hollywood action flick. But the story and writing? I did not like. Nothing happened to the villain. He just disappeared at the end, and he was uninteresting when he was around. Bringing Ford back was forced and reeked of nostalgic masturbation. And for a movie trying to be smarter than the average Hollywood output, it still ended in a fistfight. A very disappointing movie from a usually terrific filmmaker.
Agreed somewhat (it is by no means a perfect movie), but those aspects it does well, it nails. I was mostly taken aback by the parallels between humans and Kay, and Kay and Joi. You get some larger elements of it with the replicant giving birth, Wallace's treatment and abuse of replicants, but ultimately it boils down to Kay doing everything possible to treat Joi well and give her more freedom even though she has less of a soul than Kay, and how replicants are treated by the humans around them. That is was also visually stunning and let the story unfold at a natural pace was just icing. In short, it made me reflect which very few movies do.
I totally agree, even though it’s still sad that the movie flopped. I hated Ford’s presence, he seemed extremely unmotivated and the overall story plot didn’t justify the sequel existence. Everyone loved the huge world of original Blade Runner ... then why not making an entirely new story ? “Black Out 2022” was amazing and I would’ve loved it to be a feature film. Otherwise, it certainly the weakest Villeneuve’s movie so far, IMO.
Was going to post comments, but your appraisal and mine are almost identical. I probably rate it a little higher than most people who acknowledge it was a disappointment, because I really did enjoy the first 2/3 of the film, but boy did it fall apart in the third act.
There were a few things that I liked about the movie. One was the "you can hear a pin drop" quiet through lots of the film. It's kind of rare to have that nowadays. Like in the opening scene where K takes out that famer. I thought that it added a lot to the atmosphere. I think that the movie looks fantastic. Joi was an interesting character. But like a lot of modern movies, what started off promising turned out to be pretty disappointing by the end.
I like the film, but I'm not crazy about it and I think the original is far superior. One thing to the film's credit is it's amazing visuals, I think probably one of the best looking films ever made.
I am just wondering how someone so captivated by 2001: A Space Odyssey got bored while watching this film. I love both films equally for personal reasons but I just think you're throwing the word boring around like it's nothing. What makes this film boring but not 2001? Again, I love both of those movies very much. But there are plenty of people who also felt bored watching 2001, but not so bored watching 2049.
these 2 films aren't even on the same league in my opinion. I'm not hating on blade runner 2049, I really liked it too. But 2001 has a lot more substance than this film. It's not only pretty to look at and with an hypnotic atmosphere, it has a lot more going on below the surface, which is why I think rob wasn't bored by it as opposed to this one.
I also really liked Blade Runner 2049, but compared to 2001, it has none of the enrapturing mystery (at least not to the degree Kubrick embedded into 2001). The fact that there is layer upon layer to unravel, and nothing is tied up neatly at the end and spoon-fed to the audience is what I'd point to as the major major difference between the two films.
Just because the film is ostensibly about deeper concepts than Transformers, does not mean it is actually deeper than Transformers. It may be better crafted, but it is just as hollow.
not to be a prick, but what what did you like about it? cuz i'm completely clueless. a lot of people HATED Blair Witch Project. i was genuinely scared shitless. and thought it was a brilliant movie.
Cinematography, atmosphere (the vibe of a overpopulated, dying world, and how messed up evething is), sound design, relatable protagonist and pretty much all the characters, fitting music
Looks and sounds incredible. Sound was unfortunately blown out at the IMAX version though... saw it again recently on Blue Ray and whole swathes of dialogue were revealed that had been drowned in sound effects or music . Was surprised they reprised Ford, no requirement from fans or audience to bo base the sequel around the original film or indeed cast.
Stop the Philosophical Zombies A world, where you got to have seawalls to protect sunless and rainy LA of all places, where a shower lasts a mere second, where almost no one ever seen a living tree, where you have to grow worms to be able to produce an eatable product instead of normal food - didn't you notice all of this?
Where did you see, exactly, the 'overpopulated' world? In BR2049, Los Angeles looks as empty as an old town in the countryside, and the world it depicts is completely different from the (really overpopulated) world of the original Blade Runner. This was also in the intention of the authors and director: they wanted to transmit the feeling of how empty places can become after explosions and radiations (in places where Deckard had been hiding for years), there is also the implicit assumption that many people left the planet in order to go to live in the interstellar colonies. I really challenge you to find that many scenes, in BR2049, where you can actually see a 'crowd'. You won't find many scenes like that, but you will find plenty of scenes where K wonders aimlessly on semi-empty streets, bridges and lands. If you really thought that BR2049 depicted an 'overpopulated' world, then you don't remember the movie. And not remembering a movie that you say you like is really telling of the quality of the movie and about its being 'memorable'.
It's a modern retelling of Pinocchio. ...and that's what I like most about it. ·K is Pinocchio. He goes on a quest to realize his desire to be a "real boy." ·Joi is Jiminy Cricket. She is his conscience and friend and literally travels with him in his pocket. ·Joshi is Mangiafucco, the puppet master. ·Mister Cotton is the Coachman and his child labour camp is the Land of Toys, where unwanted children go and are turned into donkeys -- labour animals. ·Now whether or not Wallace or Deckard is Geppetto, I'm not quite sure. Wallace literally creates the androids just as Geppetto created Pinocchio, but Deckard is believed (for a time) to have fathered K. However, I'm inclined towards Wallace being Geppetto. I think Deckard is a mere red herring with Geppetto like qualities by nature of having actually fathered an android. For instance, at the end of the film, K saves Deckard from the submarine, like Pinocchio saves his father from the belly of the whale. ·The giant Joi hologram is the Blue Fairy ... or in the book is known as, the Fairy with the TURQUOISE Hair. Before meeting her, K learns that he is not Deckard's son, utterly smashing his hope of being human, but he also learns fellow androids believe it's not how you came to exist that makes one human, but the act of dying for what you believe in (or something similar). When he meets the hologram soon after, he is completely dejected, but she inspires K's sense of humanity (and therefore, grants his wish) by calling him a "Good Joe." "Joe" is the name Joi gave him when they discover he is a "real boy" (although, we later learn he is not). In both the film and book, the Blue Fairy promises to turn Pinocchio into a real boy if he is "good." Also, the hologram is an advertisement unable to distinguish between him and a real human -- because there is fundamentally no difference between an android and human. I think in that moment when she calls him a "Good Joe," he decides for himself that he is human. He's not only loved like a human has, but he's willing to die for a cause he believes in. There is also the obligatory Christian reference that litter every heroic story, in this case the immaculate conception of the saviour of a people. The only thing I hate about the film is its blatant existentialism (it's not some cosmic destiny/purpose that defines what you are, but how you behave). It's overdone and extremely dated; however, I can appreciate bad philosophy when it's told through a good story. I can appreciate any story of an allegorical nature that has a message I can understand/decipher.
You're absolutely right Rob. I admire the original (despite it's flaws) but I absolutely hated 2049; couldn't even bring myself to actually remember what went on, for the most part.
I can't comment on that really since I like the first Matrix (but not the sequels). Though I don't think it's a perfect film. It has some generic elements and I didn't think the cast were as good as the script and effects.
Rob Ager I like the Matrix well enough, but some people think it’s up with the greatest of all time; nowhere near it in my opinion. But that’s cool they think that.
I love the Cyberpunk subgenre but I feel few properties treat it with the seriousness and realism of Bladerunner. With the original Bladerunner I wanted to see and explore more of future LA but budgetary and technological restrictions meants much of the film is shot very tight on long lenses to save on building/dressing larger sets. This is an area that Bladerunner 2049 improves on. With wider, more open shots, we got to experience far more of the setting. It's my favourite futuristic city portrayed on screen.
- I really like the look and feel of the film. The progression of the world was not particular to my expectation but was sort of interesting. The VFX was really good. - I kind of enjoyed the concept of a replicant piecing together his memories to convince himeslf that he is a human. It is sad, but, cool. It feels quite a bit underdone. - The scale was brilliant on the big screen. The cinematography was not as complex and masterful as the first film, but, it was pretty good. - Joi as a character and her "relationship" with K was pretty intimate and digusting which is actually the best part of this film.
the artistic cinematography is obviously a good thing going for that movie, the cinematographer really nailed it, the aesthetic is perfect for people like me who like vaporwave its really a treat plus I like to talk with other people enthusiastic about this movie, they are talking about it a lot it already is becoming a cult movie, people like his holographic wife and their relationship and when she died it was a really sad moment ,the CGI looks ahead of its time , I was absolutely not bored watching the movie the first time , I was having an experience ,one more thing is that people like the loneliness of the character
This film was paper thin in every way. I'm sad that people find it impressive. The girlfriend was a 1 dimensional character wish fulfillment for incels. No offense, but how old are you?
The incels are the pathetic virgins who are raving about this movie on youtube instead of going out and getting laid (granted all the feminism-indoctrinated females are unapproachable now, so I understand why).
Cinematography and music. Already been well commented on, but it is undeniably good. Couple of outstanding scenes: The introduction to Las Vegas - silhouetted on orange to yellow vista with hollow echoing soundtrack. Wallace Corporation HQ - watery lit inverted yoni shaped building "birthing" creations.
I'll add, if you want to convince Rob you need to give specific reasoning beyond a list of what you THINK is good. I don't think it is nearly as bad as he does, I found it boring but it had some interesting scenes. Problem I had was it didn't feel anything like the original. And by trying to tie it into the original they kind of screwed themselves. Ford should have never been in this movie. The film should have revolved around a new angle with new characters entirely and sought to expand the world building. Instead they didn't take their time on the sets IMO. Nearly every set was lacking in the details that made the original feel lived in. This film literally looked like a movie. Then the ending shit on the original.
Marcello Genovese: EXACTLY!!!! You nailed it, my friend. They tried too hard to connect this movie with the original one -- only to respond to the criticisms by saying «You are complaining because you wanted this to be like the first movie. It's not. Get over it.» I mean, seriously! Also, Harrison Ford should have never been in this movie and when they brought back Rachel... and Deckard says «She had green eyes»... that was one of the trashiest cheesiest B-movishest cinematic moment in the past 30 years.
I'd say all analyzes and critic reviews are subjective. Let me think of some examples... There's one film critic I know of who writes good reviews for a lot of poorly made films. Plus a lot of the "good films" that he reviews I'd say about 7/10 times he'll give the film a mixed or negative review. Roger Ebert was quoted saying he hates Gladiator with Russel Crowe. Most of his peers in the mainstream movie review scene said they quite liked it. Critics gave rave reviews for The Last Jedi, but then most of the normal joe viewers hated it, some going as far as to stalk and harass the asian lady online. So I'd say that the OP has every right to enjoy Blade Runner 2049 based off the bullet points he listed. All reviews are subjective.
PROS 1. Visuals are interesting and "cleaner" than the first film. But, of course, that reflects how much CGI has become dominant and how sophisticated it is. Also, the world is more expansive. We get to see the world outside of the greater LA area, which one wonders about with the first film (the original ending with Deckard and Rachel notwithstanding). And, we get to see more of the world inside of LA. A nice touch I noticed was the hologram of the ballerina, and how "CCCP" is part of it, reflecting the world of the US vs. USSR, which was a given when the first movie was made. 2 The music, though not Vangelis, sticks close to the genre and doesn't try to go too far out there with something different. That's both its upside and downside. 3. Ryan Gosling's performance as K. As Rob noted, though I don't like Gosling as an actor, he did a very good job in "2049," which surprised me. Ditto for Silvia Hoeks, the actress who played Luv. CONS 1. Far too long, and boring. The story, too, was too much focused on trying to insert Deckard into the story. In my not so humble opinion, Harrison Ford is too old to be doing this shit -- even if they money is good, which is more a reflection on the director and the Hollywood machine trying to squeeze one more performance out of him, which they did with "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" and "The Force Awakens." Consequently, you get paint-by-numbers performances that have to toe a certain cultural line, which you didn't see back in the 70s and 80s, in Ford's heyday. I wholeheartedly agree with Rob that, had the filmmakers gone back to the original PKD story, they could have done something far more interesting, yet sinister, with the themes in the original novel. In comparison, "2049" is too tame, and too formulaic. Rachel was pregnant and gave birth, then died in childbirth? Come on . . . Even I think that's too far-fetched for something dealing with what it means to be human. Lastly, though the "2049" world is interesting, it doesn't have the same film noir feel that the first film had, which is what made it a classic. It's once again an instance where the visuals are making up for a lack of riveting and compelling story. With the original film, the visuals were incidental, and it made you think more. 2. In line with my first comment, I also didn't like how they had to insert more "strong" female leads into former male leads, and then weaken the male leads (with the exception of K). As I said, Harrison Ford didn't need to be in this film. Neither did the Rachel character. Joshi didn't need to be a woman (Bryan in the first film was classic film noir type), Joi was a bit redundant, and Luv didn't need to be there, either. Was Luv trying to be a stand-in for Roy Batty? Also, Niander Wallace was a pale comparison to Tyrell, and smacked too much of the stereotypical "evil genius." Tyrell, though brilliant and devoid of feeling, felt more "human" and believable, in my view. Wallace was more "machine" than anyone else in the story. Mind you, I'm not saying that all females in the "2049" world have to be prostitutes or subalterns. Only that stocking the cast with more females than males smacks too much of the PC world that we now live in, here in 2018.
I'm glad I am not alone in hating this movie. Perhaps the thing I hated most in 2049 is that its premise negates the Final Cut version of the original Blade Runner, restoring the silly happy ending that production insisted stitching to its otherwise amazing finale. The good thing about 2049 is that it flopped so hard nobody will ever try to do another sequel. And about movies people think are masterpieces and get upset when you tell them they are not: try to criticize Interstellar! It shares several traits with Blade Runner 2049 (great visuals, great soundtrack, some good actors, some really bad actors, absolutely bad plot, etc) but it's naively considered a masterpiece by an impressive amount of angry people
I hated the film aswell. For so many reasons, from the endless subplots that go nowhere, to the unnecessary nudity and gratuitous violence, the fact that they came up with a backstory to literally destroy and restart the entire aesthetic of the Blade Runner universe which is still to this day the best ever put to screen (so why change it?). The whole Rachel scene and trying to say she was programmed to love Deckard just completely shits on the themes of the first film that they could overcome the adversity and be together. I thought the cinematography was so flat and dull. Just having occassional vibrant colours doesn't make it good. The love story with Joi being the biggest rip off of Her, but as I said it's only one of the many subplots instead of chosing a single plot (per character) to be the focus of the film like the original. I could go on, but I will mention the one thing I liked. I really liked the idea of the case K is investigating spawning from a replicant having a child. I just wish that the whole film was refocused just on that case. And that it's never told who the parents were, but a bit of a tease for fans that would want to believe it was Rachel and Deckard. I loved the vintage photo he finds of Rachel in front of a car that has a super 70s aesthetic. One of the few visual designs i enjoyed in the film. Where I'd describe the original as beautiful, poetic, tragic noir film.. I'd describe 2049 as gratuitous, uninspired, convulted action film.
The acting job of Ryan Gosling is phenomenal and in my opinion surpasses anyone in BR with the exception of Rutger Hauer. His relationship with Joi is interesting, novel, believable, and emotionally compelling (far more than Deckard/Rachel) while extending and expanding the best/deepest themes/questions of BR. Most of the characters are interesting and well-acted, and a few characters are flat out amazing (Sapper Morton and Luv I found fascinating and I wanted more of each). It is beautiful to look at (thank you Mr. Deakins). The music is not as good as Vangelis (and for my money, absolutely nothing could be); but it does effectively (and beautifully in its own way) echo V's music without being derivative, and manages to be its own score, while still fitting alongside BR. That's most impressive. My heart broke when Joi died; it provoked an emotional response, the highest praise for a movie. I agree that there were problems: Deckard wasn't necessary in this movie and Harrison Ford sucked. The fistfight was stupid Hollywood boilerplate in an otherwise inventive movie. I found the MacGuffin of "who's the child?" to be weak. But did these things ruin it irrevocably? With so many other good things going for it, I would say no.
Gosling is good in it, is he as good as Ford's original Deckard, not a chance, but he is very good. Deckard was more of an extended cameo in this one, but I think it was one of his best performances in a long time. It's K's movie and Gosling carries it well. I agree with the stupid fistfight and chase at the end, and the third act after they snatch Deckard was completely poo with the French woman and Mackenzie Davies who is the worst modern actress, luckily however it was one of the rare movies that seem to redeem itself with a very good ending
A lot of people here aren't going very deep into it (mostly talking about cinematography and all that), but the film really moved me personally. I respect your opinion, Rob, and I apologize if my post feels like a ramble, but I hope I end up touching on what really make this movie worthwhile To me, the film is about K's struggle with individuality and the question of the soul (whether a soul is inherent or if someone has to earn it). The inclusion of Nabokov's Pale Fire emphasizes this because it has similar themes of a character supposing they have a spiritual connection with someone and finding that they were wrong. K thinks that he is the replicant who was born, and therefore the one with a soul. He thinks he is special, the chosen one, etc., only to find out that he isn't. What I really like about this movie is how he continues on despite this blow to his ego. Critics talk about how the Replicant Revolution subplot is cliche and doesn't go anywhere, but I see it as a way of showing K's pursuit of individuality. The irony being that the Revolutionaries try to prove their humanity by becoming a part of a group, whereas K becomes truly human by following his own path. The suggestion at the end being that he has earned his humanity (i.e. his soul) by moving beyond the egotistical ideas of "the chosen one" or being a part of a "movement" and choosing his own destiny. He accomplishes way more than the silly Revolutionaries because of his Will to Power and ends up dying a much more noble death, therefore becoming the "special" person through his actions instead of through his birth.
Agree Rob. The original was a masterpiece. 2049 was terrible overall. Those who love MM4, or BR2049, etc just don't have any critical eye. They just love bigger explosions and CGI. I only watched it once. It's pointlessly slow (the original was slow on purpose to explore the world and build an arch). None of the characters behaves rationally. First 5 minutes, Gosling went to make an 'arrest' of a superior replicant and disarmed himself in a vulnerable/seated position!!!! WTF??!! Really stupid for an experienced bounty hunter. The villains were not interesting. The fight scenes too Hollywood/Matrix/Terminator. Apparently there's no security in the police HQ and a murdering replicant can just walk in and kill. Apparently everybody just abandons Vegas. Apparently you don't get hurt in a airborne car crash into the ground. And on and on...
What you said reminds me of what I get to hear when I say that I did not like the Matrix movies (no, not even the first one), did not like the new Star Wars movies, did not like the new Star Trek movies, did not like those stupid "Panem" movies, etc... people don't want to hear my opinion (not really) - instead they tell me that I am a communist / sexist / racist / chauvinist (you name it) and that I just "don't get it" (whatever "it" is supposed to be)... We have reached a point where people yell at each other in all-caps for the most random shit- movies just being one of them.
The fight between Harrison Ford and Ryan Gosling in the Vegas club w/ the Elvis hologram flickering was pretty cool. That's all I really remember liking.
As for JOI, she was a physical extension of K's character development. What K yearned for, she expressed. Yes at the start his Joi was a blank slate just like that giant ad, but through all their interactions and K's genuine "I'm special" beliefs (which he doesn't have anymore at the bridge scene) his Joi became special, unique and "real" to him specifically, seeing that entire scene as a mirror of Deckard meeting the fake Rachael, which is most evident by the completely black eyes of the giant Joi, where K could've easily had the same exact "I know what's real" line like Deckard did with the fake Rachael there. K wanted her to become like a real girl that really loves him and she slowly did so (as she is programmed to do), so where is the difference once she becomes the thing he desires? Also, in the script she calls him "Jo", while the ad calls him "Joe", alluding to the average Joe. Take off that what you willSo Joi is not some generic sidekick character, she's a window to K's identity and being. K could've said the same exact "I know what's real" line in that bridge scene, just like Deckard did when Wallace implied that his love maybe was programmed.
Your attempt at rationalising every little mundane detail in the movie like everything must have some great meaning sound mm... forced to me. You basically just explained the function of Joi as a product exactly the same way the movie did, basically adding nothing to what we already can see quite obviously in the movie ... Most 2049 fans wishfully wants Joi to be seen as having attained an unprogrammed consciousness but none of you are showing any proper evidence from the movie to prove that ... it remains just wishful thinking hoping the movie can be more emotional rather than dull ...
The baseline scene perfectly encapsulates the entire film, every single filmmaking element working perfectly together to deliver the narrative. Not just the writing, but the "dropping in" performance delivery, the closing in framing and composition, the context of the used literature, the immaculate sound design and sound mixing with the camera shutter speeding up and the high pitched sound becoming more aggravating and oppresive, the uncomfortable amount of unease and tension achieved through all of this, every single element in perfect tandem. Perfect execution. K's full baseline is an excerpt from the third canto of Vladimir Nabokov's Pale Fire. The book tells a story of a man who sees a surreal fountain in his near death "dream" and later discovers a precise description of that exact fountain in a paper. He takes it as some important cosmic sign and tries to get in touch with the author, but it turns out she's already dead and the poem was actually misprinted (fountain instead of mountain). Same as the "you're not special" theme in the narrative of the film, like K believed that he was indeed special. When he first reads the baseline in its entirety at the beginning of the test it establishes a baseline to innocuous stimulation, like a lie detector test first asking you banal questions like your name and favorite food. He's then made to recite excerpts of that excerpt after emotionally stimulating questions that may exasperate him, and the response is compared to that of the baseline. The clever part is that sometimes the otherwise innocuous excerpts of excerpts segue into meta questions that would throw the test subject for a loop and make it difficult to cheat. Before having to recite 'cells', they'd ask "when you're not performing your duties do they keep you in a little box" in direct relation to the word 'cells'. Before having to recite 'interlinked', they'd ask "what's it like to hold the hand of someone you love" in direct relation to the word 'interlinked'. He eventually fails when he's so overwhelmed by everything happening on top of him feeling trapped in his miserable life and dubious romantic situation. So it's not a mere reference, it's completely engrained into the films narrative and expands upon it. Also "Pale Fire", as a title, is a reference to a Shakespeare line about how the moon is really just a pale image of the sun, which in BR2049 is a metaphor about how K (or Joi or any replicant/AI really) is viewed as a pale image of a person.
I am hesitating to watch another Film by Villeneuve after seeing Prisoners, years ago. Something about the movie just felt absolutely pretentious and self-gratifying. And watching scenes from his movies since then, they always had this wankery about them, this lingering on a substance or meaning that just isn't there. Like watching an untalented conman trying pull one over on you, and you see through it from the beginning.
Yeah Prisoners was weird. I thought the story was decent, but the torture scenes were overdone and seemed to be there just to shock. I didn't buy into that aspect of it. All his films seem over long too. Sicario could have lost 20 odd minutes. I find his directing ... bland tbh.
Rob Ager It would be funny if all that pretentiousness I interpreted into his movie for all this time was in the end just blandness by incompetence lol
I think it is more to do with bad 'translation' on his behalf. The philosophical ideas may be intriguing when he discusses them with other French speakers in French. But he uses cliched English, if you like, when discussing those same ideas to English speakers. Something gets lost, a subility. I totally know what you mean though. He wants to be seen as being very deep. BR49 was ok. I wasn't crazy about it, but I am glad someone was brave enough to green light a movie set in a dystopian future. Arrival however....dullest movie I have ever seen..and I like Amy Adams! She was great in The Master. Renner is more watchable than Jared Leto, but even when I saw him in The Hurt Locker, I asked, 'why are they making this guy the 'star'?!'
What's great about 2049? Visually speaking, it's nothing short of just stunning. Combined with the soundtrack in the background, during those wide derelict city scenes, it depicts a world that is classic Blade Runner. The length of the movie is what kills it. This is the critical aspect that Denis Villeneuve overlooked. I would've cut of lot of stuff in that film but as a Blade Runner lover, I don't mind it too much. Believe me, this sequel could've ended up being a complete flop had the script landed on the wrong hands of a film director, and more importantly on the wrong hands of a director of photography. Roger Deakins did an incredible job.
I think the reason for why people, including me, liked Blade Runner 2049 was "Context". I'll explain it this way: In 2016 a First Person Shooter video-game called DOOM was released and MANY people liked it, including myself. Many and I consider it the greatest experience we've had in gaming in over a decade. However, what Doom is though, is a Shooter with game-mechanics literally from the 1990's, well over 20 years ago, but with soooo many military shooters out now, Doom REALLY stood out to the crowd of FPS fans. Back to my point, I think that Blade Runner 2049 isnt necessarily amazing, but, at least personally, I haven't seen anything like it that I can think off at the top of my head, which is why, though I rate it around 7/10, it has left an imprint in my memory for sometime for reasons I cant yet explain. In fact, you could say "Context" was the reason why people really LOVED the original Blade Runner, people saying it's story isn't amazing, but they've also never seen anything like it at the time. I guess part of it was it had a dream-like presentation, rather than other movies being matter-of-fact. Hey Rob, do you have a Patreon? Just asking for a buck from people I'm sure would greatly help the channel. I certainly would, been a fan since the beginning.
I'm usually on board with Rob's opinions about most films, but not this one. This film had me mesmerized from minute one until the end in the theater. Such an incredibly visceral experience. A slow neo noir detective film, but with visuals and sounds straight out of the most psychedelic dream you could imagine? Yes please.
If you compare it to other 100+ million dollar productions it is great. But if you compare it to "really good" movies it can't stand it's ground. There are so many things that don't work or are a bit off.
I think I like this movie for a few reasons. I enjoyed K's arc. K goes on a journey of self-discovery. He believes his childhood memories are fake implants, and it isn't until he's tricked into believing these memories are real that he shows any emotion, but then he realizes he was being manipulated by Wallace into finding Deckard and he's faced with proof that his memories are in fact, not real, and he really is just a man-made creation that exists for the sole purpose of being exploited by 'real' people. Because he violated direct orders, the police would come after him. His life was effectively over, and seemingly for nothing. Before the third act, he could've simply given up. He even looked at his gun as if contemplating suicide, but instead, he makes his first true decision in his entire life and for purely emotional reasons, he must see Deckard survive and reunite with his child, so he saves Deckard in the end before finally succumbing to his wounds at the end and died for a cause he believed in, even if his manufacturers didn't. In other words, this movie proves K, as a man-made creation, still has a soul that's as real as his human creators, and he understands in a primitive way that he has done something to better the world, regardless of its smallness. There are other reasons too though. When I went into this movie, I was expecting a run of the mill action movie, and I honestly didn't think it would be more than that, but what we got was something slow, methodical, and atmospheric. I understand you hated the slowness of this movie, and I half-agree the pacing could've been quicker, but not MUCH quicker in my opinion. I think the lingering shots occasionally serve an emotional purpose, like when K finds the wooden horse. The reason the camera stays on that horse for a solid minute is to give us time to put the pieces together that his memories are real, and also to build a sense of dread. The music swells and whines during this scene as if K is shaking on the inside as his denial is broken down by what he's seeing. This is actually my favorite scene in the whole movie. This slow pacing doesn't work though. That scene with Wallace soliloquizing like a Saturday morning cartoon villain as he stands over a newly created replicant that pukes her guts out for what feels like fifteen minutes could have been much shorter. In fact, it probably could've been cut outright and the plot would flow better. In fact I took issue with Wallace's entire character because his motivations are under-explained and the idea of him breeding an army of replicants for his own benefit doesn't make sense to me considering K is a replicant and he rebels against the wishes of his masters twice. I'm not saying the movie is perfect, but when you consider this story is dropped into a world where technology has taken over people's lives and isolated them, compare this to the real world. To an increasing degree, our interactions with each other are simulated on the internet. We talk to our friends online, we share videos, pictures, and text online, and as the technology improves, it's leading to less and less face-to-face social behavior. It's increasingly common for kids to grow up feeling scared to talk to people face-to-face, but not screen-to-screen, even though studies show this is bad for brain development and breeds depression-anxiety. This idea was subtly present in Blade-Runner, but much more so in 2049, because of how it fleshed out K's relationship with his holographic girlfriend - Joi - his only true companion in the entire film, and she's only ones and zeroes on a fucking glorified USB-drive that gets stomped on like a cockroach by the villain. Not only that, but this same piece of technology is being used by the villains to spy on K and monitor his activities. Hmm, sound familiar to anyone? Another way of interpreting K's journey is his gradual rejection of his technological, worldly possessions that give him false comfort in a bleak, lonely world. When all these comforts and daily pleasures are stripped from you, what remains? You, your core values, experiences, and desires - just like K.
What I really liked: -goslings character arc: there are too many characters who's journey is them finding out that they are special and really important, the chosen one etc. I loved that it subverted that trope, showing that his character was really unspecial, and what mattered was his actions. - The cinematography, production design and special effects were all exceptional, at least on a technical basis. I think deakins out did himself with the colours, moving light and framing. My favourite shot being when K has just seen his girlfriend projection with black eyes call him a "good joe", the colour literally drains from his face, going from pink to blue. It's awesome. - the pacing. I know this is what a lot of people have issues with, but I thought it felt really patient. It was a nice break from the chopping tht you usually see with summer fare. - the acting: everyone gave performances tht really suited their characters. I was shocked to see Harrison ford actually emote, for once.
What I enjoyed about Blade Runner 2049 was the experience. The story does not achieve much on the side of Ryan Gosling and that is what I believe was intended. We are being pulled back into a world we haven't seen in quite some time and we are being shown everything from the viewpoint of someone who is heavily manipulated and does not have perfectly simulated human feelings. He is an extension of us as viewers in a very simple way. He could easily be removed from this entire film and be replaced by almost anyone and it would not make much difference. Was he ever designed to be able to truly understand anything? Was his interactions with the AI also simulated in a way to make these replicants avoid human relationships? I believe his programming defined him to be heavily flexible without the ability to truly make his own decisions making him the perfect robot. His experience that we get to live is what interested me and I hope we can return to this world again to continue this. This film was like a long drive during a storm. You respect the beauty of the world around you but understand it would be very inconvenient to stop and experience it. You must continue on until your destination. Maybe next time we can stop and see some people that live in it instead of experiencing it as an outsider.
The only good thing about the movie was Dave Bautista who I thought was great in the short (prequel) and in the scene he was in. I also thought the main story was going to be about Joi's sentience (or lack thereof) which gave me the impression in the first 30 minutes of the film that the movie would be good. Then it turned into a shit show. People these days are so desperate to call anything a masterpiece that this film became the martyr of their eagerness. It was terrible (especially the script).
Right on about overeagerness. Just look at the way people fawn over Star Wars ffs. Star Wars wasn't even that great the first time around, and now it's a fucking religion. I think we are living in a civilization in decline.
Frank Rabbit: I agree completely about Bautista. He was criminally underused. He was like a more sympathetic Roy Batty and should have been the main antagonist, rather than the kung-fu woman who seemed to be reprising Famke Janssen's character from Goldeneye.
@PostonClan As an adventure fantasy it was a great movie for kids. What makes me sad is how utterly debased Hollywood is that they would take that franchise and turn it into a giant feminist propaganda tool. It's symptomatic of our entire culture going Woke.
I really hope you are sincere and not just baiting... The original BR is my fave movie, I felt so happy after seeing 2049 that it was done so well. If you don't like it fair enough. I personally loved the story and the direction it went, found K's journey to be interesting and liked the further exploration of memories. Liked Ford's performance as well and the way he struggles to say Rachel's name. K's relationship with Joi I found to be very touching and found myself wondering how I could care so much about a virtual gf haha. I don't want to go on too much but the story overall tied up I found very satisfying. Although it was a crazy coincidence that she had implanted that memory into K and he just happened to find her mum's grave. I guess she was responsible for planting memories in all the blade runners or something and knew it would happen eventually. Also loved the cinematography, score and some dis Ryan Gosling but I loved him. I think the emotions he tries to hide make sense like Arnie being the terminator.
Themes of what it means to live for something real, to have a true purpose in life. The entire plot of 2049 is set around K believing he is the miracle child, that he is special and important, only to find out at the end that he really isn't. Everything is leading up to the scene with the giant purple Joi, where he is confronted with the ultimate reality of his life that he is basically meaningless, almost as if life itself is mocking him, laughing at him for being a fool believing his own fantasies, while shoving the fakeness of Joi, a program which he loved and believed in and kept telling him that he is special ("Everything you want to hear"), in his face. It's the turning point of the plot, when K finally makes a decision of himself - not following anyone's orders, without being told what to do in service of others - and becomes a real human being by "dying for the right cause": saving Deckard so that he could meet his daughter. The true realization of self. From then on he basically becomes a supersoldier and does everything in his power to accomplish his goal. To me, what's really powerful about this film is that it reflects the hopelessness and the perpetual state of self-deception in modern society. People are getting depressed and can't see any true meaning in life, people are jacking off to cartoons instead of living for what's truly real in this world. Villeneuve tells us through metaphors (e.g. the falsity of holograms) to stop lying to ourselves, confront reality and create our own purpose in our lives, almost like a statement for the current state of our world. And that's why I think it's a true masterpiece. Not just for the technical aspects (cinematography, special effects, soundtrack) or the "cool future tech"... in fact I think it's the combination of it all - plus the importance of its themes in the 21st century. Next time you watch this film, keep in mind that 2049 is a film about the characters, and not necessarily the events or the futuristic elements or the continuation of the original film. More specifically the character of K. Keep in mind that this is a film where Villeneuve tells us the story of K's journey of self-discovery in a subtle and elegant way, through metaphors and visual narrative instead of spoon-feeding themes and plot points.
Wallace character. The blind watchmaker, "God-complex" (maybe you can comment on if he has narcissistic personality disorder) Suitably dark, good Milton-based dialogue well delivered, a strong performance from Jared Leto IMHO. Is he Tyrell's offspring or clone?
Logically, they are mutually exclusive. A person's descendant is the heir of their estate. If Wallace was the clone/offspring of Tyrell, he would have already owned the company after his father was murdered.
Nephew wouldn't necessarily automatically inherit Tyrell Corp. Nor grandson. But I take your point. If the will stipulates an offspring shall not inherit the estate, then they won't. Since cloning isn't governed by legal precedents as yet, we will put that in the maybe pile... Gotta love these Sci-Fi hypotheticals... :D
Personally, I was disappointed. It took me days to decided whether I liked it or not because I felt so let-down. There was no deeper meaning on existentialism and the meaning of love and the concept of "the other" and the spiritual question we're left to ponder. They just kept the plot and robotically expanded on it with very little depth. It was dry. The counter argument is that the visuals were good and some parts were very entertaining. It just felt like a movie made to look like another and relies too heavily on the first. I was so torn between liking a new movie and hating the sequel.
i think the thing that i loved about it most, was that it plays on the theme of what it means to be human like the book did. I'm not saying it was more faithful to the book, as you pointed it out in your other video, but i liked that it took the idea of humans losing their humanity and expanded on it. in the first film, its more about what counts as human as well as the fear of death and mortality, but this film i think goes more into the idea of humans holding onto what little humanity they have left. kinda like the book. this isn't the only reason i love it, it's the fact that this film portrays it visually and contextually. i feel like a lot of modern movies have great themes but they tell it to us rather than showing it to us. this film shows us visual metaphors of humans trying to keep their humanity. like the big bad guy having a room made entirely of wood (we rarely see wood outside the room) and all it cost him was his eyes and emotions. another metaphor would be through the music. there are old songs spliced throughout, but we only hear little pieces of it, and the people barely react to it, cos it means nothing anymore. despite being a cheesy scene, thats why the scene where deckard hears elvis and is kinda brought back out of his "im gonna kill you!" phase. i do think that scene hams it up a bit, but the intention to express an idea artistically is there none the less. even the story itself is a representation of this theme, K trying to convince himself he is the human child, and coming to terms with the fact that he isn't special. a lot of my friends were angry at this anticlimax, but unlike the last jedi and more like infinity war, i think its a subversion of expectations thats deserved. now there's plenty of things i don't like about this film (the poor villains, the music, the length) but for me the strong points outweigh the bad. the acting (except for jared leto) is great, even small roles like dave bautista were well performed, the great cinematography (though i do agree the first film had better cinematography) but i do think the film expands on themes more than you give it credit for. However, I understand why you don't like the film. My dad said "it's like going round town just to cross the street" which i think sums up everything wrong with the film, but i love the fact that its a film that understands visual metaphors and storytelling as well as just telling the stories to the audience like a lot of films these days have a habit of doing. i would say this film doesn't hold a candle to the original, but i do love this film none the less and i think it is a great sequel...but it will never be aliens, thats for sure.
OK so a big part of the original BR was the universe that it was set in and a good point about 2049 is that you are not only back in that universe, but it's also greatly expanded, that experience for me makes it very enjoyable even though the story is slow and there are other negative points, a return to that universe and seeing more of it in greater detail makes the film very worthwhile.
As for the replicant rebellion, they are essential to both the plot and K's arc. They are there to show how K has to make a individual decision not depending on anyone to truly become special so he denies both Wallace and the rebellion. Also to show how both sides (Wallace and the rebellion) want to use K as a tool for their own goals, which is reflected in the fact that they both are in water reflected settings and both the rebellion bitch and Wallace are blind in some way or another.
I think it’s a perfect THEMATIC sequel, what the first Blade Runner brought up and discussed theme-wise was interesting but how 2049 was able to build upon it and add to it is awesome and thought-provoking. For example: the first movie discusses what it means to be human and if an Android can even be considered one when it has pretty much all the physical and mental attributes as a human. 2049 takes that and furthers it where it compares the androids with the humans and showing how sometimes the humans or more humane than the androids and even the other way around. The first one ends with the protagonist discovering himself and whether he’s an Android or not, 2049 begins with the protagonist already being well-aware he’s an Android but still continuously struggling with the meaning of life for himself. It’s really able to pull me in and feel sympathetic at times even wondering the same thoughts myself. I can understand why you wouldn’t like the plot and how much of a slow-burn it is but I wouldn’t have it any other way Bc the first Blade Runner I would consider slow-paced as well but it was deliberately doing that showing the protagonist conflict philosophically and existentially. The way K slowly feels he doesn’t truly have a purpose as a robot and becomes distraught with himself but then finds something to care for in the daughter and realizing that even if his life isn’t worth much it isn’t because he’s an Android because he knows that she has the true wonder and spirit of life in her. At least that’s just some stuff I get out of the movie anyway. also just really love Denis Villanueve and his directing plus you got Roger Deakins doing the Cinematography which is a match made in heaven. That’s not to say it maybe could be trimmed down like 10 min but either way it’s a movie I love
Yea I didn’t get the irrational behavior to your negative review, I personally liked it and find it entertaining, and didn’t bother me that you didn’t, I do respect your opinion, more so then most critics, and you might be right in disliking it, but I personally believe it’s a worthwhile movie.
Starting off with remarks like "Worst sequels ever made. One of the worst movies I've ever seen" doesn't warrant much respect from viewers who disagree with your opinion. In fact, it seems like purposeful argument baiting. It's like farting in someone's face and then trying to mask the smell with perfume. If you want people to not rally up in arms about Blade Runner 2049 maybe lay off the hyperbole. Express your opinion without words that belong to bitter vitriol. You'll find even avid fans of something will lighten up if you do so.
What's good about it? Of the top of my head: -The strong cinematic language of the film, allthough it is very different from the original -The score, which is absolutely overwhelming, but again does something different and comes back to the original only at one crucial point in the film ("Tears in Rain"), when it is appropriate -The special effects (the miniatures are a nice hommage and still work better than going completely CGI, but when they do CG it is flawless, still the best example of de-aging to date when you see young Rachel and also the "merging" scene is groundbreaking) -The acting and casting in general (probably the best use of Gosling since "Only God Forgives" and they even managed to make Jared Leto work, which hasn't happened a lot lately, but I really love his Steve Jobs version compared to Tyrell's more Bill Gates like figure) -The use of a strong female cast (withtout making it feel like pandering as the Disney company always does), they just are best for their respective roles and do an incredible job -The way they included Harrison Ford, which to be honest, wasn't necessary if you concive a sequel in this word, but doing so takes balls and they absolutely pulled it off (he also seems to be into it, which he rarely is anymore, so this makes me very happy) -The way they deal with the question if Deckard is a Rep or not, the "Yes... No...?" by Leto gives me goosebumbs everytime -The way they expand on the subject matter and questions of the first film (Reps are working, loving and openly living in this world now and have to face different obstacles) -The plot twists and turns (I was expecting the movie to dance around the question wether Gosling is a Rep or not, for at least the majority of the film, if not making that the final question yet again, but they just get rid of that in the very first scene and offer something new completely) -The final image of Deckard extending his hand to his daughter, as Roy once extended his hand to save him (brings me to tears everytime and is a worthy contender for the closing elevator doors in the original)
This is not a good list. This is the kind of list someone makes when they're trying to convince themselves. Most of these good things don't seem that good. I could actually say real good things about the first movie.
@@ThisIsTheRoad ha, well you really aren't interested in my opinion are you? I said I could go into detail talking about the real merits of the first one. If you're interested in learning something go ahead and ask.
Atmosphere - obviously. Strongest element of the movie. Set Design. - it's subtler than you think, for instance: Wood and water are shown to be rare resources in the future, however Wallace being a titan of industry, his whole pyramid is full of water, and the steps are from wood. Sex scene - it's more interesting than most sex scenes. The music - Subjective, but I dug it. For the Dystopia it's going for, it's strange. I like the idea that K knows he's not real and that Deckard is not his father, nonetheless he chooses to save him. Even tho he's not human, his actions are humane. And i love the idea that we follow the NOT chosen one. The cinematography is clean cut. I like the idea that K knows Joi is not real, nonetheless he chooses to roll with it. I like the idea that it's totally polarizing. You either love it or you hate it. However, love it or hate it, objectively it's great. I like the flying car. I like the pistols and the idea that they're just regular pistols, not futuristic laser ones or something. The message being, we don't need to update our weapons, we've already perfected the means of killing each other. I like it cause of it's concepts, and because it doesn't feel like SciFICTION but rather an eventuality we're all going towards. It's a Style over Substance movie. And that's fine.
I couldn’t agree more, you described the movie as ‘empty’ and that sums it up so succinctly that there is almost no point in adding more. By the half way point I was so close to walking out due to boredom that by the end of it, I wished I had. One set that I thought was pretty was the one with the water reflected on the walls, that’s the only positive thing I remember from that awful, bloated waste of time.
Blade Runner 2049 would have been good if it eliminated Harrison Ford’s character. It didn’t need to have a connection to the previous film other than being set in the same universe. The visuals are ok, but they weren’t like the first flick. They never wowed me since CGI is so common in films these days it takes quite more than that to amaze me. Ryan Gosling’s performance in the movie was alright, it sucks that he died in the end. Not really invested in watching a potential sequel that’ll only be meh. But Ryan Gosling, Indiana Jones and some “cool” special effects can’t save this film in my eyes. It wasn’t great, just decent in comparison to the other garbage that appeared in theaters last year.
I don't see what people liked about Blade Runner 2049. It was less subtle than the original, had bad villains, wasted Harrison Ford (even though he was primarily brought back for fandom's sake), had a less interesting protagonist, and was paced in a way that felt like everyone is deliberately walking as slow as possible to pad out the running time. The cinematography is great, but that means nothing to me when the film is so boring and hollow.
I don't know if anyone else has mentioned this yet, but the central mystery/miracle of artificial life giving birth to a new, living hybrid being with the power to create or manufacture realities is a very striking idea - mythopoetic even. I don't know if it is wholly original, but I can't recall ever coming across it in any other sci-fi media. That alone makes this film worthy of note in my book.
I loved the character arcs and subtle acting performances. K begins the film as an apathetic replicant willing to kill other replicants without giving it a second thought. He didn't value his own life because he was a replicant, and consequently he didn't value the lives of other replicants as well. He was a gear in an engine, and not much more. A sheep as Graff insinuated. He thought that replicants were soulless beings, and humans were real living beings with souls. Over the course of the film he realizes that your thoughts and actions are what really make you human. Joi was probably the most fascinating character in the film. You could see how her original programming forced her to act a certain way, and do and say certain things. But my god when she started to evolve before my eyes and do things that went beyond her pleasure bot programming it was wonderful. Her character was arcing from a pleasure bot program to an
actual human like program. She made decisions that went beyond her programming and actually took steps to protect K even at her own peril. She showed genuine concern for K when he was unconscious, and that wouldn't be necessary in her original programming. When she told K that she loved him I bought it. It was real. and even if it wasn't, still that was enough. It mattered. The character you have to watch most carefully is Luv. She's a newer more advanced replicant who doesn't have the luxury of disobeying her masters in any significant way. Yet through subtle acting you can see that Luv doesn't actually want to kill certain people, and she has the incorrect (by her boss' standard) emotional response to new life being created, so she hides her tears from him. She's trapped in a role of complete obedience to her master, but she wants freedom. It came with a kiss and her death.
The film is good, in that it has provoked a discussion A meaningless film is watched, discarded, and forgotten As mentioned by others, Joi is the most engaging-interesting character Plenty of good ideas in the film-the replicant resistance, Deckard and Rachael’s child; the Rachael clone, the drones managed by replicants, Wallace’s intelligent/thoughtless creative/destructive, and self destructive nature
BR2049 took a couple viewings to click for me, but when it did- it joined the likes of vertigo, apocalypse now, original blade runner as one of the greatest films ever. It seems to polarise people fairly extremely, but for me its a 2.5 hour audio-visual-philosophical-emotive orgasm (no exaggeration). Every shot is mind-blowingly gorgeous, the script is subtly multi-layered, the acting is sublime, the pacing is like a deep brain massage, I could go on... I have a few friends who thought it boring or its "just ryan gosling flying around in his car", they love BR2049s opposite - "the last Jedi", which is a candy-fountain of action scenes (which I found terribly boring). I can understand why 2049 bores them, they want the constant flashy adrenaline rush with hipster humour rather than some slow melancholic existential exploration that demands multiple viewings. I feel sorry for them missing out on the scintillating intensity that is 2049, but then clearly im missing whatever made the last jedi and all the marvel movies so amazing. Its simply a different strokes for different folks thing.
In my personal case I get bored of movies and series in general by now and that doesnt mean that there are no good movies around. Anyway thanks to Alejandro Jodorowsky, Andrei Tarkovsky, Stanley Kubrick, David Lynch , David Cronenberg, John Carpenter, Fritz Lang and Frank Oz. :) I nearly stopped watching movies years ago and I found the most deepest, magical and adventurous movie filled with billions of emotions - my life. Even this - my very "own" movie - I let roll out in widescreen but focusing at my true me in order to float to the stars and - most important - beyond.
The thing I like the most about it which I haven’t heard you criticise is that K is the flip side of Deckard, Deckard is a human who wonders whether he could be a replicant and K is a replicant who wonders if he could be human. Also I didn’t catch this detail until someone else pointed it out for me, We spend the whole film thinking that K’s hologram girlfriend really has affections for him despite her being an AI, so an android falling for a slightly less advanced android. But near the end when she’s been destroyed and he meets the life size replica of her, she calls him Joe which shows that her suggesting that he calls himself Joe is not her showing a personality it’s part of her programming, I don’t know about you but I found this small detail heartbreaking
Both movies (Blade Runner and 2049) are mysteries. So, my main concern going into 2049 was whether its mystery was going to be a suitably satisfying puzzle. Now having watched the movie three times now (once in cinema, twice at home) I believe script writer Hampton Fancher managed to deliver. Is it up there with the original? -No, but lightning rarely ever strikes twice so I, like other fanboys/girls, had to put their expectations in check going in. Similar as to when I saw the first movie (upon its original VHS release), the story and motivations of some of its characters were unclear. The beats didn’t necessarily join up and only after many years to coming back to it and a few interim edits, I can now see the original Blade Runner for the masterpiece it is. 2049 suffers similar problems. In its attempt to honour the original, its clues/influences are deeply buried, possibly more so than is commercially smart. However in the crucible of expectation vs disappointment, I’m firmly in the “try something new” and “fail big” audience, so I can forgive 2049 its failings. Now after several viewings, 2049 is a movie that has given me several fresh “a-ha” moments when hearing a line of dialogue or viewing a subtle gesture (and yes, I am trying skirt round the spoilers here, for anybody else reading these comments). In the movie itself Ryan Gosling delivers a subdued, career-best performance, the visuals are a treat, the music is atmospheric and the story doesn’t make much sense first time around - so then, pretty much the same as the original. And if that’s the original you’re honouring, then I would argue that Denis Villeneuve et al were closer to the target than further away from it. The real acid test for 2049 will be whether it is going to create the same level of debate in its audience as the original did? Not rabid rantings or religiously-held defences by the original's fans. On its own, does the movie’s mystery have enough details, nuances and Easter eggs to be found on repeated viewings? I believe it does and stacked against many other fêted movies at the moment I think 2049 comes out well upon repeated viewings. Straining under the yoke of near impossible expectations, it could have been far, far worse. So, like the original when you watch it next, the flaws will shriek louder and the fresh revelations will redeem in part - and in this respect 2049 is a suitably kindred sequel to its Blade Runner predecessor.
I was really excited that day went to see the movie and at the end, I just felt lackluster. I was really confused when coming out of the theatre. Blade Runner IS my favorite movie I fell in love with it all after the first viewing and dozen time of reviewing just couldn't get enough of it, but for this new sequel I can't man, it's a neat production and all that, but the second half of the movie just blew the whole thing and seeing them play with the old stuff from the original just made me emotionless toward the whole.
I didn't particularly care for the plot of characters but Roger Deakins' cinetamography was nice. Also, is there a link to that Oliver Stone interview about Natural Born Killers? I was also underwhelmed by that movie so maybe there's something I just didn't get.
The world building is excellent. Take into consideration that JOI is to K what replicants once were to humans, and that she’s essentially the next logical step in artificial humanity
The original Blade Runner will never be equalled, as with the original Alien and Terminator and The Thing. Blade Runner 2049 was a mixed bag, it had some good elements such as Gosling and Ford and the art design was ok, but the plot was dull.
well it been a while since i saw the movie but I like that fakeness of Joi..that she is just a soulless product made to make you feel good ... and i like the ending k chooses not to kill Deckard and instead help him reach his daughter resulting in him dying a a real man and not a machine
I like the part when Jared Leto asks Deckard (Ford) if he was sent to meet Rachael on purpose. That opens a whole can of worms. I love the part when he pours whiskey on the floor and the dog comes up and starts licking it up. "Is it real?" "I don't know, ask him" , that part makes me laugh. I thought the style and music matched the first movie well. I don't know, I just liked it, it was better than I thought is was gonna be. Look forward to your video.
I know I'm late to the party but, the reason I liked the movie was K's character arc. Despite K being a Blade Runner he's kind of a fairly pathetic loser that is more invested in his digital girlfriend than in real life. He then stumbles upon a reason to be something more than he was, and despite this ultimately being a lie, and crushing him, he gives up his more self centered dreams and aspirations and chooses to do the right thing for someone else. I also feel that K's relationship with Joi is a core component of what K's character arc represents and, combined with his painful stiffness both are a pretty direct commentary on modern young men's lack of initiative and retreat into the digital over the real. Which could be described as "misplaced love". This is emphasized in several key moments. The most relevant being: when Joi hires the replicant prostitute, and when K realizes everything Joi was is a lie. As far as I remember, after his night with the prostitute is the only instance in the entire movie of natural sunlight. The clouds have been lifted and gone is the perpetual foggy night. Sadly, I don't think K even looks at her afterwards, he spends the entire time talking with a hologram and ignores the real person he made an intimate connection with. We then see her leave, and the door closes. He's so attached to an imitation of reality he prefers it over the real thing. This ultimately comes to a head when he stares at the giant pink billboard ad of Joi and realizes the thing he convinced himself he loved, and that loved him back, was just a product feeding him pre packaged lines to make him feel good. The fact that he then drowns a woman named "Love" is pretty powerful representation of him giving up something he clearly desired for himself, but was unable to establish due to his own shortcomings, in order for a father and a daughter to share the love they never had. 2049 probably appeals to a Millennial and younger audience, in that it literally shows a loser shut in, lose all hope, and briefly turn himself around to make a tangible difference in someone else's life - and that's aspirational cinema for my generation. When I asked my friend what he thought the movie's message was, he said "You're not special, and that's okay." I said "The only way to live a meaningful life is to help others." And I would say they're fairly complementary messages embedded in K's character.
The worldbuilding is insane. In Sapper Morton's home, you can see the tank used to grow the Cowslip flower placed on Rachel's grave. When Kay has the wooden horse analyzed for authenticity, the broker says this much wood is worth a lot of money. Kay takes a shower at the beginning of the film where the computer states he gets a few seconds burst of "99.9% pure water". Compare this with Wallace's offices which are completely constructed of wood and pools of water. The replicants look down on the AI companions the way humans look down on the replicants, like they've learned nothing. I find Kay's character arc to be pretty entertaining, especially to Deckard in the original who didn't grow as a character much at all. From being accused of "having never seen a miracle" by Sapper Morton, to believing he is the chosen one, to realizing he is not and even his AI companion was lying to him, to sacrificing himself to save Deckard - it's very compelling. Combined with the excellent cinematography and technical work behind the music and visuals of the film - I just think it can't be beat and I'm really disappointed Rob Ager continues to give this modern classic such short shrift.
What good about this movie? - Tuuuuuuuut..... (static noise) Oh yes, one thing: it makes me puke and cry of sadness, and then my stomac is clean and I can love even more the first film.
Blade Runner 2049 is a visual masterpiece, that is so rare nowadays. One of the important aspects of watching a movie for me is an aesthetic pleasure of watching an actual cinematographic experience, since most of times I'm marketed with some sort of weird shit, that can't even be considered as a film at all. BR2049 hits the right spot - since the very first trailer, I knew I will finally be able to hangout to the cinema. See, for past years I've had to shrink my walks to cinema, due to a lack of material that really needs big screen & that atmosphere cinema has, which you can't recreate at home. I couldn't say I was 100% satisfied with movie the first time I saw it, but I was absolutely blown away with cinematography. The work that Villeneuve & Deakins did to BR2049 is astonishing, breathtaking and very professional in every aspect. Movie pays enough attention to it's predecessor not only in terms of plot & story (which is obvious for a sequel), but even visually it has that hommage to original film. I would even say that in terms of camera work BR2049 gone further, extending what Cronenweth & Scott did in the first film. I also could not remind about the problems, which original movie had in terms of various versions of edits and that didn't work well for the original movie. Br2049 is quite a solid experience with everything being put in the right places. What I really liked after first watch is that film left me with uncertain feeling about it. Most of the times with recent films there is nothing left when movie is over & light are turned on - you don't have anything to think over, there are no feelings inside you. Or even worse with recent blockbuster chewing gum, when you really feel what type of shit you were fed with for past coupe of hours. That uncertainty BR2049 left me with was a good indicator for me, movie wanted me to think it over and probably rewatch. I've had pretty similar feeling after watching Tarkovskys "Offret" for the first time, or his "Stalker" - one of my most beloved films of all times. Yeah, BR2049 certainly isn't as strong & deepen as original movie was in terms of philosophical aftertaste, but I wouldn't say BR2049 didn't open some new exploration - the love-line for example. It feels fresh, original and I would even say warm, especially in the contrast with overall cold palette of the film. Moreover this small plot line, is something that original movie wasn't able to reach - the Decard-Rachel story was too plain to believe in. The Joi-K line is working properly, moving itself throughout the main story and fully blasts in it's glory with the intimate scene when Joi hires hooker replicant. It's brilliant. It drives the story, it builds characters - if you take that out, there won't be an extra cathartic scene when K is looking onto that Joi hologram on the streets. One of the most important scenes in the movie where he decides himself as an invidual, accepts his role in the life around him. So I can't fully agree with how bad the plot is - every bit of information is placed accurately in most cases, you can take or shift some components of course, but in the state it is in theatrical version is fine. It's just working. Original film was aiming towards Scotts dreams of a monumental philosophical questions, BR2049 is following it giving audience a much more intimate connections. Combined with mesmerizing visuals you get a genuine film, a state of an cinematographical art. Yeah - music is awful, you can't beat Vangelis, if you don't hire him. Jared Leto is an absolute miscast and his character is too plain - you can expect that from Luvs character, but not from the villain. Apart from these 2 issues that immediately came to my mind, everything seem really solid for me. Maybe it isn't a film that might be put into history of filmmaking, but it's hell a great film in our times of ridiculously weak shit overfilling the cinema. It's a gem stone, I could forgive some roughness and imperfections of dramaturgy.
I think you're giving BR2049 an unfair criticism. Forgetting that BR was so fantastic and iconic. Look at 2049 as it's own film. 2049 tackles themes that weren't in the original BR - and at the same time adds to the themes introduced in BR. It was able to walk the very difficult tightrope of honoring the original, continuing the story, paying respect to the original characters and continuing with a canon that has evolved on it's own for the last 35+ years. This was a very difficult task, and 2049 achieved it greatly. The characters of Joi and K were brilliantly developed. Gosling was 7/10. Ford was 9/10. The original BR was film noir, in color and in the future - BR2049 maintained this feel and added to it. Certainly one of the best sequels ever made - and a great movie on it's own.
Riddle me this. iIn the original, the city looked like a colourful mess of neon and people. Why take the decision to deliberately play down those visuals by setting the film post a massive black out?!? The hype leading up to the film led us to believe we would be leaving LA and exploring the rest of the BR universe. 'Cool', I can't wait to see what they do with the aerial shots of the city', I said to myself. However, they decide to have the city more or less blacked out!! Why?! Why have shots of a car flying over a massive future city we can't bloody see?!? My overall pet hate however is Jared bloody Leto!!! How does this over acting ham get parts in movies?!
As for the Her comparisons in the prostitute sex scene, It's funny how BR2049 made a ten times more genuinely emotionally investing romantic story in just a side story of the film compared to Her where that's the entire film. For most people the actual physical "love" part falls apart completely in Her, especially in any scene where the love part wants to be materialised (the prostitute sex scene, that sex scene where Joaquin just lays and talks to her) which come off as extremely cheesy and "quirky" which in result end up falling completely flat. Funny how there is the exact same concept of the threesome between an AI, a prostitute and a man in Her and literally no one ever talks about it because the execution of the scene is like any standard rom com flick, the AI part is completely secondary. Not to mention that in Her the prostitute is entirely meaningless in the act itself, while in BR2049 all it's a very character involving scene for all three characters, not just literally but in narrative terms also. It's a physical manifestation of K's character development. In short, Spike Jonze didn't know how to approach the concept of a man falling in love with a computer in a serious way so he had to make it extremely quirky to have an excuse for most scenes, while in BR2049 it's executed completely direct and tasteful with zero pretense at all.
I think the film would fair better in the context of a stand alone film. Had they not titled this movie bladerunner and they hadn't referred to Gosling as a replicant I bet a lot of people wouldn't guess this was the same world. Ridley Scott crammed SO much detail into his sets and shots, the whole movie was shrouded in night and rain or fog. It was a Noir film. The sequel couldn't be further from a Noir film if it tried. The color pallet was all wrong and WAY to much of this film was shot during the day or with brightly lit scenes. The lighting made the lack of care for those small details scream at you.
For the visual comparisons with the first one: The monochromatic "sterile" visuals are the entire point of BR2049, to show the bleak empty future after the blackout where nature is practically non existent that is in contrast with the dense, dirty, alive and cluttered setting of the original. The original was mostly filmed at night, this was mostly filmed in a day. It would make no sense for this film to look extremely colorful and dense, it would make no sense to fill the streets with thousands of extras, it would make no sense to shoot it on grainy film, it would make no sense to make it seem "alive" and developed when everything in it is basically dead. It's sad that people think that every film should be as vibrant and "pretty" as possible no matter what the narrative is about. If you think the point of the first one was just to make it as "so pretty and DENSE" as possible just because then you're not worth of that film also
What's good about 2049 are its themes. Villeneuve: "Cinema is a mirror on society. Blade Runner is not about tomorrow; it’s about today...if you look at my movies, they are exploring today’s shadows. The first Blade Runner is the biggest dystopian statement of the last half century. I did the follow-up to that, so yes, it’s a dystopian vision of today. Which magnifies all the faults." 2049 is a meta-meditation on itself, the audience and our relationship with the media landscape, just like the original. Kubrick had a similar diagnosis a decade before B.R.: "[A Clockwork Orange] warns against the new psychedelic fascism - the eye-popping, multimedia, quadrasonic, drug-oriented conditioning of human beings by other beings - which many believe will usher in the forfeiture of human citizenship and the beginning of zombiedom." Niander Wallace has built a towering ziggurat which dwarfs Tyrell's immense pyramid - ie the power with which our media channels (internet/mobile/television/gaming/vr) hold sway over humanity has eclipsed that of technology in 1982. There is much fleshing this out (K's sister Ana's simulated life, the holograms of Las Vegas) which we could explore. 2049 doesn't quite strike the balance between art (meaning) & entertainment (the vehicle for meaning). The art is masterful but the story is not fully immersive. The piece of 2049 which really stayed with me was Joi's arc - which I see as a metaphor for consuming pornographic media . "Everything you want to see/hear", Joi is the instant gratification we have access to in the form of porn/webcams/insta models, etc. Joi infantilizes her "Joes" by devoting herself to them (and likewise) without their earning it - truly empty. In the 3-way scene we see how pornographic illusion imbues itself into our physical relationships. There's much much more. The film isn't a masterpiece but it's ideas are as colossal as the invisible chains keeping you glued to your orgy porgy vidya screens right this very moment ;)
but with respect, that is not a new thing to question in a film. The movie didn't invent the wheel. I don't mean to be a smart ass, but the movie is like a dinner party discussion of existentialism, rather than a proper discussion of it.
Hmm I haven't seen the film since release so I'm unequipped to discuss how effective it's message was (or not). I'll keep that in mind on a second viewing.
I agree with almost everything you said. I think the reason there was such a backlash to your review of the film, is because there are a lot of people out there who are getting tired of all the Boombastic superhero and Sci-fi films. They want Blade Runner to be successful, because they see it as a return to more highbrow film's. They won't Hollywood to start making deeper more thought-provoking films again. However most of the fans of the movie are confusing "boring" with quality.
I've seen the movie only once, in a cinema, and my expectations weren't the highest, so it's questionable how much weight my opinion has. It didn't blow me away but I liked it. It wasn't better than the original Blade Runner. I think the two are of different movie genres. But, for the most part, I liked it. Though he doesn't do much in this one, I like Harrison Ford. What I liked the most was the visual design of Jared Leto's futuristic quarters, very sleek. I also liked the imagery of Las Vegas, which reminded me of one of my favourite painters, Beksinski.
Glad to hear your provisional thoughts and that more on BR 2049 is due.... I agree, you can be swayed to like a film. Believe it or not I hated Fight Club when I first saw it in the cinema. Thought the ending was unoriginal - it was all in his mind all along.... But after discussion with friends the second viewing and the DVD commentary changed my mind, and I love it now. Will be back in comments later to give 2049 positives...
I was same on Fight Club upon first view. Thought it was pretentious and it took a lot of persuasion from a few friends years later to give it another shot. I guess by that time I was also more attuned to its anti-authoritarian streak as well.
Similar story here I think. If you didn't see Joe Rogan's (I know, I know) interview with Chick Palahniuk, its a very interesting watch... Dudes darker than John Bunting...
Rob, if there is at least ONE good thing that you can take from the movie is the attention to detail on the set designs. While the dialogue, acting and storyline was "Blah", the visuals are a definite 'positive'
This really is a challenge. I saw this with my girlfriend in the theatre and within the first twenty minutes I turned to her and all I could say was "oh no...this movie has over two more hours left in it." I really hated it, I'm not the type of person to walk out of a movie either so I just sat there feeling miserable the whole time.
As for the character comparisons with the first one, both films are great on their own merits, the new one isn't trying to "outdo" the original, it is a completely standalone film. But in some departments the new one is most definitely better, for example the romantic subplot of K and his virtual "wife" is ten times more genuinely emotionally investing and moving than the absolutely flat romance with non existent chemistry we got from Deckard and Rachael in the original. And K is a much better and more explored protagonist than the one note Deckard in the original. There's barely any character development in the first one until the third act from Deckard, while in BR2049 the entire film is quite literally nothing but character development from the start.
Firstly, I totally agree that it makes no odds as to whether anyone likes or hates movies that I like (or hate). I often think that movies that divide people are the best ones, for precisely that reason, actually. Anyway, I enjoyed the art direction of BR2049 and the fact that each act, had it's own distinct look and feel. I also found it interesting, that Officer K's holographic girlfriend was the most empathetic character in the story and that Jared Leto's was effectively, 'less human than human', while K himself was somewhere between the two. For me, that worked very well indeed and was the aspect of the film that made me think. Could it be that future generations find love with AI's, as opposed to finding it with other humans? I would hope not, but who knows? Oh, and I also enjoyed the cameo by Edward James Olmos, reprising his role as Bryant from the original film. (Sorry Rob, couldn't resist it!)
What is good about BR:2049.. is that it makes me appreciate the lively depths of the original even more. Especially music-wise, when you compare the blaring sonic drones of Hans Zimmer et al., with the layered, melodic vibrance Vangelis had put out. In the first film, you got a sense that the world has turned not-pretty, but you had such a variety of different atmospheres to give an impression that the future world isn't this "one grey dreary thing." The noir-like police station and investigation of Leon's room. The middle-eastern flavour when Deckard visits the scales manufacturer, and the fantasy-like feeling of J. F. Sebastian's doll-ridden apartment. You hardly get that in BR:2049 as everything feels so brutalist and desolate to look at, it leaves a bitter aftertaste in the mind. Don't you imagine people would try to make their own places nice to be in? The second half of BR:2049 just leads into a "reuniting father with daughter" story (cue ze waterworks, our anti-hero K died for a noble sacrifice!), with a bit of "Nexus android rebellion uprising" on top of it that doesn't lead anywhere. It's not original, it's not interesting. The romance subplot with Joi also ends abruptly when her porta-thingy got stomped on, and doesn't grow into anything besides a mournful scene with K at a giant Joi ad. That is probably BR:2049 is so disappointing, if you were expecting something of the quality of Roy Batty struggling over Tyrell about his existence, or Roy revealing what shreds of humanity he had to Deckard in a surprisingly touching moment, or the sexual tension between Deckard and Rachel in his own apartment. The filmmakers were just making a respectful homage to the power of Blade Runner's legacy.. like so many other reboots and unwanted sequels to classics, and expected a huge return. But you can't entice people with another classic if there's nothing truly substantial in it.
I liked how the protagonist has a real feeling of existential dread with him, and that it is left to question at the end the substance of what comprised his sense of "self" and how we are all in the same situation ultimately. It helped remind me about the illusory nature of my own "self", which was nice. And it was pretty looking cinematography. Horrible film? Hardly. Huge disappointment...yes. czcams.com/video/7wy5_IUYaqw/video.html
I just saw Blade Runner 2049 and I saw it twice to be sure I saw it right. It's wrong. Cell. Oh, it's pretty as hell, make no mistake. I even enjoyed it on the level but it collapses with any digging on it's own terms. As a sequel, it stands on nothing in that its continues a story that doesn't exist. A retcon. Interlinked. Feel free to ask about any details. Below is a great interpretation to what Blade Runner 2049 is: A fantastically flawed facsimile, made to walk and talk like what it *thinks* the original was. Arrogant in it's implementation. The movie is maybe worth a watch. Baseline. Remember: Rachael is Human. The owl is real.
Shit, the number of comments are piling up fast. Am taking screen shots of anything interesting. Thanks everyone.
Hope you do find interesting stuff...
Has anyone suede your opinion, one way or the other?
I wonder... some of the studios seem on the brink of bankruptcy (15bn in the hole for eg?) - so, i think about the money. Is churning out crap (that qualifies for tax breaks) a fast way to lock in a profit before distribution a way to get tax payers to fund their debt service rather than risk creating an original property? (Meg, Skyscraper, The Predator) Yeah, i was also disappointed with 2049...
Did you browse /tv/ regularly, or is a too smol board, for you?
Suede...😂
Of course I don't mind in any way that you dislike/hate the movie. That's fine.
One of the scenes in the movie that resonates most with me is the scene where the giant Joi holographic advertisement approaches K. After staring for a minute, K looks down at the blade blaster in his hand. He's lost his simulated love. He's been beaten and torn to nothing and has nothing. Every optimistic and human wish, memory and dream he ever had has been stripped of him. He thought he had found his mother - it was a lie. He thought he found his father and that was also a lie. He's directly confronted by the very nature of his existence here. Black nothingness. Nihilism. He has nothing left to believe in. So what does he do?
Despite the meaninglessness of his existence he chooses to rescue Deckard. Why would he even bother? He has nothing to gain from it other than almost certain death. There's no reason for him to continue fighting. He's a broken cog in a galactic machine. It's absurdist. When existentially confronted with reality, K makes the most HUMAN decision one could: to rebel against nihilism. He is no longer part of the replicant revolution (it is a revolution NOT a rebellion, the distinction matters a lot) he is Albert Camus' definition of a rebel and his cause is rebellion against subjugation. It's a pure gesture. By rebelling against his assigned lack of meaning, he creates an incorruptible meaning. K saves the world by killing himself. This movie is a blueprint for anti-slavery.
Ryan Gosling's brilliant performance as an emotionless, expressionless robot. He really stretched his acting ability to new heights.
You're being sarcastic, but I genuinely think he was the best thing in it. Possibly the only performance I enjoyed.
+Paul Julian He looks constipated through the whole film.
hahahha, yeah. It was like the director told him to just copy his own performance from Drive.
Lol. Someone posted a vid on here called "Blade Runner 2049 but it's just Ryan Gosling staring at things". It showed 25 mins of the runtime with Gosling doing just that! Got took down though, no doubt for copyright.
Emilia Clarke would play a robot quite well.
What really hits me about this movie is that it really makes me question what it means to be human. I started the movie with the hope that it would answer the question of whether Deckard is a Replicant, I was immediately introduced to K who I know is a Replicant, and through his journey, relationships, and interactions I got to the end and realized that it doesn't even matter. In some ways the Replicants in 2049, in contrast with the original, are more human than their human cohorts.
Some additional themes, scenes, and ideas, that really get me every time I watch it:
1. There is a cut scene shortly after K and Mariette/Joi do their thing where it zooms in on Joi's face and plays the "Joi is everything you want to be", then later on towards the end of the movie you see the completely transformed nude Joi, almost as if Joi had uploaded her experience to a collective neural network which ushered in the transformation.
2. The scene where Luv kills Joshi. Whoa, Sylvia Hoek's performance is incredible IMO. It makes me consider the potential terrifying aspect of our AI future. Also her death towards the end is impactful.
3. The cold white hardness of K’s baseline test and his rehearsal of Pale Fire solidified K’s status as a Replicant at the beginning, and then the last baseline highlighted his potential humanity. I also think there is significance to Pale Fire, but that is above my pay grade.
4. Luv is constantly comparing herself to K throughout the movie in nuanced ways I only picked up on the 2+ viewings. The jealous Replicant angle is interesting to think about.
5. When K is at the orphanage he adjusts the ashtray with the horse on it as if he had been there before and noticed that something was out of place almost unconsciously. This provides a foreshadowing for the scenes immediately after where he finds the horse. On top of all this, and the only thing that matters personally, is the feeling and emotions that this movie evokes. The sights, sounds/music, story, characters, all just hit me like no other movie has, and I was definitely not expecting it to.
I read somewhere once that the origin of the source material was Dick reading about accounts of slaves in America who ran away and the bounty hunters who were hired to catch/kill them and that the majority of the people didn't see them as humans or at best subhumans. The idea of whether replicants are or aren't humans is a misreading of his point. He's talking about that it certain times and places in history the majority of people in the "in group" see the "other group" as not equal just because of the culture they live in. The first film shows that this belief isn't relegated to the past but is and is unfortunately still with us. The endless debates of are or aren't they worthy of life and freedom is proof of that.
And lastly Rob I have some advice for you:
Movies aren't puzzles which you have to put together in a certain kind of way to "get" them, that would be pretty shallow. Films are much more than just a collection of plot points.
Focus on why is something shown in that way rather than what it is.
While in BR _Rick Deckard_ refered to *René Descartes* (a replicant quotes "i think, therefore i am") and *Scott* asked "what distinguishes man from machine?", in BR2049 _Joe K._ refers to *Franz Kafkas* _Josef K._ from the novel *The Trial* and *Villeneuve* asks the question "how do we stay human in such a system?". *The Trial* anticipated the bureaucratic state and the reign of numbers and digits (and the algorithms which invade everything). Like _Josef K._ hoped, that the trial against him will be scrapped so that he will be free, _Joe K._ hopes to be a human and therefore be free.
*man as a product*
We escort a replicant, who isn't much foreign to us (we can identify with him), while the humans shown are more foreign to us. The movie asked "are we replicants already?". Our world is still colorful and not so emptied as BR2049, but it shows our current anthropology. It shows different kinds of people/replicants: the ones who still rebel, and the others who try to denounce them. Surveillance, obsession with optimization and biopolitics want to bring to heel the human subject.
In the movie the replicants do the dirty work for the humans. In our reality it's even more blantant: humans are doing the dirty work for other humans. Soon many people will work for artificial intelligences. The special police in the movie isn't guided by politians, but by businessmen.
*melancholy*
The melancholy of _Joe K._ is the melancholy of the man who doesn't have a happy selfie face. The focus stays on the replicant till the end of this sad, quiet movie.
The tedious pace of the movie meets the reality of this emptied world. Many parallels of this world to a museum can be found.
The movie shows holograms of Elvis Presley and Frank Sinatra in Las Vegas, but not nostalgic. These people were already completely artistic characters in a fully artificial city. Our past seemed infected by something unhuman. "When did it start, that we all become replicants?" asks the movie.
[translated excerpts from the analysis of my favorite movie critic Wolfgang M. Schmitt]
I really liked it, but that’s just like... my opinion, man...
funny
"I like to eviscerate cats, i just like it... that's my opinion man". Got it?
I thought Joi really tied that room together, did she not?
That and a pair of testacles.
Jesus....
Beautiful photoghraphy and they captured the atmosphere perfectly but the main problem is that you just don't care about the characters. U just have Andriod or possible hybrids behaving like androids( and much of the other characters 2...) You instantly cared about Deckard and Batty and Pris...
All the things I like about it are not story or plot related. I liked Joi. I liked the cinematography and visual effects. I liked the editing. I liked the design of the world. I liked that it wasn't another Hollywood action flick. But the story and writing? I did not like. Nothing happened to the villain. He just disappeared at the end, and he was uninteresting when he was around. Bringing Ford back was forced and reeked of nostalgic masturbation. And for a movie trying to be smarter than the average Hollywood output, it still ended in a fistfight. A very disappointing movie from a usually terrific filmmaker.
Agreed somewhat (it is by no means a perfect movie), but those aspects it does well, it nails.
I was mostly taken aback by the parallels between humans and Kay, and Kay and Joi. You get some larger elements of it with the replicant giving birth, Wallace's treatment and abuse of replicants, but ultimately it boils down to Kay doing everything possible to treat Joi well and give her more freedom even though she has less of a soul than Kay, and how replicants are treated by the humans around them.
That is was also visually stunning and let the story unfold at a natural pace was just icing.
In short, it made me reflect which very few movies do.
What does the word terrific mean?
I totally agree, even though it’s still sad that the movie flopped. I hated Ford’s presence, he seemed extremely unmotivated and the overall story plot didn’t justify the sequel existence. Everyone loved the huge world of original Blade Runner ... then why not making an entirely new story ? “Black Out 2022” was amazing and I would’ve loved it to be a feature film. Otherwise, it certainly the weakest Villeneuve’s movie so far, IMO.
I completely agree about the story and writing. It really isn't particularly well written, the dialogue is clunky as fuck in places.
Was going to post comments, but your appraisal and mine are almost identical. I probably rate it a little higher than most people who acknowledge it was a disappointment, because I really did enjoy the first 2/3 of the film, but boy did it fall apart in the third act.
There were a few things that I liked about the movie. One was the "you can hear a pin drop" quiet through lots of the film. It's kind of rare to have that nowadays. Like in the opening scene where K takes out that famer. I thought that it added a lot to the atmosphere. I think that the movie looks fantastic. Joi was an interesting character. But like a lot of modern movies, what started off promising turned out to be pretty disappointing by the end.
I like the film, but I'm not crazy about it and I think the original is far superior. One thing to the film's credit is it's amazing visuals, I think probably one of the best looking films ever made.
I am just wondering how someone so captivated by 2001: A Space Odyssey got bored while watching this film. I love both films equally for personal reasons but I just think you're throwing the word boring around like it's nothing. What makes this film boring but not 2001? Again, I love both of those movies very much. But there are plenty of people who also felt bored watching 2001, but not so bored watching 2049.
these 2 films aren't even on the same league in my opinion. I'm not hating on blade runner 2049, I really liked it too. But 2001 has a lot more substance than this film. It's not only pretty to look at and with an hypnotic atmosphere, it has a lot more going on below the surface, which is why I think rob wasn't bored by it as opposed to this one.
I also really liked Blade Runner 2049, but compared to 2001, it has none of the enrapturing mystery (at least not to the degree Kubrick embedded into 2001). The fact that there is layer upon layer to unravel, and nothing is tied up neatly at the end and spoon-fed to the audience is what I'd point to as the major major difference between the two films.
Wow, this is the Only time I completely disagree with you. You talk about it initially as if it's Transformers.
I'd rather watch Transformers (2007) and laugh at how bad it is than watch 2049 and get bored by how bad it is
Just because the film is ostensibly about deeper concepts than Transformers, does not mean it is actually deeper than Transformers. It may be better crafted, but it is just as hollow.
Not quite. Transformers is better ;)
jilstr and your actual argument is????
not to be a prick, but what what did you like about it? cuz i'm completely clueless.
a lot of people HATED Blair Witch Project. i was genuinely scared shitless. and thought it was a brilliant movie.
Cinematography, atmosphere (the vibe of a overpopulated, dying world, and how messed up evething is), sound design, relatable protagonist and pretty much all the characters, fitting music
Looks and sounds incredible. Sound was unfortunately blown out at the IMAX version though... saw it again recently on Blue Ray and whole swathes of dialogue were revealed that had been drowned in sound effects or music . Was surprised they reprised Ford, no requirement from fans or audience to bo base the sequel around the original film or indeed cast.
+smartdave599 How are vast expanses of shantytowns and seawalls worldbuilding?
+smartdave599 I'll give you that. The Vegas cinematography was cool.
Stop the Philosophical Zombies A world, where you got to have seawalls to protect sunless and rainy LA of all places, where a shower lasts a mere second, where almost no one ever seen a living tree, where you have to grow worms to be able to produce an eatable product instead of normal food - didn't you notice all of this?
Where did you see, exactly, the 'overpopulated' world? In BR2049, Los Angeles looks as empty as an old town in the countryside, and the world it depicts is completely different from the (really overpopulated) world of the original Blade Runner. This was also in the intention of the authors and director: they wanted to transmit the feeling of how empty places can become after explosions and radiations (in places where Deckard had been hiding for years), there is also the implicit assumption that many people left the planet in order to go to live in the interstellar colonies. I really challenge you to find that many scenes, in BR2049, where you can actually see a 'crowd'. You won't find many scenes like that, but you will find plenty of scenes where K wonders aimlessly on semi-empty streets, bridges and lands. If you really thought that BR2049 depicted an 'overpopulated' world, then you don't remember the movie. And not remembering a movie that you say you like is really telling of the quality of the movie and about its being 'memorable'.
What I liked about Blade Runner 2049:
It was forgotten as soon as it left theaters.
I’ll just get myself comfortable here in the comments and wait for everything to kick off.
budge up
* grabs popcorn *
Haha
SaltyCorn
It's a modern retelling of Pinocchio.
...and that's what I like most about it.
·K is Pinocchio. He goes on a quest to realize his desire to be a "real boy."
·Joi is Jiminy Cricket. She is his conscience and friend and literally travels with him in his pocket.
·Joshi is Mangiafucco, the puppet master.
·Mister Cotton is the Coachman and his child labour camp is the Land of Toys, where unwanted children go and are turned into donkeys -- labour animals.
·Now whether or not Wallace or Deckard is Geppetto, I'm not quite sure. Wallace literally creates the androids just as Geppetto created Pinocchio, but Deckard is believed (for a time) to have fathered K. However, I'm inclined towards Wallace being Geppetto. I think Deckard is a mere red herring with Geppetto like qualities by nature of having actually fathered an android. For instance, at the end of the film, K saves Deckard from the submarine, like Pinocchio saves his father from the belly of the whale.
·The giant Joi hologram is the Blue Fairy ... or in the book is known as, the Fairy with the TURQUOISE Hair. Before meeting her, K learns that he is not Deckard's son, utterly smashing his hope of being human, but he also learns fellow androids believe it's not how you came to exist that makes one human, but the act of dying for what you believe in (or something similar). When he meets the hologram soon after, he is completely dejected, but she inspires K's sense of humanity (and therefore, grants his wish) by calling him a "Good Joe." "Joe" is the name Joi gave him when they discover he is a "real boy" (although, we later learn he is not). In both the film and book, the Blue Fairy promises to turn Pinocchio into a real boy if he is "good." Also, the hologram is an advertisement unable to distinguish between him and a real human -- because there is fundamentally no difference between an android and human. I think in that moment when she calls him a "Good Joe," he decides for himself that he is human. He's not only loved like a human has, but he's willing to die for a cause he believes in.
There is also the obligatory Christian reference that litter every heroic story, in this case the immaculate conception of the saviour of a people.
The only thing I hate about the film is its blatant existentialism (it's not some cosmic destiny/purpose that defines what you are, but how you behave). It's overdone and extremely dated; however, I can appreciate bad philosophy when it's told through a good story. I can appreciate any story of an allegorical nature that has a message I can understand/decipher.
The themes of what it is to be human or real. The absolutely comfortably numb depiction of the future - strands of which exist in modern society.
... which is a re-run of the theme in the first one .... only this time we have computer holograms, wow so "amazing" ...
You're absolutely right Rob. I admire the original (despite it's flaws) but I absolutely hated 2049; couldn't even bring myself to actually remember what went on, for the most part.
I’ve noticed some fans of the Matrix don’t like anyone criticizing the first movie. It has some die-hard defenders.
I can't comment on that really since I like the first Matrix (but not the sequels). Though I don't think it's a perfect film. It has some generic elements and I didn't think the cast were as good as the script and effects.
Rob Ager I like the Matrix well enough, but some people think it’s up with the greatest of all time; nowhere near it in my opinion. But that’s cool they think that.
because that movie actually is good
I love the Cyberpunk subgenre but I feel few properties treat it with the seriousness and realism of Bladerunner. With the original Bladerunner I wanted to see and explore more of future LA but budgetary and technological restrictions meants much of the film is shot very tight on long lenses to save on building/dressing larger sets.
This is an area that Bladerunner 2049 improves on. With wider, more open shots, we got to experience far more of the setting. It's my favourite futuristic city portrayed on screen.
- I really like the look and feel of the film. The progression of the world was not particular to my expectation but was sort of interesting. The VFX was really good.
- I kind of enjoyed the concept of a replicant piecing together his memories to convince himeslf that he is a human. It is sad, but, cool. It feels quite a bit underdone.
- The scale was brilliant on the big screen. The cinematography was not as complex and masterful as the first film, but, it was pretty good.
- Joi as a character and her "relationship" with K was pretty intimate and digusting which is actually the best part of this film.
the artistic cinematography is obviously a good thing going for that movie, the cinematographer really nailed it, the aesthetic is perfect for people like me who like vaporwave its really a treat plus I like to talk with other people enthusiastic about this movie, they are talking about it a lot it already is becoming a cult movie, people like his holographic wife and their relationship and when she died it was a really sad moment ,the CGI looks ahead of its time , I was absolutely not bored watching the movie the first time , I was having an experience ,one more thing is that people like the loneliness of the character
This film was paper thin in every way. I'm sad that people find it impressive. The girlfriend was a 1 dimensional character wish fulfillment for incels. No offense, but how old are you?
@@stopthephilosophicalzombie9017 21
Ah. Just a young pup. ; )
@@stopthephilosophicalzombie9017 wish fulfillment for incels lol, you do realize he actually had sex in the movie
The incels are the pathetic virgins who are raving about this movie on youtube instead of going out and getting laid (granted all the feminism-indoctrinated females are unapproachable now, so I understand why).
Cinematography and music.
Already been well commented on, but it is undeniably good.
Couple of outstanding scenes:
The introduction to Las Vegas - silhouetted on orange to yellow vista with hollow echoing soundtrack.
Wallace Corporation HQ - watery lit inverted yoni shaped building "birthing" creations.
Everything you posted is subjective.
I'll add, if you want to convince Rob you need to give specific reasoning beyond a list of what you THINK is good.
I don't think it is nearly as bad as he does, I found it boring but it had some interesting scenes. Problem I had was it didn't feel anything like the original. And by trying to tie it into the original they kind of screwed themselves. Ford should have never been in this movie. The film should have revolved around a new angle with new characters entirely and sought to expand the world building. Instead they didn't take their time on the sets IMO. Nearly every set was lacking in the details that made the original feel lived in. This film literally looked like a movie. Then the ending shit on the original.
Marcello Genovese: EXACTLY!!!! You nailed it, my friend. They tried too hard to connect this movie with the original one -- only to respond to the criticisms by saying «You are complaining because you wanted this to be like the first movie. It's not. Get over it.» I mean, seriously! Also, Harrison Ford should have never been in this movie and when they brought back Rachel... and Deckard says «She had green eyes»... that was one of the trashiest cheesiest B-movishest cinematic moment in the past 30 years.
I'd say all analyzes and critic reviews are subjective. Let me think of some examples...
There's one film critic I know of who writes good reviews for a lot of poorly made films. Plus a lot of the "good films" that he reviews I'd say about 7/10 times he'll give the film a mixed or negative review.
Roger Ebert was quoted saying he hates Gladiator with Russel Crowe. Most of his peers in the mainstream movie review scene said they quite liked it.
Critics gave rave reviews for The Last Jedi, but then most of the normal joe viewers hated it, some going as far as to stalk and harass the asian lady online.
So I'd say that the OP has every right to enjoy Blade Runner 2049 based off the bullet points he listed. All reviews are subjective.
As if all of this isn't subjective
PROS
1. Visuals are interesting and "cleaner" than the first film. But, of course, that reflects how much CGI has become dominant and how sophisticated it is. Also, the world is more expansive. We get to see the world outside of the greater LA area, which one wonders about with the first film (the original ending with Deckard and Rachel notwithstanding). And, we get to see more of the world inside of LA. A nice touch I noticed was the hologram of the ballerina, and how "CCCP" is part of it, reflecting the world of the US vs. USSR, which was a given when the first movie was made.
2 The music, though not Vangelis, sticks close to the genre and doesn't try to go too far out there with something different. That's both its upside and downside.
3. Ryan Gosling's performance as K. As Rob noted, though I don't like Gosling as an actor, he did a very good job in "2049," which surprised me. Ditto for Silvia Hoeks, the actress who played Luv.
CONS
1. Far too long, and boring. The story, too, was too much focused on trying to insert Deckard into the story. In my not so humble opinion, Harrison Ford is too old to be doing this shit -- even if they money is good, which is more a reflection on the director and the Hollywood machine trying to squeeze one more performance out of him, which they did with "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" and "The Force Awakens." Consequently, you get paint-by-numbers performances that have to toe a certain cultural line, which you didn't see back in the 70s and 80s, in Ford's heyday.
I wholeheartedly agree with Rob that, had the filmmakers gone back to the original PKD story, they could have done something far more interesting, yet sinister, with the themes in the original novel. In comparison, "2049" is too tame, and too formulaic. Rachel was pregnant and gave birth, then died in childbirth? Come on . . . Even I think that's too far-fetched for something dealing with what it means to be human.
Lastly, though the "2049" world is interesting, it doesn't have the same film noir feel that the first film had, which is what made it a classic. It's once again an instance where the visuals are making up for a lack of riveting and compelling story. With the original film, the visuals were incidental, and it made you think more.
2. In line with my first comment, I also didn't like how they had to insert more "strong" female leads into former male leads, and then weaken the male leads (with the exception of K). As I said, Harrison Ford didn't need to be in this film. Neither did the Rachel character. Joshi didn't need to be a woman (Bryan in the first film was classic film noir type), Joi was a bit redundant, and Luv didn't need to be there, either. Was Luv trying to be a stand-in for Roy Batty? Also, Niander Wallace was a pale comparison to Tyrell, and smacked too much of the stereotypical "evil genius." Tyrell, though brilliant and devoid of feeling, felt more "human" and believable, in my view. Wallace was more "machine" than anyone else in the story.
Mind you, I'm not saying that all females in the "2049" world have to be prostitutes or subalterns. Only that stocking the cast with more females than males smacks too much of the PC world that we now live in, here in 2018.
I'm glad I am not alone in hating this movie. Perhaps the thing I hated most in 2049 is that its premise negates the Final Cut version of the original Blade Runner, restoring the silly happy ending that production insisted stitching to its otherwise amazing finale. The good thing about 2049 is that it flopped so hard nobody will ever try to do another sequel.
And about movies people think are masterpieces and get upset when you tell them they are not: try to criticize Interstellar! It shares several traits with Blade Runner 2049 (great visuals, great soundtrack, some good actors, some really bad actors, absolutely bad plot, etc) but it's naively considered a masterpiece by an impressive amount of angry people
I hated the film aswell. For so many reasons, from the endless subplots that go nowhere, to the unnecessary nudity and gratuitous violence, the fact that they came up with a backstory to literally destroy and restart the entire aesthetic of the Blade Runner universe which is still to this day the best ever put to screen (so why change it?). The whole Rachel scene and trying to say she was programmed to love Deckard just completely shits on the themes of the first film that they could overcome the adversity and be together. I thought the cinematography was so flat and dull. Just having occassional vibrant colours doesn't make it good. The love story with Joi being the biggest rip off of Her, but as I said it's only one of the many subplots instead of chosing a single plot (per character) to be the focus of the film like the original. I could go on, but I will mention the one thing I liked. I really liked the idea of the case K is investigating spawning from a replicant having a child. I just wish that the whole film was refocused just on that case. And that it's never told who the parents were, but a bit of a tease for fans that would want to believe it was Rachel and Deckard. I loved the vintage photo he finds of Rachel in front of a car that has a super 70s aesthetic. One of the few visual designs i enjoyed in the film.
Where I'd describe the original as beautiful, poetic, tragic noir film.. I'd describe 2049 as gratuitous, uninspired, convulted action film.
The acting job of Ryan Gosling is phenomenal and in my opinion surpasses anyone in BR with the exception of Rutger Hauer. His relationship with Joi is interesting, novel, believable, and emotionally compelling (far more than Deckard/Rachel) while extending and expanding the best/deepest themes/questions of BR. Most of the characters are interesting and well-acted, and a few characters are flat out amazing (Sapper Morton and Luv I found fascinating and I wanted more of each). It is beautiful to look at (thank you Mr. Deakins). The music is not as good as Vangelis (and for my money, absolutely nothing could be); but it does effectively (and beautifully in its own way) echo V's music without being derivative, and manages to be its own score, while still fitting alongside BR. That's most impressive. My heart broke when Joi died; it provoked an emotional response, the highest praise for a movie. I agree that there were problems: Deckard wasn't necessary in this movie and Harrison Ford sucked. The fistfight was stupid Hollywood boilerplate in an otherwise inventive movie. I found the MacGuffin of "who's the child?" to be weak. But did these things ruin it irrevocably? With so many other good things going for it, I would say no.
Gosling is good in it, is he as good as Ford's original Deckard, not a chance, but he is very good. Deckard was more of an extended cameo in this one, but I think it was one of his best performances in a long time. It's K's movie and Gosling carries it well. I agree with the stupid fistfight and chase at the end, and the third act after they snatch Deckard was completely poo with the French woman and Mackenzie Davies who is the worst modern actress, luckily however it was one of the rare movies that seem to redeem itself with a very good ending
A lot of people here aren't going very deep into it (mostly talking about cinematography and all that), but the film really moved me personally. I respect your opinion, Rob, and I apologize if my post feels like a ramble, but I hope I end up touching on what really make this movie worthwhile
To me, the film is about K's struggle with individuality and the question of the soul (whether a soul is inherent or if someone has to earn it). The inclusion of Nabokov's Pale Fire emphasizes this because it has similar themes of a character supposing they have a spiritual connection with someone and finding that they were wrong. K thinks that he is the replicant who was born, and therefore the one with a soul. He thinks he is special, the chosen one, etc., only to find out that he isn't.
What I really like about this movie is how he continues on despite this blow to his ego. Critics talk about how the Replicant Revolution subplot is cliche and doesn't go anywhere, but I see it as a way of showing K's pursuit of individuality. The irony being that the Revolutionaries try to prove their humanity by becoming a part of a group, whereas K becomes truly human by following his own path. The suggestion at the end being that he has earned his humanity (i.e. his soul) by moving beyond the egotistical ideas of "the chosen one" or being a part of a "movement" and choosing his own destiny. He accomplishes way more than the silly Revolutionaries because of his Will to Power and ends up dying a much more noble death, therefore becoming the "special" person through his actions instead of through his birth.
Agree Rob. The original was a masterpiece. 2049 was terrible overall. Those who love MM4, or BR2049, etc just don't have any critical eye. They just love bigger explosions and CGI. I only watched it once. It's pointlessly slow (the original was slow on purpose to explore the world and build an arch). None of the characters behaves rationally. First 5 minutes, Gosling went to make an 'arrest' of a superior replicant and disarmed himself in a vulnerable/seated position!!!! WTF??!! Really stupid for an experienced bounty hunter. The villains were not interesting. The fight scenes too Hollywood/Matrix/Terminator. Apparently there's no security in the police HQ and a murdering replicant can just walk in and kill. Apparently everybody just abandons Vegas. Apparently you don't get hurt in a airborne car crash into the ground. And on and on...
What you said reminds me of what I get to hear when I say that I did not like the Matrix movies (no, not even the first one), did not like the new Star Wars movies, did not like the new Star Trek movies, did not like those stupid "Panem" movies, etc... people don't want to hear my opinion (not really) - instead they tell me that I am a communist / sexist / racist / chauvinist (you name it) and that I just "don't get it" (whatever "it" is supposed to be)...
We have reached a point where people yell at each other in all-caps for the most random shit- movies just being one of them.
The fight between Harrison Ford and Ryan Gosling in the Vegas club w/ the Elvis hologram flickering was pretty cool. That's all I really remember liking.
As for JOI, she was a physical extension of K's character development. What K yearned for, she expressed.
Yes at the start his Joi was a blank slate just like that giant ad, but through all their interactions and K's genuine "I'm special" beliefs (which he doesn't have anymore at the bridge scene) his Joi became special, unique and "real" to him specifically, seeing that entire scene as a mirror of Deckard meeting the fake Rachael, which is most evident by the completely black eyes of the giant Joi, where K could've easily had the same exact "I know what's real" line like Deckard did with the fake Rachael there.
K wanted her to become like a real girl that really loves him and she slowly did so (as she is programmed to do), so where is the difference once she becomes the thing he desires?
Also, in the script she calls him "Jo", while the ad calls him "Joe", alluding to the average Joe. Take off that what you willSo Joi is not some generic sidekick character, she's a window to K's identity and being.
K could've said the same exact "I know what's real" line in that bridge scene, just like Deckard did when Wallace implied that his love maybe was programmed.
Your attempt at rationalising every little mundane detail in the movie like everything must have some great meaning sound mm... forced to me.
You basically just explained the function of Joi as a product exactly the same way the movie did, basically adding nothing to what we already can see quite obviously in the movie ...
Most 2049 fans wishfully wants Joi to be seen as having attained an unprogrammed consciousness but none of you are showing any proper evidence from the movie to prove that ... it remains just wishful thinking hoping the movie can be more emotional rather than dull ...
The baseline scene perfectly encapsulates the entire film, every single filmmaking element working perfectly together to deliver the narrative.
Not just the writing, but the "dropping in" performance delivery, the closing in framing and composition, the context of the used literature, the immaculate sound design and sound mixing with the camera shutter speeding up and the high pitched sound becoming more aggravating and oppresive, the uncomfortable amount of unease and tension achieved through all of this, every single element in perfect tandem. Perfect execution.
K's full baseline is an excerpt from the third canto of Vladimir Nabokov's Pale Fire.
The book tells a story of a man who sees a surreal fountain in his near death "dream" and later discovers a precise description of that exact fountain in a paper. He takes it as some important cosmic sign and tries to get in touch with the author, but it turns out she's already dead and the poem was actually misprinted (fountain instead of mountain). Same as the "you're not special" theme in the narrative of the film, like K believed that he was indeed special.
When he first reads the baseline in its entirety at the beginning of the test it establishes a baseline to innocuous stimulation, like a lie detector test first asking you banal questions like your name and favorite food. He's then made to recite excerpts of that excerpt after emotionally stimulating questions that may exasperate him, and the response is compared to that of the baseline. The clever part is that sometimes the otherwise innocuous excerpts of excerpts segue into meta questions that would throw the test subject for a loop and make it difficult to cheat. Before having to recite 'cells', they'd ask "when you're not performing your duties do they keep you in a little box" in direct relation to the word 'cells'. Before having to recite 'interlinked', they'd ask "what's it like to hold the hand of someone you love" in direct relation to the word 'interlinked'. He eventually fails when he's so overwhelmed by everything happening on top of him feeling trapped in his miserable life and dubious romantic situation.
So it's not a mere reference, it's completely engrained into the films narrative and expands upon it.
Also "Pale Fire", as a title, is a reference to a Shakespeare line about how the moon is really just a pale image of the sun, which in BR2049 is a metaphor about how K (or Joi or any replicant/AI really) is viewed as a pale image of a person.
I am hesitating to watch another Film by Villeneuve after seeing Prisoners, years ago.
Something about the movie just felt absolutely pretentious and self-gratifying. And watching scenes from his movies since then, they always had this wankery about them, this lingering on a substance or meaning that just isn't there. Like watching an untalented conman trying pull one over on you, and you see through it from the beginning.
I think I've seen 4 of his films now and if I could sum them up in a few words it would be "overly portentous".
Yeah Prisoners was weird. I thought the story was decent, but the torture scenes were overdone and seemed to be there just to shock. I didn't buy into that aspect of it. All his films seem over long too. Sicario could have lost 20 odd minutes. I find his directing ... bland tbh.
Rob Ager It would be funny if all that pretentiousness I interpreted into his movie for all this time was in the end just blandness by incompetence lol
I think it is more to do with bad 'translation' on his behalf. The philosophical ideas may be intriguing when he discusses them with other French speakers in French. But he uses cliched English, if you like, when discussing those same ideas to English speakers. Something gets lost, a subility. I totally know what you mean though. He wants to be seen as being very deep. BR49 was ok. I wasn't crazy about it, but I am glad someone was brave enough to green light a movie set in a dystopian future. Arrival however....dullest movie I have ever seen..and I like Amy Adams! She was great in The Master. Renner is more watchable than Jared Leto, but even when I saw him in The Hurt Locker, I asked, 'why are they making this guy the 'star'?!'
Mad Max 2 is boss. Probably the longest, best and most frenetic chase sequence of all time
What's great about 2049? Visually speaking, it's nothing short of just stunning. Combined with the soundtrack in the background, during those wide derelict city scenes, it depicts a world that is classic Blade Runner. The length of the movie is what kills it. This is the critical aspect that Denis Villeneuve overlooked. I would've cut of lot of stuff in that film but as a Blade Runner lover, I don't mind it too much. Believe me, this sequel could've ended up being a complete flop had the script landed on the wrong hands of a film director, and more importantly on the wrong hands of a director of photography. Roger Deakins did an incredible job.
I think the reason for why people, including me, liked Blade Runner 2049 was "Context". I'll explain it this way: In 2016 a First Person Shooter video-game called DOOM was released and MANY people liked it, including myself. Many and I consider it the greatest experience we've had in gaming in over a decade. However, what Doom is though, is a Shooter with game-mechanics literally from the 1990's, well over 20 years ago, but with soooo many military shooters out now, Doom REALLY stood out to the crowd of FPS fans. Back to my point, I think that Blade Runner 2049 isnt necessarily amazing, but, at least personally, I haven't seen anything like it that I can think off at the top of my head, which is why, though I rate it around 7/10, it has left an imprint in my memory for sometime for reasons I cant yet explain. In fact, you could say "Context" was the reason why people really LOVED the original Blade Runner, people saying it's story isn't amazing, but they've also never seen anything like it at the time. I guess part of it was it had a dream-like presentation, rather than other movies being matter-of-fact. Hey Rob, do you have a Patreon? Just asking for a buck from people I'm sure would greatly help the channel. I certainly would, been a fan since the beginning.
Just buy some of his stuff from his site
I'm usually on board with Rob's opinions about most films, but not this one. This film had me mesmerized from minute one until the end in the theater. Such an incredibly visceral experience. A slow neo noir detective film, but with visuals and sounds straight out of the most psychedelic dream you could imagine? Yes please.
If you compare it to other 100+ million dollar productions it is great. But if you compare it to "really good" movies it can't stand it's ground. There are so many things that don't work or are a bit off.
Would you prefer Arrival with Adam Sandler, Tom Cruise and Amy Schumer ?
I think I like this movie for a few reasons.
I enjoyed K's arc. K goes on a journey of self-discovery. He believes his childhood memories are fake implants, and it isn't until he's tricked into believing these memories are real that he shows any emotion, but then he realizes he was being manipulated by Wallace into finding Deckard and he's faced with proof that his memories are in fact, not real, and he really is just a man-made creation that exists for the sole purpose of being exploited by 'real' people. Because he violated direct orders, the police would come after him. His life was effectively over, and seemingly for nothing. Before the third act, he could've simply given up. He even looked at his gun as if contemplating suicide, but instead, he makes his first true decision in his entire life and for purely emotional reasons, he must see Deckard survive and reunite with his child, so he saves Deckard in the end before finally succumbing to his wounds at the end and died for a cause he believed in, even if his manufacturers didn't. In other words, this movie proves K, as a man-made creation, still has a soul that's as real as his human creators, and he understands in a primitive way that he has done something to better the world, regardless of its smallness.
There are other reasons too though. When I went into this movie, I was expecting a run of the mill action movie, and I honestly didn't think it would be more than that, but what we got was something slow, methodical, and atmospheric. I understand you hated the slowness of this movie, and I half-agree the pacing could've been quicker, but not MUCH quicker in my opinion. I think the lingering shots occasionally serve an emotional purpose, like when K finds the wooden horse. The reason the camera stays on that horse for a solid minute is to give us time to put the pieces together that his memories are real, and also to build a sense of dread. The music swells and whines during this scene as if K is shaking on the inside as his denial is broken down by what he's seeing. This is actually my favorite scene in the whole movie. This slow pacing doesn't work though. That scene with Wallace soliloquizing like a Saturday morning cartoon villain as he stands over a newly created replicant that pukes her guts out for what feels like fifteen minutes could have been much shorter. In fact, it probably could've been cut outright and the plot would flow better. In fact I took issue with Wallace's entire character because his motivations are under-explained and the idea of him breeding an army of replicants for his own benefit doesn't make sense to me considering K is a replicant and he rebels against the wishes of his masters twice.
I'm not saying the movie is perfect, but when you consider this story is dropped into a world where technology has taken over people's lives and isolated them, compare this to the real world. To an increasing degree, our interactions with each other are simulated on the internet. We talk to our friends online, we share videos, pictures, and text online, and as the technology improves, it's leading to less and less face-to-face social behavior. It's increasingly common for kids to grow up feeling scared to talk to people face-to-face, but not screen-to-screen, even though studies show this is bad for brain development and breeds depression-anxiety. This idea was subtly present in Blade-Runner, but much more so in 2049, because of how it fleshed out K's relationship with his holographic girlfriend - Joi - his only true companion in the entire film, and she's only ones and zeroes on a fucking glorified USB-drive that gets stomped on like a cockroach by the villain. Not only that, but this same piece of technology is being used by the villains to spy on K and monitor his activities. Hmm, sound familiar to anyone? Another way of interpreting K's journey is his gradual rejection of his technological, worldly possessions that give him false comfort in a bleak, lonely world. When all these comforts and daily pleasures are stripped from you, what remains? You, your core values, experiences, and desires - just like K.
What I really liked:
-goslings character arc: there are too many characters who's journey is them finding out that they are special and really important, the chosen one etc. I loved that it subverted that trope, showing that his character was really unspecial, and what mattered was his actions.
- The cinematography, production design and special effects were all exceptional, at least on a technical basis. I think deakins out did himself with the colours, moving light and framing. My favourite shot being when K has just seen his girlfriend projection with black eyes call him a "good joe", the colour literally drains from his face, going from pink to blue. It's awesome.
- the pacing. I know this is what a lot of people have issues with, but I thought it felt really patient. It was a nice break from the chopping tht you usually see with summer fare.
- the acting: everyone gave performances tht really suited their characters. I was shocked to see Harrison ford actually emote, for once.
What I enjoyed about Blade Runner 2049 was the experience. The story does not achieve much on the side of Ryan Gosling and that is what I believe was intended. We are being pulled back into a world we haven't seen in quite some time and we are being shown everything from the viewpoint of someone who is heavily manipulated and does not have perfectly simulated human feelings. He is an extension of us as viewers in a very simple way. He could easily be removed from this entire film and be replaced by almost anyone and it would not make much difference. Was he ever designed to be able to truly understand anything? Was his interactions with the AI also simulated in a way to make these replicants avoid human relationships? I believe his programming defined him to be heavily flexible without the ability to truly make his own decisions making him the perfect robot. His experience that we get to live is what interested me and I hope we can return to this world again to continue this. This film was like a long drive during a storm. You respect the beauty of the world around you but understand it would be very inconvenient to stop and experience it. You must continue on until your destination. Maybe next time we can stop and see some people that live in it instead of experiencing it as an outsider.
I liked it when the credits rolled.
We're certainly in agreement on that.
Cinematography and tone are phenomenal (music included.) Otherwise, nothing. Which makes it kinda boil down to a cool fashion film.
The only good thing about the movie was Dave Bautista who I thought was great in the short (prequel) and in the scene he was in.
I also thought the main story was going to be about Joi's sentience (or lack thereof) which gave me the impression in the first 30 minutes of the film that the movie would be good.
Then it turned into a shit show.
People these days are so desperate to call anything a masterpiece that this film became the martyr of their eagerness. It was terrible (especially the script).
Right on about overeagerness. Just look at the way people fawn over Star Wars ffs. Star Wars wasn't even that great the first time around, and now it's a fucking religion. I think we are living in a civilization in decline.
The martyr of the eagerness. Great line.
Frank Rabbit: I agree completely about Bautista. He was criminally underused. He was like a more sympathetic Roy Batty and should have been the main antagonist, rather than the kung-fu woman who seemed to be reprising Famke Janssen's character from Goldeneye.
+Wayne GoldPig So right. He was fascinating and sympathetic, and they killed him with total disregard. Lame. I wish he was cast instead of Gossamer.
@PostonClan As an adventure fantasy it was a great movie for kids. What makes me sad is how utterly debased Hollywood is that they would take that franchise and turn it into a giant feminist propaganda tool. It's symptomatic of our entire culture going Woke.
I really hope you are sincere and not just baiting...
The original BR is my fave movie, I felt so happy after seeing 2049 that it was done so well. If you don't like it fair enough.
I personally loved the story and the direction it went, found K's journey to be interesting and liked the further exploration of memories. Liked Ford's performance as well and the way he struggles to say Rachel's name.
K's relationship with Joi I found to be very touching and found myself wondering how I could care so much about a virtual gf haha.
I don't want to go on too much but the story overall tied up I found very satisfying. Although it was a crazy coincidence that she had implanted that memory into K and he just happened to find her mum's grave. I guess she was responsible for planting memories in all the blade runners or something and knew it would happen eventually.
Also loved the cinematography, score and some dis Ryan Gosling but I loved him. I think the emotions he tries to hide make sense like Arnie being the terminator.
Themes of what it means to live for something real, to have a true purpose in life. The entire plot of 2049 is set around K believing he is the miracle child, that he is special and important, only to find out at the end that he really isn't. Everything is leading up to the scene with the giant purple Joi, where he is confronted with the ultimate reality of his life that he is basically meaningless, almost as if life itself is mocking him, laughing at him for being a fool believing his own fantasies, while shoving the fakeness of Joi, a program which he loved and believed in and kept telling him that he is special ("Everything you want to hear"), in his face. It's the turning point of the plot, when K finally makes a decision of himself - not following anyone's orders, without being told what to do in service of others - and becomes a real human being by "dying for the right cause": saving Deckard so that he could meet his daughter. The true realization of self. From then on he basically becomes a supersoldier and does everything in his power to accomplish his goal. To me, what's really powerful about this film is that it reflects the hopelessness and the perpetual state of self-deception in modern society. People are getting depressed and can't see any true meaning in life, people are jacking off to cartoons instead of living for what's truly real in this world. Villeneuve tells us through metaphors (e.g. the falsity of holograms) to stop lying to ourselves, confront reality and create our own purpose in our lives, almost like a statement for the current state of our world. And that's why I think it's a true masterpiece. Not just for the technical aspects (cinematography, special effects, soundtrack) or the "cool future tech"... in fact I think it's the combination of it all - plus the importance of its themes in the 21st century. Next time you watch this film, keep in mind that 2049 is a film about the characters, and not necessarily the events or the futuristic elements or the continuation of the original film. More specifically the character of K. Keep in mind that this is a film where Villeneuve tells us the story of K's journey of self-discovery in a subtle and elegant way, through metaphors and visual narrative instead of spoon-feeding themes and plot points.
I’ve been avoiding blade runner 2049 So thank you Bob!! Seriously!!! I have kids I can’t waste my time with boring shit!!
Wallace character.
The blind watchmaker, "God-complex" (maybe you can comment on if he has narcissistic personality disorder)
Suitably dark, good Milton-based dialogue well delivered, a strong performance from Jared Leto IMHO.
Is he Tyrell's offspring or clone?
Neither.
The Tyrell Corporation went under and Wallace bought the company.
Are either of the these outcomes mutually exclusive?
He could still be a son/nephew and buy the company. Or a clone and do the same.
Logically, they are mutually exclusive.
A person's descendant is the heir of their estate. If Wallace was the clone/offspring of Tyrell, he would have already owned the company after his father was murdered.
Nephew wouldn't necessarily automatically inherit Tyrell Corp.
Nor grandson. But I take your point.
If the will stipulates an offspring shall not inherit the estate, then they won't.
Since cloning isn't governed by legal precedents as yet, we will put that in the maybe pile...
Gotta love these Sci-Fi hypotheticals... :D
@@smilesforcinephiles are any of these questions interesting?
Personally, I was disappointed. It took me days to decided whether I liked it or not because I felt so let-down. There was no deeper meaning on existentialism and the meaning of love and the concept of "the other" and the spiritual question we're left to ponder. They just kept the plot and robotically expanded on it with very little depth. It was dry. The counter argument is that the visuals were good and some parts were very entertaining. It just felt like a movie made to look like another and relies too heavily on the first. I was so torn between liking a new movie and hating the sequel.
i think the thing that i loved about it most, was that it plays on the theme of what it means to be human like the book did. I'm not saying it was more faithful to the book, as you pointed it out in your other video, but i liked that it took the idea of humans losing their humanity and expanded on it. in the first film, its more about what counts as human as well as the fear of death and mortality, but this film i think goes more into the idea of humans holding onto what little humanity they have left. kinda like the book. this isn't the only reason i love it, it's the fact that this film portrays it visually and contextually. i feel like a lot of modern movies have great themes but they tell it to us rather than showing it to us. this film shows us visual metaphors of humans trying to keep their humanity. like the big bad guy having a room made entirely of wood (we rarely see wood outside the room) and all it cost him was his eyes and emotions. another metaphor would be through the music. there are old songs spliced throughout, but we only hear little pieces of it, and the people barely react to it, cos it means nothing anymore. despite being a cheesy scene, thats why the scene where deckard hears elvis and is kinda brought back out of his "im gonna kill you!" phase. i do think that scene hams it up a bit, but the intention to express an idea artistically is there none the less. even the story itself is a representation of this theme, K trying to convince himself he is the human child, and coming to terms with the fact that he isn't special. a lot of my friends were angry at this anticlimax, but unlike the last jedi and more like infinity war, i think its a subversion of expectations thats deserved. now there's plenty of things i don't like about this film (the poor villains, the music, the length) but for me the strong points outweigh the bad. the acting (except for jared leto) is great, even small roles like dave bautista were well performed, the great cinematography (though i do agree the first film had better cinematography) but i do think the film expands on themes more than you give it credit for. However, I understand why you don't like the film. My dad said "it's like going round town just to cross the street" which i think sums up everything wrong with the film, but i love the fact that its a film that understands visual metaphors and storytelling as well as just telling the stories to the audience like a lot of films these days have a habit of doing. i would say this film doesn't hold a candle to the original, but i do love this film none the less and i think it is a great sequel...but it will never be aliens, thats for sure.
OK so a big part of the original BR was the universe that it was set in and a good point about 2049 is that you are not only back in that universe, but it's also greatly expanded, that experience for me makes it very enjoyable even though the story is slow and there are other negative points, a return to that universe and seeing more of it in greater detail makes the film very worthwhile.
As for the replicant rebellion, they are essential to both the plot and K's arc.
They are there to show how K has to make a individual decision not depending on anyone to truly become special so he denies both Wallace and the rebellion. Also to show how both sides (Wallace and the rebellion) want to use K as a tool for their own goals, which is reflected in the fact that they both are in water reflected settings and both the rebellion bitch and Wallace are blind in some way or another.
I think it’s a perfect THEMATIC sequel, what the first Blade Runner brought up and discussed theme-wise was interesting but how 2049 was able to build upon it and add to it is awesome and thought-provoking. For example: the first movie discusses what it means to be human and if an Android can even be considered one when it has pretty much all the physical and mental attributes as a human. 2049 takes that and furthers it where it compares the androids with the humans and showing how sometimes the humans or more humane than the androids and even the other way around. The first one ends with the protagonist discovering himself and whether he’s an Android or not, 2049 begins with the protagonist already being well-aware he’s an Android but still continuously struggling with the meaning of life for himself. It’s really able to pull me in and feel sympathetic at times even wondering the same thoughts myself. I can understand why you wouldn’t like the plot and how much of a slow-burn it is but I wouldn’t have it any other way Bc the first Blade Runner I would consider slow-paced as well but it was deliberately doing that showing the protagonist conflict philosophically and existentially. The way K slowly feels he doesn’t truly have a purpose as a robot and becomes distraught with himself but then finds something to care for in the daughter and realizing that even if his life isn’t worth much it isn’t because he’s an Android because he knows that she has the true wonder and spirit of life in her. At least that’s just some stuff I get out of the movie anyway. also just really love Denis Villanueve and his directing plus you got Roger Deakins doing the Cinematography which is a match made in heaven. That’s not to say it maybe could be trimmed down like 10 min but either way it’s a movie I love
Yea I didn’t get the irrational behavior to your negative review, I personally liked it and find it entertaining, and didn’t bother me that you didn’t, I do respect your opinion, more so then most critics, and you might be right in disliking it, but I personally believe it’s a worthwhile movie.
Starting off with remarks like "Worst sequels ever made. One of the worst movies I've ever seen" doesn't warrant much respect from viewers who disagree with your opinion. In fact, it seems like purposeful argument baiting. It's like farting in someone's face and then trying to mask the smell with perfume.
If you want people to not rally up in arms about Blade Runner 2049 maybe lay off the hyperbole. Express your opinion without words that belong to bitter vitriol. You'll find even avid fans of something will lighten up if you do so.
I have to agree with this, actually. I'm pretty sure "Troll 2" was a worse sequel. As were the sequels to Sharknado.
What's good about it? Of the top of my head:
-The strong cinematic language of the film, allthough it is very different from the original
-The score, which is absolutely overwhelming, but again does something different and comes back to the original only at one crucial point in the film ("Tears in Rain"), when it is appropriate
-The special effects (the miniatures are a nice hommage and still work better than going completely CGI, but when they do CG it is flawless, still the best example of de-aging to date when you see young Rachel and also the "merging" scene is groundbreaking)
-The acting and casting in general (probably the best use of Gosling since "Only God Forgives" and they even managed to make Jared Leto work, which hasn't happened a lot lately, but I really love his Steve Jobs version compared to Tyrell's more Bill Gates like figure)
-The use of a strong female cast (withtout making it feel like pandering as the Disney company always does), they just are best for their respective roles and do an incredible job
-The way they included Harrison Ford, which to be honest, wasn't necessary if you concive a sequel in this word, but doing so takes balls and they absolutely pulled it off (he also seems to be into it, which he rarely is anymore, so this makes me very happy)
-The way they deal with the question if Deckard is a Rep or not, the "Yes... No...?" by Leto gives me goosebumbs everytime
-The way they expand on the subject matter and questions of the first film (Reps are working, loving and openly living in this world now and have to face different obstacles)
-The plot twists and turns (I was expecting the movie to dance around the question wether Gosling is a Rep or not, for at least the majority of the film, if not making that the final question yet again, but they just get rid of that in the very first scene and offer something new completely)
-The final image of Deckard extending his hand to his daughter, as Roy once extended his hand to save him (brings me to tears everytime and is a worthy contender for the closing elevator doors in the original)
You wrote a lot and no one responded at all. I figured I would. Thanks for your insight.
This is not a good list. This is the kind of list someone makes when they're trying to convince themselves. Most of these good things don't seem that good. I could actually say real good things about the first movie.
@@Mikezzz749 That's not a very good opinion.
@@ThisIsTheRoad ha, well you really aren't interested in my opinion are you? I said I could go into detail talking about the real merits of the first one. If you're interested in learning something go ahead and ask.
@@Mikezzz749 You're gonna bark all day, doggy or are you gonna bite? I could actually say much better things than you if I wanted to, you know... 🙄
Atmosphere - obviously. Strongest element of the movie.
Set Design. - it's subtler than you think, for instance: Wood and water are shown to be rare resources in the future, however Wallace being a titan of industry, his whole pyramid is full of water, and the steps are from wood.
Sex scene - it's more interesting than most sex scenes.
The music - Subjective, but I dug it. For the Dystopia it's going for, it's strange.
I like the idea that K knows he's not real and that Deckard is not his father, nonetheless he chooses to save him. Even tho he's not human, his actions are humane. And i love the idea that we follow the NOT chosen one.
The cinematography is clean cut.
I like the idea that K knows Joi is not real, nonetheless he chooses to roll with it.
I like the idea that it's totally polarizing. You either love it or you hate it. However, love it or hate it, objectively it's great.
I like the flying car. I like the pistols and the idea that they're just regular pistols, not futuristic laser ones or something. The message being, we don't need to update our weapons, we've already perfected the means of killing each other.
I like it cause of it's concepts, and because it doesn't feel like SciFICTION but rather an eventuality we're all going towards.
It's a Style over Substance movie. And that's fine.
I couldn’t agree more, you described the movie as ‘empty’ and that sums it up so succinctly that there is almost no point in adding more.
By the half way point I was so close to walking out due to boredom that by the end of it, I wished I had.
One set that I thought was pretty was the one with the water reflected on the walls, that’s the only positive thing I remember from that awful, bloated waste of time.
Blade Runner 2049 would have been good if it eliminated Harrison Ford’s character. It didn’t need to have a connection to the previous film other than being set in the same universe. The visuals are ok, but they weren’t like the first flick. They never wowed me since CGI is so common in films these days it takes quite more than that to amaze me. Ryan Gosling’s performance in the movie was alright, it sucks that he died in the end. Not really invested in watching a potential sequel that’ll only be meh. But Ryan Gosling, Indiana Jones and some “cool” special effects can’t save this film in my eyes.
It wasn’t great, just decent in comparison to the other garbage that appeared in theaters last year.
I don't see what people liked about Blade Runner 2049. It was less subtle than the original, had bad villains, wasted Harrison Ford (even though he was primarily brought back for fandom's sake), had a less interesting protagonist, and was paced in a way that felt like everyone is deliberately walking as slow as possible to pad out the running time. The cinematography is great, but that means nothing to me when the film is so boring and hollow.
I don't know if anyone else has mentioned this yet, but the central mystery/miracle of artificial life giving birth to a new, living hybrid being with the power to create or manufacture realities is a very striking idea - mythopoetic even. I don't know if it is wholly original, but I can't recall ever coming across it in any other sci-fi media. That alone makes this film worthy of note in my book.
also, while I prefer the original BR's crowded, baroque and maximalist mise-en-scene, I admire Villeneuve's minimalist approach as a contrast
I loved the character arcs and subtle acting performances. K begins the film as an apathetic replicant willing to kill other replicants without giving it a second thought. He didn't value his own life because he was a replicant, and consequently he didn't value the lives of other replicants as well. He was a gear in an engine, and not much more. A sheep as Graff insinuated. He thought that replicants were soulless beings, and humans were real living beings with souls. Over the course of the film he realizes that your thoughts and actions are what really make you human.
Joi was probably the most fascinating character in the film. You could see how her original programming forced her to act a certain way, and do and say certain things. But my god when she started to evolve before my eyes and do things that went beyond her pleasure bot programming it was wonderful. Her character was arcing from a pleasure bot program to an
actual human like program. She made decisions that went beyond her programming and actually took steps to protect K even at her own peril. She showed genuine concern for K when he was unconscious, and that wouldn't be necessary in her original programming. When she told K that she loved him I bought it. It was real. and even if it wasn't, still that was enough. It mattered.
The character you have to watch most carefully is Luv. She's a newer more advanced replicant who doesn't have the luxury of disobeying her masters in any significant way. Yet through subtle acting you can see that Luv doesn't actually want to kill certain people, and she has the incorrect (by her boss' standard) emotional response to new life being created, so she hides her tears from him. She's trapped in a role of complete obedience to her master, but she wants freedom. It came with a kiss and her death.
The film is good, in that it has provoked a discussion A meaningless film is watched, discarded, and forgotten
As mentioned by others, Joi is the most engaging-interesting character
Plenty of good ideas in the film-the replicant resistance, Deckard and Rachael’s child; the Rachael clone, the drones managed by replicants, Wallace’s intelligent/thoughtless creative/destructive, and self destructive nature
BR2049 took a couple viewings to click for me, but when it did- it joined the likes of vertigo, apocalypse now, original blade runner as one of the greatest films ever.
It seems to polarise people fairly extremely, but for me its a 2.5 hour audio-visual-philosophical-emotive orgasm (no exaggeration). Every shot is mind-blowingly gorgeous, the script is subtly multi-layered, the acting is sublime, the pacing is like a deep brain massage, I could go on...
I have a few friends who thought it boring or its "just ryan gosling flying around in his car", they love BR2049s opposite - "the last Jedi", which is a candy-fountain of action scenes (which I found terribly boring). I can understand why 2049 bores them, they want the constant flashy adrenaline rush with hipster humour rather than some slow melancholic existential exploration that demands multiple viewings. I feel sorry for them missing out on the scintillating intensity that is 2049, but then clearly im missing whatever made the last jedi and all the marvel movies so amazing.
Its simply a different strokes for different folks thing.
In my personal case I get bored of movies and series in general by now and that doesnt mean that there are no good movies around. Anyway thanks to Alejandro Jodorowsky, Andrei Tarkovsky, Stanley Kubrick, David Lynch , David Cronenberg, John Carpenter, Fritz Lang and Frank Oz. :) I nearly stopped watching movies years ago and I found the most deepest, magical and adventurous movie filled with billions of emotions - my life. Even this - my very "own" movie - I let roll out in widescreen but focusing at my true me in order to float to the stars and - most important - beyond.
The thing I like the most about it which I haven’t heard you criticise is that K is the flip side of Deckard, Deckard is a human who wonders whether he could be a replicant and K is a replicant who wonders if he could be human. Also I didn’t catch this detail until someone else pointed it out for me, We spend the whole film thinking that K’s hologram girlfriend really has affections for him despite her being an AI, so an android falling for a slightly less advanced android. But near the end when she’s been destroyed and he meets the life size replica of her, she calls him Joe which shows that her suggesting that he calls himself Joe is not her showing a personality it’s part of her programming, I don’t know about you but I found this small detail heartbreaking
Both movies (Blade Runner and 2049) are mysteries. So, my main concern going into 2049 was whether its mystery was going to be a suitably satisfying puzzle. Now having watched the movie three times now (once in cinema, twice at home) I believe script writer Hampton Fancher managed to deliver. Is it up there with the original? -No, but lightning rarely ever strikes twice so I, like other fanboys/girls, had to put their expectations in check going in.
Similar as to when I saw the first movie (upon its original VHS release), the story and motivations of some of its characters were unclear. The beats didn’t necessarily join up and only after many years to coming back to it and a few interim edits, I can now see the original Blade Runner for the masterpiece it is. 2049 suffers similar problems. In its attempt to honour the original, its clues/influences are deeply buried, possibly more so than is commercially smart. However in the crucible of expectation vs disappointment, I’m firmly in the “try something new” and “fail big” audience, so I can forgive 2049 its failings.
Now after several viewings, 2049 is a movie that has given me several fresh “a-ha” moments when hearing a line of dialogue or viewing a subtle gesture (and yes, I am trying skirt round the spoilers here, for anybody else reading these comments). In the movie itself Ryan Gosling delivers a subdued, career-best performance, the visuals are a treat, the music is atmospheric and the story doesn’t make much sense first time around - so then, pretty much the same as the original. And if that’s the original you’re honouring, then I would argue that Denis Villeneuve et al were closer to the target than further away from it.
The real acid test for 2049 will be whether it is going to create the same level of debate in its audience as the original did? Not rabid rantings or religiously-held defences by the original's fans. On its own, does the movie’s mystery have enough details, nuances and Easter eggs to be found on repeated viewings? I believe it does and stacked against many other fêted movies at the moment I think 2049 comes out well upon repeated viewings. Straining under the yoke of near impossible expectations, it could have been far, far worse.
So, like the original when you watch it next, the flaws will shriek louder and the fresh revelations will redeem in part - and in this respect 2049 is a suitably kindred sequel to its Blade Runner predecessor.
I was really excited that day went to see the movie and at the end, I just felt lackluster. I was really confused when coming out of the theatre. Blade Runner IS my favorite movie I fell in love with it all after the first viewing and dozen time of reviewing just couldn't get enough of it, but for this new sequel I can't man, it's a neat production and all that, but the second half of the movie just blew the whole thing and seeing them play with the old stuff from the original just made me emotionless toward the whole.
I didn't particularly care for the plot of characters but Roger Deakins' cinetamography was nice.
Also, is there a link to that Oliver Stone interview about Natural Born Killers? I was also underwhelmed by that movie so maybe there's something I just didn't get.
The world building is excellent. Take into consideration that JOI is to K what replicants once were to humans, and that she’s essentially the next logical step in artificial humanity
The original Blade Runner will never be equalled, as with the original Alien and Terminator and The Thing.
Blade Runner 2049 was a mixed bag, it had some good elements such as Gosling and Ford and the art design was ok, but the plot was dull.
well it been a while since i saw the movie but I like that fakeness of Joi..that she is just a soulless product made to make you feel good ... and i like the ending k chooses not to kill Deckard and instead help him reach his daughter resulting in him dying a a real man and not a machine
I like the part when Jared Leto asks Deckard (Ford) if he was sent to meet Rachael on purpose. That opens a whole can of worms.
I love the part when he pours whiskey on the floor and the dog comes up and starts licking it up.
"Is it real?"
"I don't know, ask him" , that part makes me laugh.
I thought the style and music matched the first movie well.
I don't know, I just liked it, it was better than I thought is was gonna be.
Look forward to your video.
I know I'm late to the party but, the reason I liked the movie was K's character arc. Despite K being a Blade Runner he's kind of a fairly pathetic loser that is more invested in his digital girlfriend than in real life. He then stumbles upon a reason to be something more than he was, and despite this ultimately being a lie, and crushing him, he gives up his more self centered dreams and aspirations and chooses to do the right thing for someone else.
I also feel that K's relationship with Joi is a core component of what K's character arc represents and, combined with his painful stiffness both are a pretty direct commentary on modern young men's lack of initiative and retreat into the digital over the real. Which could be described as "misplaced love". This is emphasized in several key moments. The most relevant being: when Joi hires the replicant prostitute, and when K realizes everything Joi was is a lie.
As far as I remember, after his night with the prostitute is the only instance in the entire movie of natural sunlight. The clouds have been lifted and gone is the perpetual foggy night. Sadly, I don't think K even looks at her afterwards, he spends the entire time talking with a hologram and ignores the real person he made an intimate connection with. We then see her leave, and the door closes. He's so attached to an imitation of reality he prefers it over the real thing. This ultimately comes to a head when he stares at the giant pink billboard ad of Joi and realizes the thing he convinced himself he loved, and that loved him back, was just a product feeding him pre packaged lines to make him feel good.
The fact that he then drowns a woman named "Love" is pretty powerful representation of him giving up something he clearly desired for himself, but was unable to establish due to his own shortcomings, in order for a father and a daughter to share the love they never had.
2049 probably appeals to a Millennial and younger audience, in that it literally shows a loser shut in, lose all hope, and briefly turn himself around to make a tangible difference in someone else's life - and that's aspirational cinema for my generation. When I asked my friend what he thought the movie's message was, he said "You're not special, and that's okay." I said "The only way to live a meaningful life is to help others." And I would say they're fairly complementary messages embedded in K's character.
The worldbuilding is insane. In Sapper Morton's home, you can see the tank used to grow the Cowslip flower placed on Rachel's grave. When Kay has the wooden horse analyzed for authenticity, the broker says this much wood is worth a lot of money. Kay takes a shower at the beginning of the film where the computer states he gets a few seconds burst of "99.9% pure water". Compare this with Wallace's offices which are completely constructed of wood and pools of water.
The replicants look down on the AI companions the way humans look down on the replicants, like they've learned nothing.
I find Kay's character arc to be pretty entertaining, especially to Deckard in the original who didn't grow as a character much at all. From being accused of "having never seen a miracle" by Sapper Morton, to believing he is the chosen one, to realizing he is not and even his AI companion was lying to him, to sacrificing himself to save Deckard - it's very compelling.
Combined with the excellent cinematography and technical work behind the music and visuals of the film - I just think it can't be beat and I'm really disappointed Rob Ager continues to give this modern classic such short shrift.
What good about this movie? - Tuuuuuuuut..... (static noise)
Oh yes, one thing: it makes me puke and cry of sadness, and then my stomac is clean and I can love even more the first film.
Blade Runner 2049 is a visual masterpiece, that is so rare nowadays. One of the important aspects of watching a movie for me is an aesthetic pleasure of watching an actual cinematographic experience, since most of times I'm marketed with some sort of weird shit, that can't even be considered as a film at all. BR2049 hits the right spot - since the very first trailer, I knew I will finally be able to hangout to the cinema. See, for past years I've had to shrink my walks to cinema, due to a lack of material that really needs big screen & that atmosphere cinema has, which you can't recreate at home. I couldn't say I was 100% satisfied with movie the first time I saw it, but I was absolutely blown away with cinematography. The work that Villeneuve & Deakins did to BR2049 is astonishing, breathtaking and very professional in every aspect. Movie pays enough attention to it's predecessor not only in terms of plot & story (which is obvious for a sequel), but even visually it has that hommage to original film. I would even say that in terms of camera work BR2049 gone further, extending what Cronenweth & Scott did in the first film. I also could not remind about the problems, which original movie had in terms of various versions of edits and that didn't work well for the original movie. Br2049 is quite a solid experience with everything being put in the right places. What I really liked after first watch is that film left me with uncertain feeling about it. Most of the times with recent films there is nothing left when movie is over & light are turned on - you don't have anything to think over, there are no feelings inside you. Or even worse with recent blockbuster chewing gum, when you really feel what type of shit you were fed with for past coupe of hours. That uncertainty BR2049 left me with was a good indicator for me, movie wanted me to think it over and probably rewatch. I've had pretty similar feeling after watching Tarkovskys "Offret" for the first time, or his "Stalker" - one of my most beloved films of all times. Yeah, BR2049 certainly isn't as strong & deepen as original movie was in terms of philosophical aftertaste, but I wouldn't say BR2049 didn't open some new exploration - the love-line for example. It feels fresh, original and I would even say warm, especially in the contrast with overall cold palette of the film. Moreover this small plot line, is something that original movie wasn't able to reach - the Decard-Rachel story was too plain to believe in. The Joi-K line is working properly, moving itself throughout the main story and fully blasts in it's glory with the intimate scene when Joi hires hooker replicant. It's brilliant. It drives the story, it builds characters - if you take that out, there won't be an extra cathartic scene when K is looking onto that Joi hologram on the streets. One of the most important scenes in the movie where he decides himself as an invidual, accepts his role in the life around him. So I can't fully agree with how bad the plot is - every bit of information is placed accurately in most cases, you can take or shift some components of course, but in the state it is in theatrical version is fine. It's just working. Original film was aiming towards Scotts dreams of a monumental philosophical questions, BR2049 is following it giving audience a much more intimate connections. Combined with mesmerizing visuals you get a genuine film, a state of an cinematographical art.
Yeah - music is awful, you can't beat Vangelis, if you don't hire him. Jared Leto is an absolute miscast and his character is too plain - you can expect that from Luvs character, but not from the villain. Apart from these 2 issues that immediately came to my mind, everything seem really solid for me. Maybe it isn't a film that might be put into history of filmmaking, but it's hell a great film in our times of ridiculously weak shit overfilling the cinema. It's a gem stone, I could forgive some roughness and imperfections of dramaturgy.
I think you're giving BR2049 an unfair criticism. Forgetting that BR was so fantastic and iconic. Look at 2049 as it's own film. 2049 tackles themes that weren't in the original BR - and at the same time adds to the themes introduced in BR. It was able to walk the very difficult tightrope of honoring the original, continuing the story, paying respect to the original characters and continuing with a canon that has evolved on it's own for the last 35+ years. This was a very difficult task, and 2049 achieved it greatly. The characters of Joi and K were brilliantly developed. Gosling was 7/10. Ford was 9/10.
The original BR was film noir, in color and in the future - BR2049 maintained this feel and added to it. Certainly one of the best sequels ever made - and a great movie on it's own.
Riddle me this. iIn the original, the city looked like a colourful mess of neon and people. Why take the decision to deliberately play down those visuals by setting the film post a massive black out?!? The hype leading up to the film led us to believe we would be leaving LA and exploring the rest of the BR universe. 'Cool', I can't wait to see what they do with the aerial shots of the city', I said to myself. However, they decide to have the city more or less blacked out!! Why?! Why have shots of a car flying over a massive future city we can't bloody see?!?
My overall pet hate however is Jared bloody Leto!!! How does this over acting ham get parts in movies?!
As for the Her comparisons in the prostitute sex scene, It's funny how BR2049 made a ten times more genuinely emotionally investing romantic story in just a side story of the film compared to Her where that's the entire film.
For most people the actual physical "love" part falls apart completely in Her, especially in any scene where the love part wants to be materialised (the prostitute sex scene, that sex scene where Joaquin just lays and talks to her) which come off as extremely cheesy and "quirky" which in result end up falling completely flat. Funny how there is the exact same concept of the threesome between an AI, a prostitute and a man in Her and literally no one ever talks about it because the execution of the scene is like any standard rom com flick, the AI part is completely secondary. Not to mention that in Her the prostitute is entirely meaningless in the act itself, while in BR2049 all it's a very character involving scene for all three characters, not just literally but in narrative terms also.
It's a physical manifestation of K's character development.
In short, Spike Jonze didn't know how to approach the concept of a man falling in love with a computer in a serious way so he had to make it extremely quirky to have an excuse for most scenes, while in BR2049 it's executed completely direct and tasteful with zero pretense at all.
This sequel left me cold, not that it's a bad film, it's just pales in comparison to its predecessor.
I think the film would fair better in the context of a stand alone film. Had they not titled this movie bladerunner and they hadn't referred to Gosling as a replicant I bet a lot of people wouldn't guess this was the same world. Ridley Scott crammed SO much detail into his sets and shots, the whole movie was shrouded in night and rain or fog. It was a Noir film. The sequel couldn't be further from a Noir film if it tried. The color pallet was all wrong and WAY to much of this film was shot during the day or with brightly lit scenes. The lighting made the lack of care for those small details scream at you.
The Sulaco emerging from a Cloud Burst 57 minutes in,is effing cool,Thank's Syd Mead&WETA!!:)
For the visual comparisons with the first one:
The monochromatic "sterile" visuals are the entire point of BR2049, to show the bleak empty future after the blackout where nature is practically non existent that is in contrast with the dense, dirty, alive and cluttered setting of the original. The original was mostly filmed at night, this was mostly filmed in a day.
It would make no sense for this film to look extremely colorful and dense, it would make no sense to fill the streets with thousands of extras, it would make no sense to shoot it on grainy film, it would make no sense to make it seem "alive" and developed when everything in it is basically dead.
It's sad that people think that every film should be as vibrant and "pretty" as possible no matter what the narrative is about. If you think the point of the first one was just to make it as "so pretty and DENSE" as possible just because then you're not worth of that film also
What's good about 2049 are its themes. Villeneuve: "Cinema is a mirror on society. Blade Runner is not about tomorrow; it’s about today...if you look at my movies, they are exploring today’s shadows. The first Blade Runner is the biggest dystopian statement of the last half century. I did the follow-up to that, so yes, it’s a dystopian vision of today. Which magnifies all the faults."
2049 is a meta-meditation on itself, the audience and our relationship with the media landscape, just like the original. Kubrick had a similar diagnosis a decade before B.R.: "[A Clockwork Orange] warns against the new psychedelic fascism - the eye-popping, multimedia, quadrasonic, drug-oriented conditioning of human beings by other beings - which many believe will usher in the forfeiture of human citizenship and the beginning of zombiedom."
Niander Wallace has built a towering ziggurat which dwarfs Tyrell's immense pyramid - ie the power with which our media channels (internet/mobile/television/gaming/vr) hold sway over humanity has eclipsed that of technology in 1982. There is much fleshing this out (K's sister Ana's simulated life, the holograms of Las Vegas) which we could explore.
2049 doesn't quite strike the balance between art (meaning) & entertainment (the vehicle for meaning). The art is masterful but the story is not fully immersive. The piece of 2049 which really stayed with me was Joi's arc - which I see as a metaphor for consuming pornographic media . "Everything you want to see/hear", Joi is the instant gratification we have access to in the form of porn/webcams/insta models, etc. Joi infantilizes her "Joes" by devoting herself to them (and likewise) without their earning it - truly empty. In the 3-way scene we see how pornographic illusion imbues itself into our physical relationships. There's much much more.
The film isn't a masterpiece but it's ideas are as colossal as the invisible chains keeping you glued to your orgy porgy vidya screens right this very moment ;)
cheers
but with respect, that is not a new thing to question in a film. The movie didn't invent the wheel. I don't mean to be a smart ass, but the movie is like a dinner party discussion of existentialism, rather than a proper discussion of it.
Blindingly obvious social commentary, then.
Hmm I haven't seen the film since release so I'm unequipped to discuss how effective it's message was (or not). I'll keep that in mind on a second viewing.
I agree with almost everything you said. I think the reason there was such a backlash to your review of the film, is because there are a lot of people out there who are getting tired of all the Boombastic superhero and Sci-fi films. They want Blade Runner to be successful, because they see it as a return to more highbrow film's. They won't Hollywood to start making deeper more thought-provoking films again. However most of the fans of the movie are confusing "boring" with quality.
I found your post rather boring TBH
like always awesome video Rob and i am sorry i cant help you whats good or bad about it because i have not seen Blade runner 2049 i know nothing
I've seen the movie only once, in a cinema, and my expectations weren't the highest, so it's questionable how much weight my opinion has. It didn't blow me away but I liked it. It wasn't better than the original Blade Runner. I think the two are of different movie genres. But, for the most part, I liked it. Though he doesn't do much in this one, I like Harrison Ford. What I liked the most was the visual design of Jared Leto's futuristic quarters, very sleek. I also liked the imagery of Las Vegas, which reminded me of one of my favourite painters, Beksinski.
BLADE RUNNER 2049 was a terrible movie, I'm dreading what Villeneuve is going to do to Dune.
Glad to hear your provisional thoughts and that more on BR 2049 is due....
I agree, you can be swayed to like a film.
Believe it or not I hated Fight Club when I first saw it in the cinema.
Thought the ending was unoriginal - it was all in his mind all along....
But after discussion with friends the second viewing and the DVD commentary changed my mind, and I love it now.
Will be back in comments later to give 2049 positives...
I was same on Fight Club upon first view. Thought it was pretentious and it took a lot of persuasion from a few friends years later to give it another shot. I guess by that time I was also more attuned to its anti-authoritarian streak as well.
Similar story here I think.
If you didn't see Joe Rogan's (I know, I know) interview with Chick Palahniuk, its a very interesting watch...
Dudes darker than John Bunting...
Rob, if there is at least ONE good thing that you can take from the movie is the attention to detail on the set designs. While the dialogue, acting and storyline was "Blah", the visuals are a definite 'positive'
This really is a challenge. I saw this with my girlfriend in the theatre and within the first twenty minutes I turned to her and all I could say was "oh no...this movie has over two more hours left in it." I really hated it, I'm not the type of person to walk out of a movie either so I just sat there feeling miserable the whole time.
Yeah for the last hour I felt like that. Could not wait to get out.
As for the character comparisons with the first one, both films are great on their own merits, the new one isn't trying to "outdo" the original, it is a completely standalone film.
But in some departments the new one is most definitely better, for example the romantic subplot of K and his virtual "wife" is ten times more genuinely emotionally investing and moving than the absolutely flat romance with non existent chemistry we got from Deckard and Rachael in the original. And K is a much better and more explored protagonist than the one note Deckard in the original. There's barely any character development in the first one until the third act from Deckard, while in BR2049 the entire film is quite literally nothing but character development from the start.
Firstly, I totally agree that it makes no odds as to whether anyone likes or hates movies that I like (or hate). I often think that movies that divide people are the best ones, for precisely that reason, actually. Anyway, I enjoyed the art direction of BR2049 and the fact that each act, had it's own distinct look and feel. I also found it interesting, that Officer K's holographic girlfriend was the most empathetic character in the story and that Jared Leto's was effectively, 'less human than human', while K himself was somewhere between the two. For me, that worked very well indeed and was the aspect of the film that made me think. Could it be that future generations find love with AI's, as opposed to finding it with other humans? I would hope not, but who knows? Oh, and I also enjoyed the cameo by Edward James Olmos, reprising his role as Bryant from the original film. (Sorry Rob, couldn't resist it!)
I have got the same computer mouse as Rob and I liked the movie. Explain that, Universe.
It's not a bad mouse! Oooh look cycling colours ...
What is good about BR:2049.. is that it makes me appreciate the lively depths of the original even more. Especially music-wise, when you compare the blaring sonic drones of Hans Zimmer et al., with the layered, melodic vibrance Vangelis had put out.
In the first film, you got a sense that the world has turned not-pretty, but you had such a variety of different atmospheres to give an impression that the future world isn't this "one grey dreary thing." The noir-like police station and investigation of Leon's room. The middle-eastern flavour when Deckard visits the scales manufacturer, and the fantasy-like feeling of J. F. Sebastian's doll-ridden apartment. You hardly get that in BR:2049 as everything feels so brutalist and desolate to look at, it leaves a bitter aftertaste in the mind. Don't you imagine people would try to make their own places nice to be in?
The second half of BR:2049 just leads into a "reuniting father with daughter" story (cue ze waterworks, our anti-hero K died for a noble sacrifice!), with a bit of "Nexus android rebellion uprising" on top of it that doesn't lead anywhere. It's not original, it's not interesting. The romance subplot with Joi also ends abruptly when her porta-thingy got stomped on, and doesn't grow into anything besides a mournful scene with K at a giant Joi ad. That is probably BR:2049 is so disappointing, if you were expecting something of the quality of Roy Batty struggling over Tyrell about his existence, or Roy revealing what shreds of humanity he had to Deckard in a surprisingly touching moment, or the sexual tension between Deckard and Rachel in his own apartment.
The filmmakers were just making a respectful homage to the power of Blade Runner's legacy.. like so many other reboots and unwanted sequels to classics, and expected a huge return. But you can't entice people with another classic if there's nothing truly substantial in it.
I liked how the protagonist has a real feeling of existential dread with him, and that it is left to question at the end the substance of what comprised his sense of "self" and how we are all in the same situation ultimately. It helped remind me about the illusory nature of my own "self", which was nice. And it was pretty looking cinematography. Horrible film? Hardly. Huge disappointment...yes. czcams.com/video/7wy5_IUYaqw/video.html
I just saw Blade Runner 2049 and I saw it twice to be sure I saw it right.
It's wrong. Cell.
Oh, it's pretty as hell, make no mistake. I even enjoyed it on the level but it collapses with any digging on it's own terms. As a sequel, it stands on nothing in that its continues a story that doesn't exist.
A retcon. Interlinked.
Feel free to ask about any details.
Below is a great interpretation to what Blade Runner 2049 is: A fantastically flawed facsimile, made to walk and talk like what it *thinks* the original was. Arrogant in it's implementation.
The movie is maybe worth a watch. Baseline.
Remember: Rachael is Human. The owl is real.