Blade Runner 2049 (2017)

[Hanahope]

I've seen the original movie and heard enough about this one to know a bit about it.  I do want to see it, hopefully on the big screen.

I know there's always been the question of whether Deckard was a replicant.  But do replicant's actually age like human's do?  

[shrewd.buddha]

It was a beautifully filmed movie.  The huge, expansive scenes were amazing.
I was  happy to have seen it on the big screen (just barely) - but almost did not because of the looming, nearly 3 hour length. That takes some planning and commitment. 

The story was also well done : a continuation of the first, but without relying heavily on the original characters. I was relieved when it was revealed that K was not who he thought himself to be. That would have been unbelievable (unless purposefully orchestrated by someone else). 

However ... I don't recall the original Blade Runner being so depressing. Deckard's surroundings were bleak but he took them as they were  - - and managed, in the end, to get the girl and run off into the sunset. 
But K's daily life was set up as sad from the beginning: Being  regarded by everyone  as sub-human. His pretend domestic life with hologram projected meals over a bowl of gruel-looking food. The interestingly filmed but sorta creepy "love" scene. The dismissive but weirdly suggestive treatment by his "Madam" boss. 
When K encountered the giant version of his holo-AI girlfriend, it showed how much of her responses were already built into the base model. When the advertisement holo-AI called him Joe, it was sad (but also scary to think that the company may be using their products to monitor their clients and took the results to add new features).  It was also sad to realize K had taken an "adult" companion AI product and used it instead as a modestly dressed, sweet, supportive girlfriend. 

Then there was the whole orphanage concept. And Wallace's (J. Leto)  scene with the newly born replicant.  So many downer elements in the film. The few humorous moments were appreciated. 

The Luv  character (Wallace's hench-woman) was interesting. She appeared to have her own agenda, separate from Wallace, and didn't seem happy with his behavior. It appeared she had major internal conflict following some of his orders. She seemed to have potential to join the rebellion - if not for fact she had no problem with torturing Deckard for information. 

There had been so much hype and promotion with Harrison Ford that I started to get distracted, wondering  why he had not shown up in the movie. The last 15 minutes of the movie almost seemed to switch the role of main character from K over  to Deckard. To me, it seemed a bit odd to start the movie with one character but end it with another. 

This really seemed like an art film. Like the first, I think Blade Runner 2049 will be  highly regarded over time. 

Edited October 31, 2017 by shrewd.buddha

[WritinMan]

A beautifully filmed movie. It deserves that cinematography nomination. However, I thought the movie overall was kind of...meh. Too long and really not enough story to fill the 2 hours and 43 minutes. And what was there was pretty depressing. Probably the best acting Ford has done in quite awhile. Gosling was OK. If there was a lifetime achievement award for being stoic in movies, he would clearly win. I would probably watch an entire movie of Luv kicking ass though.

[JustaPerson]

Just saw this. Quite possibly the most beautiful film I've ever seen. And the CGI was amazing. I hope it wins the oscar because it deserves it. I legit loved K and Joi and might have teared up when she got destroyed. I know she was programmed to love but encouraging K to delete her off the system and just keep her on the emanator felt against her programming (it put her in "danger", so to speak) so it was interesting to ponder if her feelings for K were real and how sentient she was.

When I heard Ryan Gosling was cast in this film I was surprised that he would sign on to do a (what I thought at the time, I haven't seen the original Blade Runner although I'm aware of its reputation) conventional reboot, as most reboots end up being pretty mediocre. Now that I've seen the film, I understand why he would want to do it. It's basically an art film disguised as a sci-fi film.  

Edited March 6, 2018 by JustaPerson

[thuganomics85]

Well, the film might not have set the box office on fire, but it did something more impressive: it finally got Roger A. Fucking Deakins a Fucking Oscar!!!

[millennium]

Finally saw this on HBO, loved it enough to kick myself for giving it a pass on the big screen.   As a sequel it felt seamless.   I generally can't stand Ryan Gosling but he wasn't Ryan Gosling in this film.   He was K.   Marietta, the prostitute, felt like a distant relation of Pris from the first film.   The cameo by Edward J. Olmos was just enough.  I'm glad they didn't try to milk it for more.   The music, the rain, the snow, the waves ... heartbreaking yet hopeful at the same time.   

The only blight on the movie was Jared Leto.    Enough of him already.

[Matt K]

I just saw this on HBO as well and I did not care for it.  I saw the first movie last year and while it was rough in spots it was an okay movie.  This though, not so much.  There's so little weight to the plot.  In the first one Deckard is tracking down replicant terrorists and the fight at the end was pretty good (it alos presented the bad guys as somewhat relatable).  Here the plot is figuring what happened to a baby, significantly lower stakes.  Plus for such a simple plot it takes forever.  I had no emotional connection to any of the characters, the fight scenes were just poorly done and the visuals were lacking as well.  Outside of LA everywhere has fog (or its equivalent) obscuring most of the visuals.  Las Vegas could have been interesting but we see so little of it besides little snapshot.  LA meanwhile looks decent but most of that was cribbed from the first movie and honestly didn't look as good. 

 

The bad girl was way too over the top.  I would think there would have been repercussions for obviously killing cops in their own precinct but no.  Jared Leto's character was okay but since the stakes were so low he didn't present much of a threat (and was barely in the movie).  The stuff with the prostitute and the underground were completely pointless.  It's funny, you'd think they'd have been okay if Leto did learn how to make replicants that reproduced but they don't even bother dealing with that.  Also, what was the deal with the AI?  She seemed to be factory installed so it's kind of silly that they just have a tendency to develop crushes on their users.  It would have been better if it was made clear that Gosling had tinkered with his.  Either way I did not care about their relationship (and seemingly neither did he, as there was no real followup for her "dying"). 

 

This definitely felt like the wrong movie for the director.  The Arrival was also a slow movie but it was about learning an alien language so it made sense to be slow.  This on the other hand was more of an action movie without any good action (action scenes does not appear to be his forte) or a detective movie with little in the way of detecting.  Either way those type of movies need to move at a relatively brisk pace which this did not. 

 

I could go on but suffice it to say I did not like this movie.  I might have liked it if it moved quicker but as is, not so much.

Edited August 14, 2018 by Matt K

[BetterButter]

 

[BetterButter]

Ridley Scott: Live-Action ‘Blade Runner’ and ‘Alien’ TV Series Being Developed, Pilots Written

[BetterButter]

Tyrell Corporation, err, Amazon officially orders Blade Runner 2049 sequel series

[MisterGlass]

That makes me uneasy.  Blade Runner 2049 was the perfect legacy sequel in that it was very good and that it failed at the box office, preserving the legacy of the original while not tempting an immediate rush to cash in on the world by minting shallow follow-up content.