Blade Runner 2049

"Blade Runner 2049 embraces the enormous shadow cast by Blade Runner 1982 by crafting a vast immersion in scale and vision..."

Read the full review here: http://screen-space.squarespace.com/reviews/2017/10/5/blade-runner-2049.html

In a wonderfully woeful world, a detective makes a sad attempt at a relationship, has the most inventive sex scene ever committed to screen, and grapples with an existential crisis as he does his work. This stuff, which could work as a standalone story, is so strong that this movie must be seen.

Unfortunately, the movie doesn't realise that the protagonist's everyday life is the best part, and instead focuses on a larger-than-life, goofy premise meant to tie 2049 to the original and set up another sequel, thus undermining what would otherwise be a gripping, intimate story.

Hail to the Science Fiction gods as they came to their senses and granted upon the eagerly movie-going masses the long-awaited arrival of a stunning and opulent Blade Runner sequel. Perhaps we should praise the understated genius and visionary mastermind Ridley Scott for his 1982 directorial accomplishment in serving up what appeared to be an underappreciated and overlooked SF thriller in its heyday over three decades ago only for it to emerge now as one of the greatest Science Fiction futuristic capers worthy of its cult classic following?

Maybe the long overdue kudos are reserved for the diehard nostalgic Blade Runner bunch whose committed and fanatical fandom was the key catalyst for this undeniably brilliant, brainy, dazzling and...

The film was actually rather disappointing. As a film it was OK, but as a sequel to Blade Runner, it was terrible. There were some nice in-jokes and references, but overall low-brow junk masquerading as high-brow gold (it was directed by Villeneuve, so I really shouldn't have expected better, the only thing he's good at is making stupid people think they are clever). Everything seemed forced and unnatural. The plot was trite and cliched, and everything was very predictable. Totally a wasted opportunity ;^<

Strikes a true balance between new and old. Denis Villeneuve has a perfect filmmaking record in my mind, and Blade Runner 2049 continues that trend with aplomb.

Final rating: - Very strong appeal. A personal favourite.

As a movie this is a very good movie. The scenery, the acting, the colors etc. are of a very high technical standard. To me personally however, this movie is much too dark and depressing for my taste.

I cannot say that I am surprised that the movie is dark. The first movie was a rather dark one after all and this one is a truly post-apocalyptic one. I quite liked the first movie despite its dark setting though. However this one takes the darkness and melancholy to an entirely new level.

As I said before, technically the movie is great. The scenery is stunning whether it is a dirty little hut out in the badlands or the equally dirty vast cityscapes. The scenes of the abandoned city where Decker is (re)introduced is sad but beautiful.

The ...

I don't understand what people like in this movie. It has some good things, but nothing much to deserve such big rating. Soundtracks & atmosphere are really good & it's well shot, however story is confusing & everything is all over the place. I still didn't understand what was the whole story of movie and it is extremely slow & prolonged. Very small amount of talking & a lot observing moments. Every minor action is prolonged. Like you see man laying in the snow for a few minutes & etc... I didn't like the movie & it took more than 2:30 hours of torture and boredom...

The only thing great about Blade Runner 2049 is the cinematography and the Atari sign, but it was just trying to copy Blade Runner instead of a new story. Outside of that it's dog dung. The music is a poor knock off Vangelis score. The story is basically fan-service and pandering by the studio with the tons of plot holes. It includes of biblical references, and aspects from the books Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury, that also takes place in 2049, mixed with 1984 by George Orwell to try to come off as intellectual, but utterly fails and is poorly done. It practically ignored Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep by Phillip K. Dick. The original Blade Runner film did too, but at least that film was interesting. This film doesn't introduc...

Overall : One of the most visually spectacular, stunning, and beautiful films I have ever seen!

Now I need to be honest; I am a simple man, and the complexities of the philosophical questions presented by the Blade Runner movies are lost on me. What makes someone truly human or real is a profound question with which an escapist like myself doesn't want to grapple. But with all that being said, Blade Runner 2049 is a masterpiece regardless of your movie taste. The beauty of the bright neon colors splashing across the cold, dismal, muted city of Los Angeles in 2049 is breathtaking. Every scene and moment is a visual feast filled with practical effects despite being a sci-fi film with flying cars and futuristic technology. While parts o...

Ryan Gosling is great in this update of the Ridley Scott story from 1982. He is "K" - working for the new but still all-powerful "Tyrell Corporation" tasked with eliminating the last of the "Nexus" generation of replicants. It's on one such mission that he, quite literally, unearths a terrible secret that could spell doom for the already crippled society of mankind. "K" sets out to gather as much information as he can to prevent this collapse, and gradually comes to realise that the answer might lie with the long disappeared "Deckard" (Harrison Ford); his water ego from times gone by. Thing is, though, as his search nears it's conclusion, will he be permitted to discover and act upon the truth? This enhances and augments the original, rathe...

Visually stunning. That's it. It felt cold as the acting of the main character. Also it made so many assumptions on the original movie that it felt banal. Such a shame, because the concept behind could have been good, but the delivery is just not there, I'm afraid.

Did it really need a sequel?

It was beautiful. I mean, it looked beautiful...even if there was one part that made me motion sick, but even that part was beautiful. And that, I think, was really more of a lighting thing than a set design thing or a special effects thing.

Honestly, you remember the lighting in this. You remember it the way people remember the lighting in an Edward Hopper painting.

But did it need a sequel?

The acting was great, it really was.

There was honestly no real flaw as to how the movie looked, how it was directed, or how it was acted. It was pleasing...

...but it was also kind of empty. So, did it need a sequel? Questions were answered, but those questions were best left as questions weren't they? Th...