Blade Runner 2049

Blade Runner 2049
02:43:00
HD
Download HD Movie NowWatch HD Movie NowWatch Movie TrailerWatch movie [SD] free
Blade Runner 2049 Poster
7.7/10 by 962 users
Watch TrailerWatch movie free Play Prime Movie

Thirty years after the events of the first film, a new blade runner, LAPD Officer K, unearths a long-buried secret that has the potential to plunge what's left of society into chaos. K's discovery leads him on a quest to find Rick Deckard, a former LAPD blade runner who has been missing for 30 years.

Title:Blade Runner 2049
Release Date:October 4, 2017
Runtime:
Genres:Action, Mystery, Science Fiction, Thriller
Production Co.:Alcon Entertainment, Scott Free Productions, Warner Bros., Thunderbird Films, Torridon Films
Production Countries:United States of America
Director:Denis Villeneuve, Donald Sparks, Gábor Hegedüs Hege, Donald Sparks, Joel Kramer
Writers:, , ,
Casts:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Plot Keywords:artificial intelligence, bounty hunter, dystopia, genetics, sequel, cyberpunk, los angeles, las vegas, tech noir
Alternative Titles:
  • Blejd Raner 2049 - [RS]
  • Blade Runner 2 - [US]

Blade Runner 2049 Reviews

  • One of the best sequels of all time!
    by FabledGentleman on 3 October 2017

    494 out of 803 people found the following review useful:

    Denis Villeneuve, you magnificent world wonder, you did it again!

    I have seen BR2049 three times now, and therefor i rewrote my review a little, but my verdict is the same.

    One of the things i have noticed with this film, is that it's not the time in the cinema that takes up my time, even at it's 163 minutes run time. It's the hours upon hours in between spent thinking about the film, that is the real time consumer. This film left such a deep and profound impact, which i cannot escape. And i have gone back to the cinema twice to be "tortured", but it's worth it.

    It's a dark, mysterious, grim, hopeless, sad and lonely film, set in a possible near future where the human race is hanging by their fingertips on the edge of doom. Quite depressing. But it is so brilliantly put together, the closest master of cinema i think of that has done something like this is Stanley Kubrick.

    Many of Stanley Kubrick's films was also hated by many when they first aired. "2001: A Space Odyssey" for example, which had gorgeous visuals, but felt flat and hollow for many, even professional reviewers back then.

    What Kubrick did best, was to create afterthought. People left the cinema feeling confused and even depressed, but the movies planted a seed which then grew for years. The original Blade Runner also accomplished this. BR2049 continues the original, but stands completely on it's own feet, it tells a new story that directly interlink with the original, but without trying to be a copy. It's a natural continuation in the same universe. When i now saw the original Blade Runner again, i saw it in an entirely different way, it's amazing.

    BR2049 has some of the most gorgeous visuals i have ever seen, and the cinematography is out of this world, there is literally no excuse not to give Roger Deakins the Oscar this time. After 13 nominations he has now hit the ball out the park and is this year in his own league entirely.

    It's almost weird to look at something so gorgeous as this film is, painting a picture of such a sad and lost world. It sort of collides with your senses, your eyes say it's beautiful, your mind say it's depressing. Which senses are you going to believe? What does it mean? At least do not confuse feeling depressed as a sign that this movie is bad, it's nothing wrong feeling depressed, take it in, embrace it. Then you will know how it feels to be a replicant that's trapped in a caged mind.

    BR2049's story happens 30 years after the original, but there is also three short films on Youtube i recommend you watch before you see the film. These short films describes some of what happened in between 2019 and 2049. Watching them makes it slightly easier to understand some of the things going on.

    The world has gone darker in 2049, climate is spinning out of control, people are desperate and lost, law enforcement can barely keep anything together, and only a small spark can set of total disaster, which is looming just around every corner. It's a world where powerful people take what they want, and do what they want, with the means they have available to them. In many ways, not that far off from where we are now.

    Niander Wallace has taken over Tyrell Corp and has by the time 2049 takes place designed millions of obedient replicants that does exactly what he tells them to do. But there is one thing Wallace has not been able to perfect, and that's what this films main story is all about, and Wallace will do anything in his power to get his hands on the "technology", which will result in him becoming many hundred times richer and more powerful, the sole ruler of the entire universe. He is so far gone in his mind by 2049 he actually believes he is god himself, and he calls his replicants angels.

    And of course he also uses replicants to do his "dirty work". In 2049 we meet his right hand "girl" Luv (Brilliantly played by Sylvia Hoeks, if there is one actor in this movie that steal the show, it's her). Luv is a very dangerous assassin, that perform whatever task she is set do to, with no remorse. Or is that entirely true? I can't spoil anything, but look closely at Luv's character arc. All the other actors also do an outstanding job in this film, no one does a bad performance.

    Be prepared going to see this film, it's heavy on your mind, and it demands your full attention. It's one of those rare films who dares to challenge the audience, and by doing so, taking a huge risk, and a 155 million dollar risk at that. The film isn't perfect, but it's close, and it shows the tremendous skills of Denis Villeneuve. And those few mistakes this movie has, are probably just happy little accidents as Rob Ross would have put it. This film is very much like a painting, every stroke of the brush matters, and every little detail is carefully crafted, it takes monumental skills to pull it of.

    I loved this film, it's the best film I've seen all year, It is a must see, a monumental triumph of a film that is just as good (possibly even better) as the original and one of the best sequels of all time!

    10/10 - Masterpiece

    And BTW Villeneuve's next movie might be Dune, imagine if he brings Deakins and the rest of this team to make that movie. Yeah, I'm going to leave you with that thought. This is basically porn. And we can't talk about that now can we? might be minors reading this.

  • A visual masterpiece
    by W.Drummen on 4 October 2017

    313 out of 509 people found the following review useful:

    Let me start by saying that I am a huge Denis Villeneuve fan and absolutely love every movie he made, from his breakthrough drama 'Incendies' to the action thriller 'Sicario'. But when I learned that he was going to make a sequel to Ridley Scott's iconic Blade Runner I had mixed feelings. Would he be able to live up to the expectations and make a sequel that could measure itself with the original? For this reason, I went into the cinema thinking ''This will be a great movie, I am a Villeneuve fan so I have to like it'' but that was a mistake, for once I stopped expecting and just started experiencing the film, I was enchanted by all of its visual beauty. I was wrong to doubt Villeneuve; his 'Blade Runner 2049' even succeeds in transcending in some ways the original masterpiece, especially as a visual experience.

    The bleak dystopian future Scott so perfectly created is even more beautiful in Villeneuve's 2049, for which a lot of credit has to be given to the brilliant director of photography Roger Deakins, who has made one of his best works (which says a lot). Every shot is brilliant, I loved every single frame and I cannot imagine that he wouldn't get nominated and win an Oscar for this phenomenal work. But also a big thumbs up has to be given to the entire effects team, for Deakins didn't do it all on his own.

    Deakins isn't the only mastermind at work, for the score is also beautifully done. When I learned that composer Jóhann Jóhannsson (someone who has collaborated multiple times with Villeneuve and did most of the scores for his movies) got fired I was surprised; Jóhannsson has always delivered great work, but according to Villeneuve, his score ''wasn't the right one'' for this movie for it didn't ''resemble Vangelis soundtrack for Blade Runner'' quite enough. So he got replaced by probably the best man in the business nowadays; Hans Zimmer. And as we are used to with the German composer, this was once again sublime and a great homage to the original. Zimmer's 2049 score can be compared to his Dunkirk score, in a way that it unsettles us from the first chord and just as the Second World War movie, it keeps us on the edges of ours seats, especially during the last hour.

    As for the people who are actually situated in front of the camera, they all play their parts very well. I was especially happy that Ryan Gosling's agent K was indeed the leading man and he did a very good job. I was slightly concerned that it would mostly be about Harrison Ford's Deckard, but luckily that wasn't the case. Nevertheless, Ford gives one of his best performances in years and after all the iconic roles he played once again in recent years (Han Solo, Indiana Jones) this is by far the best. The smaller but important roles are also noteworthy; Robin Wright's Lieutenant Joshi makes a fierce and convincing police chief, while the villain duo Jared Leto's Neander Wallace as the evil head of a corporation at the top of the new world order and his frightening hit-woman Luv (Sylvia Hoeks) are also very impressive. Last but not least, Ana de Armas is also very good as Joi, K's girlfriend (even if she does remind me a lot of Scarlet Johansson in 'Her' and slightly of Alicia Vikander in 'Ex Machina', but maybe that's something Villeneuve did that on purpose and wanted to pay homage to these recent but also very good science-fiction movies).

    That said, Villeneuve will receive most of the credit, as he should. For unlike most of Hollywood's blockbusters nowadays, he doesn't simply deliver us a spectacle with some nice effects or a reboot of the original, but he picks up the threads where Scott left, which was a monumental task, for the original 'Blade Runner' is one of the most impressive and iconic movies ever made. 2049 continues on the same topics raised by the original, making the sequel worth the 35-year long wait; it goes further with what was proposed in the first installment, enriching one another. It is possible that one day a third installment could be made, but that is only if any director will ever find the courage to make another 'Blade Runner', for the bar is raised incredibly high. I believe that in time, 'Blade Runner 2049' will just as the original one, grow into a cult movie, and rightfully so, for it is its own movie, but, just as the original, a visually remarkable, achingly human sci-fi masterpiece.

    I am not going to say more about it, because the studio has been unusually insistent in its pleas to critics and the first movie viewers not to reveal any plot points, but I am glad they did. Even if I could go on and on about the movie and the difference between replicants and humans (or is there really much of a difference, after all?) the less you know the better, because 2049 feels at its best when it surprises (which is one of Villeneuve's greatest strengths). This is a movie best experienced on the biggest screen in your cinema; trust me, it will be worth your while. As for me, I will most likely try and make some free time in my schedule for the coming days, 'cause I want to go the cinema again, guess what I'm gonna watch...

  • A masterpiece of science fiction and possibly one of the greatest sequels ever made
    by MrDHWong (dhwong89@live.com) on 5 October 2017

    304 out of 524 people found the following review useful:

    Blade Runner 2049 is the sequel to the 1982 sci-fi classic Blade Runner. Directed by Denis Villeneuve (Arrival, Sicario) and once again based on Philip K. Dick's novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, it successfully recaptures just about everything excellent about the original and is a superb sequel to one of the greatest and most important science fiction films of all time.

    Thirty years after the events of the first film, LAPD Officer K (Ryan Gosling) works as a Blade Runner, retiring old rogue replicants (artificial humans) hiding out around the Los Angeles area. One day while on a job, K discovers a long buried secret in the yard of a replicant which leads him on a journey to track down former Blade Runner Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford), who has been missing for decades.

    Featuring amazing visuals and some of the most philosophical and thought-provoking themes since the original, Blade Runner 2049 is a masterpiece of science fiction and is possibly one of the greatest sequels ever made. I was transfixed the entire time, to the point where I felt that even blinking would cause me to miss something I wanted to see. The cast was brilliant as well, especially Ryan Gosling, who does a fantastic job carrying the film as its lead actor. However, perhaps best of all, is that seeing the original is not a requirement to fully understand everything that is going on, although it would probably still help to have done so beforehand. I'm almost certain that author Philip K. Dick would be proud of this film. I know I am.

    I rate it a very high 9.5/10

  • A sleek, expensive and obedient skin-job
    by Nikolaos Stampoulopoulos on 8 October 2017

    215 out of 356 people found the following review useful:

    Blade Runner (1982) was a happy (yet gloomy) accident, involving: a) a young and ambitious director who fought ferociously with studio executives in order for them to let him fulfill his vision; b) a rising blockbuster star who wanted to prove he can also act in a serious movie; c) a crazy Dutch actor who decided to change the script and improvise one of the most memorable monologues in film history; d) a bunch of talented artists who wanted to make a movie that would look and sound different from anything else we had seen before. And most of all, e) a post-Vietnam turbulent era when Hollywood rebels like Coppola, Scorsese and Cimino were audaciously attempting to reinvent the language of cinema, telling stories that mattered and not caring at all about target audiences and marketing trends. As a result, Blade Runner was a box office failure that slowly became a legend, breaking stereotypes like "good guy kills bad guy at the end" and dealing with existential agony on an almost metaphysical level; always within the context of a gritty corporate dystopia in the near future.

    Blade Runner 2049 is none of these things. On the contrary, it's the flawed triumph of a next generation of studio executives, who control the creative process by paying millions to the industry's best of the best, providing they will make something that will take advantage of a successful brand name in order to bring profits to shareholders. If there is one word to describe this movie, it's "replicant". Not the kind of replicant who realizes that "all those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain" as he dies, but a sleek, expensive and obedient skin-job that will try to entertain you and if it succeeds will return as a sequel that will eventually become yet another franchise. I spent 160 minutes of my life watching a pleasant and perfectly constructed piece of nothing, and I didn't care for a moment about any of the characters or a storyline that was designed without the intention to question and redefine a single thing. All its moments have already been lost in my memory, while the original Blade Runner remains vivid in my mind, as if I only saw it yesterday.

  • Blade Runner 2049 - Movie Review: A New-Age Sci-Fi Classic
    by KJ Proulx on 6 October 2017

    188 out of 308 people found the following review useful:

    For film fanatics like myself, Blade Runner 2049 is a great film for people to see, regardless if they've witnessed the original or not. On the other hand, if you've never seen the original Blade Runner and are just a casual moviegoer that have thought of the promotion for this film as being an action-packed thrill ride, then I'd have to warn to stay far away from this near three hour motion picture. It's very hard to review this film without getting into specific plot details, but that's exactly what makes this film worth the price of admission alone. For nearly every reason a film fan should be excited about a movie, here is why Blade Runner 2049 is a must see as soon as possible.

    Before dropping you into this world with Ryan Gosling's character, there is text at the beginning that will fill you in on the history of the events in the past, but even though that information is given to you, your experience just won't be the same without having viewed the first film multiple times and remembering the emotional core of it. Set out on a mission to find something of meaning to the overall story, Ryan Gosling's character (who will remain nameless for the sake of this review) uncovers mysteries and secrets from the past, inevitably involving Rick Deckard. Quite honestly, that's the plot in a nutshell and the specifics of the film will lead to ruining your experience, so let's get technical.

    If not for anything else, Blade Runner 2049 benefits from some of the best cinematography I've laid my eyes on in years. From the addition of the seamlessly blended visual effects, to the mind- blowing scenery constructed by the entire art department, I have nothing but praise for this film. Whether or not you find yourself enjoying your experience, the visuals alone should have you applauding, due to their incredibly detailed nature. I personally found the overall film to be magnificent, but when certain scenes were dialogue-free and asking you to gasp at the imagery, that's exactly what I was doing, as I feel many audiences members will.

    Again, without giving anything away, once Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) enters the picture, the way both films sort of interconnect was brilliant in my opinion. It does justice to any loose ends that fans may have wanted in the past, as well as create a new story to gawk at in the process. With a terrifically restrained performance by Ryan Gosling, you'll find yourself sucked into this world as a fly on the wall, as he uncovers these mysteries. With the addition of Harrison Ford giving one of his most sincere and memorable performances, as well as Ana de Armas in a role that really took me by surprise, this film was casted to the nines from beginning to end. Some may complain about Jared Leto and Dave Bautista not being included as much, but I felt as though the served the story quite nicely.

    In the end, this movie aims to impress Sci-Fi fans across the world, but I feel as though the people who will be looking back on this as a possible classic or at least one of the best sequels ever made, are those who've had the pleasure of indulging in the greatness that is 1982's Blade Runner. I don't say this about films very often, especially when talking about sequels, but I haven't been this immersed in a theatrical experience in quite some time. This is definitely a superior film than the original, it's one of the best films of 2017, and I'll be revisiting it very soon. Blade Runner 2049 is getting a lot of praise and awards consideration from critics and filmgoers across the world, and every bit of it is deserved. Aside from being very long, this is pretty much a perfect film if you don't try to nitpick how it connects and certain questions that aren't blatantly answered. If you know what type of film you're in for, or you've at least seen the original and enjoyed it, I can't recommend this movie enough.

  • Strangely boring, lacking tension and intelligence.
    by Takeshi-K on 6 October 2017

    332 out of 596 people found the following review useful:

    Don't believe the lying shills rating this a ten out of ten. The original Blade Runner is a masterpiece. This film is not. It only deserves a six, but I loved the original so I gave it a seven. My review will compare both films and it contains **spoilers**.

    First up its pacing. This film is actually much slower than the original, adding up to two hours and forty three minutes of mind numbing boredom. I love slow paced films provided there's enough drama and tension. The first Blade Runner film has long pauses, but its justified. The silence swells toward sudden violence or it occurs because a character is gnawing over a great line of dialog they've just heard or are about to express. So what makes a slow paced film entertaining? The solution is information provided at the right time.

    The first film immediately tells us that replicants are murderous outlaws. We see one commit murder. Some are hiding here on Earth in Los Angeles and Dekkard is forced to detect and kill them. All that information is given to the audience within the first few minutes. So when Dekkard is wandering through crowded streets of futuristic LA, we the audience are afraid for him, because any one of them could be a murderous replicant. Dear Ridley Scott repeat after me: Information creates tension.

    This newer film instead begins with long drawn out scenes of dull aimless searching and investigating. Since no villain shows up until the last hour, there's no reason for the hero to actually hurry or feel afraid. When the boring pace finally speeds up toward the end, you're so bored out of your skull, you forgot why anyone is doing anything and you no longer care or even notice what the film thinks is a stunning twist.

    Those shill reviewers are glowing about its photography. Compared to its budget, the photography is below standard. There are rare nice moments. Seeing the fusion powered spinners (those flying cars) again was nice nostalgia, but far too many albeit pretty shots of -- nothing happening -- rendered the plot all the more irrelevant.

    Now for the production design. The indoor set designs were poor, telling us very little about the world this film is set in. The "production value" looks cheap. I don't mean that in a cheap sleazy film noir way (no that would have been cool), I mean that I don't know where they spent the 185million budget, because only a fraction of that was spent on the sets. Two things did work. The voice comp device has been updated reminiscent of 1984 (the Orwell film starring John Hurt) and there is a Total Recall (the original not the remake) style artificial Female hologram character that is programmed to love K (Ryan Gosling). Interesting, but hardly ground breaking, while the original film was ground breaking in too many ways to mention here. The close up long lens shots in the original made the grimy futuristic streets of Los Angeles really look and feel like a crowded claustrophobic sleazy poverty stricken hellhole. Such a lens also gives size to any character in the foreground making Ford look all the more epic.

    This film used wider lenses and so the pent up tension of the original street scenes is non existent. In fact very rarely does it venture outside into the streets, so that we cannot breathe in the human polity as easily as we did in the original. The original film had real light emanating from miniature buildings, vehicles and advertising. I'm sorry but computer generated light just doesn't behave like real light does. Real light goes where it wants. The human eye cannot be fooled. Syd Mead is a genius. But looking at this film makes me think he wasn't given the power he needed to bring out this film's potential. It actually looks like some hack is trying to copy him. This makes me feel sad to write that. His work on Elysium (2013) was far superior.

    And now the acting. Gosling plays it straight (and glum) as he did in the pretty to look at but boring Bangkok crime flick Only God Forgives. There is a plot reason for this, but his dull acting compounds this movie's languid pace. There's not enough of Harrison Ford, who only shows up in the last hour (maybe less?). Jared Leto's monologues are just awful. Its not his fault. He's miscast and badly written.

    Like Mead, Philip K Dick is a genius too, both films are inspired by his literary masterwork "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep". This film didn't delve deep enough, barely scratching the intellectual surface. Since many of his concepts are incredibly visually rich that just compounds the cinematic failure here.

    Should you go and see this? If you're a fan of the original, I think you should. The story ends in a way that sets things up for another Blade Runner movie which I hope will actually be entertaining.

    This film is meant to be a science fiction noir film, but it has little of the intelligence we expect from science fiction and none of the crime solving tension that is required of film noir. It lacked the brutal immediacy of the original nexus 6 villains the first one had in spades. It lacked the tense cat and mouse hunting game that made the original so intense, a race where the lead changed more than once. It just isn't as clever as its, at times pretty visuals and constantly obnoxious soundtrack, pretends it to be.

    Instead we get a self important bloated fatware art-house snoozefest that is bleak, boring and about as intellectually deep as counterfeit artificial snake skin.

  • Completely over-hyped and undeserving of the praise
    by connorbbalboa on 7 October 2017

    222 out of 395 people found the following review useful:

    I never was one of those people asking for a Blade Runner sequel. Now that Blade Runner 2049 is out, my position still stands. This film is simply a massive letdown and nothing more.

    The year is 2049 and the world has grown in technology, but not humanity. Ryan Gosling plays K, a Blade Runner (a futuristic cop) tasked with tracking down the last of the Replicants-androids that look like humans. Knowing that he himself is a replicant, he goes on a journey of his own when he finds a box containing the bones of a Replicant who gave birth to a child and is tasked with finding the child. Little does he know that the new head of the Tyrell Corporation that makes the Replicants, Mr. Wallace (Jared Leto), plans to use the missing child for his own purposes and kill K if he has to.

    My main problem with the film is that it was unforgivably boring. The film is two hours and forty-five minutes long, which is already enough to test one's patience (and bladder), but it feels so deliberately paced; the characters almost always move so slow, that it feels like the filmmakers thought that it was the best way to pad out the running time, despite having not enough material to justify it.

    The performances range from great to laughable. Harrison Ford is hardly in the movie, and his inclusion is clearly a marketing ploy, but he gives the best performance in his brief running time and he feels like a continuation of his character from the original, Deckard, in a world where things have just gotten worse. Gosling isn't bad as K, and his stone-face actually is pretty effective in a couple of scenes, but Rutger Hauer in the original gave his Replicant character more of a personality. Leto is trying and failing to bring a degree of menace as the villain, and his female Replicant sidekick competes with him in the field of phoning it in.

    What else shocked me was how unsubtle the film was. The original was not only a futuristic crime noir that had Harrison Ford's Deckard chasing down androids, but also a personal journey involving himself and Rutger Hauer as the villain that involved trying to find a degree of humanity in such a futuristic world, and that maybe, Deckard is a replicant himself. Here, the story is mainly of Gosling trying to come to terms with the fact that he is a Replicant and what it means in terms of his humanity. Whereas in the original, there were subtle signs, images, and bits of dialogue that hinted at Deckard's purpose in the original, everything is spelled out for the audience to the point that old bits of dialogue are repeated thrice at important moments. It doesn't respect the audience's intelligence at all. The first and final thirds of the film are mainly filled with dialogue that is basically speeches that preach ideas about conflict and the ethics of machines, but hardly any of it is explored in an interesting fashion. What's worse, the film feels so empty and devoid that for a time, I forgot what K's objective was.

    What I will say is that the cinematography is beautiful. There are a lot of colorful images with ancient ruins and futuristic tech in the background and foreground that could easily pass as being part of an art gallery. The only downside is that there is too much gray in some shots and it feels too clean compared to the original.

    Why Warner Brothers and Sony wasted their time making this film, I have no clue. Maybe it was Ridley Scott's fault. After being unimpressed with his Alien: Covenant earlier this year (and was also quite the snooze-fest), watching this only proved to me further that Scott just doesn't care about good filmmaking anymore. Denis Villeneuve is clearly an ambitious director, but his style didn't feel completely right for this film. Clearly, in a film that tries so desperately to say much more humanity than its predecessor, it comes out feeling empty and feels less human than the original did.

    P.S. A lot of people have accused me of being too shallow and wanted this film to be more action packed. I do not have that mindset. I enjoy films that take their time as much as the next film enthusiast, but this one just didn't do enough to justify what it was aiming for. I'm not ashamed in expressing my opinion. Just let me be clear on something: going at a slow, deliberate pace and speaking lines of preachy dialogue does not, I repeat, does not equal intelligence. The positive reviews baffle me, especially on Rotten Tomatoes. Sony owns the company, which leads me to think that maybe it bribed more than a few critics in the hopes that more people would see it. Clearly, that is backfiring and I'm happy that people are rejecting it.

  • A Long Wait for Disappointment
    by Tim 5352 on 7 October 2017

    89 out of 148 people found the following review useful:

    In 1982 I was deeply excited about the prospect of seeing "Blade Runner," and can remember applying for a chance to see an advance showing in Sacramento. From the start it seemed obvious that it was a special film--clouded in controversy and mystery. Later I acquired my much-viewed VHS copy, with all the eye-gouging, nail-puncturing violence. Later still the Internet provided background information as, eventually, did articles plus a comprehensive book by Paul M. Sammon. In short, I am a fan, and was eagerly anticipating the sequel.

    So, it was with disappointment that I left an October 6, 2017 showing "Blade Runner 2049." Overly long, boring, poorly paced, and confusing were my initial impressions, though admittedly it was beautifully filmed (potential Oscar nomination in cinematography?).

    I appreciated the many (too many?) subtle and not-so-subtle nods to the original film, the effort to build on the "Blade Runner" universe, and efforts by writers, directors, and actors to bring the story to life. But there were just too many scenes that should have been reduced in length from 25-50% of their run time. Such excess in a film is, to me, almost always a fatal flaw. And some scenes (e.g., where characters "Joi" and "Mariette" merge to make love to "K") could have been cut altogether, I feel, without harming the story.

    The acting was satisfactory or better, for the most part, as one would expect from the level of supporting talent.* However, I have knowingly seen two pictures starring Ryan Gosling—2016's "La La Land" and now this—and in both he is bland and wooden. Despite the fact that "2049's" "K" is SUPPOSED to be a self-controlled, artificial humanoid, I wonder if it is just Gosling's natural on- (and off-) screen persona. And frankly, Harrison Ford's "Deckard" just did not work for me. Sacrilegious, I know; but true. I blame this on two factors.

    First, Ford appears (too) late in the movie, by which time I was already exhausted by tedium. Second, for a character without appearance-changing makeup, a dramatic accent, say, or pronounced behavioral distinctions, it is hard not to just see Harrison Ford. (Kind of like Robert Redford miscast in 1985's "Out of Africa.") Oh, it's (old) Harrison Ford again. Sorry HF fans everywhere.

    And another thing; due to poor direction, they included "Admiral William Adama" (Edward James Olmos) from TV's "Battlestar Galactica," and not "Gaff" (also Olmos), in a too brief cameo. (Listen to "Gaff" in the 1982 original. Totally different voicing.)

    Like most films, it suffered from its share of "Oh, come on!" moments. Why would 6-foot "K" allow 6-foot-6 Dave Bautista's imposing "Sapper Morton" to make the first move (and thus begin the accumulation of a ridiculous amount of damage, most of it unnecessary, sustained by "K" throughout the story)? Because that's what movie detectives do. I must say, "K" apparently likes to pass violently through solid walls (a nod to Rutger Hauer's "Roy Batty" head in the original, I take it).

    Almost all action-adventure films are silly in hindsight and full of movie plot clichés—"Blade Runner 20149" is no exception. But the test of a good movie is whether the story flows at a pace that makes audiences subconsciously accept and even relish these otherwise nonsensical encumbrances (see 1999's "The Matrix"). For my part I was less inclined to give "2049" a pass on the silliness due to its plodding nature.

    Ridley Scott is prominently associated with both the recent "Alien" and Blade Runner" franchises, and has promised multiple sequels. Do we want this? Is state-of-the-art movie-making worth either ridiculously poor stories (the "Alien" franchise) or bad plotting and editing ("Blade Runner 2049")? It's admittedly hard to make a good movie, but Scott and his people are paid a LOT of money to do so. Check Scott's IMDb filmography. Can any mortal be involved first-hand in that many projects? As with Stephen King, maybe it's time to stop the quantity and re-focus on the quality? Just saying…

    In conclusion, my disappointment focused primarily on the script and editing.**

    Some recommendations to potential viewers: First, if you plan to see "Blade Runner 2049" it will help to see one of 37 versions (e.g., voice-over or no voice-over?; graphic violence shots or not?) of the original 1982 film beforehand. Second, maybe wait to watch the movie digitally, so that you can re-play key scenes and increase volume on important dialogue. In the theater I kept mentally reaching for a non-existent remote control. Third, (after Recommendation One) if like me you hold the original picture in deep admiration as a flawed but intriguing analog masterpiece of SF movie-making, consider skipping this sequel altogether. But I imagine that warning will fall on deaf ears.

    _____

    * Because of the look and feel of two female characters in the film, I wonder if actresses Felicity Jones ("Rogue One") and Tatiana Maslany ("Orphan Black") were originally considered for the parts eventually played by Ana de Armas (companion hologram "Joi") and Sylvia Hoeks (deadly replicant "Luv"). While watching the trailer footage, I originally mistook those two characters for actresses Jones and Maslany. Their doppelgangers did just fine, though. Hoeks' "Luv" is particularly chilling.

    ** Oh, and the music! Not so good. Too often I was aware of background music--that by itself is not a good thing--and its shortcomings. So much so that by the end of "2049," where original "Blade Runner" music ("Tears in the Rain," I think) is (finally) used, it left me with mixed feelings. First, thank god! Second, where was that musical excellence during the rest of the film? Music can make or break a film, and is incredibly important. Few excellent films have poor musical soundtracks. Unfortunately, "Blade Runner 2049" is not an exception to that guideline.

  • The most interesting part of the movie was...
    by 24540647 on 7 October 2017

    186 out of 343 people found the following review useful:

    ...the return of the giant Atari sign from the original Blade Runner.

    OK, quick story synopsis. Bones found of a Replicant who's given birth. How was it possible and where is the child (now adult)?

    I'm sorry, but having waited 35 years for this movie it just didn't press any buttons for me. It's an hour too long, the story-line is weak to non-existent and doesn't get answered, the theory of Deckard's origin is again teased at but not answered (even though there really is very little in the original to point to him being a repilicant).

    This is another SFX over substance movie. Looks good, although very dark in the 3D version, but there just doesn't seem to be the energy and edginess of the original. It all seems too NICE.

    Having seen the original movie over 30 times, I'm not sure I'll bother returning to this new story. I have to agree with Rutger Hauer about trying to add to a perfect movie.

  • this movie should never have been made
    by yannickmessaoud on 8 October 2017

    57 out of 91 people found the following review useful:

    The first movie (which should have stayed the only movie) is a masterpiece of sci fi. I was hooked from the start great story and for the time great FX also cannot beat the soundtrack by Vangelis.

    Not sure what is going on with Ridley Scott first with is Alien Convenant he destroyed the series there and now with the new addition of blade runner.

    I feel that all the positive reviews for this movie are fake, because the movie is a sad excuse to make money and makes no sense at all, no surprised it failed this weekend at the box office.

    The acting is good so are the special effects, but the story is weak and none existent, Tyrell corporation is gone and there is a new company that makes the replicans, and tyrell had found a way for them to reproduce and have babies.

    This is where the story gets weird, Deckard is brought back into the mix because he had a child with Rachel.

    The movie also lack action and in the end does not explain anything. I felt like a huge waste of 2h and a half.

    35y in the making for this wow just wow.

Similar Movies

  • The Thirteenth Floor Poster
    6.8/10 by 383 users
    Original Title:The Thirteenth Floor
    Release Date:April 16, 1999
    Popularity:13.463632
  • The Maze Runner Poster
    7/10 by 5477 users
    Original Title:The Maze Runner
    Release Date:September 10, 2014
    Popularity:27.451857
  • Terminator Salvation Poster
    5.9/10 by 2483 users
    Original Title:Terminator Salvation
    Release Date:May 20, 2009
    Popularity:23.37609
  • Terminator Genisys Poster
    5.8/10 by 3664 users
    Original Title:Terminator Genisys
    Release Date:June 23, 2015
    Popularity:35.097196
  • Dredd Poster
    6.6/10 by 1956 users
    Original Title:Dredd
    Release Date:September 7, 2012
    Popularity:14.513901
  • Gattaca Poster
    7.5/10 by 1832 users
    Original Title:Gattaca
    Release Date:September 7, 1997
    Popularity:13.546997
  • The Matrix Reloaded Poster
    6.7/10 by 3480 users
    Original Title:The Matrix Reloaded
    Release Date:May 15, 2003
    Popularity:13.872287
  • 9 Poster
    6.6/10 by 1277 users
    Original Title:9
    Release Date:August 19, 2009
    Popularity:16.433698
  • The Terminator Poster
    7.3/10 by 4180 users
    Original Title:The Terminator
    Release Date:October 26, 1984
    Popularity:20.196211
  • Demolition Man Poster
    6.4/10 by 1018 users
    Original Title:Demolition Man
    Release Date:October 8, 1993
    Popularity:12.049217
  • Blade Runner Poster
    7.9/10 by 3979 users
    Original Title:Blade Runner
    Release Date:June 25, 1982
    Popularity:54.058088
  • The Matrix Poster
    7.9/10 by 9013 users
    Original Title:The Matrix
    Release Date:March 30, 1999
    Popularity:27.736349