I don’t really have any spoilers anyway but I know when people launch these threads those that haven’t seen the film chime in until they sometimes get taken by surprise people have started seeing it. (I’ve done it).
Short version: I liked it and scifi fans should see it. It’s not an action film it’s a drama in a scifi world. There’s action but it’s part of the plot and not shoe horned in. I really admire the restraint there. It takes real faith in the material not to go for bigger bang.
Reservations: yes it’s too long, it gets a little pretentious with its ideas at times and Leto’s character is too crazy. Tyrell was just cold blooded but Wallace is messed up.
But it’s a good film, and I think it deserves to do well.
Same as the original really, I may have the advantage of having watched it again two days ago but there really is very little action in Blade Runner. The fight scenes to take out the first 3 replicants on Deckard’s list of 4 takes barely 3 minutes out of the film.
Now it looks like I won’t see it until next week so my wife can come with me.
Agreed, they’re both dramas, not action films, and although the first film went over budget they went into this one knowing it was going to be over $150m. They could’ve amped up the fights and explosions as an insurance policy, but they chose not too.
Not a spoiler, I still haven’t seen the movie, but this article was fun:
Well I thoroughly enjoyed that.
It’s definitely a slow movie, but i never felt bored. And I barely noticed the long runtime.
Gosling is great as K. I liked the twist with us knowing right from the start that’s he’s a replicant, and then Introducing the idea he might actually be human. And the payoff for that was sad but up beat too.
His “relationship” with Joi was probably my favourite part of the film. Her initial reveal when she’s making him dinner was really well done, as was the syncing scene with her and Mackenzie Davis.
Visually it’s fantastic. There something special too look at in almost every scene. And the score was awesome. There’s a bit of music that kind of sounded like a motorbike revving up that I though was quite effective, just because of how loud and weird it was.
And I loved the scene in Vegas with the Elvis hologram that was glitching on and off.
Overall I just liked how even though it calls back quite heavily from the first movie, it still feels like it’s own self contained story…I don’t get the impression that there trying to set up more sequels with this.
Me too. I said it could have carried on longer and I’m a moaner usually about films being too long.
If they take that much time and joy in the imagery and do it so well then keep doing it.
This is a proper spoiler by the way so be warned. I liked the way they still left the Deckard status as a replicant up in the air. They don’t shy from addressing it and set up a narrative where that’s he only reason he exists but there are counter reasons that may not work.
Is there any narration?
This might be a dealbreaker for me
Only for about 40 minutes at the start.
(Only kidding, no there are no voiceovers, no unicorns)
The sour and the sweet then haha.
Can’t wait to catch this. The sweeping scanning landscape shots in the original were very evocative, and glad to hear that was kept.
I also thought Blade Runner 2049 was awesome. And, if any of you guys have watched the Dangerous Days documentary (you really should) you’ll see that they even used a scene which was intended for the original Blade Runner but was cut!
How fantastic is that?
Oh, can I say how much I loved the fact that Gaff made an origami sheep?
Did all you guys watch the three short films they released online too? The anime one was especially good, but I enjoyed two the live action ones as well.
Seriously, I don’t think we could’ve hoped for a better sequel. This was pretty near perfection.
I liked that too. It would’ve been such an obvious thing to address it and make it a central plot point, but instead they decided not to do the obvious thing.
Another reason I loved this movie.
This movie was beautiful, riveting, awesome, and in the current blockbuster climate, unconventional. I loved it.
I am also depressed as fuck at the ending. I feel the need to torture some of my own characters now.
Blade Runner isn’t interesting to me if Deckard isn’t a replicant. I don’t read Scott’s intended ending as ambiguous on the subject at all. I don’t think there’s much gained by ambiguity on the matter, either. If he’s a human, then it’s a story of a guy realizing the people he’s hunting are also human. Nice but pretty generic. If he’s a replicant, then there’s so much more to sink your teeth into thematically, most important of which to me are the film’s ruminations on impending death. Those themes are still there regardless because of Roy Batty’s character arc but viewing both men as struggling first against and then to accept death strengthens the theme, and is also what makes their showdown at the end so powerful. In death, Roy provides Deckard with the model he must follow to live a full life with Rachael.
So I’m a little annoyed the new movie kept coy with it. Also, that if Deckard is a replicant, he’s not a four-year lifespan one but one of the open-ended ones (Nexus 8s) introduced in this film. The original Blade Runner is all about people running from death before coming to realize it can never be escaped, that the only way to live is to live with the knowledge of death. Deckard at the end realizing he’s got less than four years left to live is so poignant, but if he can live to be as old as any human then that takes something away.
However, I’m completely happy to look at the films as separate animals. Whenever I watch Final Cut I’ll think of it as a done-in-one. 2049 is it’s own thing and one of the most visually inventive and immersive, and thought-provoking, sci-fi films I’ve ever seen. This is the rare movie where I want to see it again immediately as I leave the theater. I’m sure I’ll come to watch it as frequently as I watch the original. On my first viewing I feel I’ve scratched only 10% of its surface.
I feel very lucky that two of my favorite cinematic worlds, Blade Runner and Twin Peaks, had such excellent showings this year.
You are nowhere near baseline.
That’s a good point, but I like how it’s kept coy.
If Deckard isn’t human, then for me I feel the exact opposite. The interesting aspect for me is that it’s contrasting the tenacity of the human spirit vs. the ones that these robots have cobbled together. I don’t think that him being a robot necessarily negates that same emotional quotient, but how the movie works (and probably why there are both a Director’s and a Final Cut) is that it isn’t set up to really play around with it. I can understand that the Final Cut does this the best, though.
Outside of that cut, I feel that it’s a question that is brought up and since it has this brevity to it - when I watch it with that in mind it does feel underdeveloped vs. a human having to contrast his disassociation with life. Gaff’s “Too bad she she won’t live, but who does?” underscores most of that - like you noted with a robot perspective.
They are never that specific about replicants but I think they are really far more clones than robots. They bleed and cry and have what we eventually see are reproductive abilities. The Voight Kampff test in itself suggests they can’t be differentiated easily, a robot would be simple, set a metal (or even plastic) detector.
They can control minds by implanting memories and rules and the like but in reality we can do a degree of that now, with lobotomy, tripanning, hypnotherapy or drug regimes. Those usually can’t be imposed because of rights each human has but what if a human is manufactured?