Since people have been asking me to review this film ever since I covered the 1982 original, I decided to oblige. Let's take a look at Blade Runner 2049.
Jared Leto's goal was explained in the film. He needed a slave force capable of reproduction in order to enable mankind to expand more quickly into space in order to survive. The artificial method he used to create Replicants was too slow and humanity was failing because of it.
So I guess the whole mystery of if Decker was a replicant or not, is no longer a mystery since replicants do not age... And Ridley Scott was wrong, apparently...
Excuse me my good drinker sir but if a movie wish should be made is on Patreon and forgive my selfishness already but I request a movie wish too next time or when it’s possible “ again excuse my kind of entitled behavior hopefully it’s not a thing there become a habit in anyway and I hope comes as wish then anything else “ call Repo Man from 1984 which I think you also like even the fact a lot of the characters is named after beers .. anyway a amazing cool movie in my humble opinion.. hope you come too it and thank you for all your good work.. take care.. cheers 🍻🥃😎
So the main conflict in the plot was aborted, much like the cringe scene of Wallace performing a replicant abortion, basically rendering the film up that point utterly meaningless (taking up an average film length), and making the set-up to payoff totally disjointed. If that's the right way I shudder to think how much worse the wrong way would be.
K was made to feel like he was important and assumed he was special, which comes across as an allegory for ego and that we all assume we're special, when in reality we're all just cogs in a bigger machine, but that's what grants him his humanity.
I respectfully disagree. Yes it was subverting expectation, but no, it was not done in the right way. There was all of the setup of the Expectation, but when it all turned out to be a red herring, there was no explanation of the where the clues were actually leading. That's the main reason I fricken hated this film.
Well I found it an utter chore to watch, it was needlessly slow. There's literally nothing to glean from 30 second shots of someone walking around. It's not *that* deep, it just wants to felate itself over how interesting it thinks it is.
I felt that everything is deliberate. The audience is supposed to want Joe's life to have meaning. But the movie keeps finding new and heartbreaking ways to emphasize its meaninglessness in the midst of all the intrigue of the events that surround him. It's almost felt like the audience is desperately searching for its own meaning in parallel to Joe. By the end we desire for Joe "become" the main character in his life and in this movie. All of this is what makes the true climax at the very end so powerful.
I get that and got it by just watching the movie. But I can't help but think it could have been better anyway. On one hand, watching it, it feels like it's way to complicated, many characters that seemingly don't really matter, many things to happen that don't matter,... but on the other hand, the Main plot is so simple. But not in a good way. Half the movie feels like filler. Like, whats the scene where all those people get bombed and Luv says "come on get up, do you job" or something like that? Why do we see such a long shot of the Kids working in the orphanage? Why do we barely see anything from the daughter except one scene and the ending? Why is the AI Girlfriend there? I could find many scenes I think don't Add anything to the plot or the worldbuilding or to anything really. Don't get me wrong, I love slow movies, I love long, lingering shots. But I want them to feel neccessary. I don't want to feel like i just watched a 2 hour movie that could have been one and would have probably benefited from it. I really don't understand Why this movie is so hyped honestly
That was his first big miss lol, K's slow discovery of him being the child just to find out that wasn't the truth was a great double twist that they laid out to perfection. Being spoon fed that information changes the whole movie. Definitely the first time I've disagreed with the drinker.
@@lionelruiz3247 That's my issue with the film though, it wasn't a double twist for me because I saw it coming. The thing that tipped me off was everyone being nonspecific with the gender and only saying 'child'.
@@beircheartaghaistin2332If it had leaned either way it would have tipped off the viewer as to who the child was, by either making us believe that woman might have been it, or just K himself. That memory he had was a great way to make us believe he was it, just to have that be false info. I stand by my opinion that it was done the right way.
I put off watching it for a while because I had fears, waited to get a spoiler free feel of it. I enjoyed it, not as much as the first but I thought that would always be the case.
it is definitely an action movie, more so than the original which I see as a noir sci-fi opera. The first time seeing it I didn't like how the climax was this straightforward action sequence b/c I was comparing it to Rutger Hauer's impromptu monologue from the original - though that's unfair b/c how could the movie be expected to recreate that, and it overlooks just how well and effectively it was done, straightforward actions scene or not
It doesn't really feel like the original, but it's not bad thing, with a different director it should feel different, unless Rildey himself would've made it.
@RogerwilcoFoxtrot As a grown ass man, I was the same. Love her character and left you with the thought that maybe, just maybe, Joi was evolving and was becoming unique, away from her programming and being a true person. Plus, the actress is so damn cute looking and her expressions were so lovable. Damn it sucks being single sometimes! LOL
Well spotted! Although she's the artificial and manufactured Wallace interpretation, hence 'Luv' instead of 'Love'. This is a big part of why Deckard later rejects 'Rachel'. Tyrell has vision which he later loses, Wallace is blind from the start. I f*#king love these movies.
Ultimate digital AI dystopia, the creators even figure out a way to make the replicants pay their hard-earned credits for upgrades on their own virtual AI, AND keep the Squishies doin the jobs they were created for!
I think it was in many ways but I think he is right on sm e areas about the movies like was it really necessary. I asked that question the whole film while also still being intrigued with the film, he never trashed the film
There will never be another scene like "Tears in Rain..." That scene was so gravitating! Just grabs you by the throat! The original Blade Runner is a masterpiece!
I wanted to watch Blade Runner 2049… borrowed both films and as much as I wanted to watch 2049, I watched the original first. Holy fucking shit, the opening scene gave me goosebumps. That score store gives me tingles and the scenery at the beginning was stunning. I fee like I should have appreciated all of it even more but I think it’s understandable because I was wanting 2049 and just kind of defining all of my knowledge of the Blade Runner universe off that than the OG.
Personally, I love 2049. It wasn't a rehash remake that just did the same thing as the original. And there's a clear love and respect for the original.
As an immensely huge Blade Runner fan I actually really liked this sequel surprisingly. I sometimes like to think of this movie as spiritual sequel to the movie Drive in a way
CD; you got everything perfect except for "Love", who is in many ways used as a mirror for K. See Wallace calls ALL the replicants by the nickname "Love". It's not her name, it's just a generic nickname Wallace calls the replicants (and by extension, her). She wants DESPERATELY to be important, so her whole character is wrapped up in trying to please and get the attention of Wallace, it's her whole identity, even taking the nickname he calls everyone as her own name so she can lie to herself about how important she is. She wanted to be special and is so wrapped up in her lies she would instinctively lash out at those who WERE special (or she perceived as such). K in comparison also wants deep down to be special, to be more then just a replicant, it's why he works hard to make "Joi" seem more human, it's why he bites so hard on the possibility he was birthed (meaning he had a soul). However in the end, just before the final showdown he's confronted by the ad for Joi, and it all comes together in his head, when she (the ad) calls him by that same nickname his Joi used to call him (see the similarity with wallace and love?)... In the end he faces the truth. He's not special, joi never loved him, but was programed to make him feel like he was loved, and so he goes into his final battle at peace with the fact that he'll never be special. But he also makes an independent choice. He decides instead of killing Deckard like he was asked, like a good automaton should, he brings Deckard together with his daughter. He creates something real, rather then destroy, and dies. It's a lovely if understated tragedy.
I think, you are sort of right, but I have the feeling, either that was a screenwriter's happy mistake so the end result is that it feels underdeveloped or the writers or writer couldn't find a way to develop that even more, because it is a compelling story line, but it's one that feels lost, perhaps because of the unnecessary slow pace of the film. just let me tell you, if that had been an important point for director and writers, it would've been highlighted, but it wasn't and that's too bad.
Since you have captured my most important points better than I would have, I have only a few smaller additions. There are some short movies in which it's explained, that Wallace has perfected the androids obedience, which is why they're back in the first place and why creating them in the millions seems reasonable in his mind. Him killing the "new born" and delivering his monologue portraits the nature of this control, when he specifically "motivates" Love to bring him results. It's important that all he does and says in that scene is for her. Finally, if one can stretch the definition of "engineering" to the point where evolution can be considered kind of an "engineering process", then we're all "genetically engineered robots", which (I believe) is the point of the first movie and the (real) question asked in the title of the book, so if androids and humans are both human (as the first movie implies) and the primary difference is that androids can't create life (as the second movie implies), then the symbolic value of the child makes sense: It shattered Dave Bautistas illusion and it will shatter that of K and potentially all other androids, where the child itself is the ultimate evidence / proof and thus key to a revolution. Fuck Apple btw.
As for "why?" 4:55, it is stated in the movie: Wallace Corp cannot keep up with replicant demand required to populate the galaxy. No central production could. This is one of the odd parts of the plot: the bad guy and the good guys effectively want the same thing, reproducing replicants. Just for different reasons.
@SirSnufflelots Once Wallace understood how replicant reproduction works, he could install safeguards to control it. It's an excellent plot point that ties everything together: Rachel & Deckard's love story, Wallace's pursuit of power to dominate the galaxy, K's hope that he might have been born and loved instead of manufactured.
@@Dr.DixieRekt i think it's both simultaneously. He also mentions how he wants humanity to populate every planet it can and how they need to move exponentially faster.
But replicants could just build more factories. Btw. the whole concept of replicants is flawed, because they have the same needs as humans, so not much cheaper as workers, and similarly fragile in hostile environments. Robots would make far more sense. It's forgivable for a 40 years old movie, especially because of the story it wanted to tell, but doesn't work well today when we'll have real humanoid robots in a year or two, and essentially human level AI.
I feel like the drinker has missed a few key plot points to 2049, so I'll try to explain bit by bit what I believe he might've let fly over his head. 1.) The New Models of Replicants -The Drinker mentioned near the beginning that he found it was an odd choice to make Officer K a Replicant Blade Runner, even though the movie clearly establishes that Wallace Corp had perfected the obedient artificial slave, and weren't designed with the 4-year lifespan of the original Nexus-6 models. As for what Wallace seeks to accomplish by creating a race of Replicants able to reproduce, I always saw it as a God complex. The man is clearly very in his own head about things, and we do have powerful billionaires who want nothing but more power and control, even if they have plenty of that already. -And yes, K (or Joe, as many fans call him) does inevitably rebel at the end. But I think this was only due to the shocking idea that he might have been a real human this entire time. It ended up not being the case, but imagine the opposite. Imagine your entire life, you've lived believing you were real and you ended up being artificial. That's what happened to Rachael's character in the original movie, and clearly it shifted her entire view on not just her own life, but life in general. K rebelled because he thought he made a shocking discovery about himself. It was enough to break through his obedient programming. 2.) Finding Deckard in Las Vegas -The city of Las Vegas had long been abandoned due to its excessive levels of radiation, so although the search of Deckard would still be difficult, no, there aren't "hundreds and thousands of inhabitants." Whatever went down in Vegas (some have speculated that it was some kind of nuclear war that produced such extreme levels of radiation) had forced everyone who lived there to evacuate. And as one can clearly witness in the scene itself, K used a heat tracker and found the bee farm, presumably put up by Deckard himself. One point the Drinker makes that I think really doesn't take anything away from the film's world-building is all the tech, furniture, and alcohol that was left behind in the city. When a nuclear disaster threatens an entire population, I'm sure the last thing they care about is the resale value of tech that would take a while to uninstall. Now a point the Drinker makes that I do agree with is that concluding that the wooden horse was from Vegas simply by its high levels of radiation doesn't really seem to make much sense. I'll give him that one. 3.) Off-World Torture Techniques -This is a small point, but I always assumed that Wallace didn't want to risk getting caught torturing a man for information. And as only the rich are able to travel Off-World, the chances of anyone actually uncovering it and exposing Wallace for such inhumane tactics would be a lot less of a risk. But I can't say this is concrete, this is just what I believe the case to be. 4.) The Antagonists -I'll agree that I wasn't all that much a fan of Leto's character. In comparison to the original Blade Runner (Roy Batty and his friends) he's pretty flat. But once the Drinker compared him to Tyrell, it got me thinking that maybe that's the point. Eldon Tyrell created Replicants because he genuinely believed he could make the world a better place with them. He completely misfired in that ambition, yes, but he genuinely believe in what he was doing. Tyrell was charming and really thought that his line of Replicants would bring about a positive change in the world. Wallace, however, has none of that. This is why I'm beginning to think his flat delivery of pretentious philosophical lines makes a lot more sense now; Tyrell was ambitious and wanted to make the world a better place while Wallace thinks of himself as a God (i.e, his line about having millions of children when Deckard assumes he has none.) -As for Luv, it's pretty obvious that she suffers from extreme trauma. She cries at the sight of Wallace murdering a newborn Replicant, and is even shown to want to be the best Replicant, or Wallace's "perfect angel." This isn't out of love, (no pun intended) but fear. Deep fear has been instilled into her since she was first created and it's clearly turned her into his tool, not his perfect angel as she might want to believe. When Luv kills Robin Wright's character, she tears up and spouts "I'm going to tell Wallace you attacked first" as if she's just a petulant child, and not a fully-grown woman. I DO see a bit of complexity in her. As opposed to Roy Batty, where what he's been through is basically told to us through exposition, I like that Luv's backstory is only implied. Overall I understand the Drinker's points here and I respect his opinion (as everyone should.) But I do believe that he overlooked a few things that might've made the movie's plot tighter to him. Some of these points were more obvious, and some are clearly just speculation made by myself and other viewers. But I just wanted to share my two cents on this. Thank you for the review
Why should everyone respect his opinion? His recent videos are just lazy angry rants. Good for nothing but fuelling stupid internet hate bubbles. Respect is earned
I noticed that most of his criticism in general stems from him not understanding the movie he's reviewing. This video especially is the nail in the coffin, I unsubscribed
1978's Invasion of the Body Snatchers remains the absolute best. Both one of the greatest Remakes ever AND one of the greatest Sequels ever(that's if you pay attention and pick up on the fact it IS a sequel to the 1950s classic).
@@colliric interesting! So the “soft reboot” trend of recent years was anticipated by “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” 40 years beforehand. Yet another way it was ahead of its time!!!!
@@DPMusicStudio the remake contains several direct elements that subtly suggested it was also a sequel for fans of the original movie. It feels exactly like a continuation if you've recently watched the original.
Exactly. I was worried that the Blade Runner sequel was just going to be a Fast & Furious type of overblown spectacle. Thank you, Denis Villeneuve. You were the right director for this sequel.
I liked it because this one actually seemed more true to the world the actual book took place in than the original. I actually read the book before watching the original Blade Runner, so I think that's why I wasn't a huge fan of the first film.
@@Ryan-vv5vw - I'm pretty sure if it wasn't for Rutger Hauer's iconic role as Roy Batty the original Blade Runner could have easily been a forgettable film.... 'Like tears in the rain.' 👌😁
@Yeah Right - Except that the first F & F film was a straight up rip off of Point Break with Keanu Reeves and Patrick Swayze. They just swapped out surfers for street racers. The entire story is pretty much plagiarized from start to finish. You have an FBI agent (Keanu) or in this case Paul Walker go undercover to infiltrate a gang of thieves. He becomes a good friend to the gang leader, falls for the girl who is close to the gang and then ends up letting the gang leader go instead of arresting him. I remember going to the theaters when F & F came out and being really pissed off that I paid to see Point Break all over again. The rest of the F & F franchise I'm not going to even bother to get into because what's the point? They basically went from street punks to James Bond/Mission Impossible/Ocean's 11 over the top, eye-rolling ridiculousness.
For the record, Rachel was an extremely rare “Nexus 7.” Tyrell’s masterpiece. When he died, the secret died with him. We were never sure if Rachel’s lifespan was limited to 4 years. At any rate, natural reproduction by a Nexus 7 is something for which the universe has no established canon up to this film, given that there were so few Nexus 7’s before Tyrell’s death. Roy Batty and his cohorts we’re Nexus 6 models. If Deckard is a replicant like Rachel (and that’s a big if) then he too would be a Nexus 7; unbound to any of the rules of Nexus 6 models like Priss and Roy, as well as being unbound to the later Nexus 8 models we see in the film.
Well tbh it has it's flaws, but guess what, so does the original, and thats an all time favourite of mine. 2049 for all its problems is my favourite movie of the last ten years, they even managed coax a decent performance from Gosling, who isn't my favorite actor and comes off wooden a lot. It does however suffer from 3rd act problems and from when he meets Ford, the movie never recovers and those replicant rebels we've seen in other movies a million times, the end however was good
@@starwarsroo2448 The biggest problem with the original is it got messed around with by both the studio and later on the director. So the voiceover was added, some like it some hate it, the ending of the original release is stupid, the unicorn and replicant thing seems pointless and added as an after-thought.
I think the Drinker needs to watch this one again, and also the three shorts Villeneuve commissioned to fill in some of the time between the original and this. He seems to have missed a lot. There are still some holes (e.g., how did that serial number get into a cracked bone? Are replicants manufactured or grown? Or both?) but overall this sequel is damn good. The great question, "What makes us human?" gets played with in many ways and in both directions. Joi isn't just a toy. Luv isn't just a cipher.
This Drinker guy CLEARLY has no clue what he's on about and should not be giving his shitty takes on such masterpiece movies... 1.2 M views I'm disappointed 😞
@@vikinghoodbluelighthouse2911 it's because he only ever has two review formulas. generic good or generic bad, they always have 100% the same points, it's almost like ai writes his scripts lol. The issue here is he accidentally put a good movie in the 'bad review' pile and just created a generic negative review.
@@AthelstanKing he has the most vanilla reviews, either shitting on hated marvel movies, woke Disney movies or poorly written sequels to popularly beloved films, Or praising movies the general audience loved and is praised by other movie critics. when he tries to criticise movies without his basic anti sjw/feminism shit, he criticises them for the dumbest reasons possible because he doesn't know the process of filmmaking enough to disect and give good criticism of films.
I have the scene of Luv droning the junkyard while getting her nails done as my wallpaper. There is a "high-seas" copy of the IMAX version that is kind of interesting for a rewatch.
Honestly enjoyed 2049 way more than the original, the modern cgi and better practical effects made the setting way more immersive and believable in my opinion. Every scene is wallpaper worthy
@@isakisak9989 Agreed and people keep failing to mention the sound design. I keep rewatching the scene with K and Sapper at the beginning. Wonderful sound design and visuals.
Wow, the Drinker literally missed everything this movie did well. - Replicants came back with new safeguards (including the Baseline test) after a huge backlash and takeover of the Tyrell corporation - As stated by Tyrell in the original movie: “Rachel is special.” This is why she was able to have children and didn’t have a 4-year lifespan. - Wallace kills the new replicant because it lacks the ability to reproduce, showing his ruthlessness and lack of feeling toward replicants. The Drinker had some amazing videos (esp. Disney Star Wars) but lately he’s just relying on his persona so he can just complain about everything. Lazy & boring.
There were 2 films, away from all others, that I waited on for 30+ years; Dune and Blade Runner. I thoroughly enjoyed the immersion, visuals, soundtrack and storylines in both. Yes I could pick at some things, but no I really loved the experiences and I have refused to rewatch them until I got a new 4k large TV ( when I could afford 1. And I finally did) and quality headphones, and 4 hours left alone at night. I probably should have only watched the review on these with someone who agreed, so I could bask in the shared experience. But my general enjoyment of the drinker made me try. Oh well.
I was annoyed at his Star Trek Beyond review when he pretty much skipped over the Spock and McCoy stuff, it was literally what elevates Beyond over its predecessors. I get he hates the Kelvin timeline films, but when he had to ignore such good parts of the best film of theirs (and one among the Trek films I love) to sell the narrative that it's dumb and soulless really annoyed me.
Tyrell deliberately made his replicants sterile because it's pointless to give a being with a 4-year lifespan the ability to reproduce, NOT because it was an impossible thing to do. A replicant having a child is not the "miracle" the movie makes it out to be. Tyrell even says in the original movie that Rachel was an experiment. Wallace's motivations are moronic. After spouting some pretentious drivel about "artists" and "clay" he kills a newborn replicant to show us how evil he is. This is stupid to the point of being funny. We already know that replicants are expensive, rare and difficult to produce, so this is like the owner of a Ferrari factory smashing one of his brand new cars with a sledgehammer while saying, "behold my power to destroy!" lol. WTF is that?
This movie was magic for me. Dennis Veuilleves scope, detail, immersive visuals and spectacular score, the well thought out plot and pacing combined with the character performances make up an absolute masterpiece and more than worthy sequel to one of the most philosophical and visionary movies ever made. This absolutely adds value to the original story and unpacks many of the original core ideas while adding a further layer of what it means to be alive, have a soul, trancendence though sacrifice from dedication to others and explores many of the theological concepts of Philp K Dicks original story. Also the scene where K is getting interviewed for mental stability, while holding the secret of his internal change and struggle with his change in worldview, having to recite the company precribed script that Gosling improvised based on lines from the book builds tension and insight that is breathtaking. Every bit as mind blowing as the original blade runner and cemented for me how exceptionally gifted Veuilleve is as a creator and respecter of the original source material. 'Cells within cells..... interlinked, dreadfully distinct' and 'dying for a noble cause is the most human thing we can do' Astonishingly good and more importantly, worthy of genuine praise.
@Call Me Ishmael Yeah but I think it works well enough for 2049 to expand on it this way. Its not like it contradicts the first movie, only the thoughts of its writers.
Termitreter It does contradict Ridleys Final Cut as he suggested Deckard is a Replicant himself. So you could say this is a sequel to the Theatrical Cut.
@drew7376 : Yeah, but unlike the other replicants seen in _Blade Runner_ [1982], Rachel _didn't know_ that she was a replicant. That's at least part of why she was more difficult for Deckard to test with the Voight-Kampff than usual ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-nItDJslm3lE.html . The fade-out/fade-in @ about 3m 45s suggests that testing-session took an inordinate length of time.
@@Corbomite-ei1ty Suggesting and outright stating are 2 different things. If he wanted Deckard to be cannonically a replicant he should've said it. Whe you suggest something you're not defining anything, therefore someone can chose weather or not to ignore your suggestion.
That's because the makers of this awful movie just stole their ideas from the Dangerous Days documentary and made a checklist of every element from the original and randonly worked them into this turd.
@@jjryan1352 Calm down, blade runner was one of my favorite movies in my teens and i thought this sequel would be a very lame money grab at a time when it feels like half of all movies are exactly that. As a fan it seems like they did the right thing by me and as someone who's read a bit of Phillip K Dick, i feel that he would have stood and applauded the moment when Deckard says "No...I know what's real...".
@WinnieTheGrizzly Nah, Leto did his usual "Emerson, Lake & Palmer" routine. A little over the top, not quite as intellectual as he thinks, pretentious and generally quite boring.
All of Denis Villeneuve's films are visual masterpieces. Sicario didn't have a particularly artistic landscape, but the score and cinematography gave it another dimension.
@@LetsbeHonest97 thats part of it but obviously the sounds you hear and visuals you see are at least as important as the guy you disagreed with for some reason was saying...
"I've drunk things you wouldn't believe. Amaretto on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched Jim Beam glitter near the Anheuser brewery gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like beers in rain. Time for rye." 😂
@@JohnnyZenith The answer is NO,well not in this movie. These replicants only have nightmares. If Philip.K.Dick was alive to see this movie,he would be extremely disappointed to what they have done to his original story (Yes,I have read his novel,and loved it )
You're possibly putting too much emphasis on aspects of characterisation in the original and hoping for more of the same. What many people reference about Bladerunner is how it blew their mind visually and aurally and still does to this day. I first saw it on videotape aged ten and it affected me deeply, despite not understanding what was going on, and I still regularly listen to the soundtrack in isolation. 2049 follows the same path and I believe that, visually at least, it is a masterpiece. I can't think of another director who could have done this justice so it was worth waiting an extended period for the right man. Timing is everything.
Highlight of this film was that I could watch it at the cinema, and experience that synth, with those visuals, the way that it was intended. The first film is still one of my favourites, and as old as I am, I was born the year Bladerunner hit the cinema... So I missed that one. Am quite tempted to watch both films again.
2049 was one of those films where my jaw dropped just because of how incredible the cinematography was. Watched it 5 times knowing this film won’t be on the big screen ever again. A film I’ll never forget
The indy house around me has screened it again - like they sometimes do the original. I think you'll still see it pop up in art houses from time to time. I think it's going to have that kind of long legacy.
it's a film I can easily forget compared to the original. I don't remember anything of it. While with the original I remember Harrison being chased by Rutger. Remember "Like Tears in the Rain", I remember the Vangelis soundtrack. I remember Daryl Hannah jumping on Harrison's head. I remember the man playing with robot toys that had an ageism problem. I remember the first time I saw Sean Young, the robot beauty. I remember the eye test. All classic legendary moments. I didn't see one classic moment in 2049.
One of the things I liked about 2049 was how the love interest in the movie (Joi) not only doesn't feel forced, but actually has a purpose and is probably a good chunk of what helped push the plot along on K's side once things started to get going.
I watched it, I thought it was OK, and I felt absolutely nothing for anyone on the screen. There was no poignancy to the story, no emotional connection. Characters appeared, did something, and then went away. Nothing touched me. I'll watch it again someday, and maybe see something more to it, but I doubt it. The original was something that I saw as a teenager when it came out. Frankly, it went over my head; I didn't get it. Years later, I saw it again as a college student, and it punched me in the gut. It's been my favorite movie for decades since. I don't expect this one to grow on me though.
"he goes there and runs into deckard within 5 minutes". He found the bee boxes using his scanner and inferred there was a humam nearby. Also there were lots of cuts.
@@veronicab15 …I saw it three times in the first two months it was released, just to avoid what you’re suggesting and to see what everyone was creaming themselves about. Each time I liked it less. This movie will end up in the dustbin of history where it belongs. Geeeze, out of all the staggeringly great music to come out of the later part of the 20th Century and the dude chooses Frank Sinatra?? …And that’s just a start.
“Why would Wallace want to make Replicants who can reproduce?” Because someone else did. Wallace considers himself a god, and yet he hasn’t mastered what someone else did.
also he just wants to make more to expand his little corporate empire, right? he assumes replicant children would simply function as obediently as the built ones, blah blah blah… blinded by his hubris, and such, right?
@@Sam_T2000 Perhaps, but that clearly seems to simply be more of a pleasant byproduct than an actual goal in of itself. He very clearly is shown to have a massive god complex, more so than a desire for simple power, and it's evident that he believes that no one can even challenge his position in the first place, so he doesn't really need even more obedience around him. All he needs to prove, to himself, is that he is at the very top - with abilities and ambitions unrivaled by anyone. That is his entire goal, to pursue anything and everything that can support his self inserted status as a god among men. As a pioneer of life and creation. As an engineer of civilization. As a father to evolution itself.
I also took it as an implication that manufacturing replicants is an expensive, lengthy, resource hogging procedure, whereas being able to breed them would be much faster and cheaper - but I like your "jealous god" angle, too. 😉
Warms the heart honestly. It's so annoying listening to Drinker, Mauler, Gary and Razorfist shit on 2049 any chance they get on streams, so I come here to remind myself that I'm not insane lol
2049 is that rare sequel that doesn’t spit on its predecessor while also taking the time to be it’s own thing. It’s not a perfect movie by any means, but it’s very well made. One of the most visually arresting films I’ve ever seen.
@Commentator if you somehow missed a plotline in a movie possibly overloaded with them, then the point of this flick was to entertain people who like to actually be awake while watching a movie, so not your demographic...
@Geralt of Rivia much better than TLJ but that’s not hard, it does some interesting things with the characters which is better than getting raped like Luke
@@shawne7228 I don't understand all the hype, I really liked the sound and visual design of the movie, but the story was (at least for me) really boring and uninteresting, i walked out after 80min. Also have to note I never saw the original.
@@anidiot2818 Then you'd probably hate the original as well. I liked the sequel better because there's at least some actual investigation being done by the investigator character.
“Ana De Armas as K’s girlfriend manages to infuse a pretty superficial role with more empathy than you’d expect.” …aaand thats how the audience become the movie’s message. Brilliant.
We reflect on the original blade runner often as if it is a perfect movie Let’s remember there are three versions, one is a masterpiece, but not without its problems This is far superior to all but the proper directors cut and even then, it’s close
Finding a location based on radiation, or specific isotopes, is something we can already do to some extent... Forensics have identified corpses', based on isotopes and chemical flags found in the water or environment of their home locale, also being present in their corpse... Even when the bodies may have been located far from their home.
Isotopic analysis and radiochemistry are common techniques. For instance, a piece of ancient pottery can be activated using neutrons and then isotopically analyzed to pinpoint precisely where the clay that made up the pottery came from, and then ancient trade routes can be learned.
Particular nuclear reactors have signatures on the used up nuclear fuel. If radiation is result of some nukes going off same thing. That part made complete sense to me as well. Overall I loved the movie, more then original..
I mean, he said a replicant gives birth to a child a bit earlier, then he tried to apply real life into sci-fi/fantasy movie. The reviewer is dumber than the captain Marvel movie review.
It really had a great message, though. When you lament the state of messaging in modern movies, you can't fault this one. Sometimes, you are NOT the hero of the story. Sometimes, you only play a part. Still, it is important that you do the right thing to the best of your ability.
Love is more complex than you thought: she acted like a child who had unsentimental relationship with parents and she is finding acceptance and love from his parent/creator through excellency in his job.
Exactly, I think this shows in her fight scene with K, when she kisses him in the same manner Wallace kissed the replicant. She is deliberately trying to be like Wallace and finds fulfillment only in his appreciation
This movie left me with a lot of emotions. During the walkout of the theater I started thinking deeply and intensely about life and the nature of reality. Not many films have done that and it was very satisfying. After seeing it a second time in theaters, I had a deeper understanding this story. 1) There was no real decoy, it was purely on paper. K/Joe is utterly, completely, unequivocally unremarkable. Thus his name - Joe, as in an Average Joe. 2) Joi does not possess a soul, she is completely fake. She is the other side of the replicant coin and is made solely to please and coddle her owner/lover. The giant pink Joi on the bridge calls K Joe as well, and her entire branding scheme is that she'll be anything you want. K wanted to feel special, so his Joi always reinforced this to him, but it was never real. Joi is K's fleeting dream of being special, and once her emanator is destroyed, K learns he is not special. 3) Wallace posed a question about whether Deckard was moved by love or programming. I'm still not sure if Deckard was human or a replicant. The original movie is about a bad man finding his humanity through the grace of a machine. Wallace's question is not a literal "Are you human or robot?" question, but pondering what the difference is, if love is just a chemical, and if we are products of biological programming or something higher like a soul. The ultimate takeaway is that it does not matter, in fact the only thing that matters is what we choose to do with our lives. 4) In summary, 2049 is about dreams and delusions. K wants desperately to be special. Joi tells him this constantly, and he instantly assumes all the evidence points to him because it's his dream. He becomes deluded and forces himself into the situation even as it destroys him. He thinks this is what it means to be human, to grapple with one's humanity. He is torn between two sides telling him what his identity is and should be - the LAPD who informs his identity as that of a slave, and the resistance which informs his identity as that of a free replicant. When his delusion is shattered by meeting the pink Joi, he chooses to follow his own path and not let anyone tell him who he is or what he should do. He makes the most human decision and takes his life into his own hands. He saves Deckard for the same reason Roy did. He wanted someone to remember him, for his final decision that fully validates him as human to not be in vain. No one else gave him his identity, only he did, and his sacrifice ensured forever that he was by every metric a human being, even if the world would ultimately forget him. This is why I love the film and I consider it to be one of the greatest sequels ever next to Aliens and Terminator 2.
Dude, 100% fucking agree with everything you wrote. I kinda wish the Drinker would read your comment and then re-watch the movie. Not that his review was overly negative, but I feel like a lot of his problems with it would be assuaged if he understood what a lot of these things meant in the context of the movie. I honestly think it's a beautiful film.
@randomguy9777 but if Deckard is human (which I believe he is) then his child would be half human, and K was willing to kill said child until he was led to believe the child was his. He also kills those humans who attacked him in the giant garbage dump without hesitation. Also, although his job is bringing rogue replicants in for termination - or terminating them outright if they resist - he shows Sapper genuine empathy and compassion, and remarks that he'd prefer bringing Sapper in peacefully if that's an option, when it would probably be better for his human masters if he just killed Sapper immediately. Not to mention beating up Morgan from Walking Dead. Also, he chooses to disobey his human boss and side with Deckard before he even knowingly encounters the replicant resistance. At that point in the movie, siding with Deckard was the more "anti-human" choice.
Excellently put! That last paragraph where you compared K's motivations to Roy Batty moved me to tears. The biggest difference between what Roy & K did is that Roy's actions would be lost and forgotten like Tears in Rain whereas K's would not be forgotten like Tears in Snow due to the impact that his actions will inevitably have on the world and replicants as a whole. I like to think of BR2049 as a what if scenario where Roy Batty would be the protagonist rather than Deckard and K certainly has a lot of parallels with Roy.
Joe realising that he's not special at all, his only love is fake and preprogrammed, and he is not the main character of his own story, is one of the biggest emotional gut punches I've ever seen in cinema.
I can't think of anything like this movie. A direct sequel that came out over 30 years after it's predecessor with a different director, that matched the themes perfectly, and matched or arguably enhanced the filmmaking aspects.
Exactly. It's not really about how good the movie is on its own. The bigger issue is how did it not fall into the garbage pile like all the other sequels/remakes/reboots over the past decade. It's like a random stroke of magic. This is the movie that we all wanted Prometheus, Predators, Robocop 2014, Ghostbusters 2016, etc to be. It was a reminder that films can still be good.
I enjoyed the film, but afterwards it left me feeling a bit dissapointed, in that it felt like it wasted plot threads and I reslly thought Deckard should have played a more active role in the final act. Also, it kind of hurts that they keep turning Harrison Ford's characters into absent fathers lol
No big risks? I'd argue setting up the main character as the " chosen one" just to kill him off was a huge risk (won't see this in mainstream films). I think trying to follow from the first one was maybe a mistake. I honestly would argue it's best to see this as its own story set in the blade runner universe. The K story arc is an amazing tragedy story, I wondered if it could be a commentary of a realistic dystopia, with the rise of only fans, how isolated people are becoming and an increase in working hours due while wages stagnate against inflation. The first one (my favourite film ever I think) asked BIG questions, this was a beautiful story about a small individual and his seemingly insignificant life.
Rachel wasn’t a normal replicant, she was supposed to be “more human than human”, meaning as close to an actual human as possible, which is what leto’s character is trying to recreate in terms of the ability to reproduce
Absolutely loved this movie. With all due respect, the plot points you criticize and question are all easily answered. This movie is a masterpiece. You should revisit your review, after a couple more viewings. 10/10 from me. One of my favorite films of all time.
I'm bucking the trend here, I think you're pretty much spot on with your analysis. As I watched this movie properly for the first time the other week, I couldn't help but feel that something was missing from the original. It was the mood set by that sax music. Gave it a kind of sultry romantic vibe. Plus most of the characters were not likable, compared to the original were most had some endearing charm to them, even Roy and Pris. You're right this movie should've been made 20 years earlier, like around the time Ford was in that movie with Brad Pitt. Imagine how big a Blade Runner sequel would've been back then if Brad Pitt played the character of K.
That's strange - I thought it was made clear that they needed self-replicating Replicants in order to service increasing off-world colony demands (if not in the film - the theatrical shorts that came before it). Curious that was missed by TCD. Also - radiation signatures are a thing. They were used for analyzing remote above ground nuclear tests from a distance. High altitude scoops collected elements and fallout to determine location and the design of the weapon during the cold war. As far as material left behind - there's lots of Urbex videos - particularly of Pripyat, that showcase how lots of abandoned areas are left the way they were prior to people fleeing - especially from radiological catastrophe. Japan has quite a few areas after Fukushima. Not a lot of resale value in material that's contaminated. It's just an above ground landfill at that point. In the novel, such troves were referred to as 'kibble'. As more people left Earth - the property was abandoned as cities emptied out. Not practical to take it off-world.
I also think that TCD this time missed his mark by omitting the featurettes’ content and not understanding some ideas in the film. To me the movie is the best possible sequel we could have hoped for.
Your statement really does point out a flaw in the TCD reviews - he is very nitpicking, to the point where his troubles could be dismissed with a reminder that it's a film set in a future where they've already made colony ships land in other solar systems.
I actually liked 2049 better, I just didn't get the original. It's obviously a pretty big departure from the first one but I thought it was easier to follow and more interesting
Pretty generous to assume we will get a new ASOIAF novel in the next 40 years. Cant wait to share the series with my great great great great grandsons wifes boyfriend.
There's a bit more to the Bladerunner world with a CG animated series called "Black Lotus" which would allude to fitting between the 1st and 2nd movie, at least in so much as Tyrell is in the process of selling replicant technology to Wallace. At this time, it is still airing, so where it is ultimately headed in yet to be resolved. There is also mention of Nexus 8, and the scope of that level is not elaborated as yet either.
During the fight scene between Deckard and K in Las Vegas, there's a point in which Ford punches Gosling in the face incorrectly for actors and actually punches him. If you pause this scene at just the right moment you can see Harrison Ford wincing as his fist makes contact, and Ryan Gosling looking dazed with blood spurting out of his nose. It's also important to note that K spends the rest of the movie with a broken nose.
@@martinnevey7258 the plot of drive is literally brain dead simple, “man drives for mob.” What is so convoluted about that more so than any other mob movie out there like The Godfather, Goodfellas, Reservoir Dogs which are by definition as convoluted as possible?
Only time I've ever disagreed with the best reviewer on RU-vid. This was one of the best films I've ever seen. Masterpiece. Shocked at the fact he doesn't like it.
The most worthy of long awaited sequals. This film was an opus of cyberpunk sci fi with just enough updates to stand alone while being true to it's predecessor.
You missed the heart of this movie. It's about transcending self/ego. K is an "average joe" who is lured towards the belief that he is special (born, not made, the first ever replicant offspring), only to have all his hopes dashed. He truly is nobody. He's not the one. Not even the love of his virtual girlfriend was real ("You look like a good joe"). And it's in this state of defeat that he finally becomes capable of a truly selfless act. On the other side of ego-death is the capacity for service. He chooses to save Deckard, and in so doing loses his own life. This is the same thing that Roy Batty experienced in his final moments, when finally struck by the futility of his own life: he chose to save Deckard. The movie is philosophically deep. BR2049 is a greater exploration of the existential theme of the first movie.
Agent k gets treated appallingly and used by everyone. And yet, his choice at the end is to save deckard and take him to see his daughter. He should have killed him to preserve the secret, but instead and despite all the abuse he suffers and how he is lied to and used... He makes the human moral emotional choice to reunite him with his daughter - bollocks to the robot resistance. And then lies down and dies of his injuries. He chooses to spend the last few minutes of his life not killing someome but rather saving. Making a humane choice. Just like the original
And even better, he doesn't brag about it. When Deckard asks "who am i to you?" K just tells hi mto go meat his daughter. K isn't doing what he is doing for anyone else's thanks or approval- he's doing it because it's his decision.
The whole point of Blade Runner and Blade Runner 2049 is that if you can't even tell wether someone is a replicant or not, why is it even important? Rachael, K, Deckard - assuming he's a replicant as well - they are all more human than human. Even Joi is. And in the end, Roy Batty was too.
Bla Bla It’s important to the replicants because the insistence that they aren’t human is the reason why they are not afforded “human rights”. That’s the OTHER importance of Rachel’s child i.e. it’s not just that a replicant child risks a “replicant war” but also that if a replicant woman and a human man can have a child then how is that child *not* human? And if the child is human then what does that imply about the mother?
I actually didn't mind it. It was shot beautifully. It paid homage. A couple of holes in the story but I found it enjoyable. Certainly compared to some other movies I've seen in the last few years.
that being said, i love this movie. there's some fantastic performances, moments, world building, design, music, and characters. there is a lot to like. its a shame we won't see another building on what was set up in this movie. it's a shame we have a whole generation of movie goers that have had Marvel movies shoved down their throats and need something to blow up every 5 seconds have dont appreciate static beautifully shot mediative scenes and subtlety.
This movie is one of the greatest sequels in film history. You’re not giving it the credit it deserves. It may even be better than the original - which is a masterpiece within itself.
I agree with the majority of what you said, but not all. I gave this movie a 9 out of 10, and that is rare for me. The visuals and the score are just incredible. There are scenes in this that just blow you away, visually. Story-wise, there are some issues, and I think multiple viewings may clear some of that up. However, this movie actually introduced a concept that I've never seen anything deal with before, and that is the idea of an AI being in love with a replicant. We've had plenty of human-robot or human-replicant love stories, but never one between an AI and replicant. The entire story-thread dealing with Joi I just found incredibly intriguing.
The implication in the original about Deckard being a replicant was a last-minute brain fart of Ridley Scott which was universally hated by everyone else in the crew. I think that scene was only in the director's cut version.
The idea Deckard being a replicant was only ever ridiculous. I never treated it as true. He saw the value in the very thing he was tasked to kill. That didn't need to be muddied.
Not to mention unnecessary. The movie already put serous question to the nature of humanity with replicants being more deep and empathetic then some of the humans. The book wasn't quit as ambiguous. The replicants tended to be pretty viscous bastards, and the vought camp test was a straight up empathy exam with psychopaths giving false positives.
It was. The unicorn footage was actually from another of his films that he just slotted in. This was the start of Scott ruining his own great work, continuing with the lovely prequels to Alien...
last minute?! The entire time, Gaff is close by Deckard. Those origami props? They had to be made before hand. The theme was intended by Scott and the director is god on a movie. Whether you buy it or not is another issue, but saying it was just something Scott threw in willy nilly is plain daft!
I think Drinker got what the replicants were wrong. My impressions was that they were fast grown, modified humans with implanted memories so, they could hit the ground ready to work without the whole messy childhood and adolescence thing. That's why they were banned on earth and built with limited life spans. The longer they lived, the more human they could become. Remember in the first movie they were completely banned from living on earth. That's why Decker's job was to air them out. The fact we're making our own superior replacements is part of what makes it scary.
My Goodness.. I love your valuations... So , Spot, On. Everything you talked about in this revision , while smashing the Bourbon, is so ON Point... Its an Love letter, but not, Poetry, but isn't. Hats off Sir! (PS: Just a recommendation.. An Aussie film Nick Cave was involved with.. "The Proposition"... "Lawless" was also good)
I believe the same thing. K gave his meaningless life to something bigger than himself, reuniting a man with his daughter. This action earned him a soul, like Batty saving a life.
I really liked this movie for just what it is. Beautiful artistic piece with solid story and interesting twist. It could be a standalone movie if it wasn't sequel.
For me, the most salient aspect of BR2049 is that it respects the intelligence of its audience without any lecture or message about the modern day social politic. That's kind of refreshing.
🍷👍 Amen.. Talking of lost opportunity they did not even push the envelope far enough to care to show us what Roy had seen in the off worlds. Boy if they had the balls to do that, then I would have had a reason to side with this otherwise lazy half ass shit show that does not even deserve to have a character named 'Joy' or 'Luv' in it in the first place!
@@evm6177 Do wot m8? Why on Earth would they show us what Roy witnessed in the Off-world? His description of it alone is near-poetic and conjures beautiful imagery to the imagination. Expressly showing you what it looked like would undoubtedly spoil the mystery and the impact of what he said. There's no way it would live up to everyone's interpretation/expectation.
I interpreted the ending as K finding the purpose that he so craved in his life, despite having to reconcile with the fact that he was not special in the way that he had begun to hope he was
Grumpy Gabe Absolutely. Not only it was deep - it's also relatable. How often in life when we accept some unpleasant truth about ourselves or reality, or let something go/make peace with smth - we actually open ourselves to something actually meaningful and important...
I enjoyed the movie a lot but did wish that Gosling's character's discoveries of his memories in the physical world had more development. The visuals and soundtrack were sublime.
Rather than ponder, "Is Deckard a replicant?" this movie has us pondering, "Is K human?" And, in both films, the deeper question ponders, "Is there really any difference?" Whatever its logical flaws, 2049 packs a wallop, visually and philosophically. K's existential dilemma is one of the greatest ever depicted.
This movie took its time - with everything. And I friggin love it for that. Every shot, every scene, everything was deliberate and thoughtful, artistically interesting, and every shot was just long enough to marvel at before slowly moving on. I respect this movie a lot just for how slow it is compared to the oversaturation entertainment most other big-budget movies are.
Drinker: the saving grace that helps my 'buy into' the 2049 storyline, is that Rachel was different, unique, with no expiration date. So, it's potentially feasible that she could reproduce.
Except in the original film, there is zero mention of ANy replicants reproducing. If we use the excuse, "She was special", then she might as well have superhero powers. She could jump to the moon, she could melt steel with here eye laser, she can lift a tank with one hand, etc "Hey, Rachel just jumped straight to the moon! How could she do that?" "Oh she's special." That's a big leap to make. I'm with the drinker on this one. A machine being able to reproduce just doesn't make sense.
@@Malignant88 Anything is possible. My problem is that we are literally pulling these theories out of thin air because replicants giving birth was never mentioned or hinted at in the original film. I feel like it's our way of filling in a hole in the story. Kinda goes like, "Wait, how could a machine give birth? Oh wait .. Tyrell said Rachel was special. Okay, problem solved". But my opinion shouldn't matter anyway. This film didn't work for me, but it obviously worked for the vast majority of people who saw it. So, don't waste any more time on me. 😊 Forgot to say, you're right. If there was anyone qualified to have a God complex, then Mr. Tyrell would be the obvious front runner.
@@malachimatcho7583 that's why there is the so called "suspension of disbelief". "I have witnessed a miracle" referred to the ability of a replicant to procreate is enough to make it work: it was not possible and yet it happened.
Drinker, just to echo many others commenting here: I can't back up this movie review of yours (unlike many/most others that I've agreed with). This movie is a cinematic star in a sky mostly devoid of cinematic greatness these days. And yes, I did love the original too, of course, but it's a different animal. Both are masterpieces, with obvious overlap and connection, but just... different, unique..in good and appreciable ways. But thanks for your review, and I really dig what you do nonetheless.I just hope your liver holds out long enough for you to continue your string of excellent offerings for much time to come 🥴🎥 😉
K realizing he isn’t the Chosen One and deciding to do the right thing anyway when he absolutely could have fucked off and left Deckard to his fate was the character moment of the story. K was programmed to obey, but in saving Deckard he made a choice to do the right thing which arguably was the first actually altruistically noble action he makes in the movie
"Why do I get First Order vibes from this?" Whoah whoah whoah whoooaaah there. Look, 2049 may not be the best sequel ever, but don't you dare bring up that other sequal's name in this circle.
People seem to forget that when the original is such a masterpiece, the sequel not equaling or surpassing it doesn’t make it a bad sequel. 2049 is a great sequel in that it expands on the original in a very natural, logical, and respectful way, retaining what made the original great, while being a great piece of cinema in its own right. 99.9% of sequels either shit all over the original (Alien sequels after Aliens), repeat the original in a meaningless and phoned-in way that is inferior to the original (Jaws sequels and most slasher movie sequels), or make the original’s plot points or character arcs seem meaningless in retrospect (what is the point of OT Star Wars if a carbon copy of the enemy they spend 3 movies defeating comes back afterward and does the exact same evil stuff? What’s the point of Han’s arc from rogue to hero if he just goes back to being a rogue again, and then dies shortly after going back to hero?) 2049 is part of the upper elite of sequels, up there with Empire Strikes Back or GodFather Part II, in that it does right by the first while being a good movie on its own without being derivative or redundant.
