Vastly overrated by critics and wisely avoided by audiences. Rob Ager gives his thoughts on Blade Runner 2049. More videos and articles at www.collativele...
Bloody hell yes Also I personally thought the film was alright but nothing amazing, Harrison Ford was wasted in the film and the score was flat. The original was much better (not a masterpiece) but much better.
Which begs the question...Why aren't you a succesful film director ? Why haven't you produced a single succesful novel or script ? I've found a "Rob Ager" on imdb credited for writing, directing, editing & producing a film titled: " Turn in Your Grave ". Are you a misunderstood genius Rob ? Should the likes of Villeneuve & Fancher ask you for your direction & advice on their next project ? You know what else is not difficult Rob? Posting videos on youtube. I wonder why you're doing that instead of directing more masterpieces like "Turn in Your Grave" ? What a waste of talent!
You're spot on but what's weirder is that he actually did a good performance in the small youtube video that Ridley Scott's son directed. The idea of the bad guy was ill conceived and built on stereotypes. (And I don;t like Jared Leto to begin with!!)
You are way to polite, Rob. Let me tell you one of the key elements that ruined this movie, and that element has a name. He has been a cancer in the film industry that has metastasized over the past 30 years. I'm speaking, of course, about Hans Zimmer. I'm amazed that this imposter has brainwashed an entire generation of otherwise smart, younger film-goers. I'm sure people will tag me as a troll, but history will bear me out. Please: do a documentary comparing this hack to the brilliant, classically trained composers like Jerry Goldsmith, Bernard Herrmann, John Williams, John Barry, James Horner, Elmer Bernstein, Miklos Rozsa, Wendy Carlos, Sir Alfred Newman and so-on. The Emperor Zimmer really has no clothes. His alleged "music" consists of button pushing, creating percussion designed to blow out ear drums and solid organs. Make Film Music Great Again!
LMAO every time it's the same with me, I'm in a blockbuster movie, I hear an attention grabbing electro pulse score... It gets my attention, I'm listening... Then I'm like, oh there's nothing there, it's not a tune, it's just blaring dissonant notes. And then Hans Zimmer's comes up and I'm like oh that's why. Him again! The composer without a composition, every score sounds like he's testing out a new sound machine he just bought.
You speak so eloquently that it amazes me that what you are actually saying is a complete load of shit. Hans Zimmer has brainwashed otherwise smart, young film-goers? What on earth are you talking about? He writes music for major films because his music is brilliant. Anyone would think you were talking about Tekashi 6ix 9ine or some other talentless twat. I'm of this generation & I have appreciation for Zimmer AND some of the composers you listed, because I'm not stuck in a one dimensional train of thought that 'everything was better back then'. Music has evolved, like everything else, move with the times. Yes some things do get worse over time, no denying that, but to slag off one of the only great modern composers suggests you are a deluded pessimist who can not decipher good from bad anymore, everything is just bad to you even when it is objectively good.
Ever since his Dark Knight music theme he has been gravitating more and more towards using soundscapes than actual melodies. This became especially clear in Inception with its now parodied horn blaring.
Finally a real review. I totally agree! With all the shit going on in that universe this is all they could come up with? It should of had nothing to do with Dekard. He should of just been mentioned in it or had a very small appearance. Why destroy the older movies legacy? Yes and fuck Hans zimmer lol. I watched the original right after, for the 100th time, and I felt 100x more entertained and emotional.
Damn this was rough to watch because I thought the movie was incredible and I absolutely loved it. That's fine to have your opinions and I'll have mine because I'll still be able to enjoy it myself regardless. Still subscribed to see what you do in the future
I respect your opinion alot, and I see your points on this. However I still think this movie was very well done, and probably ended up better than 99% of the other possibilities given all the ways it couldve been fucked up by other commercial driven directors/studios
What I can say about the original BR and the new one is that I remember distinctly so many details of the first time I watched Blade Runner...I remember which theater it was, the time of the day (it was at night), who I was with, the intoxicating and unforgettable opening sequence with Vangelis music and the LA dystopic cityscape, the cigarette smoke of the guy doing the interrogation, beautiful Sean Young, Harrison Ford of course, Rutger Hauer who I think is the real heart of the film, the dove flying off in the rain, and hundred other details. I remember these things like I experienced them yesterday, but it was 25 years ago. The new Blade Runner, I looked forward to it so much and I went to a beautiful cinema and was so psyched, but I don't remember much of anything.
This filme is really terrible. Even the replicant relationship with the artificial girlfriend is so terrible because is so predictable with his "pen drive" being broken. Its no so futuristic anymore. And the enemy only appears twice in the movie. So shallow and superficial movie. Really disappointing.
There are a couple of other issues in the movie for me: 1) the lack of a decent villain, where in the original Blade Runner we have one of the greatest villain in cinema in Roy Batty. 2049 has comic-book level villains (both the female replicant with his complex and the incredibly stupid character that Jared Leto plays. That, along with his Joker must have been the nadir of his career). 2) this movie invalidates the whole ambiguity of the original movie (and novel) where you don't know if Deckard is a replicant or not and also it voids the Final Cut that Ridley Scott released in order to restore its original ideas, after the production shoehorned the happy ending in. The ending of Blade Runner is so abruptly painful, where you are 99% sure he is a replicant because of the unicorn and 100% sure Rachel is a replicant and she (as much as probably Deckard) will die really soon, also turning the whole fight for life and hunting that was the movie into a pointless and sad game that real humans like Gaff can laugh at (as he did, with the origami)
This filme is really terrible. Even the replicant relationship with the artificial girlfriend is so terrible because is so predictable with his "pen drive" being broken. Its no so futuristic anymore. And the enemy only appears twice in the movie. So shallow and superficial movie. Really disappointing.
No story, another dystopia, miserable, poverty, no new technology, slums and rubbish dumps, victorian style poverty. .. they could have done something interesting, about space travel or something.
A Scanner Darkly is my favour Dick film adaptation. Linklater captured the humour and mind-altered paranoia of novel. I'd like to see Richard Linklater do a version of Do Androids Dream Electric Sheep.
So glad I found this video! I came out of the theater so disappointed. I thought I was going crazy seeing everyone drooling over this movie. You pretty much summed up everything really well. The point in the movie where I really lost it was that 5 min scene of Agent K slowing reaching for the wooden horse in the furnace. I think in the original, the city was as much of a character as anyone else. This new one, we rarely see any of the city. Lots of abandoned buildings, empty rooms, nothing interesting. Such wasted potential...
This filme is really terrible. Even the replicant relationship with the artificial girlfriend is so terrible because is so predictable with his "pen drive" being broken. Its no so futuristic anymore. And the enemy only appears twice in the movie. So shallow and superficial movie. Really disappointing.
Thanks for this, Ive always a raised eyebrow when a film gets almost only rave reviews - that’s usually a sign of marketing and hype. I was put off going to the film on the big screen because its 3 hours long. I Will check it out when i can watch it at home to find out for myself.
Wow, and people say I'm a harsh critic! Agree with Rob that K's relationship with Joi was one of the best aspects of the movie. Agree that the story falls apart in the end. Disagree that it's "terrible" overall. Maybe it's because my expectations were so low, but for a sequel that was made 35 years after the original, 2049 was considerably better than I thought it would be. Also disagree that Harrison Ford was "wasted" in it. Harrison Ford shouldn't have been in this movie to begin with and the fact that they needed to shoehorn him into the story is probably the biggest reason it falls apart in the third act. I especially loved the final fight scene where K and Luv are locked in mortal combat and it just randomly cuts back to a pathetic looking Ford sitting there in his handcuffs doing nothing. GO AWAY HARRISON! Stop ruining 21st century movies with your re-animated corpse. (And no, I'm not blaming all the film's flaws on him, I'm just tired of seeing him SUCK in franchises that he once helped make great.)
I agree. Ford's presence sucked the life right out of the film. The 'fight' was ludicrous, and the Elvis/showgirl effects unimpressive. We already knew Deckard wasn't a particularly good fighter from the first film, and now he's old and weak. So why rub our faces in it? Just stupid. It must have been an executive decision to force Ford into the story.
it's not terrible, its just overrated and dumbed down to pander to stupid people. which is ironic because it's biggest fans sure seem to think it's the height of wit. A movie getting you to emphasize with a non-human incapable of many human things is clever. A movie that retcons the prior one via making replicants capable of just being superstrength humans with long lives and capable of everything humans are but a decent childhood is lazy.
People want to like modern movies so they try to convince themselves that they are good. Like this movie. I was bored and annoyed about 20 minutes in. I eventually became so disinterested that I was nodding off and having to force myself to stay awake. There's NOTHING good about this movie. The narrative sucks. The acting is bland. There's nothing memorable about it. Certainly no Rutger Hauer "Tears in the rain" moments. Just another cynical, mediocre money grabbing sequel. I HATE Hollywood and I hope Kim Jong Un nukes it.
2 and half mins in you mention the film doesn’t explore the plot of a replicant telling someone they have false memories implanted. I believe something very similar to that was done (SPOILER AHEAD) K learning the memories of his childhood were actually the memories of the woman who creates the dreams to begin with. That seems to be a creative play on what you described comes from the book. I’d give the movie credit for that one.
Well said. I don't get it. I know a few people who are bright and otherwise have good taste who were 'blown away' by BR2049. What in the actual fuck was there to be blown away by? It was dull and cliche and poor Harrison didn't look like he wanted to be there at all.
The original was a relatively tight noir detective story that takes place in the future. It was full of interesting minor characters and felt like a believable extension of our world. The original BR doesn't explain everything but rewards repeated viewings, and has great quotable dialogue, "tears in rain" etc. BR 2049 is a ponderous, dull, desaturated morass of sandstorms and junkyards from the same director who gave us the ponderous, dull Arrival. The lead actor is practically catatonic for much of the running time. We spend whole minutes watching him mope around or lie on a chaise longue. I was hoping to be pleasantly surprised. I wasn't.
Great summary. I thought as you say arrival was dull and ponderous. For all the originals flaws, I can’t deny that it’s visually stunning, influential as hell and the soundtrack is possibly one of the greatest..
The original film is a hundred million billion times better, 2049 is an embarrassment compare to this. Denis Villeneuve screwed it up big time. There is more feeling and thought in one frame of the 1982 film then in the entire 2049 film combined.
I think a key theme in 2049 that connected with me was the idea of "what is real?". They really went into the idea of what it meant to be real and I feel like the ending really gave us that question that we could go out and think about. Gosling's character, who we now know is just a replicant copy of his sister, is sitting outside on the steps. He is experiencing real snow in the real world as the snowflake touches his hand. Whereas his sister who was "born" is inside cooped up in this fake world. Even if you notice when Ford enters she has simulated snowfall in her dome but the snowflake passes right through her hand. So i feel the movie here is prompting a question, what does it mean to be real? Is it just the fact that you are born? Is it the free will to move around? We dont know, each viewer comes up with his own response to this question and thinks it over based on what the whole film presented. So this is just one of the things i liked about the movie. Even though i disagree with your opinion, i still respect it. Plus this is coming from someone who also read the book and watched the first movie many times. All in all, thanks for sharing your ideas, its interesting to see opposing opinions
I was struck by the parallel relationships of humans to replicants, and K's relationship with Joi. The controlling hierarchy humans place on replicants in comparison to K wanting to make Joi more real (not to mention K must realize Joi is to him as he is to humans; constructed for a purpose). And the heartbreak K has at think he is unique (like humans) and the heartbreak when that isn't the case (not to mention Joi being trapped much like Deckard's daughter) There a lot of subtlety going on in the film and I'm actually pleased they struck out on their own instead of rehashing scenarios from the book. While not as great as some reviewers made it out to be (agreed the replicant uprising was dumb), it is very much a welcome part of the Blade Runner cannon, and still hits the high marks of the original.
Claiming that these questions are overused is highly subjective on your side. The idea was presented centuries ago so everything you've ever experienced in your own time is old and overused. Saying that Blade Runner is brilliant and 2049 is a cash in is completely arbitrary. This is why both you and Rob come of as spoilt children when you bitch about lack of originality. It's based on the assumption that your "run" in this world is the most important and authentic one.
Dang, I'm surprised to see such disdain for the film. I thought it had some incredible characterization in K and explored the same themes from the first film in a new and really inventive way that looks 30 years into our future the same way Blade Runner did back in 1982. It had great cinematography and score to boot too, IMO
I think Rob forgot that original Blade Runner was shot when cyberpunk and it's predictions for future were new and uncontested by reality. In the years that followed cyberpunk lost it's ideological ground because the future humanity was marching into didn't really look like what cyberpunk had predicted. But today the rapid technological advancement of humanity again brings to light all that grim cyberpunk dilemmas. And that's why I think Blade Runner 2049 is a flawed but good movie - it's a cyberpunk manifestation that modern world needs.
BR 2049 still looks nothing like the future. We're less than 30 yrs away. Artificial intelligence is going nowhere - see my video on the subject ru-vid.com?search_query=rob+ager+ai Created grown human from farmed flesh is total sci-fi nonsense. We're not progressing anywhere near what ppl think. We have the internet and more media gadgets, but essentially our houses, vehicles, clothes, food etc aren't much different to fifty years ago. And I think it'll remain like that for decades to come.
Collative Learning I mostly referred to sociological dilemmas - the ever-growing gap between the select few and the majority of people, destruction of nature in the name of technology, loosing human identity in light of, again, rapid technological advancement, the dangers of out-of-hand capitalism etc. The main plot is way too sci-fi for our time, I agree, but then again it could also be seen as devaluation of human life. The movie made me think on all those problems, it's not a masterpiece, but it's not garbage also.
I'm actually kind of shocked. I thought it was one of the most subtle and thought provoking films I'd seen in years. Just because they expanded on Blade Runner and not the ideas seen in Do Androids Dream doesn't mean its bad. Your expectations I think may have gotten in the way.
No, it's not a bad film because it didn't use the ideas from the novel. It's a bad film because there were lots of different plots they could have come up with that would have been better, but the novel thing is pertinent because they had a source of great ideas immediately available and didn't use them either. They played it safe on pretty much every theme. Nothing challenging or insightful.
Collative Learning Everything about this film leading up to its release spelled disaster for it. It was produced by Sony and WB, two studios known for their micromanaging tendencies, so we could have gotten a simple action-adventure movie set in the Blade Runner universe. And I have to disagree on the challenging part, mate. There are a plethora of understated but game-changing moments in this film that resonate both within the film itself and the original Blade Runner. Its definitely not the film I expected it to be, and I, personally, couldn't be happier for it. Is it as fresh as the original or as provocative? Not really, but thats kind of the nature of sequels. Of course it won't be as influential, because all the influence Blade Runner could have done has already been done. EDIT: Also it seems like you're more focussed on what the film didn't do at all rather than what it did right.
Collative Learning Again, saying it is bad because it didn’t go for inspiration where YOU thought it should isn’t a valid criticism. Blaming something for not meeting your expectations is such a self-centered point of view. Critique a movie for what it DID do, not what it should have done.
This movie definitely doesn't deserve the praise, now that is shocking but what can you do. It's much easier to rant, because there's much to rant on. It's not a bad movie per se (actually it is pretty bad, but hey), it has things going for it (if I didn't know better I'd rate it a 6). It's a very empty and boring shell and wasted potential. Movie is intended for the pseudo-intellectual audience, designed to be stupid, designed for discussion-boards for sad people who can't even argue or reason. Maggots, hologram-sex, hologram nature, child slaves, feminism, bee-hives, cheese dialogue between Ford and Ryan, Leto creating replicunts for Ryan's imaginary horse penis. Come on, really? All very un-blade runner and unforgiving. There's no challenge, the entire premise of this movie sucked by design. Granted, it does look pretty. And that's about it.
Hi HeroinKij, I agree with you. A you say " I thought it was one of the most subtle and thought provoking films I'd seen in years. " Blade Runner II is a MASTERPIECE.
Have to respectfully disagree with you, Rob....I love your reviews, especially on The Thing, but I loved 2049....but I agree that they did leave a lot of stuff out that was contained in the novel...the Penfield Mood Organ for one...really drove home how artificial everyone's life was....even their very moods depended on artificial stimulus....showed how basically everyone was an andy or a replicant more or less....thanks for your review, and yes, I agree, 2049 had some flaws-too long, and yes the replicant revolution was predictable,,,,I wondered why they wouldn't want to rebel peacefully, seems like they could do so with humanity dependent on them!
I just watched this one yesterday and today. Yes, it took me two days to watch. This sequel is very bland, storywise. I would actually have difficulty breaking down the plot. A very pretentious movie.
I don't even bother to waste money watching "modern" movies in the theater anymore, movies are just so shitty today. They just don't make them like they used to. Blade Runner was one of my favorites (even with it's flaws), and I just didn't want to see another disappointing sequel. I took the chance with Alien Covenant, and was so disappointed I almost walked out of the theater. I just wait for them to show up on Kodi and watch them for free, that way at least I have not paid Hollywood for more shit. As the great former President George W Bush said: "fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again"...uh never mind
The original "Blade Runner" is my favorite movie, I absolutely love the original book, and yet, I agree with you 100% on this new one. I was immensely disappointed. It's really not a very great or interesting movie, it's a waste of the world, its potential, and its budget. It's a weak script, underdeveloped, with too much tell-not-show, and not enough of the characters actively pushing the plot forward. This film needed to be either shorter, or denser. It could have even taken ideas from the cyberpunk anime developed since the original "Blade Runner" and inspired by it. What we got was a pretty generic story in the window dressing of "Blade Runner", but without the lived-in feel of that film's incredible Production Design or the Vangelis soundtrack. Thank you for being honest and for taking such an unpopular stance.
David Webb Peoples was brought in to write the pivotal scenes in the original, Hampton Fancher was pissed. Hampton Fancher got free reign on the sequel. We know now that DWP was the key behind the dialogue and depth of the original, the poor screenwriter exposed with the nonsense of BR2049.
No question. The sequel has far too much talking in it and the dialogue is terrible at times. It comes across very much like Fancher's early draft for Blade Runner. It's basically people in rooms, talking to one another. Nothing wrong with that of course, but you can't help but compare the two films as you watch BR49 and that's when the sequel begins to fall short.
You're in love with the book and this movie was a sequel. I think your thoughts were really biased to what it should've been instead of judging the movie on what it is. The giant hologram might've been done before but it hasn't been done in a context where it is an advertisement. The soundtrack was "lame" argument is so subjective that I can't even say anything about that. The lighting was glossy intentionally the way they were out of the city to contrast the scenes from city. This was a really poorly thought out video. I suggest you take your time to think and pinpoint what and why you didn't like the movie instead of pointing out subjective stuff and claiming that you could've written a better script in a week.
The book and original film each have plenty of flaws, but the ideas in both were far better than the new movie. If you can't say anything good about the new soundtrack perhaps that's because it was lame - I specifically stated than none of the music was memorable - I can't remember any of the melodies, just loud blasts of noise from time to time. And simply saying all my arguments are "subjective" is pure semantics. I could use that same critique against anything good you say about the movie, but it wouldn't get us anywhere would it.
But I didn't just say your arguments were just "subjective". I also said you were judging the movie on what it was not even trying to be and that's in my view, unfair. There's nothing for me to say if you just point out that the soundtrack was "lame", that's your opinion. I think the soundtrack was very appropriately used and built the mood rather than being tacked onto the movie. And just because you can't remember the melodies or something is not memorable, it does not mean it was bad. Which brings me to cinematography where Roger Deakins' whole philosophy is not calling attention to it. The most important thing you're neglecting here is that a film, especially by Denis Villeneuve, is not just a string of ideas no matter how great they are. The book might be great but this is a film with different constraints and limitations which I'm sure you didn't need me to remind you but I did because you were so hung up on the ideas in the book.
"None of the music was memorable." I've listened to this soundtrack from top to tail literally every day since I first saw the movie at release. I can't get enough of it, and the emotional impact continues to reverberate for me. None of the music was memorable? I'm sincerely sorry for the insensate black hole that resides in your mind. I considered subbing you at one point, but this is a deal-breaker.
I hated it. And i love the original Blade Runner movie, theatrical cut, ( the cut where he doesn't tell the audience whether Deckard is human or a replicant). Upgrade (2018) is a far better sci-fi/cyberpunk movie than BR2049 in my opinion. More original, more interesting story, killer ending, and an absolutely incredible soundtrack.
The first time I watch this movie, I think I even fell asleep for a minute, and was very underwhelmed. As I watched it a few more times, I started understanding that the boredom was part of the film and then for some reason from that, the whole movie suddenly seemed completely intentional and it took me through every range of emotion and it is absolutely one of my top favorite films now
So youre saying they made the film intentionally boring. I call BullSh*t, this wasnt some indie art film, or Film school project. It was multimillion dollar sequel to a classic. In a film the director can actually make boredom not boring to the audience. This is film just has a boring story, told in a boring way and filmed in a boring way (not almost every scene should be some long sweeping epic shot) it had Writers and directors that cleary dont understand Film Noir or how to make that type of film
i am in total agreement w/you . . . the only thing i liked about this film was the love relationship btween gosling & the 'VI -girl!!" i hated this film b/c it didn't star sean young. how in the world could there be any follow up to the original which wasn't completely about the love relationship btween deckard & rachel?? i guess sean young is a wingnut so she ruined it for the rest of us, i'm sure harrison ford refused to work with her . . .
You're spot on about the 'sterile' note (and all of the analysis, in my view) and the fact that there is an entire dimension of visual language that was ignored in the film - it is truly a very undynamic and unimpressive film in that sense. I think from a writing/directing standpoint it was wrongly approached. This is symptomatic of most if not all post-millenial films, sterile, lack of genius composition and everything feels very 'assembly line' photographically and narratively. It lacked the grit of the original which was why it was an incredible film - they should have Ridley Scott direct it. There is absence of film makers out there who understand the very things you are talking about, and the massive population is being tricked into accepting this and hailing it as legendary when in fact it is mediocre and ultimately a regress in the evolution of cinema as a medium. I also despise how nullified the sexual influences are, everything feels like the edges were dulled and lost all of it's philosophical brunt. What a shame cinema is in this state - and what more shame is it to think that most people regard the new Blade Runner as impressive and innovative - truly mind boggling.
Let me just start by saying the advertisements are a very poor portrayal of the style of the film. It is not pretty and neon like the first. Its grey and rainy. Barely 80s neon at all. Its slow and boring, the story is convoluted with many plot holes. And ultimately not much got achieved for 3 fucking hours of invested time. Even the simple act of a character getting out of the car takes WAY too long. So here i am feeling completely robbed of my entire evening seeing this movie through till the end, now watching this video trying to figure out why this movie got such high ratings.
I’ve tried watching 2001 several times and can’t do it. I’m going to try one last time this weekend but this time I’m going to get extremely drunk and maybe I’ll get through to the end.
I don't think the giant hologram of Joi was meant to "impress" or "shock" you, I think it was meant to act as a foil to K, to show how disillusioned he'd become. He realized how much of an empty life he had, with the woman who was his pride and joy standing nude for all to see and gawk at, society expecting him to just go and buy another one to replace the one he'd lost. Instead of choosing to go back to his life of empty bliss, he decided to sacrifice himself to save Deckard.
I agree I think that was the message but there was no redemptive arc to send that point home. K just became a no-fap but didn't find a real girl to be with (there was a spark with the hooker, but it was left unrequited).
I imagine that the tall Joi was programmed to taunt him. That's why tall Joi called him Joe. It's almost like Luv saying "I hope you enjoyed our product."
Bladerunner 2049 is first and foremost a deeply personal journey mixed in with the mystery of K struggling to find his life's purpose. Is he special? The idea that he may not be a worthless, soulless android at least gave him something to believe in. I thoroughly enjoyed watching this duality play out. And having the truth come crashing down on him during The Joi advertisement scene was incredibly powerful movie making.
ThisIsNotReel lol? By explaining key elements of the story I'm able to better explain the strengths of the movie. And I have every right to give my opinion, so if you don't like it you can kiss my ass.
People who didn't like it feel the need to explain why. People who like the movie can do the same. That's how discussions work. Open minded people may find a new perspective in other opinions. Give it a try.
The issue HoodedCobra and k m have with your comment is more that it stems from an assumption you made. The OP never clearly, or even implicitly states that Rob didn't understand the film. It's phrased as his own interpretation, and nothing more.
I think a lot of the criticisms you have for the film have been said for Kubrick films as well. Too slow, looking flat, doesn't follow the spirit of the book it's based on, etc. It shares a lot of double narrative themes with Kubrick films (eyes opening, references to dreams, recovering memories, lust, greed identity). I think the statues in the ruins of Las Vegas look much like those in A.I, and I think that's on purpose. I think this film has a lot to say hidden in the dialogue and visual storytelling, and it'll take years to decode, just like a Kubrick film.
Agree 100%. I was bored senseless watching this. The score using white noise to try and manipulate the audience into thinking something profound is happening was when I realized this film was BAD. They do something similar in Quantum of Solace where they reduce the sound after a boat chase, then go into a slo-mo shot to give the same affect as the white noise. It’s only there to cover a poor script.
Many people criticize Wallace for having little screen time, but I think that's justified. He's supposed to be a puppet master manipulating things behind the scenes (that's even emphasized by how he never actually even touches anyone he interacts with except for his own creations). It would look silly for him to have some kind of showdown with K.
Talk about a downgrade in antagonist. We go from a man with a relatable fear of death trying to extend his life, only to realize his impending death and go on a rampage, but grows to appreciate life in his final moments by saving another man, thus coming to terms with his mortality......to a generic "try to take over the world" plot? Better than the original my ass.
i think the good reviews comes from people that think they are above mainstream if they watch and like this boring movie, but there is a difference between a slow movie and a pretentious movie that is very shallow. i even was disappointed in the visual aspect of the movie because i thought at least that will be great, but nope.
Not liking a movie ist OK but saying it it's bad because it's not trying to ape it's far far removed source material ist silly saying it should have been more like AI ia silly. I liked AI but it's not exactly in the sweet spot between a smart movie a entertaining one, Blade Runner 2049 ist a bit of both and some people prefer that.
Feng Jun A lot of the ideas he mentioned from the book would have only contradicted what was established in the original film. His AI comparison was strange too. Building s and highways like that would have made the film a joke. Blade Runner is supposed to feel grounded, AI is not. Being that overt would have ruined it and again contradicted the design of the world from the original.
No shit, i personally think there is stuff that is better fleshed out in this movie then the original Blade runner, but also ofcourse there are plenty movies that has the same thematic stuff in it. That's like not watching The exorcist because Rosemary's baby had the same stuff in it.
I might actually put up a video on how BR 2049 could have been better and include some alternate plot lines. Though I won't be taking a full week of my schedule to the write a script because I wouldn't be able to earn back a living from it without severe copyright infringement.
Raid Plumber 01-21814567 Mick Flexford is a retired plumber who now hides out in South end on Sea. Officer P is a new breed of plumber who uncovers a hidden secret......theres your start any Rob...a serious script, bu using this scenario to avoid copyright infringements...and away ya go! :)
Excellent analysis. 100% in agreement with you Rob, on all points. There's no point in my adding my own thoughts as you cover it all in the video. This definitely correlates with your other video about the decline of good movie making.
He does give specifics. The narrative drives well to begin with but dissolves midway into predictable generic territory. The interesting plot device of the relationship with the A.I./Holographic love interest goes nowhere after setting it up as an interesting dynamic that is straight out of K. Dick's story building/existential philosophy, the kind of dynamics that made the original film worthwhile in terms of having three dimensional depth. The second half of the film is a hodge-podge of tired old Hollywood tropes, from the Communist style revolution of the replicants to the pointless introduction of Decker near the end of the movie. Yes I understand Decker's place in the plot but Ford's use in the movie seems contrived given how little screen time he gets, in short the film fails because of lazy plot devices. Blade Runner was innovative, well executed and contained much of the essence of Dick's work which essentially is existentialism. This follow up film is merely style over substance, like almost every film Hollywood churns out these days. Nobody takes risks anymore. Independent producers outside of Hollywood are another story entirely. Story telling is an art and it seems to me that this art is being sacrificed for commercial interests. As Rob points out, there is so much that could have been gleaned from the novel, a more absorbing plot could have been written without instead relying upon plot devices that have become cliched and predictable. Take away the CGI and Blade Runner 2049 becomes a hollow experience. Such a shame.
I couldn't agree more. I was interested at first, but I quickly realized that everything about the BR 2049 was a cheap imitation of the original, flat and uninspired. The over hyped visuals were a distraction to mask the lack of a solid story. Early into the second hour, I couldn't wait for it to be over.
I should have known when I went to the cinema to see it when it was released. Honestly, the screen curtains would not open and the opening shots were projected on to them!! It's an omen from the universe!! Funnily enough, it was as exciting as the few hours got!! I have re watched it a couple of times since and it ain't bad, but I find you have to forgive the film an awful lot to actually enjoy it. Specifically, you have to forget it is a Blade Runner sequel and just think of it as a story set in a PK Dick inspired future dystopia.
Agreed, the worst fucking movie I have seen in 20 years, I wish I could get my 2 hrs back that I wasted watching this crap, and I think Ryan gosling is a crap actor as well so there.
A lot of this video is you complaining about the screenwriters not taking ideas from the book that weren't adapted in the first Blade Runner. This is really fucking stupid. The most obvious reason for this is that Hampton Fancher, who also co-wrote the screenplay for the original, was never a fan of the book. In fact, the filmmakers of the original kept a certain distance from the source material, which always struck me as odd because it's a really good book, but that's the case. And 2049 is a sequel to Blade Runner that compliments the original in many ways; it is not a closer adaptation of the book, not is it meant to be. It is a thematically dense narrative that expands on the themes of the original while also bringing new ones to the table, ones that I didn't even think the movie would delve into, but it did. On a final note, if you thought 2049 was slow and boring, then I'm not sure how you survived the original.
The original had Ridley Scott directing at his peak, Vangelis, Harrison Ford gave his best acting preformance, Retuger Howe , Edward James Olmos, and Sean Young were a great supporting cast, the script from Peoples and Fincher. The new one reminded me of the shitty Babylon X and AI. Along with lousy pacing drawn out climax and third rate acting from Mr notebook and emo boy letto. Plus Harrison Ford is too damn old. You asked
This film like all new films suffers for the same reason all films suffers; it's made by film fans. The old films were so masterful because they were made by masters of different backgrounds. Directors were trained to direct actors and trained in theater. Directors of Photography were masters of both photography and of visual art. They spent their years studying the masters of old. The screen writers came up studying the master playwrights and authors. Today everyone comes up just studying film and trying to master film based on film. Rather than master storytelling based on histories greatest storytellers. There's no going back. Cinema hot it's peak in the 40s to 70s and it's been a slow rolling down hill since then. Such is life. I'm sure there will be a few gems here and there and if they last the test of time then I'll watch them in 30 years. But I no longer watch new films. Waste of time.
I respect your critique and I think there's some merits, especially because I also thought the sets and backdrops didn't feel lived in but instead were just like someone at Ikea designed the city. But I think you're being overtly harsh on the script and expecting too much. While I agree 2049 is far from perfect it's one of the better movies to come out in a long time, one I think will stay in the minds of audiences in the future. It wasn't endlessly overhyped and poorly written like say Ex Machina.
I came round to Rob though I didn't hate it as much as him.i made a previous comments which git a Lot of up votes saying this the best sequel ever.I think I went full on phantom menace mode with it though. I watched did three times in the cinema and I just watched it on digital at home and that's when it hit home for me. This films plot is just NOTHING.WHY does Wallace want natural reproduction so much?The replicants will then be born and have to be looked after for 18 years until they are fully grown adults. Wallace made the Rachel clone within at most a month from her bone and hair samples.We see am replicant birth in a big plastic bag,you could store thousands and thousands in a large space and then when they are born grow some more like. Why does K. Automatically assume the memory is real that it's him that experienced it?He gets mad for no reason as if it's him that been conned into thinking he's a replicant The SLOOOOW pacing,Vileneuves must have thought we'd miss the gorgeous cinematography so he lingers and lingers on it for eternity,that and Ryan goslings face. Leto ss always is fucking AWFUL.I HATED him in this film,yeah he probably played him as a pretentious bastard but still the crummy dialogue about angels. Why was Dec kard to be sent to ANOTHER FUCKING PLANET to be tortured? Thus film is faux deep,this raises NOTHING that the original didn't do all ready and far better. Luv was okay I guess but I don't know why the actress played her as a terminator that sometimes cries. Robin Wright plays stock bitch you but inside deeply caring because she wants some of that replicant Gosling Dick. Joi was fine but it just like Her. Harrison Ford is Harrison Ford,he took me out force awakens too with his cranky old man act who for some reason wants loads of money with all these reboots. This film is Hollywood dying it's last breath.185 million was pumped into this,a sequal to what is only a cult film. Did they honestly think this would gross over 800 million?Showtimes were much less because for the run time. Hollywood will shove money at anything that has any semblance of a return. I can honestly say I won't look forward to any future vulieneve films,supposedly he is going to an do dune but that will probably just be three and a half hours of gazing at Roger deakin cinematography. This just didn't feel like a blade runner film.It was slapped on for marketing,Hollywood claims another great film that just simply didn't need a sequel like at all.
Sometimes I think Rob is simply making the contrarian point for its own sake. I liked how they tried to connect the soundtrack to the first movie and yet make it appropo for 2017, they succeeded IMO. I thought it was visually stunning. It was too light? Too sandy? Come on Rob, you'll have to do better than that. The visual sequences were amazing. There was a delicacy to them. And as to the feminine symbols; The point wasn't to show the most pornographic images possible. I think the film was saying very interesting things about men's perception of women and the public's perception of celebrity as well. You're wrong. This was a very good film.
"You're wrong. This was a very good film.", Rob was simply expressing his point of view, you have your point of view ~ a movie is a subjective experience. To say someone is wrong over something that inherently has no correct or absolute answer is immature. You need to accept that other people on the planet are going to have differing points of view to your own and craft your responses accordingly.
I watched it with the sound down. I don't like Ryan Gosling either. I was amazed at how little seemed to be happening. In fact, all I remember were some green and orange neon lights, as you said, flatness, and Gosling's self conscious face. Crap.
I'm so glad I didn't have the viewing experience that Rob Ager had watching this. I kind of pity him for not being able to see, and more importantly, feel, the beauty of this film. The impression I get when listening to him talk about it is of someone who watched the film with a cold, cynical, machinelike mindset, and an unwillingness to let the film work on him on any kind of emotional/subconscious level. As Villeneuve eloquently put it: 'I see cinema as a sort of rhythmical dance of visuals and sound', or something to that effect. That's exactly how I'd describe the best cinema, and exactly how I'd describe this film. It ebbed & flowed beautifully from beginning to end. There was a poetic feeling to how it unfolded. The film flowed like a beautifully conducted orchestra, full of peaks & troughs, culminating in the final action sequence (the sea wall scene). That was like the chorus in full effect, the emotional highpoint of the film, and then the last scene winding us down from the journey like a beautiful afterglow, before the credits finally roll out. It was a beautifully orchestrated film. And what is wrong with the film covering themes from the original again? It's the Blade Runner sequel after all, why wouldn't it have a lot of similarities with the first? What's wrong with that? All the best sequels cover old ground whilst offering something new. And without getting too deep on plot points, there is the replicant reproduction plot point in the new film. That alone should serve as something satisfyingly new and interesting for fans of the genre/first film. It was enough for me. There was plenty of other new stuff too but without mentioning everything else, this alone was a satisfying expansion of the original films narrative. I see a lot of debate around minor plot technicalities, like how did Deckard survive the radiation of Las Vegas blah blah blah. These are things your brain should just be filling in for yourself if you're watching & experiencing the film the way it's meant to be. I don't want to get into an endless debate about plot intricacies & philosophical interpretations, I'd be here forever if I took the time to counter or debunk everyones criticisms (trust me I'd love to, most are incorrect!), but for the record, imo this is the most well thought out plot I've ever seen in a film. When I think of all the elements at play like characters, events, existential themes etc, it's extremely complex, and yet the films narrative ties it all up beautifully. Ok maybe there's one or two points where you have to take a slight leap in logic or assume certain things, but questioning technicalities like 'why are there no CCTV cameras in the police station?' and that sort of meaningless crap, is to miss how the film is supposed to be making you feel. Basically, if you're thinking about things like that when watching it, you're not watching it properly. The film is poetic in nature. Poetry is about feeling, not logical scrutiny. You're supposed to be on an existential journey (Like K is) while watching it, not sitting there like some machine reading binary code and waiting for anomalies. There's so much slander being put on this film. The worst one is branding it a cash grab. As someone who practices/creates art, & without wanting to sound arrogant, I've learned to sense when an artistic creation has got real passion & soul in it. And trust me when I tell you, the people who made this film... They put their heart & soul into it. It really does show. Plus, the film bombed at the box office, as they probably half anticipated, so that's simply not true. Also the pacing criticism baffles me. I've never heard anyone criticise the pacing of Breaking Bad. You know, that TV show regarded by most as the greatest TV show of all time? Because BB is not boring. Slow does not mean boring. And the pacing of BR2049 is perfect IF you are thinking about all the things the film wants you to be thinking about whilst you are watching it. Also, mega budget world building sci-fi? How often do you get to see that kind of visual spectacle? What's your rush for that to finish so quickly & be done with? If you're a genre fan you should be revelling in it's slow pacing, not growing impatient. And slagging off the score/sound design. I'm sorry, but listen to Sea Wall, Mesa & Joi & tell me that they are not incredibly expressive & emotive pieces of music. Again, speaking as someone who makes music, I can clearly feel the passion coming from the composers in the soundtrack. The score plays out just like the film itself does in terms of peaks & troughs, tensions & conflicts, moments of despair, hope & resolution etc. I could go on and I've rambled on much longer than I anticipated, but I love this film more than I can put into words, and it pains me to see people misunderstand or not appreciate the epic achievement that this film is. I hope that my words can make at least one person reconsider & see what I see in this film, and come to love it the way I do. Final thought. Everyone watched Blade Runner 2049. But not everyone experienced Blade Runner 2049.
I thought it was bland, pointless, unneeded, and unoriginal. I love the original Blade Runner movie with a passion (theatrical cut), because that version doesn't give a definitive answer as to whether Deckard is human or a replicant. We dont really get many sci-fi movies these days. I guess the modern mainstream audience dont want them. They seem to prefer Superhero movies these days. My favourite most recent sci-fi movies were Equilibrium (2002). Snowpiercer (2013). Europa Report (2013). Life (2017). Upgrade (2018). Blade Runner 2049 just didnt do anything for me. And im a guy who loves sci-fi movies, specially the older ones.
Gotta say I pretty much agree. It was far from being shite but I felt that after the promise it showed for most of the first half of the film, I was left feeling somewhat disappointed by the end. Certainly, when compared to the vast majority of recent releases, it was much better than the standard Hollywood fare & maybe it suffered from people's expectations being too high but ultimately I feel the film failed to deliver on it's initial potential, which is a shame when I think it could have been so much better in different hands.
completely agree. you summed it up well with '3 hr movie that doesn't have 3 hrs of plot'. the fact that they had lots of juicy source material to draw on but didn't suggests very poor judgement on the part of the writers. it's almost as if a cinematographer was hired to do the writing.
I personally really liked it, even though I still think the original is the superior one of the two. I also thought that it would take more after the original novel when I saw the shots of the larvae and the bee in the trailers and the wasteland... and in the end it wasn't about that, but it still, I think, was a worthy sequel to the first movie and also felt very much in the spirit of Philip K. Dick., but in a way that it felt somewhat original. What I most liked about it is that it complemented the original's themes by subverting them and used the whole Dick thing of "What is reality?" (which is his whole thing, though many talk about how BR is about "what makes us human"). Now on to spoiler territory so that I can expand on everything. What I meant is that, well, while the first one starts under the pretence that Deckard is a human, he assumes his memories are his and real and he uses the Voight Kampff test to subject the replicants to a very artificial vision of what human empathy is (based on the novel, it's more a sense of guilt for turning the ecology to shit leading animals to near extinction, aided again only in the novel, by Mercerism which is more a collective hallucination of patting oneself in the back for how connected and empathetic one is... while being people who program their own moods and emotions, basically a humanity turned sociopaths who still think they're better than artificial sociopaths who are content in demonstrating how the former's pretence of empathy is a facade)... whereas 2049 turns all of this upside down: K would be a replicant, knowing he's a replicant, using an upside down Voight Kampff test as a sick therapy so that he accepts better his slavery by associating it with positive or natural things. I also liked how the K and Joi relationship played out. It was visually interesting. I thought it was uncomfortable and tragic. This society, it would seem, grants some status of humanity to K, they acknowledge he needs "a place" that is just so slightly above a storage room and that he has emotional needs... so it's again playing into the real important issue of the original: Does it even matter if he's a replicant or a human? He might as well be a human with a shit job (and one where he enacts genocide on his own kind) from which he returns to a shit life (a simulacra of life: simulacra of food, of love...). I also thought that what you found as the plot crumbling to pieces and to some might seem as it turning uneventful... was really a somewhat clever way of dodging a bullet. One of the few things I wasn't sold on was the premise that K would be actually Rick Deckard 2.0, his heir, his actual son. That felt kinda lazy and like it would tie in too much into the trend of the soft reboot this movie seemed to be going for if we take some of the events in Blackout (which on the other hand I found fantastic)... Cyberpunk (and I know technically BR wasn't completely cyberpunk, but then again, everything is a continuum and the New Wave is where Do Androids Dream... and The Stars my Destination were written and both of them are essential to cyberpunk being even born) isn't about chosen ones, special people, people pre-destined to greatness or inheriting great legacies... so I found it great that K's emotional investment was this kind of rollercoaster: he got super invested in the case when he seemed to catch a glimpse of him being special... then found out he wasn't... then he kinda realised that was ok. Like I said, I dunno, I still think it was a more than decent movie and follow-up, actually really intelligent and thought provoking. I even liked its slow, drawn out pace as it got me into the feel of the world and it expanded upon it quite a bit (it also showed us little things like that in this world slavery still exist outside the whole replicant thing...).
You tried to warn us and now the new Dune movie is being praised for great visuals even tho it looks more like TV series production. It has made me like this movie less now as I don't feel so inclined anymore to look for meaning that probably isn't there.
@@stopthephilosophicalzombie9017 Yeah I'd say that's part of it, but more specifically in relation to Dune I was thinking of the same criticism that he makes about the visually dull/sleek/empty design look of things as well as the noisy "music". I did recently watch a movie from the same director, The Arrival, at least I'd say it works better in that movie, but then he just applied the same style to his following movies unfortunately.
@@Hunt77 Yeah I really don't like Villeneuve's style at all. I found BR2049 to be extremely ugly in visuals and music. Part of the problem is the "woke" messaging that has to be in every Hollywood movie now; climate change is going to turn Earth into a drab, lifeless hellscape! Blade Runner certainly had an environmental message to it, but it didn't take over the whole visual aspect to the film. The city still looked interesting whereas Los Angeles in 2049 looked so flat, dark, and monochromatic.
As soon as I satrted this video I knew we were on the same page. Scott from the first film has this amazing sequence of shots where rachel is on one side of the frame using rule of halfs instead of thirds. then theres another shot with deckard on the other half. I see that as a clue that maybe deckard was a replicant, as just by using visual cues. its amazing. Scott and the cinematography was great. by the way, hologram sex girl scene was inspired by the movie Her, it was really dumb, cuz Her's entire premise is kind of based on the ideas of that scene. also loved 2001 space odyssey. incredible movie. yes, it has boring parts, but its great. AI was great too. loved that film. 2049 was such a let down, and sometimes very boring (and thats surprising considering blade runner the first one was extremely slow but extremely rich as well)
What kills it for me is how they simplify the whole story to "replicants are an oppressed minority who need a messiah to save them from the evil corporations and the uncle tom fugitive slaver blade runners". They basically just turned it into The Hunger Games.
It's funny because, when I first saw Blade Runner, I thought it was going to pull off all of the sci-fi cliches. Main villain fights for the freedom of the oppresed kind, underground resistance, robot questions the meaning of being human, etc. And to my pleasant surprise, it did NONE of those. Roy only wants to extend his life, there's no resistance group and a robot actually PROVIDES US with the meaning of humanity. Bloaded Walker 2049 hour runtime on the other hand, did exactly what I thought the original would to TO A T. Main villain fights for the freedom of the oppresed kind, underground resistance (which goes nowhere, btw), robot questions the meaning of being human, etc. Better than the original my ass.
Does not using plot lines from the book make it a bad movie? I personally don't think so. I like your ideas and it's always fun to brainstorm what could have been but the first ten minutes hooked me all the way through this one. I will say I thought the scene with Elvis could have been cut and K and Deckard's meeting could be a bit more serious. I also didn't like the prostitute-planting-the-tracking-device trope. Other than that I really enjoyed it. The best scene in my opinion was when K got shot down and the marauders begin to surround him. Subconsciously I could feel the need through Hollywood programming to see a Blade Runner take on everyone in an open setting in tropey-cliche action movie style . Instead Luv calls out missile drone strikes while getting her nails done. Awesome.
Wow, look at the like to dislike ratio. The world is full of idiots who mistake slow-paced barren films for artistic brilliance. Blade Runner 2049 is crap.
When I saw it in the cinema, there were 3 girls who left in the middle of the movie. :P That aside, my own reaction to the movie was that I was surprised by how stark and dystopian it was. The world is bordering on being gross and completely alienating in every way and I feel like that is more modern, and something that is a theme in a lot of media today. I feel like it sacrificed the blade runner vibe in order to make this more general futuristic vision based on todays trends. I'm not disagreeing with your points directly, but I feel like it was an interesting experience nonetheless and some modern themes to dig into. Edit: I'm also curious what you thought of Alien Covenant
I too did not like Blade Runner 2049 (I've only watched it one time, planning on rewatching it) But I really liked Arrival. I wonder if Rob has seen that, and if so, what he thinks about it.
I've seen BR2O49 twice and liked it both times but I still had issues with it. The story was not as compelling as I'd hoped, but I can live with it as is. I thought the new cast were all good, but found the new replicants to be lacking in that "more human than human" quality that Batty, Pris, Zora and Leon had, and Gosling just wasn't intimidating as both a Bladerunner or a replicant. There weren't any confrontation scenes in '2049 as intense as Holden's interrogation of Leon or Batty's wolf-like pursuit of Deckard. But, my biggest gripe with '2049 is a flaw that, subjectively perhaps, I think all movies have shared since the superceding of celluloid...digital photography. Digital photography looks so damn FLAT to me, and it's precisely because of all that ultra-sharp detail; foreground, middleground and background are all equally sharp, nothing pops in particular because it ALL pops at once. I'm not a filmmaker but the best celluloid photography of the past seems to have more "roundedness" to it, perhaps due to the very limitations inherent to analogue film stock and older lenses. When something is in focus in digital photography, it's ALL in focus from front to back; on celluloid, even a frontal closeup of an actor has the face sharp and clear but the actor's hair just back of the ears is slightly less sharp...this is what I meant by "roundedness", closer to the way humans see with their own eyes and the brain's attenuating vision centre. Would love to know what you as a filmmaker, think of the comparison between celluloid and digital.
If you look at any Villeneuve film, they all look flat and rather boring. He has a great eye for composition, no doubt, but as you say nothing pops out. Everything has that dull look to it. After watching the trailer for Dune, that film looks the very same, flat and lacking in luster! It's not just a celluloid versus film thing either. Chris Nolan's films all look flat and matter of fact. It works for a scene like the fight in the hotel corridor in Inception, but despite the extensive use of visual and in camera effects, Interstellar looks bloody boring! It's not just the 'film' stock, it's the colour pallet. Since Heat, film makers seem to think blue and grey equals style. Speaking of Michael Mann, for an example of how to use digital photography, just look at Collateral. He shines up every reflective surface in the frame so they reflect light and colour. That's how to make an image pop!
I also thought the film was rather disappointing. As a film it was OK, but as a sequel to Blade Runner, it was terrible. There were some nice in-jokes and references, but overall low-brow junk masquerading as high-brow gold (it was directed by Villeneuve, so I really shouldn't have expected better, the only thing he's good at is making stupid people think they are clever). Everything seemed forced and unnatural. The plot was trite and cliched, and everything was very predictable. Totally a wasted opportunity ;^
Oh, I didn't watch your videos in a long time, but I also had the same impression after watching BR 2049. I was so disappointed on many levels. It is bad movie. And I say that as an avid fan of Philip K Dick (I read easily 60 his books, novels and stories), and Ridley Scots Blade Runner. The BR 2049, is so empty narratively, philosophically, and emotionally, even some cinematography it tries to shove in, is just cringe and not convincing. The plot and characters were flat, the plot twists were a zero surprise to me (or anybody knowing PKD works). Too much style over substance. Even visuals were meh. But I guess people try to justify that it was a good movie, to feel better than others. In grand scheme of things, this movie has zero innovation or special. Hopefully new Dune will be better than BR 2049.
This review is right on. BR2049 emphasizes visuals over plotting, and it wastes a lot of time wandering pointlessly in its world. Also, I'd like to hear Rob's analysis of the theory that the female replicant is actually Deckerd's and Rachel's daughter.
There were no meaningless scenes in BR2049 and no throw away lines, even the line about the fish that's "always jumping" is central to the plot. But hate the movie because it's not your style I guess.
@@craftpaint1644 Agreed the script is masterful, nearly every line has a double meaning or more significance than it initially appears to have. I was wondering about the fish jumping line. Can you explain that one for me please?
@@Technique-kj2bp "Always jumping that one. Never a thought for what would happen if it succeeded." The fish wants more than what has been provided for it and the limits placed on it. What Wallace has made wants to break out of its design just like the replicants. Edit : even if it means dying like the free replicants woman said. Cynical viewers might say they are just being fed up. Another ailment of consciousness I'm afraid and just proves the meaning I think the jumping fish is.
@@craftpaint1644 Yeah had a feeling it meant something along those lines. Thanks for clarifying. One thing I picked up on was at the end when K says 'all the best memories are hers' and Deckard replies 'what am i to you?'. But he mumbles the line. I've listened multiple times on top quality headphones & the line could also be heard as 'what about you?'. It really isn't clearly worded. But both questions in the context make sense and are interesting as to what the answers are. 'What am i to you?' Answers could be "You feel like a father to me" or "You're not anyone to me, but I believe this is the right thing to do" etc. 'What about you?' Would raise more questions from Deckard to K like "what about your memories?" "You've had experiences too. Even if some aren't real, does it matter?' etc. I could be wrong but I'm convinced this is a masterful little detail they did intentionally, considering most of the dialogue throughout the film has a duality to it.
Ridley Scott himself said this film was SLOW and needed 30 minutes chopped off. I have the distinct impression that Villenueve (who I think is terribly overrated) fell in love with his stupid masturbatory movie and refused to cut it down.
I think a lot of the positivity comes from it not being the offensively bad garbage that I think most viewers expected. They likely were relieved that there were some interesting ideas and some interesting visuals, and that it didn't turn into a shit by the numbers action film... Or a stealth reboot.
This movie was crap. Basically it was like "I am an artistist. This is artistic and has meaning. If you don't understand or if this movie really is SHIT is irrelevant because I am an artist and this movie is art." What bullshit. Crap is crap whether it is wrapped in a bow and presented in a "deep", symbolistic, and "artistic" box or whatever. That's the beauty of what is. Crap is still steaming worthless crap, pardon my vulgarity, regardless of how it's presented. And this movie was over the top CRAP.
To me the film just came across as a bad imitation of a Winding Refn film (and I love that director). At least with Refn you are expecting style over substance - but this was Blade Runner with Denis Villeneuve at the helm!!! In my opinion, what made Blade Runner a great film was the same qualities that initially made it a cult film - namely it was as far from "mainstream" as you could get. And don't even get me started on Jared Leto's "performance"!!!!
I saw mainstream Hollywood dressed as an art-film via Refyn ripped sound/visuals and style. Have you seen Only God Forgives or Neon Demon? Great films - both shallow as hell but visually stunning. Says so on the packet though - it's what you expect when you watch it - this was Blade Runner though! Even if I don't compare it to the original, I would still give it a 5/10. How do you rate it? Did you find the story contrived/forced?
i don't think it was crap, just 2049 is like the 2009 star trek reboot; so flipping overrated. It took what was unique about the original and chucked it out the window [as far as most of the story is concerned] via making replicants just normal human clones with super strength, long lives and the ability to reproduce. This is because double digit IQ trogs cannot emphasise with anyone who isnt just like them. I felt a lot for Rachael and the other replicants in the first movie, now that replicants are capable of being fully human; not really interesting as a concept anymore.
Best sci-fi movie in the last twenty years is the film short that is available for free on YT, called 'True Skin' produced by N10N and written and directed by Stephan Zlotescu.
You look like a soyboy bro. This was a soyboy movie. One of the themes of this movie is a metaphor between the real replicants being weak males imitating masculinity by wearing a beard as a mask. Gosling just cannot compare to Ford despite his attempt to look masculine by dawning some stubble he is hardly convincing as a "tough guy." Original BladeRunner was a "tough guy" film from the noir modern-postmodern era where men became more individuated and alienated and had to plunge into the darkness to discover themselves. New Bladerunner is a soyboy movie where endless simulation and stimulation provide you with your personality. I see why you like the movie, because it was about you.
Seems strange to continue to compare the sequel to the book. It's not a sequel to the book as much as Blade Runner is not an adaptation of the book. The replicants have no empathy in the book whereas it's established replicants have empathy in Blade Runner so they can't really backtrack and establish replicants don't have empathy in the sequel. 2049 is a sequel to Blade Runner not Do Androids Dream of Electic Sheep.
