I wonder... some of the studios seem on the brink of bankruptcy (15bn in the hole for eg?) - so, i think about the money. Is churning out crap (that qualifies for tax breaks) a fast way to lock in a profit before distribution a way to get tax payers to fund their debt service rather than risk creating an original property? (Meg, Skyscraper, The Predator) Yeah, i was also disappointed with 2049...
Of course I don't mind in any way that you dislike/hate the movie. That's fine. One of the scenes in the movie that resonates most with me is the scene where the giant Joi holographic advertisement approaches K. After staring for a minute, K looks down at the blade blaster in his hand. He's lost his simulated love. He's been beaten and torn to nothing and has nothing. Every optimistic and human wish, memory and dream he ever had has been stripped of him. He thought he had found his mother - it was a lie. He thought he found his father and that was also a lie. He's directly confronted by the very nature of his existence here. Black nothingness. Nihilism. He has nothing left to believe in. So what does he do? Despite the meaninglessness of his existence he chooses to rescue Deckard. Why would he even bother? He has nothing to gain from it other than almost certain death. There's no reason for him to continue fighting. He's a broken cog in a galactic machine. It's absurdist. When existentially confronted with reality, K makes the most HUMAN decision one could: to rebel against nihilism. He is no longer part of the replicant revolution (it is a revolution NOT a rebellion, the distinction matters a lot) he is Albert Camus' definition of a rebel and his cause is rebellion against subjugation. It's a pure gesture. By rebelling against his assigned lack of meaning, he creates an incorruptible meaning. K saves the world by killing himself. This movie is a blueprint for anti-slavery.
Lol. Someone posted a vid on here called "Blade Runner 2049 but it's just Ryan Gosling staring at things". It showed 25 mins of the runtime with Gosling doing just that! Got took down though, no doubt for copyright.
And lastly Rob I have some advice for you: Movies aren't puzzles which you have to put together in a certain kind of way to "get" them, that would be pretty shallow. Films are much more than just a collection of plot points. Focus on why is something shown in that way rather than what it is.
All the things I like about it are not story or plot related. I liked Joi. I liked the cinematography and visual effects. I liked the editing. I liked the design of the world. I liked that it wasn't another Hollywood action flick. But the story and writing? I did not like. Nothing happened to the villain. He just disappeared at the end, and he was uninteresting when he was around. Bringing Ford back was forced and reeked of nostalgic masturbation. And for a movie trying to be smarter than the average Hollywood output, it still ended in a fistfight. A very disappointing movie from a usually terrific filmmaker.
Agreed somewhat (it is by no means a perfect movie), but those aspects it does well, it nails. I was mostly taken aback by the parallels between humans and Kay, and Kay and Joi. You get some larger elements of it with the replicant giving birth, Wallace's treatment and abuse of replicants, but ultimately it boils down to Kay doing everything possible to treat Joi well and give her more freedom even though she has less of a soul than Kay, and how replicants are treated by the humans around them. That is was also visually stunning and let the story unfold at a natural pace was just icing. In short, it made me reflect which very few movies do.
I totally agree, even though it’s still sad that the movie flopped. I hated Ford’s presence, he seemed extremely unmotivated and the overall story plot didn’t justify the sequel existence. Everyone loved the huge world of original Blade Runner ... then why not making an entirely new story ? “Black Out 2022” was amazing and I would’ve loved it to be a feature film. Otherwise, it certainly the weakest Villeneuve’s movie so far, IMO.
Was going to post comments, but your appraisal and mine are almost identical. I probably rate it a little higher than most people who acknowledge it was a disappointment, because I really did enjoy the first 2/3 of the film, but boy did it fall apart in the third act.
Just because the film is ostensibly about deeper concepts than Transformers, does not mean it is actually deeper than Transformers. It may be better crafted, but it is just as hollow.
not to be a prick, but what what did you like about it? cuz i'm completely clueless. a lot of people HATED Blair Witch Project. i was genuinely scared shitless. and thought it was a brilliant movie.
Beautiful photoghraphy and they captured the atmosphere perfectly but the main problem is that you just don't care about the characters. U just have Andriod or possible hybrids behaving like androids( and much of the other characters 2...) You instantly cared about Deckard and Batty and Pris...
There were a few things that I liked about the movie. One was the "you can hear a pin drop" quiet through lots of the film. It's kind of rare to have that nowadays. Like in the opening scene where K takes out that famer. I thought that it added a lot to the atmosphere. I think that the movie looks fantastic. Joi was an interesting character. But like a lot of modern movies, what started off promising turned out to be pretty disappointing by the end.
I am just wondering how someone so captivated by 2001: A Space Odyssey got bored while watching this film. I love both films equally for personal reasons but I just think you're throwing the word boring around like it's nothing. What makes this film boring but not 2001? Again, I love both of those movies very much. But there are plenty of people who also felt bored watching 2001, but not so bored watching 2049.
these 2 films aren't even on the same league in my opinion. I'm not hating on blade runner 2049, I really liked it too. But 2001 has a lot more substance than this film. It's not only pretty to look at and with an hypnotic atmosphere, it has a lot more going on below the surface, which is why I think rob wasn't bored by it as opposed to this one.
I also really liked Blade Runner 2049, but compared to 2001, it has none of the enrapturing mystery (at least not to the degree Kubrick embedded into 2001). The fact that there is layer upon layer to unravel, and nothing is tied up neatly at the end and spoon-fed to the audience is what I'd point to as the major major difference between the two films.
What really hits me about this movie is that it really makes me question what it means to be human. I started the movie with the hope that it would answer the question of whether Deckard is a Replicant, I was immediately introduced to K who I know is a Replicant, and through his journey, relationships, and interactions I got to the end and realized that it doesn't even matter. In some ways the Replicants in 2049, in contrast with the original, are more human than their human cohorts. Some additional themes, scenes, and ideas, that really get me every time I watch it: 1. There is a cut scene shortly after K and Mariette/Joi do their thing where it zooms in on Joi's face and plays the "Joi is everything you want to be", then later on towards the end of the movie you see the completely transformed nude Joi, almost as if Joi had uploaded her experience to a collective neural network which ushered in the transformation. 2. The scene where Luv kills Joshi. Whoa, Sylvia Hoek's performance is incredible IMO. It makes me consider the potential terrifying aspect of our AI future. Also her death towards the end is impactful. 3. The cold white hardness of K’s baseline test and his rehearsal of Pale Fire solidified K’s status as a Replicant at the beginning, and then the last baseline highlighted his potential humanity. I also think there is significance to Pale Fire, but that is above my pay grade. 4. Luv is constantly comparing herself to K throughout the movie in nuanced ways I only picked up on the 2+ viewings. The jealous Replicant angle is interesting to think about. 5. When K is at the orphanage he adjusts the ashtray with the horse on it as if he had been there before and noticed that something was out of place almost unconsciously. This provides a foreshadowing for the scenes immediately after where he finds the horse. On top of all this, and the only thing that matters personally, is the feeling and emotions that this movie evokes. The sights, sounds/music, story, characters, all just hit me like no other movie has, and I was definitely not expecting it to.
I read somewhere once that the origin of the source material was Dick reading about accounts of slaves in America who ran away and the bounty hunters who were hired to catch/kill them and that the majority of the people didn't see them as humans or at best subhumans. The idea of whether replicants are or aren't humans is a misreading of his point. He's talking about that it certain times and places in history the majority of people in the "in group" see the "other group" as not equal just because of the culture they live in. The first film shows that this belief isn't relegated to the past but is and is unfortunately still with us. The endless debates of are or aren't they worthy of life and freedom is proof of that.
I like the film, but I'm not crazy about it and I think the original is far superior. One thing to the film's credit is it's amazing visuals, I think probably one of the best looking films ever made.
While in BR _Rick Deckard_ refered to *René Descartes* (a replicant quotes "i think, therefore i am") and *Scott* asked "what distinguishes man from machine?", in BR2049 _Joe K._ refers to *Franz Kafkas* _Josef K._ from the novel *The Trial* and *Villeneuve* asks the question "how do we stay human in such a system?". *The Trial* anticipated the bureaucratic state and the reign of numbers and digits (and the algorithms which invade everything). Like _Josef K._ hoped, that the trial against him will be scrapped so that he will be free, _Joe K._ hopes to be a human and therefore be free. *man as a product* We escort a replicant, who isn't much foreign to us (we can identify with him), while the humans shown are more foreign to us. The movie asked "are we replicants already?". Our world is still colorful and not so emptied as BR2049, but it shows our current anthropology. It shows different kinds of people/replicants: the ones who still rebel, and the others who try to denounce them. Surveillance, obsession with optimization and biopolitics want to bring to heel the human subject. In the movie the replicants do the dirty work for the humans. In our reality it's even more blantant: humans are doing the dirty work for other humans. Soon many people will work for artificial intelligences. The special police in the movie isn't guided by politians, but by businessmen. *melancholy* The melancholy of _Joe K._ is the melancholy of the man who doesn't have a happy selfie face. The focus stays on the replicant till the end of this sad, quiet movie. The tedious pace of the movie meets the reality of this emptied world. Many parallels of this world to a museum can be found. The movie shows holograms of Elvis Presley and Frank Sinatra in Las Vegas, but not nostalgic. These people were already completely artistic characters in a fully artificial city. Our past seemed infected by something unhuman. "When did it start, that we all become replicants?" asks the movie. [translated excerpts from the analysis of my favorite movie critic Wolfgang M. Schmitt]
Cinematography, atmosphere (the vibe of a overpopulated, dying world, and how messed up evething is), sound design, relatable protagonist and pretty much all the characters, fitting music
Looks and sounds incredible. Sound was unfortunately blown out at the IMAX version though... saw it again recently on Blue Ray and whole swathes of dialogue were revealed that had been drowned in sound effects or music . Was surprised they reprised Ford, no requirement from fans or audience to bo base the sequel around the original film or indeed cast.
Stop the Philosophical Zombies A world, where you got to have seawalls to protect sunless and rainy LA of all places, where a shower lasts a mere second, where almost no one ever seen a living tree, where you have to grow worms to be able to produce an eatable product instead of normal food - didn't you notice all of this?
Where did you see, exactly, the 'overpopulated' world? In BR2049, Los Angeles looks as empty as an old town in the countryside, and the world it depicts is completely different from the (really overpopulated) world of the original Blade Runner. This was also in the intention of the authors and director: they wanted to transmit the feeling of how empty places can become after explosions and radiations (in places where Deckard had been hiding for years), there is also the implicit assumption that many people left the planet in order to go to live in the interstellar colonies. I really challenge you to find that many scenes, in BR2049, where you can actually see a 'crowd'. You won't find many scenes like that, but you will find plenty of scenes where K wonders aimlessly on semi-empty streets, bridges and lands. If you really thought that BR2049 depicted an 'overpopulated' world, then you don't remember the movie. And not remembering a movie that you say you like is really telling of the quality of the movie and about its being 'memorable'.
I am hesitating to watch another Film by Villeneuve after seeing Prisoners, years ago. Something about the movie just felt absolutely pretentious and self-gratifying. And watching scenes from his movies since then, they always had this wankery about them, this lingering on a substance or meaning that just isn't there. Like watching an untalented conman trying pull one over on you, and you see through it from the beginning.
Yeah Prisoners was weird. I thought the story was decent, but the torture scenes were overdone and seemed to be there just to shock. I didn't buy into that aspect of it. All his films seem over long too. Sicario could have lost 20 odd minutes. I find his directing ... bland tbh.
Rob Ager It would be funny if all that pretentiousness I interpreted into his movie for all this time was in the end just blandness by incompetence lol
I think it is more to do with bad 'translation' on his behalf. The philosophical ideas may be intriguing when he discusses them with other French speakers in French. But he uses cliched English, if you like, when discussing those same ideas to English speakers. Something gets lost, a subility. I totally know what you mean though. He wants to be seen as being very deep. BR49 was ok. I wasn't crazy about it, but I am glad someone was brave enough to green light a movie set in a dystopian future. Arrival however....dullest movie I have ever seen..and I like Amy Adams! She was great in The Master. Renner is more watchable than Jared Leto, but even when I saw him in The Hurt Locker, I asked, 'why are they making this guy the 'star'?!'
Agree Rob. The original was a masterpiece. 2049 was terrible overall. Those who love MM4, or BR2049, etc just don't have any critical eye. They just love bigger explosions and CGI. I only watched it once. It's pointlessly slow (the original was slow on purpose to explore the world and build an arch). None of the characters behaves rationally. First 5 minutes, Gosling went to make an 'arrest' of a superior replicant and disarmed himself in a vulnerable/seated position!!!! WTF??!! Really stupid for an experienced bounty hunter. The villains were not interesting. The fight scenes too Hollywood/Matrix/Terminator. Apparently there's no security in the police HQ and a murdering replicant can just walk in and kill. Apparently everybody just abandons Vegas. Apparently you don't get hurt in a airborne car crash into the ground. And on and on...
Cinematography and music. Already been well commented on, but it is undeniably good. Couple of outstanding scenes: The introduction to Las Vegas - silhouetted on orange to yellow vista with hollow echoing soundtrack. Wallace Corporation HQ - watery lit inverted yoni shaped building "birthing" creations.
I'll add, if you want to convince Rob you need to give specific reasoning beyond a list of what you THINK is good. I don't think it is nearly as bad as he does, I found it boring but it had some interesting scenes. Problem I had was it didn't feel anything like the original. And by trying to tie it into the original they kind of screwed themselves. Ford should have never been in this movie. The film should have revolved around a new angle with new characters entirely and sought to expand the world building. Instead they didn't take their time on the sets IMO. Nearly every set was lacking in the details that made the original feel lived in. This film literally looked like a movie. Then the ending shit on the original.
Marcello Genovese: EXACTLY!!!! You nailed it, my friend. They tried too hard to connect this movie with the original one -- only to respond to the criticisms by saying «You are complaining because you wanted this to be like the first movie. It's not. Get over it.» I mean, seriously! Also, Harrison Ford should have never been in this movie and when they brought back Rachel... and Deckard says «She had green eyes»... that was one of the trashiest cheesiest B-movishest cinematic moment in the past 30 years.
I'd say all analyzes and critic reviews are subjective. Let me think of some examples... There's one film critic I know of who writes good reviews for a lot of poorly made films. Plus a lot of the "good films" that he reviews I'd say about 7/10 times he'll give the film a mixed or negative review. Roger Ebert was quoted saying he hates Gladiator with Russel Crowe. Most of his peers in the mainstream movie review scene said they quite liked it. Critics gave rave reviews for The Last Jedi, but then most of the normal joe viewers hated it, some going as far as to stalk and harass the asian lady online. So I'd say that the OP has every right to enjoy Blade Runner 2049 based off the bullet points he listed. All reviews are subjective.
Starting off with remarks like "Worst sequels ever made. One of the worst movies I've ever seen" doesn't warrant much respect from viewers who disagree with your opinion. In fact, it seems like purposeful argument baiting. It's like farting in someone's face and then trying to mask the smell with perfume. If you want people to not rally up in arms about Blade Runner 2049 maybe lay off the hyperbole. Express your opinion without words that belong to bitter vitriol. You'll find even avid fans of something will lighten up if you do so.
The only good thing about the movie was Dave Bautista who I thought was great in the short (prequel) and in the scene he was in. I also thought the main story was going to be about Joi's sentience (or lack thereof) which gave me the impression in the first 30 minutes of the film that the movie would be good. Then it turned into a shit show. People these days are so desperate to call anything a masterpiece that this film became the martyr of their eagerness. It was terrible (especially the script).
Right on about overeagerness. Just look at the way people fawn over Star Wars ffs. Star Wars wasn't even that great the first time around, and now it's a fucking religion. I think we are living in a civilization in decline.
Frank Rabbit: I agree completely about Bautista. He was criminally underused. He was like a more sympathetic Roy Batty and should have been the main antagonist, rather than the kung-fu woman who seemed to be reprising Famke Janssen's character from Goldeneye.
@PostonClan As an adventure fantasy it was a great movie for kids. What makes me sad is how utterly debased Hollywood is that they would take that franchise and turn it into a giant feminist propaganda tool. It's symptomatic of our entire culture going Woke.
the artistic cinematography is obviously a good thing going for that movie, the cinematographer really nailed it, the aesthetic is perfect for people like me who like vaporwave its really a treat plus I like to talk with other people enthusiastic about this movie, they are talking about it a lot it already is becoming a cult movie, people like his holographic wife and their relationship and when she died it was a really sad moment ,the CGI looks ahead of its time , I was absolutely not bored watching the movie the first time , I was having an experience ,one more thing is that people like the loneliness of the character
This film was paper thin in every way. I'm sad that people find it impressive. The girlfriend was a 1 dimensional character wish fulfillment for incels. No offense, but how old are you?
The incels are the pathetic virgins who are raving about this movie on youtube instead of going out and getting laid (granted all the feminism-indoctrinated females are unapproachable now, so I understand why).
- I really like the look and feel of the film. The progression of the world was not particular to my expectation but was sort of interesting. The VFX was really good. - I kind of enjoyed the concept of a replicant piecing together his memories to convince himeslf that he is a human. It is sad, but, cool. It feels quite a bit underdone. - The scale was brilliant on the big screen. The cinematography was not as complex and masterful as the first film, but, it was pretty good. - Joi as a character and her "relationship" with K was pretty intimate and digusting which is actually the best part of this film.
It's a modern retelling of Pinocchio. ...and that's what I like most about it. ·K is Pinocchio. He goes on a quest to realize his desire to be a "real boy." ·Joi is Jiminy Cricket. She is his conscience and friend and literally travels with him in his pocket. ·Joshi is Mangiafucco, the puppet master. ·Mister Cotton is the Coachman and his child labour camp is the Land of Toys, where unwanted children go and are turned into donkeys -- labour animals. ·Now whether or not Wallace or Deckard is Geppetto, I'm not quite sure. Wallace literally creates the androids just as Geppetto created Pinocchio, but Deckard is believed (for a time) to have fathered K. However, I'm inclined towards Wallace being Geppetto. I think Deckard is a mere red herring with Geppetto like qualities by nature of having actually fathered an android. For instance, at the end of the film, K saves Deckard from the submarine, like Pinocchio saves his father from the belly of the whale. ·The giant Joi hologram is the Blue Fairy ... or in the book is known as, the Fairy with the TURQUOISE Hair. Before meeting her, K learns that he is not Deckard's son, utterly smashing his hope of being human, but he also learns fellow androids believe it's not how you came to exist that makes one human, but the act of dying for what you believe in (or something similar). When he meets the hologram soon after, he is completely dejected, but she inspires K's sense of humanity (and therefore, grants his wish) by calling him a "Good Joe." "Joe" is the name Joi gave him when they discover he is a "real boy" (although, we later learn he is not). In both the film and book, the Blue Fairy promises to turn Pinocchio into a real boy if he is "good." Also, the hologram is an advertisement unable to distinguish between him and a real human -- because there is fundamentally no difference between an android and human. I think in that moment when she calls him a "Good Joe," he decides for himself that he is human. He's not only loved like a human has, but he's willing to die for a cause he believes in. There is also the obligatory Christian reference that litter every heroic story, in this case the immaculate conception of the saviour of a people. The only thing I hate about the film is its blatant existentialism (it's not some cosmic destiny/purpose that defines what you are, but how you behave). It's overdone and extremely dated; however, I can appreciate bad philosophy when it's told through a good story. I can appreciate any story of an allegorical nature that has a message I can understand/decipher.
If you compare it to other 100+ million dollar productions it is great. But if you compare it to "really good" movies it can't stand it's ground. There are so many things that don't work or are a bit off.
You're absolutely right Rob. I admire the original (despite it's flaws) but I absolutely hated 2049; couldn't even bring myself to actually remember what went on, for the most part.
PROS 1. Visuals are interesting and "cleaner" than the first film. But, of course, that reflects how much CGI has become dominant and how sophisticated it is. Also, the world is more expansive. We get to see the world outside of the greater LA area, which one wonders about with the first film (the original ending with Deckard and Rachel notwithstanding). And, we get to see more of the world inside of LA. A nice touch I noticed was the hologram of the ballerina, and how "CCCP" is part of it, reflecting the world of the US vs. USSR, which was a given when the first movie was made. 2 The music, though not Vangelis, sticks close to the genre and doesn't try to go too far out there with something different. That's both its upside and downside. 3. Ryan Gosling's performance as K. As Rob noted, though I don't like Gosling as an actor, he did a very good job in "2049," which surprised me. Ditto for Silvia Hoeks, the actress who played Luv. CONS 1. Far too long, and boring. The story, too, was too much focused on trying to insert Deckard into the story. In my not so humble opinion, Harrison Ford is too old to be doing this shit -- even if they money is good, which is more a reflection on the director and the Hollywood machine trying to squeeze one more performance out of him, which they did with "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" and "The Force Awakens." Consequently, you get paint-by-numbers performances that have to toe a certain cultural line, which you didn't see back in the 70s and 80s, in Ford's heyday. I wholeheartedly agree with Rob that, had the filmmakers gone back to the original PKD story, they could have done something far more interesting, yet sinister, with the themes in the original novel. In comparison, "2049" is too tame, and too formulaic. Rachel was pregnant and gave birth, then died in childbirth? Come on . . . Even I think that's too far-fetched for something dealing with what it means to be human. Lastly, though the "2049" world is interesting, it doesn't have the same film noir feel that the first film had, which is what made it a classic. It's once again an instance where the visuals are making up for a lack of riveting and compelling story. With the original film, the visuals were incidental, and it made you think more. 2. In line with my first comment, I also didn't like how they had to insert more "strong" female leads into former male leads, and then weaken the male leads (with the exception of K). As I said, Harrison Ford didn't need to be in this film. Neither did the Rachel character. Joshi didn't need to be a woman (Bryan in the first film was classic film noir type), Joi was a bit redundant, and Luv didn't need to be there, either. Was Luv trying to be a stand-in for Roy Batty? Also, Niander Wallace was a pale comparison to Tyrell, and smacked too much of the stereotypical "evil genius." Tyrell, though brilliant and devoid of feeling, felt more "human" and believable, in my view. Wallace was more "machine" than anyone else in the story. Mind you, I'm not saying that all females in the "2049" world have to be prostitutes or subalterns. Only that stocking the cast with more females than males smacks too much of the PC world that we now live in, here in 2018.
I can't comment on that really since I like the first Matrix (but not the sequels). Though I don't think it's a perfect film. It has some generic elements and I didn't think the cast were as good as the script and effects.
Rob Ager I like the Matrix well enough, but some people think it’s up with the greatest of all time; nowhere near it in my opinion. But that’s cool they think that.
Personally, I was disappointed. It took me days to decided whether I liked it or not because I felt so let-down. There was no deeper meaning on existentialism and the meaning of love and the concept of "the other" and the spiritual question we're left to ponder. They just kept the plot and robotically expanded on it with very little depth. It was dry. The counter argument is that the visuals were good and some parts were very entertaining. It just felt like a movie made to look like another and relies too heavily on the first. I was so torn between liking a new movie and hating the sequel.
"One of the worst films I've ever seen" Wow, hyperbel much? :D Of course it can't beat the original, let's be real, nothing can and probably never will. But "Blade Runner 2049" comes as close to being a perfect "20+ years later sequel to a cult classic" as there ever was. Are there any other examples that work better than this one? How can this be the "worst", have you heard of "Alien" and seen the last part of that franchise (even made by Ridley Scott himself)? Now THAT'S a piece of shit film that bores you to death, if you wouldn't wake up every 10 minutes to laugh at how ridiculously bad it is.
Riddle me this. iIn the original, the city looked like a colourful mess of neon and people. Why take the decision to deliberately play down those visuals by setting the film post a massive black out?!? The hype leading up to the film led us to believe we would be leaving LA and exploring the rest of the BR universe. 'Cool', I can't wait to see what they do with the aerial shots of the city', I said to myself. However, they decide to have the city more or less blacked out!! Why?! Why have shots of a car flying over a massive future city we can't bloody see?!? My overall pet hate however is Jared bloody Leto!!! How does this over acting ham get parts in movies?!
I liked how the protagonist has a real feeling of existential dread with him, and that it is left to question at the end the substance of what comprised his sense of "self" and how we are all in the same situation ultimately. It helped remind me about the illusory nature of my own "self", which was nice. And it was pretty looking cinematography. Horrible film? Hardly. Huge disappointment...yes. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-7wy5_IUYaqw.html
nice, the only thing that i liked from this movie was the relationship between Gosling and JOI (which was an idea that Ridley Scott came with, not the screenwriters), about everything else it´s just generic and mediocre storytelling, and by the way you should also rip apart the movie Arrival (another garbage made by the same filmmaker) most of the audience who really liked this movie were incels, edgy teenagers (the ones who often go to sites like r/movies and /tv/) and pretentious film critics/youtubers who doesn´t know shit about filmmaking
That just proves that the scriptwriters don't know shit. That was one of the more engaging parts of the script (though Joi was still a bit too incel wish fulfillment).
I hated the film aswell. For so many reasons, from the endless subplots that go nowhere, to the unnecessary nudity and gratuitous violence, the fact that they came up with a backstory to literally destroy and restart the entire aesthetic of the Blade Runner universe which is still to this day the best ever put to screen (so why change it?). The whole Rachel scene and trying to say she was programmed to love Deckard just completely shits on the themes of the first film that they could overcome the adversity and be together. I thought the cinematography was so flat and dull. Just having occassional vibrant colours doesn't make it good. The love story with Joi being the biggest rip off of Her, but as I said it's only one of the many subplots instead of chosing a single plot (per character) to be the focus of the film like the original. I could go on, but I will mention the one thing I liked. I really liked the idea of the case K is investigating spawning from a replicant having a child. I just wish that the whole film was refocused just on that case. And that it's never told who the parents were, but a bit of a tease for fans that would want to believe it was Rachel and Deckard. I loved the vintage photo he finds of Rachel in front of a car that has a super 70s aesthetic. One of the few visual designs i enjoyed in the film. Where I'd describe the original as beautiful, poetic, tragic noir film.. I'd describe 2049 as gratuitous, uninspired, convulted action film.
Blade Runner 2049 was an ill-conceived and unfortunate production. Doomed from its inception, it merely highlights HOW NOT to go into Production. Bad story, bad script, bad judgement. Followed by bad acting, and CGI! The SAVIOR of bad cinematography. *With NO Story - it explores how to get you to part with your money. Shafted at the box-office!*
The acting job of Ryan Gosling is phenomenal and in my opinion surpasses anyone in BR with the exception of Rutger Hauer. His relationship with Joi is interesting, novel, believable, and emotionally compelling (far more than Deckard/Rachel) while extending and expanding the best/deepest themes/questions of BR. Most of the characters are interesting and well-acted, and a few characters are flat out amazing (Sapper Morton and Luv I found fascinating and I wanted more of each). It is beautiful to look at (thank you Mr. Deakins). The music is not as good as Vangelis (and for my money, absolutely nothing could be); but it does effectively (and beautifully in its own way) echo V's music without being derivative, and manages to be its own score, while still fitting alongside BR. That's most impressive. My heart broke when Joi died; it provoked an emotional response, the highest praise for a movie. I agree that there were problems: Deckard wasn't necessary in this movie and Harrison Ford sucked. The fistfight was stupid Hollywood boilerplate in an otherwise inventive movie. I found the MacGuffin of "who's the child?" to be weak. But did these things ruin it irrevocably? With so many other good things going for it, I would say no.
Gosling is good in it, is he as good as Ford's original Deckard, not a chance, but he is very good. Deckard was more of an extended cameo in this one, but I think it was one of his best performances in a long time. It's K's movie and Gosling carries it well. I agree with the stupid fistfight and chase at the end, and the third act after they snatch Deckard was completely poo with the French woman and Mackenzie Davies who is the worst modern actress, luckily however it was one of the rare movies that seem to redeem itself with a very good ending
every single aspect of the movie seemed forced and contrived. yes, the first movie had a "multi-racial" cast. but this one seemed contrived, and forced, and gimmicky. the original had robot prostitues. but 2049's "prostitute-aspect" seemed contrived and gimmicky. like it was an add-on. the "grit" and "grime" of the original felt genuine. the "grit" and "grime" of 2029 felt hollywood-polished. i guess that's my over-all reaction to this movie. it just seemed so "hollywood-polished". what all modern movies suffer from: over-production.
What you said reminds me of what I get to hear when I say that I did not like the Matrix movies (no, not even the first one), did not like the new Star Wars movies, did not like the new Star Trek movies, did not like those stupid "Panem" movies, etc... people don't want to hear my opinion (not really) - instead they tell me that I am a communist / sexist / racist / chauvinist (you name it) and that I just "don't get it" (whatever "it" is supposed to be)... We have reached a point where people yell at each other in all-caps for the most random shit- movies just being one of them.
I love the original movie, but I hate BladeRunner 2049. The best parts of the movie was shown in the trailer. I don't like Ryan Gosling, I don't like to see Harrison Ford as an "action star" in the age of 75, I don't like all the plot holes. I miss somebody like Roy Batty in this movie, Jared Leto was acting like a stupid hipster. This movie was a big dissapointment for me.
I'm glad I am not alone in hating this movie. Perhaps the thing I hated most in 2049 is that its premise negates the Final Cut version of the original Blade Runner, restoring the silly happy ending that production insisted stitching to its otherwise amazing finale. The good thing about 2049 is that it flopped so hard nobody will ever try to do another sequel. And about movies people think are masterpieces and get upset when you tell them they are not: try to criticize Interstellar! It shares several traits with Blade Runner 2049 (great visuals, great soundtrack, some good actors, some really bad actors, absolutely bad plot, etc) but it's naively considered a masterpiece by an impressive amount of angry people
Blade Runner 2049 would have been good if it eliminated Harrison Ford’s character. It didn’t need to have a connection to the previous film other than being set in the same universe. The visuals are ok, but they weren’t like the first flick. They never wowed me since CGI is so common in films these days it takes quite more than that to amaze me. Ryan Gosling’s performance in the movie was alright, it sucks that he died in the end. Not really invested in watching a potential sequel that’ll only be meh. But Ryan Gosling, Indiana Jones and some “cool” special effects can’t save this film in my eyes. It wasn’t great, just decent in comparison to the other garbage that appeared in theaters last year.
A lot of people here aren't going very deep into it (mostly talking about cinematography and all that), but the film really moved me personally. I respect your opinion, Rob, and I apologize if my post feels like a ramble, but I hope I end up touching on what really make this movie worthwhile To me, the film is about K's struggle with individuality and the question of the soul (whether a soul is inherent or if someone has to earn it). The inclusion of Nabokov's Pale Fire emphasizes this because it has similar themes of a character supposing they have a spiritual connection with someone and finding that they were wrong. K thinks that he is the replicant who was born, and therefore the one with a soul. He thinks he is special, the chosen one, etc., only to find out that he isn't. What I really like about this movie is how he continues on despite this blow to his ego. Critics talk about how the Replicant Revolution subplot is cliche and doesn't go anywhere, but I see it as a way of showing K's pursuit of individuality. The irony being that the Revolutionaries try to prove their humanity by becoming a part of a group, whereas K becomes truly human by following his own path. The suggestion at the end being that he has earned his humanity (i.e. his soul) by moving beyond the egotistical ideas of "the chosen one" or being a part of a "movement" and choosing his own destiny. He accomplishes way more than the silly Revolutionaries because of his Will to Power and ends up dying a much more noble death, therefore becoming the "special" person through his actions instead of through his birth.
I don't see what people liked about Blade Runner 2049. It was less subtle than the original, had bad villains, wasted Harrison Ford (even though he was primarily brought back for fandom's sake), had a less interesting protagonist, and was paced in a way that felt like everyone is deliberately walking as slow as possible to pad out the running time. The cinematography is great, but that means nothing to me when the film is so boring and hollow.
The original Blade Runner will never be equalled, as with the original Alien and Terminator and The Thing. Blade Runner 2049 was a mixed bag, it had some good elements such as Gosling and Ford and the art design was ok, but the plot was dull.
The idea of style over substance is well deserved here. The measure of a film (for me) would I.watch it again...no...would I watch the original (I still do) it pretended to be the sum of its parts, characters that didn't convince (how the hell does Jared Leto get away with it) poor script that on the surface tried to come across as deep and meaningful was trite and dirivitive. It really was Poor, and those who claim it as a classic have zero critical thinking skills and have not watched enough films.
They killed one of the most important characters from the original. The City! This L.A. 2049 is dull and dead. The story, the dialog, the direction, ... Uninspired!
I love the Cyberpunk subgenre but I feel few properties treat it with the seriousness and realism of Bladerunner. With the original Bladerunner I wanted to see and explore more of future LA but budgetary and technological restrictions meants much of the film is shot very tight on long lenses to save on building/dressing larger sets. This is an area that Bladerunner 2049 improves on. With wider, more open shots, we got to experience far more of the setting. It's my favourite futuristic city portrayed on screen.
Yea I didn’t get the irrational behavior to your negative review, I personally liked it and find it entertaining, and didn’t bother me that you didn’t, I do respect your opinion, more so then most critics, and you might be right in disliking it, but I personally believe it’s a worthwhile movie.
I really hope you are sincere and not just baiting... The original BR is my fave movie, I felt so happy after seeing 2049 that it was done so well. If you don't like it fair enough. I personally loved the story and the direction it went, found K's journey to be interesting and liked the further exploration of memories. Liked Ford's performance as well and the way he struggles to say Rachel's name. K's relationship with Joi I found to be very touching and found myself wondering how I could care so much about a virtual gf haha. I don't want to go on too much but the story overall tied up I found very satisfying. Although it was a crazy coincidence that she had implanted that memory into K and he just happened to find her mum's grave. I guess she was responsible for planting memories in all the blade runners or something and knew it would happen eventually. Also loved the cinematography, score and some dis Ryan Gosling but I loved him. I think the emotions he tries to hide make sense like Arnie being the terminator.
Wallace character. The blind watchmaker, "God-complex" (maybe you can comment on if he has narcissistic personality disorder) Suitably dark, good Milton-based dialogue well delivered, a strong performance from Jared Leto IMHO. Is he Tyrell's offspring or clone?
Logically, they are mutually exclusive. A person's descendant is the heir of their estate. If Wallace was the clone/offspring of Tyrell, he would have already owned the company after his father was murdered.
Nephew wouldn't necessarily automatically inherit Tyrell Corp. Nor grandson. But I take your point. If the will stipulates an offspring shall not inherit the estate, then they won't. Since cloning isn't governed by legal precedents as yet, we will put that in the maybe pile... Gotta love these Sci-Fi hypotheticals... :D
I didn't particularly care for the plot of characters but Roger Deakins' cinetamography was nice. Also, is there a link to that Oliver Stone interview about Natural Born Killers? I was also underwhelmed by that movie so maybe there's something I just didn't get.
Hi Rob, I did not like the movie so you might disqualify me... But the only thing that it made me feel was a sense of shattered dreams in the scene with the broken Elvis scene, with Rachael dead not because of expiration date but in childbirth, Deckerd more or less revealed to be a replicant in the Olmos scene, not dead but broken. I also found interesting the writing on the Maggot Farm reading in Russian Tselina which was the soviet program for development and resettlement to turn the lands into a major agriculture producing region after ww2. Maybe there also things in Chinese/Japanese which throwback to some trivia but I cannot comment about that. Also the death of K (ok,ok ... Joseph K from Kafka and Rachael from the old testament..) made me laugh when they started playing Tears in the Rain. What a manipulative cheap shot. But look I might have liked this movie more if It was for Alien Covenant (which i despise with a passion), which had some of the same people involved.
well it been a while since i saw the movie but I like that fakeness of Joi..that she is just a soulless product made to make you feel good ... and i like the ending k chooses not to kill Deckard and instead help him reach his daughter resulting in him dying a a real man and not a machine
What's good about it? Of the top of my head: -The strong cinematic language of the film, allthough it is very different from the original -The score, which is absolutely overwhelming, but again does something different and comes back to the original only at one crucial point in the film ("Tears in Rain"), when it is appropriate -The special effects (the miniatures are a nice hommage and still work better than going completely CGI, but when they do CG it is flawless, still the best example of de-aging to date when you see young Rachel and also the "merging" scene is groundbreaking) -The acting and casting in general (probably the best use of Gosling since "Only God Forgives" and they even managed to make Jared Leto work, which hasn't happened a lot lately, but I really love his Steve Jobs version compared to Tyrell's more Bill Gates like figure) -The use of a strong female cast (withtout making it feel like pandering as the Disney company always does), they just are best for their respective roles and do an incredible job -The way they included Harrison Ford, which to be honest, wasn't necessary if you concive a sequel in this word, but doing so takes balls and they absolutely pulled it off (he also seems to be into it, which he rarely is anymore, so this makes me very happy) -The way they deal with the question if Deckard is a Rep or not, the "Yes... No...?" by Leto gives me goosebumbs everytime -The way they expand on the subject matter and questions of the first film (Reps are working, loving and openly living in this world now and have to face different obstacles) -The plot twists and turns (I was expecting the movie to dance around the question wether Gosling is a Rep or not, for at least the majority of the film, if not making that the final question yet again, but they just get rid of that in the very first scene and offer something new completely) -The final image of Deckard extending his hand to his daughter, as Roy once extended his hand to save him (brings me to tears everytime and is a worthy contender for the closing elevator doors in the original)
This is not a good list. This is the kind of list someone makes when they're trying to convince themselves. Most of these good things don't seem that good. I could actually say real good things about the first movie.
@@ThisIsTheRoad ha, well you really aren't interested in my opinion are you? I said I could go into detail talking about the real merits of the first one. If you're interested in learning something go ahead and ask.
The fight between Harrison Ford and Ryan Gosling in the Vegas club w/ the Elvis hologram flickering was pretty cool. That's all I really remember liking.
I don't mind the film, I prefer the first one more. But hey it can't be worse than Mortal Kombat Annihilation & Exorcist 2. At least it wasn't one of those sequels where they add so many action scenes or make it a comedy by adding fart jokes and all that shit.
As for JOI, she was a physical extension of K's character development. What K yearned for, she expressed. Yes at the start his Joi was a blank slate just like that giant ad, but through all their interactions and K's genuine "I'm special" beliefs (which he doesn't have anymore at the bridge scene) his Joi became special, unique and "real" to him specifically, seeing that entire scene as a mirror of Deckard meeting the fake Rachael, which is most evident by the completely black eyes of the giant Joi, where K could've easily had the same exact "I know what's real" line like Deckard did with the fake Rachael there. K wanted her to become like a real girl that really loves him and she slowly did so (as she is programmed to do), so where is the difference once she becomes the thing he desires? Also, in the script she calls him "Jo", while the ad calls him "Joe", alluding to the average Joe. Take off that what you willSo Joi is not some generic sidekick character, she's a window to K's identity and being. K could've said the same exact "I know what's real" line in that bridge scene, just like Deckard did when Wallace implied that his love maybe was programmed.
Your attempt at rationalising every little mundane detail in the movie like everything must have some great meaning sound mm... forced to me. You basically just explained the function of Joi as a product exactly the same way the movie did, basically adding nothing to what we already can see quite obviously in the movie ... Most 2049 fans wishfully wants Joi to be seen as having attained an unprogrammed consciousness but none of you are showing any proper evidence from the movie to prove that ... it remains just wishful thinking hoping the movie can be more emotional rather than dull ...
Glad to hear your provisional thoughts and that more on BR 2049 is due.... I agree, you can be swayed to like a film. Believe it or not I hated Fight Club when I first saw it in the cinema. Thought the ending was unoriginal - it was all in his mind all along.... But after discussion with friends the second viewing and the DVD commentary changed my mind, and I love it now. Will be back in comments later to give 2049 positives...
I was same on Fight Club upon first view. Thought it was pretentious and it took a lot of persuasion from a few friends years later to give it another shot. I guess by that time I was also more attuned to its anti-authoritarian streak as well.
Similar story here I think. If you didn't see Joe Rogan's (I know, I know) interview with Chick Palahniuk, its a very interesting watch... Dudes darker than John Bunting...
This film is pathetic in many ways, mostly for me in the subtext, what it said to my guts. It's profoundly inhumane. - But the good thing about it is that it makes us realize more that a great film can leads to an awful sequel even with a talented filmmaker like Villeneuve and the blessing of the original creator (who lost his mind a few years ago, I agree). So it can make us think carefuly before attempting to make any sequel, reboot or re-craps. Sometime I wonder if people today know how to create something good without destroying it. It's so sad. But we have the 1st one, when Scott still got his head.
I was really excited that day went to see the movie and at the end, I just felt lackluster. I was really confused when coming out of the theatre. Blade Runner IS my favorite movie I fell in love with it all after the first viewing and dozen time of reviewing just couldn't get enough of it, but for this new sequel I can't man, it's a neat production and all that, but the second half of the movie just blew the whole thing and seeing them play with the old stuff from the original just made me emotionless toward the whole.
What I really liked: -goslings character arc: there are too many characters who's journey is them finding out that they are special and really important, the chosen one etc. I loved that it subverted that trope, showing that his character was really unspecial, and what mattered was his actions. - The cinematography, production design and special effects were all exceptional, at least on a technical basis. I think deakins out did himself with the colours, moving light and framing. My favourite shot being when K has just seen his girlfriend projection with black eyes call him a "good joe", the colour literally drains from his face, going from pink to blue. It's awesome. - the pacing. I know this is what a lot of people have issues with, but I thought it felt really patient. It was a nice break from the chopping tht you usually see with summer fare. - the acting: everyone gave performances tht really suited their characters. I was shocked to see Harrison ford actually emote, for once.
It is at least 40 minutes to long, however, I liked the way the creator of the perfect Cyborg was more like a cyborg himself. I also liked the way it didnt become the sequel most were hoping for.
The baseline scene perfectly encapsulates the entire film, every single filmmaking element working perfectly together to deliver the narrative. Not just the writing, but the "dropping in" performance delivery, the closing in framing and composition, the context of the used literature, the immaculate sound design and sound mixing with the camera shutter speeding up and the high pitched sound becoming more aggravating and oppresive, the uncomfortable amount of unease and tension achieved through all of this, every single element in perfect tandem. Perfect execution. K's full baseline is an excerpt from the third canto of Vladimir Nabokov's Pale Fire. The book tells a story of a man who sees a surreal fountain in his near death "dream" and later discovers a precise description of that exact fountain in a paper. He takes it as some important cosmic sign and tries to get in touch with the author, but it turns out she's already dead and the poem was actually misprinted (fountain instead of mountain). Same as the "you're not special" theme in the narrative of the film, like K believed that he was indeed special. When he first reads the baseline in its entirety at the beginning of the test it establishes a baseline to innocuous stimulation, like a lie detector test first asking you banal questions like your name and favorite food. He's then made to recite excerpts of that excerpt after emotionally stimulating questions that may exasperate him, and the response is compared to that of the baseline. The clever part is that sometimes the otherwise innocuous excerpts of excerpts segue into meta questions that would throw the test subject for a loop and make it difficult to cheat. Before having to recite 'cells', they'd ask "when you're not performing your duties do they keep you in a little box" in direct relation to the word 'cells'. Before having to recite 'interlinked', they'd ask "what's it like to hold the hand of someone you love" in direct relation to the word 'interlinked'. He eventually fails when he's so overwhelmed by everything happening on top of him feeling trapped in his miserable life and dubious romantic situation. So it's not a mere reference, it's completely engrained into the films narrative and expands upon it. Also "Pale Fire", as a title, is a reference to a Shakespeare line about how the moon is really just a pale image of the sun, which in BR2049 is a metaphor about how K (or Joi or any replicant/AI really) is viewed as a pale image of a person.
I liked the lighting & certain set designs. I really liked the Officer K and Joy romance. That explored something interesting I feel. Oh the casting was so good in my opinion. Some action scenes were nicely done. But the main story was not interesting. I also missed a score similar to the work from Vangelis. I just heard a lot of Blade Runner like noises. No real themes. I've seen all other films by the Denis Villeneuve. His movies always have a depressing vibe to them.. In this one as well. I was left thinking that is was "good". I wanted it to be great :) My expectations were high.
2/ Just an aside, now that I've shared my thoughts on the movie. People have a tendency to put words in other peoples' mouths and project bad intent onto them. It's this weird knee-jerk reaction that even I've succumbed to a few times, this idea that "Well if you despise the movie this much, then 'obviously' you must also dislike anyone who does enjoy it, right? You must think we're stupid, right?" This childish tendency to assume that a critic is not just "attacking" the work but by extension judging anyone daft enough to like the thing they don't like. And really, just imagine how silly a real world conversation like that would be? "I like that movie!" "Oh... I don't think we can be friends, then. Only stupid people could enjoy a movie I don't." But personally, I do know a few people who do think that way, who'll call you a soyboy and treat you like an escaped mental patient if, for example, you happen to enjoy the recent Star wars movies, and I think many of us know at least a few people like that. So is it any wonder people are so on-edge, walking into things expecting to be judged for liking the things they do? But you know what they say about making assumptions...
Does the oppressive atmospheric immersive experience well. It's meant to hurt your humanity and therefore can be hard to watch. Some interesting themes and I'm a sucker for cyberpunk period pieces. I enjoyed my initial cinema viewing but it's no Blade Runner (2019).
I think the reason for why people, including me, liked Blade Runner 2049 was "Context". I'll explain it this way: In 2016 a First Person Shooter video-game called DOOM was released and MANY people liked it, including myself. Many and I consider it the greatest experience we've had in gaming in over a decade. However, what Doom is though, is a Shooter with game-mechanics literally from the 1990's, well over 20 years ago, but with soooo many military shooters out now, Doom REALLY stood out to the crowd of FPS fans. Back to my point, I think that Blade Runner 2049 isnt necessarily amazing, but, at least personally, I haven't seen anything like it that I can think off at the top of my head, which is why, though I rate it around 7/10, it has left an imprint in my memory for sometime for reasons I cant yet explain. In fact, you could say "Context" was the reason why people really LOVED the original Blade Runner, people saying it's story isn't amazing, but they've also never seen anything like it at the time. I guess part of it was it had a dream-like presentation, rather than other movies being matter-of-fact. Hey Rob, do you have a Patreon? Just asking for a buck from people I'm sure would greatly help the channel. I certainly would, been a fan since the beginning.
Taste is absolutely subjective fortunately. :) Some of the movies on your list from good post millenial were oddities to me while i agreed with a lot of them too. BR2049 has a weak main story. The relationship between K and Joi is interesting. The prospect of AI being able to reproduce really underlines that humans are deprecated at that point, but that is already overexplained in the movie. There are 3 shorts about 15 minutes each that lead into the movie. I think they also influence how you experience the rest of the movie.
What's good about 2049 are its themes. Villeneuve: "Cinema is a mirror on society. Blade Runner is not about tomorrow; it’s about today...if you look at my movies, they are exploring today’s shadows. The first Blade Runner is the biggest dystopian statement of the last half century. I did the follow-up to that, so yes, it’s a dystopian vision of today. Which magnifies all the faults." 2049 is a meta-meditation on itself, the audience and our relationship with the media landscape, just like the original. Kubrick had a similar diagnosis a decade before B.R.: "[A Clockwork Orange] warns against the new psychedelic fascism - the eye-popping, multimedia, quadrasonic, drug-oriented conditioning of human beings by other beings - which many believe will usher in the forfeiture of human citizenship and the beginning of zombiedom." Niander Wallace has built a towering ziggurat which dwarfs Tyrell's immense pyramid - ie the power with which our media channels (internet/mobile/television/gaming/vr) hold sway over humanity has eclipsed that of technology in 1982. There is much fleshing this out (K's sister Ana's simulated life, the holograms of Las Vegas) which we could explore. 2049 doesn't quite strike the balance between art (meaning) & entertainment (the vehicle for meaning). The art is masterful but the story is not fully immersive. The piece of 2049 which really stayed with me was Joi's arc - which I see as a metaphor for consuming pornographic media . "Everything you want to see/hear", Joi is the instant gratification we have access to in the form of porn/webcams/insta models, etc. Joi infantilizes her "Joes" by devoting herself to them (and likewise) without their earning it - truly empty. In the 3-way scene we see how pornographic illusion imbues itself into our physical relationships. There's much much more. The film isn't a masterpiece but it's ideas are as colossal as the invisible chains keeping you glued to your orgy porgy vidya screens right this very moment ;)
but with respect, that is not a new thing to question in a film. The movie didn't invent the wheel. I don't mean to be a smart ass, but the movie is like a dinner party discussion of existentialism, rather than a proper discussion of it.
Hmm I haven't seen the film since release so I'm unequipped to discuss how effective it's message was (or not). I'll keep that in mind on a second viewing.
The best character dies right at the start, the short story they made about him was WAY better than the film. But... you could argue that the defending of this film is held so dear because something like this only comes around every now and again. Why drag it down when it has some kind of respect? Mybe next time IF the feedback is good they will get it right, we can only hope.
It’s the third in the ‘Weta-wank’ trillogy: Ghost in the shell, Mortal Engines and Blad Runner 2049. I like Weta Workshop but I really hope these three cinematic failures don’t end them, just give them a bloody nose. Although these three films are from different studios they feel like Weta driven films in styling of props, vehicles colour grading, buildings and how long they feel. The new Weta style seems a bit bloated, like films that over stay their welcome which started with ‘Chappie’. No idea how much creative control they have over the directing/scripting but just something I’ve noticed. Maybe a contract hold-over to only be involved in a film that’s obnoxiously long from the Peter Jackson days.
For the visual comparisons with the first one: The monochromatic "sterile" visuals are the entire point of BR2049, to show the bleak empty future after the blackout where nature is practically non existent that is in contrast with the dense, dirty, alive and cluttered setting of the original. The original was mostly filmed at night, this was mostly filmed in a day. It would make no sense for this film to look extremely colorful and dense, it would make no sense to fill the streets with thousands of extras, it would make no sense to shoot it on grainy film, it would make no sense to make it seem "alive" and developed when everything in it is basically dead. It's sad that people think that every film should be as vibrant and "pretty" as possible no matter what the narrative is about. If you think the point of the first one was just to make it as "so pretty and DENSE" as possible just because then you're not worth of that film also
Just discovered your channel and just started your video. So re: someone who doesn't like what you like: when BR first came out, Siskel & Ebert hated it. I loved them and I loved BR. I thought they were crazy but I still watched their show religiously until it was cancelled. I still love BR. And I like BG2049, and look forward to seeing hearing your thoughts on it.
In my personal case I get bored of movies and series in general by now and that doesnt mean that there are no good movies around. Anyway thanks to Alejandro Jodorowsky, Andrei Tarkovsky, Stanley Kubrick, David Lynch , David Cronenberg, John Carpenter, Fritz Lang and Frank Oz. :) I nearly stopped watching movies years ago and I found the most deepest, magical and adventurous movie filled with billions of emotions - my life. Even this - my very "own" movie - I let roll out in widescreen but focusing at my true me in order to float to the stars and - most important - beyond.
There's a german guy doing analysis which I usually really appreciate. He loves BR 2049 over the old one. His main point is that Joe K (resembling Kafkas Joseph K from "the process") is the archetypical human of today who's dominated and de-humanized by artificial intelligence and algorhithms. In this capitalist nightmare he's doomed to consume while being consumed himself, his dreams and desires. Here's the video: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ASm166cBCdED.htmlon't know, if that changes something for you. Anyway, nice idea with that challenge. I'm always interested in what makes bad films really bad. With this movie I found myself telling me that "Oh, there must be something there, please don't suck, gimme something good", but it didn't happen. I had not that wide vision like the critic I cited. I just found it a series of wannabe deep shit in the emotional style of soap opera with the discussion skills of Cathy Newman: "So you're saying that Replicants are ... So you're saying that money makers ... So you're saying that male elite is dominating society sending woman out to fight and do that hard work?"
I hated the movie the first time I watched it; found it bland and boring. But I've been reading up on reviews and watched some YT analyses, rewatched it and given it some thought and I've come to realize it *is* movie with a lot of merit and subtext. K's journey from paranoid android to fully realized personhood, the nightmare vision of dystopian corporatism, the closing arc of Deckard's growth, the absolutely demonic nature of Wallace, the biblical recurrence of the replicant uprising, the strange electronic music, the unbroken ambiance and sound design of its world-building, all of this was top notch. You can tell Harrison Ford cared a lot deeper about his performance in this than in 'The Force Awakens', which I felt he phoned in. Lastly, the direction by Willy was impeccably cool and assertive. I still have no qualms with viewers like Mr. Ager who still think this is a slack and dull movie though. In many ways it is.
I'm starting to understand your intro take on different opinions on film. I couldn't finish mad max, and I should give it a chance again, but something about it just didn't intrigue me. So I get it. I'm actually curious why you don't like 2049. I understand it's not personal. I find the things you did enjoy my fav parts & the rest I was just fanboying over. I love the lights, rain, vehicles, etc. I understand you thought it was more bland & I can see that, but I didn't think that initially, but I see why you see it that way. It does have odd shots that are pure orange & pure whites in sterile places. I get it.
Atmosphere - obviously. Strongest element of the movie. Set Design. - it's subtler than you think, for instance: Wood and water are shown to be rare resources in the future, however Wallace being a titan of industry, his whole pyramid is full of water, and the steps are from wood. Sex scene - it's more interesting than most sex scenes. The music - Subjective, but I dug it. For the Dystopia it's going for, it's strange. I like the idea that K knows he's not real and that Deckard is not his father, nonetheless he chooses to save him. Even tho he's not human, his actions are humane. And i love the idea that we follow the NOT chosen one. The cinematography is clean cut. I like the idea that K knows Joi is not real, nonetheless he chooses to roll with it. I like the idea that it's totally polarizing. You either love it or you hate it. However, love it or hate it, objectively it's great. I like the flying car. I like the pistols and the idea that they're just regular pistols, not futuristic laser ones or something. The message being, we don't need to update our weapons, we've already perfected the means of killing each other. I like it cause of it's concepts, and because it doesn't feel like SciFICTION but rather an eventuality we're all going towards. It's a Style over Substance movie. And that's fine.
based on your opinions, I'm gonna avoid that movie like a dose of crabs, ha ha, I usually watch those kinds of movies when they have run their course and I might just catch it casually on TV, I saw "Eyes Wide Shut" for the first time on TV actually, and I thought it was just a crap movie about a married couple and stuff, I even thought it was a chick flick, until it started building up, by the end of the movie, I was gob-smacked, and quite blown away, I like movies to surprise me that way, and I know nothing about it beforehand, I never go to the cinema, but I remember when I was younger, and we would go to the cinema, and, even if the film was crap, we would still say it was great, coz we had to pay for it, ha ha, "The Incredible Melting Man", ha ha
Rob, you won't get an argument from me. I liked - that's all - liked the technical level of the movie, liked the visual and sound design, but was incredibly disappointed by the drops in the story line. Promises not kept, build-ups to nothing, non-sequiturs, wasted use of Sean Young and Harrison Ford, wimpy confrontations like that beautiful killer gal who just gets choked out. Yawn... with some tears. I doubt I'll ever see it again, though I'm sure I'll keep rewatching #1 many times. You might want to comment on the 3 prequels. I thought they were all great and worth lengthening into features.
I'm a big fan of scifi. As a long time fan of the transformers franchise and the Star Wars movies (although the old ones bore me to tears, I guess people love them only for the nostalgia) I thought this would be right up my alley. So naturally I got tricked to watching this my movie by a friend who said I'd love it. And oh my goodness. I was sooo ready to fall asleep. All those droning synthesizers were something I couldn't stand (if it's a scifi epic, now where's the orchestra?). And I was expecting all these cool futuristic gadgets and instead everything was in ruins and bleak through the whole movie. Plus, you'd expect a movie with stars like Leto and Gosling to be sexy but instead we got way too much screen time for this old fart Harrison Ford. I was so hoping to get rewarded with an epic space battle at the end of the movie but instead we just got some stupid bitch in a bubble.
