Blade Runner 2049 (2017) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
1,889 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Give Us A Film Please Not A Franchise/Universe/Prequel
dpk-1218924 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
My boyfriend and I watched Blade Runner 2049 the sequel to Blade Runner (1982) on Friday morning at the local cinema. Perhaps we should have opted to watch it in 3D because the shots were wide and there was quite a bit of scenery that was a work of art.

With that said, I felt as if Blade Runner is trying to create a sequel for itself more than offer the viewer a film. There are more questions created than answers are given. The 'bad guy' is still out there, his scheme is still intact and on the other side an army has amassed and is ready to strike. We are told about the army, but nothing has happened yet.

Problem is I paid to watch a film and I want a beginning, middle and an end. I didn't at for the director to tell me I have to come back next year.

Again, the images on the screen were rich and I wish I can satisfy my boyfriend like Luv and Joi can, but otherwise we are a little tired of Marvel universe, Star Wars remakes and Batman sequels. Please give us a good film.
352 out of 509 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Visually stunning but lacks mystique, emotional depth & musicality
maximbouts23 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Being a hardcore Blade Runner and science fiction fanatic, I felt deeply compelled to write this review. I love Ridley Scott's original 1982 Sci-Fi classic. It is my all-time favorite movie. It had mystique and infused my imagination. It was a unique experience; hypnotic & surreal. The sequel, not so much!

My initial reaction of BR 2049 was that it's a gorgeous film. I was mesmerized by the striking cinematography and couldn't take my eyes off the screen. I will go as far saying that it's one of the most beautiful films I've ever seen. The rich visuals are so glaring it's hard to take it all in and grasp what you are seeing. From the opening shot you know you're in Blade Runner world. The overall look is instantly relatable to the first film and it's an amazing continuation in that regard. Also, the acting was excellent. The entire cast did a great job. However, once I settled into the film I realized that it is mainly a self-indulgent visual feast containing a weak story that lacks clarity & wisdom. There are obvious cliché moments and in certain aspects the story is comical and naive. The movie delves into complex philosophical themes and asks important questions but seldom explores them. It's all over the place. You get the sense that the film is not sure what it wants to be? It's clearly style over substance. Lots of homage is paid to the original through awesome images but the plot is paper-thin with a few subplots & twists added to make it seem intelligent. But is it? Well, not really! I think the movie tries too hard to be smart but fails to engage due to its long running time & fuzzy story/script, which may end up confusing and distancing the viewer.

BR 2049 has been most widely criticized for its length, and rightly so. It's overly long with some unnecessary scenes & dialogue whereas the first film was more subtle. BR1 was also slow-paced but in a different way. It had suspense and gradual progression to climax whereas BR2 is forced and even distracting at times. I love slow-paced films don't get me wrong! I can watch a film all day as long as it leads to a point and has tension. Certain films are deliberately made slow to establish a specific mood (e.g. Kubrick & Tarkovsky films). They draw you inside the film and make you feel like you're part of it. BR1 does this perfectly while the sequel is stretched out for the wrong reasons. It comes across as an excuse to showcase impressive visuals which is great if it moves the story along but not for the fun of it. BR1 had long takes and brief dialogue but it drove the story along smoothly and its characters behaved realistically. There was a seamless flow to it. It's humorous how BR2 tried to mimic this technique from BR1 yet failed because its characters talk & move super slowly unlike real life.

Although it's a visually stunning film, I found it to be almost void of emotions and musicality. The characters were uninteresting and lacked emotional depth. In other words, I didn't care about them. I was not sure about any of the characters' motivations. In the first film, all the characters shined with charismatic personalities. They were unique in their own way and I truly cared about them. They embodied everything that makes us human. This was a vital element that made the original so special. BR2 on the other hand has sad and forgettable characters. It is a very sad film whereas the original had moments of happiness to mix up feelings and lighten the mood, which made it more realistic.

The music in BR 2049 was the biggest let down for me. It just didn't make sense because there was no music. A strange mix of very loud noises with faint echoes of original Vangelis tones interlaced (I listened to the entire score to be sure!). The musical score by Vangelis in the first film was one of the key elements that made the original my favorite film of all-time. I love atmospheric films that are visually & musically driven to tell the story. The music creates different feelings that make you fantasize. It makes you feel the movie and think about it long after it's over. The music in BR1 was incredible. It set the tone of the film perfectly. There was a haunting eerie atmosphere that along with the images created a hypnotic feel. Vangelis mostly used an electronic sound but he also incorporated piano & saxophone for melancholic effect. Not so in BR2. They messed up enormously this time. I know it's not possible to recreate Vangelis but they could have at least tried to create similarly-styled music by using the original score as a foundation. Even better, they could have perhaps made a completely original soundtrack all together. Blade Runner is an atmospheric film that is about feel and therefore must have a perfect music to visual ratio. Sure, they brought back one Vangelis theme for nostalgia but it wasn't enough.

To conclude, I enjoyed the film but unfortunately cannot say I loved it. I simply cannot fathom the enormous praise given by critics & moviegoers. I don't think they understood what made the first film brilliant. BR 2049 does contain the main elements required for a true Sci-Fi film but fell flat at further exploring its themes. The original film on the other hand is a masterpiece. It felt spiritual & spellbinding whilst the sequel did not. Should you go see it? Yes. I would still recommend fans and anyone curious to go see this film in theaters despite its evident flaws. But as a huge fan it left me disappointed. Maybe I had high expectations!

I gave it a generous 7/10
302 out of 437 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The good and the bad
flu-0724813 October 2017
As a fan of Blade Runner I was both looking forward to this and dreading it.

Could it be good? Sequels always suck. Just look at Star Wars or Transformers or The hangover. then again, there are a couple of good ones like Godfather or Kill Bill.

This film is beautiful. The scenes, the gloom, the wastelands are all very well done. The holograms and sets are amazing. The women are hot. As a man seeing women so thin, so beautiful, flaunting their bodies in short skirts makes me feel alive. Harrison Ford still has it and can be intense. I also love the dog!

With that said, the story seems unneeded. There is no reason for it really. Importantly, some of the dialogue seemed trite. I want to ask some question?? Hmm... not so impressive.

Finally, I am scared because they left the door open for another sequel. Gosh man, just end it. I love Blade Runner, but don't make Hangover III again.
169 out of 241 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
I Know Where All The Energy Went
hzv-3844114 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
They say most sequels (and prequels and remakes) are unwanted and inferior and, in my opinion, they are correct.

I still shelled out the quids for Blade Runner 2049 because I remember watching it on video years ago and recall having a sense of wonder and amazement. I even proceeded to read the book by Philip K Dick shortly after.

At over two and a half hours of it this is a true accomplishment: the graphics and scenes and landscape and colours are amazing and evocative. With that said there is a lot more daylight in this film than in the prequel. For some reason the colour orange seems dominant, which is fine perhaps they wanted to impress on us that the setting is a desert and deserted, but overall the futuristic and cyberpunk land is intact.. and beautiful.

Also beautiful are the women. The hooker reminded me of the hooker in Eyes Wide Shut and she was hot. The girlfriend was hot and even the chief's legs were hot even though I don't go for women with short hair. As a man, the shorter the skirt the more attractive the lady and this film did a stellar job of making me feel happy in that respect, heck, I would marry the giant advertisement if I could.

Where the story lost me and disappointed was its ending and beginning. Why kill the man who is nothing but a farmer and has been at it for 30 years? Why end the film with having killed an operative, but leaving the arch fiend and his business interests intact and ongoing? I sense yet another sequel coming...
221 out of 323 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Commits All The Mistakes Of Original Blade Runner's Theatrical Version
tef-2922621 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
All the problems with the original theatrical version of Blade Runner, which Scott Ridley fought against are here. Ridley has become the studio system.

Blade Runner 2049, likely the least desired sequel in history, is making Philip K Dick roll in his grave. What is the point of this almost three hour-long sequel? Of course, it is to continue the film industry's addiction to sequels and make cash. That is it.

Let me get this straight: the world is devastated and anyone who is anybody moves off-world, but people are living in spacious luxury in a casino drinking fine aged Scotch? There is beautiful white snow falling from the skies and sexy call girls approach you on the street? This world is for schmucks, but the main character has an artificial girlfriend with legs to die for waiting at home for him making dinner and giving him threesome sex? Someone book me a ticket back from off-world to Earth please!

This was the kind of logical misstep that Ridley fought against when the studio released BR to cinemas with a gorgeous drive through the countryside at the end of the original. It makes no sense.

Face it, this is the film that should not exist and by watching all these 'franchise' films we feed the stupidity of Hollywood.

BR2049 is the same as the last 10 marvel films, the next ten Star Wars films and the Ghostbusters sequel, but is prettier and more visual.
266 out of 394 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
So Much About This Reminds One Of The Force Awakens (Star Wars)
oqw-7885015 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
The title says it. Here goes: Prior to release the critiques are overwhelmingly positive and make out the sequel to be the second coming! It turns out there is either payola going on or the studio has photos of some people.

The day before and on the day of release IMDb fills up with perfect 'viewer' reviews of said film propelling the sequel to IMDb 250 list. All these, er, reviewers believe this film is perfection with not even a speck of imperfection. 10/10 i.e. nothing at all could be in any way better! The sequel was in actuality unrequested and unwanted.

The sequel sets itself up for even more sequels with unresolved or cliff hanger plots.

I do have to confess that I found the actresses in 2049 sexy and worth fantasizing about. Those were the real tens here and so I cannot give BR2049 a mere 1, which is something TFA deserves. Obviously Ridley and Villeneuve are better crew than JJ Abrams and whoever Disney hires, but it has to be said that BR2049 was a disappointment and I wish it were not made. The bar was set so high to begin with.
244 out of 366 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Unfortunately This Shows That Ridley Is Officially Now A Hollywood Hack In The Same League As JJ Abrams, Paul Feig, etc.
lat-0807728 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
This was a disappointing sequel that may very well break the camel's back. For it is not just a poor and boring sequel, but also destroys - really disrupts and breaks - the Blade Runner mythos.

If I were the monthly new Marvel movie, the annual ritual of a stupid Star Wars film or the next fifteen Justice League whatever films I would be very worried.

Blade Runner 2049 is telling people definitively that these sequels are not made for reason of meaning, entertainment, purpose or a fun time. They are stupidly overwrought, prequel-crushing accounting ledger lines.

Ridley destroyed Alien and now is dismantling Blade Runner. Villeneuve had three hours to do something and did not. This film addresses nothing and resolves nothing. In fact, they took our money and reached zero conclusions. Replicants were made with a uterus in the factory and can have babies (despite the later models' shelf lives)? How? Never mind. The corporation was banned, but another like it and worse was born. Erm, OK. The tycoon megalomaniac is out there. Well, fine. This is a post apocalyptic world? yeah, which is why there are grand buildings with no one around full of beautiful space, there is clean snow falling and you can get beautiful attractive hookers who approach you for a good time.

I want to thank my dear girlfriend for being so kind as to sit through three hours of this joke with me. She is so noble. Otherwise, this film was so silly that it even tarnishes the original. It should not have been done. It will probably wake up people to skip the next Star Wars, Star Trek, Marvel whatever, Justice League, Lego Movie 18, whatever.

A few cool technologies, sexy desirable women with gorgeous eyes and lovable legs and nothing else whatsoever except loads of damage to Blade Runner.
285 out of 430 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Blade Runner 2049 - Movie Review: A New-Age Sci-Fi Classic
kjproulx6 October 2017
For film fanatics like myself, Blade Runner 2049 is a great film for people to see, regardless if they've witnessed the original or not. On the other hand, if you've never seen the original Blade Runner and are just a casual moviegoer that have thought of the promotion for this film as being an action-packed thrill ride, then I'd have to warn to stay far away from this near three hour motion picture. It's very hard to review this film without getting into specific plot details, but that's exactly what makes this film worth the price of admission alone. For nearly every reason a film fan should be excited about a movie, here is why Blade Runner 2049 is a must see as soon as possible.

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

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

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

In the end, this movie aims to impress Sci-Fi fans across the world, but I feel as though the people who will be looking back on this as a possible classic or at least one of the best sequels ever made, are those who've had the pleasure of indulging in the greatness that is 1982's Blade Runner. I don't say this about films very often, especially when talking about sequels, but I haven't been this immersed in a theatrical experience in quite some time. This is definitely a superior film than the original, it's one of the best films of 2017, and I'll be revisiting it very soon. Blade Runner 2049 is getting a lot of praise and awards consideration from critics and filmgoers across the world, and every bit of it is deserved. Aside from being very long, this is pretty much a perfect film if you don't try to nitpick how it connects and certain questions that aren't blatantly answered. If you know what type of film you're in for, or you've at least seen the original and enjoyed it, I can't recommend this movie enough.
597 out of 940 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
My Advice For Hollywood BR2049 Edition
rgf-558998 October 2017
I have noticed a trend that is choking Hollywood and mainstream film making and I would like to address it. Hollywood is making money now, but slowly and surely the movie watching public is awakening to what is happening and this is going to spell trouble for Hollywood. So, after coming back from Blade Runner this evening I want to make the following points: 1- Not every film needs a sequel 9or prequel or remake or whatever). The first Blade Runner was indeed impressive (if we ignore the happy ending and unicorn of the theatrical release). It was supported by a Dick novel and great acting by the likes of Rutger Hauer and Edward James Olmos. Vangelis' score was peerless and so was the vision of the future. yet, did it beg for a sequel? No, absolutely no. BR 2049 has fantastic, truly superb, CGI, that is large and impressive, but that is all it has going for it.

2- Length. Directors have been making films longer and longer. This may be warranted here and there, but let me be honest. I dozed off once for 10-15 minutes. Please stop making these films longer and longer. You are not Kurosawa and this is not Seven Samurai.

This is not the worst film of the decade (that award probably goes to The Force Awakens by cover version promoter JJ Abrams just for sheer plagiarism and the studio's lie that it is a sequel while it was a reboot), but other than moments of genius, a good CGI and an underlying important message BR 2049 suffers from too many flaws.

Thanks for reading.
199 out of 302 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Like & Dislike
kzg-520258 August 2018
There were several aspects of this film which I enjoyed. There were several I did not appreciate. It is good to see a film that does not hate on women and shows women as beautiful and alluring. The recent Hollywood trend has been misogynistic and trying to suppress beautiful women and rain hate on nature. This film goes against the grain and allows men to enjoy women and women to enjoy men. It is quite natural. I did not appreciate the obvious commercials. They are called product placements. I already have to put up with too many advertisements and commercials. I do not need to see them in my films.
32 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Joe Walker was either asleep, fired or sent to the corner by Ridley, Denis or the studio honchos
oyw-3345622 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Let me describe the sequence of Blade Runner 2049 for you

Here goes:

Enter the cinema with an overpriced orange juice that is mandatory because in the last couple of years Hollywood has decided it is artsy and de rigueur to make films longer than 2 hours. The lights dim and commercials kick in for 10 minutes. A game for pre-teens wasting daddy's money on mobile phones and plans kicks in. 2 minutes of endorsements for GM trucks (with some guy whose tone is so macho I roll my eyes) follows. Then there is a reminder to get the right debit card to be hip and in. Then the film follows for a whopping 3 hours almost.

You would think that there was a lot happening and we were kept excited. Alas, the only thing that kept me awake was the very periodical appearance of a beautiful eye candy whether real, hologram or laser show version that would keep things exciting.

If it were not for the sexy and lovable women Blade Runner 2049 was inane. Yes, inane. Apparently, not every film needs a sequel, a lesson Hollywood didn't learn from Hangover.

The script was so corny and the words so elementary one would be excused for thinking this is a practical joke. Head of police, yes head of police is told a big lie by a contractor, head of police believes it and all is good. No double checking, no verifying, no details asked no proof required. it is a matter of life and death for the order of the world and, of OK, let's keep rolling guys. The ending was also a joke. A vehicle is drowning and the hero is being drowned but in the last second kills the bad gal and swims back to the vehicle to mount a rescue (for the sequels that will follow). Replicants can have and make babies, but how? Oh well, watch the prequel Blade Runner Rogue Uno, which is coming out in 2020.

At that point all I wanted in life was to buy my own Joi and Luv and go back home.
325 out of 524 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Beautiful Atmosphere and an Interesting Mystery Help Blade Runner 2049 Continue a Classic Story
CANpatbuck36647 October 2017
I've only seen the original Blade Runner once and it was a long time ago. I liked it but I just haven't got around to revisiting it. I mention this because even though I'm not a die-hard fan of Blade Runner, I still found the plot of 2049 engrossing. It's a well put together mystery, I found that they constantly took the plot in unexpected directions and other than the trailer spoiling the return of Deckard, I was always excited about what was going to happen next. The movie pulls an excellent bait and switch at the end that really surprised me. They made the right decision to not repeat the formula of the first one and take the story to a new place. They also create some compelling subplots which is something that few movies get right.

The biggest star of this movie is the cinematography and the excellent work of Roger Deakins. The original was noteworthy with the special environment that Ridley Scott and his creative team brought to the screen. That was continued here if not improved upon. The look of L.A. in 2049 they decided to go with isn't completely distinct but it was a little more understated (I'd compare it to the 2017 Ghost in the Shell but less fantastical). My favourite scene might have been a shootout in a defunct club where the lighting and the background show are turning on and off. I don't hesitate to praise when a movie looks good but this is an exemplary example of using visuals and atmosphere to help build on a strong story.

Blade Runner 2049 returns very few of the characters from the original film but they manage to breathe life into this movie through the new ones they created. Officer K isn't the most lively protagonist but he gets an eye-opening character arc that kept me involved. Deckard doesn't appear till later in the movie but he remains interesting and what they decide to do with him makes his appearance worthwhile. I also really liked some of the smaller supporting characters. Sapper really helps kick off the movie, what Joi represents is extremely emotional and Mariette is so mysterious that her involvement brings up more and more questions. Add in that Niander Wallace and Luv make for pretty menacing villains and you have a pretty well-rounded and fascinating script.

I don't think that the actors/actresses will be the focal point of the awards attention that this movie will get but that doesn't mean there aren't exemplary performances. Gosling is good as K, he's deliberately robotic and he accomplishes a lot through his subtlety. Harrison Ford isn't in the movie as much as I wanted him to be (he's still one of my all-time favourite actors) but he holds up his end. He works with Gosling well and they have a solid rapport. Surprisingly, I really liked Sylvia Hoeks. She stole a lot of her scenes and I thought she was great even acting against a stacked cast. Dave Bautista showed he has a lot more range than people give him credit for. Jared Leto is in a very Jared Leto role (deliberately weird and hard to understand) but he does it well and although he might be a little creepy, the guy is still a great actor. I also want to credit Ana de Armas, she was distinctly warm and she showed a lot more emotion than I had seen from her previously.

There were points in this movie I could have rated this a 9/10 but some small things that I had to dock the movie for. Even with a compelling story, the movie has such a long run time that it couldn't help but drag. There are certain scenes where the movie wants you to really drink in the environment but they could have edited it a little tighter. They also couldn't help but lose me at points through how much artistic flair the utilize. Villenueve is an authority in this area and while I appreciate an artistic approach to this science fiction tale, for me they overdid it a little.

I was surprised how much I ended up liking Blade Runner 2049. I think if you're a big fan of the original, you'll love this to bits. This is successful in bringing in the uninitiated but I think fans will enjoy this even more. I haven't been on board for all of Villenueve's films but this is a good combination of his artistic style with enough of a commercial element for the masses. I'd give this somewhere between an 8-9 but with the extremely long run time, I'll give this an 8/10.
249 out of 404 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Hollywood Kindly Listen Up
clf-978309 October 2017
These are my opinions, but many around here agree with me so please hear me out.

I am not going to pose or be pretentious. I am going to be honest and simply lay it on the line.

Here goes;

The good: I am a Blade runner fanatic. The DVDs (yes, more than one edition) are sitting to my right as I type this. The original was just that: original and deep. The futuristic vision, the subplots and the theme were fantastic. Vangelis' score was once-in-a-life-time. I really liked BR2049's graphics and how big the effects were. The colour palette was impressive and made us feel in awe. I am a man so I like women's skin. beautiful women do it for me. My girlfriend knows it, I know it, my friends know it. Beautiful women make me happy.

The bad: we just do not need any more sequels, prequels and spin offs. We really do not. yet, that is all you are releasing. Even a general favourite like Blade Runner does not need its own sequel. Yes, granted we went for it, but seriously get a grip. We do not believe positive professional reviews anymore. We learnt that lesson with The Force Awakens. Not one professional reviewer mentioned that it is an inferior reboot. Finally, your films are becoming longer and longer. What is with the 2-hour plus movies that have become longer? Couple that with the twenty minutes of commercials (didn't I just pay you? why do I have to pay more with my time?) you force on me I am tempted to stay at home and skip the cinema.

Think about it.
283 out of 468 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Question: How To Make A Sequel?
ohr-103958 November 2017
Warning: Spoilers
The answer? Don't Do It In The First Place!

Who needed a Blade Runner sequel? Nobody! It is like watering the sea. It is not required!! What is wrong with the studios? Everything is either a sequel or a reboot. Boooooring. Find another line of work if you are out of ideas.

As much as this film (Blade Runner 2049) was a relatively good film it still was a sequel, which meant it was boring, silly, disjointed and regardless of all the good reviews was a waste of money. As for professional film reviewers: your job first and foremost is to review for the audience and not to be beholden to studios that offer you free screening. Shame on you.

This film was nice to look at, had a good actor (Gosling) in it and a really hot chick which were factors that drew me in. When I put my bum in the seat though I was bored. Booooring. There is no ending and the beginning makes zero sense! The tycoon is making replicants but is killing the ones already there. Blade Runner is retiring replicants, but they are useful and peaceful. Rachel is back (yup its Boring Wars: the face awakens all over again) via CGI, but why? Nobody knows.
171 out of 278 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
You Go To Hollywood... You Are A Hack
akc-9480918 October 2017
Executive producer Ridley Scott is British and director Denis Villeneuve and main actor Ryan Gosling are Canadians. It makes zero difference. This is a movie made by hacks with terrible writing.

You figure (you hope) that foreigners go to Hollywood and make it better and bring something new to the table. Nope, isn't happening. It proves that these guys are just hacks and the head of the studio is the puppet master. Now I am sure none of these guys are as big a hacks and plagiarists and unoriginal schmucks as Jar jar Abrams, but the arrogance to remake Blade Runner (it needed a sequel like I need my wife to nag some more), the long long long dragging plot and the meaningless and superficial lines had me daydreaming and alternately dozing off.

At least there was a beautiful woman in this film and she had legs I could admire. Since there is 100% chance that there will be a sequel to this (Hollywood is an addict) let's make it about her. What? She was deleted. Oh come on, this is Hollywood. She can come back (as a ghost,as a backup copy, her twin sister is in town, etc.)
84 out of 131 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
High art? Hmm ...
jonaswilmann18 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
"Blade Runner 2049" comes off incredibly long and boring. Not because of the slow pacing – "Blade Runner" had slow pacing too, but had the viewer hypnotized – but because there's no interesting thoughts present and nothing new really. Thematically the movie is exploring the same questions (about being human etc.) as the first movie did 35 years ago. And the few 'new' additions to the Blade Runner universe are totally devoid of originality. Take for instance K's hologram-wife. Not only are those scenes totally unnecessary (that three-way scene, jeez!), but we've seen the concept so many times before (for instance in Spike Jonze's "Her").

Apart from that, the movie is riddled with plot holes and stuff that just don't make very much sense. Tyrell get's killed off by a replicant and his Nexus-7 prototype runs off, shortly after Tyrell Corp rushes a line of replicants with OPEN ENDED lifespans and no other safety device than implanted memories (that didn't work with Rachael). No. Just no.

Furthermore we are told the nexus 9 are programmed to obey. However K lies to his superiors, constantly acts on his own, acts emotionally from early on in the movie. He does not obey at all.

And the revelation of a replicant child being born has people talking about revolution. Robin Wrights Joshi says it will 'break the world'. But how? Rachael was the only replicant able to give birth and Tyrell took that secret with him. Neither the few remaining Nexus 8's or the 9's can give birth – so no, it doesn't break the world. It doesn't break anything. But the movie really wants us to take this very seriously (Hans Zimmer is doing his loudest to make us sit in awe).

And it gets even worse. Later we learn that Jared Leto's ridiculous bad guy Wallace (those monologues!) strives to learn the secret of making replicant babies. But why? That undermines the entire idea of replicants. Tailormade slaves with superhuman ability; strength, intelligence etc. that are controlled by implanted memories. Having replicants make babies the old way would offer zero control of the outcome and the child replicants would have to grow up, go to school, make their own memories. What's the point then? And what's the difference, from just having some people make babies?

A lot of people has called "Blade Runner 2049" 'intellectual sci-fi' and so forth, but I found it to be quite the contrary. The movie forcefully demands you to accept it as highly intelligent art, but if you scratch the surface, you'll find something very different.
261 out of 433 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Stop It. Please Just Stop
zvh-8239714 October 2017
Has this world gone insane? Are you all mad? Is it madness or are your deeds making me feel it is a crazy world? People are blowing each other up, presidents are blatantly lying in people's faces and getting their vote, ministries are making war and being called Ministry Of Defense, companies are polluting the planet and getting richer and on and on and on.

Here comes a sequel for a classic of cinema that is currently rated higher than its original. The professional critics dutifully according it superlative reviews is not a surprise. The weekly release of a new Marvel movie gets the usual high reviews from this bunch, which tells me they are on the take. How does one explain the 10/10 perfect reviews on IMDb? Do these reviewers actually believe this is the absolute immaculate and perfect film with nothing in it that could be improved in any way?? I would accept this world as a more sane place if you tell me this is a case of fake shill reviews paid for by the studio (as happened with Star Wars The Force Awakens and others). That I would believe and (sadly) understand. Otherwise, is there someone who really thinks this sequel is better than the original and is perfect?? This film deserves 2/10 for its images and graphics and not much else. The women are eye candies for sure so add another point, but otherwise the inferior music that goes off for no reason, the non-ending that is surely an attempt to set up more sequels and inane dialogue are a shame to the name Blade Runner.

Were the makers able to get away with using the name because Philip K Dick has died and cannot stop them?
238 out of 394 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Giving Back To Hollywood
bup-531445 November 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Who amongst us has not been entertained and received hours and hours of joy by Hollywood? The big American studios have given us moments of fun, joy and amazement. Thank-you, thank-you, thank-you! you are sirs to us plebs. You are philanthropists to us whores. You are scientists to us thieves.

It is time for us to give back to you (on top of your mansions, liberty to depict brown people as terrorists and freedom to insert as many subtle Jewish references and characters as you want into each film). You are just not appreciated enough. You are just not thanked enough (we know the cinema chains keep all the revenue from the styrof, er I mean popcorn).

I will do my best to give you some masturbatory enjoyment and a respite of heavenly proportions even if it is for a moment as a sign of gratitude. So here goes (feel your climax coming):











How was it? Was it good for you?? And you didn't even have to pay the critics to write hyped reviews or send hourly contractors to spam the web with good reviews. You are welcome madam Kennedy and sirs.

As for BR2049: thank-you very much for this sequel. Your responsiveness to the mass demonstrations, petitions, sit-ins, masses clamoring, begging, cajoling and demanding and finally making it is very appreciated. You are da best!!

The film was NOT boring. The film was NOT too long (it had a read good story) The film had a definite conclusion justifying my paying $15 to watch it. The film all made sense. The film added something to the Blade Runner story, had better music than Vangelis' and of course showed Philip K Dick what he was missing.

Oh yeah!

-Signed: getting ready to watch the next 10 Star Wars sequels/remakes (that will NOT be boring of course)

PS: F originality PPS: FOAD to new ideas PPPS: down and death to creativity
158 out of 261 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Could This Be The Straw That Broke The Camel's Back?
eryrmbqp22 November 2017
Could the unneeded and dreaded sequel to 1982's Blade Runner be the sequel that finally breaks the camel's back and stops people from feeding the Hollywood sequel machine? It well could be.

With the disappointing box office tally despite all the hype and 11/10 payola reviews deployed by obedient critic skin jobs this may finally be the crescendo in the rebellion by audiences that started with rubbish like Ghostbusters 2016, Independence Day Resurgence and other rubbish like Kong 10 (or was that 11?).

What is insane, however, is that this inconclusive, no-ending, clichéd film is currently rated higher than its masterpiece prequel. Are people for real or is there payola on IMDb too? BR2049 had no acting, super silly script, stupid lines like "is your dog real? Why don't you ask it?" (compare to the context in which this was asked about the owl in the original and the sharp answer from Rachel) and people are cluing in that we should stop helping Hollywood be unoriginal.

I know Hollywood has ten silly Star Wars and 6 retarded Marvel films coming out in the next two years, but maybe just maybe BR2049 finally woke up people to support originality instead of stupidity. Sure, I agree that the hologram chick was sexy, but is that enough to go watch a movie that has scavengers throwing an anchor at a flying vehicle and pulling it down while a detective sits inside?

I know the rating for this sequel will cool down and end up somewhere in the 7 range, but people need to stop being douches and not attend boring slugs like Star Wars 8,9,10,11, ... 25 and studios need to stop manipulating reviews and ratings and take a hint from the market which really says it all in the context of BR 2049.
86 out of 137 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
They Just Could Not Leave It Alone
vzt-5722923 October 2017
Like a junkie that just can't stop himself from reaching for the heroin Hollywood executives (all hacks) just.cannot.stop.themselves.from.reaching.for.the.sequel.bottle.

It is quite pathetic and not only a waste of time for the audience, but also occasionally ruins its legendary prequel. Such is the case here. Blade Runner was a fantastic story, based on source material from an accomplished author and mainly designed by a bona fide futurologist who worked on the set extensively. It was original, engrossing, moody, thoughtful and full of action. The new one? Well, let me tell you if it weren't for thin shapely legs on a hologram I would not even give it a 4.

Let's see if this is the year's worst sequel or the coming Star Wars (not that I plan on being a douche and watching that).
197 out of 330 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Bo Bo Bo Bo Borrrring
pwb-3764518 April 2018
My goodness how can you expect an audience to sit through three hours of mind numbing slow-mo contradictory conversations that make no sense and expect people to pay for the privilege.

I guess, we should have known better since it is a sequel.

All that rescued this film was several hard body, super thin, flaunting babes. Yup, those ashamed of the human body, nature and heterosexuality should stay away too. Otherwise, without the chicks the film would be a complete bust.
99 out of 160 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A sleek, expensive and obedient skin-job
stamboulopoulos8 October 2017
Blade Runner (1982) was a happy (yet gloomy) accident, involving: a) a young and ambitious director who fought ferociously with studio executives in order for them to let him fulfill his vision; b) a rising blockbuster star who wanted to prove he can also act in a serious movie; c) a crazy Dutch actor who decided to change the script and improvise one of the most memorable monologues in film history; d) a bunch of talented artists who wanted to make a movie that would look and sound different from anything else we had seen before. And most of all, e) a post-Vietnam turbulent era when Hollywood rebels like Coppola, Scorsese and Cimino were audaciously attempting to reinvent the language of cinema, telling stories that mattered and not caring at all about target audiences and marketing trends. As a result, Blade Runner was a box office failure that slowly became a legend, breaking stereotypes like "good guy kills bad guy at the end" and dealing with existential agony on an almost metaphysical level; always within the context of a gritty corporate dystopia in the near future.

Blade Runner 2049 is none of these things. On the contrary, it's the flawed triumph of a next generation of studio executives, who control the creative process by paying millions to the industry's best of the best, providing they will make something that will take advantage of a successful brand name in order to bring profits to shareholders. If there is one word to describe this movie, it's "replicant". Not the kind of replicant who realizes that "all those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain" as he dies, but a sleek, expensive and obedient skin-job that will try to entertain you and if it succeeds will return as a sequel that will eventually become yet another franchise. I spent 160 minutes of my life watching a pleasant and perfectly constructed piece of nothing, and I didn't care for a moment about any of the characters or a storyline that was designed without the intention to question and redefine a single thing. All its moments have already been lost in my memory, while the original Blade Runner remains vivid in my mind, as if I only saw it yesterday.
677 out of 1,190 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The World Has Eaten A Retard Sandwich
wrt-4722222 October 2017
No, I am not talking about others. I am talking about you. This sequel is currently rated at better and above its prequel, the classic Blade Runner film of 1982. This is partly because so many people are rating it 10/10. That is right: there are so many people here who think this film is god, it is perfect, not a single iota, not a single scene, not a single note of the soundtrack, not a movement of any actor could be any better. it is perfection. I could tell you that this sequel was wholly unneeded, uncalled for and is another Ridley Scott monthly sequel (that guy now has the credibility of a Harrison Ford which is at the same level as Marvel or Disney's rapid fire crap output) , but no we have hundreds of people here who think this sequel is better than their mothers and perfect. no wonder people are voting for heads of state that laugh at them, steal their money, fart in their faces with constant lies and then.. get applause, votes and adoration. It is what people deserve. Just look at the bad jokes running Poland, Hungary, Turkey, dump called USA or Russia. never mind the jokester in Japan or the criminal in Israel.

Blade Runner 2049 (yup only 30 years away) has all the nice post apocalyptic unexplained feeling, flying cars, replicants (mass produced) and humans occupying space already (yup 10/10), but also nonsensical lines, robotic acting and a wide open ending that screams 'thanks for your ticket purchase. You are not entitled to anything and most importantly not entitled to a conclusion, but come again!'

hey the computer graphics and sets were nice and the call girl was pretty so 3/10.
278 out of 476 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Like Many I Used To Think Scott Ridley And Denis Villeneuve Are Good
plb-062447 November 2017
I know better now.

These guys have destroyed Blade Runner just to release yet another sequel that should not have been made. Ridley has recently been actively destroying the Alien legacy and releasing subpar non-stories. Villenueve is going from this to yet another unneeded remake, namely Dune.

In short, these guys are now in the same league as JJ Abrams, Paul Feig and Michael Bay. That is sad. Blade Runner deserved a better (and lasting) legacy.

BR2049 is so long, so boring and so pointless that one really wonders. It boggles the mind that they released an expensive movie that has no point to make and no care to destroy the classicness of Blade Runner.

There was a cool headquarters, cool hologram technology and advertising and sexy women. Those deserve points, but what is with the very corny and jaded dialogue? the script was bad and the lines were worse. Compare to the original Blade Runner!

People, think twice before attending silly Marvel films, boring Star Wars films and the next 5 Ghostbusters. They are boring and insult your intelligence and their legacy. I am done with these thieving sequels.
94 out of 152 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Strangely boring, lacking tension and intelligence.
Takeshi-K6 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Don't believe the lying shills rating this a ten out of ten. The original Blade Runner is a masterpiece. This film is not. It only deserves a six, but I loved the original so I gave it a seven. My review will compare both films and it contains **spoilers**.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Instead we get a self important bloated fatware art-house snoozefest that is bleak, boring and about as intellectually deep as counterfeit artificial snake skin.
544 out of 954 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed