Blade Runner 2

[von Boom]

I forgot to ask, [spoiler]was anyone else shocked by the drinking and cursing of Princess Buttercup? It has given me the strange idea that the Blade Runner universe is what happens when Princess Buttercup does marry Humperdink and Wesley actually dies in The Princess Bride.[/spoiler]

[Eric Plumrose]

Cineworld will likely be the determining factor in my (not) seeing this at the flicks, so how much of the original's nocturnality permeates 2049?

[jacob g]

This story is worthy of being written by Dick himself.

To be honest, 2049 feels like legit William Gibson story for me, it's more like Bridge Trillogy, especially thanks to Joi.

[von Boom]

This story is worthy of being written by Dick himself.

To be honest, 2049 feels like legit William Gibson story for me, it's more like Bridge Trillogy, especially thanks to Joi.

That's a good observation. While I was watching the film, I thought this team (Fancher/Green/Villeneuve/Scott) could probably do a worthy version of Neuromancer.

[Radbacker]

Well I think that was way better than the first, i actually managed to stay awake through this one the first movie while i admit it is very good on certain levels it does always put me to sleep, this had my interest right through it 2 hour 40 minutes.  As mentioned spectacular looking and the sound was earbleedingly good too.
Two thumbs up.

CU Radbacker

[darnmarr]

Just saw it last night.
I thought it was very pretty- some great ideas-and interesting world-building, and I'm fond of a slow, slow pace but nonethess I was really bothered by a couple of elements. I saw it alone, and none of my friends have seen it yet so I hope nobody minds me turning up here out of the blue to rant. I have three nit-picky-niggles and one major point.


1[spoiler] The Tyrell-replacement villain was just awful. What was he doing with his face and his voice and his eyes and his body- and why didn't they re-shoot all of his scenes with a different actor after they saw what they looked like on film? (I wasn't impressed) [/spoiler]

2[spoiler] Harrison Ford is gone a bit ould to be swingin' digs at people; one or two old-man uppercuts would be tolerable, but the 'action hero' punchy-punch stuff in this seemed a bit much, for my tastes.It reminded me of crystal skull.
I do not cherish the memory of crystal skull.[/spoiler]

3[spoiler] They made Deckard/ Rachel's romance so central to the big story.
I say 'Nay' .
'Nay' I say!
For- when you cast your mind back, Deckard and Rachel weren't exactly the 'love-at-first-sight' star-crossed couple retroactively depicted in this story.
Is it just me or does the repeated audio of VK test seems to be regarded as the balcony scene from Romeo and Juliet in this universe? That aint right I tellsya!  Think back!--
Their one 'love scene' in the original fillum is spectacularly awkward, and, quite frankly, a bit 'rapey' _{(which makes a kind of sense if you're of the belief that Deckard himself is a recently-created emotionally-underdeveloped machine- a notion completely dispensed with by this story btw- which means now it's just 'rapey' again}).
I reckon this is important because; In the original film Deckard and Rachel just seemed like small, emotionally stunted, unimportant cogs in a vastly bigger dystopic system; they were just small- fry that Gaff could, on a whim, afford to let go: But in this universe they are the parents of the 'star-child'* equivalent (*_{from 1983  V  miniseries on 'telly}). This is a shift and I hate this. I really do.
It grinds my personal gearbox because it really seems to me as if just because Blade Runner (from relatively humble beginnings) became an important film in history and culture,--then the characters in Blade Runner must correspondingly become unbelievably important characters in their universe, and I hate when that happens.
Am I alone in this or does anyone else also feel that by turning the VK test into foreplay and then making Mr and Mrs Deckard's resulting offspring the possible progenitor of a new species this script has done something over-blown and bombastic and unnecessary and contrary to the atmosphere and themes created first-time 'round?. (and that that's a real pity because otherwise it's really quite good) [/spoiler]

4 [spoiler] Also there's maybe three too many scenes illuminated by light reflected off water. It's cool but it's overdone[/spoiler]

[JOE SOAP]

1[spoiler] The Tyrell-replacement villain was just awful. What was he doing with his face and his voice and his eyes and his body- and why didn't they re-shoot all of his scenes with a different actor after they saw what they looked like on film? (I wasn't impressed) [/spoiler]

I thought Leto was miscast; they intended the role for Bowie so you can see what they were thinking of.

2[spoiler]
3[spoiler] They made Deckard/ Rachel's romance so central to the big story.
I say 'Nay' .
'Nay' I say!
For- when you cast your mind back, Deckard and Rachel weren't exactly the 'love-at-first-sight' star-crossed couple retroactively depicted in this story.
Is it just me or does the repeated audio of VK test seems to be regarded as the balcony scene from Romeo and Juliet in this universe? That aint right I tellsya!  Think back!--

In a world where people can perpetually obsess over apparently recorded intentions and emotions isn't revisionism part of the subtext? But having said that, Tyrell, being a patron of replicant evolution, admittedly by his own design put Rachael forward for the VK test because of her 'specialness' and attractiveness for the very purpose of subverting Deckard's bias – she's literally manufactured to play the role of the Gitanes smoking femme fatale in black opposite the cynical gumshoe – so based on that tropish bit of seductive theatre, the conclusions drawn by Wallace's character in 2049 as to Tyrell's motivations aren't too much of an extrapolation, even if it's just mental provocation aimed at Deckard during the coercion to extract information, which Wallace seems to imply.

Their one 'love scene' in the original fillum is spectacularly awkward, and, quite frankly, a bit 'rapey' (which makes a kind of sense if you're of the belief that Deckard himself is a recently-created emotionally-underdeveloped machine- a notion completely dispensed with by this story btw- which means now it's just 'rapey' again).

It's still a bit rapey either way you interpret it. From the original film I gleaned that Deckard was a profoundly dehumanised individual because of the years he spent making his living from killing what he believed were supposedly artificial 'subhumans' rather than he himself being literally, a new-born replicant, and that his only default positions when dealing with replicants is either interrogation or violence. His resultant awkwardness is due to regaining his feels from the very thing he hunts.

In the original film Deckard and Rachel just seemed like small, emotionally stunted, unimportant cogs in a vastly bigger dystopic system; they were just small- fry that Gaff could, on a whim, afford to let go: [spoiler]But in this universe they are the parents of the 'star-child'* equivalent (*from 1983  V  miniseries on 'telly). This is a shift and I hate this. I really do[/spoiler]

There's always a certain amount of buy in to any fantasy film and a lot of people could never buy into the blurry concept of replicants in the original, [spoiler]but the idea of Deckard and Rachael, and the vagueness of her 'specialness' as the centre-piece of this specific segment of the 2049 world, isn't that far-fetched when it's a conflict played out between a egomaniacal industrialist and his/Tyrell's historically rebellious product[/spoiler].

[darnmarr]

Wow. Bowie, oh how very much better that would have been.!

Fair points, and there really is much to love in this version. I s'pose the element I found OTT...  [spoiler]Deckard and Rache become adam-and-eve of new replihuman age[/spoiler]... it just reminded me a bit of the way Darth Vader changed from film to film (starting first as some sort of brutal imperial underling on a 'leash'  and increasing in importance until by prequel stage he becomes the alpha and omega of everything in the history of the 'verse)  it's like.. just because he is central to 'us', the audience,  he must end up being the centre of  this entire world...
(Not sure if I'm explaining myself properly here);
It just reminds me of comic-book fillums where the Fate Of The Universe is always at stake,- for some reason those scenarios don't interest me as much as, say, a kid with a over-optioned spidey-suit (he cant control) foiling a scrap-metal thief. Or a futuristic cop and rookie trapped in a building taking on overwhelming odds floor-by-floor...
I spose what i'm trying to say ..when a film reaches for too much in one bite, it feels, for me a bit prometheusy? prometheusque? promethean (_{not in the sense of being rebelliously creative and innovative but more in the sense of being like 'Prometheus', the fillum. Which I did not care for and don't think was either}).
Sound and vision, the look and feel, the 'style' of the original Blade Runner were so faithfully echoed and expanded upon, (and the story-telling was frankly improved upon  in no small measure) but when the story becomes a story of [spoiler]the most important people EVER (not just on nine planets but the whole universe, mind you)[/spoiler] something thematic and fundamental,... something of 'the substance' is  broken with.
I thought was a pity. Doesn't seem to be bothering anyone else mind you so perhaps I'm being just a bit silly.

[JOE SOAP]

I s'pose the element I found OTT... [spoiler] Deckard and Rache become adam-and-eve of new replihuman age..[/spoiler]. it just reminded me a bit of the way Darth Vader changed from film to film

It's definitely a salient point but both films are allegories about creation in life and art. The original film had strong biblical overtones too: Sebastian and his Methuselah syndrome, Roy Batty ascending a pyramid asking for more life from his father/creator and paraphrasing lines from William Blake's America: A Prophecy about fallen angels etc. so I suppose amongst the primitive culture of replicants and their masters Deckard & Rachael would be seen as mythical after a period of time.

but when the story becomes a story of [spoiler]the most important people EVER (not just on nine planets but the whole universe, mind you)[/spoiler] something thematic and fundamental,... something of 'the substance' is  broken with.

For those particular characters it probably would be that important but maybe not not to the fella in the pawn shop.

[dyl]

Not a patch on the original for me, totally agree with your comments darnmarr. 

There were some gorgeous shots, especially the Las Vegas stuff. Was a bit disappointed with the interiors though, I can see that they went for a less cluttered look to the first, I just found that they weren't convincing. They looked like sets, small ones too and the lighting was a bit bland. The  street level stuff didn't seem quite as real either.

Performances were good though, Leto was bad but not as bad as I'd feared! I liked K's baseline test. The music was ok in parts but not that memorable.

The plot was ok and the central mystery kept me hooked but the revelation was a bit naff.

I don't think all the ott reviews helped, I really didn't find it to be mind blowing insightful/intelligent Sci fi!

I'll give it another go but it just seemed to miss the point of the original for me.

[Mattofthespurs]

No, I don't particularly see Roy Batty as a complex character  to be honest. K in this was infinitely more so I thought.

K is so much more complex it's not even close.

[Mattofthespurs]

For me it was miles better than the original.
It had the heart of the first film x 10 plus such gorgeous scenes. So gorgeous I nearly wept.
This is a step above the step up of the original.
I fucking loved it and joint best film of the year along with mother!
There is so much to adore about this film. So very, very much and I'm surprised at some of the comments from people that love a cinematic science fiction comic. This is pretty much 2000 AD realised on screen in my opinion.

[Jim_Campbell]

Desperately wanted to like this. Didn't. At all. I mean, it looks amazing, is very clever, but fundamentally, I just didn't care about any of it. The best part of three hours is a long time to sit in a chair not really giving a shit about anything that's happening. Not only not the best film I've seen this year, not even the best film I've seen this week.

Terribly disappointing.

[dyl]

Same here Jim. Reminds me a bit of those Sam Mendes Bond films. Massive amounts of talent making an incredibly slick and well made film but just not that engaging or memorable in the end.

[Apestrife]

Saw Blade Runner 2019 and 2049 (seems what they'v gone for naming the latest film as well as shorts) back to back this morning. Just as good as the first time I saw 2049. Both films really sings beautifully together in my head.

One thing that it really does well in my book is how sutble the fan service is. For example [spoiler]K dying in the snow. Mirroring Roy in the rain.[/spoiler]. For me it works really well as a nod to the original, as well as it's own thing. Fantastic that.

Btw. Anyone who figured out the deal with [spoiler]K's memory. Was he implanted with it in order to make a decoy, or did Ana do it in hopes of seeing her father again?[/spoiler]