Warner Bros. Pictures | Release Date: October 6, 2017
8.3
USER SCORE
Universal acclaim based on 2277 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
1,944
Mixed:
154
Negative:
179
Watch Now
Buy On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
2
OverpaidOct 7, 2017
Bloated, portentous and worst of all, dumb posing as smart, for a Blade Runner obsessive like myself, Blade Runner 2049 is pretty much a worst-case outcome from the decision to “reboot”.

​​It combines the ultra-slow pacing of a Russian
Bloated, portentous and worst of all, dumb posing as smart, for a Blade Runner obsessive like myself, Blade Runner 2049 is pretty much a worst-case outcome from the decision to “reboot”.

​​It combines the ultra-slow pacing of a Russian art-house movie, with the implausible action sequences of a mainstream blockbuster. It has intellectual pretensions, but no real ideas, other than some half-baked biblical referencing. It takes a lazy, hand-waving approach to its plot and world-building. For me, that’s all unacceptable. If you decide to make the sequel to one of the most revered movies of all time, you need to get your quality bar pretty damn high. Blade Runner made its name by being genuinely intellectual, and having an insane level of attention to detail. This film fails to achieve either.

There are plots holes you could fit the Tyrell Corporation's headquarters through. I can’t talk about those without spoiling, but lets just note that the core premise of the movie as spelled out in the opening crawl, the invention and legalisation of unquestioningly obedient replicants, is in direct contradiction to almost everything that follows, including the rationale for the mission the protagonist is sent on. The acting is fine, good even, BUT the actors are doing their best with horribly written characters who constantly make decisions that are absurd, often in order to set up action scenes that shouldn’t logically occur. Where the original revelled in moral ambiguity, we get a cartoonish boss villain who looks and talks like an evil-yoga instructor and appears to live in a health spa, and an even more cartoonish hot-lady-assassin henchwoman. In keeping with that Holywoodisation, all the women in the film are presented as lust objects, either evil or victims, and not in the knowing sense of exploited Zhora or Rachel, but as sadistic titillation.

There are a bunch of scenes basically nicked from other movies, in particular Spike Jonze’s brilliant Her.

Where the original asked genuinely profound philosophical questions about what it means to be human, this one has some quasi-religious guff about miracles and souls that jars badly with the paranoid, psychological Dickian source material and the post-religious bio-technological world that was presented in the first film.

The world building is terrible.

The world we are shown also doesn’t tie in with the mostly deserted, “kibble” strewn dying earth of the original. That was a place where almost all the able-bodied have left for the off-world colonies and the only remaining animals were manufactured. Despite some kind of second eco-disaster and a tech disaster both fleetingly referred to in the opening crawl (and in Matrix2esque short films on youtube), the world presented here is less dilapidated, more progressive, more organised, etc. than in the original. Fading art -deco has been replaced by Scandinavian design.

The technology is all over the place. Again, that’s hard to talk about without getting into spoilers, but basically the film assumes that flawless AI’s and super functional “normal” robots/drones exist, and then doesn’t in any way address the ramifications of how those facts would impact the whole idea/purpose/issue of replicants, and how and why they are used, and how/why Blade Runners are used to track them down. I think that comes back to a recurring problem ideas being included because someone thought they were “cool” rather than being story/world driven.

There are constant heavy handed and unconvincing analogies beween replicants, and real-world slavery and racism which the film then does nothing to explore.

In some ways it’s a bit like the Force Awakens, another recent reboot that I hated. It’s a technically competent film that heavily references the original, in terms of props, characters and art style. It even features Harrison Ford. It has a plot driven by a series of improbable coincidences and chance discoveries that seems more like an excuse for “cool visuals” than a logical, character driven progression. But whereas the Force Awakens knew exactly what it wanted to be, going unashamedly for a nostalgia-fuelled, international, mass market audience, B2049 falls between stools.

I feel a lot of people are going to disagree with my negativity on this one. There’s massive hype and hope around this movie, and it is mostly beautiful. Understandably, Blade Runner fans will want to like this movie. but going back to the Force Awakens comparison, after six months have passed, and people have moved through denial and anger stages, the sad reality of how average this film is will sink in.

I went in to this one with mixed expectations. I loved Arrival, the director’s previous foray into SF, but on the other hand I thought that a reboot of Blade Runner was an inherently bad idea. For me, this one failed hard, both as a sequel and as general entertainment.
Expand
57 of 145 users found this helpful5788
All this user's reviews
2
brucecook99Oct 6, 2017
This is visually exciting and a feast for the ears. Unfortunately every shot lingers on the screen for 3 or 4 times the length necessary to tell the story. And the story is hampered b y a lack of logic. When the villain Wallace tells Ford heThis is visually exciting and a feast for the ears. Unfortunately every shot lingers on the screen for 3 or 4 times the length necessary to tell the story. And the story is hampered b y a lack of logic. When the villain Wallace tells Ford he can take him off-world to torture him and get an answer he wants...he could do the same thing in the room he is in. And the big secret is obvious from early in the script.

This needs a rewrite from a skilled screenwriter and then a serious editor to trim out the fat...by which I mean you could keep every shot cut to the length to make the next story point and the movie would be less than 100 minutes.

The audience I saw it with was restless. There was no applause at the end, they just filed out in dispirited fashion.
Expand
30 of 85 users found this helpful3055
All this user's reviews
3
maksprofitOct 7, 2017
While the film wasn't terrible, it wasn't amazing either. The interactions between characters was superficial and their motives were as well. There was nothing profound like there was in the first Blade Runner. The scenery and sets wereWhile the film wasn't terrible, it wasn't amazing either. The interactions between characters was superficial and their motives were as well. There was nothing profound like there was in the first Blade Runner. The scenery and sets were beautiful, as were some of the special effects, but a film can't be based solely on these things alone. It needed to have a villain, but it lacked this entirely. There was barely an iota of conflict during the film, it was simply void. We didn't know why the 'villains' were doing the things they did. The problem was again that these villains didn't have real motives. Nothing was believable, there was simply fabricated disdain and strife which didn't serve the purpose of creating a compelling story line. Also many of the scenes were too long, drawn out and weighed down with superfluous pause. Expand
18 of 52 users found this helpful1834
All this user's reviews
2
nanokiwiOct 7, 2017
Movie seemed intent on putting moviegoer to sleep and then waking them with loud bangs. I would awaken to think I was watching some kind of cruelly beautiful Czechoslovakian arthouse film.
25 of 83 users found this helpful2558
All this user's reviews
3
EstaimOct 6, 2017
Style over substance, pretentious emulation over valiant ambition. It's corious that this movie, in a sort of meta-narrative way, tries its best to be a replicant of the the original masterpiece but it totally fails to be what a replicant isStyle over substance, pretentious emulation over valiant ambition. It's corious that this movie, in a sort of meta-narrative way, tries its best to be a replicant of the the original masterpiece but it totally fails to be what a replicant is to a human, a perfect alternative of the original. 163 minutes of Gosling boring looking expression while not a single thought is passing through his damn head, cliché insane villan with zero substance and his clichè nazi dog kicking asses around for reasons. Wrong photography all over: it's a **** noir with a white and orange palette, totally lacking the oppressive atmosphere of the original movie. Plot bad written and bad narrated, full of plot holes and incongruencies. This is not only a bad movie compared to the original, this is an atrocius sci fi movie to the level of 2017 GoTS. Expand
21 of 74 users found this helpful2153
All this user's reviews
0
ronzoroOct 6, 2017
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The new Bladerunner is so wrapped into symbolism, metaphors and themes that it forgets to make sense of it's world building, storytelling, character definition. Completely void of any inner logic, it falls short of even being a movie: it is indeed a magnificently crafted slow motion picture consisted of ingenious albeit often out of place designs and populated by a very talented crew of actors. Technically superb on a visual level, it is a gorgeous eye candy that gives you amp time to observe it's visual mastery and wonder why the heck couldn't they find someone to write for it, not that fanatic Ridley Scott that ruins Alien franchise with his last movies. The story is a series of most amazing coincidences that lead up to nothing at all, leaving you with deep questions like what do 12 hives of bees eat in a mad max fury road wasteland. Expand
20 of 73 users found this helpful2053
All this user's reviews
3
DrakorthaOct 6, 2017
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Contrived story and Pretentious story telling. Over the top exposition that drones on and on to overly explain and give feeling of importance to an unimportant plot. So the plot goes something like this; Rachel and Deckard had a child. so the movie spends 2 hours trying to convince you its important somehow. CGI Rachel was the lowest point of the movie, with the villain suggesting that it was planned for Rachel & Deckard to meet in some sort of master plan.

There are a handful of good scenes in this movie. Such as the opening scene, or in some of the visuals. But much of it is style over substance. The good pieces are far and few. And in between are just horribly long expository scenes where characters you dont care about talk about nothing at all. Nothing important or interesting happens throughout this entire movie. Just some stuff happens, some nice visuals thrown in, then it's over. I just wanted something to happen that I could care about. ANYTHING. go down in the streets. show what life is like down there. Let things happen on screen. Get me invested in a character or in the world. I just got so tired of boring people talking. Many of the sets are bland and uninspired. Bland white walls and bland white floors. or yellow walls and yellow floors. Don't bother if you enjoy the small details, because they aren't there. Many of the environments look sterile and lack the Blade Runner 1982 details. The Original movie wasnt like this at all. The environments were dirty, messy. unorganized, and lived in. You don't get that feeling at all in 2049. I get it that its supposed to be like 30 years later. But come on. This isnt meant to be **** star wars.

The soundtrack was calm and sentimental at times, and then at other times very obnoxious and loud. I didn't enjoy the tone of this movie. The original soundtrack by Vangelis was beautiful. But this was like a dying cat at times. Also, dubstep. Really? What I would have liked to see in a new Blade Runner film would be a grounded movie about a Blade Runner who hunts replicants. We got that in the opening scene like an appetizer. But then the rest of the movie is just up in the clouds, trying hard to push its meaningless plot as interesting and meaningful when in actuality it isn't. Blade Runner 2049 is style over substance.

My rating: Mediocre
Expand
23 of 86 users found this helpful2363
All this user's reviews
3
2morovianJan 18, 2018
The film tries to impress us with its connection to the original, when in fact it just cannibalizes the Ridley Scott masterpiece for the only value it has. It's just not organically woven into the new film and it's painfully obvious, rightThe film tries to impress us with its connection to the original, when in fact it just cannibalizes the Ridley Scott masterpiece for the only value it has. It's just not organically woven into the new film and it's painfully obvious, right down to the 'imitation Vangelis' soundtrack which is so bad it should be illegal. 2049 has no depth and dimension and points to the work of a very mediocre director re-configuring and dispensing the bland expectations of a 21st century sci-fi audience who are so dumbed-down by 21st century schlock by now that they, sadly, can't tell the difference. I had to keep telling myself that the film had nothing to do with the original just to get through, but then I was left with the stark, 2-dimensionality of a truly poor work that relies on its visual effects and darkest themes to anesthetize the audience into believing they actually saw something worthwhile. Expand
6 of 11 users found this helpful65
All this user's reviews
2
EludiumQ36Jan 13, 2018
There's simply no justification for the 9 and 10 ratings - pure shills. This is a 7 at best but far worse for me due to its glacial pacing and dim/dark lighting. It's a film that you can feel yourself actually age. The plot is totally obtuse,There's simply no justification for the 9 and 10 ratings - pure shills. This is a 7 at best but far worse for me due to its glacial pacing and dim/dark lighting. It's a film that you can feel yourself actually age. The plot is totally obtuse, I defy anyone to tell me what the #$%^ the point of this was, on your own without internet assistance. And Harrison Ford at age 75 has no business being cast in this. He doesn't need the money or attention and we deserve to see better than old geezers in their last hurrah. Thank god for the distractingly gorgeous Ana de Armas, without her in it the film is a flat zero. The VFX swerve from great to awful and the accompanying music is worthless, though at times the foreboding made my soundbar awesome, but for a 2.5 hr experience my soundbar should've been rocking most of that time. Poor, poor effort. Expand
7 of 15 users found this helpful78
All this user's reviews
3
ducmanJan 13, 2018
I kept watching for an hour. Hoping that there was something to come, got to bored. Really with these actors, why not make a movie that keeps your attention at least. So sad they didn't use the potential, maybe better next time? The originalI kept watching for an hour. Hoping that there was something to come, got to bored. Really with these actors, why not make a movie that keeps your attention at least. So sad they didn't use the potential, maybe better next time? The original was way better
sorry.
Expand
5 of 11 users found this helpful56
All this user's reviews
2
p_reinJan 19, 2018
There is one thing that bothered me throughout the whole movie. Even though the soundtrack was amazing on its own it did not fit the scenes half the time. Music was super dramatic while what was happening on screen was nothing worthThere is one thing that bothered me throughout the whole movie. Even though the soundtrack was amazing on its own it did not fit the scenes half the time. Music was super dramatic while what was happening on screen was nothing worth mentioning. Music alone is not enough to make a scene dramatic or deep, it has to be a combination of both. They were force feeding us "Look at how deep and existential this looks and sounds!!!" while the plot was mediocre at best. Expand
5 of 11 users found this helpful56
All this user's reviews
0
NotonmywatchJan 20, 2018
BR2049 is nothing more than sci-fi porn. And like most higher-end porn, there's but a mere soupçon of a story, which only aids in serving the inevitable money shot. The inevitable money shot hit audiences square in the eyes, but there'sBR2049 is nothing more than sci-fi porn. And like most higher-end porn, there's but a mere soupçon of a story, which only aids in serving the inevitable money shot. The inevitable money shot hit audiences square in the eyes, but there's clearly a latency of pain or else more viewers would feel as I and many others do—that this reboot is a total failure from beginning to end. It steals its core idea from Battlestar Galactica and is basically a mishmash of other sci-fi tropes and traps into which the movie keeps sinking. Horrible. Sad. Shameful. The original BR was brilliant and masterful and subtle. This one is the exact opposite. Jared Leto and Robin Wright are completely miscast and laughable caricatures of themselves. The director should never direct another picture again until he's made to watch good, classic films that were made before MTV ruined everything for us. Expand
5 of 11 users found this helpful56
All this user's reviews
3
thebagginsOct 15, 2017
People giving this 10/10 are either paid to do so or have no frikin idea. This movie is terrible. 3/10 for the effects only. Not even Harrison Ford could save it.
12 of 33 users found this helpful1221
All this user's reviews
2
buffboyOct 9, 2017
Blade Runner 2049 was so long it felt more like Blade WALKING. 2 stars because I liked some parts. Ridley Scott? Ridley Shot himself in the foot with this one!
11 of 32 users found this helpful1121
All this user's reviews
3
JalpanJan 6, 2018
Its extremely silent movie which is almost 3 hours long. One of the most boring and depressing movies I have ever seen.
3 of 9 users found this helpful36
All this user's reviews
3
ourtimehascomeOct 16, 2017
You might as well watch the original Blade Runner from 1982. It has stronger acting, better characters, an unpredictable story and fascinating cinematography. Though 2049 excels with its slow pace and spectacular presentation, it isYou might as well watch the original Blade Runner from 1982. It has stronger acting, better characters, an unpredictable story and fascinating cinematography. Though 2049 excels with its slow pace and spectacular presentation, it is ultimately a lifeless (pun intended) philosophical diatribe. A quintessential cerebral mess which asks too many questions without answering any from the first film. It's less like a sequel and more like a diversion. The ending is enough to make me wish I was a replicant so I wouldn't be so disappointed. Expand
8 of 25 users found this helpful817
All this user's reviews
1
aaron_Oct 15, 2017
Personally less than impressed with Blade Runner 2049. There's a core story here that's good, but that story was stretched far too long before it could be realized. The twists in the plot came way too late and thus failed to keep me hooked. IPersonally less than impressed with Blade Runner 2049. There's a core story here that's good, but that story was stretched far too long before it could be realized. The twists in the plot came way too late and thus failed to keep me hooked. I believe the movie would have kept much better pace cutting down by half.

A little stimuli be it drama or action might have kept my blood circulating to prevent me from resting my eyes from time to time. The interaction with AI and the incredible tech required to create illusion seemed both extraordinary and out of place for the scenario, but that's minor. The action that did come felt exaggerated and unnecessary and something we've all seen a million times.

The 'Replicants' are smart enough to know or grasp that something is wrong and yet they need a miracle to prove it? Apparently the newer lobotomized models need more convincing that their position sucks and therefore a miracle is appropriate.

On the positive side the dystopian scenery is great and the acting is decent, but not even Harrison Ford could save this nearly three hour stoic-stroll through gloomy eco-winter from collapsing under its own weight.

All I can say is I envy those who enjoyed it.
Expand
9 of 29 users found this helpful920
All this user's reviews
1
kmulhollandOct 6, 2017
I love the first film and watched it when it was first out then again many times. I read a review by Rotten Tomatoes before going. Highly scored. I disagree. Boring, drawn out, lacking in action and characterisation. Best scene was theI love the first film and watched it when it was first out then again many times. I read a review by Rotten Tomatoes before going. Highly scored. I disagree. Boring, drawn out, lacking in action and characterisation. Best scene was the first scene. And worst of all unnecessary drama. Where was any Rutger etc? A dismal sequel. Expand
14 of 49 users found this helpful1435
All this user's reviews
1
supermackOct 6, 2017
I did not like it. It felt like the movie was trying to be profound and meaningful but was just boring and gimmicky. I also felt it was too violent. The violence in the original film was part of the story - it was visceral and painful. InI did not like it. It felt like the movie was trying to be profound and meaningful but was just boring and gimmicky. I also felt it was too violent. The violence in the original film was part of the story - it was visceral and painful. In 2049 it was gratuitous and unnecessary.

I checked my watch 3-4 times during the film and left as soon as the credits rolled. So, yeah I was not impressed.

I was expecting to see some blade running but instead I was left baffled by the meaningless plot.

The crowning moment of the film's failure was the very poor ending. It was limp. The ending of the original film was powerful and nerve-shredding.
Expand
14 of 52 users found this helpful1438
All this user's reviews
1
norseOct 7, 2017
The movie is long, loud, and there's lots of water. Other than that, nothing much really happens. I was a fan of the original blade runner and was blown away by how bad Ridley Scott mangled this opportunity.

The most noteworthy character in
The movie is long, loud, and there's lots of water. Other than that, nothing much really happens. I was a fan of the original blade runner and was blown away by how bad Ridley Scott mangled this opportunity.

The most noteworthy character in the movie is played by insanely loud BRRRRRRAAAAAAAH sounds that occur every fifty seconds, presumably to keep watcher awake.

Stay away, you can spend your time more wisely by staring at a wall, any wall, really.
Expand
11 of 42 users found this helpful1131
All this user's reviews
3
MahbubAli92Oct 10, 2017
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Overall it was interesting but deeply flawed. I wanted to like it, but I can see why it flopped so badly (grossed even less than The Mummy in its opening weekend LOL).

GOOD
- Spectacular visuals, as though the dystopia of the original has taken several big steps closer to hell in the last 30 years (reinforced by how the old music has been remixed to be discordant and oppressive)

- The hologram girlfriend was a cute concept, though she is largely irrelevant to the plot

- I respect that it at least tried to be a thoughtful movie for grownups, something that is increasingly rare these days (especially for big budget movies). Though I have to admit it's not really as smart as it thinks it is, mainly because the ideas it grapples with ("what if people were... ROBOTS?") don't actually resonate with anything real. Really the most powerful thing about it was the portrayal of urban decay and alienation via the eternal trifecta of pollution, multiculturalism, and corporate greed.

BAD
- Making the main character a robot was unbelievably stupid. Gosling's flat affect and lack of personality make it impossible to emotionally engage with the character. Since this is 100% Gosling's story, the fact that he's a mopey unrelatable autistic robot (who barely even shows any warmth to his videogame girlfriend) absolutely cripples the movie's emotional impact.

- Bringing back Harrison Ford was also dumb. Rick Deckard is not an iconic character, nobody cares what became of him and seeing him again is not an exciting prospect. Harrison Ford needs to quit rehashing every role he did back when movies were original and good.

- Way too long for what it is, with many slack scenes that drag out self-indulgently. A competent editor could easily get this below 2 hours with the plot intact.

- Ultimately the big reveal ("ZOMG A REPLICANT GOT PREGNANT!") isn't that interesting plotwise or thematically. News flash: humanoid robots aren't real and probably never will be, so "what if they could get pregnant" isn't a meaningful question to explore (contra the fanboys, it doesn't actually "make you think about what it means to be human" or w/e). After Villenueve kept claiming there was going to be a huge earthshaking twist, he needed to deliver something much better than this (should've used the element from the book where replicants have infiltrated business/media/government and are trying to twist them to their own ends).

- For a movie that takes itself so seriously it sure had a ton of lame genre cliches, including the one-dimensionally evil corporate magnate having a beautiful ninja robot assassin bodyguard, who has a kung fu fight with hero at the climax. If I wanted goofy stuff like that I would've watched the crappy Ghost in the Shell remake again.

It's really a shame this was such a box office disaster, since there was clearly a lot of thought and effort that went into making it. But I can't blame audiences for not lining up to watch 3 hours of grim navel-gazing about robots grappling with robot existentialism.
Expand
6 of 23 users found this helpful617
All this user's reviews
3
TomSoapEdyBaconOct 7, 2017
+'s Visuals, Acting, CGI, Themes
-'s Editing, Sound, Plot
Great visuals and themes let down by the plot holes and poor writing. Too much pandering to the audience and repetition of simple points. Editing cuts were too long & boring without
+'s Visuals, Acting, CGI, Themes
-'s Editing, Sound, Plot
Great visuals and themes let down by the plot holes and poor writing. Too much pandering to the audience and repetition of simple points. Editing cuts were too long & boring without substance. Overall film too long. Music can be great but the jump-scare sounds were too much, the sounds of city when flying were terrible, also a poor echo affect on a lot of dialogue in open settings which makes very hard to hear. Too much unexplained in the plot, why were there no other flying cars in a city of millions? Its only slightly better than Ghost in the Shell 2017.
Expand
11 of 44 users found this helpful1133
All this user's reviews
3
Fortysixter_UKNov 23, 2017
I found this film to be quite poor. The production, acting and music were just fine, but somewhere along the way, the sense of intrigue, the sense of fun, a decent pace, and a good story were sadly cast aside for a slow, ponderous movie ofI found this film to be quite poor. The production, acting and music were just fine, but somewhere along the way, the sense of intrigue, the sense of fun, a decent pace, and a good story were sadly cast aside for a slow, ponderous movie of little interest. The first Bladerunner is a fine film in all its versions. Bladerunner 2049 will just go down in history as a non starter, dulled beyond belief. A huge disappointment. Expand
2 of 8 users found this helpful26
All this user's reviews
1
JDMCOct 6, 2017
I would really, really like to know if all the critics who gave the new Blade Runner movie five stars saw the same film I did.
1) MOVIE: Overdrawn, overlong dramatic scenes, which often substituted LOUD soundtrack for real drama. Literally,
I would really, really like to know if all the critics who gave the new Blade Runner movie five stars saw the same film I did.
1) MOVIE: Overdrawn, overlong dramatic scenes, which often substituted LOUD soundtrack for real drama. Literally, my wife and I had to HOLD OUR HANDS over our ears at four or five points in the film. Not cool.
....of course, my perceptions could have been tainted by the....
2) Theater: Stank. Literally, stank. and the handle on My wife's seat's armrest broke at one point and I ended up wearing most of her soda pop on my leg
3) Movie again: attempts to be deep and thoughtful too often become pretentious. This was literally the single worst moviegoing experience of my life. Bleh.
Expand
12 of 49 users found this helpful1237
All this user's reviews
3
David_HOct 9, 2017
As a qualifier, I’m old enough to have seen and been a big fan of the original Blade Runner, plus I’ve always been a sci-fi fan. That said, the better half and I were both disappointed in this sequel. You know how you hear that much of aAs a qualifier, I’m old enough to have seen and been a big fan of the original Blade Runner, plus I’ve always been a sci-fi fan. That said, the better half and I were both disappointed in this sequel. You know how you hear that much of a movie ends up on the cutting room floor? Well for this movie it’s like they forgot to do the cutting; they just left everything in it. Generally, it comes across as a film that is trying way too hard to be “epic”. Yes there are long sweeping vistas, advanced cinematography and long scenes with very sparse dialogue. Sometimes this approach can be entertaining, but for 163 minutes? This film requires a large capacity bladder and if you include previews, be aware you will be sitting there for about 3 hours. Where the original had so much action and interesting characters, this sequel is almost the opposite; most characters show no emotion at all and the whole thing drags so slowly, we came close to walking out after about two excruciating hours. I’ll admit performances by Ford, Gosling and Leto were good considering the script they were handed. However again it was way too long and to make matters worse, you leave with hardly a hint of an uplift. Expand
6 of 26 users found this helpful620
All this user's reviews
3
blahhhhOct 29, 2017
Why is this movie 2 hours and 45 minutes?

Saw it with a friend who is like a cult-fan of the original. I just can't get over how long the movie was. The story wasn't particularly interesting to me either.
3 of 13 users found this helpful310
All this user's reviews
1
StanCliffBroadOct 12, 2017
More than 2 1/2 hours long, I knew it had to have something or other, to hold my attention, but no, I sat through the whole thing waiting for something interesting to happen. Ryan Gosling can't act, what a shocker! Turgid script, even vacuousMore than 2 1/2 hours long, I knew it had to have something or other, to hold my attention, but no, I sat through the whole thing waiting for something interesting to happen. Ryan Gosling can't act, what a shocker! Turgid script, even vacuous in parts. 'Pris' lookey likey, was the worst actress of all.
Look all you Producers out there, Robin Wright has hit the wall, so stop casting her.
The only good bit for me was the baddie, Sylvia Hoeks did a fine job with the script she was given, but she should've been given more to do, what a waste.
Expand
5 of 22 users found this helpful517
All this user's reviews
0
ShadowareOct 6, 2017
+ Great panoramic views & cgi, good sound quality, cool actors.
- boring story & paper thin plot. Minutes of slow motion movement & staring somewhere behind the camera. To be honest, we all know how it is to be caught in thoughts for hours,
+ Great panoramic views & cgi, good sound quality, cool actors.
- boring story & paper thin plot. Minutes of slow motion movement & staring somewhere behind the camera. To be honest, we all know how it is to be caught in thoughts for hours, but actually seeing it on screen? Pew, thats not the reason to go to the cinema. That whole movie felt for me like they took the main Charakter from Drive (ultra boring movie in my opinion) and trow him into the world of Blade Runner. Go watch the 1 Movie or Blade Runner Black Out 2022, that anime short movie is far better than this. But THIS, its not even the best movie of the month :(
Expand
14 of 62 users found this helpful1448
All this user's reviews
1
StedeBonnetOct 16, 2017
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Sad to say it but Blade Runner 2049 is a dark, dull, hot-mess of a film—largely pointless and does nothing to advance the franchise. Only lonely fan-boys whose greatest fantasy is to take Siri or Alexa to their senior prom will find anything to like about this film. Worse yet is that the plot is basically lifted from the DaVinci Code--our hero deciphers sketchy clues from a lost age only to discover that he is searching for a "miracle" child hidden and protected by a secret society. Sound familiar? Visually interesting if you enjoy prolonged shots of bizarre architectural spaces of pointless design and Ryan Gosling's scruffy nerf-herder face staring blankly at them. At least the soundtrack contains enough needlessly booming discordant notes to regularly startle viewers back to consciousness as they struggle to endure the 164 minute running time. Very disappointing. Expand
6 of 27 users found this helpful621
All this user's reviews
3
SchnitzelPoofOct 20, 2017
If I could save one person the time and money, then I've done my part. If you like fun or entertainment in any form, don't waste your time on this film. If you like engaging, captivating storytelling - this movie is not for you.
I can't even
If I could save one person the time and money, then I've done my part. If you like fun or entertainment in any form, don't waste your time on this film. If you like engaging, captivating storytelling - this movie is not for you.
I can't even call it pretentious. It is a bad film because there's nothing appealing in it. Not bad in a good way, either, but simply boring, with unengaging characters, a foreign world that's never properly explained, and a tedious self-discovery journey, with some distant anti-human goals tacked in. The protagonist has zero charm, and the antagonist, or side characters, are about on the same level. The one minor character who had me curious is killed right in the opening scene - which happens to be the best in the film, by the way. Besides him, the only thing that merits some positive points is Harrison Ford's performance, which manages to bring in some levity, and a relatable character. However, he doesn't receive enough screen time to justify wasting 2.5 hours of your life watching a director experimenting with gloomy visual scenes, that have extremely dark lighting, and advance at an extremely slow pace, for no good reason. Rather than draw you in, they end up having zero emotional impact - just like the tiny, dead letters of the opening exposition.
Expand
4 of 18 users found this helpful414
All this user's reviews
3
MaxPayneIsGodOct 24, 2017
A visual masterpiece which unfortunately falls grossly flat of the (undeserved) hype. The original is a niche Sci-Fi classic which was not particularly popular upon release, in fact it was ridiculed. Any movie with 5 different versionsA visual masterpiece which unfortunately falls grossly flat of the (undeserved) hype. The original is a niche Sci-Fi classic which was not particularly popular upon release, in fact it was ridiculed. Any movie with 5 different versions obviously has something wrong with it, Ridley Scott has clearly acknowledged how broken it was/is. Harrison Ford has gone on record numerous times complaining about the entire process which is reiterated by his performance this time around.
A run time of 2hrs 45mins is totally unnecessary and the entire thing could've been over and done in less than 90. Everything is drawn out, way longer than it needs to be.
Gosling is as wooden as ever, he's channeled his character from Drive, Leto's over-the-top wannabe character actor melodrama is campy, he's still living off his Dallas Buyers Club success, the guy can't act. All the female leads are stereotypical Bond-esqe feme-fatals or damsels in distress. And lastly, Ford, Ford clearly doesn't want to be there (again) and with the amount of screen time he gets his $'s per minute pay check would be interesting.
They story is utterly laughable and has none of the mystique of the first one, its so completely contrived that to perceive this as anything other than a Hollywood cash grab is a joke. The "Love" scenes are a jab at where mankind is heading because of technology, but again, totally unnecessary and cringe worthy.
To summarise, I was stunned at how bad this film was, not disappointed, it was more like disbelief that something like this was (A) Made (B) Made this poorly.
Not the worst box office movie of the year, but after Wind River, IT and Logan its miles off the mark.
Expand
4 of 18 users found this helpful414
All this user's reviews
2
FlorentineOct 18, 2017
No, no, nooooooo! Please don't ever make me sit through that again. You can talk about character development and genres and whatever. This movie will take away your will to live! If 2049 is going to look like that, I'm glad I won't beNo, no, nooooooo! Please don't ever make me sit through that again. You can talk about character development and genres and whatever. This movie will take away your will to live! If 2049 is going to look like that, I'm glad I won't be around. By the way, I had a private screening with 3D and RPX and an assigned seat!!! Expand
4 of 18 users found this helpful414
All this user's reviews
3
TheDavoDec 17, 2017
A steaming hot mess. I am not sure that with an outline of what was happening, I would even know. All noise and action and no real character or plot development. Great to look at and listen to but ultimately, completely empty. Entertaining ifA steaming hot mess. I am not sure that with an outline of what was happening, I would even know. All noise and action and no real character or plot development. Great to look at and listen to but ultimately, completely empty. Entertaining if you don't need a story. Expand
2 of 9 users found this helpful27
All this user's reviews
3
eberman123Oct 7, 2017
I was looking forward to this movie. I was disappointed because, yes the acting and cinematography were very good, the first hour was very boring. I walked out of the theater after the hour but maybe it got better.
8 of 38 users found this helpful830
All this user's reviews
0
GieverDec 29, 2017
I really don't get why there are so many positive reviews to such a boring movie.It's one of those self absorbing don't take the camera off of me im a demigod kind of film that deserves zero praise. I Don't get why the audience fail to seeI really don't get why there are so many positive reviews to such a boring movie.It's one of those self absorbing don't take the camera off of me im a demigod kind of film that deserves zero praise. I Don't get why the audience fail to see this. Viewers instead pretend to be socialite critiques trying so hard themselves to be notice and praised, so they write a review that there social media sheeple will think is acceptable, thus you have all these unworthy positives. Entire movie is bland, not much more i need to say. Just believe me when i tell you this and not the social media sheeple idiots. Expand
4 of 19 users found this helpful415
All this user's reviews
2
rgjrOct 7, 2017
Blade Runner is long and very slow. Supposedly this is to build the plot, but at times it is very hard to follow. After we walked out of the movie I discussed the plot with the person I went with and they had completely missed what was goingBlade Runner is long and very slow. Supposedly this is to build the plot, but at times it is very hard to follow. After we walked out of the movie I discussed the plot with the person I went with and they had completely missed what was going on. Worse, the ending makes no sense. Supposedly Harrison Ford can now meet his child but nothing has happened in the movie that allows that. In good conscience I cannot recommend that anyone spend money on this movie. Expand
10 of 48 users found this helpful1038
All this user's reviews
0
AlaingagnonOct 7, 2017
It ruined the original movie for me. I am a die hard science fiction fan. Loved the original until I watched this. First time in my life I couldn't wait for the movie to end. If my wife hadn't fallen asleep midway, we would have left.It ruined the original movie for me. I am a die hard science fiction fan. Loved the original until I watched this. First time in my life I couldn't wait for the movie to end. If my wife hadn't fallen asleep midway, we would have left. Boring, pretentious and self absorbing. Although it was almost 3 hours long, it felt much longer. Over the top musical score, all the actors did was stare and did not do the subject matter justice at all. Extremely disappointed. I waited for years and this is the **** the came up with? Expand
14 of 68 users found this helpful1454
All this user's reviews
3
AlexMorteyzOct 6, 2017
A very very bad sequel. Instead of a good cyberpunk. Dear Ridley again continues to make films on biblical themes. I'm surprised that Michael fassbender did not appear in this movie.
10 of 50 users found this helpful1040
All this user's reviews
0
GeezezJstLftChiOct 16, 2017
Dune/Matrix 2&3 bad... looooong, tedious, dreary and boring. I didn't care about any of the characters other than the Dave Bautista's Sapper Morton...save your theater-going money, wait for Free/$1.00 Blu-ray rental from your videoDune/Matrix 2&3 bad... looooong, tedious, dreary and boring. I didn't care about any of the characters other than the Dave Bautista's Sapper Morton...save your theater-going money, wait for Free/$1.00 Blu-ray rental from your video store...not even Netflix worthy...certainly not a good sequel to the great original. Expand
7 of 35 users found this helpful728
All this user's reviews
3
Kdk2626Dec 19, 2017
I so wanted to love this movie: looks great, good acting. But the plot is trite and the script is dull. Worse, it is a movie that takes itself too seriously - it's trying to be an art house film, and by doing so it only manages to commit theI so wanted to love this movie: looks great, good acting. But the plot is trite and the script is dull. Worse, it is a movie that takes itself too seriously - it's trying to be an art house film, and by doing so it only manages to commit the cardinal sin of boring the audience. Expand
2 of 10 users found this helpful28
All this user's reviews
3
SatanskiMar 4, 2018
Love the first movie, but couldn't force myself to watch this one to the end. Due to lack of original mood and charm, i quickly got tired of cheap drama. Regardles of great CGI parts, the world just doesn't feel like distopian future - itLove the first movie, but couldn't force myself to watch this one to the end. Due to lack of original mood and charm, i quickly got tired of cheap drama. Regardles of great CGI parts, the world just doesn't feel like distopian future - it looks like some ruined part of present day world, with hover cars and androids slapped on it. Expand
1 of 5 users found this helpful14
All this user's reviews
1
RickBellOct 7, 2017
Completely over-rated by the critics, because they love this pretentious, slow-paced and confusing trainwreck of a sequel. Two of the female leads have noticeable Spanish accents to their English (similar to Penelope Cruz), which is jarringlyCompletely over-rated by the critics, because they love this pretentious, slow-paced and confusing trainwreck of a sequel. Two of the female leads have noticeable Spanish accents to their English (similar to Penelope Cruz), which is jarringly out of place. The movie is unappealing due to some of its violent and sexual scenes that are in poor taste and unnecessarily long. Not enough action, and poorly written. The disappointment in the audience was palpable after the movie ended. Ridley Scott should have directed it himself instead of Villanueva. Expand
7 of 36 users found this helpful729
All this user's reviews
3
PeterayNov 12, 2017
Bring a pillow and blanket - this is a sleeper... What began as a visually striking movie with excellently staged cinematography, intriguing sets, and a few beautiful, sexy women, became a tiresomely long snore-fest. This dragged on...andBring a pillow and blanket - this is a sleeper... What began as a visually striking movie with excellently staged cinematography, intriguing sets, and a few beautiful, sexy women, became a tiresomely long snore-fest. This dragged on...and on...and ON...requiring much effort to stay awake through as the story-line took the occasional break from mind-numbing scenes of the characters meandering around in dark lands, to senseless violence. People literally snored this, my wife fell asleep, and I wanted only one thing FOR IT TO FINALLY END. Borrrrrrring... Ryan Gossling stars in another stinker. Save your money and watch TOTAL RECALL with the tracking so slow it adds another 45 minutes to the movie. Expand
2 of 11 users found this helpful29
All this user's reviews
0
katezoeOct 15, 2017
MAJOR disappointment. Movie was 1 hour to long and even then you would have been BORED! Acting wooden. Waste a time and money. FAKE REVIEWS! Make movies great again!
8 of 45 users found this helpful837
All this user's reviews
0
HonestViewerOct 6, 2017
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Whoa, make sure you are wide awake for this 3 hour event or it will put you to sleep. But on second thought, they increased the volume so loud, quite a few times, we had to cover our ears. It woke us. Harrison Ford arrives more than half way in and not many lines. Expand
13 of 84 users found this helpful1371
All this user's reviews
0
Chris454Feb 11, 2018
One of the most overrated movies of all time. None of it is that great or memorable
4 of 33 users found this helpful429
All this user's reviews
1
lee2017usOct 23, 2017
From a movie enthusiastic person, this is the WORST NON-ACTION 'ACTION' MOVIE EVER 'CREATED' ON EARTH !!! I could not have been forced to WASTE MY 3 HOURS on it EVEN If I was PAID $50 to sit in this movie while TRYING NOT TO FALL ASLEEP !!!From a movie enthusiastic person, this is the WORST NON-ACTION 'ACTION' MOVIE EVER 'CREATED' ON EARTH !!! I could not have been forced to WASTE MY 3 HOURS on it EVEN If I was PAID $50 to sit in this movie while TRYING NOT TO FALL ASLEEP !!! and BTW, I need my retribution for the CONSTANT OVERPLAYED LOUD MUSICAL EFFECTS for 3 HR Pain & Suffering..
PS the ONLY Saving Grace to this movie is the beautiful virtual Cuban actress Ana De Armas!
Expand
2 of 17 users found this helpful215
All this user's reviews
2
ElijahloveDec 7, 2017
Style over substance does not a great movie make. Cool visuals. Nice sound. That's it. Period. Had trouble staying awake. That's the first test. Does a film grab the audience and take them to a different place. The original is farStyle over substance does not a great movie make. Cool visuals. Nice sound. That's it. Period. Had trouble staying awake. That's the first test. Does a film grab the audience and take them to a different place. The original is far superior. Especially the end of the original with Rutger Hauer's monologue. Great stuff. This 2049 film though . Doa. This film is way too long and boring. Excite us. Take us on an adventure. Show us what you are thinking. The movie makers failed. Ruined a great franchise. Expand
1 of 9 users found this helpful18
All this user's reviews
0
wanderlei2Dec 27, 2017
I gouged my eyes out with burning sticks because it was less painful than watching Blade Runner 2049.
5 of 51 users found this helpful546
All this user's reviews
3
xNukeFeb 19, 2018
What an absolute piece of crap. Thought it would never end. The plot wasn't terrible, but damn it was painfully slow to develop. Not a lot of action either.
0 of 3 users found this helpful03
All this user's reviews
3
LightsideFeb 8, 2018
Not Blade Runner in the slightest. Basically a reimagining. The movie as a whole is crafted well visually but plot holes, weird moments, laughable music, changes to locations, empty acting can't save it. For example the LAPD headquarters forNot Blade Runner in the slightest. Basically a reimagining. The movie as a whole is crafted well visually but plot holes, weird moments, laughable music, changes to locations, empty acting can't save it. For example the LAPD headquarters for Blade Runners is completely different. Why? Less rain throughout and instead a dusty ash like setting is used. Almost sterile locations compared to the original Blade Runner. Then you have a political motive by the end thrown in to make you roll your eyes even more. The pacing is almost comical that most shots linger on actors just starring off into space. As for the performers funny enough only Harrison Ford knows how to act and surprisingly the only part of the movie I enjoyed. If what you call acting is Gosling, the overrated Jared Leto and all the others just standing still not doing anything.. then it's time we really asked the question why these performers are paid high figures for this sort of thing? Acting has becoming modeling these days. Only Ford like I said made any sort of impact. Back to the very depressing plot, everything about it sucks including the revelation replicants can now have babies.. (wtf?!) and have skulls like humans? and what's the point of having replicants when you have AI holograms interacting with humans now? I know they don't do physical work but Pris was a pleasure model right? So why AI lovegrams all of a sudden? I mean there are so many plot holes and stupid ideas you wonder how this ever got off the ground. An insult to Ridley's original frankly. I guess maybe that's why they called it 2049 instead of Blade Runner 2. I was reluctant to see this but finally gave in because some were slamming Ford's appearance. Well Ford's expression and role in the whole film sums up my thoughts about it that you just want to retire and get as far away from LA as possible. Expand
0 of 3 users found this helpful03
All this user's reviews
1
Dante7886Mar 7, 2019
Quite disappointing movie. The style of cyberpunk is perfect, but the emotional part of the movie, really horrible. I can't even feel anything from that bad actor play. We must to empathy to Key, but he can't provide even a chance to do it.Quite disappointing movie. The style of cyberpunk is perfect, but the emotional part of the movie, really horrible. I can't even feel anything from that bad actor play. We must to empathy to Key, but he can't provide even a chance to do it. So I expected something more, than I got recently. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
3
darkbloodshed13Jun 30, 2020
Blade Runner 2049 is directed by Denis Villeneuve and is the sequel to Bade Runner. It Follows officer K played by Ryan Gosling, who is android Blade Runner, as he discovers a mystery that might shed some light on his destiny. To be honest IBlade Runner 2049 is directed by Denis Villeneuve and is the sequel to Bade Runner. It Follows officer K played by Ryan Gosling, who is android Blade Runner, as he discovers a mystery that might shed some light on his destiny. To be honest I never could get in to the first Blade Runner film. It was slow and took unnecessary detours, but the acting was good. In this film however every character is bland and boring. The same can be said for the story. it just feels like it goes on forever. On my first watch I actually feel asleep at the halve way point and woke up at the climax and knew exactly what was going on. If that isn't a sign of a film with some pacing problems then I don't know what is. However just because I can't stand this film doesn't mean there isn't an audience for this film. Remember I didn't like the first film either, so if you like that film than you could a different view on this film than me. In conclusion if you had problems with the first Blade Runner you might not like this film, yet if you are fan you might need to check this film out. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
marklaing1Oct 7, 2017
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Spoilers ahead.

Updated Nov 2019:

I just finished reading Future Noir: The Making of Blade Runner by Paul M. Sammon, a decent enough book although most of the book seems pretty well covered by the superb documentary "Dangerous Days" by Charles de Lauzirika. The book (Future Noir) was written in 2017 so everyone is all agog about the upcoming Blade Runner "sequel" and it's so disappointing to look back on the movie in this light. I can't even remember virtually anything ABOUT BR 2049. Apart from the awful, pointless "fight" between Harrison Ford and Ryan Gosling. I saw the original in 1982 and it stayed with me for years, until I saw it again on TV or VHS. Great movies are like that, they linger and haunt you forever. I can't imagine anyone thinking again or wanting to watch BR 2049 again as it plays on HBO or elsewhere.

Yep, I own the 7 DVD European version boxed set. Yes, I saw it at the Electric Theatre in Brixton when it came out. I love the original. I wanted so much to love the sequel. Most of my peeves are listed above and below, mirrored by other reviewers with whom I have forged an unhappy bond of disappointment and disbelief. And I concur. Harrison Ford was too passive. Ryan Gosling was too dull, too toned down. Sean Young's CGI was awful. Why not have her at an age like she is now? HF is nearly 80, so how about a 55-year-old Rachel. CGI of real people is tough - it never looks real and it didn't here. The set lighting was sub-par, the CGI buildings didn't look real. This is all "by the by" - if there had been a real script, a real story then all would be forgiven. The movie started, for me, when Joe gets to Vegas. That's how the trailer editor saw it and that's how you should see it. Get a drink join the movie about 90 minutes in and it's really not that bad after that. Some of the stuff is great. But most of it, including the eardrum-bursting "Music" (which was interesting in Arrival) but here, merely serves to pretend to elicit emotion. As another viewer mentioned: when the film finished, the lights suddenly went on (this was Studio Movie Grill so they needed to clean the food trays etc.) as if the theater was embarrassed at the movie's length and wanted to shuffle us out in a hurry. There was no applause, heck even mediocre films in LA get applause since half the audience works in the industry as grips, extras, teamsters etc., even in the outskirts of town. We all just shuffled out, stunned, not quite understanding how $185 million dollars in Budapest (where they made it) could have born so little fruit. Heck, you could BUY Budapest for $185m right? ;) This seems to be a very polarizing film. Lots of critics seem to like it. My wife liked it. I hated it. I hated myself for looking forward to it. I woke up depressed. I wanted to slap the screen and say: "That's for making me care about you!" Wack!
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
2
zerosubstanceJun 30, 2018
It's often been said that broad trends in entertainment reflect the character of a time. Sometimes they reveal the complacency of a culture with its values, showing an idealized version of its past, or an aspirational projection of theIt's often been said that broad trends in entertainment reflect the character of a time. Sometimes they reveal the complacency of a culture with its values, showing an idealized version of its past, or an aspirational projection of the possibilities its imperfect values could pose, if only the record could be cleansed of the historical contradictions and latent hypocrisies that fester within. Other times have turned their attention to the hypocrisy itself, to uglier details that stood in the way of perfection.

We belong to a time that is at once infantilized by a surface culture where adults are permanently marketed to as children, yet they are also abandoned by systems and institutions to whom they must pay alms (in the numbing hours sacrificed to day jobs, and in taxes demanded by a malfunctioning government) they are no longer the constituency. What is there to hope for when the very prospect of affecting meaningful change seems impossible?

Today we bear the pale complexion of an era drained of any vision of what is beyond itself. We didn't envision this as the future, and on the horizon are only more grim portents. The culture has given up on imagining something better, and has receded into the corpse of nostalgia.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
InconnuxJan 11, 2019
I loved the original. One of my favorite films...

This one is incredibly boring and I almost fell asleep in the theatre.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
NileOuroborosJan 21, 2019
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This is the first time I've come out of a movie wishing I could have seen the producer's cut. You know, the way we normally see movies. Where the director's tendency to get too artsy is tempered by the necessities of expedience and concise storytelling and budget. It was visually stunning of course, with many memorable scenes and good performances. But the plot, not the writing, is by far the weakest element. And while it would be fun to dissect every stupid point (replicant procreation as the McGuffin; replicants who obey despite the lack of any substantial control mechanism; evil torture that can only for some reason happen off world so that Harrison has the chance to be rescued in transit), the real, core problem is the bad guy.

And the real, core problem with the bad guy is that he's bad. The key that held the original all together was the complete absence of evil - the full and total surrender to and embrace (narratively) of dystopia. In a proper dystopia, a truly depressing one, there are no bad guys. Everyone's just in it for themselves, trying to survive, trying to make the right choice if that's even possible. In the original we are misled into thinking anyone could be the bad guy: cops, replicants, the genius Tyrell, even hyper-objectified Rachel maybe? And they all just turn out to be self-involved and surviving, one way or another. Until ultimately we find out, if there was a bad guy at all, it's our hero: running around killing soon-to-die-anyway, often brilliant, and generally peaceful replicants as part of a full on genocide. There are no good choices, no right decisions in a proper dystopia. The whole system is broken and the only appropriate final response is depression and escape if possible. And the good stories about these dystopias are about the impossibility of behaving morally in these worlds, how our protagonists deal with it and either do or don't find small victories within the larger perpetual defeat. It's compelling emotionally, relatable to in our real and generally uncaring world, and wonderfully fertile ground for great storytelling.

What the new Blade Runner does is give us a bad guy. And not just a bad guy looking for profit, or power - not only. No. This guy is creepy, properly evil, kills one of his own wholly innocent and palpably afraid creations just to add emphasis to his evil speech (to himself basically - how's that for forced exposition?) about how desperately he is incapable of producing birth capable replicants. He is pure evil, he looks, smells, breathes evil. He has evil eyes and evil floating cameras attached to an evil port on his evil neck. He enjoys the suffering of others and wants to build a galaxy full of slaves. His evil minion is, again, repeatedly and unnecessarily and unbelievably just pure hateful evil. Our villain here is all one color. And being all black, he by necessity makes Gosling all white.

And, seriously, how boring is this guy - our hero? He basically just slowly mopes around all over the place, emoting real hard - when he isn't running through walls or shooting stuff (people, things, replicants... who cares). He has a digital girlfriend that he can't touch, and everything about both of them reads as uncaring of each other, but the plot says love is there, so let's just pretend. And how infuriating are the vagaries of how tough or strong, exactly, is this thing? He can run full speed through a concrete wall no problem, but gets knocked out by a mild crash. He can't beat evil minion chick until after he's mortally wounded and floating in water with her - suddenly stronger than the thing that 30 seconds ago was handing him his ass. All that stuff's just lazy.

But anyway, perhaps this might have worked as some simple morality tale à la Snow White - pure hero, rotten villain, love conquers all in the end. Except the story is so convoluted, unclear, and above all stretched out for miles - even the morality tale that might have been is lost in the susurrus. Love does, kind of, conquer all in the end, but it's got pretty much squat to do with the fake human with borrowed memories we've been watching wandering around all this time. Deckard thought he was human, so he was human. Joe (Gosling) knows he's a fancy robot, so he's a fancy robot. But the most damaging effect of the simple evil/good dynamic here is that there is no doubt, no uncertainty. Ultimately it makes caring about anyone or anything in this story impossible. It's just something you can watch happen, predictably. Our bad guy will exclusively do horrible things. Our good guy will exclusively do noble things. You expect this from a Transformers movie. You don't expect this from a story in the lineage of Philip K. Dick. Who wasn't even all that great of a writer, just an absolutely astounding world-builder. The foundations of that world were transferred to the original Blade Runner, and that's why it worked. They were ignored in this sequel, and that's why it doesn't work.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
2
SepherimJun 28, 2020
Vista Blade Runner 2049 y, como he dicho mil veces, no tendría que haberlo hecho. Menuda basura de película. Empecemos por un guión con unos agujeros enormes por los que cabe un trasbordador espacial. Una lentitud que no aporta nada más queVista Blade Runner 2049 y, como he dicho mil veces, no tendría que haberlo hecho. Menuda basura de película. Empecemos por un guión con unos agujeros enormes por los que cabe un trasbordador espacial. Una lentitud que no aporta nada más que tedio y aburrimiento. Una fotografía que no tiene nada de especial, por mucho que intente aportar su visión al original. Unos personajes que tampoco tienen especial sentido ni coherencia ni profundidad. Y falta la música de Vangelis, que solo aparece en momentos contados y para hacer escenas que mejor no hubieran hecho. El resultado de todo ello es que han hecho una mala película, que empeora por pretender ser continuación de una obra maestra. No hay segunda parte de Sueñan los Androides con Ovejas Eléctricas, ni debería haber habido segunda parte de la película, pues ni los guionistas, ni el director están a la altura. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
0
Nikita98kDec 10, 2020
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I watched it 3 years ago when i was basicallt kid. And it was worst film ive ever watched and oh yea i watched ton of films. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
ZaganEDFNov 16, 2020
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I won't be surprised if Villeneuve actually consulted incels while making this movie. So we have K, a lonely social outcast with a virtual gf. He's very stoic and heroic. But omg he actually can experience emotions. Who would have thought? Except, like incels, his emotions aren't coming from the depths and richness of his inner world, they are reactions to the extremely negative outside events. He's devoid of any humanity just like a machine that's preprogrammed to experience emotions but is empty otherwise. And his heroic journey is that of a Mary Sue character. He doesn't do anything wrong, he's powerful and indestructible, and for the most part of the movie he's the chosen one or so he believes. And even when it's revealed that he's not the chosen one he still manages to become a hero, the saver of the world. Now let's look at the women in the film and you will see why it's an incel kino. All "real" women are depicted in negative ways. We have K's boss, a **** and cruel careerist who works in the police. And we have Luv, another **** and cruel corporate careerist who wants to do nothing but serve her male lord. They both are ready to kill our poor guy K. And we also have a bunch of other real women but they're literally just whores. Now let's contrast them with K's virtual girlfriend Joi. Well she's a perfect waifu. Unlike Luv and K's boss, Joi is a very traditional depiction of female archetypes. She's loyal, not ****, not a careerist, doesn't have any power, doesn't want to harm anyone, doesn't work in male dominant environment (she doesn't work anywhere. she's just K's virtual housewife). Just like incels' anime girls, she is perfect. And in a very direct and blunt statement of how bad real women are, we are shown how Luv, a real woman, crushes and destroys Joi. Just a few words about Deckard's daughter Ana. Our guy K is deceived by her in two ways. First when she told him that the memories are real, making him believe that they are his memories. And then by the memories themselve. So all that time he had the memories of a woman in his head that were trucking him into believing they are his real memories. How very manipulative of a woman to get even inside the man's head. One really dumb and unrealistic scene is when Luv just leaves K in the casino to die. Instead of just killing him she playfully kicks his ass and just goes away. That's just stupid writing. The film is visually beautiful with amazing aesthetics. But substance over form please. It's time to stop praising movies based just on the surface of what they are. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews