Read Mixed User Reviews for Blade Runner 2049

6

tropicAcesOct 6, 2017

I could wake up tomorrow or in five years and realize this is a masterpiece, but as it stands now BLADE RUNNER 2049 Is a gorgeous-looking film with massive pacing and narrative issues. It has no right being 146 minutes long, and theI could wake up tomorrow or in five years and realize this is a masterpiece, but as it stands now BLADE RUNNER 2049 Is a gorgeous-looking film with massive pacing and narrative issues. It has no right being 146 minutes long, and the incredible effects, cinematography and a growling Harrison Ford can only distract you so long.… Expand

34 of 67 users found this helpful3433

All this user's reviews

6

buehlereOct 8, 2017

The movie's style and visual effects are groundbreaking. However, I think the movie falls apart in the second act, failing to bring its themes and plot together. By the end, I feel like even Villeneuve was exhausted by what he was trying toThe movie's style and visual effects are groundbreaking. However, I think the movie falls apart in the second act, failing to bring its themes and plot together. By the end, I feel like even Villeneuve was exhausted by what he was trying to accomplish. I would be wary of these "masterpiece" reviews.… Expand

22 of 48 users found this helpful2226

All this user's reviews

6

DefinitelyMaybOct 6, 2017

I've just finished watching Blade Runner 2049 and visually, its an amazing film that is second to none. After that said, I'm kind of disappointed with the film and don't think its anywhere as a lot of the critics I like have stated the filmI've just finished watching Blade Runner 2049 and visually, its an amazing film that is second to none. After that said, I'm kind of disappointed with the film and don't think its anywhere as a lot of the critics I like have stated the film to be.

First as a Denis Villeneuve fan who have seen all his English works (apart from Enemy), this is by far his least impressive work. The problem is not really his direction, but rather the less than impressive writing and some very on the nose-exposition that makes the world less believable as it should be. Perhaps the biggest problem with this film is that it raises a lot of questions that don't really invite intrigue as it hopes it should do. The film is plot heavy compared with the original, but unlike the original, I don't feel the world building in 2049 is as good as the original. For example, the original was always a character study with Deckard who lived in this futuristic LA who was suddenly plugged back to his job. Here we saw the cyberpunk world he lived in with many interactions between characters that seem real and genuine. However in 2049, Ryan Gosling's character is never really interacting with characters that feel part of the world, but rather characters to further the plot point.For example, many of the character interactions involve just two people who either point Gosling to somewhere or discuss exposition. You never get a sense of any of these characters. Note in the original the society seems lived in with Dekard constantly having to push people away or him drinking the alcohol at the bar which seems like what he would normally do etc. The biggest offender in 2049 is that the film has characters and events that lack consistent motivation with logic jumping points that bugged me throughout the film. Because I don't wanna spoil any of the plot really, its worth noting that a lot of what happens doesn't necessarily follow the things said or done preceding it. That said, the original Blade runner didn't really per se have much of a plot either, but which is why I've always classified the original as a character study more than anything else. Given that Villenueve is a master of this genre (given all his films are character studies), it is ultra disappointing that Ryan Gosling's character doesn't go through the same journey nor development that Deckard went through. Sure there might be some sentimental aspects that happens in the film, especially with the female characters, there is never a scene like when Deckard starts drinking (after killing Zhora) or his nod at the end that symbolises anything gone through, so when sentimental events happen in 2049, I never felt any emotion towards these events unfortunately.

The other problem with 2049 is that it sets up a lot of hints of a bigger world which feels like playing an RPG game with many side quests available. In fact, I would go so far as to compare this movie as awfully similar to the Deus Ex game series. Part of the problem lies with the co-writer Michael Green who also happen to write Alien Covenant and Logan which had the same issues popping up with this film (great premises and start, but then devovles into convuluted plots and sets up that goes nowhere)
Given that the original Blade runner inspired so much of the genre we know today, its disappointing that 2049 doesn't really offer us anything new or done better in terms of the sci-fi trope. In fact, 2049 rather borrows a lot of its plot and themes from current films that have done it better. There a little bit of Her here, a little bit of Children of Men here, and even a little bit of Ex Machina, but when put together, does not feel as satisfying.

Also with the extremely long movie length (I don't mind how long a film is), there could be a case made that it didnt need to take nearly 3 hours to tell this story. A lot of the film is broken into smaller dense sequences that involve people talking either about what is going on with the world, or furthering the plot. This is why I don't believe the world building is as good as the original. Whilst 2049 remains ever faithful to the Asian themes, the motif of the eyes etc, it has nowhere the ambiguity and the guts to tackle bigger issues like corporation takeover or the idea of 'white flight'. In fact, 2049 seems to abandon a lot of the themes from the original that doesn't seem to reflect in a more futurstic LA.

Overall 2049 is still a dazzle of a film and is worth watching as a good sequel. However, it is clearly overstated as the acting and cinematography are great, but not so acclaimed as some might say. There are lot of things that work in this film, but I feel as though this doesn't per se elevate the film to the status as the original. I hope this doesn't become a franchise and that if they decide to do the next iteration, it should be something with a more a personal setting and philosophical overtone, rather than a plot heavy noir.… Expand

39 of 90 users found this helpful3951

All this user's reviews

6

PugnaciousOct 8, 2017

Yep, another masterpiece, only... not so much. If movies are primarily about the story, the new Blade Runner sucks. There are too many unnecessary scenes, too many amazingly slow ones, and many which I like to call executions - on the surfaceYep, another masterpiece, only... not so much. If movies are primarily about the story, the new Blade Runner sucks. There are too many unnecessary scenes, too many amazingly slow ones, and many which I like to call executions - on the surface something happens there, but indeed they are only about exposition. Every scene with annoying Jared Leto is just that: cheap exposition. Bad guys are one-dimensional, unlike Rutger Hauer in the first movie. Rich, original environment of the first movie are now desolate ruins. Which is nice, for a second, but then you see almost all scenes are empty. At some point, it looks like there are not secondary characters in this world. Gosling was a good choice, and there is enough good thing in BR that you still can watch it and have fun, but BR2049 should simply be much better than this.… Expand

22 of 52 users found this helpful2230

All this user's reviews

6

manuelgcgNov 19, 2017

First things first, this movie is not for everybody. Blade Runner 2049 has amazing sceneries, great CGI, fantastic practical effects and a world so well made that whilst watching the movie you just feel part of it. However the story its quiteFirst things first, this movie is not for everybody. Blade Runner 2049 has amazing sceneries, great CGI, fantastic practical effects and a world so well made that whilst watching the movie you just feel part of it. However the story its quite disappointing with an unnecessary length that could have been easily reduced by removing sections of the movie that added nothing more than beautiful scenarios.

Pros
+ Beautiful universe
+ Fantastic performance from Ana de Armas
+ Top notch CGI
+ Great use of practical effects
+ Stunning scenes with an incomparable immersion
+ Amazing soundtrack

Cons
- Unnecessary long
- Slow paced
- Weak Story
- Poor performances

This movie suffers the same negatives as the original Blade Runner, if you liked the first you must watch it.

If you are looking for a movie to admire its beauty and how well made it is, this movie is a 9/10

If you just want to watch a movie and just enjoy it and have a good time it is a 4-5/10

I am going to score it a 6/10 to balance these two.… Expand

3 of 5 users found this helpful32

All this user's reviews

6

JoeCoolJan 25, 2018

Beautifully made world, but the plot drags itself along so slowly it hurts. Excellent visuals and some really great scenes but overall the movie was quite the disappointment. Not the masterpiece I had expected at all.

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

6

NBFCJan 11, 2018

I love the original Blade Runner, it's one of my personal favorite films.

I was excited that Denis Villeneuve was directing this and not the notoriously hit-or-miss Ridley Scott. Villeneuve always had a great sweeping visual eye, which wasI love the original Blade Runner, it's one of my personal favorite films.

I was excited that Denis Villeneuve was directing this and not the notoriously hit-or-miss Ridley Scott.

Villeneuve always had a great sweeping visual eye, which was showcased in his previous sci-fi outing Arrival and that quality continues to be on display in this sequel. Right off the bat it feels like you are transported back into the rainy, dreary and mysterious world that Scott first introduced to audiences back in 1982.

Adjusted for inflation, this sequel has more than twice the budget of the original and not a single dime was wasted as far as the visuals are concerned. Everything from the rainy LA streets, to Joe’s (Gosling) apartment, to Wallace’s (Leto) baroque-style lair, to the almost apocalyptic junkyard and the eerie abandoned Las Vegas look absolutely gorgeous. This is by far one of the most beautiful-looking movies to have come out all year.

The storyline (conceived by original BR writer Hampton Fancher) also consists of a few intriguing ideas that are prime ready for a hard science-fiction affair such as this.

Despite what the trailers may have you believe, this is not an action film but an atmospheric methodically paced piece of philosophical examination (which is keeping true to the style of the original). Having said that, there is a particularly great un-conventional action set-piece in the third act involving a fight scene on a beach while a downed flying car is being washed away by the heavy tide.

While there are some great ideas, scenes and brilliant visuals; I still can't help but feel a bit underwhelmed.

I think it comes down to three issues:

1. The score, provided this time by Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch, is very underwhelming. Now I like the work of Hans Zimmer (even if I admit he is over-exposed) and absolutely loved his work on this year’s Dunkirk but the dark drum-heavy ambience he provides to accompany Villeneuve visuals is lacking the sheer adventure and memorable cues of Vangelis.

2. The the pacing to feel rather baggy.

Now the original movie had a slow methodical pace too but it was also tight at two hours and focused on a handful of characters. The whole affair has a very Tarkovsky-like pacing to it, and I personally can't stand how slow Tarkovsky paces his films.

The storyline just feels bloated.

BB 2049 nearly clocks in at three hours but outside of Joe, Joi and Luv (Hoeks), all the other characters are given all-too brief screen time in order to make an impact. Wallace, the Steve Jobs-like main villain, is only in the movie for two scenes and Deckard (Ford) doesn’t comes into the narrative until 3/4 of the way through.

Most of the movie is taken up by Joe’s search for Deckard, which goes by way too slow and most of the third act is spent setting up for possible sequels/spin-offs. BR 2049 may have taken measures to expand the universe only hinted at in the original, but it was done in a way that felt banal and removed from the personal more soulful approach in Scott’s masterpiece.

3. The acting.

Dave Bautista (aka. Drax the Destroyer) impresses in his one scene with Ryan Gosling, showcasing an emotional range previously unseen. There is also an intense and thought-provoking dialogue exchange between Deckard and Wallace that showcases Harrison Ford sincerely ACTING instead of just growling his lines like he has been doing too often as of late.

But on the whole, the acting quality is okay but un-spectacular. Ryan Gosling is essentially giving the same stoic performance he did in Drive and I couldn’t get past Armas’ perplexing accent. Robin Wright gives another under-whelming performance like she did in this year’s Wonder Woman and Jared Leto is in the movie far too little to make an impression. Probably the most baffling performance was Lennie James, who literally disappears from the movie after just three minutes of screen time!!

I wish I can give more praise and I am aware that this movie has been getting great write-ups from critics and audiences alike, so I do seem to be in a minority here. There is plenty to like but at the end of the day watching BR 2049 was the equivalent to walking through an expensive art gallery.

It all looks gorgeous but not much in the way of emotional impact.… Expand

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

6

gokartmozart491Oct 6, 2017

I write this review as someone who considers the original film a 10. I left the film trying to figure out what the real plot was, what was supposed to reel me in to caring about what was going on and I think the problem is that Ryan GoslingI write this review as someone who considers the original film a 10. I left the film trying to figure out what the real plot was, what was supposed to reel me in to caring about what was going on and I think the problem is that Ryan Gosling is good looking and he has acting talent (sometimes), but he lacks any sort of charisma to make me care about his characters; thus the problem with Blade Runner 2049, he's supposed to be the center of the plot, but I'm not riveted by the conflict he's supposed to be the center of. One thing I will say that detracted from the film for me is that there are more ties to the modern world we know, making this Blade Runner feel much less foreign, alien, than the first one. The first film, you knew it was our Earth in the future, but there was little to drive that home. There is one passage where we're hit over the head with 20th Century popular culture, effectively popping the bubble that Blade Runner so meticulously crafted. Finally, the thing that bothered me from the time that I heard that Blade Runner 2049 was announced and that Harrison Ford would be playing a character in the present of the timeline, as a man who's aged 30 years, except one of the central, crucial plot points of the first film was as to whether Deckard was or wasn't a replicant himself, replicants, who at the time only had a four year life span, the evidence and testimony from the director in later interviews pointed to him actually being a replicant, so he shouldn't be alive. I was expecting some weak excuse to be made in this film, but it wasn't even discussed. K, is plainly made to be a replicant, so it would seem to be further evidence to the point that Deckard, as a Blade Runner, was one; so confusion ensues in the bad way. It was a pretty film, somewhat interesting, one plot point that should have been major felt pasted in, so, go and watch with low expectations.… Expand

9 of 22 users found this helpful913

All this user's reviews

4

Kadima82Oct 7, 2017

While it is visually and technically exquisite, Blade Runner 2049 does not engage us emotionally in terms of characters and storylines. Over a period of 180 minutes, this bring the spectator to the edge of boredom instead of their seats.

12 of 33 users found this helpful1221

All this user's reviews

6

gargooletzOct 12, 2017

Visually stunning on many levels but fails to create a believable, living world. Everything is really well designed but not much of this is exciting or fresh. The film has serious pacing issues, a plethora of plot holes and despite beingVisually stunning on many levels but fails to create a believable, living world. Everything is really well designed but not much of this is exciting or fresh. The film has serious pacing issues, a plethora of plot holes and despite being almost 3 hours long, feels like huge chunks of it were left on the editing room floor. It asks some interesting questions but unfortunately doesn't explore any of them and just seems to lack focus.… Expand

6 of 17 users found this helpful611

All this user's reviews

4

jondavisOct 8, 2017

Visually stunning, but beyond that nothing special. Story seemed intentionally confusing and some of the fighting sequences felt implausible. The depiction of women in this movie is also troubling. There are breasts galore in the picture andVisually stunning, but beyond that nothing special. Story seemed intentionally confusing and some of the fighting sequences felt implausible. The depiction of women in this movie is also troubling. There are breasts galore in the picture and women are treated as objects. The only friendly woman is a hologram. The other female characters are either hyper-masculine prisoners of their occupation, an actual prisoner, or prostitutes. I understand it's supposed to be dystopian but the male characters don't seem to be as one-dimensional as the female characters. Jared Leto's character is like a bad SNL skit.… Expand

9 of 27 users found this helpful918

All this user's reviews

5

BossukOct 9, 2017

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The original BR had a simple storyline, but told it in a way that was intriguing, atmospheric and engaging. And at the end you felt you understood the characters. BR 2049 has tried to capture this, but has unfortunately fallen short.

Spoiler Alert
It seems the penchant for films to over complicate stories nowadays has not been ignored by the writers of BR2049. The film has some amazing scenes and dialogue, but then when they get into the nitty gritty, the film instead raises more questions than it answers.

I left the cinema wondering" I think i enjoyed that...but I'm not sure. What about x and y"

The motives of some of the characters is unclear, why are you doing this? The overriding story is clear, but individual motives are certainly not.

The film is too long. One scene has 10 minutes of K walking round an abandoned hotel. No tension, no atmospheric music, no dialogue, no action. Literally nothing happens. Ok, we get it, the hotel is disused and abandoned. It was purely wasted time. There are a few scenes like this that did nothing for the film. Completely unnecessary time fillers that do nothing. What's worse is that this wasted time could have been spent filling on some of the obvious gaps in the story.

e.g. What the hell is baselining? I can guess, but why isn't the film explaining this to me? What does the fact he failed the test actually mean? And why are they now going to kill him for failing the test.

Then add to this, the actions or lack of in some scenes make no sense. These is no excuse for this. One scene that stands out is when Deckard is kidnapped. why is K left alive? As far as the female protagonist is concerned, she has no further use for him, so there is no reason to leave him alive. The only course of action would be to kill him. How did she find him?

If all the records were lost in the blackout, how did they find out what Rachel looked like. the only record we have is audio?

Just a couple of examples of where this film falls very short.… Expand

7 of 21 users found this helpful714

All this user's reviews

6

WdMacOct 8, 2017

Great production value and very interesting set design. pretty good acting too. Very long winded dialogue, and lots of pointless padding. The plot is largely moved forward by vigorous use of mcguffins and red herrings. Not a bad movie, butGreat production value and very interesting set design. pretty good acting too. Very long winded dialogue, and lots of pointless padding. The plot is largely moved forward by vigorous use of mcguffins and red herrings. Not a bad movie, but not a great one in my opinion… Expand

5 of 15 users found this helpful510

All this user's reviews

6

toronto_puzzlerNov 14, 2017

The film is visually stylish, but it is also derivative and emotionally unsatisfying. I found the pace slow and the mood depressive. While the film was entertaining, I missed the 'science' part of science fiction. "Blade Runner 2049" sharesThe film is visually stylish, but it is also derivative and emotionally unsatisfying. I found the pace slow and the mood depressive. While the film was entertaining, I missed the 'science' part of science fiction. "Blade Runner 2049" shares the spirit of Villeneuve's other films, while adopting the look and characters of the original "Blade Runner".… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

6

StrepsOct 10, 2017

Blade Runner was a movie that didn't need a sequel. The thing that made it good was the fact that it left the audience to decide what happened next and how the world changed after. 2049 spends a lot of time reminding you of the conceptsBlade Runner was a movie that didn't need a sequel. The thing that made it good was the fact that it left the audience to decide what happened next and how the world changed after. 2049 spends a lot of time reminding you of the concepts from the original, it even rehashes the same ideas and scenes that make this film needlessly long. It almost felt like a remake rather than a sequel or a continuation of the story. I am not sure if it was dumbed down to appeal to a less patient audience, or if cinema is forever changed and doesn't leave much in the imagination of the viewer.

There are numerous times in the film where it repeats scenes, just in case you didn't get it the first three times it showed you, and you get the feeling that the director for some unknown reason has to hold your hand the entire film. Can't I, the viewer make up my mind and figure out my own conclusion without having it rammed down my throat over and over again.

Agent K's love interest and accompanying drawn out and grating scenes, are some of the worst cinema I have seen in a long time. This entire plot line was another re-hashed idea from the original film. At one point It felt like I was watching an episode of Battlestar Galactica, that's how little this film has tried to push the boundaries of story telling.

Jared Leto's performance is borderline awful in this film, he over acts every scene, and honestly the film would have been better without him and his character which is a homage to the previous corporate goon. The character of Wallace (Jared Leto) doesn't fit in the film nor does his story line add any substance to the movie other than dragging the running time for 30 minuets longer.

The film really crashed and burned when a scene towards the end with Deckard and Wallace makes the Princess Leia CGI scene from Rouge One, look like Oscar level cinema.

This could have been a nice way to tie up the 1982 film, but it brings zero innovation to story telling, and never lets the viewer out of its grip long enough to have allow for imagination to rise up. There are too many rehashed concepts that are just told slightly differently and it doesn't explore anything new.… Expand

5 of 16 users found this helpful511

All this user's reviews

6

tr78478Oct 6, 2017

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. What a missed opportunity! Visually stunning....but missing some of the 'grime' of the original....even the 'junkyard' looked too perfectly dirty....casting and acting was great....but can someone please tell me why Niander Wallace (Jared Leto) was even in this movie? His storyline only confused things....
Some of the established themes were touched on, but they could have gone so much deeper: if the 'new' Replicants were unable to go 'crazy', what side effect does that produce in terms of their reactions to certain situations; did they do away with the old 'classifications'? If so, what does ambiguous role assignments do to their a.i.? They didn't even address the theme of 'life-span', and time...and what both mean when 'you' don't change...ever! Instead, we get overly drawn out scenes that end up not meaning anything, and Harrison Old ALMOST taking out two Replicants....come-aw, Denis!
Worth seeing if simply for the visuals....but doesn't add anything to the discussions that the first movie created.… Expand

9 of 29 users found this helpful920

All this user's reviews

4

McGillotineOct 6, 2017

If I were addressing Blade Runner 2049 as a standalone film I may have been more lenient in giving the film a seven, however since this film is a sequel to Blade Runner (1982), my initial verdict of this film as it stands is a four.

BladeIf I were addressing Blade Runner 2049 as a standalone film I may have been more lenient in giving the film a seven, however since this film is a sequel to Blade Runner (1982), my initial verdict of this film as it stands is a four.

Blade Runner (1982) is by no means a perfect film, polarizing reviews at the time of release, a box office bomb and seven different versions of the film over the span of 25 years is enough to put any casual moviegoer off seeing this film within their lifetime. My experience with Blade Runner started with the director’s cut in 2005, I found it was boring, contrived and didn’t watch it again until nearly a decade later. Whenever I watch a film my objective opinion on whether a film is good or bad is never subject to change, however Blade Runner is an anomaly and upon repeated viewed of both the director’s cut and final cut my view shifted from hate to love for this film. Blade Runner (1982) is not a film in the conventional sense but instead an experiment, filled to the brim with story, culture and lore it has inspired countless sci-fi and neo-noir projects since its release. Blade Runner 2049 however feels more so like a conventional film and while it captures the Blade Runner look, the feel is lost in translation boiling down to a movie that’s excessively artificial and overall ‘okay’.

Blade Runner 2049 opens with ‘K’, A Los Angles Blade Runner played by Ryan Gosling tasked primarily with the job of ‘retiring’ The last of the Tyrell corp. Nexus 8 units who have exceeded the Nexus 6 lifespan of four years to more open-ended lifespans like human beings. While on a job K discovers an old and dark secret left behind by Eldon Tyrell's played by Joe Turkel in the 1982 film, Tyrell corp. that threatens the co-existence of human and replicant societies. All the while a darker force is at work by the name of Niander Wallace, whose Wallace corporation have since succeeded Tyrell in replicant manufacturing. What follows is a heavily long film at 2 hours 48 minutes that travels from location to location, with visits to familiar faces such as Rick Deckard played by Harrison Ford in the films second half to ease that nostalgic itch. Performances in this film vary tremendously from actors such as Ryan Gosling who easily carries the film and weaker performances from actors such as Jared Leto who once again blows his role out of proportion to be the films biggest ‘douchebag’. Actresses such as Robin Wright and Ana de Amras pull great performances in addition to actors such Dave Bautista plays a memorable performance as Sapper despite his small screen time. Harrison Ford feels a lot less versatile an actor as he did in the original Blade Runner but is otherwise enjoyable to watch as an older Deckard who seems to be tired from it all, desiring seclusion in his later life. One of the major realms this film comes apart in is the story. As stated before this film is very long at 2 hours and 48 minutes in comparison to its predecessor which is less than 2 hours long. While the outline of the film is promising and the first third of the film feels like a Blade Runner movie, the remaining two thirds make things needlessly more complicated as new side plots and locations are introduced that aren’t particularly interesting nor necessary in conjunction with the main story. The romance is another issue I had with the film and without spoiling much a scene between ‘K’ and Ana de Armas ‘Joi’ is quite possibly the most awkward romance scene I have ever witnessed in film. Furthermore, the films conclusion felt quite choppy and while topping Rutger Hauer's ‘Tears in rain’ monologue is by no means an easy task, the lack of existential questions or room for thought like the original film, leaves you more included to go ‘huh’ then question what it means to be human.

Another issue is the films soundtrack, while I can’t see why they didn’t get Vangelis back for the sequel considering he is still both alive and active, Denis Villeneuve instead hired Jóhann Jóhannsson to compose the films score. What we’re left with is a score that is fairly meh and isn’t all too memorable, many of the films dramatic scenes aren’t benefitted by the newer music and as a result you don’t tend to take much notice of the soundtrack. Part of me also thinks that Villeneuve found the soundtrack was underwhelming aswell as tracks from the original film are still used in certain sequences of the film. It is also worth noting that this is not the original soundtrack too as Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch were brought in to modify the soundtrack.

As it stands until another viewing Blade Runner 2049 is an okay film by itself but is a less than stellar sequel that I think in time people will forget about it.… Expand

8 of 29 users found this helpful821

All this user's reviews

4

pschiresonOct 8, 2017

A big fan of the original Blade Runner, I was looking forward to Blade Runner 2049. The trailers were promising and the casting looked terrific. On a deeper level, the film's themes continue to intrigue. I saw the film in 3D yesterday: anA big fan of the original Blade Runner, I was looking forward to Blade Runner 2049. The trailers were promising and the casting looked terrific. On a deeper level, the film's themes continue to intrigue. I saw the film in 3D yesterday: an interminable disappointment. After an hour, Ryan Gosling's understatement flattens out. Jared Leto's overly mannered performance (not to mention his cheesy lines) feel like they're from a B movie. Likewise the confrontation in the third act in which the villainous cyborg gets her comeuppance. Robin Wright is fine, but occupies only a tiny corner of the film. Harrison Ford enlivens things, but it must be 90 minutes into the film before he shows up. And the music, relentlessly heavy-handed cues of menace, as if it were necessary. Pretentious, overdone, interminable.… Expand

6 of 22 users found this helpful616

All this user's reviews

5

lmorinOct 9, 2017

The movie was a big disappointment. I felt the special effects were great, but the plot fell short, ending as a simple chase movie good guys vs bad guys and no clever solution. Muttered dialogue contributed to frequent confusion about theThe movie was a big disappointment. I felt the special effects were great, but the plot fell short, ending as a simple chase movie good guys vs bad guys and no clever solution. Muttered dialogue contributed to frequent confusion about the plot twists. I was amazed at the emphasis on the female body in this futuristic scifi story as it seemed so completely dated. Why weren't there more sex objects of choice also on display? The original was much better, IMHO.… Expand

6 of 22 users found this helpful616

All this user's reviews

6

mcgrzlyOct 13, 2017

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. As a sequel, Blade Runner 2049 works visually and sonically, as it further expands and explores the post-apocalyptical Earth that the first movie set up. Story-wise there is an interesting subversion of the 'Chosen One' trope, as Ryan Gosling's "K" is set up as the the savior until the final act, in which it is revealed that his memories that seem to built to this were actually made and put there by the hermit-like Mariette (Mackenzie Davis) - a clever subversion, that is somewhat undercut by the fact that the movie still sees Deckard (Harrison Ford) as such a Chosen One, in that he becomes the Allfather for the replicants. Overall, the movie seems to want to have its cake and eat it too, but doesn't even have the necessary ingredients to make that cake in the first place. Storylines are underdeveloped and never followed through, a lot of characters remain pretty flat (Jared Leto's evil inventor is especially horrible, a one note villain that basically just dishes out exposition and never gets into the interesting politics and ideologies of his character).

This is especially inexcusable, as the movie would have plenty of time to explore its characters and subplots in more depth, but instead spends a significant part of its 2 hour and fortysomething running time on shots of desolate landscapes and decrepit buildings – though granted, a lot of these shots are gorgeously put together, but even the most gorgeous shot gets tiring if there is not enough substance to sustain it.

Blade Runner 2049 succeeds in some ways, mostly visually and sonically, but falls flat in some major areas otherwise, mostly in providing engaging characters and storytelling throughout and following through with the plots it sets up.

P.S.: For a movie that presents a world that seems highly influenced by Japanese/Asian culture (Japanese script (Kanji?) is shown throughout, female advertisement holograms that seem to be inspired by Hatsune Miku etc.) there is a incredible lack of diversity in this movie.… Expand

3 of 11 users found this helpful38

All this user's reviews

5

amirrodanOct 7, 2017

not a good movie/ big disappointment.
visual is amazing but very boring
it dose not make u feel anything, storyline simple, characters flat, screenplay bad, cyberfunk dosent exist, too much talking with no point. and sound is too loud do theynot a good movie/ big disappointment.
visual is amazing but very boring
it dose not make u feel anything, storyline simple, characters flat, screenplay bad, cyberfunk dosent exist, too much talking with no point. and sound is too loud
do they really thought they got a good movie ?… Expand

9 of 36 users found this helpful927

All this user's reviews

6

PlzRMOct 16, 2017

Это очень приятный фильм, в стиле Бегущего, он так же отлично смотрится в этой вселенной, но фильм от части потерял свое противостояние человека и репликанта, теперь в основе сюжета другие цели, которые не такие уж и глупые, за происходящимЭто очень приятный фильм, в стиле Бегущего, он так же отлично смотрится в этой вселенной, но фильм от части потерял свое противостояние человека и репликанта, теперь в основе сюжета другие цели, которые не такие уж и глупые, за происходящим приятно наблюдать. Главный герой, очень приятный, не карикатурный, за его действиями стоят вполне понятные цели. В целом все хорошо, только смена направления сюжета слегка путает, но их можно понять, они хотели сделать, что-то свое. Будущее у этой франшизы есть и смотреть стоит, но начинать лучше с первоисточников.… Expand

3 of 12 users found this helpful39

All this user's reviews

6

CarFan1999Oct 15, 2017

The best part about this movie is the visuals. Every single set piece is amazing to look at, every shot from the cinematographer is perfect, and the computer effects are so good that everything in this looks real. It’s easily the mostThe best part about this movie is the visuals. Every single set piece is amazing to look at, every shot from the cinematographer is perfect, and the computer effects are so good that everything in this looks real. It’s easily the most visually stunning movie I have seen this year. The acting from Gosling and Ford is also well-done. The story is fine and a little basic, although some of the deeper philosophical questions it poses (like most sci-fi flicks) doesn’t add up to much. The only real problem with 2049 is the pacing. While better than the original Blade Runner, it is still really slow. This movie is unnecessarily long, almost 3 hours to be exact. You could cut over 30 minutes of footage in places and it wouldn’t make a difference. In addition, the advertising is also misleading. You would think that this is an action-thriller, but instead it’s a slow moving detective story with some moments of action. In the end, Blade Runner 2049 has fantastic, stunning visuals and good acting performances. However, the slow pacing and overlong runtime hurt the overall experience. Please note that you have to watch the original in order to understand this.… Expand

2 of 8 users found this helpful26

All this user's reviews

4

cheroldJan 21, 2018

Imagine Blade Runner without a strong directorial vision, and interesting story, or engaging characters. If you find that impossible to imagine, just watch the forgettable sci-fi flick Blade Runner 2049.

Instead of the distinct '40s-noir ofImagine Blade Runner without a strong directorial vision, and interesting story, or engaging characters. If you find that impossible to imagine, just watch the forgettable sci-fi flick Blade Runner 2049.

Instead of the distinct '40s-noir of the original, 2049 offers scale without purpose and a dusty color palette. Instead of riveting, distinct, excellently-acted characters, you've got sturdy but unforgettable people. Blade Runner was full of amazing moments and places, such as the room of living toys and Rutger Hauer's every word, but 2049 has nothing but a bland lead and a bunch of characters whose motives can't be looked at too closely. Scenes come not out of the story but out of a desire to have something happened, resulting in pointless interactions like the tormenting of a naked replicant. There aren't so much huge plot holes as poor motivations and small inconsistencies that make everything in the movie feel false.

If you don't compare this to Blade Runner, it's a mediocre but almost-watchable movie with the occasional interesting idea (the talking, naked ad, the memory designer's creation of a birthday party), but as a sequel to a classic, this movie is a travesty. And how is it that a futuristic L.A. heavily influenced by Japanese cultures has no Asians in the entire city? It's as though there's no detail so big or small that the filmmakers won't ignore it.… Expand

1 of 4 users found this helpful13

All this user's reviews

4

BarryROct 14, 2017

Midway, I realised I was bored. The story was presented in too jumbled a manner with 2 major contradictions. One, a company was producing new replicants but had to kill old ones. Why? Two: Nowadays, we know that a smartphone can be tracked.Midway, I realised I was bored. The story was presented in too jumbled a manner with 2 major contradictions. One, a company was producing new replicants but had to kill old ones. Why? Two: Nowadays, we know that a smartphone can be tracked. So for sure a replicant would have inbuilt tracers. That really takes the steam out of both films.… Expand

4 of 18 users found this helpful414

All this user's reviews

6

Nobilis1984Oct 14, 2017

Far from the quality the original, however, nevertheless, become good. ---------------------------------------- If I did not know the original of 1982, I would be inspired brightly on. But this is not thus and, hence, it is for me a goodFar from the quality the original, however, nevertheless, become good. ---------------------------------------- If I did not know the original of 1982, I would be inspired brightly on. But this is not thus and, hence, it is for me a good average. The graduations they were put in 1982 are not reached here roughly. But I must say I about what is offered me Visually not can complain. I feel the story, however, disappointed. She is simply too weak to me. Part 1 is to be preferred anyway.… Expand

3 of 14 users found this helpful311

All this user's reviews

6

Douglas56Oct 15, 2017

Don't fall for the lavish praise, this is a disappointing film. When I saw Villeneuve's Arrival, I predicted the Blade Runner sequel may not make the grade, and unfortunately the prediction came true. Like Villeneuve's previous efforts, thisDon't fall for the lavish praise, this is a disappointing film. When I saw Villeneuve's Arrival, I predicted the Blade Runner sequel may not make the grade, and unfortunately the prediction came true. Like Villeneuve's previous efforts, this film scores well for visuals and, I suppose, the soundtrack. But it is too nostalgic, too timid, too Hollywood and too long. The original Blade Runner was a cop thriller with some moral and philosophical solidity, a thrilling depiction of a world where the replicants are more recognisably us than the humans. Strip away the laboriously-worked back story and the impressive visual content and all that's left of BR 2049 is another action adventure where the good cop defeats all the bad guys. It's as if the writers were too scared to take the question of 'what is human?' a single step further, preferring to make endless references to the original film and set us up like comicbook fans, wondering what the next issue will hold. With Ridley Scott a spent force creatively and the overrated Villeneuve apparently unable to spot the dramatic flaws in a thin but very long script crammed with unlikely plot turns, the filmmakers have opted to turn a classic into a stylish clanger. The technological wizardry is occasionally intriguing but it's small compensation. Ryan Gosling is dull and grim as the protagonist in a dull and grim drama (not unlike Sicario in many respects) , and Harrison Ford does nothing to burnish our memory of Deckard. After his return to Star Wars and Blade Runner, what's next for Ford? A revival of Indiana Jones?… Expand

3 of 14 users found this helpful311

All this user's reviews

6

JaguargaitUrsaOct 9, 2017

Story was drawn out. This movie did not improve on the original in anyway but rehashed it's themes and style. Recommended if you haven't seen the original.

3 of 14 users found this helpful311

All this user's reviews

6

keemtOct 8, 2017

Looks good, moves slow, and doesn't reward with a good plot. The plot touches on themes but doesn't explore them. The original Bladerunner was awkward and this one is even moreso. The original Bladerunner did have at least a core messageLooks good, moves slow, and doesn't reward with a good plot. The plot touches on themes but doesn't explore them. The original Bladerunner was awkward and this one is even moreso. The original Bladerunner did have at least a core message that was pretty new and very satisfyingly conveyed. What can I say, the director has the same lackings in every movie and did it again in Bladerunner 2049. At least we got a decent sequel that is beautiful.… Expand

3 of 15 users found this helpful312

All this user's reviews

6

raporgiDec 11, 2017

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. nice visuals from Dennis and his cinematographer. too many scenes that linger and the story is just dumb. if the movie was better paced I wouldve scored this higher, its just a slog to get through. the whole rebel/messiah bs comes out of nowhere and just flies in the face of the original.… Expand

1 of 5 users found this helpful14

All this user's reviews

4

elsiemonsterNov 6, 2017

I don't get why people love this movie so much. I admit that it was visually beautiful and the acting was great, but it was too quiet and slow. The story was okay-interesting. Why was it almost 3 hours long? Half-way through, I wasI don't get why people love this movie so much. I admit that it was visually beautiful and the acting was great, but it was too quiet and slow. The story was okay-interesting. Why was it almost 3 hours long? Half-way through, I was questioning my decision of watching this in a theater. If I was at home, I may have not finished it if I didn't fall asleep first.… Expand

1 of 5 users found this helpful14

All this user's reviews

4

TrevorsViewOct 13, 2017

What separates real from machine? Do androids dream of electric sheep? Do we still think that humanity will someday crumble into a robot dystopia? Why do we still ask ourselves these obvious questions?

Blade Runner 2049 brings us to thirtyWhat separates real from machine? Do androids dream of electric sheep? Do we still think that humanity will someday crumble into a robot dystopia? Why do we still ask ourselves these obvious questions?

Blade Runner 2049 brings us to thirty years after the 1982 classic. If you love the original Blade Runner, then you may appreciate Harrison Ford as he reprises his old role, this time as a motivator for the supposedly replicant protagonist, detective K, played by Ryan Gosling (Drive, La La Land). Similar to his previous project, Arrival, director Denis Villeneuve attempts a philosophical study on the worth of humanity, except now resulting in a pointless anti-fantasy with no true knowledge about civilization.

Most of the film’s praise focuses on production designer Dennis Gassner’s (Bugsy, The Truman Show) creation of the sunless Californian city’s atmosphere, which it deserves. Between the desolate hell-red wasteland riddled by statues and the neon shades of evil corporations, immense spectacle commands the screen. The use of symbolic holograms within the city is particularly noteworthy, as a ballerina hologram three stories tall parades through the streets, and a nude pink hooker five stories tall rules over the solitary life; even inside the city walls, an Elvis concert juxtaposes a fist fight. Although more so than the visuals, the sound design sucks you into the experience the most—in the first scene, Villeneuve utilizes his silent storytelling skills with K at work in a protein farm, where the hard murder of a replicant takes place. Once K enters the city, the IMAX surround sound creates the big, unfamiliar world accompanied by a shrieking musical score by Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch (Hidden Figures). You indeed feel caught in this cyberpunk future.

However, the visuals hardly redeem the flaws, due to little effort made to modernize the decades old material. Villeneuve draws no inspiration from our current values, with social media and all, in turn making the original look more dated in its incorrectly predicted philosophical ideas. In fact, this whole city exaggerates our lesser-prevalent problems to improbable levels without explaining precisely how human error led to the ecosystem’s collapse.

The excessive three-hour runtime contains 15% beautiful imagery and 85% chitchat in standardly lit sets; the average person might be able to follow these overused slow conversations without a single yawn if the villains were more multi-dimensional. The screenplay ironically says, “memory is feeling,” yet no feeling exists here, so you too will fail to remember whatever it tries to communicate.

Part of the problem to the atrocious boredom goes to the lackluster dialogue—after a standard text straight-forward tells you the backstory, everyone acts as a tool to spill out philosophical rambles. Since no tension builds, our mindset identifies these individuals as human shaped phone apps rather than expressive minds.

The entire production crew overall showed little respect to regular moviegoers; cinema should never be about self-satisfaction, but about telling a great story that speaks to anybody at a spiritual level. The ego stroking of the picture primarily shows in its character motive: a fatherhood subplot gets thrown in without enough prevalence, and a significant other for K arrives and leaves without any resolution, so the entire subject of love, both familial and romantic, needed much more presence. Humanity and love complete one another, so why would such a heartless directorial approach impact our souls?

Even more ironically, a heartthrob actor, one who has embraced materialism throughout his career, plays the lead. Consequently, he was a dreadful choice for the uncastable role: Ryan Gosling never reacts to the miraculous events around him, he just stares blankly as he recites his lines off a cue card.

One last detail disproves Blade Runner 2049 as a sci-fi masterpiece: it plagiarizes. If you already saw this movie, then you might have noticed that K’s name, a codename assigned to him at birth, resembles Star Wars: The Force Awakens., or that it ripped off a true modern sci-fi masterpiece, Her, when the holographic girlfriend uses a flesh-and-blood girl to sleep with K (essentially telling girls to submit their control to technology). So sorry, nothing new is said other than we people deserve to feel discouraged.

Now, to answer my starter questions: People are real, machines are inanimate, androids never dream, because only people dream, and humanity can never crumble to basically resemble robots. Look at Facebook: things still look pretty dang expressive compared to the original Blade Runner’s incorrect theories, so the future seems more hopeful than we give ourselves credit for.… Expand

4 of 21 users found this helpful417

All this user's reviews

4

SandyRosenOct 15, 2017

I came with great expectations! I found the movie to be very flat, not at all the sequel that could have been or should have been, after 30 years. A total lack of imagination.

3 of 16 users found this helpful313

All this user's reviews

5

wee3200Oct 23, 2017

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I thought if i won't very like this film, the reason will be i didn't understand the storyline or scenes. But i didn't, at least while i'm watching i know what's going on in every scenes, i can understand the storyline, but... i still not very like this film.

I can understand even K knowing he is not the chosen one, but his action that still chose to help Rick to meet his daughter are very selfless, it's meant a lot, usually if i seen similar happen on the big screen, i will very touching, and mostly will loved the film because of this, but this didn't happen on Blade Runner 2049.

Peoples have surprisingly high review for this film, too bad i'm not one of them that can enjoy in this film.… Expand

2 of 11 users found this helpful29

All this user's reviews

6

GittoploOct 12, 2017

I was not disappointed, I was wryly amused by the end. Original Blade Runner is in my top 20 just to set the expectation. I think modern day viewers are so starved for grandiose thought provoking cinema that they would prepare to swallowI was not disappointed, I was wryly amused by the end. Original Blade Runner is in my top 20 just to set the expectation. I think modern day viewers are so starved for grandiose thought provoking cinema that they would prepare to swallow anything. Now to the film:

- Visuals were great at times
- Gosling was ok in the main role although he is no Belmondo or Rutger.
- The plot was poor. Very poor. Why replay Children of Men? Or many other films. Harrison should not have been in the movie. Now it kind of spoiled the original ending for me. All themes of memory, soul etc were done to death. Recent examples are Prometheus and Covenant that do it better. Original has already explored all these more than a human themes.
- The music wasn't there. When they finally played The Theme at the end, I was shaking my head. No music no atmosphere.
- Instead of making a film, director was vying for glory. Cult classic. This film hasn't touched me once and I never want to see it again. By the end, it was almost a comedy.

Overall, ok film. I didn't expect much so not disappointed. I give it 6 out of 10.… Expand

2 of 11 users found this helpful29

All this user's reviews

5

DavidnbOct 8, 2017

It took a hell of a long time to get there, and when we did, I wasn't sure it was worth the wait. I'm sorry, but it must be said, H. Ford is among the coolest guys on the planet, but he is not one of our greatest actors, and his presence feltIt took a hell of a long time to get there, and when we did, I wasn't sure it was worth the wait. I'm sorry, but it must be said, H. Ford is among the coolest guys on the planet, but he is not one of our greatest actors, and his presence felt just a little bit rediculous. It looked great though.… Expand

3 of 17 users found this helpful314

All this user's reviews

4

cadoverOct 25, 2017

The fact that the studio added Jared Leto to the script much later on to make the film 'edgier' should tell you all you need to know. A profit-hungry studio hack job that destroys the story line of the original. Pretending I never saw it soThe fact that the studio added Jared Leto to the script much later on to make the film 'edgier' should tell you all you need to know. A profit-hungry studio hack job that destroys the story line of the original. Pretending I never saw it so the original remains beautiful in my mind. Nothing against the director, but the nudity was unnecessary and gratuitous.
If you love the original, you won't miss anything if you skip this sequel. The number of shill reviews on metacritic is getting out of hand.… Expand

2 of 12 users found this helpful210

All this user's reviews

4

KaprawiecOct 16, 2017

This is long SONY/PEUGOT commercial, exactly like new car promotion. Beautifull visuals (especially gorgeous Ana de Armas which takes 3 out of 4 points given to the movie;) and audio but the substance is lacking. This should be at least halfThis is long SONY/PEUGOT commercial, exactly like new car promotion. Beautifull visuals (especially gorgeous Ana de Armas which takes 3 out of 4 points given to the movie;) and audio but the substance is lacking. This should be at least half shorter. The story is nonsense, dialogues were dumb and dragged like some Dynasty sitcom.… Expand

3 of 20 users found this helpful317

All this user's reviews

6

DavidpaOct 23, 2017

First one was more action based this one was more discovery be trying to uncover the mystery to the aspect of the plot Where is world directed what could’ve been a little bit shorter

1 of 8 users found this helpful17

All this user's reviews

5

Dr-spacemanOct 21, 2017

This has a fantastic visual style and is probably the best movie ive seen as far as special effects and artistry is concerned. However the plot is not great and lacks a hook as compelling as the original blade runner. The villains are muchThis has a fantastic visual style and is probably the best movie ive seen as far as special effects and artistry is concerned. However the plot is not great and lacks a hook as compelling as the original blade runner. The villains are much less interesting when compared with Roy Batty in the original and the film's just too darned long. It needed more scenes like the opening one which had a compelling character. Only decent other character was Harrison Ford's. It is not gonna become a cult film like it's predecessor.… Expand

1 of 9 users found this helpful18

All this user's reviews

4

MikefromAngusMar 13, 2018

Blade Runner was ahead of its time. Blade Runner 2049 was just made to make money. The whole story is non sense. One of the worst things about the movie is that its boring and slow. a Huge disappointment of a movie coming from a blade runner fan.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

6

fredjesusFeb 7, 2018

um bom filme com bons efeitos visuais, porem muito lento e previsível, grande de mais e sem muito conteúdo pra justificar, não chega a ser um fracasso mas não se compara ao original

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

6

HotelCentralFeb 13, 2018

This is the film that's persuading me that Hollywood, or the current generation of directors and writers, probably have nothing more to offer that's going to interest me, now or ever.

I mean, I hardly know what to say about this film. ItThis is the film that's persuading me that Hollywood, or the current generation of directors and writers, probably have nothing more to offer that's going to interest me, now or ever.

I mean, I hardly know what to say about this film. It does nothing to compete with the visuals of the original. The soundtrack is numbing. Gosling's character is so utterly devoid of emotion throughout 99% of the film that it's a bit like watching an old-time steam train chugging down the tracks. And, oh look, it's Rick Deckard! What's up with him? Does it make any difference? Probably not. And Deckard has a dog! Same questions. Same answers. Sad.

Ok, so spoiler alert: There's this "miracle", see? And Mr. Wallace, the super-genius, can't figure how it happened, and he desperately wants to know how it happened so he can make it happen again. The only problem, of course, is that no one ever explains how come this thing that happens is such a big damn miracle when the human race has already previously produced people smart enough to design replicant "brains." (His name was "Tyrell.") I mean, compared to a "brain" that seems to function a lot like an actual human brain, designing a human reproductive tract probably shouldn't be all that difficult. And if I-the-viewer don't believe it's all that difficult then the whole point of the film starts looking contrived and silly.

Now, if I wanted to nitpick, I could point to crazy things like a "blade runner" laying his gun on a table while confronting a dangerous fugitive, or, say, dopey things like the same guy being told to surrender his badge and gun two scenes in a row, or, say, things from bizarro world, like a police official telling a blade runner to murder somebody who is NOT a replicant, because blah blah blah, you'll be saving the world--but why even get into it?

Blade Runner 2049 did nothing for me. I don't think the original film was the greatest film ever made, but it was sure a lot more interesting than the sequel, and the original film with the narration was the best version of all, and all these cute stories from the 30 years in between about Deckard being a replicant were absurd from word one.

Oh and the one funny bit in Blade Runner 2049? Deckard bragging about his skill as a blade runner. The unfortunate truth is that Deckard's main skill was projecting his Every-Man Charm while getting himself ambushed and beaten to a pulp.

And one more thing. Mr. Wallace seems to think that Deckard fell in love with Rachel when they first met. Was that before or after Deckard asked Tyrell, "How can it not know what it is?" I mean, give me a break.

Peace. Out.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

CraigEcholsFeb 11, 2018

Slow. Slower. Slowest. It really feels like Blade Runner 2049 was made for people who wants to feel special by picking up on complexity. I get that movies need some complexity for a good story, but BR2049 seems to throw everything that it canSlow. Slower. Slowest. It really feels like Blade Runner 2049 was made for people who wants to feel special by picking up on complexity. I get that movies need some complexity for a good story, but BR2049 seems to throw everything that it can in order to make itself stand out. Granted, the original Blade Runner was long and complex, but the story made sure you understood the key points. This movie throws dialogue after monologue after slow pacing scene after long walk down the street after you. This movie was about 50 minutes too long for scenes that weren't necessarily needed (the menage a trois scene). I get that action movies don't need to feature lots of explosions and car chases and raining bullets and acrobatics, but you can literally count on your hands and toes how many shots were fired in this movie (I counted 11....I'm not even kidding). The plot twist at the end sort of screamed deus ex machina to me as well. I don't know. It just sort of felt cheap like, well than what was the point of the movie then? The biggest issue to me was I just never ever felt any sense of urgency in the movie. It's like "We have this big problem that could cause a massive war, but let's take our time solving it." The soundtrack did a good job of providing tension, but....I never actually felt there was any. There was little show of any conflict or struggle. This would have made a great thriller/mystery, but I got bored for the most part. The beginning scene with Gosling vs. Bautista was honestly the best scene in my opinion. Overall, this movie is a SLOTH to get through with very little sense of antagonism to be found.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

6

Zaine6Jan 28, 2018

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Felt the story was a bit hard to keep up with, forced complexity. The lack of expressions from Ryan Gosling also turned me off, other robots appeared to have a little more expression and Ryan's was just a tad too much. Finally I found the plot twist at the end where Ryan was not the Son to be very disheartening and even more so that he does not get to be with his AI wife in any form. In fact we do not see where he will go from this at all.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

4

dr0nzerDec 30, 2017

I didn't see the first one but the concept was intriguing and was hoping this would bring me up to speed on the original, sadly it was not the case.
I feel that this film is for the fans of the series and you have to know the universe, itI didn't see the first one but the concept was intriguing and was hoping this would bring me up to speed on the original, sadly it was not the case.
I feel that this film is for the fans of the series and you have to know the universe, it does not really engage new comers and thus limit it's audience.
I sit in the latter group of people and this film was too long, sitting just shy of 3 hours, it's slow paced and pretty boring, I didn't have the patience to finish it and called it quits 1hr.45mins in.
If I was in the former group as described above, I'm sure my reaction would be different and it's a shame the film did not to do more to capture new audiences...… Expand

0 of 3 users found this helpful03

All this user's reviews

6

KawanMay 6, 2019

Beautiful pictures but very long and slow even if trying to keep intense, quite disapointed and prefered the 1rst Blade runner far more !

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

4

o_retyJul 19, 2019

Boring in terms of pace, pretentious and hollow in terms of aesthetics, aimless and contrived in terms of plot, feminist in terms of agenda. And to top it all off there's some uncanny valley exploration at the end. Truly, a fine specimen ofBoring in terms of pace, pretentious and hollow in terms of aesthetics, aimless and contrived in terms of plot, feminist in terms of agenda. And to top it all off there's some uncanny valley exploration at the end. Truly, a fine specimen of today's cinema… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

6

Satanski666Jan 28, 2021

Women, women, women and one child in the fog... i mean man. Women's version of equality.

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

6

SinewsMay 24, 2020

The biggest problem facing Blade Runner 2049 is that it's dishonest in its presentation. It wants so desperately to be this huge story with a huge scope and massive impact, and while it's certainly not a bad story, the film tries so hard toThe biggest problem facing Blade Runner 2049 is that it's dishonest in its presentation. It wants so desperately to be this huge story with a huge scope and massive impact, and while it's certainly not a bad story, the film tries so hard to make us think that it's more than it is that pisses on the bonfire of what it actually has going for it. It has the epic shots and epic score and larger-than-life landscape, as well as a monolithic length, but it lacks the substance to live up to the great dystopian sci-fi films that came before it. Blade Runner became an epic story not because it tried to make think it was, it just was, and the acclaimed just followed it in time. This is why that movie is a cherished classic and Blade Runner 2049 will most likely be forgotten midway through the decade.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

6

drlowdonOct 16, 2017

I don’t think anyone would argue that this isn’t faithful to the original movie and, to be honest, I felt much the same way about this movie as I did about the original. The world in which the movie exists is amongst the most well realised inI don’t think anyone would argue that this isn’t faithful to the original movie and, to be honest, I felt much the same way about this movie as I did about the original. The world in which the movie exists is amongst the most well realised in cinema and the central idea of what actually means to be human remains and interesting one even thirty years on. At times however the pacing is just so slow and, with the movie almost hitting the three hour mark, it really could have done with a bit more action to break things up a little or a little editing to reduce the length of some of the many scenes of exposition and philosophising.… Expand