Timber

I want to post before I read this thread and get my opinion swayed.

I walked out thinking "I think I liked it". It was confusing but I thought Gosling was great. Ford slept walked through just like he did in TFA so I could've done without Deckerd but I did enjoy the nostalgia. Joi and especially Luv were fantastic IMO. I'm so over Jared Leto and whenever he was on screen the movie dragged to a halt. I loved the score, it was heavy and hit all the right notes to me.

3.5 out of 5 for me. It could be a 4 if it was tightened up and the whole Wallace thing was removed from the movie.

johnnysd

So you are essentially saying you like movies where essentially nothing happens and there is no payoff whatsoever. Well Blade Runner 2049 is that.

This movie is all style over substance. It failed because it is a bad film, that seems to only appeal to hard core film buffs, and is actively hostile to female viewers. I am all for giving directors and film creators creative freedom. but in all honesty the studio should have never have approved the script, and definitely not the budget.

Supermallet

Every movie these days is taking down an entire corporation, or spy organization, or stopping a monster from destroying a city. BR 2049 was quite thankfully not one of those movies. I was so glad when K didn’t go after Wallace and take him down, because that would be so fucking cliche. In life often all you get are small victories, just like in the original film.

Daytripper

Fucking masterpiece. Could be the best sequel ever (IMO). And definitely the best film of 2017.

Hokeyboy

I'll go with masterpiece. It avoided every stupid cliche imaginable and emerged as something of true cinematic depth and beauty. Did I feel every minute of its 163 minute runtime? Maybe for the first half. By the time everything coalesced in the third act, everything paid of handsomely.

I'm gonna let this stew in my head for awhile, but wtf I'll give it five stars right now.

Why So Blu?

Huh? Tyrell gets killed in the original. Hell, Tyrell Corporation goes belly up in 2022 (succinctly told in a freaking 15 minute anime of all things) and Wallace gets spared at the end of a 2.5 hr film? Again, it's either sloppy filmmaking/storytelling, or the studios wanted to continue with a Blade Runner-verse. This bombing nixes future plans. Although if they gave Watanabe a shot with animated series -- it would be phenomenal.

Supermallet

Tyrell is killed but not because Roy is trying to take down the Tyrell Corporation, and in fact he doesn’t take down the corporation, because they continue making Replicants for years after Tyrell’s death and are only brought down by successive uprisings. The motivations of the characters in 2049 are totally different than the Replicants in the original, and taking down Wallace makes no sense for the film.

It’s not sloppy storytelling. Wallace isn’t a central character to the story being told, and neither is the Replicant uprising. It’s K’s story, and it ends where it needs to.

Why So Blu?

It's a cop out.

Supermallet

What’s a cop out? Why does every thread have to be resolved, even if those threads aren’t central to the story being told?

Why So Blu?

Because it was something that was established. Not just Wallace but the Replicant uprising. Either that, or it's TWO of the biggest red herrings ever. I really hope that the studio or Ridley, Denis, whomever, come out and say that they were open to the possibilities of more. It's so fucking glaring.

It obviously didn't bother you and that's fine. It bothered me and I still liked the film, but for something like this -- it required resolution.

OldBoy

i have to admit, a part of me really wanted K to say "Time to die" at the end. i was like waiting with anticipation, but alas, still ambiguity is just fine...

Rex Power Colt-Robot Man

I was confused when I saw Zimmer was doing this. Vangelis still bein a dick over the first soundtrack?

PatD

The original Blade Runner is a masterpiece that bucks all convention. If Blade Runner 2049 didn't have "Blade Runner" in the title, or featuring any of the principals from the first film, it would be easily forgotten before the first weekend got over.

Daytripper

This is the second time you've said this in this thread. You forgot to include "Or wasn't a continuation of the story". Maybe you found the movie forgettable, I didn't.

MBoyd

I just saw it a second time. First time, I was like yeah Harrison Ford is being Harrison Ford, but the second time around. Damn. I don't really give a crap about the Oscars these days, but I sure would like to see him get a Best Supporting.

Anyway. I don't get that excited about movies much these days. This one ignited some passion in me that I haven't felt in years.

Dan

About to see it for the second time. Dolby Cinema w/ Atmos this time.

Troy Stiffler

They payoff is there.

I like movies where things happen off-screen. See: Terminator 1 & 2 VS Terminator Salvation. Or Matrix VS Matrix 2 & 3. I do believe that not everything needs to be seen and explained away. Off-screen ambiguity can be more powerful than anything that can be shown on screen.

We begged for a futuristic Terminator movie ... and then got Terminator Salvation. We really wanted to see the city of Zion in the Matrix ... and then got a Zion rave party while an army of robots closed in.

Everyone should watch the anime short too. It really adds to the Blade Runner world.

Supermallet

Those things flesh out the world. K is caught in a situation that’s much bigger than him. But it’s his story, not the story of the uprising or even the story of Deckard’s daughter. It’s actually a very noir thing. Would Chinatown have been better if Jake had taken down all the bad guys?

candyrocket786

I hope (at minimum) there's a best pic/director nomination.

Troy Stiffler

On the subject of what to show... Do we also have to see Off-World? No. Not at all.

When Roy Batty mentions "attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion" - would it have been better if we cut to attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion?

johnnysd

I don't disagree that you do not need to see everything, such as off world, or the replicant uprising or even Deckard's conversation with his daughter, but what I fail to see in this movie is really any payoff on pretty much anything.


Nothing really happens in this movie at all. I mean you could right the entire plot in just a couple lines. I don't see what others are seeing in this. It really didn't pose any questions, or really have any character arc,

Ford basically does nothing in this movie. Not sure why people think he did great work or deserves acclaim.

Essentially the entire resolution is guy that abandoned his daughter intentionally to protect her, reunites with her, when nothing has really changed in terms of needing to protect her, and everyone except for the evil corporation knows all about her anyway.

K goes off "baseline" and does not kill the daughter once he realizes who it is, but he had already stated he wouldn't kill someone that was born. Is the big arc that he disobeyed a command and exerted free will?

Less actually happens in this movie than any movie I can think of, and there is no payoff on any level that I can see. And the whole fight with the bad enforcer droid for Wallace was just a gigantic cliche.

I like it less the more I think about it. One of the dullest most overly self important movie I have seen in a very long while.

Masterpiece? Just don't get it. I wont comment anymore, the praise is just utterly baffling to me. I will say the people in my showing HATED it.

Ash Ketchum

Reading the debate here and finding the critical camp more persuasive in terms of deciding whether I'll see the film or not, I went back to A.O. Scott's mixed-to-favorable review in The New York Times and found these two paragraphs to be relevant to the discussion here:

Also, check out the comments accompanying Scott's review:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/02/m...pgtype=article

The people praising this seem to have seen a completely different movie than that seen by those critical of it. E.g., from "visually stunning" to "The look of the film was kind of washed out."

Brack

A.O. Scott has to see the film at least twice before he can dismiss one film having more replay value than the other.

kd5

I've never depended on a professional reviewer's critique of a movie to determine my level of interest or entertainment, reviewers almost always seem to dismiss a film I find thoroughly enjoyable. It just disheartens me when I read reviews of a movie, after I've seen and decided said movie was exceptional entertainment, that trashes the movie I've just seen and thoroughly enjoyed. It makes me wonder what was going through their minds as they watched the movie. Did they even watch the (same) movie (I did)? Or were they distracted throughout? Did they carry preconceived expectations with them into the movie which were not met? I just know that 9 times out of 10, most reviewers disliked movies that I found thoroughly entertaining and enjoyable. Based on that, I won't let professional reviews determine what movies I see and don't see.

TomOpus

Pants on fire...