Blade Runner 2049 | IMDB v2.1

Blade Runner 2049 Jul 2, 2018 12:59:22 GMT

Quote

Post by Rey Kahuka on Jul 2, 2018 12:59:22 GMT

Jun 30, 2018 0:47:44 GMT Marv said:

Magnificent.

The visuals alone....you could put this movie on mute, have no idea whats happening, and just watch it go from set piece to set piece and be entertained. I loved it. Its hard for me to think of any real complaints...maybe a bit of dialog is a little predictable but if you watch enough movies that tends to be true for all of them. Gosling as K was solid, de Armas as his holographic wife Joi was gorgeous as ever and basically subsituted as his emotional conscious which was a great move. Ford was fine, altho he doesnt come in until more than halfway through and thats probably for the best. It makes the movie feel much more independent from the first. Hoeks as Luv was surprisingly awesome! Our primary antagonist that is constantly tracking K throughout the entire film. She stole the scene several times. Most the the supporting roles were fine.
I read something that suggested this may be the best sequel ever made...and thats something thats hard to really pin down but i will say that my immediate impression is that its on the short list.

Definitely recommend for pretty much anyone.

Visually it's magnificent at times and the score is great. But the story is incredibly weak, with generic characters. Blade Runner is probably my favorite film so this had a lot to live up to; but my feeling walking out of the theater was how utterly unnecessary it was. I didn't need to know what happened to Deckard and Rachel. What I do need explained is why the dystopia of the original has somehow been reversed in a generation's time. What exactly happened in Vegas that made it uninhabitable for decades yet left it in pristine condition? And how long ago was this disaster, because we saw the world had already gone to shit by 2019 in the original. So in the last 30 years it went from dystopia to futuristic paradise to irradiated wasteland?

The writing is just lousy. Leto's character was a cartoon villain from a bad Bond movie and his motivation was illogical. He wants replicants that can procreate? Why? Has he taken any time to think about how this will affect his bottom line as the lone source of replicants? What was the point of all that protocol to ensure the replicants working for the police stay on their baseline if there are no repercussions when they aren't? "Your kind have a history of going berserk and killing people, hence the testing after each mission. Now that you've failed your test horribly, go ahead and come out of this controlled environment. Take a day off and let me know how you feel tomorrow." It makes no sense.

I liked K but I didn't think his spiritual journey was anything close to Roy's in the original, not sure why they gave him the Tears in Rain music at the end. The Luv character was garbage. That awful line, "Bad dog!" And again Leto hamming it up with that nonsensical character, twirling his mustache as opposed to the aloof nature of Tyrell's moral ambiguity from the original. 2049 is Blade Runner without the soul, without the brain, without the nuance of the original. A pale facsimile. It's probably a fun movie if you haven't seen the original in a while, but it's still poorly written.