I actually think it would have been a better film if it had no connection with the previous film but the premise and visual style. No Deckard/Rachel link at all. They could have told the same basic story without all the stupid nod-and-wink stuff, and without “ruining” the original.
I agree with you completely. As well shot as this was, it would have been a cinch to stand this up as it’s own movie, but then we wouldn’t have a throwback to Harrison Ford making an appearance.
Surely in the years that have gone by, some other story of significance happened within this presented universe.
I think it was beautiful for the ways in which it turns out to be much more of a direct sequel than it seems. Ford’s very late entry into the film, the misdirect with K’s significance, I loved how this big sequel thing with the threat of very high stakes becomes a much more personal and smaller conclusion (at least partially) to Deckard’s story.
I was completely blown away by this movie. After leaving the theater, I spent quite a bit of time texting friends to tell them they should go watch this right away. Don’t think I have ever done that for a movie before!
Loved the music, loved the slow and deliberate pacing, loved the cinematography. For everybody still considering, I would strongly advise against waiting for the home release. As much as I enjoyed watching this, a lot of the movie’s strengths would be lost in a home setup.
Don’t have such a strong opinion on Ryan Gosling. It certainly wasn’t a noteworthy performance or anything, but I did think that his calm demeanor and stiffness suited the role.
Heresy! Watching these things glide through the dark and rain was worth the price of admission alone. So serene and beautiful!
The tech in this movie was great. They didn’t make it too futuristic, but stuck to the 80s aesthetic, just like Alien Isolation did for the Alien franchise. With the exception of the shiny corporate headquarters, everything looked properly worn and used.
Been a while since I’ve seen that much rain in a movie. Can’t have too much rain in Cyberpunk! :-)
Probably my favorite movie over the last decade or two!
Just curious, but would you suggest 3D or is that just a waste of money?
Yeah, I can’t imagine anyone looking to Fury Road as hope for 2049’s box office. They may have had similar budgets and came out of a similar context of reviving influential-but-not-exactly-popular franchises, but the results couldn’t be more different.
Fury Road was a non-stop action flick that turned out to require no knowledge at all of the franchise, so people realized that and word of mouth spread. Plus it caught a bit of the feminist zeitgeist on the strength of Theron/Furiosa, and deservedly so.
2049 is a long, slow, exploration of themes and eventually characters from the first film, which could be an appealing entry to the franchise for someone who enjoys that sort of thing—you can actually enjoy what’s there without having seen the first, at least one friend of mine did—but mostly even fans of the original are going to be slow to recommend this to friends who aren’t already like-minded.
Let’s not forget that the original Blade Runner was something of a flop too. It just about made its budget back in gross box office , but wouldn’t have been profitable until years after release.
Indeed, it was the same year as E.T., the Wrath of Kahn and Tron and squarely in between The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. It was a tough time for a thinking person’s Sci-Fi.
Which is why I saw it once and had tucked it away nearly forgotten until the hype for this new version.
I am not a big fan of 3d generally but really enjoyed it in this movie. So yes, recommended! That being said, I am sure the movie still looks fantastic in good ol’ 2d.
I saw it on RPX (Regal’s big screen,) and it was AMAZING looking. Hell, the scenery and visuals alone make this movie a must see if you’re a sci-fi fan.
I thought the 3D was a throw-away here, which just goes to show how different folks can perceive something artistic so differently. Greadle’s comments on the cars, for instance, reflects an appreciation very different than mine; rather than eighties, i got a much more contemporary vibe from the flying cars.
I can certainly see how some folks really loved this film. I can also see how some folks were quite turned off. I find myself somewhere in the middle, edging towards positive-ish.
I saw it Saturday and loved it. Big, expansive, slow, a decent continuation on the first movie. More than anything, I’m glad that this particular Ridley Scott franchise didn’t get fucked over like Alien did.
No doubt Alcon’s in trouble. I share your thoughts on the differences between Fury Road and 2049. Not only is it shorter, you can watch the former without any prior knowledge of the series and not miss out on anything, but since Blade Runner’s a direct sequel, it’s going to have a much tougher time winning over audiences. It was definitely a bold choice, and when people are streaming both Blade Runner (1982) and Blade Runner 2049 (2017) back-to-back at home it’ll be great, but a 35 year lapse between releases isn’t ideal for audiences who are after a big, self-contained sci-fi flick on Friday night.
My friend who’s the biggest fan of the original Blade Runner ever (he created and ran one of the big fan sites in the 1990s) thought the sequel was boring.
I thought the original was boring the first time I saw it. It was the visuals and soundtrack that had me come back to it a couple of times over the years and now it’s one of my favorites.
On initial viewing, the original isn’t the most exciting piece of cinema (audio-visuals aside) due to its languid pace and somewhat uneven acting. It’s not like the script is so amazing, either. Hauer’s semi-improvised scene is the best thing in the entire film, dialogue-wise and it is at the end of the film.
I was also in the wait to watch at home camp, but will go check it out this weekend.
Exit-polling suggests that Warner Bros. didn’t market the film in a way that connected with younger audiences and, more importantly, women, so it’s more narrow than they anticipated.
According to PostTrack, 65% of the film’s audience was made up of males and a whopping 77% was moviegoers over the age of 25. Children were never going to be seeing “2049” given its R rating, but Warner Bros. couldn’t capture the millennial audience that helped turn “It” into a sensation last month.
“The core of enthusiastic and loyal ‘Blade Runner’ fans were over 25 and predominantly male and propelled the film as expected to the top spot, but a lengthy running time and lesser interest among females made it tougher for the film to reach the original weekend box office projections,” said Paul Dergarabedian, senior media analyst with comScore.
The studio’s “disappointed it didn’t have a stronger result in North America.”
Even if IT meant nothing to you, even if IT didn’t evoke any warm nostalgia for the 80’s or the old TV movie, or even if you didn’t care about Stranger Things, IT is very easy to market. It’s a clown that kills children and this group of outcast kids fight back. That’s dead simple to get across to an audience.
Blade Runner 2049 though? Well, see it’s about these androids called replicants and there was this old detective see? Anyway, he was supposed to hunt replicants, but he wound up falling in love with one… Oh, and maybe he was secretly one, too! So, he went into hiding or something and now there’s a new crop of replicants that do stuff, I dunno, Ryan Gosling is in it. Oh! There’s a big hologram of a hot chick, like in Ghost in the Shell, that movie with ScarJo. Yeah, she played a cyborg, and she wore a skintight suit. Hot, right? That movie sucked. This one is like that, but a lot longer.
Just saw the film and really enjoyed it. Glad Ridley didn’t have time and they gave Villeneuve the reigns. Must say, Ridley seems to VERY full of himself and bit of a dick - basically: “I’m the best there is and I’ve got the best eye and am a visionary!”
It comes across in the quote above and the interview he gave on the Empire Podcast, where he talks about his ‘visionary’ work on the recent Alien movies…
I saw this last night and had mixed feelings.
I have liked Gosling in some movies (Driver, Place beyond the pines), so I am not an outright hater, but he was very flat in this movie. If he was intentionally trying to be flat because he’s a robot, I thought the antagonist robot lady did a better job of that without going full robot (like, say, the girl chasing arya in braavos in Game of Thrones).
The movie was very long without the interesting dialogue or scenes to hold my interest the entire time, like say a Paul Thomas Anderson film or some of the Tarantino films (e.g. Inglorious Basterds or Pulp Fiction).
The direction, music, and overall atmosphere of the film was very nice, and for those alone it may be worth watching, but I thought it was let down a bit by the screenplay and some of the acting.
I thought it was very strange that the movie would show quite a few scenes of gratuitous nudity, but the one time where nudity would have been appropriate, in the sex scene between Gosling, the prostitute and the projected AI partner, it completely blacks out as a PG movie would.
To be fair, it was a bit slow. The original had slow pacing but seemed more evenly applied, versus this one where we literally yawned for the first half of the movie until it picked up a bit.
I had completely forgotten that, and you are correct, it did seem strange. However the effect of the overlay was some pretty amazing technical work for the scene, and I’m guessing nudity would have complicated that?
Hey, I never yawned during 2049, and the first half, like the second, was incredible! I loved the movie, slow pace and all, but it’s the kind of film I dream of discovering. I know my friend’s way more invested in Blade Runner (1982) than anyone else I know, and he hated it, but it’s not like either of us can change our respective experiences of the film.