Blade Runner 2049 (DVD)

I may not be the world's biggest Blade Runner fan, but I count myself in the top 25. In the 80s, I drove around with an audio recording of the film and could quote entire scenes. I am talking about a time that pre-dates VHS.To say that I was excited about the 2049 sequel would be a huge understatement. I was excited to see the new film. I was equally ready to rip it to shreds if it did not do justice to the original.I consider myself a student of film having watched movies for sheer enjoyment/entertainment, art or both, for many, many years.This may be threading on thin ice, but I read an article, a few years ago, that advanced the notion that the average US movie viewer was not capable of understanding the higher concepts of irony, characters that were not black and white (purely good or purely evil), or conflicting concepts in a film. That was the author's reasoning for why films such as the Dutch masterpiece, The Vanishing, was produced in the US with a completely different ending...because American audiences could not handle the original ending.The Broadway production of Agnes of God was a masterpiece and won Amanda Plummer a Tony. The motion picture was a piece of celluloid crap.Several of Ridley Scott's films have been re-edited due to the fact that he tried new ideas and it did not go over well at advanced screenings.I feel that the negative audience reaction to Blade Runner 2049 was due to the fact that Director Denis Villeneuve didn't "blow enough shit up."Can an American movie viewer not sit through a film as long as 2049 and not enjoy it for its artistic value and not base it on the body count? Yes and No. The fans who watched the film, understood it and have written 4 and 5 stars reviews appear to have gotten it.The disgruntled 1-star critics apparently have not.Blade Runner 2049 is art!A masterpiece? It's very close.Visually stunning.True to the original.Denis is very proud of this film and should be.The real irony is that there were hints, in 2049, of a Replicant rebellion. Would Blade Runner 3 have been made into a film with a high body count? Possibly. But the world will never know due to the arm chair critics who shot down Blade Runner 2049 out of pure ignorance and helped discourage film goers from seeing one of 2017's best movies. In spite of high anticipation, Blade Runner 2049 will barely break even at the box office.On the bright side, there are other ways to see this Sci-Fi classic. If you decide to give it a shot, keep an open mind. Look at it for its entertainment value but also for its artistic merit.You will not be disappointed.

They talked slo-o-o-o-ow. They walked slo-o-o-o-ow. They stared slo-o-o-o-ow. The story line moved extremely slo-o-o-o-ow. Even the background music was slo-o-o-o-ow. Two hours and forty three minutes went by extremely slo-o-o-o-ow. The only resemblance to the original Blade Runner were the first two words of the title. There were scenes that had no value or any contribution to the story except to make it slo-o-o-o-ow. I think that near the end, the scene with the giant naked girl with blue hair was there to try to wake up all the guys that were dozing off so they would be awake to shut the tv off in 15 minutes. Sorry I didn't shut it off a lot sooner.

I wish I had read reviews before I wasted my day off on this movie. It was 3 hours long and most of it was incoherent and incomplete. they brought some interesting ideas to the table that touched on what Westworld, The Matrix and Ex Machina have been experimenting with but it just felt like they never really went anywhere with anything and just decided to end the movie after awhile. I don't even remember the ending. I'm beyond disappointed but it is what it is. Its a shame that actors with the star power of Gosling and Ford wasted their time and mines with this filth.

I really enjoyed this film, regardless of what critics might have thought. It "feels" like the original film; it perfectly recaptures the feel of the original, both visually and musically. The cinematography (Oscar for Best Cinematography) is a work of art. Other than the improved CGI you would never know decades had passed. I've seldom been so impressed by a sequel.The way they went about creating a material culture that fit naturally on the older world was brilliant (there are some videos online by Adam Savage of MythBusters that go into detail on the subject). It all seems very organic and natural. You can readily believe that the world of 2049 is a continuation of the world created in the 1982 original.The acting is, of course, superb. Jared Leto, Harrison Ford and Ryan Gosling all do a wonderful job (and I am not a big Ryan Gosling fan), as did Ana De Armas, whom I had never seen before. There is even an appearance of Mackenzie Davis (Mindy Park in The Martian) as Mariette. She was so good I did not recognize her at first. Former wrestler Dave Bautista is great in a lamentably short appearance.Safe to say, if you liked the original Bladerunner you will like Bladerunner 2049 unless you don't like sequels on principle. My 14-year-old thought the original took too long to develop a discernible story (and as in that film, 2049 doesn't hand you anything - there is a lot you'll have to figure out on your own) but he's from the video game generation so I'll give him a pass.Five stars. If ever a film was made for Blu-Ray it is Bladerunner 2049 with its artistic neo-noir Sci-Fi vibe. And I can only wish there were more films like this coming out of Hollywood.

After watching the original Blade Runner many times, I had high expectations for this one. But it is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Ryan Gosling has to be the original "Dead man walking". The camera had a fixation on his face, tho, many times holding on his expressionless face for half a minute or more. It had as much of a connection to the original as a turtle would have to a T-Rex.A total waste of time and money.

The original Blade Runner of course was visionary and still stands as an absolute classic in so many ways. The atmosphere of that film is so thick that you believe every second. This sequel tries to emulate that and comes close to succeeding despite being longer and less action-packed. The music for me is probably what does it, it's the pulse of the film and instantly places the film in the same world as the original.I had a strange experience with this film. I watched the film in 2D first and thought it was OK, a bit overlong maybe. But watching it a second time in 3D I was amazed to be sucked in to the film's world the way I was. It isn't even that strong a conversion, with many scenes shot in such a way that the 3D struggles to make much of an impact. But simply having depth and volume to people and objects, having flying cars actually flying out in a 3D space, well that makes all the difference and delivers the immersion that a 2D viewing just can't.I haven't had such a transformative experience in a long time and it's 3D I have to thank for that. Watching movies like this in 3D is like living in the future, after doing that you just can't go back to 2D without feeling a great sense of loss.

I'm writing this as someone who loves Science Fiction but didn't really enjoy the original Blade Runner... I know that it's almost criminal to insult the first film, but whilst I remember liking the start, I ended up getting really bored and uninterested in the last act. However, this version by Denis Villeneuve is incredible. The acting is amazing, stand-out performances from Ryan Gosling (as always) and Ana de Armas, with the rest of the cast also doing a great job. The special effects are what you would expect in this day and age and the story is really intriguing and entertaining... what more could you want from a movie!

I am not what you will call an avid fan of the original Blade Runner, but I really did like that film. A lot of that was down to the performance of Hauer, but it was a good story with a great cast overall. This one though just lost me. I found it way to slow and dragged out, with a storyline that never seemed to achieve the point it was setting out to make. Gosling is ok, but his character was just so damn dull and just seemed to spend most of his time moping around. My other gripe is the fact the film puts Ford and Leto front and centre on the advertising posters and blu ray/DVD covers, yet they barely even appear in the film. Ford fairs better than Leto for screen time, but considering the film is 2 hours and 43 mins long and it took 1 hour and 45 mins for him to even show up, kinda tells you how "click baity" the advertising was for this movie. Leto must have only got about 15 mins of screen time at most. At least Dave Bautista was not heavily advertised, or else anyone watching for him could have left after the first 10 mins or so.I can understand how some people will like it, but likewise I think it is easy to understand why some feel let down.The film could probably have done with being a lot shorter as well, as a lot of the storyline elements just felt like padding to add to the runtime rather than being necessary plot elements.I think another way the original benefits over this is the fact that the "bad guys" in this one had no redeeming features, where as in the original, Roy Batty was actually a highly sympathetic character at times, and you kinda felt bad for him. This one kinda felt like the old cliched "evil corporation does something evil" type of story.3D was good though.

Blade Runner 2049 has the unfortunate problem of being a sequel to a 1980's classic and a movie so slow, modern going audiences won't have the attention span to get through half of it. Much like the original movie, Blade Runner 2049 is a very slow movie by design. The story revolves around a blade runner detective, simply called K. He is a replicant that is tasked with hunting down the older, more obsolete models. During one of his jobs, he finds a box of bones. These bones contain something special, something that will change the world for both humankind and the replicants. Once the box is open, K finds himself in one giant conspiracy and he takes it on himself to get to the bottom of things.To their credit, all the actors do a great job with their role. This is Ryan Gosling's best role, in my opinion. He does a great job of coming across like a soulless machine slowly gaining his humanity. It is also nice seeing Harrison Ford looking like he actually cares for the role, unlike his recent Star Wars outings. He shows a great range of emotions and has got himself into good physical shape too. Luv (Sylvia Hoeks) is awesome, Joi (Ana de Armas) is charming and beautiful and even Dave Bautista was convincing, even if his time is limited. It's a very solid cast but the movie isn't just about them.There is a serious artistic side to this movie and by that I mean the Roger Deakins cinematography, the overall art style and the booming soundtrack by Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch. The movie has some fast paced action sequences, but they are few and far between. Instead, the movie takes its time. It gives us these beautiful audio and visual landscapes, let's us see the actors work their way through it and gives us just enough time to process it. Those not there for small details will definitely find it a bit empty and longwinded as they glance over the film, it's perfectly understandable to a point. But those looking for a piece of art (like the original), will find the world of Blade Runner 2049 not only faithful to the original but perfectly adapted to modern times.I recently picked up the 4k transfer for a nice discount. I originally acquired a 4k player for the new Star Trek remasters and needed something to test it out. This was my pick and it was a perfect choice. The clarity and depth of this transfer is incredible. The colours are very strong and vibrant. There's no artefacts, no damage or anything of the sort on screen. It's as pristine and beautiful as a movie could be. It may very well be one of the most impressive looking films I have seen. The soundtrack is also very nice, if not a little loud. With the settings just right, the Hans Zimmer soundtrack works perfectly and sounds magnificent through my 5.1 surround sound system.I have seen a lot of fans of the original Blade Runner complain about this movie. It's an embarrassment to the original, it should never have been made etc. I have also seen non fans complain about how slow it is. The latter is understandable (to a point), but I'll never understand how a Blade Runner fan can hate this film. It's not a straight up sequel and has been well written and directed. The way the film was made makes the Deckard character feel like he is there by coincidence instead of being forced in for commercial reasons. It's trying to do its own thing and I think it does it very well.I honestly couldn't recommend this film more, especially if you're a fan of the original. They play wonderfully back to back in 4k and has basically become mandatory viewing in my household. If you want a couple of fantastic films to try out your new 4k television or sound system, the two Blade Runner movies is where you should be looking.

Easily the best film of 2017, Blade Runner 2049 looks stunning, and is a worthy sequel to the original film. Some people say they find it slow, all a matter of taste I suppose, I didn't find it too slow or too long, I was completely engrossed for the whole film, it didn't feel like 2 hours 45, in fact I would have been happy if it had lasted even longer. Of course, I grew up with '70s films so I'm used to films being a bit slower, but these days I find it a delightful surprise when a film takes it time and doesn't find it necessary to rush through things because the audience may have a short attention span. Clearly a labour of love for the film-makers, it's a film made by Blade Runner fans for Blade Runner fans (a viewer will definitely get more out of the film if they are familiar with the original - but then, why bother watching a sequel if you haven't already seen and liked the original anyway?). An arthouse film on a grand scale, I adore this film, best film I've seen in years.