Blade Runner 2049

[yoco]

[DarkSaibot v.1.3.10]

why blade runner sounds familliar for me ? but i don't recall to see any movie with that name

[slikrapid]

Blade Runner 2049 (2017)

Thirty years after the events of the first film, a new blade runner, LAPD Officer K...

Blade Runner (1982)

A blade runner must pursue and try to terminate four replicants who stole a ship in space and have returned to Earth to find their creator.

[DarkSaibot v.1.3.10]

the 1982 one is good ?

[yoco]

Many say it's a classic, I never watched it. Need to thou!

[slikrapid]

must quote myself again:

119. Blade Runner (1982)
pro's: great atmosphere
con's: lots of too drawn-out scenes, replicant stupidity
verdict: a futuristic classic

anyways, its considered a must-see by many...

[anon]

Many say it's a classic, I never watched it. Need to thou!

It's different from the sci-fi you may be used to. I found it a bit slow at times, but worth it overall (or at least I didn't keep checking the clock). There are several versions available, mine was about 2h30m and supposedly the longest and most complete.

Thirty years after the events of the first film, a new blade runner, LAPD Officer K (Ryan Gosling), unearths a long-buried secret that has the potential to plunge what’s left of society into chaos. K’s discovery leads him on a quest to find Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford), a former LAPD blade runner who has been missing for 30 years.

I guess Deckard wasn't a replicant after all.

[yoco]

[Instab]

as far as the looks go they did very well. if the story can keep up this could be one of the rare, good reboots

[slikrapid]

as mentioned in another thread, i recently revisited the original from 1982, turns out it was an overrated classic after all, where not much happens and that which does, has significant logic problems - another interesting thing is how most of the movie futuristic predictions (it was set in 2019) did not come true, not nearly so, which may be considered as another failure (examples: flying cars and billboards, advanced AI, replicating or producing genetically modified human or animal body parts, autonomous artificial organisms, nowadays not even ordinary voice recognition works seamlessly, off-world colonies, etc.)


as for Blade Runner 2049 (2017), it is worse in many areas, except cgi which is to be expected, however even so it could not reach the oppressive atmosphere of the original, instead it conveyed a sense of emptiness (outdoors) and sterility (indoors); and since rain alone wasn't enough, snow, fog/dust and desert areas were added in the mix, whereas the annoying booming or monotonous music did not help but rather distract from the overall experience

- K/joe did another relatively silent, almost disinterested role, similar to the one in Drive; his detective skills were highly inflated, the love scenes and dialogue in general between a replicant and his computer girlfriend were silly, not to mention the lack of science in a SF emanator or hard light hologram concepts, what to say of the bizarre flickering sex scene
- deckard did fairly well in his short role (interrogation scene at the tower was fine, drowning scene was clumsy, hotel scenes unconvincing), though his behavior was illogical compared to the fear exhibited in the original, against an older replicant model
- the female replicant opponent was decent, though the ending fight got badly choreographed, where the situations weren't used to show advanced replicant model superiority in combat and programming
- j. leto was somewhat menacing/insane and had several laughable monologues (invading eden with his legions of fallen angels) or even more unintentionally silly flying eye thingies

among many other unconvincing or illogical movie elements there was the sequel-ready replicant army and their reasoning, where somehow the knowledge that you're able to have a baby makes you free? as we recall from our history, black slaves were always able to have babies, pre-, during and post-slavery

naturally, the concept of a self-aware replicant itself is silly because a computer program (replicant's 'brain' that governs the artificial unit) on one hand does not possess a feature called self-awareness and on the other only mimics human behavior, deceiving with its outer human-like appearance - to an extent, it would be as if a human started mimicking monkeys, acting like them (individual units of both species already possessing self-awareness) and because of this he somehow got transformed into a fully functional monkey, which is obviously impossible via mimicry, thus colloquially known as 'monkey business'

another key problem is dragging, overlong, often silent scenes, stretching the movie well over two hours for no particular gain

in conclusion, the movie may be recommended to see how the sequel to a so-called classic turned out, but not for revisiting or archiving

[DarkSaibot v.1.3.10]

without reading slikrapid deep review and without watching the old movie i could say about Blade Runner 2045 keeping short that it was a total predictable bullshit ,beside the special effects wich was Above any SF movies watched recently -the story -made me to sleep second half of the movie,the rest overwatched via fast forward- the action is moving very slow - mostly talking -and the story script is nothing special from other main stream SF movies types

sorry for desecrating a classic -but from my point of view it deserve a top 6.2 rating -espected more from that great casting of actors

[yoco]

I tried three times watch Blade runner, and each time I stopped watching, because I found movie to be rather boring, and I never understood why people are praising it so high!

[Instab]

i finally found the time to watch it and it was great. like the original it has a unique atmosphere really dragging you into this reality. everything is rather calm and you only feel the persistant threat and danger by that kind of society. superbly underlined by the visual presentation.
this not a "what you see is what you get" but a "you get what you don't see". i'm glad that something like this still gets produced among the tons of dull junk that's flooding the cinemas usually.

[anon]

I rewatched the 1982 movie (the original version with voiceover narration and without the unicorn dream) today, as a refresher. I stand by my 7/10 rating; it's a sci-fi police story, it's different and has some important moments, the fight between Deckard and Roy being the most intense, but won't blow your mind. I do concede that the art on the city landscapes and buildings was really well done, they convey the image of a technologically advanced yet dark and dystopian future.



Will comment on the sequel after I've watched it.

[alpacino]

Once in between 2010 or later I watched the classic one because of the big hype that surrounds this title. I found the movie to be very dull and boring, I slept in many scenes and couldn't undestand what's so special about it. Perhaps it was more interesting to watch it when it launched, perhaps it's a movie/creation that didn't survive the passing of time like many others also don't. Unlike the first Star Wars, or the first Alien or the first and second Mad Max, etc (btw I think the 2015 Mad Max blows). So now I have this one 2049 to watch. I will watch because of its production value but I'm not expecting much, specially because of several bad reviews and opinions. Let's see.