Inceptional
Member
That's my only disappointment from the album, it doesn't. But in all fairness, it is the greatest end theme to a film ever. There's no coming close to that magic again. Ever.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Blade Runner 2049 Review Thread
- Thread starter jack_package_200
- Start date
That's my only disappointment from the album, it doesn't. But in all fairness, it is the greatest end theme to a film ever. There's no coming close to that magic again. Ever.
ronaldthump
Member
Just saw it an hour or so ago.
< -- Score
It's competently made and its not bad but I can't help but feel it plods. It was very slow and felt much much longer than its runtime and I can't help but feel the central plot was a bit contrived -
but it didn't feel like a big one or interesting one. There wasn't enough sense of jeopardy or consquence in this one. Also,
was sorta eh.
I love Robin Wright but in here, her character was so one dimensional.
Best thing about the movie surprisingly for me was jared leto. He was mesmerising on screen.
Might have to think about this one a bit. As for how it ends.
Gosling was great in it.
6/10
It's competently made and its not bad but I can't help but feel it plods. It was very slow and felt much much longer than its runtime and I can't help but feel the central plot was a bit contrived -
there was a twist, that K wasn't the baby
the dream maker being the daughter
I love Robin Wright but in here, her character was so one dimensional.
Best thing about the movie surprisingly for me was jared leto. He was mesmerising on screen.
Might have to think about this one a bit. As for how it ends.
would have been happy to it to end outside with gosling dying instead of the almost unneccessary scene with harrison and the boring ass chick in the bubble - I think she was poorly cast. She was just so uninteresting that you can't help but not care
Gosling was great in it.
ABC Australia review:
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-...nner-2049-is-the-sequel-we-didnt-need/9018174
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-...nner-2049-is-the-sequel-we-didnt-need/9018174
Yeah let's not forget that the original movie wasn't that well received when it first came out and it's one of the few movies that you'll have to watch multiple times. Heck I just re-watched it a week ago and didn't quite feel it although I've already watched it like a decade or more ago so I re-watched it again two days later(which I almost never do) it captured me. It also depends on what your mood is and Blade Runner isn't really a movie you could watch anytime.
ronaldthump
Member
well, the first time i saw BR, it blew me away. This new version is very slick looking but I dont think its as effective or deep a movie.
Sanctuary
Member
In preparation of seeing this film on this upcoming Tuesday, and friend wanted to rewatch a version (Director's or Final) of Blade Runner as some kind of refersher on the lore, since he thought it would be needed and he hasn't seen any of the films since the late 90s.
I told him it won't matter, because it's basically an hour and a half interview with about ten minutes total of action sequences and there's not really much to it other than the visuals. I told him that I tried watching it when I was a lot younger and it put me to sleep three times, and I tried watching it when I was older in 2003 and managed to get all the way through it, but it was still boring.
He said "We're adults now, so we'll be able to manage it easier". Nope, it's still visually stunning, and you can see how influential it was for the films that came after, but my god neither the story nor characters come close to a similar quality as the production values. It's still the most beautifully boring movie I've ever seen.
Thankfully, 2049 is supposed to trump it in story and pacing. I'll know for sure next week.
I told him it won't matter, because it's basically an hour and a half interview with about ten minutes total of action sequences and there's not really much to it other than the visuals. I told him that I tried watching it when I was a lot younger and it put me to sleep three times, and I tried watching it when I was older in 2003 and managed to get all the way through it, but it was still boring.
He said "We're adults now, so we'll be able to manage it easier". Nope, it's still visually stunning, and you can see how influential it was for the films that came after, but my god neither the story nor characters come close to a similar quality as the production values. It's still the most beautifully boring movie I've ever seen.
Thankfully, 2049 is supposed to trump it in story and pacing. I'll know for sure next week.
Poimandres
Member
Interesting. The reviewer on ABC news breakfast said it was great this morn. All this makes me pine for is a review from Margaret & David!
Sanctuary
Member
This comment in the comments section of that review is hilarious. It mimics exactly how I see the first film.
I don't know what masterpiece others have watched, but it sure as hell isn't Ridley Scott's Blade Runner.
D
Deleted member 286591
Unconfirmed Member
Saw it yesterday...
...still in shock. Fucking W.O.W. I gotta see it again.
-Plasma Reus-
Service guarantees member status
Tonight's the night.
Time.....enough.
Time.....enough.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
Just got out.
Villeneuve is the real deal. There are very few directors working as hard as he is in this movie to create a tangible, seamless world. The production design in this thing is insane. I felt like his evolution of the future that Scott created was a logically cynical leap 'forward'. At times, the aesthetic tones on screen felt like he had mixed the original film with the oppressive atmosphere of Fincher's Se7en.
The plot is much more nuanced and intricate than the original's somewhat threadbare narrative by comparison. That being said, for all the blood, sweat and good intentions that went into it, it was - for me, missing the beating heart - that underlying sense of human emotion that the original resonated despite its honestly empty protagonist in Deckard. It's super weird. This film does a much better job characterizing its players (including Deckard) than the original film, but it doesn't quite tap into that same sense of existential musing and soul. And I think the obvious reason for that is that so much of what gave the original that feeling was Vangelis' masterpiece of a score - which it's honestly unfair to try to live up to, but there it is.
It's well-worth seeing. There are some excellent ideas and visuals on display. Even for a ruminating, noir piece, it could have used some tightening up in the pacing. The sound design is excellent, whilst some of the dialogue mixing in the first half of the film had my ears doing the sonographic equivalent of squinting.
Villeneuve is the real deal. There are very few directors working as hard as he is in this movie to create a tangible, seamless world. The production design in this thing is insane. I felt like his evolution of the future that Scott created was a logically cynical leap 'forward'. At times, the aesthetic tones on screen felt like he had mixed the original film with the oppressive atmosphere of Fincher's Se7en.
The plot is much more nuanced and intricate than the original's somewhat threadbare narrative by comparison. That being said, for all the blood, sweat and good intentions that went into it, it was - for me, missing the beating heart - that underlying sense of human emotion that the original resonated despite its honestly empty protagonist in Deckard. It's super weird. This film does a much better job characterizing its players (including Deckard) than the original film, but it doesn't quite tap into that same sense of existential musing and soul. And I think the obvious reason for that is that so much of what gave the original that feeling was Vangelis' masterpiece of a score - which it's honestly unfair to try to live up to, but there it is.
It's well-worth seeing. There are some excellent ideas and visuals on display. Even for a ruminating, noir piece, it could have used some tightening up in the pacing. The sound design is excellent, whilst some of the dialogue mixing in the first half of the film had my ears doing the sonographic equivalent of squinting.
On the other hand, remember how much positive buzz there was after the release of Force Awakens? And w how bland and tepid of a film that actually turned out to be, in the fullness of time?
I want to believe this is great, becausr I usually like Villeneuve, but I gotta say, I'm pretty sick of every beloved property I grew up with being remade. Especially because modern remakes are usually so boring, sterile and anodyne.
b&jy77VjiKn$#F
Member
Which is why I appreciate Mad Max: Fury Road so much.
I thought this was visually amazing. I normally don't like 3D that much, but I caught a 3D showing because it was the right time. - I find the cost of contrast and brightness and dulling of colours to be not worth the advantage, but the 3D here was incredible.
I thought the story was neat, but the movie DID feel a lot longer than it needed to be.
I thought the story was neat, but the movie DID feel a lot longer than it needed to be.
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
Finally reserved my seats for tonight!
Lol no.
I liked 2049 and it certainly doesn't. Whoever is trying to push that is lying.
agree.
I just came back from a late screening. Overall, despite a few nitpicks, I really enjoyed the film. Its not going to be an iconic movie. I dont think the cinematography is on par with Cronenweths work, and the score, aside from the brief reprises from the original, is a completely forgettable follow-up to Vangelis legendary soundtrack, but the tone and pace of 2049 are unlike any other sci-fi film Ive seen theatrically. The effects are inspired, and its packed with fantastic set pieces, which the clever story supports well. Low-key and serious in the best possible way.
While its a strong sequel, this is a Villeneuve work through and through, so I would keep that in mind. Ill definitely watch it again.
While its a strong sequel, this is a Villeneuve work through and through, so I would keep that in mind. Ill definitely watch it again.
Discotheque
Banned
shit I just googled the cinematographer of Blade Runner since I recognize that name, his son has been shooting for David Fincher (Social Network, Dragon Tattoo, Gone Girl)
strong genes.
Kenzodielocke
Banned
You seriously cant decide if this will be iconic and classic or not.
9/10 movie. Good marketing.
9/10 movie. Good marketing.
Haloid1177
Banned
Lukewarm where? It's been acclaimed almost everywhere you look.
I hope this post isn't in reference to me, because I was pretty clear that it's a strong film but not an iconic work like the original.
-Plasma Reus-
Service guarantees member status
Lukewarm just because some people say it isn't the greatest thing ever made because there is no such thing?
94% for a hard sci-fi revisit of a 1982 film that was critically panned when it was released is crazy. It essentially is the result of decades of admiration and exploration of the material by a fan who understood how to improve the material. It kind of justifies why Blade Runner is good, making the first movie retroactively better.
Kenzodielocke
Banned
It was referencing people that decide that on the day the movie released. So yeah, I also meant you. I would never dare to say something this fresh will be, or is not, iconic or classic.
No offense, though.
Wrong.
You can't tell a movie is iconic or not if you've just seen it. You have to digest it first, give it a few years to put some distance and re-watch it a couple times to see how it holds up.
PhoncipleBone
Banned
Time is the ultimate judge.
You can't tell a movie is iconic or not if you've just seen it. You have to digest it first, give it a few years to put some distance and re-watch it a couple times to see how it holds up.
Although, sometimes a film does have a big enough impact upon release that you can tell it will be iconic. But that is an extremely, extremely rare thing.
Camper Van Beethoven
Banned
I saw it today. Its subtantially better than the original which I liked but never loved. It takes what is great about that original and makes a good film out of it. I didnt feel it was long at all. Pretty much flew by.
ronaldthump
Member
quality 1 word post.
You can't tell a movie is iconic or not if you've just seen it. You have to digest it first, give it a few years to put some distance and re-watch it a couple times to see how it holds up.
Exactly. Nobody knew the original Blade Runner would be iconic during its original theatrical run. This shit is absurd.
ronaldthump
Member
you feel that way about the heart of the film being missing because BR2049 is ultimately a tad hollow and throughout the film constantly hammers at you about replicants and souls/humanity
Robin Wright's line
"you've done well all these years without"
this movie is about replicants and robots becoming real
you're special, you're a real boy
It's actually really blunt a flick in terms of its messaging.
HEY AUDIENCE. SOUL. REPLICANT. ROBOTS. NOW THEY CAN MAGICALLY REPRODUCE. THEY ARE MORE THAN ROBOTS!!!
in blade runner, at least there was the uncomfortable vein of "am I human?" - from where Deckard stood.
Wait, I have to wait a few years and re-watch a film at least twice to determine whether it possesses iconic qualities? What's the criteria for selecting a film in the first place? You're not suggesting you do this with every movie, surely?
What unique element of 2049 can you see becoming iconic, something that will pass into culture's collective cinema history, and will be reflected upon across other media?
Inferno313
Banned
I mean "iconic" is a cultural thing. Star Wars is deemed by decades of consensus and culture to be "iconic". Singing in the Rain is deemed by decades of consensus and culture to be "iconic"... It's not a point on a review scale, it's something bigger than that.
wesleyshark
Banned
Can't wait to see this tomorrow
Vigilant Walrus
Member
Jesus. Just looked the DOP up; http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005683/?ref_=ttfc_fc_cr20
:O
dammmmnnnn. This guy is a legit fucking maestro. Skyfall was some next level shit.
Kenzodielocke
Banned
I am not the judge of that.
Inferno313
Banned
I think that poster was talking about Jeff Cronenweth, but yeah Roger Deakins is quite possibly THE all-time great cinematographer.
I should have said that I can't see it becoming an iconic film to the degree of the original Blade Runner. Obviously, if it resonates with enough viewers, it would have the potential to become an iconic film.
The 1,000 seat cinema was packed, which is pretty unusual around here.
More_Badass
Member
You serious? Iconic doesnt work like that. Its like classic; its measures are time and influence. Its not something you can judge based on quality or critical reception or box office performance or whatnot.
Asking what film, what element, how many times, is irrelevant, because thats not what decides whether something becomes iconic or a classic. Its only something you can grasp five years, a decade, two decades down the line, and see how other films, shows, other mediums, creators and directors were influenced and inspired by another work or some particular aspect of that work. Its not really a discussion you can have when you leave the theater.
Kenzodielocke
Banned
Yep, exactly how I feel. Villeneuve had marketing under control, which is nice. There is a major spoiler in the trailers but that seems to been have altered, so you will not notice a thing.
NealMcCauley
Member
Sad story: Fincher hired the father (Jordan) for Alien 3, but Fox made Fincher fire him two weeks into shooting as Jordan's Parkinson's was slowing down production.
No, it's very late here, and I just realized I wrote some very dumb things that are literally impossible to support.
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
If we judged films like that, on release, Age of Ultron would have been considered iconic