Blade Runner 2049 reviews are showing strong critical consensus.

It appears the unasked for sequel has managed to do what many old fans thought highly unlikely; to improve upon and impress the majority of critics to an astonishing degree...

http://www.empireonline.com/movies/blade-runner-2049/review/
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/sep/29/blade-runner-2049-review-ryan-gosling-harrison-ford-denis-villeneuve
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/blade_runner_2049/ - TC-DC: 98%
http://www.metacritic.com/movie/blade-runner-2049 - TC-DC: 83

It may seem all quite hyperbolic, which will inevitably leave some more disappointed as is the expection of any high-rated film that releases, but nevertheless, as someone who was not entirely enamored with the original, this may be the first time I would be willing to cinema alone if nobody else happens to be available for dragging along to revel in big screen sci-fi wonder and spectacle.
Is anybody else planning to see this also? Any fans who are able to give an insight on thoughts towards this?

I'm pumped for it. Watching it Tuesday. The one movie I've been waiting for this year.

So... Basically it is the new Mad Max: Fury Road? That is pretty awesome. Always good when things are good. XD

Shoot... I thought it would be some time before it would hit theaters. But I do want to see this.

Well, I guess I need to finally see the original.
Which cut should I see? There's like 20.

Souplex:

Which cut should I see?

Just take the "Director's Cut", doesn't matter which, the difference between those versions is too small to change your experience.

Zontar:

Souplex:

Which cut should I see?

Just take the "Director's Cut", doesn't matter which, the difference between those versions is too small to change your experience.

Which cut has narrations by a really, really bored Harrison Ford? 'cus that one should be avoided.

MC1980:

Zontar:

Souplex:

Which cut should I see?

Just take the "Director's Cut", doesn't matter which, the difference between those versions is too small to change your experience.

Which cut has narrations by a really, really bored Harrison Ford? 'cus that one should be avoided.

That's the theatrical cut

Souplex:
Well, I guess I need to finally see the original.
Which cut should I see? There's like 20.

I prefer the Workprint. It was the test version that was shown to a small audience before the film's national release. It's a good edit.

It has more neutral color timing. Movies almost always look worse when directors fuck with the colors. Ghost in the Shell, Star Wars, Blade Runner... Okay, I'm out of examples. I'm sure there are a lot more, though.

It has no implication of Deckard being a replicant, which makes no sense when you think about it. There is no unicorn dream in this version. Deckard's character arc and Batty's death have more meaning if he's not a replicant. He becomes sympathetic to the replicants and the replicants are shown to be human. If he's a replicant, why is he not as strong or fast as the others? Why would the police scheme with Tyrell and employ a replicant while keeping the truth from him? From Deckard's first conversation with his boss, I never got the slightest impression that he was being deceitful. Why would they hire a replicant who doesn't like his job and has to be pulled out of retirement? He's the worst replicant ever. Ridley Scott's half-baked twist is a twist for the sake of a twist. Keeping him human gives us a connection.

I like some of the musical choices better, like when Rachael and Deckard are in his apartment. The musical piece they picked for the scene isn't in any of my Vangelis albums. I don't know where it's from. It doesn't sound as sultry and romantic as "Love Theme," but it's more sci-fi and I think it fits better. Unfortunately, as the film nears its climax, there is suspenseful placeholder music by Jerry Goldsmith and James Horner. It doesn't fit. Because of this, Roy Batty's death also isn't as dramatic. Maybe Vangelis wasn't done scoring it at the time. Closer towards the end, it goes back to Vangelis' score, but it doesn't end with the great "Blade Runner (End Titles)" track. There are no end credits. It just ends with the "Main Titles" track over a black screen.

The Workprint has one scene of brief narration by Ford, but, unlike in that other version, it's appropriate. You can tell Ford actually gave a shit.

Also, I know there is an eye motif throughout the movie, but the huge eye in the opening of the later cuts feels random and too emphasized. The Workprint doesn't have that.

I listened to the commentary afterwards and have to agree with Paul M. Sammon: "But it has always been my favorite version of the film. I have not yet seen the complete final cut, so I am reserving judgement as what version I feel most attached to. But I have to tell you for many years the workprint was my favorite, because I found it more ambiguous, more adult and certainly more atmospheric."

There is also a shot of the food Deckard ordered after a brief talk with the Chinese shop owner about two being enough, which made it make more sense.

Wasn't the Final Cut supposed to be the best and the Theatrical the worst?

My memory is a bit sketchy on it to be honest- not sure.

I'm very happy about that. I like the original Blade Runner a lot, just on a technical level. Thematically... well, even back at its time it was far from the first movie to ask the question if a machine that looks and acts human isn't technically human but in terms of visuals and sounds it still is a marvel. And can't forget about Rutger Hauer's performance. I'm very much looking forward to the new one. I like Denis Villeneuve, I like Ryan Gosling, I'm sure i'll enjoy it a lot.

Just came back from the movie. It's a very weirdly structured story - lots of false starts and false endings - and despite the slow crawl and lengthy running time, the ending felt abrupt and like it had cut stuff out. But I liked it, there's a hypnotic quality to it: the stark neon visuals, the yawning synth soundtrack, the stillness of every shot. And Harrison Ford doesn't phone it in, for a change.

Sounds like something I'll have to watch

Ezekiel:
He's (Deckard) the worst replicant ever.

I'll wait about 5 years for the 'real cut' to get released.
XD

*makes smug critic noises* Well of course I reviewed it.

Long story short, it is very pretty, very nice sounding movie that's good for the most part, though the story is bit conventional and the villains are bit too moustache twirly evil, which feels at odds with the original. Well worth watching.

Good to hear, been cautiously optimistic since the first trailer dropped.

maninahat:
the villains are bit too moustache twirly evil, which feels at odds with the original.

Not a dent on Roy Batty, for sure.
Dave Bautista gave off some nice Leon Kowalski vibes during his little screen time though.

I just came back from seeing it and I'm not sure if I've made up my mind on it. It's incredibly ambitious and I'm very tempted to call it a bit overambitious. It's long, noticeably so. Last week I saw Barry Lyndon, another 3 hour movie, for the first time and it never felt long. In Blade Runner 2047 there were sequences were I wanted the movie to just get on with it. Of course the old one was also a bit of a slow burn but that one was almost 50 minutes shorter and had a considerably more focussed plot.

I feel there are quite a few things holding Blade Runner 2047 back from being the classic the original Blade Runner was, the most major of them being its overwhelming maximalism. It just threw so much stuff in there, man. It's like Villeneuve became so attached to this world that he kept coming up with more and more aspects he wanted to explore about it. And I can't even blame him, it's a great world and it's a really intriguing plot but... again, I need to sleep on it. I found it exhausting, but mostly in a good way.

Why is Jared Leto a thing? What does he add to the movies he's in?

Just watched it today.

The best description I can give without going into spoilers is: it's the best sequel that absolutely did not need to exist.

altnameJag:
Why is Jared Leto a thing? What does he add to the movies he's in?

Large quantities of ham. Honestly, I find it a bit impressive, he seems to be that incredibly dedicated method actor who fully and completely immerses himself into every role he plays and yet he consistently manages to be the worst actor in almost everything he's in.

The first movie was very noir. This was barely noir at all. But at least it's not the rehash that Star Wars was. I guess it was good, though. I guess. It's too long. Good visuals. Soundtrack, I'm not sure about. It was just really aggressive and unmemorable. Why is the music right after the ending, when the credits start playing, so... angry? Why would you follow that moment with anger? I'm also not sure I buy the premise. That the child would be that important/symbolic. And I felt like the ending made the whole struggle feel pointless. She's useless. The movie felt thematically pointless. Or messy. The detective work was kind of dumb. "Only one place has that much radioactivity." Really? At least the African guy from Captain Phillips got some work for that scene. I'm also grateful they didn't say Deckard is a replicant.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here