Blade Runner 2049
Blade Runner 2049
Blade Runner 2049
Directed by:
Denis VilleneuveCinematography:
Roger DeakinsCast:
Ryan Gosling, Harrison Ford, Sylvia Hoeks, Ana de Armas, Robin Wright, Jared Leto, Dave Bautista, Carla Juri, Mackenzie Davis, Lennie James, Barkhad Abdi (more)VOD (4)
Plots(1)
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. (Warner Bros. US)
(more)Videos (26)
Reviews (18)
There's probably no bigger fan of the original Blade Runner than me, so, first of all, I don't think a movie like this needed a sequel at all. In terms of the story, it's like The Matrix. There, the mythology was developed in the other two episodes, here, the story is developed in a way that makes sense, but does not enrich the original film. In terms of pure craftsmanship, it's a solid piece of filmmaking, but I didn’t feel the atmosphere of Scott's gem, that "Babylonian" mix of cultures and peoples with a predominantly Asian element where you could easily become an anonymous figurehead. Deakins does magic, yes, but the atmosphere is missing, and anyone who says otherwise has failed to feel the subtle nuances of the first Blade Runner. I missed an interesting character like J.F. Sebastian and his electronic toys in the prequel, I missed a fateful character like Pris, I missed a strong villain like Roy Batty whom you both hated and pitied. There's none of that in Villeneuve's film, just a terminator in a skirt and a bland Leto. Thanks at least for the holographic Joi, probably the only interesting character in the film. I just can’t avoid feeling slightly disappointed.
()
I adhere to the principle that if I don't have high expectations I will be pleasantly surprised from time to time. The new Blade Runner did not disappoint me, although I could express a few critical reservations. But overall, besides Nolan's Dunkirk, this was my biggest movie theater experience this year. It is more than a worthy continuation of Scott's film, or rather its modified version from 1992. It continues not only in terms of the plot but also in terms of atmosphere and style. The characters are all 30 years older and it clearly did not benefit any of them. Deckard has aged, the environmental crisis has deepened, social inequalities are more extreme, and fear and tension have increased everywhere. There are more replicants and they represent a greater challenge than ever before. Blade Runner 2049 depicts a world that has not yet exploded, but the fuse is already burning and the flame inexorably approaches the explosive. Denis Villeneuve creates impressive and depressive images of a world where humanity cannot handle itself, let alone coexist with artificial intelligence. The strength of his film lies in the direction and visuals, while the screenplay is noticeably weaker. However, a similar criticism can also be applied to Scott's film, which is stronger in building atmosphere and raising ethical questions than in the credibility of the constructed world. Blade Runner 2049 can be criticized for many things, from the uninteresting female antagonist who certainly does not match the replicant Roy Batty from the first film to the strange character of the CEO of the most powerful corporation, Niander Wallace, who resembles a leading figure of a religious sect, and whose appearance is probably supposed to refer to biblical motifs of the Creator God. Yet among current blockbusters, the film stands out. I agree with the criticism directed at the excessive readability, literalness, and genericness, but I would also compare this film to Prometheus, which is several levels worse in the aforementioned aspects, moreover, it has poor editing, the most basic narrative techniques fail in it, and it uses the cheapest symbolism. Therefore, I would be cautious with the hate and I would attribute some disappointments to unrealistic expectations and, last but not least, to the fact that Blade Runner betrays its commercial attractiveness. A slow three-hour action film built on long shots simply doesn't appeal to everyone. If you can't resist the lure of the new Blade Runner, I highly recommend watching it on the big screen because it loses a lot of its visual impact on the small screen. Gosling in the lead role may disgust some people with his limited acting range, but let's not forget that he plays an android, so we can forgive him for that. I enjoyed Blade Runner 2049 - not as a masterpiece of art that should be some fundamental reflection of our technological possibilities and fear of the near future, but as a magnificent visual blockbuster that is not as mindless as the majority of the others. Overall impression: 90%.
()
(less)
(more)
Blade Runner 2049 is one of those movies that has been anticipated for decades. The world from the novels and short stories of Philip K. Dick continues to live its life many years after the author's death (he died shortly before the premiere of the original Blade Runner) and continues to inspire. I have a weakness for the phenomenon of comebacks, when after many years original actors return, and Harrison Ford is the face that has become immortal thanks to Han Solo, Indiana Jones, and Rick Deckard. The sequel did not disgrace the original film, pleasantly expanded the world, and the new actors (Ryan Gosling and Jared Leto) fit in perfectly naturally. 2049 is an ideal melancholic post-apocalyptic film for the current generation.
()
Denis Villeneuve kept the film pretty true to its source material. He prepared a sequel to the legendary techno sci-fi, which deserves praise. He forgot about any emotions and thus made the film into a cold doll, but on the other hand, he played beautifully with Los Angeles of the future and he harmonized it perfectly with the amazing synthwave music. You won’t find orgies like this in just any movie. After viewing I actually realized that I actually ended up with the same impression of the sequel as I had of the original movie. So, to save myself from a three-star review, I gave it four stars straight away. The visuals in combination with the music simply forced me to. Even though I haven’t seen a colder movie in a long time.
()
Much better than I was afraid of, but much worse than I hoped for. The first is true mainly due to the accurately captured peculiarly slow hypnotic "non-spectator" atmosphere (I felt like it was 2049 minutes long), addressing major existential issues through slight hints (however worse than in previous movies), refined in terms of design and ideas, functional update of the world by thirty years, the roaring and intoxicating audiovisuals prove that it is not the same with only slight changes, in other words we can see a real acting of Ford. The second is true because of several plot lines from the final sequence, which are questionable, or even reprehensible. There is quite a lot of too long or even superfluous scenes. It´s too cold, despite the desire to raise emotions and there are to many different topics that are only mentioned and then fade away as quickly as a flash. It will definitely not become a timeless legendary movie, only perhaps in terms of craftsmanship perhaps, but it´s absolutely more than just a damn good anti-utopian film. That´s for sure. The question, of course, remains whether "more than damn good" is enough in the case of the follow-up of one of the most influential films of the movie industry.
()
