I'm sure it will make rounds in the international market. I don't go to the cinema very often, but I was surprised to see it packed full last night here in Croatia. And the audience was mainly consisted of 35+ year olds, which is something you don't see very often. My friend and I, both 23, were some of the youngest ones there. No, it can't, because they didn't push it strong enough. The art direction packs far less of a punch than the original. The market for gray cotton T-shirts is going way up, I tell ya! Regarding the movie itself, I grew up watching the original and have loved it increasingly with passage of time, so I was tangibly excited about the sequel. But I have to say that 2049 was hit-and-miss for me. I was satisfied, and nothing more. Huge spoilerific review incoming: Spoiler 1) Ryan Gosling and Jared Leto were spot-on castings. It seems like Gosling's previous films with Nicolas Winding Refn were impressive practise sessions for this role. Long stares - check, sudden outbursts - check, short answers - check. Leto stole every scene he appeared in, he absorbed everything around him + the inclusion of buddhist chanting in every scene of the Wallace Corporation is a fantastic new idiosyncrasy of the soundtrack. It eerily reminds of Adam Yauch, and this song - 2) The plot premise is faithful to the original, the wondrous revelation of androids becoming more human than humans. Niander Wallace's intentions were clear and Deckard was seamlessly introduced in the story. I didn't like where the plot went, unfortunately. 3) The world of Blade Runner 2049 is too bright, clean and contrived. The movie is stylistically incoherent. You can't have exteriors very reminiscent of the original, then have the interiors look like the corridors of a space station. There's no reflection of outside neon lights in interior windows at all! This bugged me throughout the movie. The only building interior that truly represented my vision of the world of Blade Runner was the one Deckard lived in. Huge empty atrium, high ceilings, art deco design, the playing of light and shadow. Maybe they wanted to send the message that hey, radiation swept the old city so those districts from the original are abandoned and we are now living in new and different spaces. I don't care, it still feels like a lame cop-out. 4) The short scene with Edward James Olmos is a cheap attempt at playing with the emotions of the fans. If you don't have anything to say, don't include it. 5) No enhancing??? It was such a unique feature of the original. The new forensics methods presented felt like I'm watching CSI, uninspiring and bland. 6) The superintelligent and merciless female enforcer has quickly become a stale cliche of the movie industry. 2049 fell into the same trap, the character was unnecessary and offered nothing of value to the plot. 7) The saving Deckard scene in the rain was beautifully filmed, despite the boring fight coreography. I shoot you, you come back after 10 seconds. I beat you up, you come back. I stab you, you come back. Rinse and repeat. It felt like they knew of only one way to showcase the audience that androids had superhuman abilities. 8) You don't need to spell out scenes for your audience! The scene at the San Diego trash dump had a phenomenal crash sequence (Joi suddenly turning off, no music) and a fantastic camera angle of the female brute bombing the raiders. It was clear it was her from her voice and the reflection of the ceiling in her eyes... Then they had to zoom-out and show some guy doing her nails. Unexcusable, dreadful filmmaking. 9) The Joi character was also unnecessary, she's a typical love interest trope. Loving, caring, innocent. Give me a break. I'll give them some credit, though - they tried to move the needle a bit with a few scenes: aforementioned crash scene, sex scene, giant interactive billboard scene (this one was simply great due to Gosling's expresiveness. He tells it all with no words and a reserved posture, Winding Refn really transformed him into a brooding star). The sex scene was refreshing and new for a blockbuster (Spike Jonze's Her is the only thing to come close), but then you realize it was a weak plot device for the prostitute to plant a bug in his clothes. 10) One minor gripe: why did he want to have sex with Joi at that exact moment in the story, when he was supposed to "get himself in line in the next two days"? Why did he pick the exact same girl that was secretly trying to gather information from him? I guess the earlier tidbit from the female brute that androids love personal questions and attention comes into play, because Gosling and the girl really had chemistry in that street scene (great acting btw, the eye contact between them felt real and genuine). Doesn't matter however I want to interpret it, the truth is that the sex scene felt unnatural and awkward. It's a byproduct of a bottleneck script - hey, we don't know how else to move the story and all the other plot threads are still undeveloped, so let's somehow stitch in the prostitute and you, the viewer, just shut up and pretend it all makes sense. 11) And here's my major gripe: the main plot points are left unresolved. The android uprising is hanging in the air, the ending is abrupt, it left me feeling like this was all a money grab, a setup for further sequels. The notion that Deckard was used just to make babies with Rachel also didn't sit well with me, it's a SyFy series plot point.They expanded the story and the universe and didn't tie it up. The original was special because it was a small story, it was essentially a story of Deckard, not of the entire android race (in a way it was also their story, but that's the beauty of it - Blade Runner felt grand and miniscule at the same time). Deckard and Rachel left Los Angeles for good, it was over. 2049 isn't over. Ridley Scott did the same **** with Prometheus, so it wouldn't surprise me, but it would anger me.
Anyone who hasn't seen the film needs to stay away from this review. As CroationSensat points out, it's literally stuffed with spoilers. I agree with a whole lot of it. Not everything, but damn near. For those who have seen Blade Runner: 2049, I particularly agree with point #11.
Spoiler I'd actually disagree with you on that assessment. She told KD6 that he's special, told him that she loves him, supported him on his quest and named him Joe only because she was programmed to do so. Later on it's revealed that KD6 is just another ordinary android, nothing special about him at all. And when he's looking at the Joi interactive billboard it turns out that she calls everyone Joe (at least that's my takeaway from the scene). I'll admit, they've done some fun things with that paper-thin, innocent, morally white love interest trope. I understand I'm going back and forth with myself on this topic, but that's how I feel about the whole movie. It's still on my mind even a few days after I've seen it and I can't decide whether I like it or dislike it. It's ok, I guess. The first half of the movie was highly enjoyable, that's for sure. P.S. If they make the next one, I hope the "big twist" isn't that KD6 actually is special, i.e. the clone or identical twin of Deckard's daughter, even if it is somewhat implied in 2049.
Spoiler But she was willing to sacrifice herself for K. Obviously its a self learning AI so I don't think all her reactions are programmed.
I just saw this. Excellent movie. I like it more than the original. Spoiler I think its obvious Deckard is a replicant now. I really liked the plot twist that the girl making the memories was the child. She is installing memories into the new replicants to make them rebellious. How many replicants have these memories? 100s? thousands? Enough to start a revolution. Is Wallace a replicant? Its also interesting that humans play such a small role in the movie. They are almost a subspecies. This is a fight between free androids and slave androids. Usually its man vs robot. I can't think of another story with this premise.
Have tickets to see it at an Alamo Drafthouse on Tuesday. Can't wait. Rewatched the original (director's cut, actually) last night, and DAMN does that movie hold up. It's really incredible. I do have a question for y'all -- something I'd not noticed before. When @Deckard originally hears about the rogue replicants, his blade runner boss says "six" escaped from off world colonies and came to earth. One, he says, got fried by an electric field when they tried to break into the Tyrell corporation. That leaves five, but the story only follows four, of course: Leon, Snake Lady, Daryl Hannah, and Roy. Am I missing something, or was that left there intentionally to screw with the audience's head. As in... where is the other replicant? Is it one of our main characters? EDIT: ah, okay. this is of course, as I expected, already richly researched and discussed. http://bladerunner.wikia.com/wiki/The_Six_Renegade_Replicants
Nuts. You found it before I saw your post. Two were fried trying to break into the Tyrell Corporation's security system. The last "director's cut" had Bryant give an intelligible answer to the question, "What ever happened to the other two?" I have a copy of every version of the flick, and Ridley's last version was the first not to have Bryant's answer damn near impossible to understand, since the math didn't add up. It sounded like "one got fried" in the others (because that's what Bryant said), in my opinion. I used to be confused as well. Ridley fixed a very long running argument among BR fans. Some still have theories they don't want to give up. I may have one or two about other parts of the film.
Shame on people not supporting this wonderful film. I really hope this doesn't stop them from making more in the future. Just fantastic. One of the best moviegoing experiences I have had in ages.
This movie was better than the original. The visuals were stunning and I would love to have that hologram program. People today have bad taste, that Cardi B song is #1.
Meh, personally, I was a little disappointed overall. But it is definitely pretty to look at and wonderful to hear. It's a great A/V experience. I think my hopes were too high. I just thought the plot was inferior to the original, even though I liked some of the ideas. Agree with a lot of what @Croatian Sensat was saying in his spoilered review above. I really did enjoy the first half (of the movie) more than the 2nd half, a lot. Spoiler I loved the AI subplot. Outstanding. And the creation of a world was strong, as well, from protein farms to solar farms to snow and darkness, excellent. But in a good plot, one scene pushes the next. Even if it takes a while for you to figure things out, they fit together and make sense and reveal things about the characters. If you rewatch Blade Runner, you'll see each scene pushing the next, and the plot is fairly linear. It's a futuristic noir crime caper, at its roots. In the new one, unlike the original, we have a true baddie. The new one, just to name two examples, has whole scenes that are meant to explain without really showing you anything or pushing the immediate plot and tension forward. (1) Creepy blind guy kills a replicant after inspecting her. This is just info sharing, away from the other characters, and makes you see him as evil. Beautifully shot, but no tension to the overall arc, and this doesn't push the next scene. It could have been separate from the movie, appeared at the beginning, or been totally cut actually. (2) "Tell me about a dream" scene. Why is the head cop asking K about a dream? Well, because the authors need that in the plot, so we have a totally dull scene of them sitting in an office and him, after saying "I don't see the point" (basically), telling her about one of his implanted dreams. That's sloppy writing and plotting, but whatever. I think my biggest gripe is this: too much fat old Harrison Ford! Enough. He just wasn't very good and I thought he held the film down. It went downhill once he was in it, for me. All other casting was awesome. I still think the movie was a great science fiction movie, especially by modern standards. Wonderful effects, etc. Great mood. Great design. Loved the first 40 minutes or so and was on the edge of my seat.
http://screenrant.com/blade-runner-2049-completely-missed-easter-eggs-references-hints/ Spoiler 15. THERE’S AN ENGINEER IN WALLACE’S MUSEUM OF REPLICANT BODIES Damn you, Ridley. Must we forever be reminded of the Engineers? Even Pinhead and his Cenobites would find this suffering to be excessive. Jared Leto’s Niander Wallace keeps a museum of Replicant exo-skeletons in his offices. One of the models is an Engineer, the mysterious species from Prometheus, the oft-derided prequel to Ridley Scott’s Alien franchise. They may or may not have created the human race and eventually abandoned it because they hate us…or something. It’s not very clear. And they’re possibly extinct now anyway, according to Covenant. But, again, it’s not entirely clear. Some fans have suggested the reference was meant to tie both franchises together into one universe leading to another Alien vs. Predator-type of soul-destroying cash-grab, but that theory is riddled with holes. /SPOILER]
