Blade runner 2049
Discussion
Porsche911R said:
I thought it was s
t to be honest, the sound track did not go with the film, it was a 30 minute film at best and I had to sit there for 3 hours.
Have you ever seen the original? If you had, you'd understand why the soundtrack was like it was. How on earth could that story have been told in 30m?t to be honest, the sound track did not go with the film, it was a 30 minute film at best and I had to sit there for 3 hours.Saw it yesterday and was blown away by how good it was. I've always liked the first one, and was very satisfied how they wove bits of the original into this one. The music was close enough to Vangelis to be recognisable, but different enough to be its own style, the visuals were stunning, acting, plot, everything was great. Will certainly be heading out to watch it again one evening.
Porsche911R said:
I thought it was st to be honest, the sound track did not go with the film, it was a 30 minute film at best and I had to sit there for 3 hours.
Why didn’t you get up and leave after 30 minutes and 1 second?t to be honest, the sound track did not go with the film, it was a 30 minute film at best and I had to sit there for 3 hours.Hope to watch this later this week. Blade Runner is my favourite film of all time.
Brigand said:
Saw it yesterday and was blown away by how good it was. I've always liked the first one, and was very satisfied how they wove bits of the original into this one. The music was close enough to Vangelis to be recognisable, but different enough to be its own style, the visuals were stunning, acting, plot, everything was great. Will certainly be heading out to watch it again one evening.
I saw it a week ago. I'm still chewing over plot points and details.Pre-ordered on iTunes. I will need to see it a number of times to extract everything from it.
I've seen it twice now, 2d at the local cinema then IMAX 3D, that is the way to see this film.
I'm a huge fan of the original (in my all time Top5). 2049 didn't dissapoint at all. It looks stunning, sounds amazing & the plot goes off in a way I truly didn't expect. In fact I was quite thrown within the first 5 minutes. I thought Ryan Gosling played it just right. I enjoyed the references to the past, Gaff's cane, the blaster, Spinners (Peugeot !), the voice of the guy advertising the off world colonies seems the same as the original too.
You've done a man's job Sir !
I'm a huge fan of the original (in my all time Top5). 2049 didn't dissapoint at all. It looks stunning, sounds amazing & the plot goes off in a way I truly didn't expect. In fact I was quite thrown within the first 5 minutes. I thought Ryan Gosling played it just right. I enjoyed the references to the past, Gaff's cane, the blaster, Spinners (Peugeot !), the voice of the guy advertising the off world colonies seems the same as the original too.
You've done a man's job Sir !
Don said:
I saw it a week ago. I'm still chewing over plot points and details.
Pre-ordered on iTunes. I will need to see it a number of times to extract everything from it.
When you do...Pre-ordered on iTunes. I will need to see it a number of times to extract everything from it.
Can you post what Leto's character says/does just before wandering off? I cannot for the life of me remember what was the point of him leaving Deckard with bad-girl before the ending. There was some "we have ways of making you talk" line to Deckard, I think. And then he was off, flying fisheyes in tow, leaving the scene set for the last bit of action.
Escapegoat said:
Don said:
I saw it a week ago. I'm still chewing over plot points and details.
Pre-ordered on iTunes. I will need to see it a number of times to extract everything from it.
When you do...Pre-ordered on iTunes. I will need to see it a number of times to extract everything from it.
Can you post what Leto's character says/does just before wandering off? I cannot for the life of me remember what was the point of him leaving Deckard with bad-girl before the ending. There was some "we have ways of making you talk" line to Deckard, I think. And then he was off, flying fisheyes in tow, leaving the scene set for the last bit of action.
He said that ‘off world’ he would be able to torture him to extract the info he wanted, presumably with kit that he’s not allowed to use on earth. From memory his parting line was “have him taken to my spaceport” or words to that effect...
Saw it today, enjoyed it, thought the story and acting was good,BUT, unfortunately was not in the same league as the original for 2 reasons, first the 'decay' was missing, the smoke and way the original was shot added something, the cinematography was expansive and clear unlike the original, but to me the music was just at odds with most of the film, the original music was at a few points and it went well but the new just did not stand out (and I like Zimmers work usually) but on the whole but is missed the energy and rawness for me.
I deliberately avoided all reviews and spoilers (including this thread) before seeing it last night, restricting myself to watching the three 'short' exposés of the intervening years between the two movies, and it was a mildly frustrating experience watching the film as a result (not unlike how I felt after watching the original for the first couple of times pre-internet!)
I'm picking it over again in my mind now and reading other intepretations of the movie and I'm loving it! Excellently weaves in more strands to the original story and works as a sequel to both interpretations of the first movie. For that I applaud director Villeneuve for keeping the mystique and not being a prat about it like Ridley Scott has been since.
Scott going from something like 'I saw a mistake in the lighting of the original film that created a glitch and thought 'we could use this' to 'It is what I intended all along' and Villeneuve calling him out on it - good man!
I'm picking it over again in my mind now and reading other intepretations of the movie and I'm loving it! Excellently weaves in more strands to the original story and works as a sequel to both interpretations of the first movie. For that I applaud director Villeneuve for keeping the mystique and not being a prat about it like Ridley Scott has been since.
Scott going from something like 'I saw a mistake in the lighting of the original film that created a glitch and thought 'we could use this' to 'It is what I intended all along' and Villeneuve calling him out on it - good man!
I can't sum it up any better than this. I don't agree with a lot of his opinions but this time he is exactly right.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba8OIbWEHQM
However a few spoilery questions. (only for people who have seen it.)
1.) Were the bees real? And if so what did they eat in the middle of desert?
2.) Why is there only one tree in the whole world?
3.) Did anyone else think the 'orphanage' looked very much like the workers machine at the start of Metropolis?
4.) Why did Gaff seem to be a totally different person in this film? I know that the actor is now very old but Gaff was a man who was very much (for want of a better word) a foreigner. Sitting in the old peoples home, he just seemed like a standard mid-western retired cop. Odd.
And finally.
When new Rachel turned up, did anyone else think "I wonder if they've got a Rachel who can actually act this time?"
I was worried. I was concerned. I shouldn't have been.
Go see it. See it on the biggest screen possible. Go. I may even have to finally invest in a Blu-Ray and a bigger TV for this. Go.
Yep its that good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba8OIbWEHQM
However a few spoilery questions. (only for people who have seen it.)
1.) Were the bees real? And if so what did they eat in the middle of desert?
2.) Why is there only one tree in the whole world?
3.) Did anyone else think the 'orphanage' looked very much like the workers machine at the start of Metropolis?
4.) Why did Gaff seem to be a totally different person in this film? I know that the actor is now very old but Gaff was a man who was very much (for want of a better word) a foreigner. Sitting in the old peoples home, he just seemed like a standard mid-western retired cop. Odd.
And finally.
When new Rachel turned up, did anyone else think "I wonder if they've got a Rachel who can actually act this time?"
I was worried. I was concerned. I shouldn't have been.
Go see it. See it on the biggest screen possible. Go. I may even have to finally invest in a Blu-Ray and a bigger TV for this. Go.
Yep its that good.
The Hypno-Toad said:
I can't sum it up any better than this. I don't agree with a lot of his opinions but this time he is exactly right.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba8OIbWEHQM
+1https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba8OIbWEHQM
Kermode's point that Ridley Scott's interpretation of the 'enigma' of Bladerunnder the original completely closes down the possibilities in the sequel, and for that reason it should be ignored.
The fact that Scott bulls
tted his way into saying it was his intention all along is IMO being taking the piss out of slightly when Niander Wallace suggests to Deckard that meeting Rachel was part of the plan all along. Niander is saying this because it is in his commercial interests to insinunate that a human mating with Tyrell's fertile replicant experiment wouldn't work (because he wants to be able to control the process) and for that reason he wants everyone including Deckard to believe he is a replicant.Edited by r11co on Sunday 15th October 17:09
La Liga said:
I've had to go and see it a second time as I've been thinking about it a lot. There's so much more to appreciate a second time.
Indeed.One thing that really jumps out on a second viewing is how terrified Luv is of Wallace, how desperate she is to please him - there's some really subtle looks on her face that I just didn't pick up on first time round. The "You really are the best angel" line and her forlorn "I'm the best one" near the end... and I thought the whole spinner attack and final punch-up sequence was such a fantastic nod to the first film. "Fiery the angels fell; deep thunder rolled around their shores" - genius.
Watched this this afternoon in imax 3d.
If you don't know and love the first film, you're going to find this one slow and indulgent, albeit very beautiful.
I would not recommend seeing it in 3d. Gave me a headache - but the bfi imax can do that if you're not sat far enough back. It does not need 3d to tell this story.
Ryan Gosling - was well picked. He's not supposed to be some wisecracking charismatic characacter, he's a replicant bladerunner isn't he - cold, emotionless killer.
I'm still not sure how i feel about the story, or the re-use of the imagery of Sean Young in it - all painted onto a model like Carrie Fisher and Peter Cushing in Rogue one. We knew who Rachel was, we knew her part in the story, her visual presence wasn't required.
Joi (K's pet holographic squeeze) was well played, as was Robin wright's Lt Joshi.
Dave Bautista was excellent, albeit brief, Jared Leto's character was rather vague and wandering - it was an important character but too wayward and could have had more impact if he'd been more brief and precise.
Scenes between Harrison Ford and Ryan Gosling were great and the fight scene in the sinking ship was brilliant.
Cinematography, set design, costume, sound - all very Villeneuve and classy.
However, 40 minutes too long and too wayward with Wallace/Jared Leto - this is 7.5/10. I need to see it a few more times and might refine that upwards as it's still probably the bravest and most original film this year. (despite being a sequel)
If you don't know and love the first film, you're going to find this one slow and indulgent, albeit very beautiful.
I would not recommend seeing it in 3d. Gave me a headache - but the bfi imax can do that if you're not sat far enough back. It does not need 3d to tell this story.
Ryan Gosling - was well picked. He's not supposed to be some wisecracking charismatic characacter, he's a replicant bladerunner isn't he - cold, emotionless killer.
I'm still not sure how i feel about the story, or the re-use of the imagery of Sean Young in it - all painted onto a model like Carrie Fisher and Peter Cushing in Rogue one. We knew who Rachel was, we knew her part in the story, her visual presence wasn't required.
Joi (K's pet holographic squeeze) was well played, as was Robin wright's Lt Joshi.
Dave Bautista was excellent, albeit brief, Jared Leto's character was rather vague and wandering - it was an important character but too wayward and could have had more impact if he'd been more brief and precise.
Scenes between Harrison Ford and Ryan Gosling were great and the fight scene in the sinking ship was brilliant.
Cinematography, set design, costume, sound - all very Villeneuve and classy.
However, 40 minutes too long and too wayward with Wallace/Jared Leto - this is 7.5/10. I need to see it a few more times and might refine that upwards as it's still probably the bravest and most original film this year. (despite being a sequel)
Edited by gavsdavs on Sunday 15th October 22:46
Just got back from seeing this and I think I must have watched a different film to everyone else. I can watch slow films but this was glacial. Why take 1 minute to walk through an empty building when 10 will do, linger on face shots for a REALLY long time or just spend ages with nothing much happening. Leto’s character was just pretentious wk too.
The story itself was an interesting continuation of the original exploring some interesting themes, especially the relationship between K and Joi but it just didn’t have enough punch.
The acting was decent and it’s very nicely shot but the pacing was way off I’m afraid. Long drawn out shots for no good reason does not a great film make. In trying too hard to emulate the tone of the first, they’ve weighed it down to much.
I’ll get accused of not getting it probably, oh I got it alright, just could have done without the over excessive arty fartyness which did nothing except bog the film down. 8 out of 10 for sound and visuals, 3 out of 10 for pacing. It’s a beautiful snoozefest.
k too.The story itself was an interesting continuation of the original exploring some interesting themes, especially the relationship between K and Joi but it just didn’t have enough punch.
The acting was decent and it’s very nicely shot but the pacing was way off I’m afraid. Long drawn out shots for no good reason does not a great film make. In trying too hard to emulate the tone of the first, they’ve weighed it down to much.
I’ll get accused of not getting it probably, oh I got it alright, just could have done without the over excessive arty fartyness which did nothing except bog the film down. 8 out of 10 for sound and visuals, 3 out of 10 for pacing. It’s a beautiful snoozefest.
Edited by Guvernator on Monday 16th October 01:29
It looked and sounded stunning, but could have definitely done with losing 30 minutes, as most seem to be saying.
One glaring thing which I immediately had a problem with was why on earth did the killing machine Luv leave an injured K at the casino when she took Deckard? It made absolutely no sense!
One glaring thing which I immediately had a problem with was why on earth did the killing machine Luv leave an injured K at the casino when she took Deckard? It made absolutely no sense!
Not seen this film yet, kinda sitting on the fence about it. I seen the first one when I was a kid and barely remember it other than it being long and boring because I had no idea what was going on. Shall watch it again soo.
Had 4 reports back, 1 being it was a master piece and the others saying it was incredibaly boring of which could have easily been cut down by an hour. Reading 1 or 2 IMDB reviews it seems this film is like marmite.
Would it really make a difference if I wait to watch it on TV? If so, is IMAX 3D a must?
Had 4 reports back, 1 being it was a master piece and the others saying it was incredibaly boring of which could have easily been cut down by an hour. Reading 1 or 2 IMDB reviews it seems this film is like marmite.
Would it really make a difference if I wait to watch it on TV? If so, is IMAX 3D a must?
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff