Blade Runner 2049
Year:
2017
Country:
USA, UK, Canada, Hungary
Genre:
Drama, Thriller, Mystery, Sci-Fi
IMDB rating:
8.3
Director:
Denis Villeneuve
Robin Wright Penn as Lieutenant Joshi
Tómas Lemarquis as File Clerk
Mackenzie Davis as Mariette
Sallie Harmsen as Female Replicant
Dave Batista as Sapper Morton
Mark Arnold as Interviewer
Wood Harris as Nandez
Hiam Abbass as Freysa
Jared Leto as Niander Wallace
Storyline: 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.
Type 1080p
Resolution 1920x800 px
File Size 12318 Mb
Codec h264
Bitrate 10535 Kbps
Format mkv
Download
Type HQ DVD-rip
Resolution 720x300 px
File Size 628 Mb
Codec h264
Bitrate 537 Kbps
Format mkv
Download
Type Resolution File Size Codec Bitrate Format
1080p 1920x800 px 12318 Mb h264 10535 Kbps mkv Download
HQ DVD-rip 720x300 px 628 Mb h264 537 Kbps mkv Download


Reviews
Could This Be The Straw That Broke The Camel's Back?
Could the unneeded and dreaded sequel to 1982's Blade Runner be the sequel that finally breaks the camel's back and stops people from feeding the Hollywood sequel machine? It well could be.

With the disappointing box office tally despite all the hype and 11/10 payola reviews deployed by obedient critic skin jobs this may finally be the crescendo in the rebellion by audiences that started with rubbish like Ghostbusters 2016, Independence Day Resurgence and other rubbish like Kong 10 (or was that 11?).

What is insane, however, is that this inconclusive, no-ending, clichéd film is currently rated higher than its masterpiece prequel. Are people for real or is there payola on IMDb too? BR2049 had no acting, super silly script, stupid lines like "is your dog real? Why don't you ask it?" (compare to the context in which this was asked about the owl in the original and the sharp answer from Rachel) and people are cluing in that we should stop helping Hollywood be unoriginal.

I know Hollywood has ten silly Star Wars and 6 retarded Marvel films coming out in the next two years, but maybe just maybe BR2049 finally woke up people to support originality instead of stupidity. Sure, I agree that the hologram chick was sexy, but is that enough to go watch a movie that has scavengers throwing an anchor at a flying vehicle and pulling it down while a detective sits inside?

I know the rating for this sequel will cool down and end up somewhere in the 7 range, but people need to stop being douches and not attend boring slugs like Star Wars 8,9,10,11, ... 25 and studios need to stop manipulating reviews and ratings and take a hint from the market which really says it all in the context of BR 2049.
2017-11-22
I Know Where All The Energy Went
They say most sequels (and prequels and remakes) are unwanted and inferior and, in my opinion, they are correct.

I still shelled out the quids for Blade Runner 2049 because I remember watching it on video years ago and recall having a sense of wonder and amazement. I even proceeded to read the book by Philip K Dick shortly after.

At over two and a half hours of it this is a true accomplishment: the graphics and scenes and landscape and colours are amazing and evocative. With that said there is a lot more daylight in this film than in the prequel. For some reason the colour orange seems dominant, which is fine perhaps they wanted to impress on us that the setting is a desert and deserted, but overall the futuristic and cyberpunk land is intact.. and beautiful.

Also beautiful are the women. The hooker reminded me of the hooker in Eyes Wide Shut and she was hot. The girlfriend was hot and even the chief's legs were hot even though I don't go for women with short hair. As a man, the shorter the skirt the more attractive the lady and this film did a stellar job of making me feel happy in that respect, heck, I would marry the giant advertisement if I could.

Where the story lost me and disappointed was its ending and beginning. Why kill the man who is nothing but a farmer and has been at it for 30 years? Why end the film with having killed an operative, but leaving the arch fiend and his business interests intact and ongoing? I sense yet another sequel coming...
2017-10-14
Master Mess of a Movie!
This film is garbage.

Over long, muddled, confused, boring, with no likable characters.

The story-as far as I can decipher-relates to a woeful future time when replicants/robots seek to destroy earlier models.

But of course the film tries to dictate to us that there being no substitute for humans... the problem with that preaching is that it was, I assume, a human who made this total nonsense of a movie!

What is just as bad as the blandness of this picture is that many so called professional film reviewers are writing treatises etc., on how wonderful is this film.

The fact- as opposed to the science fiction- is that this flick is a disaster and an abject mess:

1/10
2017-10-09
Stupefylngly Dull
Truly I thought I was watching the "Heaven's Gate" of sci-fi. Every beautiful shot goes on and on and on until you scream "move along, already!" The reward for this butt-numbing length is a plot minimal to the point of nonexistence, and a resolution so trivial it could barely anchor a soap opera. If I hadn't known better I would judge from his performance that Ryan Gosling couldn't act his way through a Cheerios commercial. He wears a completely blank expression bleaching any emotional impact out of a scene, even as his virtual girlfriend finds a way to make love to him for the first time. Wait for it on video, as it's only endurable on 4X fast forward. In installments.
2017-10-10
Pointless
Being a fan of Blade Runner I was bound to be disappointed. What I am disgusted about is that this inferior sequel currently enjoys a higher rating than its prequel. People, come on (please).

This film is unwanted, adds only convoluted nonsense and resolves nothing.

I am glad I watched it because it was beautiful, the women were pretty and I am a healthy man who appreciates the body of a woman, but otherwise the many reviews here say it all. My telling all these producers and directors to stop with the endless sequels won't sway anyone (in the time it took me to write this Disney released 2 new Marvel films), but guys BR2049 is still disappointing. 4/10 for the women, landscape and it is not as boring as Disney Star Wars.
2017-11-04
Simply boring
This film tells the story of a modified, manufactured man who hunts down and kill old versions of manufactured men. The discovery of a secret makes him re- evaluate his life and values.

It is unfortunate that"Blade Runner 2049" is so desperate to impressed with great lighting, to the point that it ignores the story. Scenes drag on several times the length needed to tell a story, making the film overly long. The first hour already felt like eternity, and the next 100 minutes were even longer. People in the cinema were restless, head resting on hands or just looked at the ground because it was so boring. The story was thin, and could have been told in a short time. Even the drowning scene had no sense of thrill, urgency or threat. It is simply plain boring.
2017-10-10
Masterpiece or pale imitation?
I went to see the film on the day of release, 5 October 2017, in an almost empty theatre. I loved the original Blade Runner, and had mixed feelings about the prospect of a sequel. Denis Villeneuve had taken over directing from Ridley Scott, and I had admired the work he did on Enemy and Arrival, he seemed to be a good choice to helm this film, so I went in with an open mind.

A few positive reviews for the film had appeared online in the last days before its release, but I had held off from reading more than a couple. Once I seen the film I went back and saw that many people were hailing it a 'masterpiece', 'the perfect sequel', or even 'better than the original'. I was really quite stunned by this, as I couldn't share the same enthusiasm for the film.

So what can I say about the film? Don't worry, if you haven't seen it there won't be any spoilers. It is a well made film, very ably directed by Denis Villeneuve. The main problem I had with it is that it is indebted to the first film in pretty much every way. The look of the film is largely recreating that of the 1982 original, the story is just a remix of the same themes and ideas from the original, and the soundtrack is little more than an echo of Vangelis's memorable score. It was as if the film makers had taken the original and created a copy, quite ironic really.

It made me think of art forgery. You could have 2 paintings side by side. One a Picasso, the other a forgery. They might look the same, and it does take undeniable skill to create a convincing forgery. But a forgery is totally devoid of originality, that is the difference between a masterpiece and a copy. All the positive reasons people gave in their reviews for the sequel lead back to the original.

At the end of Ridley Scott's 1982 original film, Deckard and Rachel head off together into an uncertain future. It was an open ending, but perfect for the story the film told. The uncertainties of life are something we have to live with as human beings, we didn't need to know what happened next to those characters, what was important is that they had a future together.

If you are a fan of the original, and haven't seen Blade Runner 2049 yet, I would say to remember that what is seen cannot be unseen. Once you see the sequel you will never be able to go back and watch the original without knowing what fate had in store for Deckard and Rachel, I think this is a great pity, and does a disservice to that film.

Whose decision was it that we needed to have this sequel? Over the past few years Ridley Scott has been putting out unnecessary prequels to Alien, so I can't help but think he is responsible. It is now just over a week since the sequel came out and there are reports that it is a box-office flop. Some comments I have read said that this happened to the original film too. Maybe, but I think for different reasons. The original was way ahead of its time, and it took time for people to catch up appreciate it. This sequel was a film that I don't think there was any real demand for, and although the levels of hype are high, I think in time people we see the film for what it really is.
2017-10-14
Unconvincing and boring
I had high expectations for this sequel. The music was often inappropriate and annoying. It did not seem like 2049 at all. Many parts of the movie seems to unnecessarily drag on. I struggled to sit through to the very end. One of the most disappointing parts of the movie was that they were still smoking!
2017-10-08
Great film
That helped me catch up on some much needed sleep.

Otherwise, what is the point of this film?

That the villain is still alive, at large and in control?

The old Blade Runner lives and the new one dies? The world is post apocalyptic, but beautiful flakes of snow fall on the ground?

The girls are sexy, the hookers are available and one can buy holographic girlfriends in short skirts that make men's mouths water? Is that a grim future??

In other words, this film doesn't make sense. It is not as boring as stupid flicks like the new Star Wars or whatever, but despite the praised effects this film was nonsense and definitely too long. Thank goodness for beautiful women eye candy.
2017-11-03
Plot holes so big, they're practically chasms
Please be aware that my review contains spoilers so please do not read further if you do want to have key plot points revealed.

First things first, I'm a big fan of the original and have enjoyed immensely with each viewing, first from when I was a 10 year old until 2 weeks ago so I was interested to see what Villeneuve would do with the sequel.

Watched it Saturday and must say the experience left me somewhat underwhelmed and frustrated at seeing such an opportunity to do something original go to waste, that I have decided to post my thoughts here on IMDb for the first time.

In no particular here are some of my questions and general points about the film.

Jared Leto's performance. How the hell is he such a high paid star? I cannot think of anything he is particularly memorable and this is no exception.

His eyes. Are they distracting on purpose?

If his character saved the world from starvation, how come there aren't millions of people worshiping him? Humans are suckers for finding idols and why shouldn't his character be any different. Crikey, we have dictators in our world who had days and months of the year named after family members.

Why doesn't he have a massive army organised to hunt down Deckard instead of entrusting this to one replicant and a few goons?

Monologues giving exposition is lazy storytelling and old Wallace loves a monologue.

What is his plan? He wants to produce more replicants but kills one at the start for some spurious reason. Hint hint, to show the audience he is a very naughty. He also has the Rachel replicant killed. No wonder he cannot make enough replicants if he keeps killing them.

Ryan Gosling plays Ryan Gosling again and although I don't dislike his performances, I find it hard to root for his character here, as I've seen it before in a much better film (Drive).

The music wasn't particularly memorable and only made me think of the much better soundtrack from Bladerunner. Apparently this was intentional on Villeneuve's part as he removed the original composer who wanted to do something original. So instead, the director opted for Zimmer to make it more Bladerunnery and therefore less memorable for this film.

The film did not merit or need the run-time it had. I appreciate the original BR took its time but it had a new world to show us

The ending was goofy and ridiculous. Why would K bring Deckard to his daughter who is the most wanted person in the history of want people? This will definitely endanger her given that Leto's character has a relationship with her and probably has her under some sort of surveillance.

Hero comes back from the dead to say the day cliché at end was extremely predictable and had me rolling my eyes, which I shouldn't be doing the first time I watch a film.

The blackout sounds like a much more interesting story than this. Caused by replicants? A solar flare? Was there a Trump two term presidency in this universe?

Robots reproducing and creating their own has already been cover in Battlestar Galactica, who did it in a more compelling fashion with characters and stakes I cared about

Plus, how come Leto's character hasn't figured out on to get replicants to reproduce? Why can't he produce them faster? How many has he killed before delivering a monologue

Some of the visuals are stunning though lack depth or colour. The future looks fairly boring in comparison to Bladerunner 1982, which offered some very unusual street shots and characters. One included a guy with a eagle on his head. Nothing to really catch the eye in BR2049.

Why not have Rachel as leader of the rebellion instead of some random person the audience has no connection with.

When the capture Deckard, why on earth wouldn't they kill K?

How did K know how to find the car with Dekkard at the end? We don't see him doing any investigative work to discover this information, despite the long run time.

They made a replicant clone of Rachel but get the eye colour wrong? Seriously?

How heavy handed was the prejudice? No subtlety whatsoever. Jeepers, you spend all that money on effects but then go minimum wage on screen writers.

That sex scene reminded me of Ghost with all the syncing going on. Watching Whoopi do her thing was just as sexy as watching this scene, despite it having two incredibly attractive women present, along with Ryan Gosling who is no slouch himself in the looks department.

The replicant rebellion feels shoehorned in rather than something which has grown and developed organically. Need to take lessons from Star Wars on how to introduce a rebel alliance story.

The golden rule of cinema is broken here when they show/play clips from a much better film.

Critics are only offering gushing praise for a film with considerable flaws because they don't wish to get caught out like the critics of 82. Back they, the critics hated it because they couldn't see the hidden depth, this time they see depth that simply isn't there. Even one of the character says something along these lines to another.
2017-10-10
×