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
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
Unfortunately This Shows That Ridley Is Officially Now A Hollywood Hack In The Same League As JJ Abrams, Paul Feig, etc.
This was a disappointing sequel that may very well break the camel's back. For it is not just a poor and boring sequel, but also destroys - really disrupts and breaks - the Blade Runner mythos.

If I were the monthly new Marvel movie, the annual ritual of a stupid Star Wars film or the next fifteen Justice League whatever films I would be very worried.

Blade Runner 2049 is telling people definitively that these sequels are not made for reason of meaning, entertainment, purpose or a fun time. They are stupidly overwrought, prequel-crushing accounting ledger lines.

Ridley destroyed Alien and now is dismantling Blade Runner. Villeneuve had three hours to do something and did not. This film addresses nothing and resolves nothing. In fact, they took our money and reached zero conclusions. Replicants were made with a uterus in the factory and can have babies (despite the later models' shelf lives)? How? Never mind. The corporation was banned, but another like it and worse was born. Erm, OK. The tycoon megalomaniac is out there. Well, fine. This is a post apocalyptic world? yeah, which is why there are grand buildings with no one around full of beautiful space, there is clean snow falling and you can get beautiful attractive hookers who approach you for a good time.

I want to thank my dear girlfriend for being so kind as to sit through three hours of this joke with me. She is so noble. Otherwise, this film was so silly that it even tarnishes the original. It should not have been done. It will probably wake up people to skip the next Star Wars, Star Trek, Marvel whatever, Justice League, Lego Movie 18, whatever.

A few cool technologies, sexy desirable women with gorgeous eyes and lovable legs and nothing else whatsoever except loads of damage to Blade Runner.
2017-10-28
A waste of time
Sorry, but I consider this movie a waste of time. Perhaps this says more about me than the movie, but what happens on the screen is not reachable for my logic to give the necessary meaning. As a sculptural statement from the world of movies is has its qualities, and the soundtrack in a theater with the right amount of amplifiers and loudspeakers is impressive, but for me that was also all
2017-10-09
High art? Hmm ...
"Blade Runner 2049" comes off incredibly long and boring. Not because of the slow pacing – "Blade Runner" had slow pacing too, but had the viewer hypnotized – but because there's no interesting thoughts present and nothing new really. Thematically the movie is exploring the same questions (about being human etc.) as the first movie did 35 years ago. And the few 'new' additions to the Blade Runner universe are totally devoid of originality. Take for instance K's hologram-wife. Not only are those scenes totally unnecessary (that three-way scene, jeez!), but we've seen the concept so many times before (for instance in Spike Jonze's "Her").

Apart from that, the movie is riddled with plot holes and stuff that just don't make very much sense. Tyrell get's killed off by a replicant and his Nexus-7 prototype runs off, shortly after Tyrell Corp rushes a line of replicants with OPEN ENDED lifespans and no other safety device than implanted memories (that didn't work with Rachael). No. Just no.

Furthermore we are told the nexus 9 are programmed to obey. However K lies to his superiors, constantly acts on his own, acts emotionally from early on in the movie. He does not obey at all.

And the revelation of a replicant child being born has people talking about revolution. Robin Wrights Joshi says it will 'break the world'. But how? Rachael was the only replicant able to give birth and Tyrell took that secret with him. Neither the few remaining Nexus 8's or the 9's can give birth – so no, it doesn't break the world. It doesn't break anything. But the movie really wants us to take this very seriously (Hans Zimmer is doing his loudest to make us sit in awe).

And it gets even worse. Later we learn that Jared Leto's ridiculous bad guy Wallace (those monologues!) strives to learn the secret of making replicant babies. But why? That undermines the entire idea of replicants. Tailormade slaves with superhuman ability; strength, intelligence etc. that are controlled by implanted memories. Having replicants make babies the old way would offer zero control of the outcome and the child replicants would have to grow up, go to school, make their own memories. What's the point then? And what's the difference, from just having some people make babies?

A lot of people has called "Blade Runner 2049" 'intellectual sci-fi' and so forth, but I found it to be quite the contrary. The movie forcefully demands you to accept it as highly intelligent art, but if you scratch the surface, you'll find something very different.
2017-10-18
A masterpiece of science fiction and possibly one of the greatest sequels ever made
Blade Runner 2049 is the sequel to the 1982 sci-fi classic Blade Runner. Directed by Denis Villeneuve (Arrival, Sicario) and once again based on Philip K. Dick's novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, it successfully recaptures just about everything excellent about the original and is a superb sequel to one of the greatest and most important science fiction films of all time.

Thirty years after the events of the first film, LAPD Officer K (Ryan Gosling) works as a Blade Runner, retiring old rogue replicants (artificial humans) hiding out around the Los Angeles area. One day while on a job, K discovers a long buried secret in the yard of a replicant which leads him on a journey to track down former Blade Runner Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford), who has been missing for decades.

Featuring amazing visuals and some of the most philosophical and thought-provoking themes since the original, Blade Runner 2049 is a masterpiece of science fiction and is possibly one of the greatest sequels ever made. I was transfixed the entire time, to the point where I felt that even blinking would cause me to miss something I wanted to see. The cast was brilliant as well, especially Ryan Gosling, who does a fantastic job carrying the film as its lead actor. However, perhaps best of all, is that seeing the original is not a requirement to fully understand everything that is going on, although it would probably still help to have done so beforehand. I'm almost certain that author Philip K. Dick would be proud of this film. I know I am.

I rate it a very high 9.5/10
2017-10-05
I wish I had watched paint dry instead
The hardest thing about the movie was trying to stay awake. It was 90 minutes too long. The acting was so boring, at one point I thought most of the characters were robots, and I had to remind myself that they are clones(Replicants). Do yourself a favor and watch something else, anything really...
2017-10-08
Completely over-hyped and undeserving of the praise
I never was one of those people asking for a Blade Runner sequel. Now that Blade Runner 2049 is out, my position still stands. This film is simply a massive letdown and nothing more.

The year is 2049 and the world has grown in technology, but not humanity. Ryan Gosling plays K, a Blade Runner (a futuristic cop) tasked with tracking down the last of the Replicants-androids that look like humans. Knowing that he himself is a replicant, he goes on a journey of his own when he finds a box containing the bones of a Replicant who gave birth to a child and is tasked with finding the child. Little does he know that the new head of the Tyrell Corporation that makes the Replicants, Mr. Wallace (Jared Leto), plans to use the missing child for his own purposes and kill K if he has to.

My main problem with the film is that it was unforgivably boring. The film is two hours and forty-five minutes long, which is already enough to test one's patience (and bladder), but it feels so deliberately paced; the characters almost always move so slow, that it feels like the filmmakers thought that it was the best way to pad out the running time, despite having not enough material to justify it.

The performances range from great to laughable. Harrison Ford is hardly in the movie, and his inclusion is clearly a marketing ploy, but he gives the best performance in his brief running time and he feels like a continuation of his character from the original, Deckard, in a world where things have just gotten worse. Gosling isn't bad as K, and his stone-face actually is pretty effective in a couple of scenes, but Rutger Hauer in the original gave his Replicant character more of a personality. Leto is trying and failing to bring a degree of menace as the villain, and his female Replicant sidekick competes with him in the field of phoning it in.

What else shocked me was how unsubtle the film was. The original was not only a futuristic crime noir that had Harrison Ford's Deckard chasing down androids, but also a personal journey involving himself and Rutger Hauer as the villain that involved trying to find a degree of humanity in such a futuristic world, and that maybe, Deckard is a replicant himself. Here, the story is mainly of Gosling trying to come to terms with the fact that he is a Replicant and what it means in terms of his humanity. Whereas in the original, there were subtle signs, images, and bits of dialogue that hinted at Deckard's purpose in the original, everything is spelled out for the audience to the point that old bits of dialogue are repeated thrice at important moments. It doesn't respect the audience's intelligence at all. The first and final thirds of the film are mainly filled with dialogue that is basically speeches that preach ideas about conflict and the ethics of machines, but hardly any of it is explored in an interesting fashion. What's worse, the film feels so empty and devoid that for a time, I forgot what K's objective was.

What I will say is that the cinematography is beautiful. There are a lot of colorful images with ancient ruins and futuristic tech in the background and foreground that could easily pass as being part of an art gallery. The only downside is that there is too much gray in some shots and it feels too clean compared to the original.

Why Warner Brothers and Sony wasted their time making this film, I have no clue. Maybe it was Ridley Scott's fault. After being unimpressed with his Alien: Covenant earlier this year (and was also quite the snooze-fest), watching this only proved to me further that Scott just doesn't care about good filmmaking anymore. Denis Villeneuve is clearly an ambitious director, but his style didn't feel completely right for this film. Clearly, in a film that tries so desperately to say much more humanity than its predecessor, it comes out feeling empty and feels less human than the original did.

P.S. A lot of people have accused me of being too shallow and wanted this film to be more action packed. I do not have that mindset. I enjoy films that take their time as much as the next film enthusiast, but this one just didn't do enough to justify what it was aiming for. I'm not ashamed in expressing my opinion. Just let me be clear on something: going at a slow, deliberate pace and speaking lines of preachy dialogue does not, I repeat, does not equal intelligence. The positive reviews baffle me, especially on Rotten Tomatoes. Sony owns the company, which leads me to think that maybe it bribed more than a few critics in the hopes that more people would see it. Clearly, that is backfiring and I'm happy that people are rejecting it.
2017-10-07
excruciatingly slow and morose
The only reason I gave this a 2, instead of a 1 is for the excellent sound editing. This is an excellent example of a horrific lack of good editing. It was at least an hour too long. How this movie got anything over a 4 is mind boggling! People must be judging it on the special effects alone. I disliked this for so many reasons. The story has too many flaws, the pacing is excruciatingly slow, all the characters are one dimensional, there is almost no meaningful dialogue, the violence is unnecessarily graphic, all the women are depicted as either psychopathic killers or prostitutes (with only one exception, the pitiful "dreamer").

I could have had a more enjoyable experience watching an episode of CSI. It was like they couldn't decide whether to be a sequel or a horror movie, sequel won, but horror movie would have worked better. There were so many scenes that would have benefited from a jump scare. It was filmed as such, with the creepy music (again the best part), the character standing alone with vast empty spaces behind them with unknown people chasing them. But they just left the character standing there. It was like a bunch of jokes with no punchlines.

The holographic girlfriend was annoying and pointless and who didn't see her demise coming a mile away. Yawn.

Ryan Gossling gets more unattractive to me with each additional bad movie. If I was Harrison Ford I would have punched him for real too.
2017-10-15
Stop It. Please Just Stop
Has this world gone insane? Are you all mad? Is it madness or are your deeds making me feel it is a crazy world? People are blowing each other up, presidents are blatantly lying in people's faces and getting their vote, ministries are making war and being called Ministry Of Defense, companies are polluting the planet and getting richer and on and on and on.

Here comes a sequel for a classic of cinema that is currently rated higher than its original. The professional critics dutifully according it superlative reviews is not a surprise. The weekly release of a new Marvel movie gets the usual high reviews from this bunch, which tells me they are on the take. How does one explain the 10/10 perfect reviews on IMDb? Do these reviewers actually believe this is the absolute immaculate and perfect film with nothing in it that could be improved in any way?? I would accept this world as a more sane place if you tell me this is a case of fake shill reviews paid for by the studio (as happened with Star Wars The Force Awakens and others). That I would believe and (sadly) understand. Otherwise, is there someone who really thinks this sequel is better than the original and is perfect?? This film deserves 2/10 for its images and graphics and not much else. The women are eye candies for sure so add another point, but otherwise the inferior music that goes off for no reason, the non-ending that is surely an attempt to set up more sequels and inane dialogue are a shame to the name Blade Runner.

Were the makers able to get away with using the name because Philip K Dick has died and cannot stop them?
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
See Also
Download Blade Runner 2049 movie 2017 by Denis Villeneuve Actors: Robin Wright Penn, Ana de Armas, Tómas Lemarquis, Mackenzie Davis, Sallie Harmsen, Sylvia Hoeks, Dave Batista, Mark Arnold, David Dastmalchian, Wood Harris, Hiam Abbass, Ryan Gosling, Edward James Olmos, Jared Leto, Vilma Szécsi - , the lowest price, high speed.Blade Runner 2049 full movie online.Blade Runner 2049 HD movie are available too (720p and 1080p). Blade Runner 2049 Drama, Thriller, Mystery, Sci-Fi download. download movies USA, UK, Canada, Hungary
×