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
Strangely boring, lacking tension and intelligence.
Don't believe the lying shills rating this a ten out of ten. The original Blade Runner is a masterpiece. This film is not. It only deserves a six, but I loved the original so I gave it a seven. My review will compare both films and it contains **spoilers**.

First up its pacing. This film is actually much slower than the original, adding up to two hours and forty three minutes of mind numbing boredom. I love slow paced films provided there's enough drama and tension. The first Blade Runner film has long pauses, but its justified. The silence swells toward sudden violence or it occurs because a character is gnawing over a great line of dialog they've just heard or are about to express. So what makes a slow paced film entertaining? The solution is information provided at the right time.

The first film immediately tells us that replicants are murderous outlaws. We see one commit murder. Some are hiding here on Earth in Los Angeles and Dekkard is forced to detect and kill them. All that information is given to the audience within the first few minutes. So when Dekkard is wandering through crowded streets of futuristic LA, we the audience are afraid for him, because any one of them could be a murderous replicant. Dear Ridley Scott repeat after me: Information creates tension.

This newer film instead begins with long drawn out scenes of dull aimless searching and investigating. Since no villain shows up until the last hour, there's no reason for the hero to actually hurry or feel afraid. When the boring pace finally speeds up toward the end, you're so bored out of your skull, you forgot why anyone is doing anything and you no longer care or even notice what the film thinks is a stunning twist.

Those shill reviewers are glowing about its photography. Compared to its budget, the photography is below standard. There are rare nice moments. Seeing the fusion powered spinners (those flying cars) again was nice nostalgia, but far too many albeit pretty shots of -- nothing happening -- rendered the plot all the more irrelevant.

Now for the production design. The indoor set designs were poor, telling us very little about the world this film is set in. The "production value" looks cheap. I don't mean that in a cheap sleazy film noir way (no that would have been cool), I mean that I don't know where they spent the 185million budget, because only a fraction of that was spent on the sets. Two things did work. The voice comp device has been updated reminiscent of 1984 (the Orwell film starring John Hurt) and there is a Total Recall (the original not the remake) style artificial Female hologram character that is programmed to love K (Ryan Gosling). Interesting, but hardly ground breaking, while the original film was ground breaking in too many ways to mention here. The close up long lens shots in the original made the grimy futuristic streets of Los Angeles really look and feel like a crowded claustrophobic sleazy poverty stricken hellhole. Such a lens also gives size to any character in the foreground making Ford look all the more epic.

This film used wider lenses and so the pent up tension of the original street scenes is non existent. In fact very rarely does it venture outside into the streets, so that we cannot breathe in the human polity as easily as we did in the original. The original film had real light emanating from miniature buildings, vehicles and advertising. I'm sorry but computer generated light just doesn't behave like real light does. Real light goes where it wants. The human eye cannot be fooled. Syd Mead is a genius. But looking at this film makes me think he wasn't given the power he needed to bring out this film's potential. It actually looks like some hack is trying to copy him. This makes me feel sad to write that. His work on Elysium (2013) was far superior.

And now the acting. Gosling plays it straight (and glum) as he did in the pretty to look at but boring Bangkok crime flick Only God Forgives. There is a plot reason for this, but his dull acting compounds this movie's languid pace. There's not enough of Harrison Ford, who only shows up in the last hour (maybe less?). Jared Leto's monologues are just awful. Its not his fault. He's miscast and badly written.

Like Mead, Philip K Dick is a genius too, both films are inspired by his literary masterwork "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep". This film didn't delve deep enough, barely scratching the intellectual surface. Since many of his concepts are incredibly visually rich that just compounds the cinematic failure here.

Should you go and see this? If you're a fan of the original, I think you should. The story ends in a way that sets things up for another Blade Runner movie which I hope will actually be entertaining.

This film is meant to be a science fiction noir film, but it has little of the intelligence we expect from science fiction and none of the crime solving tension that is required of film noir. It lacked the brutal immediacy of the original nexus 6 villains the first one had in spades. It lacked the tense cat and mouse hunting game that made the original so intense, a race where the lead changed more than once. It just isn't as clever as its, at times pretty visuals and constantly obnoxious soundtrack, pretends it to be.

Instead we get a self important bloated fatware art-house snoozefest that is bleak, boring and about as intellectually deep as counterfeit artificial snake skin.
2017-10-06
Blade Runner 2049; a highly disappointing and unnecessary sequel.
It hurts to write this review. It really does. Because this was one of the 2017 movie releases that had me filled with most anticipation and excitement. I could not wait to see it as I had spent many hours in the 80s and 90s re-watching the original Blade Runner with my older sibling. I could not wait to see the dark post-apocalyptic, and very magical poetry, from the predecessor being revived and brought to life yet again. But wow, what a let down. I see the 10/10 reviews on IMDb and all I can think is 'did these people really watch the same film' ... 'are they mistakenly reviewing the 80s film'??? Because Blade Runner 2049 is not worth 10 out of 10. It is so far from perfection, it is to be honest, a completely unnecessary sequel that I could have been without.

I don't like to give away plots because in case you haven't seen the BR 2049 it might spoil what little intrigue this movie managed to whisk up. So I won't mention the first (and one of the few) 'hey, I didn't see that coming!' moments (which unfortunately comes along about 5minutes into the film and then it drags until the next).

As the plot SLOWLY (oh so slowly) unfolds we are supposed to be wowed I guess. Gosling does his blade runner thing and stumbles upon a box, buried with some deep secrets. He then drives around (a lot) looking for clues and trying to crack this case. And the plot deepens, supposedly. So Gosling drives around some more. Talking (a lot of talking) to a few characters, many of them with such stilted acting that it leaves much to wish for. Seriously waiting for something to actually happen now!

The original Blade Runner might not be classed as an action movie but there are a few very memorable fight scenes that has stuck with me for 30 years... Daryl Hannah posing as a doll for example - masterpiece and classic scene! We get none of that in the sequel. Instead we get Jared Leto rambling and babbling and making me completely losing the thread, and the interest. By now I am looking at my watch wondering how long there might be left of the movie. And this is only halfway in. Snooze. Turning to my fellow cinema goer, and whoops there you go, he is actually asleep in his seat. Not the work of a 10/10 movie I'll tell you that!

So on it goes. More driving. More talking. More clues. We get a few explosions and minor twists and turns. The only saving grace of the movie is the soundtrack. It is messing with your head all on its own, going from tranquil to a kick in the gut in seconds. Loved it.

The scenery is alright. But if you have seen the original film then this one doesn't really add anything new. There is none of the wow factors from seeing the dark and the grit, mixed with the futuristic Asian red light district feel, for the very first time in the 80s. They did it so well then. Now, well there's more neon lights and flying cars. But we seen those before...

So what else can I say... The movie drags on. Harrison Ford jumps into the mix (too late but still a saving grace). We get a little bit of action. Jared Leto babbles some more. Futuristic car chase. The conclusion draws near.

And yep there it is, revealed in a quick 'Gosling puts the puzzle pieces together in his head while we get fast-paced jump cuts of what we have already seen in the movie' - and done. 2hours and 44 minutes later the audience is served a lukewarm ending that screams Blade Runner part III. And that made me angry. The original movie ends with Rutger Hauer's beautiful monologue in the rain. Now that is movie magic. This, well this is the box office talking, or shouting in your face rather.

4 out 10. And best acting performance goes to the dog!
2017-11-11
The World Has Eaten A Retard Sandwich
No, I am not talking about others. I am talking about you. This sequel is currently rated at better and above its prequel, the classic Blade Runner film of 1982. This is partly because so many people are rating it 10/10. That is right: there are so many people here who think this film is god, it is perfect, not a single iota, not a single scene, not a single note of the soundtrack, not a movement of any actor could be any better. it is perfection. I could tell you that this sequel was wholly unneeded, uncalled for and is another Ridley Scott monthly sequel (that guy now has the credibility of a Harrison Ford which is at the same level as Marvel or Disney's rapid fire crap output) , but no we have hundreds of people here who think this sequel is better than their mothers and perfect. no wonder people are voting for heads of state that laugh at them, steal their money, fart in their faces with constant lies and then.. get applause, votes and adoration. It is what people deserve. Just look at the bad jokes running Poland, Hungary, Turkey, dump called USA or Russia. never mind the jokester in Japan or the criminal in Israel.

Blade Runner 2049 (yup only 30 years away) has all the nice post apocalyptic unexplained feeling, flying cars, replicants (mass produced) and humans occupying space already (yup 10/10), but also nonsensical lines, robotic acting and a wide open ending that screams 'thanks for your ticket purchase. You are not entitled to anything and most importantly not entitled to a conclusion, but come again!'

hey the computer graphics and sets were nice and the call girl was pretty so 3/10.
2017-10-22
Boring Runner
I didn't realise 2049 also was the actual length of the film! It sure felt like it! 3 hours of boring dialogue, hollow characters and an embarrassingly weak story. Hard to believe Ridley Scott really made this!

The first Blade Runner worked the pace of the film brilliantly up to the powerful ending. The story was a rather simple sci-fi noir detective story with a twist. It made some huge comments on humanity and what kind of future we want. It worked on so many levels. It could be viewed as a simple sci-fi detective story or as a great spiritual journey that asked all the big questions. "And what can your maker do for you?".

The first Blade Runner had so many great lines but with 2049 I cannot remember a single quotable line. 2049 completely lacks all which made the original the best sci-fi movie ever. I take the same view as Rutger Hauer recently did. Why even try to do a second one? It would be as painting a second Mona Lisa. Or building another Eiffel tower.

A huge disappointment of a sequel that should never have been made.
2017-10-22
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
beautiful but disappointing
The movie is definitely a masterpiece in terms of cinematography. Ryan Gosling does a decent job as well. That's where it ends though. The most frustrating part about it is how it insults the intelligence of the viewer. While the original movie was laid down like a puzzle (the unicorn dreams and origami at different moments in the movie) this one just spells out everything to make sure the dumbest person could get it. The only thing missing was a big sign flashing: "pay attention here" . The flashbacks were placed totally artificially and the whole sequence was so linear it hurts. Also the whole story was way too shallow and included too many cheap tearjerkers.

Another frustrating thing is how, just like all the other recent reboots, it just runs on pure nostalgia while adding virtually nothing new. Edward James Olmos's appearance is a perfect example. The short scene involving him adds nothing to the story. It's just there because they had to find some reason to put him in the movie.

They should have left the original movie alone.
2017-10-14
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
A remedy against sleepless nights
Are you seeking a remedy against sleepless nights? You won't need any prescriptions to solve your problem. You simply need to watch Blade Runner 2049. Almost everything that could be wrong with a movie is wrong with this one. To start on a positive note, the visual effects are faithful to the original film, the directing is precise and doesn't feature any annoying contemporary shaky camera passages and the last third of the movie quickens up the pace and is at least slightly interesting. These three positive elements explain my rating but I really had to think very hard to find these reasons.

Let's talk about this movie's massive problems. First of all, the film is way too long and takes nearly three hours to tell a story that would have justified a length under a hour and a half. The original movie wasn't the most fast-paced genre film ever made but it was bearable with a length just below the two-hour mark.

Secondly, the plot is quite tiresome and can be summarized in three sentences. When things finally could start to get interesting, the film actually ends without a resolution. This makes me fear the worst. It's quite probable that there will be a sequel to this sequel which means that even those who haven't appreciated Blade Runner 2049 might feel forced to watch the sequel to know how the story actually ends. If you don't want to go through that dilemma, don't watch Blade Runner 2049 in the first place. While the original film is overrated in my book and doesn't do Philip K. Dick's novel justice, it had at least a coherent plot diagram featuring an exposition, rising action, climax, falling action and resolution.

Thirdly, the movie tries to be overtly atmospheric but ends up being pretentious. There are numerous shots when characters walk through decayed landscapes in slow-motion. This idea might work every now and then to emphasize on the dystopian future that serves as setting but the idea is overused and prevents any momentum or pace to build up. The original film was slow as well but also had a few emotional and vivid sequences that contrasted the bleak vision of the future.

Fourthly, the soundtrack of this movie is awful despite being written by renowned composer Hans Zimmer. Whenever the movie is dragging on and showing the main character walking through empty buildings for five minutes, the soundtrack suddenly gets louder for no apparent reason but to keep the bored audience awake. This surprising effect got my attention in the beginning but after it was used for a third time in a row, this strategy became laughably predictable. The present soundtrack tries to capture the essence of Vangelis' gloomy compositions for the original film but doesn't even manage to be a rough blueprint of the original score.

Fifthly, aside of Harrison Ford's character who returns in the last third of the film when the pace quickens up a little bit, most of the other characters are quite pale. Especially Ryan Gosling's characters is so faceless that you won't care about his destiny at all. Jared Leto's villain character seems to be stolen from a weak episode of a science-fiction television series of the late sixties at best. The few interesting side characters such as Carla Juri's are underdeveloped and only have a few minutes of screen time despite the film's epic length. It's quite ironic that the most interesting character is the main character's holographic girlfriend played by Ana de Armas. The original film had several memorable performances by less talented actors like Rutger Hauer who were pushed by a great director while this film doesn't have that chemistry despite the skilled personnel involved.

It was a pain to sit through the entire movie. I felt like walking out of cinema numerous times but I stayed because I had paid for it and because I was expecting a surprising ending. Now I know that I should have walked out. Despite the great director involved, several outstanding actors and actresses on board and even one of the best soundtrack composers in the history of cinema, Blade Runner 2049 is boring, hollow and uninspired. The original film was overrated in my book but this sequel is plain horrible. It's a mystery why this film got such a solid critical acclaim but hundreds of negative reviews prove that I'm not the only one who disliked this vapid flick. For me, Blade Runner 2049 even beats the shallow Kong: Skull Island in terms of negativity and is what I consider the worst film of the year. My suggestion for you is to read Philip K. Dick's novel instead of spending any money on this disaster.
2017-11-07
They Just Could Not Leave It Alone
Like a junkie that just can't stop himself from reaching for the heroin Hollywood executives (all hacks) just.cannot.stop.themselves.from.reaching.for.the.sequel.bottle.

It is quite pathetic and not only a waste of time for the audience, but also occasionally ruins its legendary prequel. Such is the case here. Blade Runner was a fantastic story, based on source material from an accomplished author and mainly designed by a bona fide futurologist who worked on the set extensively. It was original, engrossing, moody, thoughtful and full of action. The new one? Well, let me tell you if it weren't for thin shapely legs on a hologram I would not even give it a 4.

Let's see if this is the year's worst sequel or the coming Star Wars (not that I plan on being a douche and watching that).
2017-10-23
Failure as sequel, failure as stand-alone.
** Warning! Here May Be Spoilers, for this movie and others. **

The original Blade Runner evoked a strong feeling: I might be manufactured by others, but it doesn't invalidate my identify. My experiences are singular and I feel them deeply. However I got here, I am real.

Blade Runner 2049 starts with an alienated second-class citizen craving that validated authenticity. His story is derailed by side issues -- his owner/operator's problems, corporate drama, a sort of love interest, profit motive, the Resistance, (pseudo-)scientific posturing, and other irrelevancies. By the end, when the story has gone in a different direction entirely, our hero just lies down and gives up, and us with him.

Specifics:

Pacing / Story / Characters: BR2049 is too long and way too slow. There is no point or purpose, no golden narrative thread. Overall it watches like the boring parts of Matrix movies, eliminated from the supercut and reworked for a different color palette. Ryan Gosling is Neo, Jared Leto plays The Architect, Carla Juri is the Oracle, Edward James Olmos is The Keymaker...the parallels don't stop there. Yawn.

Dialogue: the pretentious, vaguely ominous, Messianic BS that put you to sleep in the Matrix sequels has been refurbished for our sad, hunky Pinocchio in his futuristic pimp coat.

Deckard: his part begins with a Disneyfied sequence a la "Cowboys & Aliens" including cheesy wisecracks and a rough-and-tumble meet-cute, which ends unceremoniously with an "I'm too old for this" surrender. The sequence takes place in a post-apocalyptic Las Vegas that has occasional funny parts (which I hope were unintentionally funny rather than failed attempts at comic relief for non-existent tension.)

After investing so much time in Ryan Gosling and his story, the focus shifts to Deckard, who isn't himself away from LA, and whose tacked-on storyline hijacks the movie. (Regret: The lost years of Deckard and Rachael with the Replicant Resistance underground should have been a separate movie.) Here, Deckard starts as comic relief and ends as a plot device to move the story to some kind of conclusion. There is some emotional button-pushing for fans of the original (oh, Rachael!) and a tired attempt at emotional manipulation (getting to know the child we had no idea you'd ever wanted but for that one line a few minutes ago.)

Costumes: there are no costumes, styles, or fashion. Only clothes.

A/V: there are lovely, lingering shots of what appear to be abandoned Brutalist / Eastern Bloc / doomsday cult headquarters blanketed in untouched snow. There is gorgeous, impersonal CGI. There are building-high images of beautiful naked women, blandly presented and titillation-free. The music includes watery variations on the original score, interspersed with sinus-clearing brown noise.

(I will probably buy this movie for those location shots, quiet stills, and long, honking chords. I even want the music. But it's sad that the kernel notes of Vangelis, so precise and delicate, shine out purely even as their impact is bled away by the insubstantial context of the movie and the score.)

In contrast, I saw the sequel as a double feature with the remastered original, which took on new richness in the cinema setting. The original is a quick sit, modeled after rogue cop film noir: vibrant characters, clear narrative purpose, a stunning moll, gritty romance, and a getaway ending with a crystallized message. The sequel is pointless, diluted, internally inconsistent, and slow.

In Blade Runner 2049, people cry All.The.Time. -- and now you know why.
2017-10-07
See Also
The Wife
The Wife
USA, UK, Sweden ‘2017
7.4
Skate Kitchen
Skate Kitchen
USA ‘2018
6.4
Spiral
Spiral
USA ‘2018
4.6
×