Blade Runner 2049
Directed by:
Denis VilleneuveCinematography:
Roger DeakinsCast:
Ryan Gosling, Harrison Ford, Sylvia Hoeks, Ana de Armas, Robin Wright, Jared Leto, Dave Bautista, Carla Juri, Mackenzie Davis, Lennie James, Barkhad Abdi (more)VOD (4)
Plots(1)
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. (Warner Bros. US)
(more)Videos (26)
Reviews (19)
I adhere to the principle that if I don't have high expectations I will be pleasantly surprised from time to time. The new Blade Runner did not disappoint me, although I could express a few critical reservations. But overall, besides Nolan's Dunkirk, this was my biggest movie theater experience this year. It is more than a worthy continuation of Scott's film, or rather its modified version from 1992. It continues not only in terms of the plot but also in terms of atmosphere and style. The characters are all 30 years older and it clearly did not benefit any of them. Deckard has aged, the environmental crisis has deepened, social inequalities are more extreme, and fear and tension have increased everywhere. There are more replicants and they represent a greater challenge than ever before. Blade Runner 2049 depicts a world that has not yet exploded, but the fuse is already burning and the flame inexorably approaches the explosive. Denis Villeneuve creates impressive and depressive images of a world where humanity cannot handle itself, let alone coexist with artificial intelligence. The strength of his film lies in the direction and visuals, while the screenplay is noticeably weaker. However, a similar criticism can also be applied to Scott's film, which is stronger in building atmosphere and raising ethical questions than in the credibility of the constructed world. Blade Runner 2049 can be criticized for many things, from the uninteresting female antagonist who certainly does not match the replicant Roy Batty from the first film to the strange character of the CEO of the most powerful corporation, Niander Wallace, who resembles a leading figure of a religious sect, and whose appearance is probably supposed to refer to biblical motifs of the Creator God. Yet among current blockbusters, the film stands out. I agree with the criticism directed at the excessive readability, literalness, and genericness, but I would also compare this film to Prometheus, which is several levels worse in the aforementioned aspects, moreover, it has poor editing, the most basic narrative techniques fail in it, and it uses the cheapest symbolism. Therefore, I would be cautious with the hate and I would attribute some disappointments to unrealistic expectations and, last but not least, to the fact that Blade Runner betrays its commercial attractiveness. A slow three-hour action film built on long shots simply doesn't appeal to everyone. If you can't resist the lure of the new Blade Runner, I highly recommend watching it on the big screen because it loses a lot of its visual impact on the small screen. Gosling in the lead role may disgust some people with his limited acting range, but let's not forget that he plays an android, so we can forgive him for that. I enjoyed Blade Runner 2049 - not as a masterpiece of art that should be some fundamental reflection of our technological possibilities and fear of the near future, but as a magnificent visual blockbuster that is not as mindless as the majority of the others. Overall impression: 90%.
()
(less)
(more)
The promising start and the entire first half of the film draw the audience into the great atmosphere embellished with design gems and monumental sound. Unfortunately, the plot development lags behind in terms of originality and sorely lacks space for the main villain, who was supposed to be the movie’s most powerful character, a threat to what remains of civilization and the system that has left the world on life support. And the usually great director Denis Villeneuve gets rid of him after just a few scenes, during which we learn nothing about him. The famous android musical theme “Tears in the Rain” in the ending brings us closer to understanding the feelings of the young Blade Runner and arouses nostalgia. But that’s not enough for a 160-minute film whose slow, almost sluggish pace doesn’t correspond to the depth and complexity of its plot. In other words, Blade Runner 2049 is an audio-visually stunning empty bubble.
()
A visually intoxicating sequel that should earn at least Deakins an Oscar. Villeneuve prepares the ground in the first half and takes us back to the familiar world from the mind of Phillip K. Dick, where the bullied Gosling is trying to do his work. The offering to racist roots works better than 12 years in chains. Digging about in the past is another tribute to old school detective movies and Elvis steals the show in the Vegas sequence. Heavy ruminations about the nature of artificial beings, about what is reality and what good is and is not good. A fantastically negative Leto who, in this memorable role, fundamentally means well. Ford’s return to Deckard’s shoes is expedient, not just a cheap promo. He’s still got it in him. Zimmer’s music again thunderous. Interlinked.
()
Much better than I was afraid of, but much worse than I hoped for. The first is true mainly due to the accurately captured peculiarly slow hypnotic "non-spectator" atmosphere (I felt like it was 2049 minutes long), addressing major existential issues through slight hints (however worse than in previous movies), refined in terms of design and ideas, functional update of the world by thirty years, the roaring and intoxicating audiovisuals prove that it is not the same with only slight changes, in other words we can see a real acting of Ford. The second is true because of several plot lines from the final sequence, which are questionable, or even reprehensible. There is quite a lot of too long or even superfluous scenes. It´s too cold, despite the desire to raise emotions and there are to many different topics that are only mentioned and then fade away as quickly as a flash. It will definitely not become a timeless legendary movie, only perhaps in terms of craftsmanship perhaps, but it´s absolutely more than just a damn good anti-utopian film. That´s for sure. The question, of course, remains whether "more than damn good" is enough in the case of the follow-up of one of the most influential films of the movie industry.
()
A place of deep melancholy shallow landscaping. Instead of a simple noir story, this an incredibly supple and unfortunately desperately transparent story about the search for meaning in a world of vanishing memories. There is about the same difference between the original and this one as between a physical experience and the nicely painted backdrop. At the same time, Blade Runner 2049 well documents the impotence to which Hollywood has condemned the current fashion of resurrecting icons. Blade Runner was as much a tribute to history as engaging visions of the future world. The second part is just a blank canvas, where Villeneuve and Deakins apply a few new contours, but at the same time they can't break out of the familiarity of the old ones. Sure, that's not even the goal. But instead of a vision, the result is a sterile museum. And unfortunately, by far the worst directing moments that the brilliant Canadian has been part of. It is the same in key moments as the Chinese finale of Arrival. Paradoxically hurried, unfinished and explicitly simple in terms of script. The original Blade Runner had a secret. These are just transparently literal symbols. A fleeting thing that will only be remembered in 30 years as a testament to a time that has become entrenched in its own memories of visionary times. The epoch of replicants with a time fuse. I am betting a synthetic kidney.
()
