Posted on 09/29/2017 12:54:26 PM PDT by dennisw
Blade Runner 2049 takes forever to go nowhere special. The picture, filled with intriguing sights, low-key performances and a few interesting ideas, is drawn out to the point of self-parody. Like the first Blade Runner, it masks a thin story and little in the way of momentum with towering visuals and self-seriousness. But the filmmaking world has changed in 35 years, and the mere ability to put incredible sights and sounds onscreen is no longer in itself a pass for deficiencies elsewhere. It is a true sequel to Blade Runner, warts and all. While it doesn’t require a firm knowledge of the original, I’m glad I watched it again (in “The Final Cut” form) 24 hours before seeing this one.
If you thought Ridley Scott’s original was a genre masterpiece, you’ll find much to appreciate here. But if you’re like me (and Roger Ebert, for what it’s worth) and think the first film offers a barebones story and paper-thin characters, you’ll be disappointed that the extra money and extra running time merely means a more drawn-out mystery with little urgency or momentum. The picture, produced by Ridley Scott and directed by Denis Villeneuve, doesn’t so much expand the world as merely tell a story that happens to take place 30 years later. The screenplay, courtesy of Hampton Fancher and Michael Green, sets up some intriguing ideas about memory that get overpowered by some admittedly jaw-dropping production design and cinematography.
Things get off to a promising start, with Ryan Gosling’s Blade Runner discovering a dark secret that could theoretically start a war. As his boss (Robin Wright) correctly notes, such a reveal would change the very nature of how the artificial lifeforms (“Replicants”) are perceived at-large, so Gosling’s “K” is tasked with finding and eliminating all traces of said secret. And, that’s it. There are a few minor plot turns and the path does eventually lead to Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) while offering some unneeded answers to what transpired between the two installments. But the investigation moves at a snail’s pace.........more at source
movie is 2 hour 43 min
TV with commercials will have to either make it 6 hours long or a mini-miniseries.
A link on Drudge has a review that says it’s a very good movie. Female reviewer gave it an A-.
It was said that Rutger improvised the ‘tears in the rain’ line, and that his performance was so moving, in person, that there wasn’t a dry eye in the set.
Shot in 3.4k with quality cameras. Distributed in 4k. Hoping the visuals on my Samsung Q 75” make up for the story.
Well, I hope it wont end up like Tron 2.0.
Umm, we’re not females.
Yeah watch at home. Too long to see in a movie theater.
Oh, so you’d never like a movie a woman would like.
[Well, I hope it wont end up like Tron 2.0.]
My god, that was horrible!!!
That's what they said about IT.
About six years ago I finally read the book the original was based on.
I have no idea why anyone would turn that short story into a movie. It was very disappointing. There is so much really good science fiction out there.
I do like the original movie and own several releases on DVD and Blueray.
When we went to LA for my daughter’s wedding this summer my wife and I made a point to visit Ennis house.
Back when Siskel was alive, I found a very accurate predictor of whether or not I would like a movie.
If both Siskel and Ebert liked it, I would like it.
If only Siskel liked it, I probably would like it.
If only Ebert liked it, I would not like it.
Number three was so accurate I got to the point where an “ebert thumb only” movie didn’t get my money or time.
I really enjoy Tron 2. Well, it’s good eye candy...
What ? A film with mumbling,incoherent, one-expression,geriatric,stoned Harrison Ford isn’t an epic?? The only thing good about he original was Rutger Hauer. THAT is an actor!
Send someone who didn’t like the original to review the sequel, what kind of a review do you expect? Most reviews are very positive. Personally I saw the orginal in the theater and was blown away. Maybe the best sci fi movie ever, IMHO. I look forward to seeing the sequel, though probably at home.
Ebert was an Ivy League snob.
Siskel was a regular guy.
If the fat, snide one liked it, I knew I wouldn’t.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.