A place for you to talk about movies / Blu Rays and anything related.

Moderators: Little Walter, lazyben, NMA, static14, texasvinyl, The Cult Leader

User avatar
By deafmetal
#98829 o/~SPOILER WARNING~\o

I will admit I was filled with dread when I first heard this project announced. Why ruin something that is almost perfect with a "sequel"? Well, was it all worth it in the end? Did you love/hate all the cameos? Is Deckard really human after all? Are you?
User avatar
By Hatter313
#98835 I loved it, but I wasn’t sure how I felt about it until the moment it was over. And I LOVE the fact that they didn’t answer the question.

I do wish gaffs cameo had not been in that last trailer since it was his whole scene, but that’s a marketing fault.

I thought everyone was great, and the act that the actress who played Luv was Dutch gave a very subtle line of continuity between her and Roy just by virtue of the same hint of accent.

I was also quite enamored by The way they added an extra dimension to what it means to be human with joi, and how her tragedy was that she seemed almost as advanced AI as the replicants but lacked even the ability to truly feel, gut wrenching character with depth that will only unfold more on subsequent viewings.

I loved that they got K as a replicant out of the way immediately. I thought the fact that it was almost too obvious that he was the child was a surprise and thought he would tease that aspect out more, but then he turned it on it’s end in the last act reveal that it was just an implanted memory and he wasn’t “special” so to speak.

Finally, him dying to “tears in the rain” while the snow came down....just gorgeous.
By maxlevel
#98838 I loved so many moments, but it was way too long and has virtually zero plot. Thankfully Deakins has come back to form as I personally think he’s been phoning it in for a decade, and the soundtrack was fantastic at times and heavy handed at others.

Its a mixed bag for me. I’m going again this weekend to a proper Dolby Atmos screen and hopefully the cracks will paper over better...

Why didn’t they park a bit closer at the end? You’ve got a flying car and heavy snow, just park outside the door.
User avatar
By Bezulsqy
#98843 Deckard is really human!
Sylvia Hoeks was pretty good. Not great.
(BTW the female replicant that Leto cuts open is also a Dutch actress: Sallie Harmsen)
Why is Ryan Gosling so popular? For me he always looks like Ryan Gosling.
Gaff cameo didn't add anything.
Loved the look of everything. Found the JOI implemantion very well done and interesting.

I agree:
I thought the fact that it was almost too obvious that he was the child was a surprise and thought he would tease that aspect out more, but then he turned it on it’s end in the last act reveal that it was just an implanted memory and he wasn’t “special” so to speak.


Did not care a lot about the Leto part. I read that Villeneuve wanted Bowie for that part...

For me the best parts were the pace of the movie, the scenery (Las Vegas and the farm from the beginning of the film), the effects, the score, Harrison Ford, the opening fight. (for reference: I watched it in Dobly Atmos 3D)

Reading @Maxlevel comment about the zero plot: thinking back I have to agree. Not about it being way too long, because I felt completely absorbed by the world I was shown, but indeed a big plot there was not.

And I wasn't convinced by the Dr. Ana Stelline part.

Summing everything up 5 days after my viewing I would say I absolutely loved Blade Runner 2049 as a story made of moving images that make you forget that in 2,5 hours not a lot actually was told. The viewing was an A+ experience for me because of that. It simply sucked me in.
I am guessing it will win a lot of technical Oscars but not a lot for acting or writing.
User avatar
By Mateo Sanboval
#98859 A lot of interesting thoughts in here and I'll address them separately.

Firstly, the plot. The plot is no more or less complex than the original film. I get folks who think it's too much like the original, or too predictable as a result of that, but I'm not sure about a lack of plot. The Blade Runner films are straightforward noir mysteries bolstered by heavy doses of philosophical questions about love, humanity, and reality. It is in these latter regards that the films are complex, not their stories.

I'm not sure how anyone could say definitively whether or not Deckard is a replicant. The film seemed intentionally ambiguous in this regard. Stiltedly so when Wallace is talking to Deckard about his first encounter with Rachel.

I agree that Gaff felt stuffed in there, but him giving K the origami of a sheep is pretty key. Gaff's origami have always had meaning and this one let K know that he wasn't special; he was just one of the herd. A sheep. This allows the viewer to acknowledge that there is a good chance that K is not the child even as he and Joi are convinced of it.

Like a few of you, I also didn't find Wallace terribly compelling. I want to, but I don't. To be fair, that pill was an easier swallow upon my second viewing. For a character that got that much screen time, I remain unsure of his base motivations. Or perhaps just unconvinced by what we were shown.

Another criticism that I don't think I've seen mentioned here is The Revolution. This is my biggest nitpick and it really stuck out after my second time around. Why was this there? It only made itself known as a story element for one single scene and it plays zero part in the film before or after. The Nurse/guardian could have just been dedicated to the child. Protecting her from the World and even Deckard. She could've made an impassioned plea to K to kill Deckard for that very reason. The pleasurebot could've still been a part of the story and intertwined with K and Joi without being a part of The Revolution. Or she and the other service level bots could simply be in the occasional employ of the nurse/guardian for the purpose of protecting the child which she sees in part as her own. It felt like they tried a bit too hard on that one to me, but I'd love to hear other opinions about this.

Lastly, I'd recommend seeing it on a non-IMAX screen at least once. There are definitely a few brief (like split-second brief) pan and scan style digital adjustments to keep things in the center frame that are absolutely not present in the original cut of the film. And for all the extra vertical info (which was cool), I missed the horizontal images more.

On the whole, I'm still really enjoying this film. Even more after seeing it again. For a 2'45" flick, it flew by. I was completely absorbed both times in the theater. I'm upgrading to a B+/A-.
User avatar
By Spun out of control
#98869 Interesting opinions chaps...

It wasn't perfect but still managed to be fairly absorbing as others here have said. Mind you, I did see it on a huge IMAX screen.

That said, I missed an actor with the presence and impact of say, Rutger Hauer in the first film.

I also missed Deckard's beaten up, world weariness from the first movie... with Ryan Gosling and his puppy dog eyes I couldn't take him that seriously. The bit where he has a sudden temper tantrum as he thinks he learns 'the truth' had me stifling a laugh.

In short, 2049 though expanding on the world of the first movie felt to me to be its own thing. People reviewing it as equal to or better than the original I feel is a bit of an over statement/hyperbole. Mind you, following an established classic is almost impossible for any filmmaker and though my reaction was a bit 'meh' on first viewing, got to give them credit for trying.

The score though... am still scratching my head regarding the director admitting 'it needed more Vangelis' at the 11th hour... as if that fact wouldn't have been plainly obvious (as it was to many on this board!) at the very announcement of the project. Whereas the score was a huge part of the first movie (arguably a character in itself), here it occasionally veered into pastiche or sounded like it was being 'phoned in', as they saying in acting circles...
Last edited by Spun out of control on Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By deafmetal
#98872 @Mateo - I also did not like the "revolution" plot device or scene. I cringed a bit when they all shambled up. Was it you or somebody else that wrote, "is this The Matrix all over again" in the other thread? At least there was no rave scene, but yeah, it was my least favorite part, and took me out of the experience for a bit. I much prefer the ideas you mention. That was really my only strong gripe, as I feel lenient about the overall plot. I almost felt like I didn't want too many secrets to be revealed -- if that makes sense. I much prefer the mystery and ambiguity. I like your analysis of the Gaff scene though, and I did not make the connection with the sheep origami. Good stuff.

I will definitely be seeking out a non-IMAX 2.35:1 projection in the near future, and would love to see it again to try and catch some more details.
By maxlevel
#98877 I actually liked the revolution element in spirit but the delivery of the payoff isn’t that great. The revolution is the consequence of public knowledge that replicants can replicate themselves, the suppression of which is the motiavion of the chief of police character who I forget but she was in the US house of cards thing. If replicants can procreate, the new breed of superhuman will take over as certainly as night follows day.

Like the matrix, these implied consequences being fleshed out in script form are tricky to get right. They do need to be there, but don’t often work that well in a contemporary culture which dosnt have much interest in politics of direct action. Its almost worth leaving entirely in the subtext where the nerds and script students can pour over it. The beauty of Roy was his struggle against time, his own mortality reduced to a mere blink of an eye - if Roy could have procreated it wouldn’t be nearly as compelling. He was a product of his time, his generation was politically direct, and that decade saw enormous human struggles come to an end as one side crumbled away from within.
User avatar
By Mateo Sanboval
#98948 @Deaf - I agree with all of what you said. Particularly the part about you agreeing with me. I definitely agree with that.

@Max - Interesting thoughts on the revolution plotline/device. I think we see things pretty differently in this regard, but I always appreciate hearing other points of view.
User avatar
By ScoJo
#98955 Here comes my tuppence!

Second viewing yesterday. In short? I don't love this movie, feels like a lot of the niggles I've had with the director's previous work are here too, on TOP of it being follow up to a flawless masterpiece (there I said it, you finally know where I stand, UNEQUIVOCALLY, from my soul, on Ridley's original...)

And yet, it has wonders within it.

- The aforementioned 'revolution' scene. Ugh. Awful awful awful: script, actress' performance, staging - painful to watch second time round. When the fellow replicants all hove in behind her on cue with that grating line about revolution, as though they're in a stage musical! Not, I repeat, good.

- The violence is strangely unaffecting, especially when you recall how punchy and often shocking it was in BR - opening murder, Brion James fight/sudden death, Tyrell's ugly despatch, Zora shooting and Pris fight/Batty extended battle....all incredible and each death is felt viscerally. Even the threat of what's hinted at with James Wong...unnerving and chilling. Fuck, now I think of it even Sebastian's (obviously gruesome) offscreen slaying was more of a gut punch than any thing in the sequel. Bautista? There's def poignancy in his 'sacrifice' once we're aware of it, but up top he's just an unknown character who dies for no reason because he makes an uneccesary lunge for K. Robin Wright's death was handled well, but I still felt no sting at her loss - merely felt perfunctory. Joi's shutdown should have hurt, but it's such a strange setup with her and K that I never quite got to grips with - like, why do replicants not just have relationships with other replicants? Why is it suggested that Leto has created these AI/holograms specifically for this purpose? I realise that in this thirty years later version of that world things are different and replicants are now more slave-like than ever, but why let them have apartments/any freedom at all if thats the case, and not just house them together?
(It's a class/caste analogy of course, I get it - but it simply didn't carry much weight for me...)

- The score. Oh yes, the score. We're pretty much okay to agree now that it's Really Not Very Good, aren't we? Functional and okay, but for a BR movie, and for a score that needs to be the cold, artificial yet deeply profound beating heart of this giant machine of a movie....oh it's sadly a giant fail.

- Villeneuve shouldn't be compared to Scott, they're two very diff talents, but it has to be said that DV is NOT a visionary/visual genius. He brings something great to all his movies, but he doesn't have that wildly visual, exotic, intensely studied and sophisticated eye which RS brings to even his most real-world films....so for me the pairing of Villeneuve and Deakins, who is a bold visualist when he's in bold hands, is both a technical triumph and at the same time a bit...restrained?? This is a very tricky one because I can't quite nail what I feel, but it's just that - a feeling. Individual scenes and shots pop in my mind and are wonderful, but there's a coolness in the approach which is distancing and doesn't vibrate with that extraordinary energy of BR. To be completely fair, Jordan Cronenweth is my absolute favourite DOP by a long way, and again Deakins shouldn't be compared - a different talent, with it's own sensibility. I just wish I'd been completely blown away by ONE shot, the way that BR's famous opening 'Hellscape' did (for instance - because I could easily name ten other jawdropping compositions instead)

- The story worked fine for me. It's another detective story, playing off genre tropes, with a philosophical puzzle at it's centre. Characters were generally good, though there was a little too much of the 'attractive' casting if I'm honest (especially Joi and Luv - which was my initial reaction to the trailer, and turns out I mostly right) The thing which worried me most from the build up was Ford, and how Deckard would be handled, but I have to say I pretty much dug everything about him and what the script did with his part.

- Speaking of though...I have to finish with That Cameo. No not Gaff (which I enjoyed and took entirely for what it was-a little bit of fan service, not harmful to the whole), no - the big one. We're here in the SPOILER THREAD after all, so fuckit: here goes!

I just don't know how I feel about the Rachel double. I was actually pretty excited going in at the prospect of a cameo by Sean Young, in some form, but it turns out to be way more in the line of Jeff Bridges in Tron Legacy, and Cushing in The Force Awakens - both of which i HATED! So I think that really coloured and confused my reaction to Rachel. It was actually, technically, done brilliantly - in fact, the film as a whole probably includes some of the best VFX I've ever seen, without doubt. (the city/spinner shots were astonishing...) But it is more than that. I just didn't like that it was such a short, perfunctory scene with such a major part of the original, all capped with a brutal dispatching and what I'm pretty sure is a totally pointless gaff - Deckard calls out the folly of Niander's offering with a cold 'her eyes were green'. Fair enough, that's not a terrible twist in the scene...but the problem is, and I need to double check, Rachel's eyes actually ARE famously brown/hazel?? I'm right, right? Not going mad here? So why the hell draw attention to that detail, which most BR fans will innately know is a falsity, or am I missing the point? (Deckard is lying, just to show how little he cares for this gambit of Wallace's?) If so, that just feels super clumsy and uneccesarily complicated to me. Anyway, in my imagination a way better exploration of that would have been a few scenes/ days of Deckard living with 'new' Rachel, almost kidding himself he can live with the lie (because we want him to, it's Rachel dammit!!) but then he either sees or recalls the skull which Niander now prizes and that triggers him to reject the fantasy/instigates Rachel's destruction or at least rejects her.

Pheee-ew! This really got away from me sorry!! ;-) hope some of these opinionated musings are worth something to someone. And hey - anybody wanna come see it again tomorrow!?
Last edited by ScoJo on Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:58 pm, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
By ScoJo
#98957 Ps. Leto really needs to retire the 'over-methoding' sorry - especially what with just having a couple scenes in both this and Suicide Squad ... it just aint worth it son!
User avatar
By zuko
#98972
Mateo Sanboval wrote:I agree that Gaff felt stuffed in there, but him giving K the origami of a sheep is pretty key. Gaff's origami have always had meaning and this one let K know that he wasn't special; he was just one of the herd. A sheep. This allows the viewer to acknowledge that there is a good chance that K is not the child even as he and Joi are convinced of it.


Nice take. I presumed it was just an on-the-nose reference to the book title.


The good:

Obviously, just the general vibe, being back in that world.

Agree with the above that Mackenzie Davis was great. Inspired bit of casting as Pris 2.0.

The sex/sync scene was fantastic, felt like something new. The music was so great in that scene.

Robin Wright. Wish she'd had more to do.

Had avoided more recent trailers, so Gaff was a nice surprise for me.

The Rachael FX. Thought this was near-perfect, much better than Tarkin/Leia in R1, but I get the feeling it was maybe a mapped paste of old footage rather than a new CG creation? (Neat little connection in having Robin Wright in a movie where ideas from The Congress are already happening)

Dr. Stelline. Enjoyed this scene, I liked her slightly unhinged quality. Nice that she had a greater significance.

Dr. Badger. How can you not love a guy called Dr. Badger?

That they DIDN'T answer the question. That's how to expand the universe without shitting on the original Ridley/JJ.



The bad:

Leto. As always. Fulfilled my expectations in that regard, but luckily he was hardly in it.

Ford's wardrobe. This had bothered me since the first trailer. Just really jarring with the Bladerunner aesthetic.

Gozzles. Stoned the whole movie. It's too easy to just say "oh, he's playing a replicant" – we've seen that replicants aren't precluded from showing fear, joy, sadness…



The hmmmmm…:

The Luv character. Firstly, I didn't realise that was her name until the credits, but maybe that's a UK thing, where we use it as a pet name. "Can you put the kettle on, love?" I was confused by her motivations; she is Wallace's attack dog, but at the same time is very pro-replicant?


The score:

I'm fine with it. Owes a debt to Ex Machina in places I think. There's one scene in particular though, where's he's pulling the wooden horse out of the furnace and the score is fucking preposterous. "THIS IS IMPORTANT!!!"


- - -

With a young family I rarely get to watch movies at the cinema, so when I get the opportunity to escape into something like this I'm more open to accept the flaws. So overall, I had a great time with it.
User avatar
By Mateo Sanboval
#98985
zuko wrote:The Rachael FX. Thought this was near-perfect, much better than Tarkin/Leia in R1, but I get the feeling it was maybe a mapped paste of old footage rather than a new CG creation?

This. Very impressed with so many of the effects in this film. None of them took me out of it that I can recall.
User avatar
By Hatter313
#98999 i think the difference with the Rachel to those other two is that they were animations over motion capture using old footage of the actors as reference. whereas this was Sean Young digitally youthened ala Kurt Russell in the recent guardians of the galaxy. She doesn't look that much older even approaching 60, and i think the combo of make up and some digital fountain of youth stuff made it less jarring than Tarkin.
User avatar
By Mateo Sanboval
#99031
Hatter313 wrote:i think the difference with the Rachel to those other two is that they were animations over motion capture using old footage of the actors as reference. whereas this was Sean Young digitally youthened ala Kurt Russell in the recent guardians of the galaxy. She doesn't look that much older even approaching 60, and i think the combo of make up and some digital fountain of youth stuff made it less jarring than Tarkin.

Is that how they did the Rachelbot? I had no idea.
User avatar
By Hatter313
#99033 That’s what I had heard, but since posting I’ve also heard that wasn’t the case and it was mocap etc. there seems to be some confusion.

Either way it looked great!
By maxlevel
#99075 Saw it again last night! Filled out some missing pieces and I can safely say it’s a solid 7/10 good but not great bit of sci fi.

The revolution stuff still stuck out like a sore thumb. It dosnt fit Villenueves subtle tones, it’s just too much and left too much open.

What were the bees all about? Oh I’m Harrison Ford, I’ve got some bees lah di dah. Bill Bailey would eat all his bees.

And someone needs to learn how to park a flying car. You’ve got a flying car, don’t park it a mile from the front door. Does it at least three times. I’ll just land this here, I’m a cop. I like to walk sadly in the snow because I’ve been stabbed.
User avatar
By deafmetal
#99078
maxlevel wrote:What were the bees all about? Oh I’m Harrison Ford, I’ve got some bees lah di dah. Bill Bailey would eat all his bees.


Haha, I love Black Books:



I also caught Dylan Moran on stage here in Portland this year. Oh right, Blade Runner 2049. I need to go see it again like all the rest of you!
User avatar
By ScoJo
#99079 Can I share my weird Dylan Moran story?

So I was in my local Oxfam charity shop around 6 or 7 years ago, rifling through a bunch of LPs - when I heard someone enter the store behind me, go up to the counter and ask (in a lovely Irish brogue...)
'Could you please point me towards any antiquarian bookshops?'

The assistant couldn't help, so I decided to give some pointers and turned round to tell the guy, and it was Dylan Moran! No shit. I actually did that surprised 'oh, it's YOU!?' face and then recovered and gave directions to the nearest book store.

For a second, I was actually convinced that I was on some celebrity hidden cam/prank show - I mean, what the heck? But I guess he is just genuinely into books and happened to be in my neighborhood.

Oh, and also? He looked half in the bag. At around lunchtime. True.
User avatar
By Mateo Sanboval
#99081 I love Dylan Moran. I don't really give a toss about meeting famous people for the sake of it (love the art not the artist, etc) though I do enjoy everyone's stories and pics (truly!). That said, I am genuinely jealous of you on this one ScoJ. The idea of bumping into Moran in such a scenario as that is, well, glorious. Chin chin, sir.
User avatar
By Mateo Sanboval
#99082 I almost forgot, Villeneuve on the bees:

There are a lot of problems with bees in the world right now. They are disappearing, so the fact that here you can see those creatures still alive and still present, was for me like a little spark of hope in this dystopian universe.