It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
As soon as we start feeling sorry for rachael re deckards sexual advances the movie has worked
It proves the point (using the viewer as the gunea pig) that the future is going to be complex for us and we have yet to work out how to applie existing morals to sythetic humans
Bladerunner is not the only movie with these theme but it did it so so well
Can you rape a "skin job"? Its at the heart of the movie but to forget she is not human and treat the scene as if its a scene between a man and a woman is missing what the movie is really about IMHO
It really is a fabulous film
I really enjoyed the sequel but I like the brevity, aesthetic, grittiness, and dynamic performances of the original. They are quite different and both great films, but I much prefer the original.
Well, my take on this is pretty well known I think.
Trying to see it objectively (SO difficult for me) I can see how one might consider the sequel as superiour... it does surprisingly expand the Blade Runner 'Verse and raises even more questions about the nature of 'Humanity'. But having both so recently nearly back to back the first (no matter the version you prefer) just has a film texture and and effects style and grittiness to the wet landscape that cannot be duplicated today... and of course no one beats Rutger Hauer's Batty as a force of (unnatural) nature.
Imagine the original without Batty
He really does add a tremendous amount to the film
He makes the original far more accessible by letting us see and hear what's its like to live his life and the life of his friends and his lover.
And for me its the drama and contrast that he brought to the origiinal that is lacking.
Plus he gave us the opportunity to switch sides and realise who the bad guys were
This point is different for all viewers but the fact that its there is another reason for me that its a better film
Its unfair to compare the new one to the original as the original is just something very very special but the makers knew they were setting themselves up for this comparison
They have done very well to even get close IMHO
So I have no problem saying I prefer BR 2049 to BR, I'm sure it will be sacrelidge to some but it just satisfies me more and can see myself watching it more regularly than the original and bar Hauer the acting is quite considerably better in it.
I am still quite astounded how good it is and it can stand on it's own quite confidently. The best blockbuster in decades loved it.
The score isn't on a par quite considerably with the original but after that I can't think of anything else.
http://www.slashfilm.com/blade-runner-2049-alternate-title/
Roy was genuine and pure whereas Deckard is working for the man and taking orders.
I know I said I prefer 2049 but it's marginal, the original is a stunning achievement and film makers I'm a big fan of like Nolan and Fincher owe it a great debt.
Way ahead of Hinx.
If Mendes wasn't influenced by this I'll be very surprised.
Pity his tribute wasn't worthy of it isn't it?
5/10
Makes me want DV to direct Dune next, not Bond.
A couple of minor obs -
- The female actors in this film are incredible
- Any director who can coax a tic-less performance from grumpy old Ford these days is one hell of an operator
- Jared Leto is overrated in just about everything he does
- I cried
This is the sort of film cinema was made for. It looks incredible, and I can't remember the last time I was in awe of what I was seeing when watching a film. Being so sick of CGI heavy stuff lately this is such a different experience. As an audience Villeneuve lets us savour the incredible world he has created by keeping the shots long and allowing us to see the detail. Loved the score as well.
I liked the fact that 'K' was revealed early on as to who he was and Gosling is just brilliant. I also loved the character of Luv. With her offworldly looks and deadly force she is one of my favourite things in the film. The only weak spot in terms of actors was Jared Leto, who admittedly didn't have the best written part. Tyrell he was not.
I found the plot pretty cool, but a little contrived. At least it's a logical continuation of the original and not just a rehash.
Not sure if I missed something (I think another viewing is essential) but the LA Police department seemed to consist of Robin Wright, Ryan Gosling and a couple of officers.
And how can Wallace have the Chief of Police murdered with no comeback?
Looking forward to seeing it again, and will definitely be buying the BD. No doubt one of the best films of the year and one I think will reward multiple viewings.
I´m sure if there were the possibility of a further sequel, the intro text would among other things be about the consquences of that murder, but as it is, I think there didn´t pass much time between that murder and the finale of the film.
I really didn't care for the movie.
Probably there's a bit of bias on my part going in though, because I tend not to like big messianic epics that take big themes and spell them out very clearly. And I especially don't like when sequels add this tone to a universe where it didn't exist as much. This movie felt like it was pretty far up its own *** in terms of self-importance. They retcon motivations into the first movie (Rachael was programmed as part of a villain's plot, Deckard's even more special than the events of the first film made him out to be) and give motivations to Gosling that are either the result of incredible coincidence or more "Chosen One"-style nonsense. That tone even nicks my appreciation of some of the design: Jared Leto's over-the-top abode was as insufferable as he was. Why would that room exist?
And why is the film 163 minutes long? I like long movies, but they need to justify their length. Watching K slowly approach that furnace thing, slowly open it, slowly take out the bag, slowly remove the bag's contents, and slowly check the date on the wooden horse that the audience already knew was there smacks of self-indulgence. There's no reason for that scene to be constructed that way. They could have made it twice as long, or half as long, and it would make no difference whatsoever. I don't feel that they're respecting the audience here.
And there are worse ways the film disrespects the audience, specifically, the audience's intelligence. Apart from very frequent references to "slaves" and "angels" spelling out the themes, and hamfisted discussion of souls, and being "born, not made", you have little annoyances. The one that irritated me the most was when K was looking at the DNA, and Joi (ugh) comments that humans are just made up of four things, but she's only made up of two. And then she explains, for the idiots, "ones and zeroes". Please, movie, give me a tiny bit of credit here. By the way, naming the protagonist "K" at all, ("Hey, you guys like Kafka? Look what we did here!")
Oh, and not long after Deckard explains that "Sometimes, in order to love someone, you have to be a stranger," Luv kills Joi! Groan!
Some of that may sound nitpicky, but it just underscores that disrespect for the audience. Less nitpicky would be to point out how obnoxious it is to leave an *obvious* red herring (K might be Deckard's son!) floating around for like an hour.
Other observations:
The film seems to take place in one of those rare dystopias with virtually no security whatsoever. Waltzing into the police station and murdering a lieutenant seems to be a trivial matter. For the two most hunted guys in the universe to waltz into the facility where the dream maker works seems pretty easy too.
Why does Wallace want replicants to reproduce? I mean, okay, there's the prestige of having accomplished that, but does he feel that his current method of producing millions of replicants just how he likes them is too fast and efficient? Is he tired of making money by selling replicants, and would prefer that millions of free ones just get produced?
Maybe it's just me, but Joi's AI seemed radically underdeveloped in comparison to that of K, and it's hard for me to really see that relationship making sense. And just the idea of selling a romantic partner that's completely non-physical, in a world with millions of replicants, seems like an odd thing to do generally. By the way, when K makes a choice after seeing the ad for his now-dead girlfriend, is he just stupid? Or does he react to seeing her artificiality laid bare for the sake of the audience, who the filmmakers clearly believe to be stupid?
How the hell did Wallace perfectly copy Rachael but then get the eye color wrong? Whether or not Deckard didn't go along purely because of that, just how could you make that mistake? Did they make her from scratch, and just neglect to check that part? Totally bizarre.
"Well, K is hurt, so we'll just leave him over there and then go complete our evil master--oh ****! It's K!"
Obviously I could keep going, but you get the general idea. ;-)
Anyway, to be a bit positive, the film obviously looked absolutely stunning, and the performances were generally pretty good all around, particularly Harrison Ford, who I thought was stunning the bar conversation scene, and Dave Bautista, who's clearly a much more impressive actor than I thought he was. I'll take special care to check out movies he shows up in!
Some good criticism's there, @ProfJoeButcher
I agree with you on the waltzing into the police station to murder the chief of Police. At least in the original Batty used JF Sebastian and some nifty chess moves to get to Tyrell.
I must admit, K's AI girlfriend did seem a bit iffy at times and seeing the film again I could really go against the idea or like it. I was very unsure about the 'sync' scene. It was like that bit out of the movie Ghost when Patrick Swayze borrowed Whoopi Goldberg's body!
I don't think they got Rachel's eye colour wrong (they were brown in the original) it was just Deckard winding Wallace up and being nonchalant when seeing Rachel again was hard to take.
I'm hoping I get an even better experience when I watch the film again, and hope it's not one of those that when seen for a second time the flaws become all to apparent.
Wow, lots of good points there... I glossed over a lot of that because for ME, the movie is a one-off viewing, and I couldn't be invested enough to really care. I've seen the first nearly a hundred times, and I never really needed a sequel anyway.