• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Blade Runner 2049 Review Thread

C

Chained Prometheus

Member
Ether_Snake said:
That review makes me think they fucked yp exactly as I expected it to. It will make the original plot something that was actually a whole new plot. Batty's real purpose! The Replicants' real purpose! Rachel was actually human! That kind if crap.
Click to expand...

Eh, I happened upon at least part of what the mystery/hook is in one of the other reviews. I'm not going to repeat what that is here out of respect to anyone else, but I'd say it's a bit different from the examples you're listing here.

From the sound of things, 2049 does have a bigger scale than the original film but its central narrative is also very much a personal one.
 
J

- J - D -

Member
One common refrain from a few of the reviews I've read (io9, village voice, forbes,etc ) is that this movie can be aggressively obvious about itself in terms of its delivery of ideas, themes, character beats. That would be a shame because aside from the theatrical cut with the narration the original wasn't so ready to coddle its viewers. The most insidious thing I could have imagined is a sequel that is in essence and nature the feature film equivalent of that Deckard narration. I hope that is not the case.
 
H

HoJu

Member
Chained Prometheus said:
Eh, I disagree in the sense that I think it's also wrong to go in with the idea that the original film is flawless and can't possibly be topped. Stagnation does no favors for anyone.

They're both films. And clearly the reviews indicate that 2049 is a film that's pretty damn special- much like the original. I'm sure that plenty of people will still prefer the original and I think that's A-okay. But let's not act like the task of potentially making a better film than the first is impossible either.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying it's impossible for people to like it better or that it can't be, just that if you love the original and go into this one thinking it'll be better, there's a better chance you'll be disappointed even if it's good.
 
C

Chained Prometheus

Member
- J - D - said:
One common refrain from a few of the reviews I've read (io9, village voice, forbes,etc ) is that this movie can be aggressively obvious about itself in terms of its delivery of ideas, themes, character beats. That would be a shame because aside from the theatrical cut with the narration the original wasn't so ready to coddle its viewers. The most insidious thing I could have imagined is a sequel that is in essence and nature the feature film equivalent of that Deckard narration. I hope that is not the case.
Click to expand...

Ehhhhhh, no, I think the original film is pretty damn obvious from the get-go on how we're supposed to sympathize with the Replicants. That opening crawl is very clearly meant to establish that what humans- Blade Runners especially- are doing to the Replicants is immoral.

Obviously the other cuts of the film are not as outright hamfisted as the theatrical cut with the narration spelling it all out entirely, but Blade Runner isn't really that hard to figure out if you're paying attention.

HoJu said:
I'm not saying it's impossible for people to like it better or that it can't be, just that if you love the original and go into this one thinking it'll be better, there's a better chance you'll be disappointed even if it's good.
Click to expand...

Oh certainly, I can agree to that much. I just get frustrated at the idea that topping the first film is some sort of impossible task.

It absolutely can be done, and it sounds like 2049 might accomplish that for a certain portion of the audience. Not the whole audience, maybe not even most of it. But it seems that at least some of them will probably walk away preferring this film to the original.
 
C

captjohnboyd

Member
Fucking Telegraph review has a huge spoiler as well. God damn it I didn't see it mentioned that it was spoilerific so I thought I was good. Guess I'm on blackout from now on
 
J

- J - D -

Member
Chained Prometheus said:
Ehhhhhh, no, I think the original film is pretty damn obvious from the get-go on how we're supposed to sympathize with the Replicants. That opening crawl is very clearly meant to establish that what humans- Blade Runners especially- are doing to the Replicants is immoral.

Obviously the other cuts of the film are not as outright hamfisted as the theatrical cut with the narration spelling it all out entirely, but Blade Runner isn't really that hard to figure out if you're paying attention.
Click to expand...

I think there's a difference between that and how the reviews suggest 2049 handles itself. I used "aggressively" because it seems the film spells itself out repeatedly throughout.
 
X

Xater

Member
Not actually reading the reviews because I don't want to be spoiled. Dennis is on a fucking roll though. Guy can seemingly do no wrong and can tackle all kinds of material. Can't wait for his Dune.
 
B

burgerdog

Member
God dammit the atmos room at my local theater is being used for the 3d showing. I would rather watch it in 2D but their other rooms are using different tech that doesn't look as good as the one in the atmos room. Bought the 3d atmos tickets /salty
 
A

AuthenticM

Member
Xater said:
Not actually reading the reviews because I don't want to be spoiled. Dennis is on a fucking roll though. Guy can seemingly do no wrong and can tackle all kinds of material. Can't wait for his Dune.
Click to expand...

My favorite novel is being adapted by my favorite director.

That movie's going to kill me.
 
C

Chained Prometheus

Member
- J - D - said:
I think there's a difference between that and how the reviews suggest 2049 handles itself. I used "aggressively" because it seems the film spells itself out repeatedly throughout.
Click to expand...

I think it depends on how you feel the original film handles that matter. I absolutely think Ridley spells it all out in the original film, at least for me. That doesn't make me like the film any less or find it to be a flaw. It's just that Ridley has a very clear position that he makes vividly clear from start-to-finish, so long as the audience member is paying attention to the film. It depends on the individual, I think.

Hell, it's interesting because Ridley very clearly takes the polar opposite opinion on the concept of the replicants than what Phillip K Dick did in the original novel. In PKD's take, the androids are very clearly a wrong entity. Ridley instead champions them as the new super-humans and sympathizes with them more than their human counterparts.
 
B

Bill R Boggess

Member
- J - D - said:
One common refrain from a few of the reviews I've read (io9, village voice, forbes,etc ) is that this movie can be aggressively obvious about itself in terms of its delivery of ideas, themes, character beats. That would be a shame because aside from the theatrical cut with the narration the original wasn't so ready to coddle its viewers. The most insidious thing I could have imagined is a sequel that is in essence and nature the feature film equivalent of that Deckard narration. I hope that is not the case.
Click to expand...

To be fair, it’s not as if the original possess some deep thematic buried in an overtly complex narrative that requires copious deconstruction and analysis to uncover.

The overarching theme of what makes us human coupled with the exploration of humanity’s existential crisis transposed onto an artificial being with a truncated lifespan are blatantly obvious.

Unless the sequel has Villeneuve holding cue cards that spell out the symbolism or meaning of particular scenes, I have a difficult time believing this will be more on the nose than the original.

I think people mythologize the films they love, especially when those films are clearly as important and influential as Blade Runner and they add layers of complexity that aren’t necessarily present or intended by the filmmaker.
 
D

dlauv

Member
Why is the guy with this thumbnail always the dissenting voice.

v1.YzsyNDc1O2c7MTc0NjA7MjA0ODszODs0Mg


Glad to see it's reviewing well though. The previews didn't look that great.
 
S

SuperStiltzkin

Member
Razorback PT said:
Oh boy... I just can't help but be wary of disappointment.

Can it really be that this sequel to one of my all-time favorite movies is a masterpiece? That sounds highly unlikely, but Fury Road has proven that miracles do happen.

I don't know... wait and see I guess.
Click to expand...

How do you define masterpiece? Better than the original? As impactful and influential on you as the original? Seems like an unfair and nebulous metric to be measuring it by.

Because yes, it is very possible that a movie sequel can stand on its own two feet as a great film in its own right.
 
C

Chained Prometheus

Member
Bill R Boggess said:
To be fair, it’s not as if the original possess some deep thematic buried in an overtly complex narrative that requires copious deconstruction and analysis to uncover.

The overarching theme of what makes us human coupled with the exploration of humanity’s existential crisis transposed onto an artificial being with a truncated lifespan are blatantly obvious.

Unless the sequel has Villeneuve holding cue cards that spell out the symbolism or meaning of particular scenes, I have a difficult time believing this will be more on the nose than the original.

I think people mythologize the films they love, especially when those films are clearly as important and influential as Blade Runner and they add layers of complexity that aren’t necessarily present or intended by the filmmaker.
Click to expand...

Exactly! Blade Runner isn't as obtuse in what it has to say as other films like 2001: A Space Odyssey. It's far more straightforward with its content in that regard and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that being the case.
 
B

Bill R Boggess

Member
AuthenticM said:
My favorite novel is being adapted by my favorite director.

That movie's going to kill me.
Click to expand...

DUNE is one of those Grail quests that nobody in Hollywood has been able to fully achieve.

Jodorowsky failed to get it off the ground. (And as interesting as his movie seemed, it wouldn’t have been a particularly faithful adaptation.)

Ridley Scott eventually abandoned the project.

Lynch made a white hot mess with some decent elements.

The miniseries was serviceable but bland.

Peter Berg was at some point connected to direct but that (thankfully) fell through.

Pierre Morel was briefly considered to helm it. (Also a blessing he didn't)

And now finally we’ve got the right man for the job.

I predict Dennis is going to finally achieve the ultimate and definitive cinematic version of DUNE and it will be glorious. :)
 
SofNasciment-

SofNasciment-

Member
Simply awesome. I loved Blade Runner and was very excited when Villeneuve was announced as the director.

Alas it seems Sicario is not his best film anymore...
 
J

- J - D -

Member
Chained Prometheus said:
I think it depends on how you feel the original film handles that matter. I absolutely think Ridley spells it all out in the original film, at least for me. That doesn't make me like the film any less or find it to be a flaw. It's just that Ridley has a very clear position that he makes vividly clear from start-to-finish, so long as the audience member is paying attention to the film. It depends on the individual, I think.

Hell, it's interesting because Ridley very clearly takes the polar opposite opinion on the concept of the replicants than what Phillip K Dick did in the original novel. In PKD's take, the androids are very clearly a wrong entity. Ridley instead champions them as the new super-humans and sympathizes with them more than their human counterparts.
Click to expand...

Bill R Boggess said:
To be fair, it's not as if the original possess some deep thematic buried in an overtly complex narrative that requires copious deconstruction and analysis to uncover.

The overarching theme of what makes us human coupled with the exploration of humanity's existential crisis transposed onto an artificial being with a truncated lifespan are blatantly obvious.

Unless the sequel has Villeneuve holding cue cards that spell out the symbolism or meaning of particular scenes, I have a difficult time believing this will be more on the nose than the original.

I think people mythologize the films they love, especially when those films are clearly as important and influential as Blade Runner and they add layers of complexity that aren't necessarily present or intended by the filmmaker.
Click to expand...

We're obviously at a disadvantage because most of us have yet to see how 2049 handles itself, but I still think that despite Blade Runner perhaps not being some nebulous puzzle (and I never suggested it was), the way its themes are delivered feels natural and in lock step with how the characters progress. The one thing I don't want are scenes where two characters stand around and lecture you on the current state of the human experience as it relates to artificial life and all of its requisite risks implications. Might not be on the level of cue cards but I can certainly imagine a scenario where its handled more clumsily than the original film.
 
shamo42

shamo42

Member
HoJu said:
Village Voice
Click to expand...

The earlier film delicately balanced terse, noirish metaphor with New Age dreaminess. All that has been replaced by something far more aggressive and familiar — a chase/quest narrative that feels not unlike any number of sci-fi/fantasy blockbusters from the past couple of decades.

Part of the magic of Blade Runner was what was missing: It was like an earworm, insinuating itself into your brain thanks in part to the fact that it felt strangely incomplete. You wanted to see it again because you needed to see it again; its mysteries began when the end credits rolled. Careful, dutiful, and beautiful, Blade Runner 2049 cannot achieve the sublime slipperiness of Scott’s masterpiece.
Click to expand...

This review lowered my expectations. The unorthodox story telling of the first movie is one of the reasons it was so special imo.

It's a damn shame Blade Runner 2049 seems to be more mainstream in that regard.
 
B

Bill R Boggess

Member
- J - D - said:
We're obviously at a disadvantage because most of us have yet to see how 2049 handles itself, but I still think that despite Blade Runner perhaps not being some nebulous puzzle (and I never suggested it was), the way its themes are delivered feels natural and in lock step with how the characters progress. The one thing I don't want are scenes where two characters stand around and lecture you on the current state of the human experience as it relates to artificial life and all of its requisite risks implications. Might not be on the level of cue cards but I can certainly imagine a scenario where its handled more clumsily than the original film.
Click to expand...

Anything’s possible but given Villeneuve’s current filmography he seems to traffic in subtly and moral gradients far more comfortably than Scott, whose characters are generally binary.

When you consider films like Sicario and Prisoners, those are some very deep and complex characters, many of whom clearly cannot be categorized easily within the “good” or “evil” constructs.

By contrast, Scott had the opportunity to make David from Prometheus a very interesting and nuanced character and ended up turning him into a straight-up mustache-twirling villain in Covenant.

But you’re right, we’ll be able to discuss this in a more informed manner once we’ve actually seen the film.
 
B

Bill R Boggess

Member
shamo42 said:
This review lowered my expectations. The unorthodox story telling of the first movie is one of the reasons it was so special imo.

It's a damn shame Blade Runner 2049 seems to be more mainstream in that regard.
Click to expand...

So what?

This film is a sequel and clearly, it is extrapolating on the first and going into a new direction with new material. Expecting it to be “incomplete” or “slippery” like the first is a nonsensical expectation in my opinion.

These kind of reviews – that make it all about the original – miss the point of a sequel, which is to further expand on a universe established by the progenitor. NOTHING is going to feel like the first film because the original was made in a different time by a different director with different aims.

What matters is if the film respects the source material enough to create an extension that is worthy of original and by almost all accounts, it does exactly that. Whether or not it is better than the first is incidental to me because if this film can come even within relative proximity of Blade Runner, it will be one of the best science fiction films of the last twenty years.

My two cents anyways.
 
J

- J - D -

Member
Bill R Boggess said:
Anything's possible but given Villeneuve's current filmography he seems to traffic in subtly and moral gradients far more comfortably than Scott, whose characters are generally binary.

When you consider films like Sicario and Prisoners, those are some very deep and complex characters, many of whom clearly cannot be categorized easily within the ”good" or ”evil" constructs.

By contrast, Scott had the opportunity to make David from Prometheus a very interesting and nuanced character and ended up turning him into a straight-up mustache-twirling villain in Covenant.

But you're right, we'll be able to discuss this in a more informed manner once we've actually seen the film.
Click to expand...

Yeah on the grounds of his solid body of work I'm more than willing to give Villeneuve the benefit of doubt. I'm just trying to hedge my (rising) expectations a bit.

I agree with you on modern-day Ridley Scott. The tragic thing about his handling of David in Covenant is that he does have moments of incredibly restrained nuance; early brilliance swiftly taking a turn off a cliff into the thickest pool of schlock.
 
D

Drahcir

Member
In regards to the Village Voice review, so having a more focused story than the original is a negative as it pertains to BR only? How would a retread of Scott's BR slipperiness have made it stand apart from the original and be less adherent to its legacy? Then some other reviewer would only point out that flaw for its unoriginality.
 
C

Chained Prometheus

Member
- J - D - said:
Yeah on the grounds of his solid body of work I'm more than willing to give Villeneuve the benefit of doubt. I'm just trying to hedge my (rising) expectations a bit.

I agree with you on modern-day Ridley Scott. The tragic thing about his handling of David in Covenant is that he does have moments of incredibly restrained nuance; early brilliance swiftly taking a turn off a cliff into the thickest pool of schlock.
Click to expand...

Ridley having to pass on directing 2049 himself and giving the reins over to Villeneuve was probably the best thing that could have ever happened to this movie.
 
B

Bill R Boggess

Member
Drahcir said:
In regards to the Village Voice review, so having a more focused story than the original is a negative as it pertains to BR only? How would a retread of Scott's BR slipperiness have made it stand apart from the original and be less adherent to its legacy? Then some other reviewer would only point out that flaw for its unoriginality.
Click to expand...

Yeah, funny how that works, isn't it?
 
J

Jarmel

Banned
Can we have a spoiler thread already or can we talk about the thing that every reviewer is already mentioning, in spoiler bars?
- J - D - said:
One common refrain from a few of the reviews I've read (io9, village voice, forbes,etc ) is that this movie can be aggressively obvious about itself in terms of its delivery of ideas, themes, character beats. That would be a shame because aside from the theatrical cut with the narration the original wasn't so ready to coddle its viewers. The most insidious thing I could have imagined is a sequel that is in essence and nature the feature film equivalent of that Deckard narration. I hope that is not the case.
Click to expand...
The thing I'm getting is that Niander seems to be over the top. People who don't love the film talk about him feeling out of place and too monologue heavy.
 
B

Bill R Boggess

Member
- J - D - said:
Yeah on the grounds of his solid body of work I'm more than willing to give Villeneuve the benefit of doubt. I'm just trying to hedge my (rising) expectations a bit.

I agree with you on modern-day Ridley Scott. The tragic thing about his handling of David in Covenant is that he does have moments of incredibly restrained nuance; early brilliance swiftly taking a turn off a cliff into the thickest pool of schlock.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

I actually loved what Scott was doing in Prometheus but it appears he folded to the pressure and opted instead to make another Alien film and in doing so brought everything down several notches.
 
K

KraftyKrankins

Member
FYI for USA folks: Just found out the theaters near me will be showing the original Blade Runner(TFC) on October the 4th. No sure if it'll be a thing all over the states or just in a few of them but I thought I might give you guys the heads up. I know I won't be missing out on the chance of seeing the movie on the big screen.
 
N

NealMcCauley

Member
KraftyKrankins said:
FYI for USA folks: Just found out the theaters near me will be showing the original Blade Runner(TFC) on October the 4th. No sure if it'll be a thing all over the states or just in a few of them but I thought I might give you guys the heads up. I know I won't be missing out on the chance of seeing the movie on the big screen.
Click to expand...

Yeah one of the former Carmikes/now AMCs nearby will show it on their giant screen. Should be a treat.

It looks like Regal RPXs will be doing a double feature on the 5th too.
 
G

Get'sMad

Member
even as one of the biggest skeptics of this thing in all the other threads I'm still going to go into this thing with an open minded next week.....though I can't help but still be really disappointed about what happened with the score. That Voice review blurb about Zimmer doing his Zimmer thing was a bummer.
 
P

Poor GRIMES

Banned
As someone whose never seen the original, will it be a necessary viewing to understand what's going on or is the sequel more standalone
 
G

Get'sMad

Member
Probably? Maybe not?

You should see the original asap just because its one of the best damn movies of all time regardless of this one coming out.
 
shamo42

shamo42

Member
Bill R Boggess said:
These kind of reviews – that make it all about the original – miss the point of a sequel, which is to further expand on a universe established by the progenitor. NOTHING is going to feel like the first film because the original was made in a different time by a different director with different aims.

My two cents anyways.
Click to expand...

I don't need or want it to be a copy of the first one. However, I expect(ed) a more unique way of story telling. Not something similar to every major sci-fi Blockbuster out there.
 
T

tonysidaway

Member
Poor GRIMES said:
As someone whose never seen the original, will it be a necessary viewing to understand what's going on or is the sequel more standalone
Click to expand...

It's likely you'll enjoy the film more if you've already seen the original. I don't think it matters much which version as they're all substantially the same film, but the Final Cut is probably the most cinematically perfect and complete version.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Poll
Stellar Blade | Review Thread
Analysis Review Hype 8 9 10 11 12
586
45K
Mithos replied
Dune: Part Two - Review Thread
News 6 7 8 9 10
496
24K
Ulysses 31 replied
  • Poll
Dragon's Dogma 2 | Review Thread
Analysis Review 11 12 13 14 15
731
66K
DavidGzz replied
Avatar: The Way of Water | Review Thread
4 5 6 7 8
377
28K
sankt-Antonio replied
*RUMOR* Ryan Gosling to star in Universal's reboot of monster classic, Wolfman
Rumor
7
1K
teezzy replied
Top Bottom