Want to help support this channel? Consider subscribing on Patreon: www.patreon.com/TheCriticalDrinker

I respect the shit out of this movie for actually feeling like the original and not becoming a dumb action movie

Making K NOT the "Chosen One" was subverting expectations, but done the right way.

This is a miss for me man. This movie is an artistic masterpiece and has some of the best cgi I have ever seen and it’s story is beautifully tragic.

I felt that everything is deliberate. The audience is supposed to want Joe's life to have meaning. But the movie keeps finding new and heartbreaking ways to emphasize its meaninglessness in the midst of all the intrigue of the events that surround him. It's almost felt like the audience is desperately searching for its own meaning in parallel to Joe. By the end we desire for Joe "become" the main character in his life and in this movie. All of this is what makes the true climax at the very end so powerful.

Personally, I love 2049. It wasn't a rehash remake that just did the same thing as the original. And there's a clear love and respect for the original.

I really enjoyed that the movie seemed to trust its audience to actually pay attention without constant explosions

You know, K's entire story arc wouldn't have worked if we didn't know that he was a Replicant, right?

As for "why?" 4:55, it is stated in the movie: Wallace Corp cannot keep up with replicant demand required to populate the galaxy. No central production could. This is one of the odd parts of the plot: the bad guy and the good guys effectively want the same thing, reproducing replicants. Just for different reasons.

“Why would Wallace want to make Replicants who can reproduce?” Because someone else did. Wallace considers himself a god, and yet he hasn’t mastered what someone else did.

Also this film has a scene in which love kills joy. Literally. Someone has really dark sense of humor.

L review. This film is a masterpiece!

Wow, the Drinker literally missed everything this movie did well. - Replicants came back with new safeguards (including the Baseline test) after a huge backlash and takeover of the Tyrell corporation - As stated by Tyrell in the original movie: “Rachel is special.” This is why she was able to have children and didn’t have a 4-year lifespan. - Wallace kills the new replicant because it lacks the ability to reproduce, showing his ruthlessness and lack of feeling toward replicants. The Drinker had some amazing videos (esp. Disney Star Wars) but lately he’s just relying on his persona so he can just complain about everything. Lazy & boring.

I think Blade Runner 2049 is the only sequel made after a huge gap of time that actually felt like a continuation.

Blade Runner 2049 just oozed aesthetic to the point that you could use nearly any scene as your wallpaper. And it was a pretty great movie to watch.

There will never be another scene like "Tears in Rain..." That scene was so gravitating! Just grabs you by the throat! The original Blade Runner is a masterpiece!

Batty was simply ICONIC, including his variation of the script with improvised lines, his look, the way he showed emotion and carried himself...

"I've drunk things you wouldn't believe. Amaretto on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched Jim Beam glitter near the Anheuser brewery gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like beers in rain. Time for rye." 😂

i saw this AFTER seeing the last jedi. blade runner 2049 was way more entertaining to watch

I feel like the drinker has missed a few key plot points to 2049, so I'll try to explain bit by bit what I believe he might've let fly over his head. 1.) The New Models of Replicants -The Drinker mentioned near the beginning that he found it was an odd choice to make Officer K a Replicant Blade Runner, even though the movie clearly establishes that Wallace Corp had perfected the obedient artificial slave, and weren't designed with the 4-year lifespan of the original Nexus-6 models. As for what Wallace seeks to accomplish by creating a race of Replicants able to reproduce, I always saw it as a God complex. The man is clearly very in his own head about things, and we do have powerful billionaires who want nothing but more power and control, even if they have plenty of that already. -And yes, K (or Joe, as many fans call him) does inevitably rebel at the end. But I think this was only due to the shocking idea that he might have been a real human this entire time. It ended up not being the case, but imagine the opposite. Imagine your entire life, you've lived believing you were real and you ended up being artificial. That's what happened to Rachael's character in the original movie, and clearly it shifted her entire view on not just her own life, but life in general. K rebelled because he thought he made a shocking discovery about himself. It was enough to break through his obedient programming. 2.) Finding Deckard in Las Vegas -The city of Las Vegas had long been abandoned due to its excessive levels of radiation, so although the search of Deckard would still be difficult, no, there aren't "hundreds and thousands of inhabitants." Whatever went down in Vegas (some have speculated that it was some kind of nuclear war that produced such extreme levels of radiation) had forced everyone who lived there to evacuate. And as one can clearly witness in the scene itself, K used a heat tracker and found the bee farm, presumably put up by Deckard himself. One point the Drinker makes that I think really doesn't take anything away from the film's world-building is all the tech, furniture, and alcohol that was left behind in the city. When a nuclear disaster threatens an entire population, I'm sure the last thing they care about is the resale value of tech that would take a while to uninstall. Now a point the Drinker makes that I do agree with is that concluding that the wooden horse was from Vegas simply by its high levels of radiation doesn't really seem to make much sense. I'll give him that one. 3.) Off-World Torture Techniques -This is a small point, but I always assumed that Wallace didn't want to risk getting caught torturing a man for information. And as only the rich are able to travel Off-World, the chances of anyone actually uncovering it and exposing Wallace for such inhumane tactics would be a lot less of a risk. But I can't say this is concrete, this is just what I believe the case to be. 4.) The Antagonists -I'll agree that I wasn't all that much a fan of Leto's character. In comparison to the original Blade Runner (Roy Batty and his friends) he's pretty flat. But once the Drinker compared him to Tyrell, it got me thinking that maybe that's the point. Eldon Tyrell created Replicants because he genuinely believed he could make the world a better place with them. He completely misfired in that ambition, yes, but he genuinely believe in what he was doing. Tyrell was charming and really thought that his line of Replicants would bring about a positive change in the world. Wallace, however, has none of that. This is why I'm beginning to think his flat delivery of pretentious philosophical lines makes a lot more sense now; Tyrell was ambitious and wanted to make the world a better place while Wallace thinks of himself as a God (i.e, his line about having millions of children when Deckard assumes he has none.) -As for Luv, it's pretty obvious that she suffers from extreme trauma. She cries at the sight of Wallace murdering a newborn Replicant, and is even shown to want to be the best Replicant, or Wallace's "perfect angel." This isn't out of love, (no pun intended) but fear. Deep fear has been instilled into her since she was first created and it's clearly turned her into his tool, not his perfect angel as she might want to believe. When Luv kills Robin Wright's character, she tears up and spouts "I'm going to tell Wallace you attacked first" as if she's just a petulant child, and not a fully-grown woman. I DO see a bit of complexity in her. As opposed to Roy Batty, where what he's been through is basically told to us through exposition, I like that Luv's backstory is only implied. Overall I understand the Drinker's points here and I respect his opinion (as everyone should.) But I do believe that he overlooked a few things that might've made the movie's plot tighter to him. Some of these points were more obvious, and some are clearly just speculation made by myself and other viewers. But I just wanted to share my two cents on this. Thank you for the review

I think the Drinker needs to watch this one again, and also the three shorts Villeneuve commissioned to fill in some of the time between the original and this. He seems to have missed a lot. There are still some holes (e.g., how did that serial number get into a cracked bone? Are replicants manufactured or grown? Or both?) but overall this sequel is damn good. The great question, "What makes us human?" gets played with in many ways and in both directions. Joi isn't just a toy. Luv isn't just a cipher.

CD; you got everything perfect except for "Love", who is in many ways used as a mirror for K. See Wallace calls ALL the replicants by the nickname "Love". It's not her name, it's just a generic nickname Wallace calls the replicants (and by extension, her). She wants DESPERATELY to be important, so her whole character is wrapped up in trying to please and get the attention of Wallace, it's her whole identity, even taking the nickname he calls everyone as her own name so she can lie to herself about how important she is. She wanted to be special and is so wrapped up in her lies she would instinctively lash out at those who WERE special (or she perceived as such). K in comparison also wants deep down to be special, to be more then just a replicant, it's why he works hard to make "Joi" seem more human, it's why he bites so hard on the possibility he was birthed (meaning he had a soul). However in the end, just before the final showdown he's confronted by the ad for Joi, and it all comes together in his head, when she (the ad) calls him by that same nickname his Joi used to call him (see the similarity with wallace and love?)... In the end he faces the truth. He's not special, joi never loved him, but was programed to make him feel like he was loved, and so he goes into his final battle at peace with the fact that he'll never be special. But he also makes an independent choice. He decides instead of killing Deckard like he was asked, like a good automaton should, he brings Deckard together with his daughter. He creates something real, rather then destroy, and dies. It's a lovely if understated tragedy.

It still didn't answer the question: Do androids dream of electric sheep?

This is what the new Star Wars trilogy should have been. Not just a remake of the old movies, but an actual continuation of Return Of The Jedi.

All of Denis Villeneuve's films are visual masterpieces. Sicario didn't have a particularly artistic landscape, but the score and cinematography gave it another dimension.

"Why do I get First Order vibes from this?" Whoah whoah whoah whoooaaah there. Look, 2049 may not be the best sequel ever, but don't you dare bring up that other sequal's name in this circle.

Poor Ford, the old man is so tired of these damn movies that he didn't even bother to change his casual clothes for the film recording.

We reflect on the original blade runner often as if it is a perfect movie Let’s remember there are three versions, one is a masterpiece, but not without its problems This is far superior to all but the proper directors cut and even then, it’s close

Blade Runner 2049 is a masterpiece 🙌

You missed the heart of this movie. It's about transcending self/ego. K is an "average joe" who is lured towards the belief that he is special (born, not made, the first ever replicant offspring), only to have all his hopes dashed. He truly is nobody. He's not the one. Not even the love of his virtual girlfriend was real ("You look like a good joe"). And it's in this state of defeat that he finally becomes capable of a truly selfless act. On the other side of ego-death is the capacity for service. He chooses to save Deckard, and in so doing loses his own life. This is the same thing that Roy Batty experienced in his final moments, when finally struck by the futility of his own life: he chose to save Deckard. The movie is philosophically deep. BR2049 is a greater exploration of the existential theme of the first movie.

This movie is one of the few That came out in the past 20 years that I actually enjoyed.

You're possibly putting too much emphasis on aspects of characterisation in the original and hoping for more of the same. What many people reference about Bladerunner is how it blew their mind visually and aurally and still does to this day. I first saw it on videotape aged ten and it affected me deeply, despite not understanding what was going on, and I still regularly listen to the soundtrack in isolation. 2049 follows the same path and I believe that, visually at least, it is a masterpiece. I can't think of another director who could have done this justice so it was worth waiting an extended period for the right man. Timing is everything.

No big risks? I'd argue setting up the main character as the " chosen one" just to kill him off was a huge risk (won't see this in mainstream films). I think trying to follow from the first one was maybe a mistake. I honestly would argue it's best to see this as its own story set in the blade runner universe. The K story arc is an amazing tragedy story, I wondered if it could be a commentary of a realistic dystopia, with the rise of only fans, how isolated people are becoming and an increase in working hours due while wages stagnate against inflation. The first one (my favourite film ever I think) asked BIG questions, this was a beautiful story about a small individual and his seemingly insignificant life.

Agent k gets treated appallingly and used by everyone. And yet, his choice at the end is to save deckard and take him to see his daughter. He should have killed him to preserve the secret, but instead and despite all the abuse he suffers and how he is lied to and used... He makes the human moral emotional choice to reunite him with his daughter - bollocks to the robot resistance. And then lies down and dies of his injuries. He chooses to spend the last few minutes of his life not killing someome but rather saving. Making a humane choice. Just like the original

Only just realized that Tyrell died from having his eyes shoved into his head and now Wallace is a blind man.

"he goes there and runs into deckard within 5 minutes". He found the bee boxes using his scanner and inferred there was a humam nearby. Also there were lots of cuts.

It really had a great message, though. When you lament the state of messaging in modern movies, you can't fault this one. Sometimes, you are NOT the hero of the story. Sometimes, you only play a part. Still, it is important that you do the right thing to the best of your ability.

2049 is that rare sequel that doesn’t spit on its predecessor while also taking the time to be it’s own thing. It’s not a perfect movie by any means, but it’s very well made. One of the most visually arresting films I’ve ever seen.

2049 was one of those films where my jaw dropped just because of how incredible the cinematography was. Watched it 5 times knowing this film won’t be on the big screen ever again. A film I’ll never forget

My favorite modern film. Truly a masterpiece of cinematics, pacing, and emotion.

This movie is one of the greatest sequels in film history. You’re not giving it the credit it deserves. It may even be better than the original - which is a masterpiece within itself.

For the record, Rachel was an extremely rare “Nexus 7.” Tyrell’s masterpiece. When he died, the secret died with him. We were never sure if Rachel’s lifespan was limited to 4 years. At any rate, natural reproduction by a Nexus 7 is something for which the universe has no established canon up to this film, given that there were so few Nexus 7’s before Tyrell’s death. Roy Batty and his cohorts we’re Nexus 6 models. If Deckard is a replicant like Rachel (and that’s a big if) then he too would be a Nexus 7; unbound to any of the rules of Nexus 6 models like Priss and Roy, as well as being unbound to the later Nexus 8 models we see in the film.

Im a massive Blade Runner fan, and i was surprised by how much i enjoyed this film. I was worried theyd make a hash of it.

I love how all these comments are telling him how and why he’s wrong

This movie was magic for me. Dennis Veuilleves scope, detail, immersive visuals and spectacular score, the well thought out plot and pacing combined with the character performances make up an absolute masterpiece and more than worthy sequel to one of the most philosophical and visionary movies ever made. This absolutely adds value to the original story and unpacks many of the original core ideas while adding a further layer of what it means to be alive, have a soul, trancendence though sacrifice from dedication to others and explores many of the theological concepts of Philp K Dicks original story. Also the scene where K is getting interviewed for mental stability, while holding the secret of his internal change and struggle with his change in worldview, having to recite the company precribed script that Gosling improvised based on lines from the book builds tension and insight that is breathtaking. Every bit as mind blowing as the original blade runner and cemented for me how exceptionally gifted Veuilleve is as a creator and respecter of the original source material. 'Cells within cells..... interlinked, dreadfully distinct' and 'dying for a noble cause is the most human thing we can do' Astonishingly good and more importantly, worthy of genuine praise.

This is a sloppy review from someone who normally hits the mark. To say this film "doesn't take risks" is ridiculous: the slow pacing, the decision to subvert Joe's role as the chosen one, the meditative analysis on humanity in a post-human world- are these typical features of a big budget Hollywood action film? The main complaint seems to be "this movie should have been made back when Harrison Ford could be the star", which misses the fact that Ford's acting in 2049 is the best work he's done in years. Remember his pained face when he sees the fake Rachel: "I know what's real"? As a vision of cyberpunk dystopia, this movie knocks it out of the park, people will still be talking about it decades from now.

Tyrell : "More human than human" is our motto. Rachel was a prototype not the standard Nexus 6.

One thing I like about this film is, its faithful to its original film. Something I don't fully get from most of the present day sequels.

While it can't equal the original, it was a worthy follow up that like the original, gets better with multiple viewings.

"I've Drunk things, that you people wouldn't believe" - The Drinker probably

I love you Drinker but you missed the mark on this one. @2:05 "K's Conflict of interest" But the new generation of replicants are given some serious conditioning and monitoring. Human hubris about their ability to control new models is part of the point. K mostly hunts down older, less reliable combat models- they are INCREDIBLY dangerous to humans- so a super powered replicant is easily the best choice for dealing with them. (humans get absolutly wrecked by replicants through the whole film) @3:40 "Danger of Deckards child" It IS happening. The resistance was founded around her, and continues to operate. Wallace only becomes aware because the police do- and he moves quickly to capitalize. K's Boss sees that as just as big a problem as anything. @3:50 Value of replicant breeding. They do go through the same processes. They do age, and the new models DON'T have the same lifespan cap. Again, Wallace hubris. However, they are expensive and slow to manufacture - Wallace wants to breed them like cattle to exponentially grow his workforce. It's unlikely he would make ALL replicants have this function, just his breeders. We don't know because we never see him attempt it, but its dumb to assume he would always do it in the stupidest, riskiest way possible. @4:13 "Wallace Corp is Just Tyrell Corp". The film is actually making this observation but then undermines it. When we first see Wallace Corp pyramid, its towering over Tyrell Corp, indicatign its the new, improved, more powerful version of the same corporation. However, at the end of the film, we see that Walla pyramid is only really a pyramid on one face- the other face is flat- like its cut in half. This is visual metaphor- Wallace himself pretends to be the genius of Tyrell, but he's not, hes a hollow imitation. @4:50 "Why'd Wallace Kill the replicant?" Because she was a new breeding attempt that as failed. Killing her in front of Luv was a test/act of dominance- one of his eyes is watching her the whole time. He's a piece of crap with a messianic complex who thinks he has total control over these new replicates. Leto coming off as a self loving wanker was the point. @5:50 "How does radiation lead back to vegas" The guy puts it in a spectrometer. It's my understanding you can trace radioactive material really precisely, even what right down to what enrichment facility created the fissile material after a nuclear blast. @6:35 "Why would you leave all the stuff in Vegas behind". Because irradiated stuff is deadly over time. This shouldn't even need to be explained. Deckard surviving there is meant to be a clue to his replicant-ness. (The only other humans that go there are all shown using re-breathers to protect themselves from irradiated dust, for example- only Luv, Deckard and K don't wear one). I could go on specifically but the basic summation is- Luv is interesting because she is meant to be a "head house-n***r" type character that is happy to oppress other slaves to be the one privileged slave. K's whole life until that point WAS meaningless- he thought he had purpose and love in Joi- but that was another Wallace Corp delusion. He thought he had it as a born child- but that was another delusion. His arc is him realizing he can develop humanity through action- not by being told he's special by his fake girlfriend or by being born special- but by ACTION. He creates purpose and becomes a man by stepping up and making his own choices. I could go on but i look insane.

I'm bucking the trend here, I think you're pretty much spot on with your analysis. As I watched this movie properly for the first time the other week, I couldn't help but feel that something was missing from the original. It was the mood set by that sax music. Gave it a kind of sultry romantic vibe. Plus most of the characters were not likable, compared to the original were most had some endearing charm to them, even Roy and Pris. You're right this movie should've been made 20 years earlier, like around the time Ford was in that movie with Brad Pitt. Imagine how big a Blade Runner sequel would've been back then if Brad Pitt played the character of K.

Only time I've ever disagreed with the best reviewer on KZfaq. This was one of the best films I've ever seen. Masterpiece. Shocked at the fact he doesn't like it.

The iPhone of Movie Sequels? Now there's a missed opportunity for an Android joke...

One of the things I liked about 2049 was how the love interest in the movie (Joi) not only doesn't feel forced, but actually has a purpose and is probably a good chunk of what helped push the plot along on K's side once things started to get going.

I watched it, I thought it was OK, and I felt absolutely nothing for anyone on the screen. There was no poignancy to the story, no emotional connection. Characters appeared, did something, and then went away. Nothing touched me. I'll watch it again someday, and maybe see something more to it, but I doubt it. The original was something that I saw as a teenager when it came out. Frankly, it went over my head; I didn't get it. Years later, I saw it again as a college student, and it punched me in the gut. It's been my favorite movie for decades since. I don't expect this one to grow on me though.

Absolutely loved this movie. With all due respect, the plot points you criticize and question are all easily answered. This movie is a masterpiece. You should revisit your review, after a couple more viewings. 10/10 from me. One of my favorite films of all time.

The only thing I found memorable about this movie was the relationship between K and his virtual girlfriend. I found it incredibly depressing when, after her destruction, K comes across a holographic advert that tries to woo him. And through her dialogue to him, reveals that his virtual girlfriend was probably just spouting preprogrammed BS that seemed real at the time... Too much like real life. 🤷‍♂️

The cinematography and sounds of this movie are sensational

K realizing he isn’t the Chosen One and deciding to do the right thing anyway when he absolutely could have fucked off and left Deckard to his fate was the character moment of the story. K was programmed to obey, but in saving Deckard he made a choice to do the right thing which arguably was the first actually altruistically noble action he makes in the movie

I actually liked 2049 better, I just didn't get the original. It's obviously a pretty big departure from the first one but I thought it was easier to follow and more interesting

One of the few times I vehemently disagree Drinker. This movie is a marvel, a sci-fi classic, a visual masterpiece, and one of the best sequels of all time. Ryan Gosling is so good in this. I’ve watched it several times now and I have to say, it gets better with each subsequent viewing.

"How does the replicant child grow up?" -you've obviously never seen a miracle.

I actually loved this movie for the same reasons I loved the original - the filmmakers didn't hand everything out on a platter, and there were no easy answers.

Call me crazy but for me the Joi storyline and the social and philosophical questions that it raises are enough alone to justify the whole film. 😏👍

The story should have revolved more around Deckart’s narrative as a man alone with his grief and his booze. New title: Blade Runner: Critical Drinker

If only we all had a joi in lockdown. Covid would’ve been easily starved out

I agree with the majority of what you said, but not all. I gave this movie a 9 out of 10, and that is rare for me. The visuals and the score are just incredible. There are scenes in this that just blow you away, visually. Story-wise, there are some issues, and I think multiple viewings may clear some of that up. However, this movie actually introduced a concept that I've never seen anything deal with before, and that is the idea of an AI being in love with a replicant. We've had plenty of human-robot or human-replicant love stories, but never one between an AI and replicant. The entire story-thread dealing with Joi I just found incredibly intriguing.

Highlight of this film was that I could watch it at the cinema, and experience that synth, with those visuals, the way that it was intended. The first film is still one of my favourites, and as old as I am, I was born the year Bladerunner hit the cinema... So I missed that one. Am quite tempted to watch both films again.

Finding a location based on radiation, or specific isotopes, is something we can already do to some extent... Forensics have identified corpses', based on isotopes and chemical flags found in the water or environment of their home locale, also being present in their corpse... Even when the bodies may have been located far from their home.

Fun Fact: David Bowie was originally casted for Jared Leto's role.

When an entire city has a radiation leak. All the furniture and items have to be abandoned and can’t be brought with the people during the evacuation. The same type of radiation found in Las Vegas must be rare enough that it wasn’t a coincidence to contaminate a wooden horse.

I just watched the original & 2049 for the first time recently and while I enjoyed the original, I enjoyed 2049 so much more. I’m definitely going to rewatch it soon. I wish it had done well enough to get a sequel.

This movie left me with a lot of emotions. During the walkout of the theater I started thinking deeply and intensely about life and the nature of reality. Not many films have done that and it was very satisfying. After seeing it a second time in theaters, I had a deeper understanding this story. 1) There was no real decoy, it was purely on paper. K/Joe is utterly, completely, unequivocally unremarkable. Thus his name - Joe, as in an Average Joe. 2) Joi does not possess a soul, she is completely fake. She is the other side of the replicant coin and is made solely to please and coddle her owner/lover. The giant pink Joi on the bridge calls K Joe as well, and her entire branding scheme is that she'll be anything you want. K wanted to feel special, so his Joi always reinforced this to him, but it was never real. Joi is K's fleeting dream of being special, and once her emanator is destroyed, K learns he is not special. 3) Wallace posed a question about whether Deckard was moved by love or programming. I'm still not sure if Deckard was human or a replicant. The original movie is about a bad man finding his humanity through the grace of a machine. Wallace's question is not a literal "Are you human or robot?" question, but pondering what the difference is, if love is just a chemical, and if we are products of biological programming or something higher like a soul. The ultimate takeaway is that it does not matter, in fact the only thing that matters is what we choose to do with our lives. 4) In summary, 2049 is about dreams and delusions. K wants desperately to be special. Joi tells him this constantly, and he instantly assumes all the evidence points to him because it's his dream. He becomes deluded and forces himself into the situation even as it destroys him. He thinks this is what it means to be human, to grapple with one's humanity. He is torn between two sides telling him what his identity is and should be - the LAPD who informs his identity as that of a slave, and the resistance which informs his identity as that of a free replicant. When his delusion is shattered by meeting the pink Joi, he chooses to follow his own path and not let anyone tell him who he is or what he should do. He makes the most human decision and takes his life into his own hands. He saves Deckard for the same reason Roy did. He wanted someone to remember him, for his final decision that fully validates him as human to not be in vain. No one else gave him his identity, only he did, and his sacrifice ensured forever that he was by every metric a human being, even if the world would ultimately forget him. This is why I love the film and I consider it to be one of the greatest sequels ever next to Aliens and Terminator 2.

I can't think of anything like this movie. A direct sequel that came out over 30 years after it's predecessor with a different director, that matched the themes perfectly, and matched or arguably enhanced the filmmaking aspects.

Yes, the idea was having to go off-world to perform a torture is strange. The first movie does clearly state that Rachel was special, hence she can live beyond the 4 years coded into the majority of Nexus 6 replicants. Love's character convinced me that she was both a psychotic, brutal and a sad "person." I felt emotion from it, maybe because I was drinking? Yes, the original is better, but I did enjoy 2049 very much.

one of my favorite movies of all time 10/10

"Draw jopping visuals" - Drinker

Besides the (what I found to be unnecessary to the plot) Jared Leto storyline, I found the Bladerunner sequel to be a breath of fresh air in veritable sea of bad sequels & reboots.

Deckard was a human who thought he might be a replicant, Agent K was a replicant who thought he might be a human. It was poetically reversed...

This intro is awesome! 👌🤣 I miss this Drinker! And yes Blade Runner 2049 is one of my favourite movies... 😌

Pretty generous to assume we will get a new ASOIAF novel in the next 40 years. Cant wait to share the series with my great great great great grandsons wifes boyfriend.

I always thought K earned his soul at the end of the film, much like Roy did in the first one.

I agree with the drinker on most films but I like this one a lot

Rutger Hauer punctuated 1982 Blade Runner so perfectly that we never needed a sequel.

Rachel wasn’t a normal replicant, she was supposed to be “more human than human”, meaning as close to an actual human as possible, which is what leto’s character is trying to recreate in terms of the ability to reproduce

but Ana de Armas though .. absolutely stunning !

The movie makes clear what Wallace's motivation was. He wanted to expand the human race by off-world colonization and replicants were necessary for this. It's implied that creation of replicants is limited by the methods he has and that many more replicants can be created via biological reproduction. He is motivated by a higher altruistic reason and not a personal desire. Is he good or is he evil? I'd say it is a morally ambiguous question. As for taking Deckard off-world for interrogation, it's clear that would be by torture. Something that is illegal on earth and easier to get away with off earth.

I'm glad we're at a point where you can say that a thing is "the iPhone" of those things, and it not being a compliment.

The most worthy of long awaited sequals. This film was an opus of cyberpunk sci fi with just enough updates to stand alone while being true to it's predecessor.

The implication in the original about Deckard being a replicant was a last-minute brain fart of Ridley Scott which was universally hated by everyone else in the crew. I think that scene was only in the director's cut version.

I think Drinker got what the replicants were wrong. My impressions was that they were fast grown, modified humans with implanted memories so, they could hit the ground ready to work without the whole messy childhood and adolescence thing. That's why they were banned on earth and built with limited life spans. The longer they lived, the more human they could become. Remember in the first movie they were completely banned from living on earth. That's why Decker's job was to air them out. The fact we're making our own superior replacements is part of what makes it scary.

Will never be as good as the original but i did like it

For me, the most salient aspect of BR2049 is that it respects the intelligence of its audience without any lecture or message about the modern day social politic. That's kind of refreshing.

I actually didn't mind it. It was shot beautifully. It paid homage. A couple of holes in the story but I found it enjoyable. Certainly compared to some other movies I've seen in the last few years.

I really din't like the scenario of 2049, all your arguments are sound and fair. I must admit though, the performance of Gosling deeply touched me and I greatly enjoyed the sound design by Hanz Zimmer ! Plus, it remains an impressive visual spectacle...

Considering that the original Blade Runner didn't actually need a sequel, makes 2049 a lot more impressive. It didn't surpass the original, but isn't that far behind either. Didn't f*ckup the lore or insert political agendas (a miracle if you ask me). In top10 best looking films I've seen. Enjoyed every minute of it.

That's strange - I thought it was made clear that they needed self-replicating Replicants in order to service increasing off-world colony demands (if not in the film - the theatrical shorts that came before it). Curious that was missed by TCD. Also - radiation signatures are a thing. They were used for analyzing remote above ground nuclear tests from a distance. High altitude scoops collected elements and fallout to determine location and the design of the weapon during the cold war. As far as material left behind - there's lots of Urbex videos - particularly of Pripyat, that showcase how lots of abandoned areas are left the way they were prior to people fleeing - especially from radiological catastrophe. Japan has quite a few areas after Fukushima. Not a lot of resale value in material that's contaminated. It's just an above ground landfill at that point. In the novel, such troves were referred to as 'kibble'. As more people left Earth - the property was abandoned as cities emptied out. Not practical to take it off-world.

This movie is like fine dining, take your time and enjoy every moment.

I'm a bit surprised you didn't know Rachel was a new prototype that didn't have an expiration date. Movie also added new replicants, new rules to their behaviors, answered whether Deckard was a replicant so they added some new elements. Love's small emotional displays and her insecurities were interesting to me. I'd be curious to see what you thought of Ex Machina from 2014