[MOVIE] Blade Runner 2049

Meat Grinder

Meat Grinder

FGM Lieutenant General
FGM MEMBER
Joined
Apr 4, 2015
Messages
11,265
Reaction score
8,625
Age
58
Location
Tennessee
Watched this today with my nephew, whilst sampling various hot sauces on a large order of Pizza Hut wings. Note to self: have a glass of milk ready when trying the "Carolina Reaper" sauce.

This movie is a sequel to the 1982 sci fi "noir" film "Blade Runner", starring Harrison Ford, Rutger Hauer, and others. I don't pretend to be any kind of film critic or historian, but even I know that the 1982 Blade Runner is a milestone in cinematography. Also, Rutger Hauer's "Tears in Rain" speech at the end, even though, as legend has it, is ad-libbed, is a seminal moment in sci-fi films.




So....real down and dirty, quick TLDR history of the Blade Runner universe (as I understand it): There was (if I understand it correctly) a nuclear war. Things got bad, on an environmental scale. Humanity created Replicants, who are essentially bio-engineered versions of humans, with superior strength, speed, and skills. The Replicants are treated as a slave class, and do most of the dirty work of humanity, including war. Blade Runners are policemen who hunt down and "retire" (kill) rogue Replicants. Replicants cannot (?) reproduce.

Blade Runner 2049 takes place in the year, you guessed it, 2049......30 years after the first movie. Ryan Gosling plays a Replicant Blade Runner, who discovers that Replicants might actually be able to reproduce, in the biological way humans do.

The original Blade Runner was all about atmosphere, and this movie nailed it, hands down. Two thumbs up. The only criticism I can offer is it is about 20-30 minutes too long, IMO. Perhaps a Director's Cut can trim it a bit....or perhaps I need to watch it again, in the comfort of my own home, without my mouth being on fire.
 
Last edited:
That's true. Would be interesting if they would allow Ridley Scott to do his own cut.

Overall, I think it's well worth watching.

@Badger73 it actually was treated very favorably by most movie critics, and won multiple awards:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1856101/awards

It has an 87% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

Where it did fall short was in the box office, where it only grossed $259 million worldwide. According to Wikipedia "The projected worldwide total the film needed to gross in order to break even was estimated to be around $400 million". Now, I don't know how DVD, Blu-Ray, and streaming sales figure into that, but I would imagine the studio will make a profit when you factor those in.

I rarely go to the cinema these days, usually preferring to wait for the movie to come out on Vudu or Blu-Ray.
 
It can get so many awards as wants. That say nothing about the "quality" - sadly. It´s the same with books - every new book today is a bestseller and has this and this award gotten. As You wish! But that makes it no better. And concerning the minority and to cite Schiller: "Verstand ist stets bei wenigen nur gewesen." /"Sense was always with a few only." ;) But in earnest - I don´t want to make the movie bad for You. If it is to Your likeness then be happy. For me it wasn´t and so I was not happy.

Greetings
 
Sempai, you aren't going to make the movie "bad for me" no matter what you say as I form my own opinions. :) I was just pointing out that, in this instance, my opinion aligned with the majority of film critics, which isn't always the case.

Enjoy it, or don't. I did. :)
 
Last edited:
Another thing they captured very well in the new movie was the sound design which I found almost on par with Vangelis' now legendary score.
If you guys didn't know, they released three short movies before the premiere that in different ways touch upon what happened between the first and the second movie. Very well done and can be found on Youtube.
 
I've just started it as I was able to recently record if off of HBO. I have a large screen TV and I must admit the visuals alone have my attention. After about 30 minutes it is pretty much as I expected, dark, depressing and fascinating. Being a big fan of the original I don't think I'll be disappointed. No Hauer is a bummer though. Perhaps under rated in the original was Daryl Hannah as Pris. I was under her spell whenever she was on screen.

 
mTk said:
I've just started it as I was able to recently record if off of HBO. I have a large screen TV and I must admit the visuals alone have my attention. After about 30 minutes it is pretty much as I expected, dark, depressing and fascinating. Being a big fan of the original I don't think I'll be disappointed. No Hauer is a bummer though. Perhaps under rated in the original was Daryl Hannah as Pris. I was under her spell whenever she was on screen.

Click to expand...
Yes, Hannah was perfect in that role. She really created a replicant vibe about her. Classic fight scene. Classic makeup.
Interesting clip - thanks.
 
Well guys I haven't seen it, but I have to say I didn't get 20 minutes into the original before turning it off just a few months ago. (I tried to like it, I really did) It's kinda like 2001, I didn't like that either and I'm a YUGE Kubrick fan. I'm a big Sci Fi guy, but those 2 movies didn't do anything for me.

Just sayin
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom