Blade Runner 2049- early review (no spoilers)

[JasonEvans]

I'll merge this with the other Blade Runner thread (http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?39077-Blade-Runner-2049/page3)in a day or two, but I wanted it to stand out for the moment so folks would know that I had gotten to see the movie and am here to share my thoughts.

First of all, the quick and dirty -- This is a truly outstanding piece of sci-fi; challenging and thoughtful, a very worth successor to the original. If you loved the first Blade Runner, you won't want to miss this!

Now, a bit more detail.

Before the film started, something really unusual happened. A representative from Warner Bros read a statement from director Denis Villeneuve. The statement asked us not to reveal any details about the story, the actors, and so on. It is quite unusual for that kind of thing to happen. Sure, we hear, "please no spoilers," all the time but this went a step further. I will respect Denis' wishes and say that it really is great to see this film without spoilers. I strongly recommend that folks who are passionate about this flick see it opening weekend. That said, I don't want folks to think this is some film that centers on a huge twist like The Crying Game or The Sixth Sense. Denis merely wants folks not to come in expecting anything, because there are a few surprises here and there and it was fun to experience them without knowing anything in advance.

It is interesting that when I checked the Wiki page for this film a few minutes ago, there was a spoiler-laden plot description; something that is not at all uncommon on Wiki. But, I just looked at the page again and the lengthy plot description had been replaced by: "A new Blade Runner, LAPD Officer K, discovers a dark secret that could bring an end to humanity. The discovery leads him to Rick Deckard, a former blade runner who disappeared 30 years ago." That's it. The rest of the plot details had been deleted. So, apparently the good folks at Wiki are doing their best to keep the full story under wraps too. Ha!

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DEOZyGmUAAAX5YS.jpg

The movie really belongs to Ryan Gossling. He is in virtually every scene. Even when he dies midway through the film, he still dominates when he reappears as a ghost (ooops, did I just spoil something -- kidding!!). Seriously, Gossling turns in a fine performance here, very similar to what Harrison Ford did in the first film -- lots of brooding and dour looks. I'm not sure he smiles once in the entire flick. There are several other actors who do a nice job. Everyone brings an earnestness to their roles and the characters clearly stand out from each other. I especially liked Robin Wright as a police boss and Ana de Armas as Gossling's love interest. Jared Leto is so over-the-top strange (in real life and in this role) as the head of the company that makes replicants that he sorta stuck out as a character that almost didn't fit the rest of the film. Still, I would say overall that the cast is quite good.

The universe that is Blade Runner is very interesting. This film expands beyond downtown LA, which is pretty much all we saw in the first film. The bleakness that we saw in the first film is still there even though we have been transported 30+ years into the future. There is almost no vegetation and it seems to constantly be raining or snowing. Denis makes this world a tad easier to see than in the first film, when it seemed like every single scene happened at night. Regardless of the time of day, the scenes are visually arresting and fascinating to gaze upon. The filmmakers clearly spared no expense in designing this world.

Lastly, I need to address the story. It is complex and challenging. This is certainly science fiction at a very high IQ level. I think everything made sense, but I suspect some folks could be bothered by the story. There were a couple times where I said to myself, "Wait, why is he here? How does he know that?" but I generally just let those moments pass and did not fret about them too much. You need to pay attention, but if you do I don't think you will come away too confused about what happened and why. That said, I suspect some folks who are not big fans of sophisticated sci-fi will be disappointed or at least a little bit frustrated.

If it feels like I have not said much... sorry. I ain't gonna say more. All you need to know is that this is a complex film, but a very good one and it goes nicely alongside a film that is believed to be among the finest sci-fi movies ever made. Don't go in expecting an easy moviegoing experience, but I am certain you will walk out wanting to talk about what you just saw.

-Jason "once it has been out a few days, we will have a spoiler discussion about it if folks want" Evans

[BD80]

I'll merge this with the other Blade Runner thread (http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?39077-Blade-Runner-2049/page3)in a day or two, but I wanted it to stand out for the moment so folks would know that I had gotten to see the movie and am here to share my thoughts.

First of all, the quick and dirty -- This is a truly outstanding piece of sci-fi; challenging and thoughtful, a very worth successor to the original. If you loved the first Blade Runner, you won't want to miss this!

Now, a bit more detail.

Before the film started, something really unusual happened. A representative from Warner Bros read a statement from director Denis Villeneuve. The statement asked us not to reveal any details about the story, the actors, and so on. It is quite unusual for that kind of thing to happen. Sure, we hear, "please no spoilers," all the time but this went a step further. I will respect Denis' wishes and say that it really is great to see this film without spoilers. I strongly recommend that folks who are passionate about this flick see it opening weekend. That said, I don't want folks to think this is some film that centers on a huge twist like The Crying Game or The Sixth Sense. Denis merely wants folks not to come in expecting anything, because there are a few surprises here and there and it was fun to experience them without knowing anything in advance.

It is interesting that when I checked the Wiki page for this film a few minutes ago, there was a spoiler-laden plot description; something that is not at all uncommon on Wiki. But, I just looked at the page again and the lengthy plot description had been replaced by: "A new Blade Runner, LAPD Officer K, discovers a dark secret that could bring an end to humanity. The discovery leads him to Rick Deckard, a former blade runner who disappeared 30 years ago." That's it. The rest of the plot details had been deleted. So, apparently the good folks at Wiki are doing their best to keep the full story under wraps too. Ha!

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DEOZyGmUAAAX5YS.jpg

The movie really belongs to Ryan Gossling. He is in virtually every scene. Even when he dies midway through the film, he still dominates when he reappears as a ghost (ooops, did I just spoil something -- kidding!!). Seriously, Gossling turns in a fine performance here, very similar to what Harrison Ford did in the first film -- lots of brooding and dour looks. I'm not sure he smiles once in the entire flick. There are several other actors who do a nice job. Everyone brings an earnestness to their roles and the characters clearly stand out from each other. I especially liked Robin Wright as a police boss and Ana de Armas as Gossling's love interest. Jared Leto is so over-the-top strange (in real life and in this role) as the head of the company that makes replicants that he sorta stuck out as a character that almost didn't fit the rest of the film. Still, I would say overall that the cast is quite good.

The universe that is Blade Runner is very interesting. This film expands beyond downtown LA, which is pretty much all we saw in the first film. The bleakness that we saw in the first film is still there even though we have been transported 30+ years into the future. There is almost no vegetation and it seems to constantly be raining or snowing. Denis makes this world a tad easier to see than in the first film, when it seemed like every single scene happened at night. Regardless of the time of day, the scenes are visually arresting and fascinating to gaze upon. The filmmakers clearly spared no expense in designing this world.

Lastly, I need to address the story. It is complex and challenging. This is certainly science fiction at a very high IQ level. I think everything made sense, but I suspect some folks could be bothered by the story. There were a couple times where I said to myself, "Wait, why is he here? How does he know that?" but I generally just let those moments pass and did not fret about them too much. You need to pay attention, but if you do I don't think you will come away too confused about what happened and why. That said, I suspect some folks who are not big fans of sophisticated sci-fi will be disappointed or at least a little bit frustrated.

If it feels like I have not said much... sorry. I ain't gonna say more. All you need to know is that this is a complex film, but a very good one and it goes nicely alongside a film that is believed to be among the finest sci-fi movies ever made. Don't go in expecting an easy moviegoing experience, but I am certain you will walk out wanting to talk about what you just saw.

-Jason "once it has been out a few days, we will have a spoiler discussion about it if folks want" Evans

Does the film require familiarity with (or strong recollection of the details of) the original?

[JasonEvans]

Does the film require familiarity with (or strong recollection of the details of) the original?

Hmmmmmmm...

I would not say it requires strong recollection of the original. If you know that Harrison Ford was a blade runner who hunted replicants and that he ran off with a replicant female (Sean Young) at the end of the first movie, I think you will be fine. There is a message at the beginning of the movie that should help to catch folks up on the world in which they are about to spend the next 2 1/2 hours.

[BD80]

Hmmmmmmm...

I would not say it requires strong recollection of the original. If you know that Harrison Ford was a blade runner who hunted replicants and that he ran off with a replicant female (Sean Young) at the end of the first movie, I think you will be fine. There is a message at the beginning of the movie that should help to catch folks up on the world in which they are about to spend the next 2 1/2 hours.

Does it follow one of the versions (Original, Director's cut, or Final cut) over any of the others?

[Mabdul Doobakus]

This is my most anticipated movie in a very long time, and it was so even before all the good reviews started pouring in. I'm a huge fan of the original. I thought the trailer looked amazing, and Arrival was maybe my favorite movie from last year (after not expecting much because Sicario annoyed the crap out of me).

Glad to hear you liked it. I won't be able to see it until Sunday at the earliest, but I may try to make that happen, even on an NFL Sunday.

BTW, also looking forward to your review of My Little Pony: The Movie, maybe my second most anticipated movie of at least the last decade.

[JasonEvans]

Does it follow one of the versions (Original, Director's cut, or Final cut) over any of the others?

The subtle differences in each of these films is not addressed in a meaningful way in this film.

[JasonEvans]

BTW, also looking forward to your review of My Little Pony: The Movie, maybe my second most anticipated movie of at least the last decade.

There was a screening more than a week ago...

... I did not bother to go see it. Sorry ;)

[JasonEvans]

Apparently, I am not the only critic who liked it. 95% on Rotten Tomatoes and a very impressive 85 on Metacritic (it is a ton harder to get a high number on Metacritic than it is on RT). As I often do, I recommend reading the excellent review (http://collider.com/blade-runner-2049-review/) by my good friend Matt Goldberg, film critic for Collider.com.


Denis Villeneuve’s sequel, Blade Runner 2049, takes everything that Scott attempted with his 1982 feature and improves upon it by embracing real characters and a worthwhile storyline. While the director has demanded that the details of this story be shrouded in mystery, it’s at least a narrative where I can see clear forces in conflict rather than Deckard running around, shooting replicants, and then we all wonder at the end if he was a replicant or not. 2049 takes all of the strengths of the original as well as a couple of the weaknesses to create something more stunning and powerful than its inspiration.

-Jason "Matt also points out the stunning visuals in the film. I agree and think this could be the film that finally (after 13 other nominations) gets Cinematographer Roger Deakins his first Oscar" Evans

[PackMan97]

BTW, also looking forward to your review of My Little Pony: The Movie, maybe my second most anticipated movie of at least the last decade.

To much information....too much information.

[weezie]

So I can rest assured that Ryan Gosling is still maintaining his sexiest guy around title!

[JasonEvans]

So, anyone who saw it last night want to chime in?

[chriso]

So, anyone who saw it last night want to chime in?

I liked it. It was a bit more slow moving than I thought it would be, especially in the middle, but it really picked up once Mr. Ford showed up. The kind of movie that gets you thinking; but they could have tightened the pace in a few scenes. But powerful and haunting for sure. Its pace will divide audiences just like the original did. The imagery was absolutely stunning. Very well acted. Wish I had seen it in IMAX.

[Atlanta Duke]

Ruh-roh

In an unexpected turn, Denis Villeneuve's big-budget sequel Blade Runner 2049 is veering dramatically off course in its box-office debut.

The long-awaited sequel to Ridley Scott's cult 1982 sequel grossed $12.7 million Friday from 4,058 theaters for a weekend debut in the $30 million-$35 million range, well behind expectations....

skewing notably male (71 percent) and older, with 63 percent of ticket buyers over the age of 35.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/weekend-box-office-blade-runner-2049-crashing-30m-debut-1046808

Audience may build through favorable reviews but favorable reviews do not recover $150 million in production costs

[YmoBeThere]

On 4000+ screens. Looks like the theater owners went all in and now they've gat a bunch of empty seats.

[JasonEvans]

So, aside from, "look at how gorgeous it looks" what was done to market this film? The director did not want anything revealed and the studio agreed. The result was that the trailers and other marketing tell you almost nothing about the story. Essentially, they counted on two things to bring in an audience: 1) The fact that it was a Blade Runner sequel and 2) Ryan Gossling.

The problem with #1 is that even though Blade Runner is an incredibly iconic and influential sci-fi film, it was never a huge hit with wide audiences. It did paltry boxoffice back in 1982 and has never been a staple of repeat viewing on TV. The only way someone under 30 has seen the film is if their father (hard core sci-fi like the original Blade Runner skews male in a big, big way) showed it to them. So, the fact that it is a Blade Runner sequel means you will draw sci-fi loving older males... and that is about it. As a result, the opening weekend audience is 53% men over the age of 25. To build a hit, you need to bring in more than just that audience.

One would think that #2 would help with other quadrants. Gossling is popular with women and he is a young actor. But, he's never been a big boxoffice draw. He has been in exactly 1 film that made more than $100 mil at the boxoffice (La La Land, which did much of its business late in its run, thanks to award buzz). The biggest opening of his career was Crazy, Stupid Love (more of a Steve Carell film) which made $19 mil in its opening weekend. He's a star, for sure, but he's not Chris Pratt or Leo or RDJr.

With a $170 mil budget and large marketing costs, the studio is probably going to lose big money on this flick... such a pity.

-Jason "it is possible the movie will do good boxoffice eventually thanks to awards season stuff, but that will be so late in the run, the studio will have real trouble making their money back" Evans

[Atlanta Duke]

So, aside from, "look at how gorgeous it looks" what was done to market this film?

-Jason "it is possible the movie will do good boxoffice eventually thanks to awards season stuff, but that will be so late in the run, the studio will have real trouble making their money back" Evans

Deep dive into the problems of marketing this film in this Deadline article today

One additional angle may be that length was not a major problem for films in earlier generations (Lawrence of Arabia 216 minutes/Godfather 202 minutes/Lord of the Rings Return Of The King 201 minutes)

http://www.imdb.com/search/title?groups=oscar_best_picture_winners&sort=runtime,desc

But it may now be a real problem for a theater experience as opposed to streaming something at home

That 163-minute running time is a killer. Forget about the fact that Blade Runner 2049 has its slow moments. Once you count the trailer pre-show, how do you ask audiences to commit four hours of their time to sit in the theater?

http://deadline.com/2017/10/ryan-gosling-blade-runner-2049-harrison-ford-opening-weekend-box-office-1202183063/

[BD80]

... Essentially, they counted on two things to bring in an audience: 1) The fact that it was a Blade Runner sequel and 2) Ryan Gossling.

...

One would think that #2 would help with other quadrants. Gossling is popular with women and he is a young actor. But, he's never been a big boxoffice draw. He has been in exactly 1 film that made more than $100 mil at the boxoffice (La La Land, which did much of its business late in its run, thanks to award buzz). The biggest opening of his career was Crazy, Stupid Love (more of a Steve Carell film) which made $19 mil in its opening weekend. He's a star, for sure, but he's not Chris Pratt or Leo or RDJr. ...



Not a lot of cross-over in audiences between La La Land and Blade Runner

Kinda like casting Hugh Grant as James Bond

[Indoor66]

Maybe people would like to see something that is original.

[Tommac]

Saw it Friday at the first showing (12:15pm) and there were probably no more than 30 people in the theater, a decidedly older audience. Parts of the movie were hard to follow and the length may be an issue for some. Things did pick up when Harrison Ford appeared. Definitely a good movie, but not great. For me a worthy sequel to the original.

[bjornolf]

Deep dive into the problems of marketing this film in this Deadline article today

One additional angle may be that length was not a major problem for films in earlier generations (Lawrence of Arabia 216 minutes/Godfather 202 minutes/Lord of the Rings Return Of The King 201 minutes)

http://www.imdb.com/search/title?groups=oscar_best_picture_winners&sort=runtime,desc

But it may now be a real problem for a theater experience as opposed to streaming something at home

That 163-minute running time is a killer. Forget about the fact that Blade Runner 2049 has its slow moments. Once you count the trailer pre-show, how do you ask audiences to commit four hours of their time to sit in the theater?

http://deadline.com/2017/10/ryan-gosling-blade-runner-2049-harrison-ford-opening-weekend-box-office-1202183063/


Holy crap! It's got an hour and twenty minutes of previews?!

[YmoBeThere]

Holy crap! It's got an hour and twenty minutes of previews?!

That or the reviewer had Atlanta* traffic to contend with and included that time.

*Or any other major city with bad traffic.

[BD80]

Holy crap! It's got an hour and twenty minutes of previews?!

The previews are the best part!

Of course, assuming you are attending an action/adventure flick. That way, you'll see the best part of every movie previewed, and won't ever need to see the full features previewed, it's not like you'll miss the plot.

[Doria]

Saw it last night and enjoyed it. Actually, it was faster paced than I expected. Great cinematography and acting. I thought they could/should have trimmed about 15 mins off; did we really need all the flashbacks to things that happened less than three hours before? And they could have tightened up the middle section, as well. But this feels like nitpicking. Obviously, it is not as good as the original, but for what it is and wanted to be, I thought it was a solidly successful film.

One of the first “event” movies I can remember seeing on opening weekend that had a full theater but zero applause after it ended. Perhaps this was due to seeing it in Culver City as opposed to Hollywood proper.

[Mabdul Doobakus]

Saw it on the IMAX tonight and thought it was stunning. Everything I would want in a Blade Runner sequel except maybe the soundtrack was just a little grating at times (part of this is probably because the volume in this IMAX is always turned to 11).

The original Blade Runner was pretty slow, but I thought this was fast paced by comparison and I didn't really feel the run time of nearly 3 hours...was actually a little surprised at how quickly it seemed to fly by. The IMAX was reasonably well filled for a Sunday night showing. Was hard for me to gauge the overall reaction afterwards.

[CameronBornAndBred]

You missed the part where this thread says no spoilers.

[CameronBornAndBred]

With BR2049 only pulling in 31M, and two action movies on tap (The Foreigner and Snowman), one with Jackie Chan, will this movie have the legs to get past the 100M mark?

Plus, Tyler Perry, and one of his gawd awful movies, will be stealing candy from the box office, too.

[Mabdul Doobakus]

You missed the part where this thread says no spoilers.

My bad. Can't seem to edit it unless I'm missing something.

[fidel]

Why ‘Blade Runner’...

http://www.vulture.com/2017/10/why-is-blade-runner-the-title-of-blade-runner.html

[luburch]

Caught a 7pm showing last night. About 30 people in the theater and some waiting to come in for the next showing when it was over.

I really enjoyed it. Thought it could have been about twenty minutes shorter, but that was my only real complaint. Are we still doing the no spoilers thing?

[JasonEvans]

Are we still doing the no spoilers thing?

Naah, been out long enough so that spoilers are allowed, I think.

[weezie]

Just saw it today. Loved it. Not a slow moment in it, maybe a bit too much of Robin Wright drinking sake but otherwise jam-packed. Laughed out loud at using Robin Wright's face for computer recognition then banging her head into the desk.

So, if the spoiler alert is off, per the upper post, how did Wallace amass his power/wealth? My take is, he's a replicant.

We know eyeballs are tagged but did they know bones were too before the power wipeout? How were the memories implanted into Joe/K?

Is there any talk of another sequel?

Really disappointed the film isn't doing better box office.

[Tommac]

Just saw it today. Loved it. Not a slow moment in it, maybe a bit too much of Robin Wright drinking sake but otherwise jam-packed. Laughed out loud at using Robin Wright's face for computer recognition then banging her head into the desk.

So, if the spoiler alert is off, per the upper post, how did Wallace amass his power/wealth? My take is, he's a replicant.

We know eyeballs are tagged but did they know bones were too before the power wipeout? How were the memories implanted into Joe/K?

Is there any talk of another sequel?

Really disappointed the film isn't doing better box office.

That was my biggest question at the end, how and why did Joe get the memory of the wooden horse?

[JasonEvans]

Replicants are given memories because it allows them to function better. Their AI works better when it has experiences to build upon. A replicant knows how to order a meal or drive a car because it believe it has already experienced that through implanted memories. That is how they are made.The memories also allow humans to better control the replicants. Replicants without implanted memories are more likely to malfunction and disobey human commands.

This was all explained to some extent in the first film. It is just a given in the second film that replicants are given memories. Dr. Steline (Deckard and Rachel's daughter) is an expert at designing the memories that will be implanted and she uses her own memories whenever she can because "real memories are the best ones."

[luburch]

Where does everyone stand on Deckard being a replicant? I think he is. I know Ridley Scott and Ford have differing opinions on the matter.

I thought it was odd for K/Joe to figure out he was the child so early on in the film, so I supposed I should have seen that twist coming, but I didn't. The memory about the horse had me fooled.

[JasonEvans]

Where does everyone stand on Deckard being a replicant? I think he is. I know Ridley Scott and Ford have differing opinions on the matter.

I feel like the fact that he aged a good bit from the lat movie means he is not a replicant. I mean, were they built with the ability for their skin to wrinkle and hair to go grey? Plus, if Deckard is a replicant, why wasn't he given any of the enhanced strength and other abilities of the other replicants? I mean, he had no chance in a hand-to-hand fight in the first film and he was clearly a lot weaker than K in this film.

If he was a replicant then that makes Dr. Steline a replicant too, right? She'd be the offspring of two replicants. Frankly, at that point there would be no real difference in a replicant and a human, would there?

-Jason "I know Ridley wants Deckard to be a replicant, but I'm not entirely sure I trust his storytelling after some of his mistakes with Alien" Evans

[weezie]

That was my biggest question at the end, how and why did Joe get the memory of the wooden horse?

I think they are actually twins. What was the syndrome that the female baby was supposedly afflicted by that caused her to be confined in the "bubble"?
Why couldn't there have been two babies, replicant both or one human, one replicant? Stelline validates K/Joe's memory, did she implant it into him?
Emergency Csection...

One last thing, the music on K's phone, "Peter" from "Peter and the Wolf" Almost every time, it caught me off guard. What's the symbolism there?

[alteran]

Finally saw it. Wow.

Following up an absolute classic is an impossible feat, I think Villenueve pulled it off. Stunning visuals. Apropos visuals.

Soundtrack was bang on. I couldn't tell if those were actual throwback Moog synthesizers, but they sure as heck sounded like it. Kept the feel of the original while updating the sound quality. Again, well done.

By modern standards, BR49 had a slow, almost languid pace. Probably pretty trying for modest audiences trained to expect a string of action sequences with no more than 4 minute gaps. Again, I thought the pace was perfect.

Glad I saw this one in the theater. Wish it had done better box office.

[alteran]

That was my biggest question at the end, how and why did Joe get the memory of the wooden horse?

I assumed it was part of the misdirection/cover-- the deception was carried so far that even K's memories imply he's a "conceived replicant."

Of course, for the memories to be implanted, they'd have to be taken in the first place, so Stelline and K are not in sync age-wise.

Despite aging, I have to assume Deckard is a replicant, because... isn't the whole underpinning of the story that replicants are presumed sterile and have to be manufactured-- but now one HAS reproduced? That's the miracle, that's what changes the whole game, and that's why Stelline is both dangerous AND has to be hidden.

If she's the product of a human/replicant pairing, that plot point is lost. (And, as Jason pointed out, if humans + replicants can have children, replicants are LITERALLY humans, which is an interesting idea, but one which moots a lot of the plot.)

I can't think of any theory that completely holds water, but Deckard-is-a-replicant is the theory that springs the fewest leaks. I honestly don't think it's even close.