Blade Runner 2049 review: Scott's vision versus Villeneuve's skill

Stepping into the cinema to watch Blade Runner 2049 was a nervous moment; after The Phantom Menace and Prometheus, was another studio about to take a steaming dump on a pivotal film of my youth? The omens were good. Director Denis Villeneuve gave us probably the best sci-fi film of last year in Arrival and his previous film, …

[Toltec]

This could make me visit the cinema

I haven't bothered for years, nothing has seemed worth it.

Of course if I do and the film is bad I may have to track you down and kill you.

[Mark 110]

Re: This could make me visit the cinema

Oh bugger - nearly didn't read this in case it was bad. I have yet to read a vaguely critical review. Been trying to manage my expectations, but now El Vulture likes it thats completely out the window.

Anyway - lets just hope the iMax in Manchester doesn't burn down before Sunday afternoon . . .

[Martyn 1]

Re: This could make me visit the cinema

I'm off to see it at the IMAX with some mates, the reviews all seem consistently good so I have high hopes.

Just gotta decide which DVD version of the original I'm gonna watch again beforehand.

[Les Matthew]

Re: This could make me visit the cinema

"Just gotta decide which DVD version of the original I'm gonna watch again beforehand."

The Final Cut.

[Danny 14]

Re: This could make me visit the cinema

so 10 years away for the final cut to be released?

[Philip Lewis]

Re: This could make me visit the cinema

Tonight I will be watching "Blade Runner: Final Cut" to set the mood. Tomorrow a trip to the cinema.

Is the iMax version worth the extra effort?

[Caustic Soda]

The Pan Am logo was one of the most often-seen adverts in the original. I know they're defunct IRL but having them back in 2049 is both a reminder to suspend disbelief and a sign of continuity for those who paid attention to the first film.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget Atari....

[Simon Harris]

Hasn't Atari been through a bit of a rebirth?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/07/17/atari-reveals-first-pictures-new-games-console/

[Mike 16]

A bit of a rebirth?

You mean like that experienced by Abbie Normal in Young Frankenstein?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pan Am Logo

I would not be at all surprised if the Pan Am logo becomes a bit of a meme in further Sci-Fi films, in part because of the films that have already featured it but also because the company is now long-defunct, which probably makes its use easier.

I would also not be at all surprised if this does not happen.

[steelpillow]

Re: Pan Am Logo

Elon Musk, if you read this, go buy the goddam brand and resurrect it for your new spaceships!

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Pan Am Logo

Unfortunately, Elon Musk can’t have Pan Am, as somebody else bought the name and logo, and it now runs railways(!).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Railways

[Alan Brown]

Re: Pan Am Logo

IIRC at the moment the Pan Am logo is owned by a railway logistics outfit.

Looks..... Yup.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Systems

"It formerly held a now-defunct airline division." - gotta love the revisionism there. No mention of the original which collapsed in 1991 and got hoovered up.

[Spazturtle]

Re: Pan Am Logo

""It formerly held a now-defunct airline division." - gotta love the revisionism there."

That is referring to the attempt to bring Pan Am airlines back in 1998 which failed.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Pan Am Logo

It's "the curse of BladeRunner" - all the companies featured in the original have since gone bust

[Avatar of They]

Re: Pan Am Logo

I just watched the final cut over the weekend in preparation to watch this film. Coca cola is on the billboards a fair bit.

[GruntyMcPugh]

Re: Pan Am Logo

"all the companies featured in the original have since gone bust"

Except Johnny Walker. Alive and well then, now, and it seems, in 2049 ; -)

[batfink]

Re: Pan Am Logo

@Grunty - and Johnny Walker have actually released a limited edition bottle as seen in BR2049. Yours for £100 on Amazon (as usual, $100 in US I believe). I did consider it for a while and then worked out how much other whiskey I could buy for £100. Very cool thing to have though.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Pan Am Logo

Sieko is alive and well.

[macjules]

Nevertheless, the chaos of a disintegrating environment, an unexpected massive data loss ..

So, adverts for AWS, Deloitte, Yahoo and Equifax then?

[Gary Bickford]

Pan Am - They'llll beeeee baaack

In today's world of old logos and brands being bought and revivified, it could happen. The original Pan Am was a much more entrepreneurial company than I ever realized. Pan Am was very much a startup when it talked Boeing into building the original 314 Clippers, promising to buy them if built. (They actually only bought six of the original and six more of the 314A. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_314_Clipper)

I don't know who owns the trademark today, but I could see Jeff Bezos buying the brand for a hypothetical service using Blue Origin launch vehicles for its competitor to Musk's SpaceX suborbital flight service, or even an orbital shuttle service to space stations and such.

[Alan Brown]

Re: Pan Am - They'llll beeeee baaack

"Pan Am was very much a startup when it talked Boeing into building the original 314 Clippers,"

It was a different era then, particularly in regard to attitudes to market dominance.

Pan Am might never have existed if the Boeing group wasn't forcibly broken up under antitrust laws some years earlier (It became Boeing Airplane company, United Airlines and United Aircraft Corporation) in the wake of the Air Mail scandal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Mail_scandal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Aircraft_and_Transport_Corporation makes interesting reading and shows that Boeing's current antics(*) aren't anything new.

At some point the pendulum is going to swing back and perhaps another Pan Am will spring up.

(*) managing to get a 220% import duty applied to aircraft in a market segment it doesn't even manufacture for.

[Joerg]

Another awful reboot like Prometheus...

..another atrocious movie by Ridley Scott like the awful Prometheus and Alien Covenant weren't enough already.

Now they released an atrocious Blade Runner sequel reboot so pretentious forced and hollow trying to mimic the original in a silly way and with a too long runtime for a very slow boring pacing.

Long gone are the times in which Ridley Scott could direct top-notch sci-fi movies Alien and Blade Runner. Now anything directed or produced by him is an absolute mess and a silly pathetic joke.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Another awful reboot like Prometheus...

Several media reviews started by expressing their initial fears in those terms - then went on to rate the film they saw as 5 stars.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Another awful reboot like Prometheus...

Chin up, no-one much like dthe original when it was released either.

[Dave 126]

Re: Another awful reboot like Prometheus...

This film was directed by Denis Villeneuve, not Ridley Scott. It is a sequel not a reboot. You don't seem to be very well informed for someone with feelings so strong; one wonders why you went to see 2049 in the first place. If you haven't seen it then shut up.

[detritus]

Re: Another awful reboot like Prometheus...

*wipes spittle from face*

ok, i'll bite, Joerg — what recent-ish movies do you consider worth your while?

[Mark 110]

Re: Another awful reboot like Prometheus...

I actually quite enjoyed Prometheus. Bit of a mess plotwise and lacking the brooding tension of the best Scifi thrillers but it was ok.

[Dan 55]

Re: Another awful reboot like Prometheus...

Well if you quite enjoyed Prometheus, whatever you do don't watch the sequel.

[Danny 14]

Re: Another awful reboot like Prometheus...

i watched the my little pony movie this afternoon with my 4 and 8 year old. it was much better than the last equestria girls one. perhaps that will be up your street?

[Dan 55]

Re: Another awful reboot like Prometheus...

Ok, spoilers:

The whole Xenomorph race being the product of a demented robot? Engineers who might have perhaps travelled the galaxy seeding and destroying life being reduced to a bunch of villagers getting wiped out by a demented robot? It's bollocks and it ruins both films.

[WolfFan]

Re: Another awful reboot like Prometheus...

ok, i'll bite, Joerg — what recent-ish movies do you consider worth your while?

From the looks of his rant, Galaxina is about his speed. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080771/

[cosmogoblin]

Re: Another awful reboot like Prometheus...

Have you seen it?

It's definitely not a reboot (which I have as little love for as you, by the way - BSG excepted). And the story is definitely not the same as the original. I kept trying to predict the twists, based on movies in general and the original in particular, and failed almost every time.

I suppose you could say the pace is slow - at least for the first half. I very much liked it, and thought it worked well, but that's a matter of preference.

Bear in mind also that if you don't like the direction (I did), Ridley Scott was little more than an executive producer.

Still, in the interests of balance, it's interesting to see my first poor review of 2049.

[chivo243]

Arrival? good?

I can't comment to that. Even the missus thought it was crap.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Arrival? good?

I thought it was fantastic, a bit like the original Alien, all suspense, but not much action....different tastes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Arrival? good?

I thought it was fantastic, a bit like the original Alien, all suspense, but not much action....different tastes.

Alien was a horror movie disguised as sci-fi. Same with Prometheus (except the Final Girl escapes with half of another character). Haven't seen Covenant yet.

[Mark 110]

Re: Arrival? good?

Alien was a horror film in space (though it had quite a bit of critique of corporate machinations). Aliens was a miltiary action film in space (with overt critique or corporate machinations. [Two of my favourite films btw - I love pure Space Opera as well - Star Wars, 5th Element], The only moral / ethical dimension in Alien(s) was the actions of 'The Corporation'.

Blade Runner was different. It was a detective thriller but it asked deeper moral / ethical questions about the nature of humanity and human society. Thats what the best SciFi does uses dystopian futures, or alien interactions, or reflections on the past, or the challenges of technological advances to reflect on our belief systems. The genius of Blade Runner was it built that moral/ethical narrative around a brilliant detective film noir.

Can't wait to see the new one.

[Alan Brown]

Re: Arrival? good?

"Thats what the best SciFi does"

Indeed. Good science fiction uses technology not as an end in itself but to raise "what if?" questions about the societies that result as well as even deeper questions about human nature.

I've referred to it as "speculative fiction" on more than one occasion.

[Anonymous Coward]

Covenant

I just saw Covenant the other day.

Really not sure wether to like it or hate it, suprisingly. I think Michael Fassbender does a fantastic job in both Prometheus and Covenant (doubly so in the latter - watch it to see what I mean about that). Don't rate many of the other characters though in either movie, apart from Charlise Theron.

The plotlines are properly silly in Prometheus and Covenant had me almost yelling at the TV when the few characters involved seem to completely forget about the welfare of the 2,000 colonists who they're transporting in cryosleep in order to save a couple of their colleagues...

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Arrival? good?

Geiger, apparently, hated the poor quality 'Alien' they created for the first couple of movies. Little more that a guy in a rubber suit.

Somehow I didn't notice that he had passed away in 2014... http://www.hrgiger.com/bio

[Mooseman]

Re: Arrival? good?

"Geiger, apparently, hated the poor quality 'Alien' they created for the first couple of movies. Little more that a guy in a rubber suit"

That's why I like the UK cut of Alien - you barely see the creature, while the US version I watched had, yes, a guy in a rubber suit running around.

[Sir Runcible Spoon]

Re: Arrival? good?

How did you manage to see through your hands?

I remember watching the face hugger attack on frame-advance on my super-duper VHS player of the time and being mightily impressed that it still looked real and, if anything, scarier. If you've never done that, I highly recommend it. There's so much in that split second you don't actually see in real-time.

[Sweep]

Re: Arrival? good?

In the theatrical release you hardly see the alien and it's much better for it. In the Director's cut it is much more apparent that's it's a slow moving prop/ guy in a rubber suit. The DC also has that weird scene with 2 of the crew turning into eggs which throws the pacing off near the end (it was left out of the theatrical cut for good reason).

[MacroRodent]

Re: Arrival? good?

"Arrival" is one of the very few science fiction films that takes seriously the problems we really might face with communicating with extra-terrestrials. One could compare it to "Solaris" (the Tarkovsky version), although it is mercifully not as slow. In most other films, the aliens come speaking perfect English, or there is a magical translation computer (or babelfish).

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Arrival? good?

"...the problems of communicating with extra terrestrials..."

Well let's face it, when 'leaders' are reduced to feeling that using twatter to talk to each other is a route to clear communication then what chance do the rest of us have?

I'm reminded of how a simple phrase three word phrase can be misconstrued with catastrophic consequences.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Serve_Man

[Dave 126]

Product placement

Pan Am, Bell and IBM are featured in Kubrick's 2001. The original Blade Runner featured Pan Am, Coca Cola, Cuisinart, Bulova, Dentyne, Jovan and Budweiser.

https://typesetinthefuture.com/2016/06/19/bladerunner/

The above link is fun.... For example, it has a close-up of the prop newspaper taken from an onset photograph. The Headline reads: FARMING THE OCEANS, THE MOON AND ANTARCTICA. WORLDWIDE COMPUTER LINKUP PLANNED

[PaulyV]

In the words of director Dean Learner...

"Some say Harrison Ford used to be a carpenter...I say he still is."

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: In the words of director Dean Learner...

Maybe so, but without any shadow of a doubt Hayden Christensen makes Harrison Ford look like Laurence Olivier.

The scene where he's 'seducing' Natalie Portman made me feel physically unwell the acting was so bad.

[Gordon 10]

Re: In the words of director Dean Learner...

I blame George Lucas. Watch Hayden in Shattered Glass - you won’t believe it’s the same actor.

[I am the liquor]

Re: In the words of director Dean Learner...

I don't know, I enjoyed Hayden Christensen's performance in this scene.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyAZayrKJ5M

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: In the words of director Dean Learner...

I think he deserved the Razzie for this scene........"Make up....more cardboard please, he's still too lifelike..."

https://youtu.be/buyflmtHcHc?t=43

[Alan Brown]

Re: In the words of director Dean Learner...

"The scene where he's 'seducing' Natalie Portman"

You're forgetting that the entire Star Wars series is a homage to 1930s space opera (complete with unsubtle "Yellow Peril" subtext from the first Cold War) and as such is played in that style.

[ekithump]

Superb

As a massive fan of the original, I was both excited and terrified by the prospect of the sequel when it was first seriously mooted some years ago. When Villeneuve became attached as directer, with Hampton Fancher on (co-)script writing duties I became more hopeful. With both Gosling and Ford on board too, it promised even more.

I went to see it last night, and left very happy and will be seeing it again on Sunday. It lives up to the original in tone and pace, has an intriguing plot that kept me interested, and the performances are all top notch. The score is very good (if not a patch on the Vangelis original, but with nice nods and winks), and the cinematography is frankly stunning.

[Semtex451]

I too will venture back to a cinema to watch this Villeneuve sequel.

The original film, I believe, is a miracle. But a miracle that even Scott would admit he unsympathetically watched built, and was unhappy with. Unhappy, not because it was artistically imperfect but because he thought that every aspect of it was flawed, right down to the novel, screenplay and in fact the entire sci-fi genre. I've watched about 30 hours of early interviews with him on Alien and Bladerunner and he (once) despised having to work on Sci-fi, thinking himself above "all that rubbish". I'm petty, and still hold that against him.

[jarmstrong]

review is not spoiler free and shows lack of knowledge

The review is not spoiler free, name checking both Edward James Olmos and much more specifically Sean Young's cameos are spoilers.

Pan Am and Atari's inclusions are because they were in the original Blade Runner so they've kept the film world's version of the world intact by including them again and it's a nice little nod to the original film.

[MT Field]

I think you'll find the 306 was generally considered a decent motor.

Apparently Scott was an absolute bastard to work for, but to his eternal credit he did manage to make Blade Runner with considerable creative vision, despite the studio's repeated attempts to stop him because of budget (and probably other) issues. It's that creative vision we still value in the original film despite its many glaring flaws.

[Dave 126]

Re: I think you'll find the 306 was generally considered a decent motor.

I loved my 306, the 1.9 Diesel was as reliable as hell... the electrics were a bit more entertaining though. Still, a torquey motor, nippy up hills and through traffic. My mechanic still runs a 406 as his personal motor, mainly because he considers all cars nothing but potential scrap metal... with one exception: a 1930s Bentley Blue Train Racer Replica. Built with three seats, driver, navigator and butler. Butler sat sideways on rear seat (to allow for aerodynamic sloping roof) with a cocktail cabinet. Class.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: I think you'll find the 306 was generally considered a decent motor.

WRC and Le Mans winning cars? Paris Dakar? And perhaps the Editor would like to explain why BMW, Toyota, Land Rover, Jaguar and Ford have all used PSA engines to power their "premium" cars? The 205 was an epic drive in period and still is, the T16 is a legend.

Regurgitating what you heard on Top Gear marks you out as a pedestrian old boy. :-)

[Pedigree-Pete]

Re; T16 is a legend..

Good for bullseyeing Wamprats but apparently not worth anything since the new model came out. PP

[Anonymous Coward]

Which prequels are worse.....

The Star Wars Prequels?

The Prometheus/Covenant Prequels?

How hard was your decision?

[Mark 110]

Re: Which prequels are worse.....

Not a hard one. Doesn't mean Prometheus / Covenant couldn't have been bet. You set a low bar. I enjoyed all those films. All could have benefited from slowing down a bit and just gettin g the pacing right. Build some tension. Stop trying to cram too much in.

The Alien films did that much better but could have been immense if handled right. I think the problem is people get the go ahead (and a launch date) before they have a script.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Which prequels are worse.....

I think it was Orson Wells who said (paraphrased) "...the script is normally finalised 10 minutes after the Premiere screening...."

The nonsense that Prometheus ended up being has to sit with Scott for me, when Shaw (Rapace) was literaaly running around only about a minute after getting stapled back together from the surgery the movie went well beyond 'suspension of belief' into 'just fu**ing stupid' mode for me. Don't even get me started on the two scaredy cat boys trying to make friends with the alien snakesque creature, too too too fu**ing dumb and a good director on form wouldn't allow such scenes to ruin the rest of the movie.

While Covenant was competent and visually gorgeous it didn't move the story forward much in my honest opinion. The whole Fassbinder created the aliens didn't work for me as they already had a hugely efficient propagation method as spores.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to BR2049, going to see it on Monday at the BFI IMAX.

[Wyrdness]

Against the law of nature...

So the Blade Runner sequel is, by all accounts, pretty good. This goes against all known natural laws.

And in other news: Pope renounces catholicism. Bears discovered to be using lavatories.

But thanks for a positive review, I'll definitely be watching it now.

[Sandtitz]

Re: Against the law of nature...

"So the Blade Runner sequel is, by all accounts, pretty good. This goes against all known natural laws."

There are always the exceptions that prove the rule. T2 anyone?

The Thing prequel in 2011 was also (mostly) really good.

And Wrath of Khan was much better than the tedious Motion Picture...

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Against the law of nature...

".....The Thing prequel in 2011 was also (mostly) really good....."

Sorry I can't even begin to agree with this.

The 2011 version was all CGI.

The original version was IMHO fracking brilliant animatronics without a CGI computer in sight. I still marvel at the genius of the production team to come up with the idea of a detaching head becoming a spider head, then make it work, then making it work and look good, all the time using just bladders, air feeds and blood bottles.

The last and technically the best of the animatronic movies without a doubt.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Against the law of nature...

You mean the original 1980s remake of the original 1950s movie?

[Sandtitz]

Re: Against the law of nature...

"Sorry I can't even begin to agree with this. The 2011 version was all CGI."

Yes, it was all CGI, but the F/X were made very much in the same vein as in the 1982 version, and were deliciously odd and repulsive: the merging of two people, the Thing in helicopter and so on.

"The last and technically the best of the animatronic movies without a doubt."

I can't disagree about the quality although animatronics have been used plentifully after 1982. Lifelike CGI started to gain widespread use with Jurassic Park 10 years later - which still had several animatronic dinos.

Remember: CGI and animatronics are just tools.

While 2001, Star Wars, Blade Runner and many other space films had really great model props, animations and so on, they were technically really hard and required lots of work to construct. Star Wreck showed how you can pull pretty fantastic effects on shoe string budget and rendering the CGI with home computers, and that was 12 years ago already.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Against the law of nature...

"...Remember: CGI and animatronics are just tools...."

However the level of technical competence for animatronics is much higher.

If it doesn't look good on CGI just do a bit of recoding and re render it, this can all be done pretty much in pre or post production.

Using animatronics you have to get it right for the actual shot, not only hoping your Heath Robinson contraption actually works in real time, but also that it looks good on the camera. The amount of technical skillset on the animatronics side deserves a much higher level of respect IMHO.

[Tikimon]

Expectation sets the bar

Prometheus depends on where I stand to watch it. The first time around, I was hoping for some good sense related to the Alien history. Bitterly disappointed... story twists and flails to accomodate contrived events and Deus Ex Machina over and over (the video flashbacks). Argh!

Well, I own the disk so once more into the breach. This time I merely went along for the ride, admiring the settings and atmosphere and badass visuals. And that was pretty enjoyable! It's not the first sub-par film I've enjoyed anyway for the eye candy. Shame about that WTF plot though. Finding all the logical holes could be a fun party game.

[BongoJoe]

Re: Expectation sets the bar

With the Prometheus DVD I found I was simply fascinated with the Making Of... bits (all seven hours of it).

The film may be flawed but watching how it was made really impressed me and after watching the Making Of I finally forgive all the flaws and went back and said Wow!

[MrBanana]

But which one is the original?

So it looks like I need to make a trek to my local(ish) IMAX. But, in preparation, what should I watch beforehand?

I have the 5-disc blu-ray Complete Collector's Edition with - supposedly - all 4 official versions + "the rarely seen Workprint". Which one is the most official?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: But which one is the original?

Final Cut.

It's the one that fixes the small glitches, removes the original screening pretty ending but keeps all the good bits.

[Dr_N]

Ruined by fan service and truly awful product placement

... In my view.

(Oh and viewing at a cinema where the audio was so pumped up the screen was vibrating didn't help. )

[Dan 55]

Re: Ruined by fan service and truly awful product placement

Isn't that par for the course now? If you take your kids to a Pixar film, the whole family will leave with their ears bleeding.

I'm not sure who to blame, the film producers or the cinema. Probably both.

[Elmer Phud]

Re: Ruined by fan service and truly awful product placement

Shirley not the Pan-Am logos?

Or Atari?

[PapaD]

Re: Ruined by fan service and truly awful product placement

That's exactly what I experienced yesterday - when the bass line got too heavy the screen vibrated, making a horrible wood on wood impact sound.

Were you in Dudley by any chance, or is this just all cinemas having the same problem?

As for the film - overall it was good, though the pace is a bit slow at times, and it felt like it was maybe 20-30 minutes too long.

Otherwise, pretty impressive visuals, decent score, definitely worth a watch - Huge Blade Runner fans are likely to be happy with it - people who aren't that fussed with the original, or who haven't seen it, i think are likely to be a little bored at times.

[Alan Brown]

Re: Ruined by fan service and truly awful product placement

"viewing at a cinema where the audio was so pumped up"

I've walked out of several screenings because of this and demanded a refund.

The culprit is invariably multiplex managers who fuck with the audio settings(*) after the engineers have perfectly set it up, thinking that more bass sounds great (yeah, up to the point that the speakers lose cohesion)

(*) Usually by pushing everything to 11

This is one of the reasons(**) I don't bother with movie screenings much.

(**) One of the others is people who won't stop jabbering on their phone throughout the movie. I fully support any designer who proposes turning theatres into a faraday cage AND running a jammer inside it.

[Dr_N]

Actually I was talking about the Johnnie Walker, multiple Sony and Peugeot hawking spots.

[Ed Courtenay]

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe

Watched it last night with my two eldest kids; even though they've been brought up with the modern blockbuster style of fast cuts and breakneck storytelling speed, they weren't turned off by the languid pacing of the spectacle. They were completely enthralled by the whole experience and didn't find the 2 hour 43 minute running time a chore at all.

As someone who adored the original film, I came out of the cinema totally awestruck - I haven't been this impressed by a film in a very, very long time. It's fantastic to see a film like this that doesn't automatically assume its audience has the attention span of a gadfly, and is prepared to ask awkward questions about the nature of humanity.

Highly recommended.

[jason 7]

Re: I've seen things you people wouldn't believe

Did it ask anything awkward though? It didn't ask enough in my opinion.

I think this will be another one of those badly written films that masks itself and covers it's obvious flaws and shortcomings by saying "Oh well you aren't clever enough to understand all the subtle contextual questions it poses!"

No it's just shitty writing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Really good film if ...

I really enjoyed it. My friend didn't. My friend idolizes Donald Trump. I'm not saying he was too thick to get it, but he didn't get it.

There are lots of fairly philosophical concepts dealt with but they're not shoved down your throat.

Anon because I'm mean to my friend.

[Sarg]

Arrival was crap

Arrival was one of the worst movies I've ever seen

[jason 7]

Saw it tonight.

...I...I...probably won't bother watching it again.

[Blake St. Claire]

It's definitely worth seeing

I saw the original in the theater in 1982, and the "official" director's cut in the theater in 1992. Looking at wikipedia I find that I missed a chance to see the 70mm working print "director's cut" in 1990. Or not, maybe I just don't remember passing on it (had babies and didn't get out much.) I liked the 1982 version. In 1992 I thought the 1992 version was better.

I liked 2049. The plot hangs together better than the original and there are some interesting twists that keep you guessing. The visuals are stunning. It dragged a bit toward the end.

Overall thought, definitely worth seeing IMO.

[Inertia]

What a film. Stands up both as it's own story and an incredibly skilled companion to the original. Don't wait for the small screen if you have even a passing interest in it. 10/10.

[Greg 16]

I thought it was good, but not convinced it would have suffered much by being 45 minutes shorter.

[Phil Endecott]

Great visually, but IMHO it would have benefited from a bit more plot. Or a bit more depth to the plot.

Last film I saw set in LA was Lala-land. Quite a contrast!

[sean.fr]

So slow

It looks good, and the plot is OK. It needs recutting to be an hour shorter. The music is overpowering as it working every hard to fill the long pauses. People speak in bay watch time. Keep the dialogue, but cut the unnatural gaps between speakers. Looks like a 1 hour 40 film with an hour of filler.

[ChrisB 2]

Saw it in IMAX last night. Stunning.

Blade Runner is by far my favourite movie and I was prepared for a modicum of disappointment, despite the largely very positive reviews of 2049. I was not in the least bit disappointed. I thought the movie was incredibly good, the visuals staggering, the plot excellent and well developed - but not the in-yer-face-here's-all-the-answers-in-a-neat package demanded of some. Like the 1982 movie it explores the moral dilemmas of the human condition, and also like the first film, it does so subtly and without proselytising.

For me, it was quite an emotional experience. I shall be seeing it again soon, possibly multiple times.

[petertong]

No Magic

Of course we will compare the two films. Can’t be helped. But for me 2049, for all the stunning sets, rich CGI, some inventive ideas (hologram people old and new etc), there was no Blade Runner magic. No spoilers, but the plot was a bit vague, the dialogue average, and the logic was illogical in places. For instance, wood (i.e. trees), is said to be worth a fortune, yet we open with a huge dead tree that hasn’t been cut down and sold for millions. Duh? The equivalent of the believable sinister Tyrell character in BR I was a dreadful scruffy bearded guy with no charisma. I couldn’t even engage with Gosling. But Ford was his usual magnificent self and was worth all the pain until he appeared. I cannot believe it was directed by the same fella that directed the brilliant Arrival.

[GruntyMcPugh]

Re: No Magic

On the tree,.... who would have known it was there? I also rather think that if anyone rocked up and tried taking it, the big fella that lived there would pulled their arms off.

[jason 7]

Re: No Magic

People will do crazy shit for Rhino horn so....

[steviebuk]

Saw it on Saturday...

...in 3D in the iMax. Was good. First 3D film I've seen.

[batfink]

Generally great but...

Saw it on the weekend and was generally impressed. I disagree with some of the comments about the length and general slowness - I thought it was the length it needed to be, and I did appreciate the deliberate pacing.

I thought it was a good successor to the original. However, it lost on a couple of fronts:

- Jared Leto's character just came across as a tosser. I think he was going for "sinister evil genius" but missed by a mile.

- there were a couple of weird plot moments. At one point, you wonder why K was left alive.

- as Mrs Fink pointed out, Gosling was such an unengaging character that we didn't care what happened to him. At the end, we just shrugged. Meh.

So, all in all, a very good film IMO. I'd be surprised if it doesn't sweep the Oscars this year - except for the acting ones! It would've been six stars with a couple of casting changes.

[jason 7]

Re: Generally great but...

Gosling has only worked as a character in one movie and that was The Nice Guys.

He actually acts like a human being in that one.

[KiltedTim]

Don't forget the references in some of the ads to the Soviet Union... CCCP.

[Anonymous Coward]

Saw it at BFI IMAX on Friday then again today.

SPOILERS HEREIN

Having had a chance to see it twice and ponder over the weekend these are my thoughts.

In my opinion the film was true to the original and took the story in a slightly different way, a number of reviews I've read say they couldn't 'connect' with the character K, I honestly think on the second viewing this was deliberate, the K character KNOWS he's a skinjob and doesn't have the same emotional issues with it, of course in the original Deckard didn't know and the movie was a journey of discovery and self questioning.

I disagree that the pacing was too slow, I thought the whole point of the pacing was to develop a storyline that included some specific and thoughtful moments for people to reflect on. The philosophical questions asked in the original are expanded on here, that takes time to develop and requires a period of reflection, I must admit I got much more from the second showing.

Visually it's perfect and a worthy follow up to the original vision.

There are some clever and subtle nods to the original, the bicycles scene, the snow falling and melting on his hand was a direct reference to 'tears in the rain' including the same music at that point. I thought that Mariette (McKenzie Davis) was excellently cast as a nod to Pris without being a straight copy.

I'm sure that I'll go and see it again within a week or so, I really got that much out of it and it deserves multiple viewings.

I would have to comment that I don't think many of the SNAPFACETXTTERGRAMOJI generation will get it, the themes in the movie require attention and reflection, not something many of this social network media obsessed generation seem to exhibit in their eternal search for instant gratification without effort.

The movie did not in any way leave me disappointed, and I think there's even the enigmatic possibility now of further follow ups, just don't let Scott direct them.