User reviews

'Blade Runner' is a masterpiece and a favourite of mine. It is still to this day a genre and film landmark, and ties with 'Alien' as Ridley Scott's best film, despite being disliked at the time it has rightly gained its reputation as a classic.

Hearing that there was a sequel over thirty years later left me with intrigue, with a great cast (Ryan Gosling and Harrison Ford), one of the best cinematographers in the film industry today in Roger Deakins and with an equally great director on board (having liked to loved Denis Villeneuve's previous films), but also nervousness considering (with notable exceptions) the general reputation with sequels. 'Blade Runner 2049' turned out to be well worth the wait, it is easy to see why it will alienate some with its very long length (can understand the overlong criticism) and slow pace but it is even easier to understand the acclaim the film has received.

Is 'Blade Runner 2049' better than 'Blade Runner' or on the same level? No. Is it nearly, or shall we say just, as good? Yes. To me it is one of Villeneuve's better films along with 'Sicario' and 'Incendies' (my least favourite of his is 'Arrival' and despite being an understandably divisive effort to me it was still good) and one of the exceptions to the general reputation of sequels. A sequel that treats its predecessor with respect (including some thoughtful and cleverly done nods to it, including quotations from the original score, even Ryan Gosling's name is a nod to the original author Phillip K Dick) and also its audience with respect. Despite its faults, it's also one of my favourite films of the year, and this year has been very hit and miss for films so this is saying quite a bit.

Sure 'Blade Runner 2049' is not without its flaws. Can totally see where people are coming from criticising the length, most of the time it was not a problem but some of the time there was a sense that the length was too inflated, 20 minutes could have trimmed with no problem at all. There are a few implausibilities and contrivances here and there towards the end and much more could have been done with the underdeveloped character of Jared Leto (the only weak link in the cast, he doesn't have the presence to pull the role off and doesn't look comfortable or interested).

However, 'Blade Runner 2049' does a huge amount right. It looks amazing, it's impeccably and imaginatively designed with some of the best special effects seen in a long time. It's Deakins' cinematography that particularly stands out, darkly gritty, gorgeously fluid and beautifully audacious Deakins shows that he is fully deserving of being considered one of today's best cinematographers. One cannot praise 'Blade Runner 2049' without mentioning some of the best directing Villeneuve has ever done in a contender for the best directed film of the year (well between him and Nolan for 'Dunkirk'), he is absolutely the right man for the job and shows himself to be not only completely at ease with the material but also tailor made for it. Once again there is a beautiful darkness but also a hard edge and sense of wondrous awe.

Another big standout is the synthetic music score by Benjamin Wallfisch and Hans Zimmer, so well done and fitting that one doesn't miss Johann Johannsson that desperately. Though imagine what the film would have been like with his involvement, from my understanding he was originally meant to do the music but was fired for reasons that are a mystery to me and Wallfisch and Zimmer were parachuted in and did marvellously with big shoes to fill. It's appropriately hauntingly discordant, heart-pounding and tension-filled, with seeming echoes and quotes to the original's score. The sound effects are clever and thrillingly authentic, like for example the replicated wolfhound.

When it comes to the writing and story, 'Blade Runner 2049' also triumphs, even if the story is not perfectly executed. The action-oriented scenes and conflicts are filled with tension and suspense as well as ingeniously choreographed, a fine example being the masterful prologue which has to be one of my favourite opening sequences of 2017. The science fiction elements are positively awe-inspiring, often making my jaw drop, while the philosophical ones are incredibly thought-provoking and never heavy-handed (many films have made a hash with this aspect, it was refreshing to see a film doing it well). Despite being a long and slow film, a vast majority of the film was richly rewarding, with a delicious quiet tension and absorbing mysterious elements.

Excepting Leto, the acting is great. Best of all being Harrison Ford as a suitably world-weary Indiana Jones-like Deckard, that and the 'Apocalypse Now'-like meeting with Ryan Gosling providing a nostalgic element, and a deliciously cold-hearted Sylvia Hoeks (her character and performance being what Leto's character and performance should have been). Ryan Gosling also plays it straight to great effect.

All in all, despite imperfections this jaw-dropping, richly rewarding, very respectful and visually stunning follow-up is just as good, if not quite as, as the 1982 masterpiece and one of my favourites of the year. 8.5/10 Bethany Cox

It's very rare when a modern sequel/reboot is equal to the original in terms of quality, but this movie is that rare one. It carries over the sweeping and hypnotizing cinematography, it continues the storyline in a natural way, it references the original, but doesn't rip it off, it introduces new concepts without ruining the continuity, it expands on the themes presented in the original in a very natural way, it doesn't drag nearly as much as said original and it's got a more compelling protagonist. I have a feeling I'll just enjoy this movie more and more as time goes by, and I already love it a lot. It's a movie with a lot to unpack, and I have no doubt it will improve even more on rewatches.

I guess if the producers wanted to make another Blade Runner, they totally succeeded - at least so far. As with the original Blade Runner the visuals are the ones that people will refer to when it comes to this movie. And it's not just because of the Academy Awards. You can tell all by yourself and I reckon even without having seen it on an IMAX screen (though I would have recommended it and still am).

Having said all that, the movie has also the same irritating feeling about it, that the original Blade Runner had. So in almost every aspect it is a successor to it. Story wise obviously too, though I guess this one has a couple of shorts that play before this movie, that are supposed to get you in the mood. They are not necessary to watch, but they are also very well made. This movie is an experience and it is one you have to be willing to make.

While it does have some action scenes, while it is Science Fiction, it does play more like a slow moving drama with a lot of mystery elements to it. If that sounds intriguing to you, with some added social commentary flavor, than by all means watch it. But beware that you have to have patience with it ...

The user reviews seems to be over-run by a troll. Lots of repetitive 2 and 3 stars reviews that all read like they're written by the same person.

It's a relief they still make movies like this; movies for adults. Yes it's a sequel, but it's quality and it stands on its own. This is real sci-fi, made with a proper budget and brought to life by artists. It's serious and paced so that you have time to think. If you're a fan of the genre and can appreciate some ambiguity and a little space for questions to breathe then I think you will appreciate this film. But if you can't remember the last time you read a book then maybe you will find this movie long and boring.

The cast, acting, and plot are all quite good with only a few misses. The soundtrack doesn't blow me away but it's suitable. The visuals are incredible though and where this movie really shines; I can't think of a single moment in the film where I felt like the vision was held back by the technology available. And the scene at K's apartment with Joi (you will know it when you see it) pushed the envelope of what I thought was possible to do in a film. This one is a real stunner visually. Like the original, I expect Blade Runner 2049 to hold up extremely well over time.

With great acting, great screenplay, incredible cinematography Blade Runner 2049 is one of the best sequels ever made!

Visually the movie floored me. There's clearly so much intentionality and careful effort and planning that went into making that world. Villeneuve blended call backs to the original while still making this his own vision. I'll see anything he makes because I always feel like I'm in good hands with his movies, right from the opening scene.

The music had a similar feel to the visuals in that they blended old and new. The iconic "Tears in Rain" melody receives a much-deserved return in a delightfully appropriate moment. I'll give the movie serious props for providing a comforting level of nostalgia without ever feeling that it pandered.

Joi (Ana de Armas) and Luv (Sylvia Hoeks) were fantastic in their own very different ways. Joi, who plays Gosling's love interest of sorts, is essentially Samantha in Her, except she is a holographic projection instead of only a voice. Luv is Jared Leto's favorite replicant assistant and a total ice queen.

Gosling was cool and dutiful, though kind of lifeless, which I guess was on purpose since he plays a replicant (or does he?) Juxtaposing him with Harrison Ford really made the subtleties of Ford's performance stand out in a way that was absent for Gosling. But Gosling was still very handsome and that worked well with the rest of the movie, which is striking and beautiful.

Even though I didn't feel bored during any of the 164 minutes, I often felt like nothing was really happening. Even at the end I wondered what was the point. I know it was a character exploration of K (Gosling), like the first was of Deckard, and he clearly grew during the story. Still, the movie overall came across to me as heavy on striking visuals and light on substance.

Perhaps I'm demanding too much. While I enjoyed the heck out of the movie and would watch it again in a second, it fell slightly short of the profound best picture level movie that I hoped it would be. Somewhere in the two hour and 44 minute runtime is a great two hour movie trying to emerge.

All things considered, it's a pleasing complement to the original and is well worth a night in the theater.

It's 2049 Los Angeles. K (Ryan Gosling) is a Blade Runner hunting for old Nexus 8 replicants under LAPD Lieutenant Joshi (Robin Wright). After the 2022 blackout, most records have been erased or corrupted. Tyrell is out of business and replicant production had been outlawed until Niander Wallace (Jared Leto). Wallace is producing a new obedient replicant. Luv (Sylvia Hoeks) is his replicant henchwoman. K hunts down an old Nexus 8 and in the process, he discovers a surprise which leads to Deckard (Harrison Ford). Joi (Ana de Armas) is K's holographic computer girlfriend. Mariette (Mackenzie Davis) is a prostitute.

This is pure cinema although I can see some object to the length and dark depressing sensibilities. For the most part, the action is not intended to be fun. Some people will feel the long running time more than others. An easy test is whether the person likes the original or any cyberpunk sci-fi anime. This takes the original's visual mastery and adds a more compelling detective mystery. Any BR fan will undoubtedly love this unless they are some nitpicking fanatic. Non-fans may find this more appealing... or not.

The original's detective story and pacing are its major flaws. This sequel has a real detective story with a real mystery. The writing is impeccable. The designs take the original vision and dives right in. Roger Deakins' work is beyond beautiful. Villeneuve is at the top of his game. Gosling is a more effective lead. Ford comes in during the second half and is a more fun Deckard. Ana de Armas is a gorgeous vision of girl perfection. Sylvia Hoeks is an amazing villain. The movie tackles all of the ideas without hitting one over the head. This is a great film although I'm not sure if popular modern audience will take to it. The opening box office certainly does not suggest that.

Denis Villeneuve is today without any doubt the most prominent Canadian director. In recent years he was mostly active in the crime ("Prisoners" (2013) and "Sicario" (2015)) and science fiction ("Arrival" (2016), "Blade runner 2049" (2017), "Dune" (2021) and "Dune part II" (2024)) genre.

It requires a lot of courage to make a sequel to such a cult classic as "Blade runner" (1982, Ridley Scott). "Blade runner 2049" is situated, as the title already indicates, in 2049 and therefore 30 years after the story of "Blade runner".

The theme however has remained the same, the fear of robots taking over. This fear is with the discussions about Artificial Intelligence in 2024 even more relevant than it was at the time of release of "Blade runner 2049".

Relevance is however not the same as originality. In "Blade runner" (1982) the fear of Robots taking over was further elaborated upon in the fear that they could adjust their own expiration date. In "Blade runner 2049" (2017) it is the fear that they can reproduce. Variation within a theme.

The cinematography is brilliant, perfectioning the decadent atmosphere of the 1982 film and having 3D technology as an extra. A very good performance by cinematographer Roger Deakins. Nevertheless the overall impression I got after seeing this film was that it is too much style over substance.

I always make it a rule to only ever do a review once a show or film is ended. In this case, I started about forty minutes in, for one reason only, I was bored to tears.

I love the original film, and although a film I thought never needed a follow up, but I was open to it, and thought the basic storyline in this film was pretty good, and imaginative.

I'll start with the positives, it looks amazing, genuinely, the effects, sets and all aspects of the visuals are seriously impressive, that's the major strength, the acting is hard to fault, Gosling is always on point.

The downer...... It's insanely boring, how on Earth did they allow this film to be so slow, you almost forgive the first hour, where literally nothing happens, you convince yourself that it's bound to open up and switch up several gears. It never really does though, it improves, but it seems to be on half speed for large spells.

I struggled with the plot a bit, possibly because there isn't one.

In summary, the window dressing is terrific, it looks sensational, incredibly well acted, the problem, it bored me to tears. 5/10.

To chase after an iconic masterpiece, to imitate or to try and supplant its rightful place, is a fool's errand.

Thankfully director Denis Villeneuve along with his talented collaborators never succumbs to imitating or trying to super-cede Ridley Scott's 1982 landmark "Blade Runner".

Hampton Fancher, who created the story of the original, has crafted a new screenplay with Michael Green, that not only builds on the themes of "Blade Runner", but ties them together with larger questions about the current human state and its challenges.

Ryan Gosling stars as a replicant of the latest generation, who tries to solve a puzzle that leads him into the realm of real and manufactured life, and walks along the same noirish paths that made the original so gripping. Gosling imbues his character with a very compelling façade, which starts to crumble as his humanity takes over his mechanical design.

The equally thrilling performances by Jared Leto, Ana De Armas, Robin Wright, Carla Juri and of course Mr. Harrison Ford, forge a credible bond with the audience and enhance the visual grandeur created by cinematographer Roger Deakins and production designer Dennis Gassner.

And although "Blade Runner 2049" may not achieve the same level of force as its predecessor, it is a tremendously immersive, philosophical and touching experience, that should be enjoyed on the largest screen possible.

The movie's pace is deliberately patient, which may confuse some members of the audience. But by slowing down and observing, the audience can revel in the immensity of the images.

The more we move, inexorably it seems, towards the do-or-die reality of "Blade Runner", the more vital these stories become.

Whatever the box-office-fate of "Blade Runner 2049" will be, the long wait has paid off. It is far more than just a quick cash-in on a cult classic or an overly devoted sequel. It stands on its own and adds many new layers to the question: "What makes us human?"

And it urges us on to find the truth in the rain.

From an original 1982 theatrical showing to a Beta videotape, to a standard laserdisc, to a deluxe Criterion letterbox laserdisc, to a DVD, to a high-definition blu-ray, Ridley Scott's "Blade Runner" has been viewed countless times in the original voice-over version, the European cut, the director's cut, and the final cut over the 35 years that followed its release. All those memories have not been lost in time, like tears in rain, but rather are indelible images from one of the greatest science fiction films. Thus, any thought of a sequel evokes mixed emotions. Despite the involvement of Ridley Scott, the results could be another disaster like "More American Graffiti," or an undistinguished but palatable followup like "2010," or a companion masterpiece like "The Godfather Part II." Fortunately, "Blade Runner" cultists can breathe a sigh of relief; while "Blade Runner 2049" may fall short of the unqualified masterpiece status of "The Godfather" sequel, at least on an initial viewing, the film enhances and builds upon, rather than diminishes, the original; however, only time will determine if "BR2049" will enjoy the same repeatability as the first film and join it as a timeless classic.

Fresh from his outstanding work on "Arrival," director Denis Villeneuve helmed "BR2049" with a steady hand and attention to detail, which were likely guided or inspired by Ridley Scott. Set thirty years ahead of the original film, Roger Deakins's career-best cinematography captures a future that is colder and bleaker than that portrayed by Jordan Cronenweth's original work, which has a warmer tone. However, Deakins's cooler hues are appropriate for 2049 Los Angeles, where snow has replaced rain and holographs rule rather than neon. Warm or cool, the atmospherics in both films are equally dazzling. The aurals are as captivating as the visuals; the haunting music by Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch evokes the original Vangelis score without plagiarizing.

The casting is also superb with Ryan Gosling spot on as K, the blade runner whose job, like Deckard's in the original film, is to retire renegade replicants. While the role may lack showy moments for an actor, Gosling's tall lean figure and enigmatic face create an image possibly more enduring than that of Harrison Ford in the original. Both Ford as an aging Rick Deckard and Edward James Olmos as a retired Gaff return to link the sequel to the first film. Among the newcomers, Robin Wright is well cast as Gosling's deadly serious, deathly pale Lieutenant Joshi of the LAPD. Ford and Olmos are not the only returnees, an origami figure and a small wood carving wordlessly connect the two Blade Runner films, and implanted memories, flying cars, outsized advertising, and transparent plastic raincoats also have encores.

"Blade Runner" cultists are best served seeing the sequel knowing little; the story unfolds as a policeman sent in pursuit of a mystery that expands upon threads in the original movie. Tthe film's length is arguably excessive, especially for those unfamiliar with the original, and "Blade Runner" novices may be left behind by a leisurely narrative that prizes visuals above action. However, "Blade Runner 2049" is that rarity of movie sequels, a film that enhances and elevates the original, yet stands on its own as a masterful film. The passage of time will determine if "Blade Runner 2049" and "Blade Runner" become the inseparably coupled films that "The Godfather" and "The Godfather Part II" have become, but all the elements are in place.

This will be my first 10/10. When I look at the 1/10 reviews I'm amused by how many people don't see that this film although, can be called boring by some is atleast spectacular in the cinematography, music, set design, and many more aspects. I can talk about this film forever but no one would read it. I was never bored watching it and every scene is in service of the story.

Visually stunning, enthralling, and an absolute epic score. Blade runner 2049 is everything a sequel needs to be. Denis Villeneuve i salute you.

Blade Runner (1982) modern masterpiece from the cult movie 35 years later.

As a sequel and in the field of the plot creativity, it's done an excellent work that hypes old fans into awaiting a possible new sequel with the story's climax, once that Blade Runner 2049 introduces well-fit new characters that really add to the scenario of the old movie, even explaining some gaps or doubts on the bigger plot. Furthermore, the movie is intelligently made on the artistic aspect, showing wonderful simbols and plays with shadows and colors, making it clear that it was thought on the details. Nevertheless, although it offers some pretty engaging scenes, the story is not clearly put to the new (those who didn't see the original film) viewers as it should have been, what difficulties their conexion with the characters and makes it all boring at some times.

Good stories can be relevant parts of interesting big universes, but they also need to give solely a good lead on the plot and to be weel self-contained to captivate new audiences. As an example, I had never watched the first movie by the time I watched this one (I did later and loved to do it), so I didn't catch up emocionally with the characters, besides being curious about it, what made tiring a significant part of it. That's clearer when you consider that I watched it with friends and I was the only one who felt some connection to it.

By the way, it didn't need to have 3 hours, the story could have been equally told at maybe less than 2, so that the pace was annoyingly slow, contributing to those bored viewers.

In short, if you're willing to watch a pretty slow interesting movie, it can fit you well and introduce you to the general concepts of the saga (but I still would recommend you watching the first Blade Runner first). If you liked the first Blade Runner, it's a must-see.

It goes without question that Blade Runner 2049 has the best cinematography ever. Roger Deakins blew me away. The VFX was also remarkable, the production made great use of greenscreens and miniature models. I found the story very interesting, but I think it was a bit slow, which was the reason why it unfortunately underperformed in the box office. Even though I have not watched the original film, Blade Runner 2049 made me fully immersed in the great world Denis Villeneuve created. And let's not forget about the acting; Ryan Gosling nailed it in my opinion, Harrison Ford was great, and Ana de Armas was also good. I am sure that in one or two decades this film will be definitely considered a sci-fi classic.

Let me start by saying that I am a huge Denis Villeneuve fan and absolutely love every movie he made, from his breakthrough drama 'Incendies' to the action thriller 'Sicario'. But when I learned that he was going to make a sequel to Ridley Scott's iconic Blade Runner I had mixed feelings. Would he be able to live up to the expectations and make a sequel that could measure itself with the original? For this reason, I went into the cinema thinking ''This will be a great movie, I am a Villeneuve fan so I have to like it'' but that was a mistake, for once I stopped expecting and just started experiencing the film, I was enchanted by all of its visual beauty. I was wrong to doubt Villeneuve; his 'Blade Runner 2049' even succeeds in transcending in some ways the original masterpiece, especially as a visual experience.

The bleak dystopian future Scott so perfectly created is even more beautiful in Villeneuve's 2049, for which a lot of credit has to be given to the brilliant director of photography Roger Deakins, who has made one of his best works (which says a lot). Every shot is brilliant, I loved every single frame and I cannot imagine that he wouldn't get nominated and win an Oscar for this phenomenal work. But also a big thumbs up has to be given to the entire effects team, for Deakins didn't do it all on his own.

Deakins isn't the only mastermind at work, for the score is also beautifully done. When I learned that composer Jóhann Jóhannsson (someone who has collaborated multiple times with Villeneuve and did most of the scores for his movies) got fired I was surprised; Jóhannsson has always delivered great work, but according to Villeneuve, his score ''wasn't the right one'' for this movie for it didn't ''resemble Vangelis soundtrack for Blade Runner'' quite enough. So he got replaced by probably the best man in the business nowadays; Hans Zimmer. And as we are used to with the German composer, this was once again sublime and a great homage to the original. Zimmer's 2049 score can be compared to his Dunkirk score, in a way that it unsettles us from the first chord and just as the Second World War movie, it keeps us on the edges of ours seats, especially during the last hour.

As for the people who are actually situated in front of the camera, they all play their parts very well. I was especially happy that Ryan Gosling's agent K was indeed the leading man and he did a very good job. I was slightly concerned that it would mostly be about Harrison Ford's Deckard, but luckily that wasn't the case. Nevertheless, Ford gives one of his best performances in years and after all the iconic roles he played once again in recent years (Han Solo, Indiana Jones) this is by far the best. The smaller but important roles are also noteworthy; Robin Wright's Lieutenant Joshi makes a fierce and convincing police chief, while the villain duo Jared Leto's Neander Wallace as the evil head of a corporation at the top of the new world order and his frightening hit-woman Luv (Sylvia Hoeks) are also very impressive. Last but not least, Ana de Armas is also very good as Joi, K's girlfriend (even if she does remind me a lot of Scarlet Johansson in 'Her' and slightly of Alicia Vikander in 'Ex Machina', but maybe that's something Villeneuve did that on purpose and wanted to pay homage to these recent but also very good science-fiction movies).

That said, Villeneuve will receive most of the credit, as he should. For unlike most of Hollywood's blockbusters nowadays, he doesn't simply deliver us a spectacle with some nice effects or a reboot of the original, but he picks up the threads where Scott left, which was a monumental task, for the original 'Blade Runner' is one of the most impressive and iconic movies ever made. 2049 continues on the same topics raised by the original, making the sequel worth the 35-year long wait; it goes further with what was proposed in the first installment, enriching one another. It is possible that one day a third installment could be made, but that is only if any director will ever find the courage to make another 'Blade Runner', for the bar is raised incredibly high. I believe that in time, 'Blade Runner 2049' will just as the original one, grow into a cult movie, and rightfully so, for it is its own movie, but, just as the original, a visually remarkable, achingly human sci-fi masterpiece.

I am not going to say more about it, because the studio has been unusually insistent in its pleas to critics and the first movie viewers not to reveal any plot points, but I am glad they did. Even if I could go on and on about the movie and the difference between replicants and humans (or is there really much of a difference, after all?) the less you know the better, because 2049 feels at its best when it surprises (which is one of Villeneuve's greatest strengths). This is a movie best experienced on the biggest screen in your cinema; trust me, it will be worth your while. As for me, I will most likely try and make some free time in my schedule for the coming days, 'cause I want to go the cinema again, guess what I'm gonna watch...

In 1982, Ridley Scott released "Blade Runner", based on Philip K. Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?". It had two focuses. One was the question of what makes us human, as the protagonist (Harrison Ford) starts to question his order to capture the renegade replicants. The other was the look at a dystopian future, as there's no connection to the natural world and the population gets bombarded by advertising everywhere.

Now, "Incendies" and "Arrival" director Denis Villeneuve has released a sequel: "Blade Runner 2049". The sequel expands on the original's dystopian focus, as anyone with the economic means has departed the moribund planet. A new corporation has replaced the one from the original movie, and has continued making replicants. A new blade runner (Ryan Gosling) is the protagonist here, but there's more than meets the eye.

The visuals are impressive. I guess that my complaint is that the plot takes a long time to get going, and a lot of the movie is shots of the protagonist's face to the tune of music. Even so, I'd say that the movie is worth seeing, if not as great as the original.

It's absurdly long, I didn't really care much about the people in it after what seemed like a week and Ryan Gosling has only got one expression. It might have been more exciting if it were 60 minutes shorter but by the two hour mark I was looking at my watch, hoping it would finish soon. This fell a long way short of the original.