Blade Runner 2049

Much better than I was afraid of, but much worse than I hoped for. The first is true mainly due to the accurately captured peculiarly slow hypnotic "non-spectator" atmosphere (I felt like it was 2049 minutes long), addressing major existential issues through slight hints (however worse than in previous movies), refined in terms of design and ideas, functional update of the world by thirty years, the roaring and intoxicating audiovisuals prove that it is not the same with only slight changes, in other words we can see a real acting of Ford. The second is true because of several plot lines from the final sequence, which are questionable, or even reprehensible. There is quite a lot of too long or even superfluous scenes. It´s too cold, despite the desire to raise emotions and there are to many different topics that are only mentioned and then fade away as quickly as a flash. It will definitely not become a timeless legendary movie, only perhaps in terms of craftsmanship perhaps, but it´s absolutely more than just a damn good anti-utopian film. That´s for sure. The question, of course, remains whether "more than damn good" is enough in the case of the follow-up of one of the most influential films of the movie industry. (06/10/2017)

The promising start and the entire first half of the film draw the audience into the great atmosphere embellished with design gems and monumental sound. Unfortunately, the plot development lags behind in terms of originality and sorely lacks space for the main villain, who was supposed to be the movie’s most powerful character, a threat to what remains of civilization and the system that has left the world on life support. And the usually great director Denis Villeneuve gets rid of him after just a few scenes, during which we learn nothing about him. The famous android musical theme “Tears in the Rain” in the ending brings us closer to understanding the feelings of the young Blade Runner and arouses nostalgia. But that’s not enough for a 160-minute film whose slow, almost sluggish pace doesn’t correspond to the depth and complexity of its plot. In other words, Blade Runner 2049 is an audio-visually stunning empty bubble. (13/11/2017)

A visually intoxicating sequel that should earn at least Deakins an Oscar. Villeneuve prepares the ground in the first half and takes us back to the familiar world from the mind of Phillip K. Dick, where the bullied Gosling is trying to do his work. The offering to racist roots works better than 12 years in chains. Digging about in the past is another tribute to old school detective movies and Elvis steals the show in the Vegas sequence. Heavy ruminations about the nature of artificial beings, about what is reality and what good is and is not good. A fantastically negative Leto who, in this memorable role, fundamentally means well. Ford’s return to Deckard’s shoes is expedient, not just a cheap promo. He’s still got it in him. Zimmer’s music again thunderous. Interlinked. (09/10/2017)

A place of deep melancholy shallow landscaping. Instead of a simple noir story, this an incredibly supple and unfortunately desperately transparent story about the search for meaning in a world of vanishing memories. There is about the same difference between the original and this one as between a physical experience and the nicely painted backdrop. At the same time, Blade Runner 2049 well documents the impotence to which Hollywood has condemned the current fashion of resurrecting icons. Blade Runner was as much a tribute to history as engaging visions of the future world. The second part is just a blank canvas, where Villeneuve and Deakins apply a few new contours, but at the same time they can't break out of the familiarity of the old ones. Sure, that's not even the goal. But instead of a vision, the result is a sterile museum. And unfortunately, by far the worst directing moments that the brilliant Canadian has been part of. It is the same in key moments as the Chinese finale of Arrival. Paradoxically hurried, unfinished and explicitly simple in terms of script. The original Blade Runner had a secret. These are just transparently literal symbols. A fleeting thing that will only be remembered in 30 years as a testament to a time that has become entrenched in its own memories of visionary times. The epoch of replicants with a time fuse. I am betting a synthetic kidney. (10/10/2017)

There's probably no bigger fan of the original Blade Runner than me, so, first of all, I don't think a movie like this needed a sequel at all. In terms of the story, it's like The Matrix. There, the mythology was developed in the other two episodes, here, the story is developed in a way that makes sense, but does not enrich the original film. In terms of pure craftsmanship, it's a solid piece of filmmaking, but I didn’t feel the atmosphere of Scott's gem, that "Babylonian" mix of cultures and peoples with a predominantly Asian element where you could easily become an anonymous figurehead. Deakins does magic, yes, but the atmosphere is missing, and anyone who says otherwise has failed to feel the subtle nuances of the first Blade Runner. I missed an interesting character like J.F. Sebastian and his electronic toys in the prequel, I missed a fateful character like Pris, I missed a strong villain like Roy Batty whom you both hated and pitied. There's none of that in Villeneuve's film, just a terminator in a skirt and a bland Leto. Thanks at least for the holographic Joi, probably the only interesting character in the film. I just can’t avoid feeling slightly disappointed. (08/10/2017)