Blade Runner 2049
Year:
2017
Country:
USA, UK, Canada, Hungary
Genre:
Drama, Thriller, Mystery, Sci-Fi
IMDB rating:
8.3
Director:
Denis Villeneuve
Robin Wright Penn as Lieutenant Joshi
Tómas Lemarquis as File Clerk
Mackenzie Davis as Mariette
Sallie Harmsen as Female Replicant
Dave Batista as Sapper Morton
Mark Arnold as Interviewer
Wood Harris as Nandez
Hiam Abbass as Freysa
Jared Leto as Niander Wallace
Type Resolution File Size Codec Bitrate Format
1080p 1920x800 px 12318 Mb h264 10535 Kbps mkv Download
HQ DVD-rip 720x300 px 628 Mb h264 537 Kbps mkv Download
Reviews
So Much About This Reminds One Of The Force Awakens (Star Wars)
The title says it. Here goes: Prior to release the critiques are overwhelmingly positive and make out the sequel to be the second coming! It turns out there is either payola going on or the studio has photos of some people.

The day before and on the day of release IMDb fills up with perfect 'viewer' reviews of said film propelling the sequel to IMDb 250 list. All these, er, reviewers believe this film is perfection with not even a speck of imperfection. 10/10 i.e. nothing at all could be in any way better! The sequel was in actuality unrequested and unwanted.

The sequel sets itself up for even more sequels with unresolved or cliff hanger plots.

I do have to confess that I found the actresses in 2049 sexy and worth fantasizing about. Those were the real tens here and so I cannot give BR2049 a mere 1, which is something TFA deserves. Obviously Ridley and Villeneuve are better crew than JJ Abrams and whoever Disney hires, but it has to be said that BR2049 was a disappointment and I wish it were not made. The bar was set so high to begin with.
2017-10-15
One of the best sequels of all time!
Denis Villeneuve, you magnificent world wonder, you did it again!

I have seen BR2049 three times now, and therefor i rewrote my review a little, but my verdict is the same.

One of the things i have noticed with this film, is that it's not the time in the cinema that takes up my time, even at it's 163 minutes run time. It's the hours upon hours in between spent thinking about the film, that is the real time consumer. This film left such a deep and profound impact, which i cannot escape. And i have gone back to the cinema twice to be "tortured", but it's worth it.

This is not a happy film, let's get that straight. It is a dark, mysterious, grim, hopeless, sad and lonely film, set in a possible near future where the human race is hanging by their fingertips on the edge of doom. It is such a sad film, it's actually quite difficult to watch, but i went back and did it anyways, because it is so brilliantly put together, that the closest masters of cinema i think of that has done the same is Stanley Kubrick and Andrei Tarkovsky.

Many of Stanley Kubrick's films was also hated by many when they first aired. "2001: A Space Odyssey for example", which had gorgeous visuals, but felt flat and hollow for many, even professional reviewers back then.

What Kubrick did best with his films, was to create afterthought. People left the cinema feeling confused, but the movies planted a seed which then grew, and grew, for years. The original Blade Runner also did this, and that is one of the reasons this sequel is so insanely well made. It continues the original, and stands completely on it's own feet. But it tells a new story that directly interlink with the original, but without trying to be a copy. It's a natural continuation in the same universe, told by a visionary director with some of the biggest brass balls in the entire movie industry.

BR2049 has some of the most gorgeous visuals i have ever seen. And there is literally no excuse to not give Roger Deakins the Oscar for best cinematography this time. This year he just knocked it out of the park, and is in his own league entirely. He has been nominated for 13 Oscars so far in his career!

It's almost weird to look at something so gorgeous as this film is, painting a picture of such a sad and lost world. It sort of collides with your senses, your eyes say it's beautiful, your mind say it's hopeless. Which senses are you going to believe? What does it mean?

BR2049 tells the story 30 years after the original. But there is also three short films you can watch on for example Youtube, which describes some of what happened in between 2019 and 2049. I Watched these before i saw BR2049, and you should do to, they make it slightly easier to understand some of the things going on.

The world has gone darker in 2049, climate is spinning totally out of control, people are desperate and lost, law enforcement can barely keep anything together, and only a small spark can set of total disaster. Which is looming just around every corner. It's a world where powerful people take what they want, and do what they want, with the means they have available to them. So in many ways, not that far off from where we are now.

This is where we come down to the cast. No one in this film does a bad performance, but i can't talk about each and every one. There is a limit to how much you can write in these reviews.

But if there is one actor who really steal the show in this film, it's Sylvia Hoeks playing Luv, Niander Wallace's (Played by Jared Leto) right hand "girl". She is ridiculously scary, and her performance is absolutely stellar. She is designed by Niander Wallace to "take care of business".

Niander Wallace took over Tyrell Corp and has by the time 2049 takes place designed millions of obedient replicants that does exactly what he tells them to do. But there is one thing Wallace has not been able to perfect, and that's what this movie is all about, and Wallace will do anything in his power to get his hands on the "technology", which will result in him becoming many hundred times richer and powerful, the sole ruler of the entire universe. He is so far gone in his mind by 2049 he actually believes he is god himself.

Be prepared going in to see this film, it's heavy on your mind, and it demands your full attention. It's one of those rare films who dares to challenge the audience, and by doing so, taking a huge risk, and a 155 million dollar risk at that.

The film isn't perfect, but it's damn close, and it shows the tremendous skills of Denis Villeneuve. And those few mistakes this movie has, is probably just happy little accidents as Rob Ross would have put it. This film is like a painting, every stroke of the brush matters, and every little detail is carefully crafted, it takes monumental skills to pull this film of.

I loved this film, it's the best film I've seen all year, It is a must see, a monumental triumph of a film that is just as good (maybe even better) as the original and one of the best sequels of all time!

10/10 - Masterpiece

And BTW Villeneuve's next movie might be Dune, imagine if he brings Deakins and the rest of this team to make that movie. Yeah, I'm going to leave you with that thought. This is basically porn. And we can't talk about that now can we? might be minors reading this.
2017-10-03
Great film
That helped me catch up on some much needed sleep.

Otherwise, what is the point of this film?

That the villain is still alive, at large and in control?

The old Blade Runner lives and the new one dies? The world is post apocalyptic, but beautiful flakes of snow fall on the ground?

The girls are sexy, the hookers are available and one can buy holographic girlfriends in short skirts that make men's mouths water? Is that a grim future??

In other words, this film doesn't make sense. It is not as boring as stupid flicks like the new Star Wars or whatever, but despite the praised effects this film was nonsense and definitely too long. Thank goodness for beautiful women eye candy.
2017-11-03
I wish I had watched paint dry instead
The hardest thing about the movie was trying to stay awake. It was 90 minutes too long. The acting was so boring, at one point I thought most of the characters were robots, and I had to remind myself that they are clones(Replicants). Do yourself a favor and watch something else, anything really...
2017-10-08
Commits All The Mistakes Of Original Blade Runner's Theatrical Version
All the problems with the original theatrical version of Blade Runner, which Scott Ridley fought against are here. Ridley has become the studio system.

Blade Runner 2049, likely the least desired sequel in history, is making Philip K Dick roll in his grave. What is the point of this almost three hour-long sequel? Of course, it is to continue the film industry's addiction to sequels and make cash. That is it.

Let me get this straight: the world is devastated and anyone who is anybody moves off-world, but people are living in spacious luxury in a casino drinking fine aged Scotch? There is beautiful white snow falling from the skies and sexy call girls approach you on the street? This world is for schmucks, but the main character has an artificial girlfriend with legs to die for waiting at home for him making dinner and giving him threesome sex? Someone book me a ticket back from off-world to Earth please!

This was the kind of logical misstep that Ridley fought against when the studio released BR to cinemas with a gorgeous drive through the countryside at the end of the original. It makes no sense.

Face it, this is the film that should not exist and by watching all these 'franchise' films we feed the stupidity of Hollywood.

BR2049 is the same as the last 10 marvel films, the next ten Star Wars films and the Ghostbusters sequel, but is prettier and more visual.
2017-10-21
What's the point??
It's so boring I would fall asleep two or three times if the music was not too loud. Sound mixing is a disaster. The only reason I did not leave the theater was that the story always had something above the threshold minimum to stay. Too many pointless scenes. Even pointless violence. And for God's sake, what's the point of the ending?? Is this all from the sequel of a masterpiece: to die for the good purpose? Really? It's so weak that it hurts. The only positive thing about the movie that it tries very hard to respect the first one, that's why I gave two stars. But it's way too superficial.

Ps.: For the professionals: It's time to learn to create an atmosphere without so much color grading! At least look at the original....
2017-10-08
A movie longer than the ideas in it
Denis Villeneuve has become an interesting director; INCENDIES was interesting, PRISONERS quite cynical, ENEMY and SICARIO real masterpieces. Not that fond of ARRIVAL but anyway it was acceptable. I am not a huge fan of Ridley Scott; I always believe that his visuals and concepts were larger and more interesting than the movies he crafted. Take for example PROMETHEUS and its follow up ALIEN CONVENANT. The first one was an interesting concept; completely destroyed in the follow up. Villeneuve was able to expand the BLADE RUNNER concept but instead of developing his ideas he dedicated more the visuals and expanded the movie to 2 hours and 44 minutes; which is at least one hour more than it needed to be. BLADE RUNNER was far from an action flick with a running time below two hours was able to deliver an idea; this one only delivers boredom. Lots of unnecessary over extended scenes that even great actors like Ryan Gosling have trouble to dealing with. And after almost three hours; the ending is simplistic and take away any interesting concept that could came earlier. Basically the final scenes leave the viewer expecting for more and obviously frustrated.

In brief; if you are a hard fan of the original get good nap before entering the theater; you are going to fall sleep anyway but at least not so often.
2017-10-09
A Pedestrian Labyrinth
There's no disputing 'Blade Runner 2049' looks good, but like the original film, it doesn't have much to say about any vital human issues. Just as detective Deckard did in the first movie, a replicant LAPD officer called 'K' tracks down and terminates unreliable earlier replicant models. The dystopian landscape of the vast decaying LA megalopolis and surrounding desert is depicted with powerful imagery, and by comparison, K's inquiries seem both parochial and unnecessarily complicated.

After K discovers evidence of a possible replicant offspring, he zigzags between LA police HQ, the head office of the sinister replicant manufacturing corporation, a memory-creating laboratory and his cramped apartment, where he carries on an unsatisfying love affair with his hologram girlfriend. The story is punctuated with a few scenes of violence as it continues utilizing the Theseus, Ariadne and Minotaur myth, but the parallels are very tenuous. The clues eventually lead toward the legendary fugitive figure of Deckard, but despite the film's visual beauty, it becomes increasingly difficult to connect emotionally or intellectually with K's investigations and discoveries. By the end, it all seems rather underwhelming.
2017-10-15
Stupefylngly Dull
Truly I thought I was watching the "Heaven's Gate" of sci-fi. Every beautiful shot goes on and on and on until you scream "move along, already!" The reward for this butt-numbing length is a plot minimal to the point of nonexistence, and a resolution so trivial it could barely anchor a soap opera. If I hadn't known better I would judge from his performance that Ryan Gosling couldn't act his way through a Cheerios commercial. He wears a completely blank expression bleaching any emotional impact out of a scene, even as his virtual girlfriend finds a way to make love to him for the first time. Wait for it on video, as it's only endurable on 4X fast forward. In installments.
2017-10-10
A Long Wait for Disappointment
In 1982 I was deeply excited about the prospect of seeing "Blade Runner," and can remember applying for a chance to see an advance showing in Sacramento. From the start it seemed obvious that it was a special film--clouded in controversy and mystery. Later I acquired my much-viewed VHS copy, with all the eye-gouging, nail-puncturing violence. Later still the Internet provided background information as, eventually, did articles plus a comprehensive book by Paul M. Sammon. In short, I am a fan, and was eagerly anticipating the sequel.

So, it was with disappointment that I left an October 6, 2017 showing "Blade Runner 2049." Overly long, boring, poorly paced, and confusing were my initial impressions, though admittedly it was beautifully filmed (potential Oscar nomination in cinematography?).

I appreciated the many (too many?) subtle and not-so-subtle nods to the original film, the effort to build on the "Blade Runner" universe, and efforts by writers, directors, and actors to bring the story to life. But there were just too many scenes that should have been reduced in length from 25-50% of their run time. Such excess in a film is, to me, almost always a fatal flaw. And some scenes (e.g., where characters "Joi" and "Mariette" merge to make love to "K") could have been cut altogether, I feel, without harming the story.

The acting was satisfactory or better, for the most part, as one would expect from the level of supporting talent.* However, I have knowingly seen two pictures starring Ryan Gosling—2016's "La La Land" and now this—and in both he is bland and wooden. Despite the fact that "2049's" "K" is SUPPOSED to be a self-controlled, artificial humanoid, I wonder if it is just Gosling's natural on- (and off-) screen persona. And frankly, Harrison Ford's "Deckard" just did not work for me. Sacrilegious, I know; but true. I blame this on two factors.

First, Ford appears (too) late in the movie, by which time I was already exhausted by tedium. Second, for a character without appearance-changing makeup, a dramatic accent, say, or pronounced behavioral distinctions, it is hard not to just see Harrison Ford. (Kind of like Robert Redford miscast in 1985's "Out of Africa.") Oh, it's (old) Harrison Ford again. Sorry HF fans everywhere.

And another thing; due to poor direction, they included "Admiral William Adama" (Edward James Olmos) from TV's "Battlestar Galactica," and not "Gaff" (also Olmos), in a too brief cameo. (Listen to "Gaff" in the 1982 original. Totally different voicing.)

Like most films, it suffered from its share of "Oh, come on!" moments. Why would 6-foot "K" allow 6-foot-6 Dave Bautista's imposing "Sapper Morton" to make the first move (and thus begin the accumulation of a ridiculous amount of damage, most of it unnecessary, sustained by "K" throughout the story)? Because that's what movie detectives do. I must say, "K" apparently likes to pass violently through solid walls (a nod to Rutger Hauer's "Roy Batty" head in the original, I take it).

Almost all action-adventure films are silly in hindsight and full of movie plot clichés—"Blade Runner 20149" is no exception. But the test of a good movie is whether the story flows at a pace that makes audiences subconsciously accept and even relish these otherwise nonsensical encumbrances (see 1999's "The Matrix"). For my part I was less inclined to give "2049" a pass on the silliness due to its plodding nature.

Ridley Scott is prominently associated with both the recent "Alien" and Blade Runner" franchises, and has promised multiple sequels. Do we want this? Is state-of-the-art movie-making worth either ridiculously poor stories (the "Alien" franchise) or bad plotting and editing ("Blade Runner 2049")? It's admittedly hard to make a good movie, but Scott and his people are paid a LOT of money to do so. Check Scott's IMDb filmography. Can any mortal be involved first-hand in that many projects? As with Stephen King, maybe it's time to stop the quantity and re-focus on the quality? Just saying…

In conclusion, my disappointment focused primarily on the script and editing.**

Some recommendations to potential viewers: First, if you plan to see "Blade Runner 2049" it will help to see one of 37 versions (e.g., voice-over or no voice-over?; graphic violence shots or not?) of the original 1982 film beforehand. Second, maybe wait to watch the movie digitally, so that you can re-play key scenes and increase volume on important dialogue. In the theater I kept mentally reaching for a non-existent remote control. Third, (after Recommendation One) if like me you hold the original picture in deep admiration as a flawed but intriguing analog masterpiece of SF movie-making, consider skipping this sequel altogether. But I imagine that warning will fall on deaf ears.

_____

* Because of the look and feel of two female characters in the film, I wonder if actresses Felicity Jones ("Rogue One") and Tatiana Maslany ("Orphan Black") were originally considered for the parts eventually played by Ana de Armas (companion hologram "Joi") and Sylvia Hoeks (deadly replicant "Luv"). While watching the trailer footage, I originally mistook those two characters for actresses Jones and Maslany. Their doppelgangers did just fine, though. Hoeks' "Luv" is particularly chilling.

** Oh, and the music! Not so good. Too often I was aware of background music--that by itself is not a good thing--and its shortcomings. So much so that by the end of "2049," where original "Blade Runner" music ("Tears in the Rain," I think) is (finally) used, it left me with mixed feelings. First, thank god! Second, where was that musical excellence during the rest of the film? Music can make or break a film, and is incredibly important. Few excellent films have poor musical soundtracks. Unfortunately, "Blade Runner 2049" is not an exception to that guideline.
2017-10-07
Blade Runner 2049 2017 by Denis Villeneuve Drama, Thriller, Mystery, Sci-Fi Robin Wright Penn, Ana de Armas, Tómas Lemarquis, Mackenzie Davis, Sallie Harmsen, Sylvia Hoeks, Dave Batista, Mark Arnold, David Dastmalchian, Wood Harris, Hiam Abbass, Ryan Gosling, Edward James Olmos, Jared Leto, Vilma Szécsi USA, UK, Canada, Hungary. Blade Runner 2049 2017 Full Movie Free Download HD 720p,Blade Runner 2049 2017 Full Movie Free Download HD, Blade Runner 2049 2017 Full Movie Free Download, Full Movie Blade Runner 2049 2017 Download, Blade Runner 2049 2017 Full Movie Free Download, 5starspie.com, 5 Stars Pie.com, Blade Runner 2049 2017 Full Movie Download 5starspie.com.
×