https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDscTTE-P-k

My nigga Denis is back with a franchise!!!!

I waved off the notion when it was reported

and it looks good..I know its just a teaser but still.

Nm

they at least seemed to get the look/feel/tone right in the short teaser.

The world wasnt ready for Bladerunner back in 82.

They are ready for this one..if that makes sense


>Nm

>they at least seemed to get the look/feel/tone right in the
>short teaser.
>

Agreed

>The world wasnt ready for Bladerunner back in 82.
>
>They are ready for this one..if that makes sense
>
Makes perfect sense to me

as a person who watched the movie a half dozen times unsuccessfully before seeing the whole thing.

....it's wildly boring at the beginning.


it is.

I went to sleep on it over and over and over again

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

so damn boring

i understand the love, but no

BUT i am hyped for this 'cause I really fuck with Denise

Even though Johann Johannsson has been killing his scores, I do wish he got Vangelis.

Given the controversy over it in the original.

Still fired up about this one. This will be the last trailer I watch for it; I'm in.

unless any have backed out, that looks like a great cast.

The score was remarkable. Futuristic and dark but sounded original. Reminds of of Atticus Ross & Trent Reznor's score for The Social Network for some reason.

http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2016/12/21/blade-runner-2049-rated-r-denis-villeneuve


Denis Villeneuve Says BLADE RUNNER 2049 Will Be Rated R
Also, a third BLADE RUNNER film may be in the cards.
By SCOTT WAMPLER Dec. 21, 2016

In a new interview with Screen Daily, Blade Runner 2049 director Denis Villeneuve has confirmed that the film will be not be rated PG, nor even PG-13.

According to Villeneuve:

"My producers are finding it fun to remind me that it will be one of the most expensive R-rated independent feature films ever made."

It should go without saying that an increased amount of graphic violence, F-bombs and/or androids hanging dong will not necessarily guarantee a better Blade Runner sequel. It is nice to know that Villeneuve is working with those options, however, and that there's no mandate in place to keep things tween friendly.

Elsewhere in the same interview, Villeneuve also lets slip that there may be even more Blade Runner in our future, should all go according to plan on 2049:

"I’m doomed, I love sci-fi. I have two more ideas now that I would love to do. (And) Blade Runner could go on… we’ll see how this one goes.”

We'll know how to feel about Blade Runner going on once we've all had a look at Blade Runner 2049 (October 6th, as you well know). Until then, let's just be grateful that this one looks so damn good, and that there's absolutely no reason androids can't hang dong in it.

They just showed it at CinemaCon. Word is every frame of it is art museum worthy.

We've had a lot of great looking films that sucked.

LEt's hope this looks good and is good.

>We've had a lot of great looking films that sucked.
>
>LEt's hope this looks good and is good.

He's basically Nolan if Nolan actually knew what human emotion was, LOL. (and I say this as a fan).

I gotta assume since it's so culty and doesn't have to push a toy line they let him have his way with it and it can only bode well for the film.

This is mos def Denis' franchise now.

Hopefully he finally wins an Oscar for this one.

https://youtu.be/gCcx85zbxz4

Gave too much away.

----------------------------



O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

WB and Universal ruin their own films

BLADE RUNNER 2049 – Trailer 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZOaI_Fn5o4

Last one gave too much away as is.

He's ever read. I think my expectations are too high for this.

2:30. Plan accordingly.

http://collider.com/blade-runner-2049-running-time/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=collidersocial




‘Blade Runner 2049’ Runtime Revealed by Denis Villeneuve
July 21, 2017 at 1:06 pm
Written by Dave Trumbore
SHARE TWEET
blade-runner-2049-image-slice

As part of our ongoing coverage of San Diego Comic-Con, Steve Weintraub had a chance to chat with Blade Runner 2049 director Denis Villeneuve in advance of his highly anticipated sci-fi sequel’s debut. The Oscar-nominated director is currently working on the final edit of the film and will be doing so until the end of August or early September. Though the ultimate runtime could change, Villeneuve confirmed that the current cut comes in at 2 hours and 30 minutes. Plan accordingly!

Ryan Gosling stars as the new Blade Runner, LAPD Officer K, whose quest leads him on a search to find Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford). Villeneuve reteams with frequent cinematographer Roger Deakins for the sci-fi story with Ridley Scott as executive producer. Blade Runner scribe Hampton Fancher and Michael Green penned the screenplay. The film also stars Robin Wright, Barkhad Abdi, Dave Bautista, Ana de Armas, Sylvia Hoeks, Lennie James, and Mackenzie Davis. Blade Runner 2049 opens in theaters on October 6th.

>2:30. Plan accordingly.
>
>http://collider.com/blade-runner-2049-running-time/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=collidersocial
>
>
>
>
>‘Blade Runner 2049’ Runtime Revealed by Denis Villeneuve
> July 21, 2017 at 1:06 pm
> Written by Dave Trumbore
> SHARE TWEET
>blade-runner-2049-image-slice
>
>As part of our ongoing coverage of San Diego Comic-Con, Steve
>Weintraub had a chance to chat with Blade Runner 2049 director
>Denis Villeneuve in advance of his highly anticipated sci-fi
>sequel’s debut. The Oscar-nominated director is currently
>working on the final edit of the film and will be doing so
>until the end of August or early September. Though the
>ultimate runtime could change, Villeneuve confirmed that the
>current cut comes in at 2 hours and 30 minutes. Plan
>accordingly!
>
>Ryan Gosling stars as the new Blade Runner, LAPD Officer K,
>whose quest leads him on a search to find Rick Deckard
>(Harrison Ford). Villeneuve reteams with frequent
>cinematographer Roger Deakins for the sci-fi story with Ridley
>Scott as executive producer. Blade Runner scribe Hampton
>Fancher and Michael Green penned the screenplay. The film also
>stars Robin Wright, Barkhad Abdi, Dave Bautista, Ana de Armas,
>Sylvia Hoeks, Lennie James, and Mackenzie Davis. Blade Runner
>2049 opens in theaters on October 6th.

Nm

Not sure if I'll go see it tonight - I don't know if I can stay awake and attentive that long after a day at work. It'll be at least 3:10 minutes from parking at the theater to leaving the theater parking lot.

NM

Denis and Roger Deakins specially formatted this for IMAX going so far as to format it frame by frame.

My screening is gonna be on IMAX!

I mean how can anyone expect this to be good. The expectations are to high over such a noir claissic etc. Different time and place we are all in so ....wait wait..maybe it can be an IT (a success and generally good movie thought by all)..but Im going in with expectations down.

Denis Villeneuve is on a tear on smart dark films and him tackling cyberpunk in general is an inspired marriage of material and director.

Problem is like you said, Blade Runner is a singular classic...on top of pulling off a sequel thirty years after the fact. Any direct comparison will have it lesser.

But I think he's smart enough not to take the trap and make a true sequel; borrow Deckard and a few aesthetic nods and make your own damn movie.

>I mean how can anyone expect this to be good. The
>expectations are to high over such a noir claissic etc.
>Different time and place we are all in so ....wait wait..maybe
>it can be an IT (a success and generally good movie thought by
>all)..but Im going in with expectations down.

Hope you're right but odds are...


>Denis Villeneuve is on a tear on smart dark films and him
>tackling cyberpunk in general is an inspired marriage of
>material and director.
>
>Problem is like you said, Blade Runner is a singular
>classic...on top of pulling off a sequel thirty years after
>the fact. Any direct comparison will have it lesser.
>
>But I think he's smart enough not to take the trap and make a
>true sequel; borrow Deckard and a few aesthetic nods and make
>your own damn movie.
>
>>I mean how can anyone expect this to be good. The
>>expectations are to high over such a noir claissic etc.
>>Different time and place we are all in so ....wait
>wait..maybe
>>it can be an IT (a success and generally good movie thought
>by
>>all)..but Im going in with expectations down.
>

...but the long ass run time and the mere presence of Jared Leto are two strikes against it before I even step foot in the theater.

...seeing as Denis, Ryan G. Ridley, and Harrison Ford all said how good the script is and that the 3rd act was reason enough to make it then...

Also, Denis has put out

Prisoners
Enemy
Sicario
Arrival

all within a four-year span is amazing. Most people can't put out one movie as well crafted as these four films in a five-year span.

And if this is as good as all of his previous films well...

P.S. check out Incendies.

But I thought these were pretty movies but boring as hell and think this will fall in line with those.

>Sicario
>Arrival

But Sicario boring? Really?

That was a one time viewing movie

Del Toro did his thing but the rest was boring to me

>Also, Denis has put out
>
>Prisoners
>Enemy
>Sicario
>Arrival


oh hell yeah..Ive only seen the last two, and think theyre great...Im in.

Disappointed because I really liked the musical textures of the music in the trailer. Still, Zimmer has done some good work recently with Nolan and is one of the best currently working. Hopefully the finished product is memorable.

https://pitchfork.com/news/johann-johannsson-no-longer-involved-with-blade-runner-2049-report/

Jóhann Jóhannsson No Longer Involved With Blade Runner 2049: Report

Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch were brought in as additional composers earlier this year

Jóhann Jóhannsson is no longer involved with Blade Runner 2049, according to Icelandic newspaper Fréttablaðið (via the Iceland Review). It had first been revealed in summer 2016 that Jóhannsson would be the film’s sole composer. In July 2017, it was reported that Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch were brought on to assist Jóhannsson. All of Jóhannsson’s contributions have now been reportedly removed from 2049. When reached for comment, Jóhannsson’s representatives replied, “Unfortunately due to a legal Non Disclosure Agreement Jóhann signed we’re not able to speak about this film at all.” Pitchfork has contacted representatives for the film for more information.

He said Johan was getting away from Vangelis and for the sake of the film, they need to get back more towards that sound.

He said he will work with Johan again on his next films.

This is a different film than the first and can stand alone and should be judged on its own terms. With that said for those who do love the first it does have some sequel stuff.

With that said, there's a lot to process and marinate on. There's stuff I really love and stuff I don't really know how to feel about. Yet. I just hope a second viewing doesn't ruin the feeling I have now.

I'll post more once I see this again.

And as far as I know, North America is getting IMAX 2D only.

I'm doing 3D Thursday. Then I'm going to wait till the end of its IMAX run to do Puffco screening on IMAX.

The 3D was dope in spots but not dope enough for me to recommend to anybody.

w/leto

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgsS3nhRRzQ&t=1s

w/bautista

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJYH9aGEEGg

https://youtu.be/rrZk9sSgRyQ

From the creator of Cowboy Bebop and scored by Flying Lotus.

Critics are giving their impressions on Twitter.

http://collider.com/blade-runner-2049-reviews/

Deakins needs that Oscar b plain and simple.

And if I were y'all, I'd avoid reviews as the whole shit is spoiler.

I realize now that the third act reveal is gonna either make or break the movie for a lot people.

Gonna see it in 3D Thursday night, but I still recommend seeing this on the biggest, loudest IMAX you can find. Especially since it was formatted for the shit.

i think i know where this one is going...

I'm curious. I'm not gonna say either way.

V.

I've seen the film at least 7 times - but on 4K Bluray it looks AMAZING.

If you want to watch the OG version then the 4K Bluray is the way to go.

I saw The Final Cut in IMAX a few weeks back that they remastered from the 4K print.

My God nigga...

So I saw it on my 65" OLED TV using my Xbox One S and the new 4K UHD HDR version of the film.

When I saw it on TV in the 80s it was a dark mess.
On laser disc and in the theaters in the 90s it was still really dark.
The DVD was "okay' but still dark.

This version on this TV it was AMAZING. It was like being outside on a full moon and seeing neon lights.
Or in a dark room where your eyes had already adjusted and then a small light is introduced and it looks bright.

So much detail I had never seen before - and it did make the ground cars seem really cheesy.


I can't recommend the 4K UHD enough.

Now I think the sound mix was a little low for dialog - but I may be having some hearing issues (going to the otorhinolaryngologist next month.) But to get the dialog at the correct volume the gun shots would have been louder than actual gunshots. Again - could be me.

>Now I think the sound mix was a little low for dialog - but I
>may be having some hearing issues (going to the
>otorhinolaryngologist next month.) But to get the dialog at
>the correct volume the gun shots would have been louder than
>actual gunshots. Again - could be me.

Just watched it last night, and I normally have my receiver set to -40db but had to raise it to -25.

Anyway you see it in 4K is gonna be dope.

It's not just you though on the dialogue. I tend to find that all home mixes have everything else amplified versus the dialogue.

In IMAX, I'd say everything was balanced out even though some of the gunshots and the chase at the end when Batty was bustin' through walls was kinda OD loud.

I'm so fuckin hype for this. I can't wait. I never in my wildest thought that this sequel was ever going to happen let alone that it could be a potential masterpiece in its own right if it did. Once I heard that Villeneuve was doing it and that they got Gosling I breathed a huge sigh of relief. Prisoners is one of my favorite films from the last 10 years. That and Children of Men. I'll watch anything those two directors do from here on out.

lawdamercy.
the SOUND design in this rattles your brain.
loved every second of the Vangelis-inspired score.
i always complain in regular theaters that they never seem to crank the sound much anymore, which is why i go see movies strictly at the drive ins. but THIS? it was as advertised just before the film started: "earth-shattering sound" lol.
i dont really wanna spoil anything either other than to say that at least a few familiar faces show up.
the visuals are ridiculously on point.
u got Bautista emoting like a motherfucker.
Leto being Leto (i don't get the hate with this guy, i've thought he's been top notch since he was Paul Allen).
i dug how this film give Deckard a higher purpose overall as well.
need to see it again.

V.

Mos def.

The original obviously has great world-building/visuals/ideas, but man, I just rewatched the Final Cut, and the Rick/Rachel stuff draaaaaags the movie to a halt every time it's on screen. The human element of the story doesn't really work... but goddamn, it works like gangbusters here. Visuals are incredible, Gosling's story arc is a banger from beginning to end (even the love story works!!), and it's just as heady/mindfucky as the original too. Also, feels like the first time in a while that Ford has given a shit-- he's acting his ass off here.

A home run.

I was telling people the same thing. Ford was much better here than in The Force Awakens.

>The human element of the story
>doesn't really work...

Blade Runner's mediation on the human element doesn't work?

I just rewatched it this morning before seeing 2049. Every time the movie tries to be thought-provoking or dives into the world of the story, it's great... but then there's another goddamn Rick/Rachael scene that drags it back to a crawl. And I'm still not convinced I know what the fuck is going on in that quasi-rape scene. Just none of that stuff ever sells for me.

Nm

I didn't really connect with it.

the Joaquin Phoenix "Her" subplot bored me. seemed like half her purpose was to be a sounding board for Gosling's plot exposition.

narrative relied on too many twists; it seemed like they were going for a revelation like the original's ending, but it all came off as desperate.

Leto was unsurprisingly distracting, and not in a complimentary way.

I guess the use of flashbacks is the 2049 version of bad voice-over.

all this coming from someone who loves Blade Runner and thinks Prisoners, Sicario and Arrival were among the best movies of their calendar year. but even the original took a few post-release edits to truly become the masterpiece it is, so maybe my opinion will change.

I was skeptical going in as Villanueve's films fall apart in their 3rd act but not this. I don't think it's better than the original but it's damn close. Im def going again very soon.

Not 3-D, find a regular IMAX.

Liked the story and all the sub-plots. Great atmosphere. Beautifully shot. Fully realized world that built-on the original. Did everything it needed to.

The only thing I didn't like about it is that it seemed like they were trying to build a bridge to a possible sequel> That seemed kind of lame. But overall the movie was self-contained enough that it wasn't that big of a distraction. Would have liked a little more Wood Harris, but didn't need him.

Not surprised at all that it bombed. Nearly three-hour R-rated sci-fi flick that's a sequel to a 35-year old film, with very little action and lots of exposition. But maybe it prevents them from doing another sequel.

-If you thought the original was slow/boring, you'll probably feel the same way about this one. The tone is the same.

-The story goes to places I didn't expect, which is good.

-Jared Leto is not good in this. He's supposed to be menacing and distant, but mostly just comes off as wooden. And for someone who's supposed to be the main antagonist, he just seems to disappear from the movie. I don't know if they're just saving him for Blade Runner 2079, but the way it plays out, it's like the movie just forgets about him.

-The settings/landscapes in this were AMAZING.

-The music is definitely an 80s throwback with synths and shit and is so BIG that every now and then it came close to taking me out of the movie.

-The ending was surprisingly effective and makes me want to watch the movie again (eventually).

-A friend complained about the misogyny in the movie. It didn't register while watching, but honestly I can't argue that much. I mean the movie sprinkles in random hologram titties, kind of like throwing a bone for all the Millennials getting bored with the slow, brooding tone. But then also (minor spoiler) just about all the major/big death scenes involve the female characters. A couple of times it's just to show how cold blooded Jared Leto's character is, which might actual be integral to the story if, again, Jared Leto's character didn't just disappear from the movie at one point.

Overall I really enjoyed it. I think it might be the best possible Blade Runner sequel, and given Ridley Scott's last several movies, it's probably a much better Blade Runner sequel than we would have gotten if Scott had directed it. Having said that, the first is a classic--this one's just really, really good. It left me thinking though and I do want to see it again one day, so maybe it will age well.

would i run out to see this? no. was it entertaining enough? yes.

I wanted more of the world that was built. The story was great and I just watched it as a standalone Detective Story. I didn't need a big connection to the first film, but I wanted to see more of the world as it related to the repercussions of the first film and the time since the blackout.

Stayed true to the mythology of the series. But really slow and confusing in some parts. They could have trimmed some off.

It's one of those movies where some days I'm gonna think it's brilliant, and other days I'll think "it's okay"

______________________________________________________________________________

cscpov.blogspot.com

"There's a fine line between persistence and foolishness..."
-unknown

"To Each His Reach"

The only bit I'd have considered cutting is Leto's stuff. Both of his scenes convey important information, but they could've easily had Love convey that info elsewhere and kept Wallace in the shadows-- or maybe brought him out for only one scene. They probably just wheeled Leto out to (a) have another "name actor" on board and (b) let Deakins shoot the incredible visual of the naked woman sliding out of the bag. Would've only really saved 5ish minutes, and it doesn't prevent me from loving the film, but all the same.

The rest of the movie honestly does a great job of conveying a TON of stuff without bogging itself down too much with exposition-- it's a big reason why the movie is so long, because it'd prefer to show instead of tell. It still tells a decent amount, because the world is so incredibly distinct, but I was still amazed, especially by the early scenes, at how little they actually spell out. The first scene between K and Joi delivers sooooooo much information in addition to character stuff. All sci-fi film writers should study that scene to see how you can set up complicated tech ideas in simple ways that serve character simultaneously.

Wallace seemed pointless to bring out, he could've had his one scene with Deckard and been done.

Now on the opposite side of that if they had more of Wallace so we got more of his intentions I could've been on board. I felt like we never got Wallace's endgame and from the short leading up to 2049, it appeared he was at something more than what was explained in the film.
But that scene with the replicant being "born" was dope.

I agree that there was just enough of him that he seemed more important than the movie actually made him out to be. I'll just go ahead and dump my other hot takes here: I felt like the movie played its hand far too early, even at the length that the movie is, and thus I sort of felt robbed of Gosling being the son. I also felt like the movie actually kept pointing to the secretary being the daughter, and I was gearing up to be super emotional as I realized that K was definitely a replicant and it turned out that the secretary was Deckard's daughter the whole time. If anything was going to cement the themes of both films, I honestly feel like it would've been that story; as it was, it reminded me a lot of the design of video games in the past five-seven years. Dads can't help but write dad and daughter reunion / understanding stories these days.


I also think they got too deeply involved in Deckard's post-2019 life without saying much of anything other than he had a child with a replicant, and I couldn't help but leave the theater (keep in mind I haven't seen the original movie in a few years, and I might have only seen three cuts one time each; memory is hard) wondering why they were willing to close so many loops from the original film while only vaguely nodding to Deckard's existential dilemma through Gosling (whose own issues were resolved) and Deckard's conversation with Leto. This was also some of what bugged me about all the clear cut third act stuff they handed us in the end; this "franchise" is built in some part on mystery. The Blade Runner PC Adventure game featured another Blade Runner, Ray McCoy, who could experience any of 17 story endings based on actions you took over the course of the game. That's my best understanding of this world, honestly (I played it enough to see all 17, long before Youtube) and I think this movie failed that facet of the world.


Visually and sonically, only Dunkirk can compete, but the use of color here and the creativity of moments like the love scene and the Ol' Blue Eyes / Elvis sequence elevates this to, unless there's a real shocker, the most stunning film I've seen this year.


~~~~~~~~~
"This is the streets, and I am the trap." � Jay Bilas
http://www.popmatters.com/pm/archive/contributor/517
Hip Hop Handbook: http://tinyurl.com/ll4kzz

something comparable to Rutger... Leto's flunky was not quite up to snuff.

but overall the whole thing did an excellent job of capturing the atmosphere and pace and offered a satisfying story line to compliment the original.

Is it human + replicant = baby?

Or replicant + replicant = baby?

Or both?

but they didn't really make it clear about B & C.. A was established though.

Deckard could be a replicant.

And it'd make more sense to Wallace if he could have these robots replicate on their own to get to the numbers needed to conquer the stars.

>Deckard could be a replicant.
>

i've heard this has always been a popular theory but after watching it i just don't see how.

>i've heard this has always been a popular theory but after
>watching it i just don't see how.

Once the director's cut was released it was a 90% probability he was a replicant - and after The Final Cut it was more like 95%.

1)Deckard has a day-dream about a unicorn - a dream he tells no one about. At the end of the movie when he's getting Rachel to escape they find a piece of origami left by Gaff. It is a unicorn.

2)They changed the way Deckhard's eyes reflect light in The Final cut - giving him the same look as Rachel.

There are other points people go to such as 'How could Deckard survive the fight with Roy, how could he climb a building with broken fingers, why does Gaff say "You've done a man's job." to him after Roy dies.

So in this film I think it makes sense that Deckard is a replicant still - if two replicant can have a baby then Tyrell's/Walalce's dream can become true without depending on humans to reporduce.

here the writers went back to ambiguity.

Tyrell could have made prototype replicants, with human memories, human lifespans and the ability to procreate. Rachel died so we don't know if she aged, but Deckard's aging may have been another one of Tyrell's last tricks -- along with the implanted memories and ability to have children.

or Deckard turned out to be human, because as far as I know there is no other replicant that's ever aged. Rachel was able to have a child as a replicant, but only with another human.

I think either way you get to the same place -- Deckard is the ultimate example of "what is human." he loved. he had a child. he may be tortured by the thought he could be human *or* a replicant (K's story over 30+ years). and in that case, is there even a difference between the two?

i've only seen the final cut and that was only a few weeks go.


1)Deckard has a day-dream about a unicorn - a dream he tells no one about. At the end of the movie when he's getting Rachel to escape they find a piece of origami left by Gaff. It is a unicorn.
so this i didn't even associate the significance. i just figured it was Gaff letting him know that he knew he was going to run and he was fine with it.

2)They changed the way Deckhard's eyes reflect light in The Final cut - giving him the same look as Rachel.
didn't pick up on this.

There are other points people go to such as 'How could Deckard survive the fight with Roy, how could he climb a building with broken fingers, why does Gaff say "You've done a man's job." to him after Roy dies.
i can see the fight point. i wondered that myself. however i took that quote as a throwaway line.

damn yall are right.

http://i.imgur.com/MLezO.gif


daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamn

i ran all of those points by my friends that got me to watch it and they were as blown as i was.

they suspected he was a replicant but they couldn't put together the reasoning to support it.

after this post I feel the same way... I've watched the original and the directors cut countless times and while it may have occurred to me it never really sunk in until now.

that gif is genuinely how I feel...

I was like this >< close with the whole unicorn thing but somehow it eluded me. *facepalm*

- Gaff is an older blade runner who physically can't keep up with the Nexus 6 models (age, his limp), so his memories are implanted in Deckard

- memory implants are to predict and control replicant behavior, so a replicant blade runner is given the memories of a human blade runner

- Gaff knows the unicorn dream because it's his (apart from viewing Deckard's file)

- the movie follows Deckard so you presume he is in charge, but Gaff is actually driving him around half the time and always in the shadows ready to step in

- Gaff is the *real* blade runner

- Gaff let Deckard go (he was presumably ordered to retire both Deckard and Rachel once they ran off together, and clearly had the drop on them when he left the unicorn origami) because he sees the "humanity" in Deckard -- falling in love, going against his programming -- and maybe because he sees himself in Deckard's choices since they share memories (Deckard made Gaff proud by doing a "man's job" as well as Gaff could've hoped to do himself)

https://m.popkey.co/3d8961/KlM06.gif

us being truly immersed in the world that Villeneuve and Deakins created.

Its dope though.

LOVE the world building....showing logical evolutions from the original.
(i always think most of ridley films do a GREAT job of judiciously/appropriately using special effects. they use JUST enough thats needed to tell the story, and make you believe the environment. And the KIND of effects is on point as well...minimizing CG overuse, blurring the lines between practical props, model use, and computer graphics so well that everything just seems SO grounded...love it)

LOVE the sound and score...

The story pulled me in and kept me, and (thankfully) surprised me. liked how they let it tell itself for the most part, keeping the 'lets explain whats happening here' dialogue to a minimum...

it may not be everyones cup of tea (prob too much of a slow-burner for those with shorter attention spans) but personally i tend to enjoy movies that 'take their time', so its right up my alley...

(props to Bautista too. dude has presence on screen, and i've dug him in everything I've seen him in.)

Visually the most stunning movie in a long while. This and Dunkirk are the best movies of 2017 imo

It'll make for a much more rewarding experience

guy for this movie. where Vangelis at?

movie felt waaay too long for the story they were trying to tell...they should've cut that dry ass "A.I. girlfriend" subplot and save at least 30 minutes of my life.

leto still getting 5 minutes screentime...hilarious

decent movie with some great (GREAT) visuals but definitely not the masterpiece many are calling it

i thought the *the real chick present but still needing the fake chick to get off* overlay scene was an interesting motif to porn addiction.

also, dave bautista did a pretty damn good job.

i saw it in XD.

I liked everything about it. The interesting takes on humanity - the only human beings in the film are those who aren't mainstream, the fleeting line between real love and how much that love is based on fantasy and fiction. The technical details like the cinematography, score, and sound design. The performances were good all around and the plot kept me engaged.

I liked the plot points even if the movie did seem long. It doesn't seem clear the plot line that could be cut and make the story complete. Maybe the reason the movie seemed long is because the story was so engrossing. Following the story took more attention that I usually have to in a movie. That isn't a knock to the movie per se, but just the reality that runtimes of movies seems to be much shorter than 10 or 15 years ago.

It nodded to the original while succeeding at creating a new story. It's a shame that there won't be a sequel like the ending suggested but Villenueve and everyone involved ought to be proud. This is a movie that could have done damage to the legend of the original and this movie arguably surpassed the quality of the first.

I'd recommend seeing the movie in 3D.

Excellent on so many levels - from the technical direction, framing, and script to the score to the acting (Gosling's ability to express nuanced "under the surface" emotion is so damn good, this performance reminded me of Drive in that regard) to the overall execution.

I haven't been that fully engrossed in a film - let alone one that runs 2:44 - for a long time. Hats of to Dennis, Deakins, and the entire cast...will certainly be watching this again in theaters to truly appreciate all of the elements.

It was fucn beautiful to watch

The plot was dope

The acting was great

The reveals were well done

It was so fucn good.

Yes, I like it better than the OG but agree on the misogyny Bigworm described above

So many visuals are still clear in my head

The misogyny fucked it up for me.

Its visually arresting for sure...but the story is stale.

Because the abuse/slavery of women was a continuous theme: from the crew of prostitutes/freedom fighters, the search for basically the magical uterus, the advertisement of sex robots/holograms and even how Harrison's big moral choice was basically a disposable doppleganger of his original boo.


Denis ain't a dummy, the problem is I don't know if a film made around continuously brooding men is where to make an indictment of patriarchy and toxic masculinity (which is where I think he was going with all these lonely men, how the main freedom fighter was a woman, how a woman was the key to the future, etc). It just came off as mean since at the same time they dropped storylines that would give it full circle (giving Leto more shine) or how his assistent/assassin teared up when they birthed the new female (was she sad because another one of her kind was being brought the slavery? because she was a failure about to get killed?)

.

BUT yeah I don't think it focuses on toxic masculinity enough to justify the rampant misogyny.

And yeah, the female characters in positions of power who don't die are all but put on the side lines. As in you see them in a couple scenes and then they're OUT.

Hey I liked the movie. But I just can't get beyond that, it's why I liked but didn't love it.