Since people have been asking me to review this film ever since I covered the 1982 original, I decided to oblige. Let's take a look at Blade Runner 2049.
Jared Leto's goal was explained in the film. He needed a slave force capable of reproduction in order to enable mankind to expand more quickly into space in order to survive. The artificial method he used to create Replicants was too slow and humanity was failing because of it.
So I guess the whole mystery of if Decker was a replicant or not, is no longer a mystery since replicants do not age... And Ridley Scott was wrong, apparently...
Excuse me my good drinker sir but if a movie wish should be made is on Patreon and forgive my selfishness already but I request a movie wish too next time or when it’s possible “ again excuse my kind of entitled behavior hopefully it’s not a thing there become a habit in anyway and I hope comes as wish then anything else “ call Repo Man from 1984 which I think you also like even the fact a lot of the characters is named after beers .. anyway a amazing cool movie in my humble opinion.. hope you come too it and thank you for all your good work.. take care.. cheers 🍻🥃😎
So the main conflict in the plot was aborted, much like the cringe scene of Wallace performing a replicant abortion, basically rendering the film up that point utterly meaningless (taking up an average film length), and making the set-up to payoff totally disjointed. If that's the right way I shudder to think how much worse the wrong way would be.
K was made to feel like he was important and assumed he was special, which comes across as an allegory for ego and that we all assume we're special, when in reality we're all just cogs in a bigger machine, but that's what grants him his humanity.
I respectfully disagree. Yes it was subverting expectation, but no, it was not done in the right way. There was all of the setup of the Expectation, but when it all turned out to be a red herring, there was no explanation of the where the clues were actually leading. That's the main reason I fricken hated this film.
Well I found it an utter chore to watch, it was needlessly slow. There's literally nothing to glean from 30 second shots of someone walking around. It's not *that* deep, it just wants to felate itself over how interesting it thinks it is.
Ultimate digital AI dystopia, the creators even figure out a way to make the replicants pay their hard-earned credits for upgrades on their own virtual AI, AND keep the Squishies doin the jobs they were created for!
I think it was in many ways but I think he is right on sm e areas about the movies like was it really necessary. I asked that question the whole film while also still being intrigued with the film, he never trashed the film
I felt that everything is deliberate. The audience is supposed to want Joe's life to have meaning. But the movie keeps finding new and heartbreaking ways to emphasize its meaninglessness in the midst of all the intrigue of the events that surround him. It's almost felt like the audience is desperately searching for its own meaning in parallel to Joe. By the end we desire for Joe "become" the main character in his life and in this movie. All of this is what makes the true climax at the very end so powerful.
I get that and got it by just watching the movie. But I can't help but think it could have been better anyway. On one hand, watching it, it feels like it's way to complicated, many characters that seemingly don't really matter, many things to happen that don't matter,... but on the other hand, the Main plot is so simple. But not in a good way. Half the movie feels like filler. Like, whats the scene where all those people get bombed and Luv says "come on get up, do you job" or something like that? Why do we see such a long shot of the Kids working in the orphanage? Why do we barely see anything from the daughter except one scene and the ending? Why is the AI Girlfriend there? I could find many scenes I think don't Add anything to the plot or the worldbuilding or to anything really. Don't get me wrong, I love slow movies, I love long, lingering shots. But I want them to feel neccessary. I don't want to feel like i just watched a 2 hour movie that could have been one and would have probably benefited from it. I really don't understand Why this movie is so hyped honestly
Makes a lot of sense. I feel like you summed up my feelings while watching it the first time. Even when it was becoming apparent that K wasn’t the chosen one, I so desperately wanted him to be or at least to be a second chosen one.
Personally, I love 2049. It wasn't a rehash remake that just did the same thing as the original. And there's a clear love and respect for the original.
As an immensely huge Blade Runner fan I actually really liked this sequel surprisingly. I sometimes like to think of this movie as spiritual sequel to the movie Drive in a way
I put off watching it for a while because I had fears, waited to get a spoiler free feel of it. I enjoyed it, not as much as the first but I thought that would always be the case.
it is definitely an action movie, more so than the original which I see as a noir sci-fi opera. The first time seeing it I didn't like how the climax was this straightforward action sequence b/c I was comparing it to Rutger Hauer's impromptu monologue from the original - though that's unfair b/c how could the movie be expected to recreate that, and it overlooks just how well and effectively it was done, straightforward actions scene or not
It doesn't really feel like the original, but it's not bad thing, with a different director it should feel different, unless Rildey himself would've made it.
That was his first big miss lol, K's slow discovery of him being the child just to find out that wasn't the truth was a great double twist that they laid out to perfection. Being spoon fed that information changes the whole movie. Definitely the first time I've disagreed with the drinker.
@@lionelruiz3247 That's my issue with the film though, it wasn't a double twist for me because I saw it coming. The thing that tipped me off was everyone being nonspecific with the gender and only saying 'child'.
@@beircheartaghaistin2332If it had leaned either way it would have tipped off the viewer as to who the child was, by either making us believe that woman might have been it, or just K himself. That memory he had was a great way to make us believe he was it, just to have that be false info. I stand by my opinion that it was done the right way.
As for "why?" 4:55, it is stated in the movie: Wallace Corp cannot keep up with replicant demand required to populate the galaxy. No central production could. This is one of the odd parts of the plot: the bad guy and the good guys effectively want the same thing, reproducing replicants. Just for different reasons.
@SirSnufflelots Once Wallace understood how replicant reproduction works, he could install safeguards to control it. It's an excellent plot point that ties everything together: Rachel & Deckard's love story, Wallace's pursuit of power to dominate the galaxy, K's hope that he might have been born and loved instead of manufactured.
@@Dr.DixieRekt i think it's both simultaneously. He also mentions how he wants humanity to populate every planet it can and how they need to move exponentially faster.
But replicants could just build more factories. Btw. the whole concept of replicants is flawed, because they have the same needs as humans, so not much cheaper as workers, and similarly fragile in hostile environments. Robots would make far more sense. It's forgivable for a 40 years old movie, especially because of the story it wanted to tell, but doesn't work well today when we'll have real humanoid robots in a year or two, and essentially human level AI.
1978's Invasion of the Body Snatchers remains the absolute best. Both one of the greatest Remakes ever AND one of the greatest Sequels ever(that's if you pay attention and pick up on the fact it IS a sequel to the 1950s classic).
@@colliric interesting! So the “soft reboot” trend of recent years was anticipated by “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” 40 years beforehand. Yet another way it was ahead of its time!!!!
@@DPMusicStudio the remake contains several direct elements that subtly suggested it was also a sequel for fans of the original movie. It feels exactly like a continuation if you've recently watched the original.
CD; you got everything perfect except for "Love", who is in many ways used as a mirror for K. See Wallace calls ALL the replicants by the nickname "Love". It's not her name, it's just a generic nickname Wallace calls the replicants (and by extension, her). She wants DESPERATELY to be important, so her whole character is wrapped up in trying to please and get the attention of Wallace, it's her whole identity, even taking the nickname he calls everyone as her own name so she can lie to herself about how important she is. She wanted to be special and is so wrapped up in her lies she would instinctively lash out at those who WERE special (or she perceived as such). K in comparison also wants deep down to be special, to be more then just a replicant, it's why he works hard to make "Joi" seem more human, it's why he bites so hard on the possibility he was birthed (meaning he had a soul). However in the end, just before the final showdown he's confronted by the ad for Joi, and it all comes together in his head, when she (the ad) calls him by that same nickname his Joi used to call him (see the similarity with wallace and love?)... In the end he faces the truth. He's not special, joi never loved him, but was programed to make him feel like he was loved, and so he goes into his final battle at peace with the fact that he'll never be special. But he also makes an independent choice. He decides instead of killing Deckard like he was asked, like a good automaton should, he brings Deckard together with his daughter. He creates something real, rather then destroy, and dies. It's a lovely if understated tragedy.
I think, you are sort of right, but I have the feeling, either that was a screenwriter's happy mistake so the end result is that it feels underdeveloped or the writers or writer couldn't find a way to develop that even more, because it is a compelling story line, but it's one that feels lost, perhaps because of the unnecessary slow pace of the film. just let me tell you, if that had been an important point for director and writers, it would've been highlighted, but it wasn't and that's too bad.
Since you have captured my most important points better than I would have, I have only a few smaller additions. There are some short movies in which it's explained, that Wallace has perfected the androids obedience, which is why they're back in the first place and why creating them in the millions seems reasonable in his mind. Him killing the "new born" and delivering his monologue portraits the nature of this control, when he specifically "motivates" Love to bring him results. It's important that all he does and says in that scene is for her. Finally, if one can stretch the definition of "engineering" to the point where evolution can be considered kind of an "engineering process", then we're all "genetically engineered robots", which (I believe) is the point of the first movie and the (real) question asked in the title of the book, so if androids and humans are both human (as the first movie implies) and the primary difference is that androids can't create life (as the second movie implies), then the symbolic value of the child makes sense: It shattered Dave Bautistas illusion and it will shatter that of K and potentially all other androids, where the child itself is the ultimate evidence / proof and thus key to a revolution. Fuck Apple btw.
I feel like the drinker has missed a few key plot points to 2049, so I'll try to explain bit by bit what I believe he might've let fly over his head. 1.) The New Models of Replicants -The Drinker mentioned near the beginning that he found it was an odd choice to make Officer K a Replicant Blade Runner, even though the movie clearly establishes that Wallace Corp had perfected the obedient artificial slave, and weren't designed with the 4-year lifespan of the original Nexus-6 models. As for what Wallace seeks to accomplish by creating a race of Replicants able to reproduce, I always saw it as a God complex. The man is clearly very in his own head about things, and we do have powerful billionaires who want nothing but more power and control, even if they have plenty of that already. -And yes, K (or Joe, as many fans call him) does inevitably rebel at the end. But I think this was only due to the shocking idea that he might have been a real human this entire time. It ended up not being the case, but imagine the opposite. Imagine your entire life, you've lived believing you were real and you ended up being artificial. That's what happened to Rachael's character in the original movie, and clearly it shifted her entire view on not just her own life, but life in general. K rebelled because he thought he made a shocking discovery about himself. It was enough to break through his obedient programming. 2.) Finding Deckard in Las Vegas -The city of Las Vegas had long been abandoned due to its excessive levels of radiation, so although the search of Deckard would still be difficult, no, there aren't "hundreds and thousands of inhabitants." Whatever went down in Vegas (some have speculated that it was some kind of nuclear war that produced such extreme levels of radiation) had forced everyone who lived there to evacuate. And as one can clearly witness in the scene itself, K used a heat tracker and found the bee farm, presumably put up by Deckard himself. One point the Drinker makes that I think really doesn't take anything away from the film's world-building is all the tech, furniture, and alcohol that was left behind in the city. When a nuclear disaster threatens an entire population, I'm sure the last thing they care about is the resale value of tech that would take a while to uninstall. Now a point the Drinker makes that I do agree with is that concluding that the wooden horse was from Vegas simply by its high levels of radiation doesn't really seem to make much sense. I'll give him that one. 3.) Off-World Torture Techniques -This is a small point, but I always assumed that Wallace didn't want to risk getting caught torturing a man for information. And as only the rich are able to travel Off-World, the chances of anyone actually uncovering it and exposing Wallace for such inhumane tactics would be a lot less of a risk. But I can't say this is concrete, this is just what I believe the case to be. 4.) The Antagonists -I'll agree that I wasn't all that much a fan of Leto's character. In comparison to the original Blade Runner (Roy Batty and his friends) he's pretty flat. But once the Drinker compared him to Tyrell, it got me thinking that maybe that's the point. Eldon Tyrell created Replicants because he genuinely believed he could make the world a better place with them. He completely misfired in that ambition, yes, but he genuinely believe in what he was doing. Tyrell was charming and really thought that his line of Replicants would bring about a positive change in the world. Wallace, however, has none of that. This is why I'm beginning to think his flat delivery of pretentious philosophical lines makes a lot more sense now; Tyrell was ambitious and wanted to make the world a better place while Wallace thinks of himself as a God (i.e, his line about having millions of children when Deckard assumes he has none.) -As for Luv, it's pretty obvious that she suffers from extreme trauma. She cries at the sight of Wallace murdering a newborn Replicant, and is even shown to want to be the best Replicant, or Wallace's "perfect angel." This isn't out of love, (no pun intended) but fear. Deep fear has been instilled into her since she was first created and it's clearly turned her into his tool, not his perfect angel as she might want to believe. When Luv kills Robin Wright's character, she tears up and spouts "I'm going to tell Wallace you attacked first" as if she's just a petulant child, and not a fully-grown woman. I DO see a bit of complexity in her. As opposed to Roy Batty, where what he's been through is basically told to us through exposition, I like that Luv's backstory is only implied. Overall I understand the Drinker's points here and I respect his opinion (as everyone should.) But I do believe that he overlooked a few things that might've made the movie's plot tighter to him. Some of these points were more obvious, and some are clearly just speculation made by myself and other viewers. But I just wanted to share my two cents on this. Thank you for the review
Why should everyone respect his opinion? His recent videos are just lazy angry rants. Good for nothing but fuelling stupid internet hate bubbles. Respect is earned
I noticed that most of his criticism in general stems from him not understanding the movie he's reviewing. This video especially is the nail in the coffin, I unsubscribed
There will never be another scene like "Tears in Rain..." That scene was so gravitating! Just grabs you by the throat! The original Blade Runner is a masterpiece!
I wanted to watch Blade Runner 2049… borrowed both films and as much as I wanted to watch 2049, I watched the original first. Holy fucking shit, the opening scene gave me goosebumps. That score store gives me tingles and the scenery at the beginning was stunning. I fee like I should have appreciated all of it even more but I think it’s understandable because I was wanting 2049 and just kind of defining all of my knowledge of the Blade Runner universe off that than the OG.
@RogerwilcoFoxtrot As a grown ass man, I was the same. Love her character and left you with the thought that maybe, just maybe, Joi was evolving and was becoming unique, away from her programming and being a true person. Plus, the actress is so damn cute looking and her expressions were so lovable. Damn it sucks being single sometimes! LOL
Well spotted! Although she's the artificial and manufactured Wallace interpretation, hence 'Luv' instead of 'Love'. This is a big part of why Deckard later rejects 'Rachel'. Tyrell has vision which he later loses, Wallace is blind from the start. I f*#king love these movies.
You missed the heart of this movie. It's about transcending self/ego. K is an "average joe" who is lured towards the belief that he is special (born, not made, the first ever replicant offspring), only to have all his hopes dashed. He truly is nobody. He's not the one. Not even the love of his virtual girlfriend was real ("You look like a good joe"). And it's in this state of defeat that he finally becomes capable of a truly selfless act. On the other side of ego-death is the capacity for service. He chooses to save Deckard, and in so doing loses his own life. This is the same thing that Roy Batty experienced in his final moments, when finally struck by the futility of his own life: he chose to save Deckard. The movie is philosophically deep. BR2049 is a greater exploration of the existential theme of the first movie.
I think the Drinker needs to watch this one again, and also the three shorts Villeneuve commissioned to fill in some of the time between the original and this. He seems to have missed a lot. There are still some holes (e.g., how did that serial number get into a cracked bone? Are replicants manufactured or grown? Or both?) but overall this sequel is damn good. The great question, "What makes us human?" gets played with in many ways and in both directions. Joi isn't just a toy. Luv isn't just a cipher.
“Why would Wallace want to make Replicants who can reproduce?” Because someone else did. Wallace considers himself a god, and yet he hasn’t mastered what someone else did.
also he just wants to make more to expand his little corporate empire, right? he assumes replicant children would simply function as obediently as the built ones, blah blah blah… blinded by his hubris, and such, right?
@@Sam_T2000 Perhaps, but that clearly seems to simply be more of a pleasant byproduct than an actual goal in of itself. He very clearly is shown to have a massive god complex, more so than a desire for simple power, and it's evident that he believes that no one can even challenge his position in the first place, so he doesn't really need even more obedience around him. All he needs to prove, to himself, is that he is at the very top - with abilities and ambitions unrivaled by anyone. That is his entire goal, to pursue anything and everything that can support his self inserted status as a god among men. As a pioneer of life and creation. As an engineer of civilization. As a father to evolution itself.
I also took it as an implication that manufacturing replicants is an expensive, lengthy, resource hogging procedure, whereas being able to breed them would be much faster and cheaper - but I like your "jealous god" angle, too. 😉
@@JohnnyZenith The answer is NO,well not in this movie. These replicants only have nightmares. If Philip.K.Dick was alive to see this movie,he would be extremely disappointed to what they have done to his original story (Yes,I have read his novel,and loved it )
Wow, the Drinker literally missed everything this movie did well. - Replicants came back with new safeguards (including the Baseline test) after a huge backlash and takeover of the Tyrell corporation - As stated by Tyrell in the original movie: “Rachel is special.” This is why she was able to have children and didn’t have a 4-year lifespan. - Wallace kills the new replicant because it lacks the ability to reproduce, showing his ruthlessness and lack of feeling toward replicants. The Drinker had some amazing videos (esp. Disney Star Wars) but lately he’s just relying on his persona so he can just complain about everything. Lazy & boring.
There were 2 films, away from all others, that I waited on for 30+ years; Dune and Blade Runner. I thoroughly enjoyed the immersion, visuals, soundtrack and storylines in both. Yes I could pick at some things, but no I really loved the experiences and I have refused to rewatch them until I got a new 4k large TV ( when I could afford 1. And I finally did) and quality headphones, and 4 hours left alone at night. I probably should have only watched the review on these with someone who agreed, so I could bask in the shared experience. But my general enjoyment of the drinker made me try. Oh well.
I was annoyed at his Star Trek Beyond review when he pretty much skipped over the Spock and McCoy stuff, it was literally what elevates Beyond over its predecessors. I get he hates the Kelvin timeline films, but when he had to ignore such good parts of the best film of theirs (and one among the Trek films I love) to sell the narrative that it's dumb and soulless really annoyed me.
Tyrell deliberately made his replicants sterile because it's pointless to give a being with a 4-year lifespan the ability to reproduce, NOT because it was an impossible thing to do. A replicant having a child is not the "miracle" the movie makes it out to be. Tyrell even says in the original movie that Rachel was an experiment. Wallace's motivations are moronic. After spouting some pretentious drivel about "artists" and "clay" he kills a newborn replicant to show us how evil he is. This is stupid to the point of being funny. We already know that replicants are expensive, rare and difficult to produce, so this is like the owner of a Ferrari factory smashing one of his brand new cars with a sledgehammer while saying, "behold my power to destroy!" lol. WTF is that?
"I've drunk things you wouldn't believe. Amaretto on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched Jim Beam glitter near the Anheuser brewery gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like beers in rain. Time for rye." 😂
Exactly. I was worried that the Blade Runner sequel was just going to be a Fast & Furious type of overblown spectacle. Thank you, Denis Villeneuve. You were the right director for this sequel.
I liked it because this one actually seemed more true to the world the actual book took place in than the original. I actually read the book before watching the original Blade Runner, so I think that's why I wasn't a huge fan of the first film.
@@Ryan-vv5vw - I'm pretty sure if it wasn't for Rutger Hauer's iconic role as Roy Batty the original Blade Runner could have easily been a forgettable film.... 'Like tears in the rain.' 👌😁
@Yeah Right - Except that the first F & F film was a straight up rip off of Point Break with Keanu Reeves and Patrick Swayze. They just swapped out surfers for street racers. The entire story is pretty much plagiarized from start to finish. You have an FBI agent (Keanu) or in this case Paul Walker go undercover to infiltrate a gang of thieves. He becomes a good friend to the gang leader, falls for the girl who is close to the gang and then ends up letting the gang leader go instead of arresting him. I remember going to the theaters when F & F came out and being really pissed off that I paid to see Point Break all over again. The rest of the F & F franchise I'm not going to even bother to get into because what's the point? They basically went from street punks to James Bond/Mission Impossible/Ocean's 11 over the top, eye-rolling ridiculousness.
This Drinker guy CLEARLY has no clue what he's on about and should not be giving his shitty takes on such masterpiece movies... 1.2 M views I'm disappointed 😞
@@vikinghoodbluelighthouse2911 it's because he only ever has two review formulas. generic good or generic bad, they always have 100% the same points, it's almost like ai writes his scripts lol. The issue here is he accidentally put a good movie in the 'bad review' pile and just created a generic negative review.
@@AthelstanKing he has the most vanilla reviews, either shitting on hated marvel movies, woke Disney movies or poorly written sequels to popularly beloved films, Or praising movies the general audience loved and is praised by other movie critics. when he tries to criticise movies without his basic anti sjw/feminism shit, he criticises them for the dumbest reasons possible because he doesn't know the process of filmmaking enough to disect and give good criticism of films.
"he goes there and runs into deckard within 5 minutes". He found the bee boxes using his scanner and inferred there was a humam nearby. Also there were lots of cuts.
@@veronicab15 …I saw it three times in the first two months it was released, just to avoid what you’re suggesting and to see what everyone was creaming themselves about. Each time I liked it less. This movie will end up in the dustbin of history where it belongs. Geeeze, out of all the staggeringly great music to come out of the later part of the 20th Century and the dude chooses Frank Sinatra?? …And that’s just a start.
I have the scene of Luv droning the junkyard while getting her nails done as my wallpaper. There is a "high-seas" copy of the IMAX version that is kind of interesting for a rewatch.
Honestly enjoyed 2049 way more than the original, the modern cgi and better practical effects made the setting way more immersive and believable in my opinion. Every scene is wallpaper worthy
@@isakisak9989 Agreed and people keep failing to mention the sound design. I keep rewatching the scene with K and Sapper at the beginning. Wonderful sound design and visuals.
All of Denis Villeneuve's films are visual masterpieces. Sicario didn't have a particularly artistic landscape, but the score and cinematography gave it another dimension.
@@LetsbeHonest97 thats part of it but obviously the sounds you hear and visuals you see are at least as important as the guy you disagreed with for some reason was saying...
Warms the heart honestly. It's so annoying listening to Drinker, Mauler, Gary and Razorfist shit on 2049 any chance they get on streams, so I come here to remind myself that I'm not insane lol
That's because the makers of this awful movie just stole their ideas from the Dangerous Days documentary and made a checklist of every element from the original and randonly worked them into this turd.
@@jjryan1352 Calm down, blade runner was one of my favorite movies in my teens and i thought this sequel would be a very lame money grab at a time when it feels like half of all movies are exactly that. As a fan it seems like they did the right thing by me and as someone who's read a bit of Phillip K Dick, i feel that he would have stood and applauded the moment when Deckard says "No...I know what's real...".
@WinnieTheGrizzly Nah, Leto did his usual "Emerson, Lake & Palmer" routine. A little over the top, not quite as intellectual as he thinks, pretentious and generally quite boring.
You're possibly putting too much emphasis on aspects of characterisation in the original and hoping for more of the same. What many people reference about Bladerunner is how it blew their mind visually and aurally and still does to this day. I first saw it on videotape aged ten and it affected me deeply, despite not understanding what was going on, and I still regularly listen to the soundtrack in isolation. 2049 follows the same path and I believe that, visually at least, it is a masterpiece. I can't think of another director who could have done this justice so it was worth waiting an extended period for the right man. Timing is everything.
No big risks? I'd argue setting up the main character as the " chosen one" just to kill him off was a huge risk (won't see this in mainstream films). I think trying to follow from the first one was maybe a mistake. I honestly would argue it's best to see this as its own story set in the blade runner universe. The K story arc is an amazing tragedy story, I wondered if it could be a commentary of a realistic dystopia, with the rise of only fans, how isolated people are becoming and an increase in working hours due while wages stagnate against inflation. The first one (my favourite film ever I think) asked BIG questions, this was a beautiful story about a small individual and his seemingly insignificant life.
@Call Me Ishmael Yeah but I think it works well enough for 2049 to expand on it this way. Its not like it contradicts the first movie, only the thoughts of its writers.
Termitreter It does contradict Ridleys Final Cut as he suggested Deckard is a Replicant himself. So you could say this is a sequel to the Theatrical Cut.
@drew7376 : Yeah, but unlike the other replicants seen in _Blade Runner_ [1982], Rachel _didn't know_ that she was a replicant. That's at least part of why she was more difficult for Deckard to test with the Voight-Kampff than usual th-cam.com/video/nItDJslm3lE/w-d-xo.html . The fade-out/fade-in @ about 3m 45s suggests that testing-session took an inordinate length of time.
@@Corbomite-ei1ty Suggesting and outright stating are 2 different things. If he wanted Deckard to be cannonically a replicant he should've said it. Whe you suggest something you're not defining anything, therefore someone can chose weather or not to ignore your suggestion.
For the record, Rachel was an extremely rare “Nexus 7.” Tyrell’s masterpiece. When he died, the secret died with him. We were never sure if Rachel’s lifespan was limited to 4 years. At any rate, natural reproduction by a Nexus 7 is something for which the universe has no established canon up to this film, given that there were so few Nexus 7’s before Tyrell’s death. Roy Batty and his cohorts we’re Nexus 6 models. If Deckard is a replicant like Rachel (and that’s a big if) then he too would be a Nexus 7; unbound to any of the rules of Nexus 6 models like Priss and Roy, as well as being unbound to the later Nexus 8 models we see in the film.
This movie was magic for me. Dennis Veuilleves scope, detail, immersive visuals and spectacular score, the well thought out plot and pacing combined with the character performances make up an absolute masterpiece and more than worthy sequel to one of the most philosophical and visionary movies ever made. This absolutely adds value to the original story and unpacks many of the original core ideas while adding a further layer of what it means to be alive, have a soul, trancendence though sacrifice from dedication to others and explores many of the theological concepts of Philp K Dicks original story. Also the scene where K is getting interviewed for mental stability, while holding the secret of his internal change and struggle with his change in worldview, having to recite the company precribed script that Gosling improvised based on lines from the book builds tension and insight that is breathtaking. Every bit as mind blowing as the original blade runner and cemented for me how exceptionally gifted Veuilleve is as a creator and respecter of the original source material. 'Cells within cells..... interlinked, dreadfully distinct' and 'dying for a noble cause is the most human thing we can do' Astonishingly good and more importantly, worthy of genuine praise.
This movie is one of the greatest sequels in film history. You’re not giving it the credit it deserves. It may even be better than the original - which is a masterpiece within itself.
The only thing I found memorable about this movie was the relationship between K and his virtual girlfriend. I found it incredibly depressing when, after her destruction, K comes across a holographic advert that tries to woo him. And through her dialogue to him, reveals that his virtual girlfriend was probably just spouting preprogrammed BS that seemed real at the time... Too much like real life. 🤷♂️
That was another interesting topic that the movie brought up. Did Joi rebel against her code and gain free will, like K, or was it really her code that was making her do all those things?
What I liked about it was that his coming to terms with her artificiality added one more layer of self-awareness, further blurring the line between Replicant and human. He had, or attained, the ability to discern between emotion and rote response, and express a preference to preserve what is real.
The ambiguity there is what really sells it for me. You can interpret it as she was only programmed the whole time or that she overcame her programming and made a life of her own. It's like the unicorn from the original. In that moment K weighs both options and then realizes that he'll never know. He then immediately applies it to himself. He's not the Chosen One, he's not something special, he's just Joe. He'll never know if he's actually following his own programming by being obedient (first to the police and now the Rebellion) or if he has free will of his own. Then he remembers what Dapper said at the beginning. K has seen a miracle. Whether it was JOI choosing for herself or seeing a Replicant of woman born, through this whole story he's seen that things can change. In that moment, he decides to save Dekkard for no other reason than he thinks it's the right thing to do. That's how the scene hit me, and part of why I love this movie.
It really had a great message, though. When you lament the state of messaging in modern movies, you can't fault this one. Sometimes, you are NOT the hero of the story. Sometimes, you only play a part. Still, it is important that you do the right thing to the best of your ability.
K realizing he isn’t the Chosen One and deciding to do the right thing anyway when he absolutely could have fucked off and left Deckard to his fate was the character moment of the story. K was programmed to obey, but in saving Deckard he made a choice to do the right thing which arguably was the first actually altruistically noble action he makes in the movie
When an entire city has a radiation leak. All the furniture and items have to be abandoned and can’t be brought with the people during the evacuation. The same type of radiation found in Las Vegas must be rare enough that it wasn’t a coincidence to contaminate a wooden horse.
I mean, he said a replicant gives birth to a child a bit earlier, then he tried to apply real life into sci-fi/fantasy movie. The reviewer is dumber than the captain Marvel movie review.
@Geralt of Rivia much better than TLJ but that’s not hard, it does some interesting things with the characters which is better than getting raped like Luke
@@shawne7228 I don't understand all the hype, I really liked the sound and visual design of the movie, but the story was (at least for me) really boring and uninteresting, i walked out after 80min. Also have to note I never saw the original.
@@anidiot2818 Then you'd probably hate the original as well. I liked the sequel better because there's at least some actual investigation being done by the investigator character.
Rachel wasn’t a normal replicant, she was supposed to be “more human than human”, meaning as close to an actual human as possible, which is what leto’s character is trying to recreate in terms of the ability to reproduce
Agent k gets treated appallingly and used by everyone. And yet, his choice at the end is to save deckard and take him to see his daughter. He should have killed him to preserve the secret, but instead and despite all the abuse he suffers and how he is lied to and used... He makes the human moral emotional choice to reunite him with his daughter - bollocks to the robot resistance. And then lies down and dies of his injuries. He chooses to spend the last few minutes of his life not killing someome but rather saving. Making a humane choice. Just like the original
And even better, he doesn't brag about it. When Deckard asks "who am i to you?" K just tells hi mto go meat his daughter. K isn't doing what he is doing for anyone else's thanks or approval- he's doing it because it's his decision.
The whole point of Blade Runner and Blade Runner 2049 is that if you can't even tell wether someone is a replicant or not, why is it even important? Rachael, K, Deckard - assuming he's a replicant as well - they are all more human than human. Even Joi is. And in the end, Roy Batty was too.
Bla Bla It’s important to the replicants because the insistence that they aren’t human is the reason why they are not afforded “human rights”. That’s the OTHER importance of Rachel’s child i.e. it’s not just that a replicant child risks a “replicant war” but also that if a replicant woman and a human man can have a child then how is that child *not* human? And if the child is human then what does that imply about the mother?
I'm a bit surprised you didn't know Rachel was a new prototype that didn't have an expiration date. Movie also added new replicants, new rules to their behaviors, answered whether Deckard was a replicant so they added some new elements. Love's small emotional displays and her insecurities were interesting to me. I'd be curious to see what you thought of Ex Machina from 2014
Well, Deckard can't be a replicant now, because he aged. Unless Tyrell made aging as a feature. Repli-Deckard might have been Ridley Scott's intention with the original Blade Runner, but he didn't intend to make a sequel back then. 30+ years later and we have a really old Deckard, which throws the replicant idea out the window. Just like K going toe to toe with Sapper makes the idea of him being part human ludicrous. I wonder: Do androids become super human if they're bitten by electric sheep?
@@clottadams5028 I tell people the same about the technicality of Terminator: It was never meant to be a series of movies. Terminators shouldn't have been able to show up in the past after the first movie because Reese said the time displacement equipment was destroyed, only one terminator went through, Skynet was beaten.
Well tbh it has it's flaws, but guess what, so does the original, and thats an all time favourite of mine. 2049 for all its problems is my favourite movie of the last ten years, they even managed coax a decent performance from Gosling, who isn't my favorite actor and comes off wooden a lot. It does however suffer from 3rd act problems and from when he meets Ford, the movie never recovers and those replicant rebels we've seen in other movies a million times, the end however was good
@@starwarsroo2448 The biggest problem with the original is it got messed around with by both the studio and later on the director. So the voiceover was added, some like it some hate it, the ending of the original release is stupid, the unicorn and replicant thing seems pointless and added as an after-thought.
2049 is that rare sequel that doesn’t spit on its predecessor while also taking the time to be it’s own thing. It’s not a perfect movie by any means, but it’s very well made. One of the most visually arresting films I’ve ever seen.
@Commentator if you somehow missed a plotline in a movie possibly overloaded with them, then the point of this flick was to entertain people who like to actually be awake while watching a movie, so not your demographic...
I think Drinker got what the replicants were wrong. My impressions was that they were fast grown, modified humans with implanted memories so, they could hit the ground ready to work without the whole messy childhood and adolescence thing. That's why they were banned on earth and built with limited life spans. The longer they lived, the more human they could become. Remember in the first movie they were completely banned from living on earth. That's why Decker's job was to air them out. The fact we're making our own superior replacements is part of what makes it scary.
Finding a location based on radiation, or specific isotopes, is something we can already do to some extent... Forensics have identified corpses', based on isotopes and chemical flags found in the water or environment of their home locale, also being present in their corpse... Even when the bodies may have been located far from their home.
Isotopic analysis and radiochemistry are common techniques. For instance, a piece of ancient pottery can be activated using neutrons and then isotopically analyzed to pinpoint precisely where the clay that made up the pottery came from, and then ancient trade routes can be learned.
Particular nuclear reactors have signatures on the used up nuclear fuel. If radiation is result of some nukes going off same thing. That part made complete sense to me as well. Overall I loved the movie, more then original..
2049 was one of those films where my jaw dropped just because of how incredible the cinematography was. Watched it 5 times knowing this film won’t be on the big screen ever again. A film I’ll never forget
The indy house around me has screened it again - like they sometimes do the original. I think you'll still see it pop up in art houses from time to time. I think it's going to have that kind of long legacy.
it's a film I can easily forget compared to the original. I don't remember anything of it. While with the original I remember Harrison being chased by Rutger. Remember "Like Tears in the Rain", I remember the Vangelis soundtrack. I remember Daryl Hannah jumping on Harrison's head. I remember the man playing with robot toys that had an ageism problem. I remember the first time I saw Sean Young, the robot beauty. I remember the eye test. All classic legendary moments. I didn't see one classic moment in 2049.
Highlight of this film was that I could watch it at the cinema, and experience that synth, with those visuals, the way that it was intended. The first film is still one of my favourites, and as old as I am, I was born the year Bladerunner hit the cinema... So I missed that one. Am quite tempted to watch both films again.
I watched it, I thought it was OK, and I felt absolutely nothing for anyone on the screen. There was no poignancy to the story, no emotional connection. Characters appeared, did something, and then went away. Nothing touched me. I'll watch it again someday, and maybe see something more to it, but I doubt it. The original was something that I saw as a teenager when it came out. Frankly, it went over my head; I didn't get it. Years later, I saw it again as a college student, and it punched me in the gut. It's been my favorite movie for decades since. I don't expect this one to grow on me though.
"Why do I get First Order vibes from this?" Whoah whoah whoah whoooaaah there. Look, 2049 may not be the best sequel ever, but don't you dare bring up that other sequal's name in this circle.
People seem to forget that when the original is such a masterpiece, the sequel not equaling or surpassing it doesn’t make it a bad sequel. 2049 is a great sequel in that it expands on the original in a very natural, logical, and respectful way, retaining what made the original great, while being a great piece of cinema in its own right. 99.9% of sequels either shit all over the original (Alien sequels after Aliens), repeat the original in a meaningless and phoned-in way that is inferior to the original (Jaws sequels and most slasher movie sequels), or make the original’s plot points or character arcs seem meaningless in retrospect (what is the point of OT Star Wars if a carbon copy of the enemy they spend 3 movies defeating comes back afterward and does the exact same evil stuff? What’s the point of Han’s arc from rogue to hero if he just goes back to being a rogue again, and then dies shortly after going back to hero?) 2049 is part of the upper elite of sequels, up there with Empire Strikes Back or GodFather Part II, in that it does right by the first while being a good movie on its own without being derivative or redundant.
One of the things I liked about 2049 was how the love interest in the movie (Joi) not only doesn't feel forced, but actually has a purpose and is probably a good chunk of what helped push the plot along on K's side once things started to get going.
I actually loved this movie for the same reasons I loved the original - the filmmakers didn't hand everything out on a platter, and there were no easy answers.
This movie left me with a lot of emotions. During the walkout of the theater I started thinking deeply and intensely about life and the nature of reality. Not many films have done that and it was very satisfying. After seeing it a second time in theaters, I had a deeper understanding this story. 1) There was no real decoy, it was purely on paper. K/Joe is utterly, completely, unequivocally unremarkable. Thus his name - Joe, as in an Average Joe. 2) Joi does not possess a soul, she is completely fake. She is the other side of the replicant coin and is made solely to please and coddle her owner/lover. The giant pink Joi on the bridge calls K Joe as well, and her entire branding scheme is that she'll be anything you want. K wanted to feel special, so his Joi always reinforced this to him, but it was never real. Joi is K's fleeting dream of being special, and once her emanator is destroyed, K learns he is not special. 3) Wallace posed a question about whether Deckard was moved by love or programming. I'm still not sure if Deckard was human or a replicant. The original movie is about a bad man finding his humanity through the grace of a machine. Wallace's question is not a literal "Are you human or robot?" question, but pondering what the difference is, if love is just a chemical, and if we are products of biological programming or something higher like a soul. The ultimate takeaway is that it does not matter, in fact the only thing that matters is what we choose to do with our lives. 4) In summary, 2049 is about dreams and delusions. K wants desperately to be special. Joi tells him this constantly, and he instantly assumes all the evidence points to him because it's his dream. He becomes deluded and forces himself into the situation even as it destroys him. He thinks this is what it means to be human, to grapple with one's humanity. He is torn between two sides telling him what his identity is and should be - the LAPD who informs his identity as that of a slave, and the resistance which informs his identity as that of a free replicant. When his delusion is shattered by meeting the pink Joi, he chooses to follow his own path and not let anyone tell him who he is or what he should do. He makes the most human decision and takes his life into his own hands. He saves Deckard for the same reason Roy did. He wanted someone to remember him, for his final decision that fully validates him as human to not be in vain. No one else gave him his identity, only he did, and his sacrifice ensured forever that he was by every metric a human being, even if the world would ultimately forget him. This is why I love the film and I consider it to be one of the greatest sequels ever next to Aliens and Terminator 2.
Dude, 100% fucking agree with everything you wrote. I kinda wish the Drinker would read your comment and then re-watch the movie. Not that his review was overly negative, but I feel like a lot of his problems with it would be assuaged if he understood what a lot of these things meant in the context of the movie. I honestly think it's a beautiful film.
@randomguy9777 but if Deckard is human (which I believe he is) then his child would be half human, and K was willing to kill said child until he was led to believe the child was his. He also kills those humans who attacked him in the giant garbage dump without hesitation. Also, although his job is bringing rogue replicants in for termination - or terminating them outright if they resist - he shows Sapper genuine empathy and compassion, and remarks that he'd prefer bringing Sapper in peacefully if that's an option, when it would probably be better for his human masters if he just killed Sapper immediately. Not to mention beating up Morgan from Walking Dead. Also, he chooses to disobey his human boss and side with Deckard before he even knowingly encounters the replicant resistance. At that point in the movie, siding with Deckard was the more "anti-human" choice.
Excellently put! That last paragraph where you compared K's motivations to Roy Batty moved me to tears. The biggest difference between what Roy & K did is that Roy's actions would be lost and forgotten like Tears in Rain whereas K's would not be forgotten like Tears in Snow due to the impact that his actions will inevitably have on the world and replicants as a whole. I like to think of BR2049 as a what if scenario where Roy Batty would be the protagonist rather than Deckard and K certainly has a lot of parallels with Roy.
Joe realising that he's not special at all, his only love is fake and preprogrammed, and he is not the main character of his own story, is one of the biggest emotional gut punches I've ever seen in cinema.
I believe the same thing. K gave his meaningless life to something bigger than himself, reuniting a man with his daughter. This action earned him a soul, like Batty saving a life.
I was tripping off my balls on edibles when I watched this. Can't remember the plot at all but I remember being absolutely blown away watching it though.
I love you Drinker but you missed the mark on this one. @2:05 "K's Conflict of interest" But the new generation of replicants are given some serious conditioning and monitoring. Human hubris about their ability to control new models is part of the point. K mostly hunts down older, less reliable combat models- they are INCREDIBLY dangerous to humans- so a super powered replicant is easily the best choice for dealing with them. (humans get absolutly wrecked by replicants through the whole film) @3:40 "Danger of Deckards child" It IS happening. The resistance was founded around her, and continues to operate. Wallace only becomes aware because the police do- and he moves quickly to capitalize. K's Boss sees that as just as big a problem as anything. @3:50 Value of replicant breeding. They do go through the same processes. They do age, and the new models DON'T have the same lifespan cap. Again, Wallace hubris. However, they are expensive and slow to manufacture - Wallace wants to breed them like cattle to exponentially grow his workforce. It's unlikely he would make ALL replicants have this function, just his breeders. We don't know because we never see him attempt it, but its dumb to assume he would always do it in the stupidest, riskiest way possible. @4:13 "Wallace Corp is Just Tyrell Corp". The film is actually making this observation but then undermines it. When we first see Wallace Corp pyramid, its towering over Tyrell Corp, indicatign its the new, improved, more powerful version of the same corporation. However, at the end of the film, we see that Walla pyramid is only really a pyramid on one face- the other face is flat- like its cut in half. This is visual metaphor- Wallace himself pretends to be the genius of Tyrell, but he's not, hes a hollow imitation. @4:50 "Why'd Wallace Kill the replicant?" Because she was a new breeding attempt that as failed. Killing her in front of Luv was a test/act of dominance- one of his eyes is watching her the whole time. He's a piece of crap with a messianic complex who thinks he has total control over these new replicates. Leto coming off as a self loving wanker was the point. @5:50 "How does radiation lead back to vegas" The guy puts it in a spectrometer. It's my understanding you can trace radioactive material really precisely, even what right down to what enrichment facility created the fissile material after a nuclear blast. @6:35 "Why would you leave all the stuff in Vegas behind". Because irradiated stuff is deadly over time. This shouldn't even need to be explained. Deckard surviving there is meant to be a clue to his replicant-ness. (The only other humans that go there are all shown using re-breathers to protect themselves from irradiated dust, for example- only Luv, Deckard and K don't wear one). I could go on specifically but the basic summation is- Luv is interesting because she is meant to be a "head house-n***r" type character that is happy to oppress other slaves to be the one privileged slave. K's whole life until that point WAS meaningless- he thought he had purpose and love in Joi- but that was another Wallace Corp delusion. He thought he had it as a born child- but that was another delusion. His arc is him realizing he can develop humanity through action- not by being told he's special by his fake girlfriend or by being born special- but by ACTION. He creates purpose and becomes a man by stepping up and making his own choices. I could go on but i look insane.
Excellent comments. Thank you for saving me from making some of these points (I wouldn't have got them all). The film is a lot smarter than it looks, if you really pay attention.
I can't think of anything like this movie. A direct sequel that came out over 30 years after it's predecessor with a different director, that matched the themes perfectly, and matched or arguably enhanced the filmmaking aspects.
Exactly. It's not really about how good the movie is on its own. The bigger issue is how did it not fall into the garbage pile like all the other sequels/remakes/reboots over the past decade. It's like a random stroke of magic. This is the movie that we all wanted Prometheus, Predators, Robocop 2014, Ghostbusters 2016, etc to be. It was a reminder that films can still be good.
I enjoyed the film, but afterwards it left me feeling a bit dissapointed, in that it felt like it wasted plot threads and I reslly thought Deckard should have played a more active role in the final act. Also, it kind of hurts that they keep turning Harrison Ford's characters into absent fathers lol
One of the great sequels. If they cut out all that b.s. with the electronic girlfriend it would be a masterpiece, but as-is it's outstanding. One of the many things I liked was how when K is told he's NOT a human, the movie doesn't stop still for a closeup of his face as a single tear rolls down his face.
I agree to some extent 2049 is asking the same question about what it means to be human but I want to point out it also adds the question "What if you're not the hero of your movie? Could you still live and die with purpose?"
This is a sloppy review from someone who normally hits the mark. To say this film "doesn't take risks" is ridiculous: the slow pacing, the decision to subvert Joe's role as the chosen one, the meditative analysis on humanity in a post-human world- are these typical features of a big budget Hollywood action film? The main complaint seems to be "this movie should have been made back when Harrison Ford could be the star", which misses the fact that Ford's acting in 2049 is the best work he's done in years. Remember his pained face when he sees the fake Rachel: "I know what's real"? As a vision of cyberpunk dystopia, this movie knocks it out of the park, people will still be talking about it decades from now.
Yes, CD was wrong on multiple accounts, but IMO the Harrison Ford performance was quite bad, I mean, it gave me too much "Indiana Jones/Han Solo/generic Harrison Ford character" vibes, there was some forced humor around his character and I didn't really like it, instead of Deckard, it was just Ford with orange background. I mean, he had his moments, but his performance overal wasn't convincing.
@@bezimienny_andzej6425 Hey that's fair if that is what his performance felt like to you. I had a different experience with his performance in the film and he never once broke my immersion in the story or character of Deckard. I thought it was his most convincing performance in two decades of playing a character rather than that very same generic Harrison Ford.
@Zoomer Waffen Shilling for what? We liked the movie. Not telling you to go buy it or donate to our new political party (Vote: 'Make the world Blade Runner by 2049!' in 2020).
Basically this review: -The first Blade Runner was a masterpiece -This one is marginally better -Man, what a disappointment How do you come to this conclusion?
Pretty generous to assume we will get a new ASOIAF novel in the next 40 years. Cant wait to share the series with my great great great great grandsons wifes boyfriend.
During the fight scene between Deckard and K in Las Vegas, there's a point in which Ford punches Gosling in the face incorrectly for actors and actually punches him. If you pause this scene at just the right moment you can see Harrison Ford wincing as his fist makes contact, and Ryan Gosling looking dazed with blood spurting out of his nose. It's also important to note that K spends the rest of the movie with a broken nose.
@@martinnevey7258 the plot of drive is literally brain dead simple, “man drives for mob.” What is so convoluted about that more so than any other mob movie out there like The Godfather, Goodfellas, Reservoir Dogs which are by definition as convoluted as possible?
I honestly really liked the idea of K being a replicant who is brainwashed into doing the bidding of the humans in killing fellow replicants. It shows how he was able to find his humanity in choice and sacrificing himself for something even though he was not the chosen one
Several times during this movie I thought "ok , I can see where this is going" , only to have the rug pulled out from under me . I can not remember the last time a film did that to me.
I actually really like the endings to this movie and La La Land, coincidentally both Gosling films. In each of them the main character in Gosling doesn't get his happy ending, in this movie he doesn't end up being special and is just a replicant despite how much he wanted to be more. In La La Land he doesn't end up with Mia like in most movies with a romance. I respect movies that take the chance to not have things work out for the main characters.
Yes, the idea was having to go off-world to perform a torture is strange. The first movie does clearly state that Rachel was special, hence she can live beyond the 4 years coded into the majority of Nexus 6 replicants. Love's character convinced me that she was both a psychotic, brutal and a sad "person." I felt emotion from it, maybe because I was drinking? Yes, the original is better, but I did enjoy 2049 very much.
@@eduardopazhurtado3882 And that she can become pregnant, unlike other replicants. Also, "Tyrell also gave her an open-ended lifespan, with no set expiration date." According to the official WIKI. At the end of the US theatrical version her longer lifespan is alluded to. However, in the 2nd movie, it's discovered that she died giving birth to her child (that was the result of the union between her and Deckard).
@@jedielder7970 that's only added to the sequel, as plot device, it's never stated in the first film she can become pregnant, or that Deckard is also a replicant and that their "union" was programed. That's the liberty the script of the sequel takes in order to built its story. And even if it's alluded that she doesn't have an expiration date, it's also noted that it's not that large of a lifespan, hence why Deckard is worried that she might die soon.
The most worthy of long awaited sequals. This film was an opus of cyberpunk sci fi with just enough updates to stand alone while being true to it's predecessor.
As a writer, I really liked BR2049 while acknowledging the gaps in the villains we see here. And as you say, BR2049 executes a lot of beats and plot movements very competently, which makes it an outlier in today's moviescape. So what we are left asking is, what is the contribution the movie has to "higher meaning"? I'd say there are at least two that it offers; one, the further question that if we accept replicants as having a soul, then what about AI like Joi? and two, perhaps to give one's life in service to a loved one or a greater good, is enough meaning to have in one's life. That is the what Joi and K both elect to do, and in so doing achieve by actions a "humanity" that their origins deny them. If that proposition is accepted therefore, K's side story and eventual gentle passing carries a lot more weight than it seems. (This sacrifice is rather ironic for someone who didn't turn out to be the Replicants' Christlike figure but more John the Baptist.) And I think it's a brave movie that tries to make its protagonist not the Chosen One who saves the world, but somebody who just helped a bit, and paid the ultimate sacrifice for it.
He's actually on point! Sadly people have actually bought into the fact they think BR2049 is somehow a deep, existential, humanistic film when in fact it's actually pretty hollow imitation of the original (same god like owner, replicant misfits, dystopian imagery) the proof is I will never see this film again because i have no interest in it however the original I return time after time to 'revel in its time' to quote Tyrell.
“Thematic analysis”. Mate, get your head out of your arse. Just exploring themes alone is not enough to make a good film. That’s what the original did so well: it had both excellent themes and an engaging plot. 2049 imo did have some themes, but we barely got to explore them, and I wish we’d seen more of K’s reactions to these big revelations etc besides a blank face and a nice little bit of silence. Personally, I’d compare 2049 to Power of the Dog. Both were so focussed on themes that it cost them narrative integrity and coherence. This in turn led to a meandering plot that never seemed to really go anywhere.
I interpreted the ending as K finding the purpose that he so craved in his life, despite having to reconcile with the fact that he was not special in the way that he had begun to hope he was
Grumpy Gabe Absolutely. Not only it was deep - it's also relatable. How often in life when we accept some unpleasant truth about ourselves or reality, or let something go/make peace with smth - we actually open ourselves to something actually meaningful and important...
Drinker: the saving grace that helps my 'buy into' the 2049 storyline, is that Rachel was different, unique, with no expiration date. So, it's potentially feasible that she could reproduce.
Except in the original film, there is zero mention of ANy replicants reproducing. If we use the excuse, "She was special", then she might as well have superhero powers. She could jump to the moon, she could melt steel with here eye laser, she can lift a tank with one hand, etc "Hey, Rachel just jumped straight to the moon! How could she do that?" "Oh she's special." That's a big leap to make. I'm with the drinker on this one. A machine being able to reproduce just doesn't make sense.
@@Malignant88 Anything is possible. My problem is that we are literally pulling these theories out of thin air because replicants giving birth was never mentioned or hinted at in the original film. I feel like it's our way of filling in a hole in the story. Kinda goes like, "Wait, how could a machine give birth? Oh wait .. Tyrell said Rachel was special. Okay, problem solved". But my opinion shouldn't matter anyway. This film didn't work for me, but it obviously worked for the vast majority of people who saw it. So, don't waste any more time on me. 😊 Forgot to say, you're right. If there was anyone qualified to have a God complex, then Mr. Tyrell would be the obvious front runner.
@@malachimatcho7583 that's why there is the so called "suspension of disbelief". "I have witnessed a miracle" referred to the ability of a replicant to procreate is enough to make it work: it was not possible and yet it happened.
Besides the (what I found to be unnecessary to the plot) Jared Leto storyline, I found the Bladerunner sequel to be a breath of fresh air in veritable sea of bad sequels & reboots.
I was afraid from the start that Leto was a risky casting choice, given what a lightning rod his appearance and acting style has become for a lot of people. He was better than I feared, but I can definitely grok people being unable to get past him.
I would not call BR 2049 a sequel but a stand alone movie. reason I say this is cause they ignore alot of canon that was put into place from the original movie and they take alot of their info from the many lame cuts and the novel. Over all the movie was good to look at but the story and plot was far from well written it all relied on nostalgia to drive it.
@@sailorrenek7823 I think it works well both as a sequel and as a standalone. I don't think you really needed to see the original to appreciate 2049. (P.S. I still puzzle as to whay Scott kept doing more cuts of the original, since they're all very similar. But any one of them beats the theatrical cut with its horrific voice over.)
It wasn't terrible, but it wasn't great either. Better than I can say about most modern movies. When Hollywood got woke, I swore off going to the theater. Recently I realized something. It's real easy not to go see movies in the theater, because there is literally nothing I want to see. I even stooped going to the web sites that have the free, "undocumented", full length "previews" of the movies because there is nothing worth watching. There isn't even anything on TV worth watching anymore.
The implication in the original about Deckard being a replicant was a last-minute brain fart of Ridley Scott which was universally hated by everyone else in the crew. I think that scene was only in the director's cut version.
The idea Deckard being a replicant was only ever ridiculous. I never treated it as true. He saw the value in the very thing he was tasked to kill. That didn't need to be muddied.
Not to mention unnecessary. The movie already put serous question to the nature of humanity with replicants being more deep and empathetic then some of the humans. The book wasn't quit as ambiguous. The replicants tended to be pretty viscous bastards, and the vought camp test was a straight up empathy exam with psychopaths giving false positives.
It was. The unicorn footage was actually from another of his films that he just slotted in. This was the start of Scott ruining his own great work, continuing with the lovely prequels to Alien...
last minute?! The entire time, Gaff is close by Deckard. Those origami props? They had to be made before hand. The theme was intended by Scott and the director is god on a movie. Whether you buy it or not is another issue, but saying it was just something Scott threw in willy nilly is plain daft!
There's a bit more to the Bladerunner world with a CG animated series called "Black Lotus" which would allude to fitting between the 1st and 2nd movie, at least in so much as Tyrell is in the process of selling replicant technology to Wallace. At this time, it is still airing, so where it is ultimately headed in yet to be resolved. There is also mention of Nexus 8, and the scope of that level is not elaborated as yet either.
Want to help support this channel? Consider subscribing on Patreon: www.patreon.com/TheCriticalDrinker
You should move to Subscribstar so I can support you 😂
Damn, over 7000+ views in 20 mins! You've come a long way since those Resident Evil review days brother.
Jared Leto's goal was explained in the film. He needed a slave force capable of reproduction in order to enable mankind to expand more quickly into space in order to survive. The artificial method he used to create Replicants was too slow and humanity was failing because of it.
So I guess the whole mystery of if Decker was a replicant or not, is no longer a mystery since replicants do not age... And Ridley Scott was wrong, apparently...
Excuse me my good drinker sir but if a movie wish should be made is on Patreon and forgive my selfishness already but I request a movie wish too next time or when it’s possible “ again excuse my kind of entitled behavior hopefully it’s not a thing there become a habit in anyway and I hope comes as wish then anything else “ call Repo Man from 1984 which I think you also like even the fact a lot of the characters is named after beers .. anyway a amazing cool movie in my humble opinion.. hope you come too it and thank you for all your good work.. take care.. cheers 🍻🥃😎
Making K NOT the "Chosen One" was subverting expectations, but done the right way.
Precisely.
"subverting expectations" this phrase sends shivers down my spine..alongside with the number 8..
So the main conflict in the plot was aborted, much like the cringe scene of Wallace performing a replicant abortion, basically rendering the film up that point utterly meaningless (taking up an average film length), and making the set-up to payoff totally disjointed. If that's the right way I shudder to think how much worse the wrong way would be.
K was made to feel like he was important and assumed he was special, which comes across as an allegory for ego and that we all assume we're special, when in reality we're all just cogs in a bigger machine, but that's what grants him his humanity.
I respectfully disagree. Yes it was subverting expectation, but no, it was not done in the right way. There was all of the setup of the Expectation, but when it all turned out to be a red herring, there was no explanation of the where the clues were actually leading. That's the main reason I fricken hated this film.
I really enjoyed that the movie seemed to trust its audience to actually pay attention without constant explosions
But the trailer didnt show that. It was full of explosions and action which made me nervous for the final result.
Well I found it an utter chore to watch, it was needlessly slow. There's literally nothing to glean from 30 second shots of someone walking around.
It's not *that* deep, it just wants to felate itself over how interesting it thinks it is.
@@mrcheesemunch So, exactly like the first one then. Batty was great, but go watch Deckard drink and enhance and try to glean something from that.
It was well-made and everything.. but it just felt empty.. like it doesn't have rewatch value. It's too linear imo.
mrcheesemunch I want my movie to have action all the time and I never want to watch slow movies ever!!!!!!!!😡😡😡😡😡
This is a miss for me man. This movie is an artistic masterpiece and has some of the best cgi I have ever seen and it’s story is beautifully tragic.
Ultimate digital AI dystopia, the creators even figure out a way to make the replicants pay their hard-earned credits for upgrades on their own virtual AI, AND keep the Squishies doin the jobs they were created for!
I think it was in many ways but I think he is right on sm e areas about the movies like was it really necessary. I asked that question the whole film while also still being intrigued with the film, he never trashed the film
They should have named it something else besides Blade Runner. There's already a movie called Blade Runner in 1982 and it was a masterpiece.
@@hamster2845 ok boomer
2049 leaned on ford far too much instead of telling its own story. That was its downfall.
I felt that everything is deliberate. The audience is supposed to want Joe's life to have meaning. But the movie keeps finding new and heartbreaking ways to emphasize its meaninglessness in the midst of all the intrigue of the events that surround him. It's almost felt like the audience is desperately searching for its own meaning in parallel to Joe. By the end we desire for Joe "become" the main character in his life and in this movie. All of this is what makes the true climax at the very end so powerful.
@acebigaloo7991 If that offended you, then why would you watch a movie like Blade Runner?
I like this take.
I get that and got it by just watching the movie. But I can't help but think it could have been better anyway. On one hand, watching it, it feels like it's way to complicated, many characters that seemingly don't really matter, many things to happen that don't matter,... but on the other hand, the Main plot is so simple. But not in a good way. Half the movie feels like filler. Like, whats the scene where all those people get bombed and Luv says "come on get up, do you job" or something like that? Why do we see such a long shot of the Kids working in the orphanage? Why do we barely see anything from the daughter except one scene and the ending? Why is the AI Girlfriend there? I could find many scenes I think don't Add anything to the plot or the worldbuilding or to anything really.
Don't get me wrong, I love slow movies, I love long, lingering shots. But I want them to feel neccessary. I don't want to feel like i just watched a 2 hour movie that could have been one and would have probably benefited from it. I really don't understand Why this movie is so hyped honestly
Makes a lot of sense. I feel like you summed up my feelings while watching it the first time. Even when it was becoming apparent that K wasn’t the chosen one, I so desperately wanted him to be or at least to be a second chosen one.
@@paulpascoe663 The name "Joe" is perfect.
Personally, I love 2049. It wasn't a rehash remake that just did the same thing as the original. And there's a clear love and respect for the original.
agreed.
It was pretty shite and had no soul.
I thoroughly enjoyed 2049. It was so good!
As an immensely huge Blade Runner fan I actually really liked this sequel surprisingly.
I sometimes like to think of this movie as spiritual sequel to the movie Drive in a way
2049 gets better everytime you watch it
I respect the shit out of this movie for actually feeling like the original and not becoming a dumb action movie
I put off watching it for a while because I had fears, waited to get a spoiler free feel of it. I enjoyed it, not as much as the first but I thought that would always be the case.
Lookin' at you, RoboCop.
I feared it would be bad, but saw it before it left theaters... I was impressed at how well it respected the original.
it is definitely an action movie, more so than the original which I see as a noir sci-fi opera. The first time seeing it I didn't like how the climax was this straightforward action sequence b/c I was comparing it to Rutger Hauer's impromptu monologue from the original - though that's unfair b/c how could the movie be expected to recreate that, and it overlooks just how well and effectively it was done, straightforward actions scene or not
It doesn't really feel like the original, but it's not bad thing, with a different director it should feel different, unless Rildey himself would've made it.
You know, K's entire story arc wouldn't have worked if we didn't know that he was a Replicant, right?
I assume the drinker would have changed other parts of the story too. I thought the story was great the way it was.
Good point.
That was his first big miss lol, K's slow discovery of him being the child just to find out that wasn't the truth was a great double twist that they laid out to perfection. Being spoon fed that information changes the whole movie. Definitely the first time I've disagreed with the drinker.
@@lionelruiz3247 That's my issue with the film though, it wasn't a double twist for me because I saw it coming. The thing that tipped me off was everyone being nonspecific with the gender and only saying 'child'.
@@beircheartaghaistin2332If it had leaned either way it would have tipped off the viewer as to who the child was, by either making us believe that woman might have been it, or just K himself. That memory he had was a great way to make us believe he was it, just to have that be false info. I stand by my opinion that it was done the right way.
As for "why?" 4:55, it is stated in the movie: Wallace Corp cannot keep up with replicant demand required to populate the galaxy. No central production could. This is one of the odd parts of the plot: the bad guy and the good guys effectively want the same thing, reproducing replicants. Just for different reasons.
@SirSnufflelots Once Wallace understood how replicant reproduction works, he could install safeguards to control it. It's an excellent plot point that ties everything together: Rachel & Deckard's love story, Wallace's pursuit of power to dominate the galaxy, K's hope that he might have been born and loved instead of manufactured.
Exactly. Didn't anyone watch the movie?
I think his real motivation is just that he’s a pure narcissist with a God complex. Someone else was able to do it, so that infuriates him.
@@Dr.DixieRekt i think it's both simultaneously. He also mentions how he wants humanity to populate every planet it can and how they need to move exponentially faster.
But replicants could just build more factories.
Btw. the whole concept of replicants is flawed, because they have the same needs as humans, so not much cheaper as workers, and similarly fragile in hostile environments. Robots would make far more sense. It's forgivable for a 40 years old movie, especially because of the story it wanted to tell, but doesn't work well today when we'll have real humanoid robots in a year or two, and essentially human level AI.
I think Blade Runner 2049 is the only sequel made after a huge gap of time that actually felt like a continuation.
Did you see Dr Sleep?
Mad max fury road
1978's Invasion of the Body Snatchers remains the absolute best.
Both one of the greatest Remakes ever AND one of the greatest Sequels ever(that's if you pay attention and pick up on the fact it IS a sequel to the 1950s classic).
@@colliric interesting! So the “soft reboot” trend of recent years was anticipated by “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” 40 years beforehand.
Yet another way it was ahead of its time!!!!
@@DPMusicStudio the remake contains several direct elements that subtly suggested it was also a sequel for fans of the original movie. It feels exactly like a continuation if you've recently watched the original.
CD; you got everything perfect except for "Love", who is in many ways used as a mirror for K. See Wallace calls ALL the replicants by the nickname "Love". It's not her name, it's just a generic nickname Wallace calls the replicants (and by extension, her). She wants DESPERATELY to be important, so her whole character is wrapped up in trying to please and get the attention of Wallace, it's her whole identity, even taking the nickname he calls everyone as her own name so she can lie to herself about how important she is. She wanted to be special and is so wrapped up in her lies she would instinctively lash out at those who WERE special (or she perceived as such). K in comparison also wants deep down to be special, to be more then just a replicant, it's why he works hard to make "Joi" seem more human, it's why he bites so hard on the possibility he was birthed (meaning he had a soul). However in the end, just before the final showdown he's confronted by the ad for Joi, and it all comes together in his head, when she (the ad) calls him by that same nickname his Joi used to call him (see the similarity with wallace and love?)... In the end he faces the truth. He's not special, joi never loved him, but was programed to make him feel like he was loved, and so he goes into his final battle at peace with the fact that he'll never be special. But he also makes an independent choice. He decides instead of killing Deckard like he was asked, like a good automaton should, he brings Deckard together with his daughter. He creates something real, rather then destroy, and dies.
It's a lovely if understated tragedy.
I'll give you that one. Its a pretty good insight into these characters.
@@TheCriticalDrinker thanks, love your videos, easily one of my fav youtubers. keep up the amazing work!
I think, you are sort of right, but I have the feeling, either that was a screenwriter's happy mistake so the end result is that it feels underdeveloped or the writers or writer couldn't find a way to develop that even more, because it is a compelling story line, but it's one that feels lost, perhaps because of the unnecessary slow pace of the film. just let me tell you, if that had been an important point for director and writers, it would've been highlighted, but it wasn't and that's too bad.
Since you have captured my most important points better than I would have, I have only a few smaller additions. There are some short movies in which it's explained, that Wallace has perfected the androids obedience, which is why they're back in the first place and why creating them in the millions seems reasonable in his mind. Him killing the "new born" and delivering his monologue portraits the nature of this control, when he specifically "motivates" Love to bring him results. It's important that all he does and says in that scene is for her. Finally, if one can stretch the definition of "engineering" to the point where evolution can be considered kind of an "engineering process", then we're all "genetically engineered robots", which (I believe) is the point of the first movie and the (real) question asked in the title of the book, so if androids and humans are both human (as the first movie implies) and the primary difference is that androids can't create life (as the second movie implies), then the symbolic value of the child makes sense: It shattered Dave Bautistas illusion and it will shatter that of K and potentially all other androids, where the child itself is the ultimate evidence / proof and thus key to a revolution. Fuck Apple btw.
*Luv
I feel like the drinker has missed a few key plot points to 2049, so I'll try to explain bit by bit what I believe he might've let fly over his head.
1.) The New Models of Replicants
-The Drinker mentioned near the beginning that he found it was an odd choice to make Officer K a Replicant Blade Runner, even though the movie clearly establishes that Wallace Corp had perfected the obedient artificial slave, and weren't designed with the 4-year lifespan of the original Nexus-6 models. As for what Wallace seeks to accomplish by creating a race of Replicants able to reproduce, I always saw it as a God complex. The man is clearly very in his own head about things, and we do have powerful billionaires who want nothing but more power and control, even if they have plenty of that already.
-And yes, K (or Joe, as many fans call him) does inevitably rebel at the end. But I think this was only due to the shocking idea that he might have been a real human this entire time. It ended up not being the case, but imagine the opposite. Imagine your entire life, you've lived believing you were real and you ended up being artificial. That's what happened to Rachael's character in the original movie, and clearly it shifted her entire view on not just her own life, but life in general. K rebelled because he thought he made a shocking discovery about himself. It was enough to break through his obedient programming.
2.) Finding Deckard in Las Vegas
-The city of Las Vegas had long been abandoned due to its excessive levels of radiation, so although the search of Deckard would still be difficult, no, there aren't "hundreds and thousands of inhabitants." Whatever went down in Vegas (some have speculated that it was some kind of nuclear war that produced such extreme levels of radiation) had forced everyone who lived there to evacuate. And as one can clearly witness in the scene itself, K used a heat tracker and found the bee farm, presumably put up by Deckard himself. One point the Drinker makes that I think really doesn't take anything away from the film's world-building is all the tech, furniture, and alcohol that was left behind in the city. When a nuclear disaster threatens an entire population, I'm sure the last thing they care about is the resale value of tech that would take a while to uninstall. Now a point the Drinker makes that I do agree with is that concluding that the wooden horse was from Vegas simply by its high levels of radiation doesn't really seem to make much sense. I'll give him that one.
3.) Off-World Torture Techniques
-This is a small point, but I always assumed that Wallace didn't want to risk getting caught torturing a man for information. And as only the rich are able to travel Off-World, the chances of anyone actually uncovering it and exposing Wallace for such inhumane tactics would be a lot less of a risk. But I can't say this is concrete, this is just what I believe the case to be.
4.) The Antagonists
-I'll agree that I wasn't all that much a fan of Leto's character. In comparison to the original Blade Runner (Roy Batty and his friends) he's pretty flat. But once the Drinker compared him to Tyrell, it got me thinking that maybe that's the point. Eldon Tyrell created Replicants because he genuinely believed he could make the world a better place with them. He completely misfired in that ambition, yes, but he genuinely believe in what he was doing. Tyrell was charming and really thought that his line of Replicants would bring about a positive change in the world. Wallace, however, has none of that. This is why I'm beginning to think his flat delivery of pretentious philosophical lines makes a lot more sense now; Tyrell was ambitious and wanted to make the world a better place while Wallace thinks of himself as a God (i.e, his line about having millions of children when Deckard assumes he has none.)
-As for Luv, it's pretty obvious that she suffers from extreme trauma. She cries at the sight of Wallace murdering a newborn Replicant, and is even shown to want to be the best Replicant, or Wallace's "perfect angel." This isn't out of love, (no pun intended) but fear. Deep fear has been instilled into her since she was first created and it's clearly turned her into his tool, not his perfect angel as she might want to believe. When Luv kills Robin Wright's character, she tears up and spouts "I'm going to tell Wallace you attacked first" as if she's just a petulant child, and not a fully-grown woman. I DO see a bit of complexity in her. As opposed to Roy Batty, where what he's been through is basically told to us through exposition, I like that Luv's backstory is only implied.
Overall I understand the Drinker's points here and I respect his opinion (as everyone should.) But I do believe that he overlooked a few things that might've made the movie's plot tighter to him. Some of these points were more obvious, and some are clearly just speculation made by myself and other viewers. But I just wanted to share my two cents on this.
Thank you for the review
Why should everyone respect his opinion? His recent videos are just lazy angry rants. Good for nothing but fuelling stupid internet hate bubbles. Respect is earned
I noticed that most of his criticism in general stems from him not understanding the movie he's reviewing. This video especially is the nail in the coffin, I unsubscribed
@@4bdallah This was 2 years ago. He has become one of the best movie reviewers on TH-cam
@@johngoldsworthy7135 I still watch his more recent videos, they still feel like 'old man yelling at the clouds'
@@4bdallah of course you do. His success speaks for itself because the reviews resonate with a lot of people
There will never be another scene like "Tears in Rain..." That scene was so gravitating! Just grabs you by the throat! The original Blade Runner is a masterpiece!
I wanted to watch Blade Runner 2049… borrowed both films and as much as I wanted to watch 2049, I watched the original first. Holy fucking shit, the opening scene gave me goosebumps. That score store gives me tingles and the scenery at the beginning was stunning. I fee like I should have appreciated all of it even more but I think it’s understandable because I was wanting 2049 and just kind of defining all of my knowledge of the Blade Runner universe off that than the OG.
Also this film has a scene in which love kills joy. Literally. Someone has really dark sense of humor.
@RogerwilcoFoxtrot As a grown ass man, I was the same. Love her character and left you with the thought that maybe, just maybe, Joi was evolving and was becoming unique, away from her programming and being a true person. Plus, the actress is so damn cute looking and her expressions were so lovable. Damn it sucks being single sometimes! LOL
Actress reminds me a lot of Hugo Weaving
Well spotted! Although she's the artificial and manufactured Wallace interpretation, hence 'Luv' instead of 'Love'. This is a big part of why Deckard later rejects 'Rachel'. Tyrell has vision which he later loses, Wallace is blind from the start. I f*#king love these movies.
@RogerwilcoFoxtrot She's also fantastic in 'Knives out'.
Its a bit on the nose. The ironic nose for one, but ugh.
You missed the heart of this movie. It's about transcending self/ego. K is an "average joe" who is lured towards the belief that he is special (born, not made, the first ever replicant offspring), only to have all his hopes dashed. He truly is nobody. He's not the one. Not even the love of his virtual girlfriend was real ("You look like a good joe"). And it's in this state of defeat that he finally becomes capable of a truly selfless act. On the other side of ego-death is the capacity for service. He chooses to save Deckard, and in so doing loses his own life. This is the same thing that Roy Batty experienced in his final moments, when finally struck by the futility of his own life: he chose to save Deckard. The movie is philosophically deep. BR2049 is a greater exploration of the existential theme of the first movie.
Did he really die? I thought he was just too tired and mentally broken or something that he just need to stop for a while.
@@hkmrsrg1367 K took a little siesta and then headed to the nearest mexican bar for some margaritas.
Very true, I found the movie to raise more interesting questions than the original.
@@hkmrsrg1367 He died.
So well said.
Batty was simply ICONIC, including his variation of the script with improvised lines, his look, the way he showed emotion and carried himself...
I think the Drinker needs to watch this one again, and also the three shorts Villeneuve commissioned to fill in some of the time between the original and this. He seems to have missed a lot. There are still some holes (e.g., how did that serial number get into a cracked bone? Are replicants manufactured or grown? Or both?) but overall this sequel is damn good. The great question, "What makes us human?" gets played with in many ways and in both directions. Joi isn't just a toy. Luv isn't just a cipher.
It doesn't seem like he watched the whole thing.
...and he should read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep.
@@RobinsVoyage Damn right..
So he needs to watch filler material to better understand the movie? That means the movie is subpar and Drinker's review is spot on.
@@garbonzobean1 wtf is "filler material?"
“Why would Wallace want to make Replicants who can reproduce?”
Because someone else did. Wallace considers himself a god, and yet he hasn’t mastered what someone else did.
Yes he was a narcissist with a God complex. His motivations were some of the most honest and easy to understand in the movie IMO
also he just wants to make more to expand his little corporate empire, right? he assumes replicant children would simply function as obediently as the built ones, blah blah blah… blinded by his hubris, and such, right?
@@Sam_T2000 Perhaps, but that clearly seems to simply be more of a pleasant byproduct than an actual goal in of itself. He very clearly is shown to have a massive god complex, more so than a desire for simple power, and it's evident that he believes that no one can even challenge his position in the first place, so he doesn't really need even more obedience around him. All he needs to prove, to himself, is that he is at the very top - with abilities and ambitions unrivaled by anyone. That is his entire goal, to pursue anything and everything that can support his self inserted status as a god among men. As a pioneer of life and creation. As an engineer of civilization. As a father to evolution itself.
I also took it as an implication that manufacturing replicants is an expensive, lengthy, resource hogging procedure, whereas being able to breed them would be much faster and cheaper - but I like your "jealous god" angle, too. 😉
@@fasttalker77 I think you are missing the point about depth and nuance.
It still didn't answer the question: Do androids dream of electric sheep?
Only Welsh or Kiwi ones.
@@JohnnyZenith The answer is NO,well not in this movie. These replicants only have nightmares. If Philip.K.Dick was alive to see this movie,he would be extremely disappointed to what they have done to his original story (Yes,I have read his novel,and loved it )
@@JohnnyZenith we just really love sheep
No, but they do dream of electric unicorns.
K dreams of an electric ladyland.
This is what the new Star Wars trilogy should have been. Not just a remake of the old movies, but an actual continuation of Return Of The Jedi.
Wow, the Drinker literally missed everything this movie did well.
- Replicants came back with new safeguards (including the Baseline test) after a huge backlash and takeover of the Tyrell corporation
- As stated by Tyrell in the original movie: “Rachel is special.” This is why she was able to have children and didn’t have a 4-year lifespan.
- Wallace kills the new replicant because it lacks the ability to reproduce, showing his ruthlessness and lack of feeling toward replicants.
The Drinker had some amazing videos (esp. Disney Star Wars) but lately he’s just relying on his persona so he can just complain about everything. Lazy & boring.
Hmm interesting..
There were 2 films, away from all others, that I waited on for 30+ years; Dune and Blade Runner. I thoroughly enjoyed the immersion, visuals, soundtrack and storylines in both. Yes I could pick at some things, but no I really loved the experiences and I have refused to rewatch them until I got a new 4k large TV ( when I could afford 1. And I finally did) and quality headphones, and 4 hours left alone at night.
I probably should have only watched the review on these with someone who agreed, so I could bask in the shared experience. But my general enjoyment of the drinker made me try. Oh well.
I was annoyed at his Star Trek Beyond review when he pretty much skipped over the Spock and McCoy stuff, it was literally what elevates Beyond over its predecessors. I get he hates the Kelvin timeline films, but when he had to ignore such good parts of the best film of theirs (and one among the Trek films I love) to sell the narrative that it's dumb and soulless really annoyed me.
Tyrell deliberately made his replicants sterile because it's pointless to give a being with a 4-year lifespan the ability to reproduce, NOT because it was an impossible thing to do. A replicant having a child is not the "miracle" the movie makes it out to be. Tyrell even says in the original movie that Rachel was an experiment.
Wallace's motivations are moronic. After spouting some pretentious drivel about "artists" and "clay" he kills a newborn replicant to show us how evil he is. This is stupid to the point of being funny. We already know that replicants are expensive, rare and difficult to produce, so this is like the owner of a Ferrari factory smashing one of his brand new cars with a sledgehammer while saying, "behold my power to destroy!" lol. WTF is that?
agreed
"I've drunk things you wouldn't believe. Amaretto on fire off the shoulder of Orion.
I watched Jim Beam glitter near the Anheuser brewery gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like beers in rain. Time for rye." 😂
Brilliant
Nicely done.
"I've drank questionable things..."
"But also extraordinary things"
"Ives. i just make Ives liquor."
"if you could see the thing i've seen while on your Ives."
“It’s too bad she won’t get sober! But then again, who does?”
Im a massive Blade Runner fan, and i was surprised by how much i enjoyed this film. I was worried theyd make a hash of it.
Exactly. I was worried that the Blade Runner sequel was just going to be a Fast & Furious type of overblown spectacle. Thank you, Denis Villeneuve. You were the right director for this sequel.
Yeah...It was mind blowing when I realized the truth of K....I really enjoyed more this one than the original 🤷♂️🤷♂️
I liked it because this one actually seemed more true to the world the actual book took place in than the original. I actually read the book before watching the original Blade Runner, so I think that's why I wasn't a huge fan of the first film.
@@Ryan-vv5vw - I'm pretty sure if it wasn't for Rutger Hauer's iconic role as Roy Batty the original Blade Runner could have easily been a forgettable film.... 'Like tears in the rain.' 👌😁
@Yeah Right - Except that the first F & F film was a straight up rip off of Point Break with Keanu Reeves and Patrick Swayze.
They just swapped out surfers for street racers. The entire story is pretty much plagiarized from start to finish.
You have an FBI agent (Keanu) or in this case Paul Walker go undercover to infiltrate a gang of thieves. He becomes a good friend to the gang leader, falls for the girl who is close to the gang and then ends up letting the gang leader go instead of arresting him.
I remember going to the theaters when F & F came out and being really pissed off that I paid to see Point Break all over again.
The rest of the F & F franchise I'm not going to even bother to get into because what's the point? They basically went from street punks to James Bond/Mission Impossible/Ocean's 11 over the top, eye-rolling ridiculousness.
L review.
This film is a masterpiece!
100% this movie is amazing. Definitely don't agree with the review on this one.
The drinker makes great reviews but he didn’t hit it this time. I think he needs to revisit this one
This Drinker guy CLEARLY has no clue what he's on about and should not be giving his shitty takes on such masterpiece movies... 1.2 M views I'm disappointed 😞
@@vikinghoodbluelighthouse2911 it's because he only ever has two review formulas. generic good or generic bad, they always have 100% the same points, it's almost like ai writes his scripts lol. The issue here is he accidentally put a good movie in the 'bad review' pile and just created a generic negative review.
@@AthelstanKing he has the most vanilla reviews, either shitting on hated marvel movies, woke Disney movies or poorly written sequels to popularly beloved films, Or praising movies the general audience loved and is praised by other movie critics. when he tries to criticise movies without his basic anti sjw/feminism shit, he criticises them for the dumbest reasons possible because he doesn't know the process of filmmaking enough to disect and give good criticism of films.
"he goes there and runs into deckard within 5 minutes". He found the bee boxes using his scanner and inferred there was a humam nearby. Also there were lots of cuts.
If they took longer he would've said the movie is boring.
@@veronicab15…The movie was already boring.
@@JeddieT IDK I actually liked it. Perhaps it depends what mood you're in when you watch too :D
@@veronicab15 …I saw it three times in the first two months it was released, just to avoid what you’re suggesting and to see what everyone was creaming themselves about. Each time I liked it less. This movie will end up in the dustbin of history where it belongs.
Geeeze, out of all the staggeringly great music to come out of the later part of the 20th Century and the dude chooses Frank Sinatra?? …And that’s just a start.
@@JeddieT What are you waffling about... lolll
Blade Runner 2049 just oozed aesthetic to the point that you could use nearly any scene as your wallpaper. And it was a pretty great movie to watch.
I have the scene of Luv droning the junkyard while getting her nails done as my wallpaper. There is a "high-seas" copy of the IMAX version that is kind of interesting for a rewatch.
The “Mesa” scene. Beautiful. Amazing soundtrack.
Honestly enjoyed 2049 way more than the original, the modern cgi and better practical effects made the setting way more immersive and believable in my opinion. Every scene is wallpaper worthy
@@isakisak9989 Agreed and people keep failing to mention the sound design. I keep rewatching the scene with K and Sapper at the beginning. Wonderful sound design and visuals.
« Wallpaper »! That’s actually the perfect metaphor for this film. Thank you!
i saw this AFTER seeing the last jedi. blade runner 2049 was way more entertaining to watch
what is last Jedi?
that's a hell of an understatement if I've ever seen one.
Watching Bambi's mother's death scene on loop, for 2hrs, would be more entertaining the The Last Jedi!
@PetulantRosewulf I did walk out of TLJ.
That's not saying much. It's almost like saying nothing at all.
All of Denis Villeneuve's films are visual masterpieces. Sicario didn't have a particularly artistic landscape, but the score and cinematography gave it another dimension.
No... I think the magic is in the pacing of the movie
@@LetsbeHonest97 thats part of it but obviously the sounds you hear and visuals you see are at least as important as the guy you disagreed with for some reason was saying...
I love how all these comments are telling him how and why he’s wrong
Warms the heart honestly. It's so annoying listening to Drinker, Mauler, Gary and Razorfist shit on 2049 any chance they get on streams, so I come here to remind myself that I'm not insane lol
comments are wrong though. The reason comments are trying to explain the movie is because the movie itself didnt
Only just realized that Tyrell died from having his eyes shoved into his head and now Wallace is a blind man.
That's because the makers of this awful movie just stole their ideas from the Dangerous Days documentary and made a checklist of every element from the original and randonly worked them into this turd.
@@jjryan1352 haha i would like to know which movies do you like when you call 2049 awful.
@@jjryan1352 Calm down, blade runner was one of my favorite movies in my teens and i thought this sequel would be a very lame money grab at a time when it feels like half of all movies are exactly that. As a fan it seems like they did the right thing by me and as someone who's read a bit of Phillip K Dick, i feel that he would have stood and applauded the moment when Deckard says "No...I know what's real...".
@@jjryan1352 clown
@WinnieTheGrizzly Nah, Leto did his usual "Emerson, Lake & Palmer" routine. A little over the top, not quite as intellectual as he thinks, pretentious and generally quite boring.
Poor Ford, the old man is so tired of these damn movies that he didn't even bother to change his casual clothes for the film recording.
Ford hated Han Solo. So he barely even tried when he returned to that role. But here it felt like he actually did try.
Yes he did try, but he's clearly too old and tired to like it says here be little more than a plot device
Has he ever really tried? Or is he just being Harrison Ford?
@@Agencyagent34 he was good until the mid 90s, mostly everything else onwards has been dogshit, I think The Fugitive was his last good movie.
Razorfist already made this point in his review. Ford shuffling around in a pit-stained t-shirt.
You're possibly putting too much emphasis on aspects of characterisation in the original and hoping for more of the same. What many people reference about Bladerunner is how it blew their mind visually and aurally and still does to this day. I first saw it on videotape aged ten and it affected me deeply, despite not understanding what was going on, and I still regularly listen to the soundtrack in isolation. 2049 follows the same path and I believe that, visually at least, it is a masterpiece. I can't think of another director who could have done this justice so it was worth waiting an extended period for the right man. Timing is everything.
"I still listen to the soundtrack.." 👍
No big risks? I'd argue setting up the main character as the " chosen one" just to kill him off was a huge risk (won't see this in mainstream films). I think trying to follow from the first one was maybe a mistake. I honestly would argue it's best to see this as its own story set in the blade runner universe. The K story arc is an amazing tragedy story, I wondered if it could be a commentary of a realistic dystopia, with the rise of only fans, how isolated people are becoming and an increase in working hours due while wages stagnate against inflation. The first one (my favourite film ever I think) asked BIG questions, this was a beautiful story about a small individual and his seemingly insignificant life.
Tyrell : "More human than human" is our motto. Rachel was a prototype not the standard Nexus 6.
My response being "Alright Rob Zombie"
@Call Me Ishmael Yeah but I think it works well enough for 2049 to expand on it this way. Its not like it contradicts the first movie, only the thoughts of its writers.
Termitreter It does contradict Ridleys Final Cut as he suggested Deckard is a Replicant himself. So you could say this is a sequel to the Theatrical Cut.
@drew7376
:
Yeah, but unlike the other replicants seen in _Blade Runner_ [1982], Rachel _didn't know_ that she was a replicant. That's at least part of why she was more difficult for Deckard to test with the Voight-Kampff than usual th-cam.com/video/nItDJslm3lE/w-d-xo.html . The fade-out/fade-in @ about 3m 45s suggests that testing-session took an inordinate length of time.
@@Corbomite-ei1ty
Suggesting and outright stating are 2 different things. If he wanted Deckard to be cannonically a replicant he should've said it. Whe you suggest something you're not defining anything, therefore someone can chose weather or not to ignore your suggestion.
For the record, Rachel was an extremely rare “Nexus 7.” Tyrell’s masterpiece. When he died, the secret died with him. We were never sure if Rachel’s lifespan was limited to 4 years. At any rate, natural reproduction by a Nexus 7 is something for which the universe has no established canon up to this film, given that there were so few Nexus 7’s before Tyrell’s death. Roy Batty and his cohorts we’re Nexus 6 models.
If Deckard is a replicant like Rachel (and that’s a big if) then he too would be a Nexus 7; unbound to any of the rules of Nexus 6 models like Priss and Roy, as well as being unbound to the later Nexus 8 models we see in the film.
He isn't a replicant.
@@JohnnyZenith Lol Ridley Scott himself has revealed he is indeed a replicant.
@@MidnightatMidian - I think Ridley only said that he considered Deckard a replicant, but the the audience can still make up their own minds.
@@RictusHolloweye Accurate, but I tend to believe what the director consider true..
@@RictusHolloweye Also, in the film, there is a lot of evidences that he is indeed a replicant, and not one that he isn't.
This movie was magic for me.
Dennis Veuilleves scope, detail, immersive visuals and spectacular score, the well thought out plot and pacing combined with the character performances make up an absolute masterpiece and more than worthy sequel to one of the most philosophical and visionary movies ever made.
This absolutely adds value to the original story and unpacks many of the original core ideas while adding a further layer of what it means to be alive, have a soul, trancendence though sacrifice from dedication to others and explores many of the theological concepts of Philp K Dicks original story.
Also the scene where K is getting interviewed for mental stability, while holding the secret of his internal change and struggle with his change in worldview, having to recite the company precribed script that Gosling improvised based on lines from the book builds tension and insight that is breathtaking.
Every bit as mind blowing as the original blade runner and cemented for me how exceptionally gifted Veuilleve is as a creator and respecter of the original source material.
'Cells within cells..... interlinked, dreadfully distinct' and 'dying for a noble cause is the most human thing we can do'
Astonishingly good and more importantly, worthy of genuine praise.
This movie is one of the greatest sequels in film history. You’re not giving it the credit it deserves. It may even be better than the original - which is a masterpiece within itself.
If only we all had a joi in lockdown. Covid would’ve been easily starved out
Joi was amazing. What a cutie.
I'd wear out Joi within a week. Even without a physical body I'd find a way, even if meant a fleshlight, a cumquat, and two freshly baked soft rolls.
@Michael David That's fascinating.
Mate porn games are going this way.Look at games like Virtualmate for instance. Give it time, before 2047 this will exist.
Shes so hot
The only thing I found memorable about this movie was the relationship between K and his virtual girlfriend.
I found it incredibly depressing when, after her destruction, K comes across a holographic advert that tries to woo him. And through her dialogue to him, reveals that his virtual girlfriend was probably just spouting preprogrammed BS that seemed real at the time...
Too much like real life.
🤷♂️
That was another interesting topic that the movie brought up. Did Joi rebel against her code and gain free will, like K, or was it really her code that was making her do all those things?
What I liked about it was that his coming to terms with her artificiality added one more layer of self-awareness, further blurring the line between Replicant and human. He had, or attained, the ability to discern between emotion and rote response, and express a preference to preserve what is real.
The ambiguity there is what really sells it for me. You can interpret it as she was only programmed the whole time or that she overcame her programming and made a life of her own. It's like the unicorn from the original.
In that moment K weighs both options and then realizes that he'll never know.
He then immediately applies it to himself. He's not the Chosen One, he's not something special, he's just Joe. He'll never know if he's actually following his own programming by being obedient (first to the police and now the Rebellion) or if he has free will of his own.
Then he remembers what Dapper said at the beginning. K has seen a miracle. Whether it was JOI choosing for herself or seeing a Replicant of woman born, through this whole story he's seen that things can change. In that moment, he decides to save Dekkard for no other reason than he thinks it's the right thing to do.
That's how the scene hit me, and part of why I love this movie.
Probably the only plot point that really felt natural.
Cherry 2000
It really had a great message, though. When you lament the state of messaging in modern movies, you can't fault this one. Sometimes, you are NOT the hero of the story. Sometimes, you only play a part. Still, it is important that you do the right thing to the best of your ability.
K realizing he isn’t the Chosen One and deciding to do the right thing anyway when he absolutely could have fucked off and left Deckard to his fate was the character moment of the story. K was programmed to obey, but in saving Deckard he made a choice to do the right thing which arguably was the first actually altruistically noble action he makes in the movie
Fun Fact: David Bowie was originally casted for Jared Leto's role.
David's passing hit me more than I thought it should. Same with Twin Peaks the return.
@Michel Araujo True story, Villenueve wanted Bowie before he died.
@Ham Berder he never started acting
I like Jared Leto but Bowie in that role...DAMN!
@Ham Berder He's a great actor so no.
"I've Drunk things, that you people wouldn't believe" - The Drinker probably
He never gives any Love does he?
"Distilleries on fire off the shoulder of Orion..."
"All those moments will be lost in time, like vomit, down a drain."
"Time...to-" *Blacks out onto the floor*
One thing I like about this film is, its faithful to its original film. Something I don't fully get from most of the present day sequels.
When an entire city has a radiation leak. All the furniture and items have to be abandoned and can’t be brought with the people during the evacuation. The same type of radiation found in Las Vegas must be rare enough that it wasn’t a coincidence to contaminate a wooden horse.
"How does the replicant child grow up?"
-you've obviously never seen a miracle.
Happened 2021 years ago
@@yodaslovetoy 2054 if we're sticking to that old trope. They hung him on a coat hanger 2021 ago.
@@yodaslovetoy Anyone being alive to see that 2021 years ago....now THAT would be a miracle!
How does one stay awake during this film?
-you’ve obviously never seen a miracle
I mean, he said a replicant gives birth to a child a bit earlier, then he tried to apply real life into sci-fi/fantasy movie. The reviewer is dumber than the captain Marvel movie review.
The cinematography and sounds of this movie are sensational
Too bad almost everything else was a bit underwhelming , but it was a beautiful movie. But just a bit underwhelming overall
@@shawne7228 so just like the Last Jedi?
@Geralt of Rivia much better than TLJ but that’s not hard, it does some interesting things with the characters which is better than getting raped like Luke
@@shawne7228 I don't understand all the hype, I really liked the sound and visual design of the movie, but the story was (at least for me) really boring and uninteresting, i walked out after 80min. Also have to note I never saw the original.
@@anidiot2818 Then you'd probably hate the original as well. I liked the sequel better because there's at least some actual investigation being done by the investigator character.
While it can't equal the original, it was a worthy follow up that like the original, gets better with multiple viewings.
My favorite modern film. Truly a masterpiece of cinematics, pacing, and emotion.
Rachel wasn’t a normal replicant, she was supposed to be “more human than human”, meaning as close to an actual human as possible, which is what leto’s character is trying to recreate in terms of the ability to reproduce
But a workforce with free will that can reproduce is a workforce requiring more oversight.
@@Hoganply I’m not contemplating the validity of his plans, I’m correcting what was said in the vid
aren't all replicants in movies are, basically, humans without memories?
@@luxationvonfracture8113 no, the replicants are even given memories
@@ashitaka9327 so..it's not a wonder that she got pregnant- she is a woman.
Agent k gets treated appallingly and used by everyone. And yet, his choice at the end is to save deckard and take him to see his daughter.
He should have killed him to preserve the secret, but instead and despite all the abuse he suffers and how he is lied to and used... He makes the human moral emotional choice to reunite him with his daughter - bollocks to the robot resistance.
And then lies down and dies of his injuries. He chooses to spend the last few minutes of his life not killing someome but rather saving. Making a humane choice. Just like the original
Exactly. Though he isn't a robot but I get your point.
And even better, he doesn't brag about it. When Deckard asks "who am i to you?" K just tells hi mto go meat his daughter.
K isn't doing what he is doing for anyone else's thanks or approval- he's doing it because it's his decision.
The whole point of Blade Runner and Blade Runner 2049 is that if you can't even tell wether someone is a replicant or not, why is it even important? Rachael, K, Deckard - assuming he's a replicant as well - they are all more human than human. Even Joi is. And in the end, Roy Batty was too.
Bla Bla It’s important to the replicants because the insistence that they aren’t human is the reason why they are not afforded “human rights”. That’s the OTHER importance of Rachel’s child i.e. it’s not just that a replicant child risks a “replicant war” but also that if a replicant woman and a human man can have a child then how is that child *not* human? And if the child is human then what does that imply about the mother?
I'm a bit surprised you didn't know Rachel was a new prototype that didn't have an expiration date. Movie also added new replicants, new rules to their behaviors, answered whether Deckard was a replicant so they added some new elements. Love's small emotional displays and her insecurities were interesting to me. I'd be curious to see what you thought of Ex Machina from 2014
Well, Deckard can't be a replicant now, because he aged. Unless Tyrell made aging as a feature. Repli-Deckard might have been Ridley Scott's intention with the original Blade Runner, but he didn't intend to make a sequel back then. 30+ years later and we have a really old Deckard, which throws the replicant idea out the window. Just like K going toe to toe with Sapper makes the idea of him being part human ludicrous. I wonder: Do androids become super human if they're bitten by electric sheep?
@@clottadams5028 I tell people the same about the technicality of Terminator: It was never meant to be a series of movies. Terminators shouldn't have been able to show up in the past after the first movie because Reese said the time displacement equipment was destroyed, only one terminator went through, Skynet was beaten.
Blade Runner 2049 is a masterpiece 🙌
This movie is one of the few That came out in the past 20 years that I actually enjoyed.
Marcus Aetius all that says is the rest of them were worse garbage, dude.
Edgy boy
I thought Ex Machina was dog shit. The Machine was more interesting and on a tiny budget in comparison.
Well tbh it has it's flaws, but guess what, so does the original, and thats an all time favourite of mine. 2049 for all its problems is my favourite movie of the last ten years, they even managed coax a decent performance from Gosling, who isn't my favorite actor and comes off wooden a lot. It does however suffer from 3rd act problems and from when he meets Ford, the movie never recovers and those replicant rebels we've seen in other movies a million times, the end however was good
@@starwarsroo2448 The biggest problem with the original is it got messed around with by both the studio and later on the director. So the voiceover was added, some like it some hate it, the ending of the original release is stupid, the unicorn and replicant thing seems pointless and added as an after-thought.
2049 is that rare sequel that doesn’t spit on its predecessor while also taking the time to be it’s own thing. It’s not a perfect movie by any means, but it’s very well made. One of the most visually arresting films I’ve ever seen.
It kind of does because just like all the the modern remakes it undermines the male lead and ultimately makes it all about a female special one.
@Commentator if you somehow missed a plotline in a movie possibly overloaded with them, then the point of this flick was to entertain people who like to actually be awake while watching a movie, so not your demographic...
I think Drinker got what the replicants were wrong. My impressions was that they were fast grown, modified humans with implanted memories so, they could hit the ground ready to work without the whole messy childhood and adolescence thing. That's why they were banned on earth and built with limited life spans. The longer they lived, the more human they could become. Remember in the first movie they were completely banned from living on earth. That's why Decker's job was to air them out.
The fact we're making our own superior replacements is part of what makes it scary.
I'm glad we're at a point where you can say that a thing is "the iPhone" of those things, and it not being a compliment.
The story should have revolved more around Deckart’s narrative as a man alone with his grief and his booze. New title:
Blade Runner: Critical Drinker
LOL!! I
TropicTom
You sir are a fuckin prodigy.
Robert Lutece
Unless he is ........a replicant. MWAAAH HAA HAA HAA HAA! And NOT just any repli-cant....a repli-CAN.
Finding a location based on radiation, or specific isotopes, is something we can already do to some extent... Forensics have identified corpses', based on isotopes and chemical flags found in the water or environment of their home locale, also being present in their corpse... Even when the bodies may have been located far from their home.
Point Break dude, the original
Radiation signature matching is complicated but I would imagine based on their technology they could easily identify such.
Isotopic analysis and radiochemistry are common techniques. For instance, a piece of ancient pottery can be activated using neutrons and then isotopically analyzed to pinpoint precisely where the clay that made up the pottery came from, and then ancient trade routes can be learned.
Particular nuclear reactors have signatures on the used up nuclear fuel. If radiation is result of some nukes going off same thing. That part made complete sense to me as well.
Overall I loved the movie, more then original..
Call me crazy but for me the Joi storyline and the social and philosophical questions that it raises are enough alone to justify the whole film. 😏👍
Deckard was a human who thought he might be a replicant, Agent K was a replicant who thought he might be a human. It was poetically reversed...
I agree but Denis Vileneuve said he wanted to respect both theories for Deckard's species.
The iPhone of Movie Sequels? Now there's a missed opportunity for an Android joke...
Basically also what's sammy is to android :/.
2049 was one of those films where my jaw dropped just because of how incredible the cinematography was. Watched it 5 times knowing this film won’t be on the big screen ever again.
A film I’ll never forget
The indy house around me has screened it again - like they sometimes do the original. I think you'll still see it pop up in art houses from time to time. I think it's going to have that kind of long legacy.
A masterpiece.
I really loved 2049, and I wish I had made the time to go see it when it was still in theaters.
it's a film I can easily forget compared to the original. I don't remember anything of it. While with the original I remember Harrison being chased by Rutger. Remember "Like Tears in the Rain", I remember the Vangelis soundtrack. I remember Daryl Hannah jumping on Harrison's head. I remember the man playing with robot toys that had an ageism problem. I remember the first time I saw Sean Young, the robot beauty. I remember the eye test. All classic legendary moments. I didn't see one classic moment in 2049.
That’s so embarrassing I have no idea why would type all that out. And yeah you might be suffering from dementia or something if you can’t remember it
Highlight of this film was that I could watch it at the cinema, and experience that synth, with those visuals, the way that it was intended.
The first film is still one of my favourites, and as old as I am, I was born the year Bladerunner hit the cinema... So I missed that one.
Am quite tempted to watch both films again.
I watched it, I thought it was OK, and I felt absolutely nothing for anyone on the screen. There was no poignancy to the story, no emotional connection. Characters appeared, did something, and then went away. Nothing touched me. I'll watch it again someday, and maybe see something more to it, but I doubt it.
The original was something that I saw as a teenager when it came out. Frankly, it went over my head; I didn't get it. Years later, I saw it again as a college student, and it punched me in the gut. It's been my favorite movie for decades since. I don't expect this one to grow on me though.
one of the only intelligent remarks about this tedious crappy film
"Why do I get First Order vibes from this?" Whoah whoah whoah whoooaaah there. Look, 2049 may not be the best sequel ever, but don't you dare bring up that other sequal's name in this circle.
I think it's one of the best sequels ever.
@@JohnnyZenith Def top 5 sequels.
What other sequels, there were no films apart from Rogue One made after Return of the Jedi.
People seem to forget that when the original is such a masterpiece, the sequel not equaling or surpassing it doesn’t make it a bad sequel. 2049 is a great sequel in that it expands on the original in a very natural, logical, and respectful way, retaining what made the original great, while being a great piece of cinema in its own right.
99.9% of sequels either shit all over the original (Alien sequels after Aliens), repeat the original in a meaningless and phoned-in way that is inferior to the original (Jaws sequels and most slasher movie sequels), or make the original’s plot points or character arcs seem meaningless in retrospect (what is the point of OT Star Wars if a carbon copy of the enemy they spend 3 movies defeating comes back afterward and does the exact same evil stuff? What’s the point of Han’s arc from rogue to hero if he just goes back to being a rogue again, and then dies shortly after going back to hero?)
2049 is part of the upper elite of sequels, up there with Empire Strikes Back or GodFather Part II, in that it does right by the first while being a good movie on its own without being derivative or redundant.
One of the things I liked about 2049 was how the love interest in the movie (Joi) not only doesn't feel forced, but actually has a purpose and is probably a good chunk of what helped push the plot along on K's side once things started to get going.
You are right....but it was the only thing keeping me from going comatose in an IMAX theatre. The rest of the plot did feel forced and contrived.
she was a joy to watch
Rutger Hauer punctuated 1982 Blade Runner so perfectly that we never needed a sequel.
I actually loved this movie for the same reasons I loved the original - the filmmakers didn't hand everything out on a platter, and there were no easy answers.
This movie left me with a lot of emotions. During the walkout of the theater I started thinking deeply and intensely about life and the nature of reality. Not many films have done that and it was very satisfying. After seeing it a second time in theaters, I had a deeper understanding this story.
1) There was no real decoy, it was purely on paper. K/Joe is utterly, completely, unequivocally unremarkable. Thus his name - Joe, as in an Average Joe.
2) Joi does not possess a soul, she is completely fake. She is the other side of the replicant coin and is made solely to please and coddle her owner/lover. The giant pink Joi on the bridge calls K Joe as well, and her entire branding scheme is that she'll be anything you want. K wanted to feel special, so his Joi always reinforced this to him, but it was never real. Joi is K's fleeting dream of being special, and once her emanator is destroyed, K learns he is not special.
3) Wallace posed a question about whether Deckard was moved by love or programming. I'm still not sure if Deckard was human or a replicant. The original movie is about a bad man finding his humanity through the grace of a machine. Wallace's question is not a literal "Are you human or robot?" question, but pondering what the difference is, if love is just a chemical, and if we are products of biological programming or something higher like a soul. The ultimate takeaway is that it does not matter, in fact the only thing that matters is what we choose to do with our lives.
4) In summary, 2049 is about dreams and delusions. K wants desperately to be special. Joi tells him this constantly, and he instantly assumes all the evidence points to him because it's his dream. He becomes deluded and forces himself into the situation even as it destroys him. He thinks this is what it means to be human, to grapple with one's humanity. He is torn between two sides telling him what his identity is and should be - the LAPD who informs his identity as that of a slave, and the resistance which informs his identity as that of a free replicant.
When his delusion is shattered by meeting the pink Joi, he chooses to follow his own path and not let anyone tell him who he is or what he should do. He makes the most human decision and takes his life into his own hands. He saves Deckard for the same reason Roy did. He wanted someone to remember him, for his final decision that fully validates him as human to not be in vain. No one else gave him his identity, only he did, and his sacrifice ensured forever that he was by every metric a human being, even if the world would ultimately forget him.
This is why I love the film and I consider it to be one of the greatest sequels ever next to Aliens and Terminator 2.
Excellent analysis!!! Agree :-)
Dude, 100% fucking agree with everything you wrote. I kinda wish the Drinker would read your comment and then re-watch the movie. Not that his review was overly negative, but I feel like a lot of his problems with it would be assuaged if he understood what a lot of these things meant in the context of the movie.
I honestly think it's a beautiful film.
@randomguy9777 but if Deckard is human (which I believe he is) then his child would be half human, and K was willing to kill said child until he was led to believe the child was his.
He also kills those humans who attacked him in the giant garbage dump without hesitation.
Also, although his job is bringing rogue replicants in for termination - or terminating them outright if they resist - he shows Sapper genuine empathy and compassion, and remarks that he'd prefer bringing Sapper in peacefully if that's an option, when it would probably be better for his human masters if he just killed Sapper immediately.
Not to mention beating up Morgan from Walking Dead.
Also, he chooses to disobey his human boss and side with Deckard before he even knowingly encounters the replicant resistance. At that point in the movie, siding with Deckard was the more "anti-human" choice.
Excellently put! That last paragraph where you compared K's motivations to Roy Batty moved me to tears. The biggest difference between what Roy & K did is that Roy's actions would be lost and forgotten like Tears in Rain whereas K's would not be forgotten like Tears in Snow due to the impact that his actions will inevitably have on the world and replicants as a whole.
I like to think of BR2049 as a what if scenario where Roy Batty would be the protagonist rather than Deckard and K certainly has a lot of parallels with Roy.
Joe realising that he's not special at all, his only love is fake and preprogrammed, and he is not the main character of his own story, is one of the biggest emotional gut punches I've ever seen in cinema.
I always thought K earned his soul at the end of the film, much like Roy did in the first one.
It was such a boring ending many have said they didn't even realize the film had ended. Anticlimax.
@@jjryan1352 Frankly, I'd forgotten he'd died (well, I thought he was having a little sleep). I'd lost interest long before then.
Don't compare K to Roy, that's sacrilege!
@Bill Whittaker That's something the soulless would say.
I believe the same thing. K gave his meaningless life to something bigger than himself, reuniting a man with his daughter. This action earned him a soul, like Batty saving a life.
I was tripping off my balls on edibles when I watched this. Can't remember the plot at all but I remember being absolutely blown away watching it though.
Tyrell did say Rachael was a "special one" in Blade Runner
I love you Drinker but you missed the mark on this one.
@2:05 "K's Conflict of interest" But the new generation of replicants are given some serious conditioning and monitoring. Human hubris about their ability to control new models is part of the point. K mostly hunts down older, less reliable combat models- they are INCREDIBLY dangerous to humans- so a super powered replicant is easily the best choice for dealing with them. (humans get absolutly wrecked by replicants through the whole film)
@3:40 "Danger of Deckards child" It IS happening. The resistance was founded around her, and continues to operate. Wallace only becomes aware because the police do- and he moves quickly to capitalize. K's Boss sees that as just as big a problem as anything.
@3:50 Value of replicant breeding. They do go through the same processes. They do age, and the new models DON'T have the same lifespan cap. Again, Wallace hubris. However, they are expensive and slow to manufacture - Wallace wants to breed them like cattle to exponentially grow his workforce. It's unlikely he would make ALL replicants have this function, just his breeders. We don't know because we never see him attempt it, but its dumb to assume he would always do it in the stupidest, riskiest way possible.
@4:13 "Wallace Corp is Just Tyrell Corp". The film is actually making this observation but then undermines it. When we first see Wallace Corp pyramid, its towering over Tyrell Corp, indicatign its the new, improved, more powerful version of the same corporation. However, at the end of the film, we see that Walla pyramid is only really a pyramid on one face- the other face is flat- like its cut in half. This is visual metaphor- Wallace himself pretends to be the genius of Tyrell, but he's not, hes a hollow imitation.
@4:50 "Why'd Wallace Kill the replicant?" Because she was a new breeding attempt that as failed. Killing her in front of Luv was a test/act of dominance- one of his eyes is watching her the whole time. He's a piece of crap with a messianic complex who thinks he has total control over these new replicates. Leto coming off as a self loving wanker was the point.
@5:50 "How does radiation lead back to vegas" The guy puts it in a spectrometer. It's my understanding you can trace radioactive material really precisely, even what right down to what enrichment facility created the fissile material after a nuclear blast.
@6:35 "Why would you leave all the stuff in Vegas behind". Because irradiated stuff is deadly over time. This shouldn't even need to be explained. Deckard surviving there is meant to be a clue to his replicant-ness. (The only other humans that go there are all shown using re-breathers to protect themselves from irradiated dust, for example- only Luv, Deckard and K don't wear one).
I could go on specifically but the basic summation is- Luv is interesting because she is meant to be a "head house-n***r" type character that is happy to oppress other slaves to be the one privileged slave.
K's whole life until that point WAS meaningless- he thought he had purpose and love in Joi- but that was another Wallace Corp delusion. He thought he had it as a born child- but that was another delusion.
His arc is him realizing he can develop humanity through action- not by being told he's special by his fake girlfriend or by being born special- but by ACTION. He creates purpose and becomes a man by stepping up and making his own choices.
I could go on but i look insane.
+1
Excellent comments. Thank you for saving me from making some of these points (I wouldn't have got them all). The film is a lot smarter than it looks, if you really pay attention.
I was about to write the same. Great comment
Yeah this comment had to be made
yeah but hasn't the idea of sentient robots, clones, AI etc... already been done?
I can't think of anything like this movie. A direct sequel that came out over 30 years after it's predecessor with a different director, that matched the themes perfectly, and matched or arguably enhanced the filmmaking aspects.
This.
HELL YES.
Exactly. It's not really about how good the movie is on its own. The bigger issue is how did it not fall into the garbage pile like all the other sequels/remakes/reboots over the past decade. It's like a random stroke of magic. This is the movie that we all wanted Prometheus, Predators, Robocop 2014, Ghostbusters 2016, etc to be. It was a reminder that films can still be good.
I enjoyed the film, but afterwards it left me feeling a bit dissapointed, in that it felt like it wasted plot threads and I reslly thought Deckard should have played a more active role in the final act.
Also, it kind of hurts that they keep turning Harrison Ford's characters into absent fathers lol
Maybe the real miracle Sapper was talking about was the movie itself.
One of the great sequels. If they cut out all that b.s. with the electronic girlfriend it would be a masterpiece, but as-is it's outstanding. One of the many things I liked was how when K is told he's NOT a human, the movie doesn't stop still for a closeup of his face as a single tear rolls down his face.
I agree to some extent 2049 is asking the same question about what it means to be human but I want to point out it also adds the question "What if you're not the hero of your movie? Could you still live and die with purpose?"
"Draw jopping visuals" - Drinker
Hehe. I came to the comments to ask if “Draw Jopping” was intentional.
I need some Draw Jopping merch
8:11 time stamp for anyone interested. I missed it myself and had to go back. good stuff! edit: timestamp is a little off, give it a few seconds.
That's how you know the liquor's working!
Jaw dropping is too hacky and embarrassing to be put into a movie review now days!
This is a sloppy review from someone who normally hits the mark. To say this film "doesn't take risks" is ridiculous: the slow pacing, the decision to subvert Joe's role as the chosen one, the meditative analysis on humanity in a post-human world- are these typical features of a big budget Hollywood action film?
The main complaint seems to be "this movie should have been made back when Harrison Ford could be the star", which misses the fact that Ford's acting in 2049 is the best work he's done in years. Remember his pained face when he sees the fake Rachel: "I know what's real"? As a vision of cyberpunk dystopia, this movie knocks it out of the park, people will still be talking about it decades from now.
I love it when he sees his daughter too.
@@JohnnyZenith Same. I agree strongly with both you and the OP.
Yes, CD was wrong on multiple accounts, but IMO the Harrison Ford performance was quite bad, I mean, it gave me too much "Indiana Jones/Han Solo/generic Harrison Ford character" vibes, there was some forced humor around his character and I didn't really like it, instead of Deckard, it was just Ford with orange background.
I mean, he had his moments, but his performance overal wasn't convincing.
@@bezimienny_andzej6425 Hey that's fair if that is what his performance felt like to you. I had a different experience with his performance in the film and he never once broke my immersion in the story or character of Deckard.
I thought it was his most convincing performance in two decades of playing a character rather than that very same generic Harrison Ford.
@Zoomer Waffen Shilling for what? We liked the movie. Not telling you to go buy it or donate to our new political party (Vote: 'Make the world Blade Runner by 2049!' in 2020).
Basically this review:
-The first Blade Runner was a masterpiece
-This one is marginally better
-Man, what a disappointment
How do you come to this conclusion?
Pretty generous to assume we will get a new ASOIAF novel in the next 40 years. Cant wait to share the series with my great great great great grandsons wifes boyfriend.
Soooo you assume your great great grandson’s wife is gonna cheat on him? XD
Plot twist, the boyfriend is a cisgendered llama
@@Miatpi No Im assuming my great great great great grandsons will be a tolerant and truly modern man. Dont you love the modern day?
@@biglenin7306 stop assuming your future great great great great grandsons gender you monster!
sir please we all know your the side piece
During the fight scene between Deckard and K in Las Vegas, there's a point in which Ford punches Gosling in the face incorrectly for actors and actually punches him. If you pause this scene at just the right moment you can see Harrison Ford wincing as his fist makes contact, and Ryan Gosling looking dazed with blood spurting out of his nose.
It's also important to note that K spends the rest of the movie with a broken nose.
Like Jack Nicholson in Chinatown, with the nose bandage.
Yay best news I've heard in a while..gosling is the most boring overated git ever
@@martinnevey7258 No, he's just "nuanced".
@@SausageFingers420 The film drive he starred in was convoluted tripe
@@martinnevey7258 the plot of drive is literally brain dead simple, “man drives for mob.” What is so convoluted about that more so than any other mob movie out there like The Godfather, Goodfellas, Reservoir Dogs which are by definition as convoluted as possible?
I wanted to see Harrison Fords corrector more refined with a buildup of personal skills ready to use them when the time presented itself.
I honestly really liked the idea of K being a replicant who is brainwashed into doing the bidding of the humans in killing fellow replicants. It shows how he was able to find his humanity in choice and sacrificing himself for something even though he was not the chosen one
“Wallace just comes across as a catalog model trying to spout off something vaguely intelligent.”
Sounds like Silicon Valley CEOs tbh.
Several times during this movie I thought "ok , I can see where this is going" , only to have the rug pulled out from under me . I can not remember the last time a film did that to me.
I actually really like the endings to this movie and La La Land, coincidentally both Gosling films. In each of them the main character in Gosling doesn't get his happy ending, in this movie he doesn't end up being special and is just a replicant despite how much he wanted to be more. In La La Land he doesn't end up with Mia like in most movies with a romance. I respect movies that take the chance to not have things work out for the main characters.
Yes, the idea was having to go off-world to perform a torture is strange. The first movie does clearly state that Rachel was special, hence she can live beyond the 4 years coded into the majority of Nexus 6 replicants. Love's character convinced me that she was both a psychotic, brutal and a sad "person." I felt emotion from it, maybe because I was drinking? Yes, the original is better, but I did enjoy 2049 very much.
Only in the original with the happy ending does it say that Rachel has an extended lifetime, which was deleted in subsequent cuts. So which is canon?
Rachel is never stated to have a longer lifespan than the usual replicant, she's only special because she can almost pass as a real human being.
@@eduardopazhurtado3882 And that she can become pregnant, unlike other replicants. Also, "Tyrell also gave her an open-ended lifespan, with no set expiration date." According to the official WIKI. At the end of the US theatrical version her longer lifespan is alluded to. However, in the 2nd movie, it's discovered that she died giving birth to her child (that was the result of the union between her and Deckard).
@@jedielder7970 that's only added to the sequel, as plot device, it's never stated in the first film she can become pregnant, or that Deckard is also a replicant and that their "union" was programed. That's the liberty the script of the sequel takes in order to built its story. And even if it's alluded that she doesn't have an expiration date, it's also noted that it's not that large of a lifespan, hence why Deckard is worried that she might die soon.
@@eduardopazhurtado3882 It's all interesting stuff, for sure.
There are truly incredible moments in 2049. It's a special film to me.
I agree, I keep on thinking about it. It's an intellectual movie but with a powerful emotional kick, something very rare these days.
Zoomer Waffen
Lmao how?
@Zoomer Waffen Any chance you'll amend that so that it makes sense..?
@Zoomer Waffen OK Zoomer
pretty much every movie is a overreved cgi wankfest I loved the pace of 2049
The most worthy of long awaited sequals. This film was an opus of cyberpunk sci fi with just enough updates to stand alone while being true to it's predecessor.
Exactly!
As a writer, I really liked BR2049 while acknowledging the gaps in the villains we see here. And as you say, BR2049 executes a lot of beats and plot movements very competently, which makes it an outlier in today's moviescape. So what we are left asking is, what is the contribution the movie has to "higher meaning"? I'd say there are at least two that it offers; one, the further question that if we accept replicants as having a soul, then what about AI like Joi? and two, perhaps to give one's life in service to a loved one or a greater good, is enough meaning to have in one's life. That is the what Joi and K both elect to do, and in so doing achieve by actions a "humanity" that their origins deny them. If that proposition is accepted therefore, K's side story and eventual gentle passing carries a lot more weight than it seems. (This sacrifice is rather ironic for someone who didn't turn out to be the Replicants' Christlike figure but more John the Baptist.) And I think it's a brave movie that tries to make its protagonist not the Chosen One who saves the world, but somebody who just helped a bit, and paid the ultimate sacrifice for it.
This review is what happens when one disregards thematic analysis of film, such a one dimensional take on this movie
He's actually on point! Sadly people have actually bought into the fact they think BR2049 is somehow a deep, existential, humanistic film when in fact it's actually pretty hollow imitation of the original (same god like owner, replicant misfits, dystopian imagery) the proof is I will never see this film again because i have no interest in it however the original I return time after time to 'revel in its time' to quote Tyrell.
“Thematic analysis”. Mate, get your head out of your arse. Just exploring themes alone is not enough to make a good film. That’s what the original did so well: it had both excellent themes and an engaging plot.
2049 imo did have some themes, but we barely got to explore them, and I wish we’d seen more of K’s reactions to these big revelations etc besides a blank face and a nice little bit of silence.
Personally, I’d compare 2049 to Power of the Dog. Both were so focussed on themes that it cost them narrative integrity and coherence. This in turn led to a meandering plot that never seemed to really go anywhere.
I interpreted the ending as K finding the purpose that he so craved in his life, despite having to reconcile with the fact that he was not special in the way that he had begun to hope he was
& thus he was special, a unifier of families, not an end to them
@@sstrykert Right!
Grumpy Gabe Absolutely. Not only it was deep - it's also relatable. How often in life when we accept some unpleasant truth about ourselves or reality, or let something go/make peace with smth - we actually open ourselves to something actually meaningful and important...
Drinker: the saving grace that helps my 'buy into' the 2049 storyline, is that Rachel was different, unique, with no expiration date. So, it's potentially feasible that she could reproduce.
I agree, she wasn't nexus 6, but an experiment. So normal rules don't apply.
Except in the original film, there is zero mention of ANy replicants reproducing. If we use the excuse, "She was special", then she might as well have superhero powers. She could jump to the moon, she could melt steel with here eye laser, she can lift a tank with one hand, etc
"Hey, Rachel just jumped straight to the moon! How could she do that?"
"Oh she's special."
That's a big leap to make.
I'm with the drinker on this one. A machine being able to reproduce just doesn't make sense.
@@malachimatcho7583 It could have been her sole purpose. Tyrell wanted to see if he could be god.
@@Malignant88 Anything is possible. My problem is that we are literally pulling these theories out of thin air because replicants giving birth was never mentioned or hinted at in the original film. I feel like it's our way of filling in a hole in the story. Kinda goes like, "Wait, how could a machine give birth? Oh wait .. Tyrell said Rachel was special. Okay, problem solved".
But my opinion shouldn't matter anyway. This film didn't work for me, but it obviously worked for the vast majority of people who saw it. So, don't waste any more time on me. 😊
Forgot to say, you're right. If there was anyone qualified to have a God complex, then Mr. Tyrell would be the obvious front runner.
@@malachimatcho7583 that's why there is the so called "suspension of disbelief". "I have witnessed a miracle" referred to the ability of a replicant to procreate is enough to make it work: it was not possible and yet it happened.
One of the few really good films of the last 10 years. Supreme film making.
I think the disease Rachels child has might have been caused by the fact that she is half replicant.
Besides the (what I found to be unnecessary to the plot) Jared Leto storyline, I found the Bladerunner sequel to be a breath of fresh air in veritable sea of bad sequels & reboots.
I was afraid from the start that Leto was a risky casting choice, given what a lightning rod his appearance and acting style has become for a lot of people. He was better than I feared, but I can definitely grok people being unable to get past him.
I would not call BR 2049 a sequel but a stand alone movie. reason I say this is cause they ignore alot of canon that was put into place from the original movie and they take alot of their info from the many lame cuts and the novel. Over all the movie was good to look at but the story and plot was far from well written it all relied on nostalgia to drive it.
While Bladerunner 2049 was nowhere near as good as the original, it was probably the best movie of 2017. That's a sad predicament.
@@sailorrenek7823 I think it works well both as a sequel and as a standalone. I don't think you really needed to see the original to appreciate 2049. (P.S. I still puzzle as to whay Scott kept doing more cuts of the original, since they're all very similar. But any one of them beats the theatrical cut with its horrific voice over.)
It wasn't terrible, but it wasn't great either. Better than I can say about most modern movies.
When Hollywood got woke, I swore off going to the theater. Recently I realized something. It's real easy not to go see movies in the theater, because there is literally nothing I want to see. I even stooped going to the web sites that have the free, "undocumented", full length "previews" of the movies because there is nothing worth watching. There isn't even anything on TV worth watching anymore.
The implication in the original about Deckard being a replicant was a last-minute brain fart of Ridley Scott which was universally hated by everyone else in the crew. I think that scene was only in the director's cut version.
The idea Deckard being a replicant was only ever ridiculous. I never treated it as true. He saw the value in the very thing he was tasked to kill. That didn't need to be muddied.
Not to mention unnecessary. The movie already put serous question to the nature of humanity with replicants being more deep and empathetic then some of the humans.
The book wasn't quit as ambiguous. The replicants tended to be pretty viscous bastards, and the vought camp test was a straight up empathy exam with psychopaths giving false positives.
It was. The unicorn footage was actually from another of his films that he just slotted in. This was the start of Scott ruining his own great work, continuing with the lovely prequels to Alien...
last minute?! The entire time, Gaff is close by Deckard. Those origami props? They had to be made before hand. The theme was intended by Scott and the director is god on a movie. Whether you buy it or not is another issue, but saying it was just something Scott threw in willy nilly is plain daft!
If you remember, in the first film Tyrel said Rachel had no time limit on her life.
There's a bit more to the Bladerunner world with a CG animated series called "Black Lotus" which would allude to fitting between the 1st and 2nd movie, at least in so much as Tyrell is in the process of selling replicant technology to Wallace.
At this time, it is still airing, so where it is ultimately headed in yet to be resolved.
There is also mention of Nexus 8, and the scope of that level is not elaborated as yet either.