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.
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 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.
@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.
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 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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 )
“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. 😉
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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..
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.
@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.
@@Anldiot69 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
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.
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
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...
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 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.
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 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
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?
"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'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." 😂
Deckard: "Whiskey is like any other alcohol, either a benefit or a hazard. If it's a benefit it's not my problem." Leon: "Wake Up! Time to drink!" Tyrell: "More drunk than the Drinker, is our motto." Roy: "That's the spirit!"
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.
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.
That's strange - I thought it was made clear that they needed self-replicating Replicants in order to service increasing off-world colony demands (if not in the film - the theatrical shorts that came before it). Curious that was missed by TCD. Also - radiation signatures are a thing. They were used for analyzing remote above ground nuclear tests from a distance. High altitude scoops collected elements and fallout to determine location and the design of the weapon during the cold war. As far as material left behind - there's lots of Urbex videos - particularly of Pripyat, that showcase how lots of abandoned areas are left the way they were prior to people fleeing - especially from radiological catastrophe. Japan has quite a few areas after Fukushima. Not a lot of resale value in material that's contaminated. It's just an above ground landfill at that point. In the novel, such troves were referred to as 'kibble'. As more people left Earth - the property was abandoned as cities emptied out. Not practical to take it off-world.
I also think that TCD this time missed his mark by omitting the featurettes’ content and not understanding some ideas in the film. To me the movie is the best possible sequel we could have hoped for.
Your statement really does point out a flaw in the TCD reviews - he is very nitpicking, to the point where his troubles could be dismissed with a reminder that it's a film set in a future where they've already made colony ships land in other solar systems.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
@@Inndjkaawed2922 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 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.
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.
@vikinghoodbluelighthouse2911 Watching these review in 2024 shows how little Critical Drinker understands first movie and how little he knows about lore and story of this one.
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?
This movie took its time - with everything. And I friggin love it for that. Every shot, every scene, everything was deliberate and thoughtful, artistically interesting, and every shot was just long enough to marvel at before slowly moving on. I respect this movie a lot just for how slow it is compared to the oversaturation entertainment most other big-budget movies are.
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.
I actually didn't mind it. It was shot beautifully. It paid homage. A couple of holes in the story but I found it enjoyable. Certainly compared to some other movies I've seen in the last few years.
that being said, i love this movie. there's some fantastic performances, moments, world building, design, music, and characters. there is a lot to like. its a shame we won't see another building on what was set up in this movie. it's a shame we have a whole generation of movie goers that have had Marvel movies shoved down their throats and need something to blow up every 5 seconds have dont appreciate static beautifully shot mediative scenes and subtlety.
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.
You really nailed it here. I didn't like it at first but could see the obvious quality in filmmaking so i gave it several more tries and i do now like it a lot but still feel it isn't perfect. I couldn't put my finger on what was wrong, thank you. Everything you said felt exactly right to what i felt but couldn't articulate... great job.
5:55 Different isotopes present in soil decay at varying rates and often occur in patterns easily recognizable to geologists, and theoretical future computers that would lead one to find a previous location of an object such as that toy horse.
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.
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
I was dreading this, praying they wouldn't make a total balls of it... But it was amazing, definitely one of the very best sequels and deserving to be regarded as a genuine sci-fi classic on a pedestal of its own - bravo to the entire creative team.
Considering that the original Blade Runner didn't actually need a sequel, makes 2049 a lot more impressive. It didn't surpass the original, but isn't that far behind either. Didn't f*ckup the lore or insert political agendas (a miracle if you ask me). In top10 best looking films I've seen. Enjoyed every minute of it.
To be honest, I reckon a lot of people look back on the original with rose tinted glasses. Ridley Scott fucked the original with all the pointless ambiguity about whether Deckard was a replicant, something that was never intended in the source material and actually makes zero sense when you look at the story... How the Drinker can't see that (apart from being drunk) is a bit annoying. For me 2049 was a far superior film and had more interesting ideas behind it.
Except it does fuck up the lore. It flat out makes Deckard a replicant, and for some reason, despite being the whole point behind the first movies, replicants are allowed on earth. Replicants making it to earth is the whole reason there are blade runners to retire them in the first place.
"Didn't insert political agendas" you mean minorities, right? The movie is 100% political. A story about a fight against discrimination and oppressive corporate forces.
@OnThisSideoftheSky really? What examples of preachy virtue signally political agendas are there then? Because there are tons of movies with political themes and agendas.
@OnThisSideoftheSky characters crying in hallways and LGBT people are star trek political agendas? Other than that yeah I agree with most of that, this kinda stuff can work but not when it's some forced liberal tokenism bs The reason I said my original statement was because a lot of the time when reactionaries talk about something becoming "too political" it's just something that was originally political, but this time with minorities in it. Like Star Wars having a female lead is somehow pushing a feminist agenda and is too political, even though Star Wars has always been political with rebels Vs fascist empire.
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.
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.
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).
@@thisisfyne Actually has Sharpe survived literally any other movie?
4 ปีที่แล้ว +591
For all the times I agreed with you, and even the times I didn't, Drinker my lad, I think you missed the mark on this one. After 40 years, in a completely different world filled with Avengers movies, I don't think anyone could expect a sequel to an 80s cult classic to do it justice. At least, not in the sense of the original vision, whatever that may have been -- Ultimately any attempt at continuing a story will have to conclude at least some story arcs in order to tell its own tale, and there's no way to see eye to eye with every viewer's conclusions. So yes, BR2049 is flawed when strictly compared to the storytelling style of the original. In that same breath, however, you can't deny the sequel is genius in expressing (and in some ways continuing) the question and struggles of individuality and self-worth in a world that doesn't care about the person, in my opinion the core of what this movie is about. It's a film made for the times we live in, when culture stresses individual success by way of social media "gurus", personal tales of a few lucky ones having "made it" in life, films, songs etc.; But the somber truth being that none of us here are very likely to be the heroes, the main characters, even in our own lives. K tackles this lifelong lie with an act of bravery and selflessness: Despite having been defeated by life and the world he lives in, he recognizes the importance of the bigger picture. As any one of us would be, he is beaten down by having to act a role other than what he was built up to be, but finds peace in knowing and contributing his part in the story he believed to have been the main character of. It's not a perfect film, but the way it tackles this philosophy and provides a possible solution makes the plot holes and comparisons to the original seem like a minor details worth overlooking. In my eyes, it's a movie that targets a specific generation of disillusioned youths who were told about the goodness of the world and their vast future contributions to it, only to grow up into a chaotic mess of a planet ruled by greed and hatred, our own destiny being a boring life that will fade into oblivion before long.
Well said man. This film deserves more attention. I had the delightful experience of seeing this alone in a theater when it came out. I truly felt the world so exquisitely designed and just shot after shot of gorgeous scenes.
@@werewolfofmandalore I think there was a lot that was good in BR2049..but having seen both films in the cinema on release there was little sense of wonder that existed in the first 'Runner- I think this may largely be that CGI had replaced physical models & sets . I think its worth acknowledging that everybody now knows Deckard was a replicant ...so bringing H Ford back seemed a mistake
And Chat I can’t agree, it was beautiful. I feel it captured the essence of the original film. Why bring Deckard back? For the plot. I love K’s story, I love the movie was what 2010: The Year We made Contact wanted to be to 2001: Space Odessy. A worthy sequel.
I love your explanation and opinions on the themes of the movie, but I gotta hold my ground here and say this is one of the best sci fi movies I’ve ever seen and probably my favourite sequel of all time now. This movie selfishly did everything it wanted to and I love it for that. I love feeling challenged by a movie and I felt like I couldn’t keep my eyes off the screen for chance of missing something or missing out on my the visual accomplishment this movie claims
The problem with Hollywood today is it is in the propaganda business, not the entertainment business. We'll never see the movies made solely for entertainment again unless the market dynamics change.
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!
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.
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 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...
For me, the most salient aspect of BR2049 is that it respects the intelligence of its audience without any lecture or message about the modern day social politic. That's kind of refreshing.
🍷👍 Amen.. Talking of lost opportunity they did not even push the envelope far enough to care to show us what Roy had seen in the off worlds. Boy if they had the balls to do that, then I would have had a reason to side with this otherwise lazy half ass shit show that does not even deserve to have a character named 'Joy' or 'Luv' in it in the first place!
@@evm6177 Do wot m8? Why on Earth would they show us what Roy witnessed in the Off-world? His description of it alone is near-poetic and conjures beautiful imagery to the imagination. Expressly showing you what it looked like would undoubtedly spoil the mystery and the impact of what he said. There's no way it would live up to everyone's interpretation/expectation.
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.
This is literally my favorite movie of all time, I like the first one but is more style over substance, 2049 is just so intense subtle and incredibly effective
It definitely didn’t feel the need to pointlessly shit on the original the way many modern sequels do. The problem is that the movie’s substance was a bit TOO understated at the time.
What hit me harder is when K passes by the building sized advert and it shows Joi and says a common line I believe she said to him at one point. Showing that it’s probably actually just her programmed to act a certain way the whole time.
One of the few times I vehemently disagree Drinker. This movie is a marvel, a sci-fi classic, a visual masterpiece, and one of the best sequels of all time. Ryan Gosling is so good in this. I’ve watched it several times now and I have to say, it gets better with each subsequent viewing.
Though funny, Drinker's analyses are really superficial and focus too much on plot. A superficial analysis is fine for a superficial film like Bond or most of the other stuff he reviews, but not a Villeneuve movie. I guess it makes sense cause he writes superficial books focused on plot.
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.
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
Both movies had this irony in common: The most human and interesting characters are replicants. Roy Batty in BLADE RUNNER; Officer K/Joe in BLADE RUNNER 2049.
Which, I think, is really the point of both stories. This is why the corporate slogan "More Human than Human" is mentioned in both films -- we're on an exploration of what it means to BE human. Are artificial people products to be consumed (like Joi) or does the fact that they have emotions make them human, or at least something equal to humans?
@@HerneHunter What really turns me off to the movie is for the plot to work the characters must have some major lapses of logic. For example I'm not sure how K. Could delude himself into thinking he is Rachel's son. He is a specially designed replicant built exclusively to hunt other replicants. He was likley purchased straight from a factory not picked up off the street and given a job. Its crazy he would even entertain the idea.
@@riftvallance2087 joi is to blame remember she was made to tell the customer/k whatever they wanted and tell them they're special. I mean it kinda works.
2:00, No, that addition of the unicorn dream was fanboy service on the part of Scott. Awkward shoe-horned retcons have no right to be considered canon. Neither the writer (of the novel or the film) nor Ford considered Deckard as a replicant, and it makes no sense in the context of the film. He has had a long history with the police that everyone in the police department remembers (some guy disliking him doesn't mean that he's a replicant), Rachel is supposed to be the most psychologically advanced replicant ever, and even she doesn't come close to how natural he is in speech and mannerisms. Third, if he had been built to hunt other replicants, why was he made physically inferior? His rear is handed to him by 'basic pleasure models'.
Someone with sense. It actually makes the film superior for him to be human, which he is. A human who is tired and cynical fully realises the beauty of agency applies to replicants as much as any human. His union with Rachel ultimately creates life and proves a catalyst for replicants. Ultimately it shows that a compassionate and flawed human who once retired replicants can learn the value of life as much as any replicant: being human or otherwise it shouldn't matter. Actually replicants can age and can be made weaker or stronger it seems, but having Deckard as a replicant doesn't give us the narrative as I described. Humans fear replicants and their potential but must bear responsibility for their creation and treatment. K does the most 'human' thing he can ultimately do. He makes the compassionate choice, his choice. He chooses the reuniting of a father with his daughter over the wishes of 'his kind'. Although the rights of replicants are important I believe he fears they are going to make some of the same mistakes. We hope they won't, though violence is a certainty.
Exactly. Why go through the trouble of making a Replicant hunter that can't hunt Replicants on the same level? It'd be costly to make, more so than just hiring a normal human. Deckard is human in my opinion. Tyrell would be the only person around that would be able to make a Replicant like Deckard and he never claimed he made him. Further more, the Police chief (I forget his name) knew Deckard from before he quit "I need the ole' Blade Runner". Unless the cops were paid off to make Deckard believe he was really a Blade Runner . . . much too complicated, because I doubt Tyrell would have planned Roy's escape as well giving rise for the need of Deckard to begin with.
I remember, some 3 years after the original Blade Runner, Ridley Scott stating angrily that was obvious Deckard was a replicant. It's not exactly "retconnected". Only recently he left the ending open to anyone to wonder.
Even though Roy was the true hero of the story, which was probably not clear until the original film was first released, Ford said he played Deckard as a human because the film needed a human "hero" ...
Ms. Jacobitess: Thank you for posting this! I have made many of the same arguments over the years. Deckard has always been human. PKD even wrote him as human in the novel. But here is the thing, I actually think that PKD would have appreciated Scott adding the unicorn dream sequence to address Gaff leaving the origami unicorn at Deckard's apartment in the director's cut and here is why. I have read 7 PKD novels and much of his philosophical writings. PKD's central theme seems to ask, what is real and authentic. Dick even wrote that he was a philosopher who happened to write science fiction.
Were you blind drunk when watching this, Drinker?! This was one of the very best sequels ever. And one of the most beautiful movies ever, too (as confirmed by the Academy Awards).
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.
I heard the director of this movie said he is gonna direct the remake of Dune. Honestly, from all the images I’ve seen from the remake, I’m definitely looking forward to it.
It seems pretty clear that the replicants do have actual feelings... while the hologram girlfriends don't. That scene where the giant show-room model calls him Joe was fairly gut-wrenching. Leaves us with a surprisingly definitive answer on that question. You take that scene out - or even just that word out - and it would all essentially be left up in the air. An optimistic audience member would just be left to think. "Well, sure. He has feelings. He's clearly capable of going against his programming and he's affected by things when no one is looking, just like Rachel and Roy were. And if replicants are artificial and also have feelings, then why wouldn't the same rules apply to the holograms, in this purely fictitious world?" But then her giant doppelganger says the word "Joe" and he knows it was all fake. He was mourning the loss of no one. She was always just an "it," doing what it was programmed to do. And that leaves a flat 0 number of people with any free will who ever gave a fuck about him. It's a very raw and real kick in the nuts. But I like that it wasn't just a simple(-minded) answer of "Yes! Everything that _seems_ like it has feelings actually _does_ have feelings."
One of the most beautiful parts of the movie is at the end when Deckard goes "Why? Who am I to you?" and K just smiles. K had possession of Deckard's daughter's memories, making Deckard the only father he knew and giving him more humanity than most humans in his time. He knew what it was to love, lose and live. He could have gone on with his drab life but knew that there was more.
The fact that, knowing she was about to die, she still felt compelled to use her last words to tell K she loved him made it seem like she truly did have feelings. Would a designer really think about details like that? I suppose you could argue that if it’s her core programming to make K feel loved, she might as well use her last few seconds to continue doing it, but something about it made me feel it was sincere.
@@2660016A this. I mostly agree with Critical Drinkers take on this film, but i think its soooo under-rated. When he says "this movie doesnt add anything to the original", i heavily disagree, and think Joi is a great example of something new. Why should we give a fck about if a hologram has feelings for a replicant? But we do. And its a total mind fck. Also, its very hard for a bladerunner sequel to add much more to this debate since its inspired whole genre's of movies and shows (ex machina, west world) to explore more of the same topic. I think this was damn near the best sequel we could've asked for. I would say the only thing missing was a great antagonist. I think luv was ok, but compared to the original movie the antagonists are definitely not up to par. I wish this movie was more appreciated
4:55 Are you kidding? He IS a fucking replicant. He wants more of them so they can have dominion over humanity, while he preferably has dominion over them. Even in the clip you chose to show you can see the eye-sheen in his peepers. Idk if you're being flippant for the sake of comedy or whatever but the movie made it extremely clear who he was and what he was after.
I really enjoyed this movie. Making a sequel that feels solidly in the same universe and revisiting characters and places in competent and interesting ways is harder than you would think. How many sequels and reboots leave you feeling hollow and depressed, wishing they’d never done it and left well alone. This one left me feeling like I’d watched a good movie, so...job done. I’ll take an iPhone upgrade over some of the PS4 for Sinclair ZX81 swaps we’ve had in recent years!
Exactly this. Most great movie sequels don't focus on the same protagonist as the previous movie, especially when the story isn't connected in a specific trilogy (i.e. LOTR and Star Wars) For example Terminator 2 focuses far more on John Connor and the T800 than it does on Sarah (who is more of a supporting character in the sequel) when she was the protagonist of the original.
@@RobertLutece909 It's both cute and sad you think these things are dumbed down for a Chinese audience. I'm afraid you need to look a lot closer to home for the reality.
I kind of felt that the movie should have never been done coming out of the theatre. I feel like they must just be comparing the film to Avengers movies rather than the story of classic scifi movies.
@@momaw_C1-10P He's got a point though.More and more film studios are taking into consideration chinese censorship guidelines in order for their movie to be admitted to chinese cinemas and earn more cash.That off course hurts the artistic aspect of filmaking,since the Chinese want light,generic,inoffensive stuff.
@@momaw_C1-10P Nope. Robert's comment is correct. The Chinese government censors the hell out any American film they allow to be shown in China. . . For content, political ideals, etc. Jeremy, I'm afraid you'll need to stop virtue signalling and learn to accept reality.
Only time I've ever disagreed with the best reviewer on TH-cam. This was one of the best films I've ever seen. Masterpiece. Shocked at the fact he doesn't like it.
Despite everything this movie was fantastic. Seeing it on the big screen was great and it got the ambiance. Joi was a fantastic character. Was she an advanced AI/VI following a very well made program or did she actually become self aware? The "twist" no matter if you see it coming or not worked. The soundtrack was great. Overall it's a good one.
Hell, there will be few of us left alive that saw the first and second at time of release. It would have to a passion project by some insanely rich Tyrell or Wallace.
@@aliensconfirmed3498 Meh. I agree to disagree. The pacing is way better in this film. I get that nothing could compare with the original because it was original and I love it for its flaws, but this film was a way better slow boil. The middle act where K becomes Joe and realizes he's special only to pivot from this TWICE within the third act was a bold move, despite Drinker's underrating of this film. It brings out pathos from those invested in the story.
@@brianty6676 I find the pacing same but the original is shorter which makes it better in my opinion. The non-traditional nature of K's story is certainly good thing but it doesn't take the movie far on its own. Drinker's criticism was mostly on point. I couldn't care for any character other than K, not even Deckard which says something. Thematically, it didn't add anything to what Blade Runner had already done. The music was not nearly as good. The visuals were there but even in that the original was something else. The dark, gritty and depressive visuals with Vangelis' haunting sound.. man that's something special. I also don't think either of the movies are "flawed". At least not major flaws. Just the second one doesn't live up to the same quality as old one. Don't get me wrong. It's a good movie. Very good when we consider the general quality of movies these days. But I don't think it will achieve the status or long term success of blade runner cause it simply isn't in that league. I put blade runner in the league of movies like The Godfather while 2049 is one of the better movies, probably one of the best of the past decade.
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!!!!!!!!😡😡😡😡😡
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
Batty was simply ICONIC, including his variation of the script with improvised lines, his look, the way he showed emotion and carried himself...
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.
“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.
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.
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?"
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.
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.
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..
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.
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.
@@Anldiot69 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
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
@@Fenrir1373 so..it's not a wonder that she got pregnant- she is a woman.
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
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
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...
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
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.
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, 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*
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.
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?
"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
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 iPhone of Movie Sequels? Now there's a missed opportunity for an Android joke...
Basically also what's sammy is to android :/.
"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
"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?”
Deckard: "Whiskey is like any other alcohol, either a benefit or a hazard. If it's a benefit it's not my problem."
Leon: "Wake Up! Time to drink!"
Tyrell: "More drunk than the Drinker, is our motto."
Roy: "That's the spirit!"
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.
"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.
That's strange - I thought it was made clear that they needed self-replicating Replicants in order to service increasing off-world colony demands (if not in the film - the theatrical shorts that came before it). Curious that was missed by TCD. Also - radiation signatures are a thing. They were used for analyzing remote above ground nuclear tests from a distance. High altitude scoops collected elements and fallout to determine location and the design of the weapon during the cold war.
As far as material left behind - there's lots of Urbex videos - particularly of Pripyat, that showcase how lots of abandoned areas are left the way they were prior to people fleeing - especially from radiological catastrophe. Japan has quite a few areas after Fukushima. Not a lot of resale value in material that's contaminated. It's just an above ground landfill at that point. In the novel, such troves were referred to as 'kibble'. As more people left Earth - the property was abandoned as cities emptied out. Not practical to take it off-world.
You nailed it.
I also think that TCD this time missed his mark by omitting the featurettes’ content and not understanding some ideas in the film. To me the movie is the best possible sequel we could have hoped for.
@@miszcz agreed.
Absolutely agree. It's a special movie.
Your statement really does point out a flaw in the TCD reviews - he is very nitpicking, to the point where his troubles could be dismissed with a reminder that it's a film set in a future where they've already made colony ships land in other solar systems.
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.
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.
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
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.
"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.
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
@@Inndjkaawed2922 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...
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.
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.
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.
L review.
This film is a masterpiece!
100% this movie is amazing. Definitely don't agree with the review on 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.
@vikinghoodbluelighthouse2911 Watching these review in 2024 shows how little Critical Drinker understands first movie and how little he knows about lore and story of this one.
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?
but Ana de Armas though .. absolutely stunning !
Poor taste in men though
@@edwardfox9550 Good, that gives me a chance. 😂 jk
She is a mamasita
The only high light.
Wasn't she that chick from the super-awful Keanu Reeves film Knock Knock?
This movie took its time - with everything. And I friggin love it for that. Every shot, every scene, everything was deliberate and thoughtful, artistically interesting, and every shot was just long enough to marvel at before slowly moving on. I respect this movie a lot just for how slow it is compared to the oversaturation entertainment most other big-budget movies are.
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.
I actually didn't mind it. It was shot beautifully. It paid homage. A couple of holes in the story but I found it enjoyable. Certainly compared to some other movies I've seen in the last few years.
that being said, i love this movie. there's some fantastic performances, moments, world building, design, music, and characters. there is a lot to like. its a shame we won't see another building on what was set up in this movie. it's a shame we have a whole generation of movie goers that have had Marvel movies shoved down their throats and need something to blow up every 5 seconds have dont appreciate static beautifully shot mediative scenes and subtlety.
Compared to pretty much all other sequels made in the past decade it is a masterpiece.
Agreed but should have been anamorphic if it genuinely respected the original.
if they decide to make the franchise into a trilogy I think it would round off the edges of this movie.
It looks great, but it's otherwise pretty terrible.
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.
"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!
You really nailed it here. I didn't like it at first but could see the obvious quality in filmmaking so i gave it several more tries and i do now like it a lot but still feel it isn't perfect. I couldn't put my finger on what was wrong, thank you. Everything you said felt exactly right to what i felt but couldn't articulate... great job.
Saw Commando in the list... nodded slowly!
And Demolition man :O
I imagine it will be part of "The Drinker recommends" series :-)
JENNY! th-cam.com/video/8FFQ_g8OoQM/w-d-xo.html
@@jimmytsongaandtheshimmycon9421 seen that film probably a thousand times, will watch another thousand . Eighties masterpiece
We all did.
5:55 Different isotopes present in soil decay at varying rates and often occur in patterns easily recognizable to geologists, and theoretical future computers that would lead one to find a previous location of an object such as that toy horse.
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!
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
I was dreading this, praying they wouldn't make a total balls of it... But it was amazing, definitely one of the very best sequels and deserving to be regarded as a genuine sci-fi classic on a pedestal of its own - bravo to the entire creative team.
Considering that the original Blade Runner didn't actually need a sequel, makes 2049 a lot more impressive.
It didn't surpass the original, but isn't that far behind either. Didn't f*ckup the lore or insert political agendas (a miracle if you ask me). In top10 best looking films I've seen. Enjoyed every minute of it.
To be honest, I reckon a lot of people look back on the original with rose tinted glasses. Ridley Scott fucked the original with all the pointless ambiguity about whether Deckard was a replicant, something that was never intended in the source material and actually makes zero sense when you look at the story... How the Drinker can't see that (apart from being drunk) is a bit annoying. For me 2049 was a far superior film and had more interesting ideas behind it.
Except it does fuck up the lore. It flat out makes Deckard a replicant, and for some reason, despite being the whole point behind the first movies, replicants are allowed on earth. Replicants making it to earth is the whole reason there are blade runners to retire them in the first place.
"Didn't insert political agendas" you mean minorities, right? The movie is 100% political. A story about a fight against discrimination and oppressive corporate forces.
@OnThisSideoftheSky really? What examples of preachy virtue signally political agendas are there then? Because there are tons of movies with political themes and agendas.
@OnThisSideoftheSky characters crying in hallways and LGBT people are star trek political agendas? Other than that yeah I agree with most of that, this kinda stuff can work but not when it's some forced liberal tokenism bs
The reason I said my original statement was because a lot of the time when reactionaries talk about something becoming "too political" it's just something that was originally political, but this time with minorities in it. Like Star Wars having a female lead is somehow pushing a feminist agenda and is too political, even though Star Wars has always been political with rebels Vs fascist empire.
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?
My favorite modern film. Truly a masterpiece of cinematics, pacing, and emotion.
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.
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
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).
While it can't equal the original, it was a worthy follow up that like the original, gets better with multiple viewings.
Good to see "Demolition Man" in the list.
Would love to see your take on "Equilibrium" too.
Equilibrium, Seconded!!
Equilibrium : Cool concept, not so cool execution.
Major Gear *Cue Drinker guffaw* Hra HA HA!!!
@@Nova-sama420 Agreed. In retrospect, Equilibrium is more cringe than cool, Bale's performance is stellar though.
@@thisisfyne Actually has Sharpe survived literally any other movie?
For all the times I agreed with you, and even the times I didn't, Drinker my lad, I think you missed the mark on this one. After 40 years, in a completely different world filled with Avengers movies, I don't think anyone could expect a sequel to an 80s cult classic to do it justice. At least, not in the sense of the original vision, whatever that may have been -- Ultimately any attempt at continuing a story will have to conclude at least some story arcs in order to tell its own tale, and there's no way to see eye to eye with every viewer's conclusions. So yes, BR2049 is flawed when strictly compared to the storytelling style of the original.
In that same breath, however, you can't deny the sequel is genius in expressing (and in some ways continuing) the question and struggles of individuality and self-worth in a world that doesn't care about the person, in my opinion the core of what this movie is about. It's a film made for the times we live in, when culture stresses individual success by way of social media "gurus", personal tales of a few lucky ones having "made it" in life, films, songs etc.; But the somber truth being that none of us here are very likely to be the heroes, the main characters, even in our own lives. K tackles this lifelong lie with an act of bravery and selflessness: Despite having been defeated by life and the world he lives in, he recognizes the importance of the bigger picture. As any one of us would be, he is beaten down by having to act a role other than what he was built up to be, but finds peace in knowing and contributing his part in the story he believed to have been the main character of.
It's not a perfect film, but the way it tackles this philosophy and provides a possible solution makes the plot holes and comparisons to the original seem like a minor details worth overlooking. In my eyes, it's a movie that targets a specific generation of disillusioned youths who were told about the goodness of the world and their vast future contributions to it, only to grow up into a chaotic mess of a planet ruled by greed and hatred, our own destiny being a boring life that will fade into oblivion before long.
Well said man. This film deserves more attention. I had the delightful experience of seeing this alone in a theater when it came out. I truly felt the world so exquisitely designed and just shot after shot of gorgeous scenes.
@@werewolfofmandalore I think there was a lot that was good in BR2049..but having seen both films in the cinema on release there was little sense of wonder that existed in the first 'Runner- I think this may largely be that CGI had replaced physical models & sets .
I think its worth acknowledging that everybody now knows Deckard was a replicant ...so bringing H Ford back seemed a mistake
And Chat I can’t agree, it was beautiful. I feel it captured the essence of the original film. Why bring Deckard back? For the plot. I love K’s story, I love the movie was what 2010: The Year We made Contact wanted to be to 2001: Space Odessy. A worthy sequel.
I love your explanation and opinions on the themes of the movie, but I gotta hold my ground here and say this is one of the best sci fi movies I’ve ever seen and probably my favourite sequel of all time now. This movie selfishly did everything it wanted to and I love it for that. I love feeling challenged by a movie and I felt like I couldn’t keep my eyes off the screen for chance of missing something or missing out on my the visual accomplishment this movie claims
The problem with Hollywood today is it is in the propaganda business, not the entertainment business. We'll never see the movies made solely for entertainment again unless the market dynamics change.
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!
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.
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 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...
For me, the most salient aspect of BR2049 is that it respects the intelligence of its audience without any lecture or message about the modern day social politic. That's kind of refreshing.
Blade Runner
🍷👍 Amen.. Talking of lost opportunity they did not even push the envelope far enough to care to show us what Roy had seen in the off worlds. Boy if they had the balls to do that, then I would have had a reason to side with this otherwise lazy half ass shit show that does not even deserve to have a character named 'Joy' or 'Luv' in it in the first place!
@@evm6177 Do wot m8? Why on Earth would they show us what Roy witnessed in the Off-world? His description of it alone is near-poetic and conjures beautiful imagery to the imagination. Expressly showing you what it looked like would undoubtedly spoil the mystery and the impact of what he said. There's no way it would live up to everyone's interpretation/expectation.
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.
Hard to best the original, but I think this is one of the better sequels that’s been made in recent years
This is literally my favorite movie of all time, I like the first one but is more style over substance, 2049 is just so intense subtle and incredibly effective
@@johnsaltfresh5946 agreed
It's easily the best sequel since T2.
True
It definitely didn’t feel the need to pointlessly shit on the original the way many modern sequels do. The problem is that the movie’s substance was a bit TOO understated at the time.
Spoiler somewhat:
I will be honest here. When K's virtual girlfriend, Joi died/destroyed; that really hit me hard.
Yes, she was the character I most sympathy for even though she was only a toy... or maybe because she was a toy.
Also K really cared for her. It was probably the biggest loss he could have suffered. Her destruction hits very hard, I agree.
What hit me harder is when K passes by the building sized advert and it shows Joi and says a common line I believe she said to him at one point. Showing that it’s probably actually just her programmed to act a certain way the whole time.
One of the few times I vehemently disagree Drinker. This movie is a marvel, a sci-fi classic, a visual masterpiece, and one of the best sequels of all time. Ryan Gosling is so good in this. I’ve watched it several times now and I have to say, it gets better with each subsequent viewing.
Though funny, Drinker's analyses are really superficial and focus too much on plot. A superficial analysis is fine for a superficial film like Bond or most of the other stuff he reviews, but not a Villeneuve movie. I guess it makes sense cause he writes superficial books focused on plot.
It is mediocre at best
@@thorodinson9782 great thing about opinions is everyone is entitled to their own.
Agree.
@@thorodinson9782 HAHA.
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
Idk i thought it was still pretty good for a sequel 😳
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
It's ok, all that means is you have awful taste.
@@mntahoe_2957 I see you don't like people with opinions...
Go get a life mate and let people enjoy great movies while you sulk in a corner
@@Martin-rh6bn "Great movies" HA!
Drinker having a bad take isn't exactly breaking news.
Both movies had this irony in common: The most human and interesting characters are replicants. Roy Batty in BLADE RUNNER; Officer K/Joe in BLADE RUNNER 2049.
Which, I think, is really the point of both stories. This is why the corporate slogan "More Human than Human" is mentioned in both films -- we're on an exploration of what it means to BE human. Are artificial people products to be consumed (like Joi) or does the fact that they have emotions make them human, or at least something equal to humans?
Tyrell, tho!
@@HerneHunter What really turns me off to the movie is for the plot to work the characters must have some major lapses of logic. For example I'm not sure how K. Could delude himself into thinking he is Rachel's son. He is a specially designed replicant built exclusively to hunt other replicants. He was likley purchased straight from a factory not picked up off the street and given a job. Its crazy he would even entertain the idea.
@@riftvallance2087 joi is to blame remember she was made to tell the customer/k whatever they wanted and tell them they're special. I mean it kinda works.
K was bland and fully uninteresting.
2:00, No, that addition of the unicorn dream was fanboy service on the part of Scott. Awkward shoe-horned retcons have no right to be considered canon. Neither the writer (of the novel or the film) nor Ford considered Deckard as a replicant, and it makes no sense in the context of the film. He has had a long history with the police that everyone in the police department remembers (some guy disliking him doesn't mean that he's a replicant), Rachel is supposed to be the most psychologically advanced replicant ever, and even she doesn't come close to how natural he is in speech and mannerisms. Third, if he had been built to hunt other replicants, why was he made physically inferior? His rear is handed to him by 'basic pleasure models'.
Someone with sense. It actually makes the film superior for him to be human, which he is. A human who is tired and cynical fully realises the beauty of agency applies to replicants as much as any human. His union with Rachel ultimately creates life and proves a catalyst for replicants. Ultimately it shows that a compassionate and flawed human who once retired replicants can learn the value of life as much as any replicant: being human or otherwise it shouldn't matter.
Actually replicants can age and can be made weaker or stronger it seems, but having Deckard as a replicant doesn't give us the narrative as I described.
Humans fear replicants and their potential but must bear responsibility for their creation and treatment.
K does the most 'human' thing he can ultimately do. He makes the compassionate choice, his choice. He chooses the reuniting of a father with his daughter over the wishes of 'his kind'. Although the rights of replicants are important I believe he fears they are going to make some of the same mistakes. We hope they won't, though violence is a certainty.
Exactly. Why go through the trouble of making a Replicant hunter that can't hunt Replicants on the same level? It'd be costly to make, more so than just hiring a normal human. Deckard is human in my opinion. Tyrell would be the only person around that would be able to make a Replicant like Deckard and he never claimed he made him. Further more, the Police chief (I forget his name) knew Deckard from before he quit "I need the ole' Blade Runner". Unless the cops were paid off to make Deckard believe he was really a Blade Runner . . . much too complicated, because I doubt Tyrell would have planned Roy's escape as well giving rise for the need of Deckard to begin with.
I remember, some 3 years after the original Blade Runner, Ridley Scott stating angrily that was obvious Deckard was a replicant. It's not exactly "retconnected". Only recently he left the ending open to anyone to wonder.
Even though Roy was the true hero of the story, which was probably not clear until the original film was first released, Ford said he played Deckard as a human because the film needed a human "hero" ...
Ms. Jacobitess: Thank you for posting this! I have made many of the same arguments over the years. Deckard has always been human. PKD even wrote him as human in the novel. But here is the thing, I actually think that PKD would have appreciated Scott adding the unicorn dream sequence to address Gaff leaving the origami unicorn at Deckard's apartment in the director's cut and here is why. I have read 7 PKD novels and much of his philosophical writings. PKD's central theme seems to ask, what is real and authentic. Dick even wrote that he was a philosopher who happened to write science fiction.
Were you blind drunk when watching this, Drinker?! This was one of the very best sequels ever. And one of the most beautiful movies ever, too (as confirmed by the Academy Awards).
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
I heard the director of this movie said he is gonna direct the remake of Dune. Honestly, from all the images I’ve seen from the remake, I’m definitely looking forward to it.
Aren't they doing some gender and race swapping though?
Dune is such a shit book.
@@TH3F4LC0Nx it's a great book.
@Hobarth McShane source?
I'm not, cause Denis is overrated and judging by the interviews Dune is going to be woke.
It seems pretty clear that the replicants do have actual feelings... while the hologram girlfriends don't.
That scene where the giant show-room model calls him Joe was fairly gut-wrenching. Leaves us with a surprisingly definitive answer on that question. You take that scene out - or even just that word out - and it would all essentially be left up in the air. An optimistic audience member would just be left to think. "Well, sure. He has feelings. He's clearly capable of going against his programming and he's affected by things when no one is looking, just like Rachel and Roy were. And if replicants are artificial and also have feelings, then why wouldn't the same rules apply to the holograms, in this purely fictitious world?" But then her giant doppelganger says the word "Joe" and he knows it was all fake. He was mourning the loss of no one. She was always just an "it," doing what it was programmed to do. And that leaves a flat 0 number of people with any free will who ever gave a fuck about him.
It's a very raw and real kick in the nuts. But I like that it wasn't just a simple(-minded) answer of "Yes! Everything that _seems_ like it has feelings actually _does_ have feelings."
One of the most beautiful parts of the movie is at the end when Deckard goes "Why? Who am I to you?" and K just smiles. K had possession of Deckard's daughter's memories, making Deckard the only father he knew and giving him more humanity than most humans in his time. He knew what it was to love, lose and live. He could have gone on with his drab life but knew that there was more.
The fact that, knowing she was about to die, she still felt compelled to use her last words to tell K she loved him made it seem like she truly did have feelings. Would a designer really think about details like that? I suppose you could argue that if it’s her core programming to make K feel loved, she might as well use her last few seconds to continue doing it, but something about it made me feel it was sincere.
@@2660016A this. I mostly agree with Critical Drinkers take on this film, but i think its soooo under-rated. When he says "this movie doesnt add anything to the original", i heavily disagree, and think Joi is a great example of something new. Why should we give a fck about if a hologram has feelings for a replicant? But we do. And its a total mind fck.
Also, its very hard for a bladerunner sequel to add much more to this debate since its inspired whole genre's of movies and shows (ex machina, west world) to explore more of the same topic.
I think this was damn near the best sequel we could've asked for. I would say the only thing missing was a great antagonist. I think luv was ok, but compared to the original movie the antagonists are definitely not up to par.
I wish this movie was more appreciated
@@weefy117 Westworld was a movie that was like a decade older than blade runner.
@@RayValdezPhotography o wow i didnt know that. I havent even watched the show, so i thought it was a new thing. Didnt know it was a movie before
4:55
Are you kidding? He IS a fucking replicant. He wants more of them so they can have dominion over humanity, while he preferably has dominion over them.
Even in the clip you chose to show you can see the eye-sheen in his peepers.
Idk if you're being flippant for the sake of comedy or whatever but the movie made it extremely clear who he was and what he was after.
Wallace is a replicant?
I really enjoyed this movie. Making a sequel that feels solidly in the same universe and revisiting characters and places in competent and interesting ways is harder than you would think. How many sequels and reboots leave you feeling hollow and depressed, wishing they’d never done it and left well alone. This one left me feeling like I’d watched a good movie, so...job done. I’ll take an iPhone upgrade over some of the PS4 for Sinclair ZX81 swaps we’ve had in recent years!
Exactly this. Most great movie sequels don't focus on the same protagonist as the previous movie, especially when the story isn't connected in a specific trilogy (i.e. LOTR and Star Wars)
For example Terminator 2 focuses far more on John Connor and the T800 than it does on Sarah (who is more of a supporting character in the sequel) when she was the protagonist of the original.
@@RobertLutece909 It's both cute and sad you think these things are dumbed down for a Chinese audience. I'm afraid you need to look a lot closer to home for the reality.
I kind of felt that the movie should have never been done coming out of the theatre. I feel like they must just be comparing the film to Avengers movies rather than the story of classic scifi movies.
@@momaw_C1-10P He's got a point though.More and more film studios are taking into consideration chinese censorship guidelines in order for their movie to be admitted to chinese cinemas and earn more cash.That off course hurts the artistic aspect of filmaking,since the Chinese want light,generic,inoffensive stuff.
@@momaw_C1-10P Nope. Robert's comment is correct. The Chinese government censors the hell out any American film they allow to be shown in China. . . For content, political ideals, etc. Jeremy, I'm afraid you'll need to stop virtue signalling and learn to accept reality.
As a film, one of the best ever. loved it. in some ways more than the original. both in my top 10 of all time. Denis Villeneuve is a genius director.
Only time I've ever disagreed with the best reviewer on TH-cam. This was one of the best films I've ever seen. Masterpiece. Shocked at the fact he doesn't like it.
Absolute masterpiece.
Despite everything this movie was fantastic. Seeing it on the big screen was great and it got the ambiance. Joi was a fantastic character. Was she an advanced AI/VI following a very well made program or did she actually become self aware? The "twist" no matter if you see it coming or not worked. The soundtrack was great. Overall it's a good one.
I watched this while drunk and it was like a magical dream
The review, or the movie?cus, yes.
Haha. I can understand that. Slick cinematography.
“A magical dream” is just about how I’d describe my very first viewing of the original.
Same here, Rob!
I watched it while sober and was bummed.
The original's initial reception wasn't strong either. We'll see the final act in another 40 years...an 80 year long trilogy.
Hell, there will be few of us left alive that saw the first and second at time of release. It would have to a passion project by some insanely rich Tyrell or Wallace.
But this one isn't nearly as good. It will never reach the status of Blade Runner.
@@aliensconfirmed3498 I think it was better.
@@aliensconfirmed3498 Meh. I agree to disagree. The pacing is way better in this film. I get that nothing could compare with the original because it was original and I love it for its flaws, but this film was a way better slow boil. The middle act where K becomes Joe and realizes he's special only to pivot from this TWICE within the third act was a bold move, despite Drinker's underrating of this film. It brings out pathos from those invested in the story.
@@brianty6676
I find the pacing same but the original is shorter which makes it better in my opinion. The non-traditional nature of K's story is certainly good thing but it doesn't take the movie far on its own. Drinker's criticism was mostly on point. I couldn't care for any character other than K, not even Deckard which says something. Thematically, it didn't add anything to what Blade Runner had already done. The music was not nearly as good. The visuals were there but even in that the original was something else. The dark, gritty and depressive visuals with Vangelis' haunting sound.. man that's something special. I also don't think either of the movies are "flawed". At least not major flaws. Just the second one doesn't live up to the same quality as old one. Don't get me wrong. It's a good movie. Very good when we consider the general quality of movies these days. But I don't think it will achieve the status or long term success of blade runner cause it simply isn't in that league. I put blade runner in the league of movies like The Godfather while 2049 is one of the better movies, probably one of the best of the past decade.
I guess the Jack clouded his mind. This was one of the best movies in decades.