• ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️



    Film & Television

    Welcome Guest


    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
    Forum Rules Film Chit-Chat
    Recently Watched Best Documentaries
    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • Film & TV Moderators: ghostfreak

Bladerunner 2049

Asclepius

Asclepius

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Aug 30, 2010
Messages
8,684



Was a huge fan of the original and wasn't particularly that motivated to go see the sequel for any reason but curiosity (Gosling is a pitiful actor, imo). The narritive was unsurprising but not bad - was prepared for dissapointment in those respects...chose the 3D option. However, the cinematography and effects were spectacularon; was visually beautiful. Walfisch and Zimmer's soundtrack was pretty special also.
 
Last edited:
^ Did you find it too long? Friends of mine have seen it. Two of them thought it was one of the best films ever, the other found it boring and too long.
 
Some parts were drawn-out a wee bit(possibly in an attempt to keep an atmosphere of pognancy, like in the original...?), however, from a subjective pov; I didn't watch it alone (so had ample oppertunity to break up any monotony by complaining to the long- suffering, person beside me about Gosling). The beautiful cinematography in 3D was fascinating enough to keep my attention, the story was good but some actors (Leto wasn't a great choice imo) ruined any intensity in the narrative. I think what 'made it long' in particular, was Goslings' non-entity presence and punchable stoic, face. ;)
 
So cinematography sounds like a key reason to see it. I can handle that. I read something in the paper that said it captured our environmental future pretty perfectly so I'm guessing they've amped up the polluted scorched earth effect from the original?
 
I would definitely recommend it for that reason and there are some fantastic characters in it too. They did a phenomenal job on the sets and juxtaposing high-tech with the vintage, in a unique way, that nodded to the original very eloquently and captured the essence of the scorched-earth, dystopian society with a glimmer of human emotion, pulsing in the crevices. It was just unfortunate with the choice of some of the key characters, played in a very mediocre way. I found the love-interest part slightly twee, also but thats to be expected when they were trying to pander to an audience, I guess.
Ford and the other actors brought some semblence of passion to the whole narrative. Leto tried but just came across as a hipster playing a villan, badly cast for that role.

But yes, do go see, if you get a chance. It's pretty good imo. :)
 
Last edited:
Best movie of 2017 hands down. Had an edible in my pocket and didn't need it, saw it on imax.
 
yea, gotta agree with Asclepius on this. nailed it man, well said.

the part with gosling and vr chick was straight up ripped off of "Her" 2013 wasn't it ?

but yea, well worth the price of admission.
 
Two Hours and Forty-Four Minutes 8o

Why do they make movies sooo long?

IDK if I can sit there for over 3 hours (20 minutes of trailers)
 
it was okay...was very art house, the cgi and soundtrack were great. felt alittle drawn out at times...

and yes it was wayyyy to long
 
JoeTheStoner said:
yea, gotta agree with Asclepius on this. nailed it man, well said.

the part with gosling and vr chick was straight up ripped off of "Her" 2013 wasn't it ?

but yea, well worth the price of admission.
Click to expand...

Totally agreed, JOS. At least with Her, love it or hate it, the aim was to explore concepts of loneliness, technology and VR in an age of disconnection, with respect to a conforming individual, coming into awareness of their feelings, whereas, the Joi 'relationship' in BR, was like parody imo... they could have made his experience more layered, grittier - It was lazy plagarism to apply the Her narrative into a completely different context and expect it to work - it was just a prosaic element, that could have been developed a little more maturely, but wasnt, unfortunately.

Shale said:
Two Hours and Forty-Four Minutes 8o

Why do they make movies so long?

IDK if I can sit there for over 3 hours (20 minutes of trailers)
Click to expand...

=D
 
Last edited:
I just got done talking about this movie for an hour with my brother, so I’m kinda exhausted, but I would like to add that I thought the score was fucking brilliant. I watched it in imax as well, so my seat was shaking during some parts. Very immersive. Those aerial shots of K flying over all that grayness...with that score in the background...filled me with dread in the best possible way. :)

asclepius, I also think they blew it picking Leto. Pretty to look at but way too annoying once he opens his mouth. I thought he was good in Requiem, but ever since he became super famous he just has this “look at me, I am Jared Leto” thing about him.
 
^hehe It was epic in terms of effects and music! :)

... Leto's performance was disappointing, was anticipating a lot more, but defo was all style and no substance in his role. He was great in Requiem, Dallas Buyers T Club etc. Maybe the fandom and Hollywoodian vacuousness, has made him less motivated - who knows, eh?

Must mention 'Luv' was pretty special, the actress carried off a supreme part tbf. She was cunning sexy and terrifying and did a great job of integrating those personas intuitively, throughout. She has skills, for sure. Hope her talent doesnt get swallowed into the abyss of shit films.


That car though - like a D'Lorean only better.




Soundtrack is bomb, mate ;)
 
Last edited:
I thought most of the supporting cast was really great. How about Robin Wright? Batista was brilliant in that first scene as well.
 
RWP was a great supporting actress. I only wished Batisda would have crushed that zombie in the first scene though! ;)

Surely I cant be the only person that thinks he is drying-paint, disguised as an actor??
 
A lot of people agree with you. I like him though. He’s not Daniel Day-Lewis or Meryl Streep, but I think he brings a certain presence.

He actually does comedy really well. Have you seen the Nice Guys?
 
He's obviously not a great actor in terms of method acting but he is also not great in terms of acting in general anyway, unfortunately IMHO. When he is acting in tandem I think he can be a good supporting actor but on his own merit, he is weak.

Look, I could not do what the guy does but in terms of the money and accolades he gets, because of PR - I personally think he is over-rated ( amongst many) - just an opinion. ;)

Did not see it, that type of comedy is not my cup of tea, personally speaking.

However to each their own. You know, its okay to differ. ;)
 
AH mate, I don't restrict myself to a type, I judge it on what tickles my fancy ( no pun intended, maybe)...I generally like stupid as ass stuff, or highly conceptually novel stuff, and everything in between. I like to not narrow my humour-taste into cognitively narrow, catogories - it's a very indivdually bound elixer, is comedy ;)
 
Shit, sorry Ive a tendency to not commit myself to threads so, off the top of my head. TV I generally dont watch tv but from recollection: I like; Curb your Enthusiasm, Film: Monty Python; The Pick of Destiny; Pineapple Express, TBL, Fargo, The Net: Adult Swim, stop motion animations and shorts.

Comedians: Dylan Moran, Bill Burr, others I cant remember and this guy...
 
Lol, that’s the guy that tells the joke about how manly fucking a bloke is, I remember him.

not to change the subject but I think you would like the Nice Guys, you should try it sometime
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top