MovieChat Forums > Blade Runner 2049 (2017) Discussion > Boring (with Zero rewatchability)

Boring (with Zero rewatchability)

posted 7 years ago by dolemite72 (150)
36 replies | jump to latest

Loved the original (watched it yesterday morning, before venturing off to the cinema to see this) several moviegoers were literally snoring throughout. I managed to stay awake (but wish I hadn't)
Where to begin:

The plot was garbage (wafer-thin, but peppered with inane pointless details that added up to nothing)

Gossling was his usual bland self (why on earth studios cast him, is obviously beyond me?) he manages to fluff a character that's not even meant to show great range ('being bland' and 'playing bland' are two different things) Harrison Ford was equally useless (whatever 'talent' he once had, has abandoned him over a decade ago) he looked (suitably) embarrassed.

The brief inclusion of a clip of Sean young, highlighted the fact, that they clearly don't make femme fatales like they used to. Resulting in the (so-called) 'actresses' in this, looking like 12 year old girls (playing with 'make-up')

Even the visuals were poor (the one thing I thought they might of had a chance of matching or even eclipsing)

Blade Runner 2049 is a boring, ugly film (that had no right being made....regardless of what you thought of it?) I'd love to say that I begrudgingly enjoyed something about it (but I can't) I'd also add that anyone claiming to enjoy it, is clearly lying to themselves (or has extremely poor taste in cinema) Every aspect that made the original such a classic was absent here?

[–] brux (14724) 7 years ago

They don't make femme-fatales like they used to ... they just open the gate for sluts pretty much. Read about the latest Hollywood scandal, Harvey Weinstein. This drives out real talent from Hollywood and TV and we end up with the sick re-makes and sequels that are not even as good as the tepid originals. I never cared much for the original Blade Runner, having been a big fan of Phillip K. Dick's science fiction as a kid and read most of all of it.

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

Too bad you didn't like Blade Runner from 1982. That's a great adaptation for the big screen and not for nothing considered the greatest science fiction movie of all time by scientists. And who doesn't love Philip K. Dick's books?

[–] brux (14724) 7 years ago

>> considered the greatest science fiction movie of all time by scientists.

That is what we call fake news. The greatest scientific sci-fi movie of all time will always be 2001. I agree with your on PKD's books ... well most of them anyway.

If you liked those, then you might check out Robert Silverberg's early to middle stuff before everything turned into fantasy and long series of never-ending volumes.

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

Your remark is what we call "spoken like a Trump".

Here's my backup.

Scientists vote Blade Runner best sci-fi film of all time
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2004/aug/26/sciencenews.sciencefictionspecial

No need to show yours since you lost your credibility.

[–] sleepingtiger (712) 7 years ago

Brux:
"Sluts"? Where did that come from? I mean seriously?

[–] RobPatelli (188) 7 years ago

I thought the trailers were very underwhelming and not that interesting at all. They didn't make me go and watch the movie.

Not sure I will go watch this in theater. I will wait for DVD.

BTW: I loved Blade Runner 1982. Excellent movie.

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

Plot wise, no, not worth theater, but I highly recommmend GOING to the theater, just to take it in as a large screen spectacle. Unless you have a huge screen in your basement theater, even the largest large screen won't do the visuals any service. The huge movie screen helps you BE THERE more than anything else. Go on "cheap tuesday" or something.

[–] Barclays (960) 7 years ago

From the trailer, Jared Leto doesn't seem as menacing as Rutger Hauer either.

Was the movie just a continuation of the first movie- same plot, different characters?

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

To directly answer your question... I suppose a sequel in the same universe IS a continuation. plot is not simply rehashing the first like star wars or star trek did. some circumstances could be seen as similar. most characters are different.

[–] Barclays (960) 7 years ago

Are these new replicants more dangerous than in the first movie?

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

If you mean do they kick MORE butt? No, not really. But their danger may be part of plot spoilers I won't divulge - meaning hard to answer the question.

[–] ebhaynz (3689) 7 years ago

What's interesting is that the first Blade Runner was boring..only after a few months did the rewatchability kick in. I wonder if the same thing is happening with Blade Runner 2049?

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

That is true. I watch the original BR now days KNOWING it will be a slow, tranquil ride. This one did a lot of that as well.

[–] Barclays (960) 7 years ago

I'll wait for the dvd

[–] estocade (87) 7 years ago

Highly agree with you op, first they mangled ghost in the shell now blade runner, this is some kind of unholy ritual against art.
Why can't they just go and make original stories, you know use their own imaginations, just slap some stars here and there to attract the farm animals into the cinema.

On a GOOD note, the originals will get more publicity. BUT it is not necessary as they already are cult classics which will never be forgotten.

[–] Pelicula (19) 7 years ago

Have to agree with you. Have no desire to see again whereas with Blade Runner can watch many more times. Everything about this sequel was inferior: lackluster soundtrack, charisma free villains, unquotable dialogue. Bleh!

[–] einstein (2561) 7 years ago

100 % agreed.

[–] CraigJamesReview (1720) 7 years ago

I mostly agree with everything you're saying except by the end of it I thought the point was to make the visuals look ugly. I'd love to be smoking whatever the hell people who are calling the movie beautiful are on.

I'm trying to go for an engaging, funny youtube channel so, if you have the time, take a look. Hope you enjoy what you see. Thanks in advance. A review of the movie here-https://youtu.be/T8kS7nSeCQs

[–] sleepingtiger (712) 7 years ago

CraigJames:
Some of the visuals were beautiful---the views of the city from the sky, Deckard's retirement home, the villain's lair with all the reflecting quivering lights on the wall---I didn't see anything ugly about the visuals at all. Also, I liked the movie---I like slow films, so I wasn't bothered by the pace at all. People apparently don't like it because it's not throwing something in your face or having explosions every five minutes or so. It's more like a European art film combined with a sci-fi flick.

[–] Renovatio (2990) 7 years ago

i do agree that the original is superior, but this sequel towers above most of the "big" movies released this year, apart from perhaps Dunkirk...

I don't know what smaller movies will make their way to general release now that we are in the supposedly "good movies" part of the year, with festivals and oscar contender movies (and oscar bait movies) getting on the radar...

But I can't help but think that Blade Runner 2049 is very much worth having, even if one finds it flawed and thinks that the original was supperior...

So this year so far we have a SciFi sequel and a war movie that are far above the other movies in cinematic appeal... if they were released in the mid 90s, or even in a strong year in the 2000s i'm sure they would have been less acclaimed, but what do we have to compare them to this year? do we really want to do without?