Why it sucks? And it sucked!
I think it sucked. I hated it.
What are your reasons because I am sure I am not alone.
I think it sucked. I hated it.
What are your reasons because I am sure I am not alone.
Not gonna say it sucked but I thought it was unnecessary. Most of the plot was already done better in Blade Runner and this one was just a longer, more dragged out version.
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
I am going to say it sucked, because it sucked. Why?
1. Too Long
2. Bad Casting(do I need to explain this?)
3. Waited too long for sequel(36 years? Really?)
4. Too much Spinners(they really screwed up here)
5. Boring Boring Boring(The death of a film right here fanbois!)
Im on a phone, try making the links clickable, thanks
shareIt didn’t suck for me, personally. The cast, I felt, did brilliantly. Gosling has that stoic stature that just mirrored the other actors’ characters so well.
The cinematography was sublime. Every scene was meticulously done and it came off like a great painting.
Zimmer’s score was a sequel on its own. Stayed faithful but had its own personality and flavour. Really added an extra layer of depth to the scenes.
Didn’t feel the 2hrs 45min at all. It wizzed by with the amount of information constantly being chugged out.
Absolutely loved it. Beautiful, complex, philosophical and moving. Just like it’s predecessor.
Or, as most people agree, it was an un-entertaining boring ride to the library.
share“Or, as most people agree...” pfft, speak for yourself. I haven’t heard “most” people say anything of the sort. If anything, judging by what most of the people I’ve spoken to, it should be a cult classic.
shareBecause you live under a rock.
shareOr you live in an alt uninervse where everyone has the same opinion as you.
shareIt sucked. No one will remember this sequel months or decades from now. No one will be saying this movie changed cinema or broke barriers. It sucked.
shareWhen did the standard of not sucking become "changing cinema"? It wasn't revolutionary,but it was fine.
shareMost people are idiots. This film is a masterpiece.
shareNo it wasn't you moron. I bet you liked or would like she hulk...cause that is the shit your ilk seem to like nowadays. ... 😂..
shareWhat Djentleman said, on all counts except one: it did feel long, but I liked it that way - felt like I was truly immersed in that world, and it did feel like Bladerunner's world, 30 years on
Except for Gaff, as I mentioned elsewhere. That was Adama in a bowtie, or Castillo wearing white, but definitely not Gaff.
how can it be sublime?? It looks like every other digitally corrected movie out there. There is nothing even remotely interesting to it.
shareDigitally corrected? Nothing was “corrected”. And it’s actually a pretty unique film in the grand scheme of things, IMO. I’m not sure what your criteria for unique is, but if you expected a Lynchian oddity, then you’re definitely looking in the wrong place.
I say it’s a sublime film because that is exactly what it is. I don’t critique films based off of comparisons to others. I grade them on their own merit and BR2077 passed with flying colours.
All films nowadays are digitally color corrected including this one. And it looks like any other movie of the last 10 years, literally nothing unique to it.
shareOh, Colour correction. Well yes, every film is colour corrected, that’s irrelevvant. But even the colour pallet is great, so actually I disagree with you there, too.
It looks like any other film? Have you even seen it?
It's not irrelevant, there's no such thing as an actual color palette in films anymore since every single movie has either a heavy blue, green or orange filter, and Blade Runner is no different. Now I know you are just a fanboy, so no point of going any further.
shareLmao you haven’t even seen it, so there’s definitely no point. Also, judging a film solely on its colour grading is....well, a shame really.
Have fun!
whatever you say fanboy.
shareHahaha is that your comeback to any argument that doesn’t go your way? I’m hardly a fanboy. I love the film on its own merit and that’s about it. The lore and it’s source material don’t matter to me.
share
I thought it looked atrocious, and I find all this talk about visual geniuses hilarious because there hasn't been any since Kubrick's death, deal with it. People saying otherwise are just following today's presentist ideologies or lobotomized.
But he's right. BR2049 will never be considered a classic like BR'82 because: 1 the score sucked, 2 the cookie cutter dystopia color gradient was way off for a BR universe. Deneuve clearly went the "Soldier" side of things. 3 the soft rehash of everything from the first movie in an attempt to cash in on coattails. 4 the "man on his phone" performance by HF. Gruff disinterest does not suit Deckard! 4 Jared Leto as a blind Willy Wonka is a far cry from Turkel's empathically disenfranchised Tyrell 5 the movie felt linear, not open world. 6 the fake Prisses.
There was some nice stuff but it's not a great film.
all correct.
shareFord is playing a guy who wasn't the life of the party to begin with, who's spent 38 years gnawed by grief and loss...on those terms it's a good performance.
share"Didn’t feel the 2hrs 45min at all."
You're absolutely right about that! Felt like 5 hours at least!
I loved this movie, but wish it was just a little bit shorter, a little bit more action and wish Harrison Ford had been the hero even if on a supporting role.
shareI also think it today's movie world the studios try hard to make their movies appeal to several markets(US, China, Russia, etc.) all at once. For instance, here in the US we'll see one scene that looks pretty good but 5 minutes later we'll see something that is silly or confusing to US, but this same scene might really make a lot of sense to people watching in China.
In short: These movies are NOT ENTIRELY lost in translation, they are SOMEWHAT lost in translation.
Interesting.
share1) No characters
2) Visuals were mostly bland and those that weren't were just copied from the original
3) Ryan Gosling's face
4) Too much plot (it's Blade Runner, it's not about plot) and bad plot
5) Stupid hologram-hooker scene
6) Harrison Ford phoning it in yet again
7) Lame Murder-She-Wrote reveal of offspring at end
8) Very bad, transparent attempt at aping Roy Batty's grand way of speaking, by Wallace and Luv, that just stuck out and didn't really work
I wouldn't say it sucked though. It was just nothing special.
I agree. Good way of putting it.
shareIf anyone would have looked at OP's comment history, you could tell his is nothing but a underage troll who doesn't know shit about movies. A big part of his threads are: "this sux!" It just sucks in your simple minded view because it did not have constant action or sex in it. Rottentomatoes has the movie at a rating of 87% for the critics and 81%. IMDB has it at 87% for its audience score. That it's still at this rating after months of its release shows you this movie did not suck, your opinion just sucks.
shareWow. Where is all your hate from poor fellow? It's a given all posts are opinion. You amuse me to suggest otherwise. Anyway, I was a fan of Blade Runner back when I saw it when it came out and I'm sadly disappointed in the money grab sequel. As for calling my opinions trolling, that's your opinion. I am over half way to my grave and have learned to speak my mind. And buddy, it's just a movie. Relax. Have a beer. You are so far off there's no point to any of this. Stick to the post topic and don't make things personal.
shareI agree. It was too long, the great appearance by Harrison Ford was so-so, the ending abrupt.
shareWhen I saw it the first time I thought: "OMG; this is taking forever! BOOORING!"
The next day though I thought "Wow! I gotta see this again!" - So I drove 2.5 hrs to a cinema to watch it at an 11:15 p.m. Screening and then drive back (was home at 4 a.m.) and I don't regret any second of this stunt (I wanted a big screen and this was the closest one with an English version playing).
This movie is great. It takes it's time, the acting is great (especially Gosling - after I watched 'Drive' the other week I finally understoode why Villeneuve wanted him), the story was raising big questions and even Leto's performance made sense and convinced me on second viewing.
Granted, it is not a masterpiece, but if a movie is 'only' really good/great, that's already something nowadays.
A child's hand is easily filled
share