Szárnyas fejvadász 2049

Az ígéretes kezdet és az egész első félidő sikeresen bevon a nagyszerű hangulatba, amelyet design-gyöngyszemek és monumentális hangok szegélyeznek. A történet kibontakozása azonban erősen alulmarad az ötletekben, és hiányzik a főgonosz szélesebb bemutatása. Elvégre neki kellett volna a film legerősebb szereplőjének lennie, fenyegetésként a civilizáció többi részére és a rendszerre, amelyben a világ valahogy még mindig működik. Villeneuve, a nagy rendező pedig egy kis térben néhány jelenettel elintézi, amelyekben semmit sem tudunk meg róla. A jól ismert android motívum, a "Tears in the Rain" a befejezésben a fiatal Blade Runner érzéseit idézi fel, és nosztalgiát ébreszt. De ez nem elég egy 160 perces filmhez, amelynek lassúsága és hosszadalmassága nem felel meg a cselekmény mélységének és kifinomultságának. Látványos megjelenésű és hangzású buborék. (2017.11.13)

There's probably no bigger fan of the original Blade Runner than me, so, first of all, I don't think a movie like this needed a sequel at all. In terms of the story, it's like The Matrix. There, the mythology was developed in the other two episodes, here, the story is developed in a way that makes sense, but does not enrich the original film. In terms of pure craftsmanship, it's a solid piece of filmmaking, but I didn’t feel the atmosphere of Scott's gem, that "Babylonian" mix of cultures and peoples with a predominantly Asian element where you could easily become an anonymous figurehead. Deakins does magic, yes, but the atmosphere is missing, and anyone who says otherwise has failed to feel the subtle nuances of the first Blade Runner. I missed an interesting character like J.F. Sebastian and his electronic toys in the prequel, I missed a fateful character like Pris, I missed a strong villain like Roy Batty whom you both hated and pitied. There's none of that in Villeneuve's film, just a terminator in a skirt and a bland Leto. Thanks at least for the holographic Joi, probably the only interesting character in the film. I just can’t avoid feeling slightly disappointed. (2017.10.07)

In addition to a portion of hate, this review contains SPOILERS. The most notable thing remembered the day after viewing: Ryan Gosling had a really cool coat; I wouldn’t mind having one for myself in the winter. In the context of current Hollywood production, Blade Runner 2049 is indisputably an unusual film (in a way similar to Spectre). The characters, ideas and atmosphere are more important for it than the plot. The main protagonist does not play such an important role in the story as he (and we along with him) has long believed, which reinforces the dominant feeling of existential angst that comes from the impossibility of holding one’s fate firmly in one’s own hands. Most of the scenes begin a bit early and end a little later than is necessary to convey the essential information. Other scenes are of negligible importance to the story and serve mainly to evoke a specific atmosphere or to fill out the fictional world. (The rhythmising of the narrative by means of the deaths of the female characters can also be considered an original idea; in the final act, one dies every ten minutes, which is more indicative of the screenwriters’ lack of feeling than of their storytelling abilities.) The problem is that all of this is held together by a stylistically dull (the only interesting scene is the one in the bar in which Ford slaps Gosling) and straightforward melodramatic story about a son looking for his father (with the help of a wooden horse) and a father looking for his daughter (the final sign of class revolution, corresponding in its simplicity to a young adult novel that is better left unmentioned), and the whole film is basically much more predictable, literal and generic than it thinks it is and its pompous treatment would suggest (see the poster for the most essential revelation). Like the rest of Villeneuve’s work, Blade Runner 2049 confirms that a film with actors who spend the entire time acting as if someone has taken their favourite toy away from them (which is not too far from the truth in the case of Gosling’s character) and filmed in long shots accompanied by atmospheric background music will seem serious and important, but only on the surface. Whereas Scott’s film was thought-provoking with its abundance of things left unsaid, in this new treatment, the characters take care of all the philosophising for the viewer, expressing themselves in stilted, monosyllabic sentences. We can’t help but marvel at how beautifully the whole thing is designed (the sound design, at least, is worthy of an Oscar), but a coffee-table book with photos of the artwork would serve the purpose just as well as a nearly three-hour movie. I’m quite worried that Villeneuve’s Dune will be the same thing in pale blue (or orange). 65%. (2017.10.05)

Denis Villeneuve kept the film pretty true to its source material. He prepared a sequel to the legendary techno sci-fi, which deserves praise. He forgot about any emotions and thus made the film into a cold doll, but on the other hand, he played beautifully with Los Angeles of the future and he harmonized it perfectly with the amazing synthwave music. You won’t find orgies like this in just any movie. After viewing I actually realized that I actually ended up with the same impression of the sequel as I had of the original movie. So, to save myself from a three-star review, I gave it four stars straight away. The visuals in combination with the music simply forced me to. Even though I haven’t seen a colder movie in a long time. (2018.11.03)

A place of deep melancholy shallow landscaping. Instead of a simple noir story, this an incredibly supple and unfortunately desperately transparent story about the search for meaning in a world of vanishing memories. There is about the same difference between the original and this one as between a physical experience and the nicely painted backdrop. At the same time, Blade Runner 2049 well documents the impotence to which Hollywood has condemned the current fashion of resurrecting icons. Blade Runner was as much a tribute to history as engaging visions of the future world. The second part is just a blank canvas, where Villeneuve and Deakins apply a few new contours, but at the same time they can't break out of the familiarity of the old ones. Sure, that's not even the goal. But instead of a vision, the result is a sterile museum. And unfortunately, by far the worst directing moments that the brilliant Canadian has been part of. It is the same in key moments as the Chinese finale of Arrival. Paradoxically hurried, unfinished and explicitly simple in terms of script. The original Blade Runner had a secret. These are just transparently literal symbols. A fleeting thing that will only be remembered in 30 years as a testament to a time that has become entrenched in its own memories of visionary times. The epoch of replicants with a time fuse. I am betting a synthetic kidney. (2017.10.09)

Much better than I was afraid of, but much worse than I hoped for. The first is true mainly due to the accurately captured peculiarly slow hypnotic "non-spectator" atmosphere (I felt like it was 2049 minutes long), addressing major existential issues through slight hints (however worse than in previous movies), refined in terms of design and ideas, functional update of the world by thirty years, the roaring and intoxicating audiovisuals prove that it is not the same with only slight changes, in other words we can see a real acting of Ford. The second is true because of several plot lines from the final sequence, which are questionable, or even reprehensible. There is quite a lot of too long or even superfluous scenes. It´s too cold, despite the desire to raise emotions and there are to many different topics that are only mentioned and then fade away as quickly as a flash. It will definitely not become a timeless legendary movie, only perhaps in terms of craftsmanship perhaps, but it´s absolutely more than just a damn good anti-utopian film. That´s for sure. The question, of course, remains whether "more than damn good" is enough in the case of the follow-up of one of the most influential films of the movie industry. (2017.10.05)

I am still trying to find my way in the first installment because I hid my indisputable intellectual outbursts in a too one-sided narrative. Now Hampton Fancher and Michael Green are turning such a concept upside down and subtly unfold countless philosophical and psychological motives behind each seemingly clear scene or line. How much resonated within me even after a simple advertisement or a glance into the distance. To make viewers wait so long for someone they are already eagerly trembling for, according to the poster, can't be done just by anyone, and it surprises me how much depression lies behind that waiting. In Denis Villeneuve's rendition, the year 2049 has heaps of pain in its corners, but paradoxically awakens long-forgotten joys, hidden in memories "someone experienced." It wrenches an unwavering desire to live or exist from the depths of the soul and proves that the new Blade Runner is definitely not cold, and those who say so perhaps didn't even perceive it that way. Ryan Gosling was born for roles full of hidden emotions, so I experienced that inner turmoil and rising resistance with him to the very last drop. In my case, it was an intense, extremely emotional experience thanks to ethereally light and resonating music when the story cut me somewhere in the heart at unexpected moments, conjuring bitter tears. The only thing that was cold about it was the snow, the rain, and the mood of the world in which it took place. (2017.10.06)

A visually intoxicating sequel that should earn at least Deakins an Oscar. Villeneuve prepares the ground in the first half and takes us back to the familiar world from the mind of Phillip K. Dick, where the bullied Gosling is trying to do his work. The offering to racist roots works better than 12 years in chains. Digging about in the past is another tribute to old school detective movies and Elvis steals the show in the Vegas sequence. Heavy ruminations about the nature of artificial beings, about what is reality and what good is and is not good. A fantastically negative Leto who, in this memorable role, fundamentally means well. Ford’s return to Deckard’s shoes is expedient, not just a cheap promo. He’s still got it in him. Zimmer’s music again thunderous. Interlinked. (2017.10.08)

Blade Runner 2049 is one of those movies that has been anticipated for decades. The world from the novels and short stories of Philip K. Dick continues to live its life many years after the author's death (he died shortly before the premiere of the original Blade Runner) and continues to inspire. I have a weakness for the phenomenon of comebacks, when after many years original actors return, and Harrison Ford is the face that has become immortal thanks to Han Solo, Indiana Jones, and Rick Deckard. The sequel did not disgrace the original film, pleasantly expanded the world, and the new actors (Ryan Gosling and Jared Leto) fit in perfectly naturally. 2049 is an ideal melancholic post-apocalyptic film for the current generation. (2023.10.11)

Someone wrote that you don’t need to have watched or know the first film in order to enjoy this sequel. Bollocks. The more familiar you are with your favourite characters and scenes in the original Blade Runner, the more you'll appreciate the many perfectly coherent hints, plot twists and immortal shots that the sequel either perfectly adapts or restores, respectfully and elegantly repeats or pioneers further in its own direction. One can berate the sequel for being too slow, or plotwise literal, but that's only a problem for die-hard fans who, after the inimitable and unrepeatable first film, which it must be said is a unique cinematic gem, perhaps expected a revolution that will never happen. Since, as in the story, 30 years have passed and everything is different, it is the same after 35 years with the audience's expectations and perception of what is "cool" and what is "not cool". Villeneuve has risen to the occasion and made what he could in what is arguably the best film of the year, one that has everything to be loved by the masses while being sufficiently artistic, evocative and visually climactic with the legacy of its predecessor to be enjoyed by sci-fi geeks and, with a bit of insight, fans of the original story. The sophistication in every shot is evident from the beginning, and so is the fact that the director loves the first film. Musically phenomenal and much harder than Vangelis' harmonic ambience, the acting is flawless (perfect Sylvia Hoeks!) and the script is brilliant. There is no point in looking for a bigger message that can be interpreted in different directions with the addition of philosophy and polemics, that's what the original film was for. This one is an almost pure "return of the prodigal son" set in the raw dystopian backdrop of our civilization, which finds itself at an impasse. Essential stuff, and if people gave Nolan's emotionless documentary Dunkirk five stars for good editing and sound, this one should get at least a six, because this is Film with a capital F, with all the trimmings. (2017.10.06)

I was skeptical and convinced that Blade Runner didn't need a sequel, that it could no longer be as good, and I just want to think about what happened to Deckard, and to not know that I couldn't handle two hours of forty expression of Ryan Gosling... So imagine my surprise when, after some fifteen minutes, I threw all the skepticism aside and watched a great film with pretty similar feelings to the first film. The story is thankfully not typical, but it has a lot of its own ideas and thoughts, the actors are excellent without exception, it looks and sounds fantastic and a number of scenes are literally unforgettable (making love with a hologram, the scene with Elvis, the final confrontation). I only wondered if it wasn't a shame that Blade Runner 2049 didn't offer as many questions at the end and that it does not end with three dots, but actually with just one. But it's not a shame.___P.S. Ghost in the Shell can now go and hide in the corner. (2017.10.06)

The new Blade Runner bravely tackles two, shall we say, existential problems. Firstly, it wants to be a good Blade Runner, and secondly, a dense, complex mainstream film able to turn a profit. While it fulfils the second "duty" almost without trouble, presenting a mature story edited with the precision of a pensioner checking a receipt after a purchase and narratively constructed into an ingeniously schematized dialogue with a repeatedly doubting viewer, who is pushed into later questioned interpretations (and the fact that the film hasn’t make that much money is only the fault of the dumb herd of ignorant fans of shaky audiovisual attractions), with the former, it flounders slightly, bolting its slow, sensible pace onto a cool narrative with a classical structure, albeit very skilfully, yet fails to produce the desired cathartic effect, and to subordinate and bend all the structural elements entirely in favour of the psychological and emotional development of the plot, which the original film (though I'm not really one of its devoted admirers and don't find it groundbreaking) undoubtedly did. Still, I can't help but be enthusiastic about the purely audiovisual spectacle, which simply makes up for all the shortcomings. The atmosphere is breathtaking thanks to the amazing cinematography and the incredibly intense soundtrack (Zimmer scores again with the chilling connection of the music to the diegetic space of the futuristic world), I haven't marvelled at such pure science fiction ideas (the physical connection with the virtual Joi) for a long time, boredom is the last thing I would have got from Villeneuve's inventive editing transitions and the conditioning of every beautiful shot to the overall narrative, and I would have chiselled the entire sequence from post-apocalyptic Vegas in stone and tattooed it on the chests of every beautiful woman on the planet (it would have been doubly a joy to behold). It's far from a perfect film, and I can understand the disillusionment of some fans of the original, but for me every second was like a Christmas present that I intend to give myself repeatedly and happily in the future. Gosling is very good, Ford for President. 85% (2017.10.11)

The first half of the film was incredibly boring. Although the second half got more interesting as the plot finally started to show signs of life, I couldn’t help feeling that it was just trying to cash in on the cult that had formed around the original film. It didn't seem to have much to say, the plot was based on the original Blade Runner and was pretty lame if you ask me. The result was a sort of action/sci-fi Finding Nemo/Unbreakable. (2018.03.05)

I don't think we'll see a sci-fi film like this again for a while, and I think it's definitely worth seeing on the big screen, where the gorgeous scenery, which is dark at first glance, stands out to make it clear that this is indeed a sequel. It's visually beautiful, the acting is great, the action is good and the plot is interesting. However, it did lose a little bit of energy towards the end. (2017.10.09)

An admirable update of Scott's classic, which in many ways perfectly complements and expands the original universe. Technically (Roger Deakins simply must have gotten his hands on a camera immediately after birth, otherwise I simply can't explain his mastery) a brilliant affair that is crowned by stunning direction and an absolutely brutal sound mix. Despite its seemingly fatal length, there are virtually no dead spots, and aside from an appealing homage to the original film, this new Blade Runner has a hell of a lot to offer in its own right. (2020.02.06)

Despite its groundbreaking nature, Blade Runner has always been for me a film whose main point eluded me and I was rather carried away by its polished audiovisual, but Villeneuve has managed to do both. Together with visual wizard Deakins, he delivers a fascinating spectacle with a lucid narrative while answering everything left unspoken from the past, which is not surprising given the runtime. Villeneuve takes his time with almost everything and it wouldn't be a problem if the reward was catharsis like in Sicario. Here, however, Harrison Ford's scenes are the only highlights, and the rest is kind of left neglected. For a sequel, though, outstanding quality. (2017.10.07)

In terms of its technical, visual and musical aspects, Blade Runner 2049 is a very positive film. However, the slow, almost drawn-out style of narration is sometimes pure murder. If I had been more engrossed in the plot, I might have spoken differently. Throughout the whole (in my opinion unjustifiably long) running time I had a lot of trouble getting into the movie; it failed to engage me properly, either with the story itself or with the emotions. (60%) (2023.03.12)