Finally saw this, so what do I think of it?

Finally saw this, so what do I think of it?

Attached: XpvgCSB.jpg (727x1079, 127K)

Very slow and dishonest. Unironically a 0/10.

I feel like it was less slow than the original, I never found myself bored during it.
What do you mean by dishonest?

very boring

We don't know what you thought of it because we are missing an important piece of the puzzle.

>if you are an incel you loved it
>if you had sex you have the ability to see thought the bullshit

savage bait

I think it suffers a lot from the problems that plague modern cinema. Usually stories were told on multiple levels, with a surface dialogue and action occurring that masked a deeper ideology that was trying to be conveyed, like the previous Blade Runner, the original Conan the Barbarian, or to an insane degree films by Kubrick.

Its an entertaining story, but one that really isn't rooted in a deep understanding of a ideology or frame of reference with which to view the world.

I'd give it a 6 out of 10. The musical score was alright (except for the massive bass reverb during scene transitions which were jarring and kept a person from trying to fully understand the scene that occurred), the use of color was mostly various shades of grayscale with exception to the neon of the city which oddly felt fitting, but the story was just a story rather than a deeper exploration of something more about the human condition/what it means to be human.

Why wasn't Ryan G more sad his Joi gf died?
Why did she call him Joe? Was that to show she didn't truly love him beyond just basic programming?

Attached: 66da3c62c48bb187ffe20f6627640144.jpg (1530x880, 561K)

You liked it because you like videogames and think that you are LITERALLY just like K but without a JOI waifu.

>Why wasn't Ryan G more sad his Joi gf died?
But he was pretty sad, he just didn't have time to mope about it, considering the situation he was in.

>Why did she call him Joe?
Did you watch the movie or did you just forget about the explanation they gave to you?

What if I liked it but don't self insert

>Did you watch the movie or did you just forget about the explanation they gave to you?

Wait what

>Some really dull action scenes, boring fist fights with bad choppy editing, lots of pointless explosions to appease the ADHD kids.
>Spends too much time setting up stuff like Jared Letos character and the replicant rebellion with no pay off and seems more like sequel bait than anything else
>Too much time but not really enough effort is spent tying it to the first Blade Runner, feels shoehorned in.
These to me are the main flaws with the film, but stuff relating to K solving his own mystery and his relationship with Joi is all very well done.

this movie was like watching money burn on-screen. a 2 hour big-budget action films extended to 2 hours 45 minutes for no reason.

when they cut away from the sex scene despite the movie's R-rating, I honestly thought that they must be worried the film was getting too enjoyable.

Shitty hot pocket resonance flick. Dishonest meme filter.

iirc Joi called everyone Joe

why

because the product "Joi" was programmed to tell you everything you like

it's all fake

why do people like being called joe

"you're a good joe"

You thought it was a brilliant effort for a Sci-fi sequel to a 30 year old film.
You mouthing the word "yes" to yourself each time there was a correction of extrapolated trends predicted in the original, once when the film began with a field of solar panels instead of coal plants, again joi was first introduced; you understood that joi is also deckards Unicorn from the original and that K has been trapped by capitalism and has no escape like deckard, you were excited at prospect of following this new psychological dilemma to its conclusion. Another when we met Wallace, with a laugh this time, due to Wallace being a poor man's Tyrell trying SO HARD but paling in comparison regardless, just like our present visionaries who throw money at technology hoping they fruit solutions AND profit they're phonies and you're surprised to find a redpoll like this in the film
>cont.

Attached: bruh.jpg (433x427, 86K)

JERK OFF INSTRUCTION

Attached: 532b15bbb233b53f05ba48f807bbfdfa.jpg (1024x744, 75K)

You were pleasantly satisfied to finally see what the expanded world outside of LA looked like; just as desolate as you expected. Doing away with the extended ending of the original where deckard escapes into a lush green paradise with Rachel, for good. All the instances of world building were just reasonable enough that they didn't require an extensive scene, Las Vegas getting Nuked, Off-world colonies and the transit to get there, the revolutionary militia, societal degeneration ie increase in infantile eroticism, whore houses etc.
Characters are all compelling, considering how we are supposed to feel towards replicants, K begins as a villain, coldly hunting down his own kind and grows not only to release himself from the shackles of programming, capitalism induced fake love, real love, and rejecting servitude entirely, a character so grand there's no equal.
Luv is a tragic character who is established as a saviour placed perfectly in the position to do so; emancipate the androids from under Wallace but fails, an arc to cement the idea that chaos trumps order and predictive models are useless, again tying in with the entire philosophy of the replicants: "I am the best"
Deckard sees his plot from the first either finish or see its second phase, Wallace implying it was mathematical precision is the perfect continuation of the is he isn't he a replicant question or if it even matters without cheap visual clues that ridley used
>Cont.

Deckard is well justified in his return, he is someone with "REAL" experiences that will effect K just from his presence alone, functioning as a father figure for him as opposed to his mother figure, Joshi, who offers him sex as a faux-real experience.
The conclusion of the story is near perfect with K dying, symbolising a well deserved death in a world without meaning, not Roy Batty—like [meaningless, rebelling] but Rachel like (Dying to bring new life into the world) it gives the male side of the replicant experience a bittersweet ending and allowing deckard to reunite with his daughter, the only one of her kind, a unicorn of sorts... Mathematical perception or...
Visuals are great, set pieces are fantastic, the score fits the atmosphere; long coustic drones in large open fields, well reflecting the wasted use of space our world and Ks as opposed to the maximalist OST vangelis created for the cluttered, space-lacking World of the original
The film improves on all aspects of the original, its undoubtedly better as a philosophical scifi noir film goes with more heart than 2001 a space Odyssey, and quite likely a future classic

Ask me if I missed something you think of this

Attached: 20181224_042156.jpg (436x389, 77K)

>Too much time but not really enough effort is spent tying it to the first Blade Runner, feels shoehorned in

Brainlet. it was made to be its very own film, not just blade runner 2

FUCK OFF JARED LETO

Tailor made for zoomers. Now they can brag about how "it's better than that old boomer movie!" while they play their latest japanese videogame.

If they would have cut the resistance part 9/10.

It needs to be there to show him rejecting "political activism" as an alternative way of life

Just watched this earlier too. Thought it was great. Now to watch the original.

>walking down the road at night, it's raining
>no people in sight
>Memories of Green comes on my playlist
>mfw no one can see my tears in the rain

Attached: IMG_9675.jpg (296x271, 7K)

The shell of an interesting sci-fi movie completely ruined by attempts to tie it in to Blade Runner. Harrison Ford phoning it in and embarrassing "what if robots had a baby lol" bullshit both destroy the original film's legacy and deface what could have been a genuinely interesting and well observed film about a synthetic man and his waifu.

>phoning it in
But Ford is great in this. He doesn't phone it in at all. Compare it to TFA, it's night and day

replicants are not robots you dumb tranny

>But Ford is great in this. He doesn't phone it in at all. Compare it to TFA, it's night and day
I agree he's much better than in TFA or Crystal Skull, but that's not difficult and he's just playing himself again as he always does in these modern cash-ins. He's long made clear his disdain for Hollywood and I couldn't recognise his performance as being the same character.

>replicants are not robots you dumb tranny
It was a joke, autist. Specifically to highlight how absurd and pointless it was to force this silly contrivance into the film with no real pay off other than - of course - another sequel where Ford can once again lazily play Harrison Ford to the sound of cash registers opening and closing.

It was pretty good!

It's actually the first film in literal decades where Harrison Ford actually legitimately loves the film he's in.
Go watch any starshit press shit and he's shitting all over it while everyone thinks it's "sarcasm", in BR2049 interviews he does nothing but unironic direct praise, calls it a "cathedral of a film"

The Rachael scene is the only bit of acting Ford has done in a while.

I found some parts to be too stretched out. I love super-long movies, but only when there's a purpose to it. Like Das Boot.

Visually stunning mediocre sequel to the cult classic sifi kino.

Kino

It would have been a better movie if they just used the Blade Runner universe instead of trying to shoehorn in Deckard and Rachel into the story.

This is a solid analysis.

You're disgusted by it's
>Video Game Iconography
>Dishonest Cinematography
>Proto-Slysoy Disenfranchisement peddled as Incel entertainment/Beta Powerplay
>Barking indefinite hipster score
>Neo Yea Forumseddit hangups: camera schizophrenia and meme dialogue
>Meta-Quip syndrome
>Post-Capeshit inversions
>Stoicism as social currency inverted through solipsistic imdb fetish

>Video Game Iconography
Didn't you like Rogue one?

lol no

The resistance was a test for him, essentially having him shoot down the whole notion that "being part of something bigger than yourself makes you human", because this film is solely focused on the individual experience, evading an ideological trap is paramount.

Thanks boss

Attached: 1557456776940.png (510x848, 501K)

Attached: 1558231261910.webm (1440x508, 1.75M)

You thought it was the greatest kino of all time and you struggle to wonder how anything could be better than it. You also became a little depressed. It moved you very deeply and stimulated your imagination about the world, how bad it could really get, and about yourself, about things you've neglected because they are too difficult to face. If you faced those things in yourself you might have to face the possibility of an external world that is also worse than you imagined…

…if you saw it in IMAX.

If you saw it at home in stereo you probably got very comfy and closed your eyes at some point.

Attached: IMAX_2049.jpg (1526x855, 126K)

Great first act, script takes a sharp nosedive right around Joi's second appearance. Solid, atmospheric action/thriller otherwise.

This, but if you're 20.

If you're over 30 and had sex, then you can see through the bullshit of posts like these.