Now that the dust has settled

What should I rewatch tonight; this or Apocalypse Now?

Saw it four times total during its initial theatrical run, twice in IMAX, then again a year later, also with the first one. I've always liked the first one but finally seeing that in the kinohaus really gave me a whole new appreciation for it, and I'm absolutely gonna go again the next time I get the chance.

Attached: blade-runner-eye.png (1280x528, 1.1M)

>Effiminate Pacing
>Video Game Iconography
>Dishonest Cinematography
>Proto-Slysoy Disenfranchisement peddled as Incel entertainment/Beta Powerplay
>Naughty Dog Kinetics
>Barking indefinite hipster score
>Neo Zig Forumseddit hangups: camera schizophrenia and meme dialogue
>Meta-Quip syndrome

It's one of the few sequels that surpasses the original. Not in every way (Wallace is... well it's Jared Leto; Zimmer had nothing on Vangelis, Harrison Ford is basically phoning it in), but there's plenty of ways it is a clear improvement (K's character arc, the outstanding cinematography, in the original Harrison Ford was basically phoning it in).

This is the best impression of a pretentious critic I've ever seen, bravo.

Loved it at first. But it's actually full of juvenile crap.

> hyper advanced scientists can't create replicant capable of recreating.
> replicant uprising
> shots that last too long

Good? No. In the sense of craft, sure the film looks ok SOMETIMES. The cgi looks like shit here and there. In the sense of story, it's convoluted shit. The whole memory dream making bullshit felt like something out of Christopher Nolan. The villian was lame and the whole main character being a robot in love didn't shake things up of bring something new because that shit has been done to death already. So no, it's not good. It has a fancy shell but with smelly shit underneath. Also, the whole replicant revolution I could give less of a shit about because I'm not a replicant. They could've done something new and interesting.

it's nowhere near as good as the original but not as bad as some people claims. it's basically a film fart: it happened and went away. worth a watch if you liked the original

A glib facsimile of the original.

The feeling you get when you first view it is nice.
Upon reviews and with hindsight, not as good as the original, some wasted potential.
I'd rate it 7/10. Solid movie, but won't equal the first in terms of style. Maybe for the story? But who cares about that with BR?

The underground replicant uprising was the shittiest scene in the whole movie
How did they think this cringe stereotyped scene was any good?

It pretty much sucked. Not even trying to be an edgy devils advocate, but I'm a huge fan of the first film and the reason this one blew chunks is because it wasn't even a noir film.

Once it reintroduces Deckard and that millennial "Imma help you meet your long lost daughter" I just wanted it to be over.

Some of the stuff with Gosling early on is good though. It's a must watch if you love the original. Just plan to be disappointed

BR2049 is ghastly, repulsive trash.
Villeneuve has made a mockery of the principles of art, of talent. He decided that talent was tantamount to himself and therefore he degraded and destroyed it, as he did himself through dishonesty, cheetos dust, baseness and vulgarity. He's a disreputable whore. As far as I am concerned, in other words, he is a corpse.

Seriously..... THE FILM WASN'T EVEN NOIR!

WTFFFFFFFFFFF Villeneuve!!!!

And to think this shit got a 92 or something on RT shows critics bandwagon. Shows they have no understanding of the original film

This. Could’ve been a 10 but felt hollow in points. 7.5-8/10

>too long

It’s amazing. The cinematography, score, sound design, acting and world building are all insanely good. Maybe even better than the original. Also Joi broke my heart the first time I watched it.

absolutely not - name a weaker script I dare you

but everything was oversaturated single colors
IM CINEMATOGRAPHINGGGGGGG

fpbp

So why did Sony co-produce the film

his early stuff was interesting. it had that grim, grey dull thing going for it. after br49 it became apparent he's some kind of crypt wanna be serial killer who gets his kicks acting out his odd impulses through his mediocre, hackneyed filmmaking
a true single note director without any modicum or talent, so naturally hwood loves him

You talk like you’re some sort of renowned film critic where you can just talk nonsense and people will huff your farts, yet you’re just a Zig Forums poster. Embarrassing. Jokes on me if this is just a quote from an Armond White review or something.

he's the only person in this thread who's taking the time to lay out his thoughts outside of
OMG 10/10 soooooo good
you people are midwitted redditor incel faggots who took too many film school classes

>the original Harrison Ford was basically phoning it in
and he was still 1000 times more watchable than monke face meme autist goosling; and Rutger Hauer in the original was legendary

This, don't be fooled by the contrarians on this board who eventually hate everything just because they like the attention.

It was a great movie, and yes, one of the rare occasions where a sequel is better than the original.

Attached: Goose_and_Penguin_2049.png (1912x792, 1.02M)

His word salad amounted to nothing at all. You can take that post and apply it to literally any director and it would be just as valid because it means nothing.

agreed, add to that the actual atmosphere and incredible vfx and cinematography
br49 looks like if an AI was asked to create a sequel, everytihgin about it is oddly detached and ungrounded, plastic, purile

there's more of that midwit talk
his word salad is more interesting than your parroted bullshit, I literally can't tell you people apart because you all sound exactly the same

Fpbp

I haven’t posted this thread until then so I have no idea what the fuck you’re talking about.

>proves my point perfectly

It has giant purple holographic titties so it’s a masterpiece

This but completely unironically.